Free will in heaven?

[Nihilist Virus]

The coin has landed and it shows purpose. But anyone can object if they feel the need. Why would they do that though?



Anything that has at least a human level of sentience can have purpose. Non-human animals don't have purpose like we do, however they are still motivated by certain natural instincts which drive them to survive.

At this point if you still have objections, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement about what's actually true, although I hope at some point we do.

Absolutely nothing you've said was relevant to any of my points.

 

[Chriliman]

Absolutely nothing you've said was relevant to any of my points.

We must be talking past each other.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We must be talking past each other.

No... it's not on me. It's on you. Go back and read over it again.

 

[gaara4158]

I'm not, actually. I reject that presupposition and am more interested in what the reality of evolution and what it can accomplish says about reality. Basically, I don't think it can account for the reality of pain and pleasure as negative and positive feedback mechanisms if value isn't somehow built into reality--there is an unbridgeable abyss between a value-neutral objective reality and a value-laden subjective reality.

Ok, I think this deserves to be fleshed out a little more. What is it about pain and pleasure that you don’t believe are accounted for by evolution? Surely you recognize their role in directing behavior away from bodily harm and towards nourishment, much like taste and emotion, which obviously aid in propagation. Is it the hard problem of consciousness you’re referring to?

So I look at it the other way around--things aren't good because they provide better chances for reproduction. They provide better chances for reproduction because they are good for the organism.

Well, if you say that, then we’re using different definitions of the word “good,” and that’s going to be a problem if we’re trying to work out what the basis of “good” actually is. It might be the case that what we’re saying is the same thing using the vocabulary differently.

 

[gaara4158]

"Objective" doesn't mean "easily measured." "Objective" means that something has existence in itself, apart from the human mind. By that definition interstellar distances are objective. Today we are capable of measuring those distances with impressive precision. 2500 years ago we weren't able to easily or accurately measure those distances at all. At both times the distances were considered objective.

Oh, but I don’t think morality exists outside of the human/animal mind. It is a product of such minds invested in maximizing their own well-being. It is somewhat incoherent to make moral proclamations about a universe in which minds do not exist, because morality only applies to subjects that have minds. If there are no minds, morality is a meaningless hypothetical system akin to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[zippy2006]

Oh, but I don’t think morality exists outside of the human/animal mind. It is a product of such minds invested in maximizing their own well-being. It is somewhat incoherent to make moral proclamations about a universe in which minds do not exist, because morality only applies to subjects that have minds. If there are no minds, morality is a meaningless hypothetical system akin to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Do you believe that solitary confinement is objectively unhealthy for human beings?

While I see what you are saying, we have to be careful what we mean by "having existence apart from the human mind." It is more obvious that interstellar distances have that sort of existence than, say, mathematics, for one might also claim that mathematics has no existence in itself, apart from the human mind (or more generally, apart from minds). The problem becomes even more pointed when we consider mind-centric disciplines such as psychology. Obviously psychology has no existence in itself, apart from human minds, and yet it is clearly objective.

Morality is much the same in my opinion. It studies human behavior and is very interested in the human intellect. If you think humans are the only beings with intellect then morality isn't something that exists at all outside of human beings. That doesn't mean that morality isn't objective, for human minds and behavior are subject to objective claims regarding health, goodness, etc. If you follow the link I gave in my last post you will find a debate where Shelly Kagan defends (objective) morality on naturalistic grounds. Such a view is not at all uncommon among ethicists who are atheists.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok, I think this deserves to be fleshed out a little more. What is it about pain and pleasure that you don’t believe are accounted for by evolution? Surely you recognize their role in directing behavior away from bodily harm and towards nourishment, much like taste and emotion, which obviously aid in propagation. Is it the hard problem of consciousness you’re referring to?

Yes and no. I think pain and pleasure can be accounted for by evolution, but only if the potential for value already existed in the natural world before living beings rose out of the premordial muck. I would deny that value-laden positive and negative feedback systems could ever come into existence in the first place if value did not preexist these systems. There would be no reason for things to ever begin to feel good or bad subjectively if there were no such thing as good and bad. I suppose it's a version of the hard problem of consciousness, but at a different level. There are actually a lot of deep problems for physicalism.

Well, if you say that, then we’re using different definitions of the word “good,” and that’s going to be a problem if we’re trying to work out what the basis of “good” actually is. It might be the case that what we’re saying is the same thing using the vocabulary differently.

I'm not so sure. My point was that if something is good as in beneficial for the wellbeing of an organism, this is the case regardless of whether or not that organism actually reproduces. Natural selection can show us which behaviors were beneficial for the individual, given that their flourishing is more likely to lead to reproductive success, but I think it's a mistake to turn this around and define flourishing as what leads to reproductive success, rather than reproductive success being a result of flourishing.

You seem to be approaching the concept of flourishing in a way that automatically knocks out anything but consequentialism, which isn't necessary even from within an atheistic framework. This is why I recommended Philippa Foot before--I think we lose a very important aspect of morality if we don't bring back virtue ethics. You can account for a fair amount of this stuff on an atheistic metaphysics, but you need to step away from the scientific naturalists to do it.

 

[Chriliman]

No... it's not on me. It's on you. Go back and read over it again.

I did. I wouldn’t change what I said. So we must just disagree, oh well it happens.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes and no. I think pain and pleasure can be accounted for by evolution, but only if the potential for value already existed in the natural world before living beings rose out of the premordial muck. I would deny that value-laden positive and negative feedback systems could ever come into existence in the first place if value did not preexist these systems. There would be no reason for things to ever begin to feel good or bad subjectively if there were no such thing as good and bad. I suppose it's a version of the hard problem of consciousness, but at a different level. There are actually a lot of deep problems for physicalism.



I'm not so sure. My point was that if something is good as in beneficial for the wellbeing of an organism, this is the case regardless of whether or not that organism actually reproduces. Natural selection can show us which behaviors were beneficial for the individual, given that their flourishing is more likely to lead to reproductive success, but I think it's a mistake to turn this around and define flourishing as what leads to reproductive success, rather than reproductive success being a result of flourishing.

You seem to be approaching the concept of flourishing in a way that automatically knocks out anything but consequentialism, which isn't necessary even from within an atheistic framework. This is why I recommended Philippa Foot before--I think we lose a very important aspect of morality if we don't bring back virtue ethics. You can account for a fair amount of this stuff on an atheistic metaphysics, but you need to step away from the scientific naturalists to do it.

Ok, I think I can see what you're getting at. We're approaching the outer limits of my education in this subject, so instead of asking you to teach me all of this I'll have to check out this Philippa Foot you recommended. I do consider myself a consequentialist, but maybe her work can change my mind. Full disclosure, it's not likely I'll be able to find her work, familiarize myself with it, and then weigh in on it here within a reasonable amount of time. After all, I still haven't gotten back to you on what I think about Platonism I will do my best to find a good summary on YouTube and maybe when @2PhiloVoid is available again we can revisit this discussion. Fair enough?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I did. I wouldn’t change what I said. So we must just disagree, oh well it happens.

Me: Again your argument is invalid. Granting all premises, the conclusion does not follow. The fact that X can happen doesn't mean that X will happen. If I flip a coin, heads can be the result but that does not mean that heads must be the result. So even if we can have purpose, it doesn't follow that we do have purpose.

You: The coin has landed and it shows purpose. But anyone can object if they feel the need. Why would they do that though?

What do you mean, "The coin has landed and it shows purpose"? I wasn't talking about purpose with the coin analogy but rather the fact that if something can happen it doesn't follow that it must happen.

Like I said, absolutely nothing you said is a relevant response.

Me: So then God, Satan, angels, demons, and all the nonhuman animals on earth have no purpose...? The purpose of three Nazis is triple the magnitude of the purpose of Albert Einstein? It doesn't matter that three people in this instance have one singular purpose, or that their purpose is contrary to the good health of humanity?

You: Anything that has at least a human level of sentience can have purpose. Non-human animals don't have purpose like we do, however they are still motivated by certain natural instincts which drive them to survive.

At this point if you still have objections, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement about what's actually true, although I hope at some point we do.

You said that the units of measurement of purpose are people. While you managed to address the issue of animals and purpose, you absolutely ignored my question about God, Satan, angels and demons having purpose. This appears to be deliberate. It appears to me that you saw you initially gave an inadequate response and instead of owning up to that, you simply ignored 80% of my question and pounced on the 20%. Further, you completely ignored my question about Einstein and Nazis.

How can you to say that you looked over this again and then reaffirm that you had adequately responded in good faith? You've given me a terrible response and have defended it for several posts.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok, I think I can see what you're getting at. We're approaching the outer limits of my education in this subject, so instead of asking you to teach me all of this I'll have to check out this Philippa Foot you recommended. I do consider myself a consequentialist, but maybe her work can change my mind. Full disclosure, it's not likely I'll be able to find her work, familiarize myself with it, and then weigh in on it here within a reasonable amount of time. After all, I still haven't gotten back to you on what I think about Platonism I will do my best to find a good summary on YouTube and maybe when @2PhiloVoid is available again we can revisit this discussion. Fair enough?

No worries, haha. I am pretty terrible when it comes to following up on recommendations--you can lend me a book and it may still take me a decade to get around to reading it. Don't feel like you're under any obligation to get back to me about anything, though. Just know that there's much better stuff out there than Sam Harris & co., even when it comes to consequentialism. (On that note, I have actually been meaning to read John Stuart Mill for a while. Maybe we could set up a reading group one of these days.)

 

[Chriliman]

Me: Again your argument is invalid. Granting all premises, the conclusion does not follow. The fact that X can happen doesn't mean that X will happen. If I flip a coin, heads can be the result but that does not mean that heads must be the result. So even if we can have purpose, it doesn't follow that we do have purpose.

You: The coin has landed and it shows purpose. But anyone can object if they feel the need. Why would they do that though?

What do you mean, "The coin has landed and it shows purpose"? I wasn't talking about purpose with the coin analogy but rather the fact that if something can happen it doesn't follow that it must happen.

Like I said, absolutely nothing you said is a relevant response.

I wouldn't say absolutely nothing was relevant because I merely switched from saying we can have purpose to saying we do have purpose, hence my wording "the coin has landed and it shows purpose." The question is what will you do with that fact? Will you even acknowledge it?

Me:

So then God, Satan, angels, demons, and all the nonhuman animals on earth have no purpose...? The purpose of three Nazis is triple the magnitude of the purpose of Albert Einstein? It doesn't matter that three people in this instance have one singular purpose, or that their purpose is contrary to the good health of humanity?

You: Anything that has at least a human level of sentience can have purpose. Non-human animals don't have purpose like we do, however they are still motivated by certain natural instincts which drive them to survive.

At this point if you still have objections, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement about what's actually true, although I hope at some point we do.

You said that the units of measurement of purpose are people. While you managed to address the issue of animals and purpose, you absolutely ignored my question about God, Satan, angels and demons having purpose. This appears to be deliberate. It appears to me that you saw you initially gave an inadequate response and instead of owning up to that, you simply ignored 80% of my question and pounced on the 20%. Further, you completely ignored my question about Einstein and Nazis.

We only have access to God or Satan or demons through ourselves or other people. For example, we have access to God through Jesus(a person). Thats why I said in post #180 "Anything that has at least a human level of sentience can have purpose." So actually, I didn't ignore what you said, I just summed it up in how I worded it.

However, I did not understand your point about Einstein and Nazis so I did ignore that, sorry.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I wouldn't say absolutely nothing was relevant because I merely switched from saying we can have purpose to saying we do have purpose, hence my wording "the coin has landed and it shows purpose." The question is what will you do with that fact? Will you even acknowledge it?

The coin flip is my analogy, not yours. You're trying to hijack it and you clearly don't know what you're doing. You've already stated that the units of measurement of purpose are people, so it's not obvious exactly how it is that a coin flip would have purpose according to you. Furthermore, I don't understand how you can just go from saying that something can have purpose to then asserting that it does have purpose without any kind of new justification added. Doing so completely ignores the entire point of the coin flip analogy: the fact that something can happen doesn't mean it will happen.

In summary, my analogy proved you wrong. Instead of admitting it, you casually state that you've changed your position for no apparent reason and then you double down by hijacking my analogy to make it work for you without making any attempt to explain how something totally random involving a coin can have purpose when purpose, according to you, is measured by people.

We only have access to God or Satan or demons through ourselves or other people. For example, we have access to God through Jesus(a person). Thats why I said in post #180 "Anything that has at least a human level of sentience can have purpose." So actually, I didn't ignore what you said, I just summed it up in how I worded it.

Not relevant to my question. I'm asking if God has purpose. Jesus is a person and purpose is measured by people... would that be your answer?

However, I did not understand your point about Einstein and Nazis so I did ignore that, sorry.

You said that the units of measurement of purpose are people. I'm asking if three people have more purpose than one person regardless of other circumstances. If you don't understand my question then you don't seem to have given your model much thought because even a casual analysis has thrown you off.

If I were you, and if I were more interested in obfuscation than conversation, I'd continue the status quo here. Because in the end, Jesus is just one person and so any two atheists will have twice as much purpose as your God.

 

[Chriliman]

The coin flip is my analogy, not yours. You're trying to hijack it and you clearly don't know what you're doing. You've already stated that the units of measurement of purpose are people, so it's not obvious exactly how it is that a coin flip would have purpose according to you. Furthermore, I don't understand how you can just go from saying that something can have purpose to then asserting that it does have purpose without any kind of new justification added. Doing so completely ignores the entire point of the coin flip analogy: the fact that something can happen doesn't mean it will happen.

In summary, my analogy proved you wrong. Instead of admitting it, you casually state that you've changed your position for no apparent reason and then you double down by hijacking my analogy to make it work for you without making any attempt to explain how something totally random involving a coin can have purpose when purpose, according to you, is measured by people.

You're right, I should have clarified by saying "people have purpose" instead of "people can have purpose". After all, I do believe people have purpose.

Not relevant to my question. I'm asking if God has purpose. Jesus is a person and purpose is measured by people... would that be your answer?



You said that the units of measurement of purpose are people. I'm asking if three people have more purpose than one person regardless of other circumstances. If you don't understand my question then you don't seem to have given your model much thought because even a casual analysis has thrown you off.

If I were you, and if I were more interested in obfuscation than conversation, I'd continue the status quo here. Because in the end, Jesus is just one person and so any two atheists will have twice as much purpose as your God.

You're right again, I should have never attempted to apply a unit of measurement to something I believe is infinite, such as immortal purpose. I should have known this since scripture states the riches of Christ are immeasurable.

 

[drstevej]

Is there sin in Heaven?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You're right, I should have clarified by saying "people have purpose" instead of "people can have purpose". After all, I do believe people have purpose.








You're right again, I should have never attempted to apply a unit of measurement to something I believe is infinite, such as immortal purpose. I should have known this since scripture states the riches of Christ are immeasurable.

The universe might be infinite in volume. That doesn't mean a kilometer has no meaning. The problem all along was not the quantity of the measurement you were proposing but rather the units. The only measurement for which people are units is in regards to population.

 

[cvanwey]

Is there sin in Heaven?

'Free will' might imply it is necessary. But this raises other contradictions.

 

[Chriliman]

The universe might be infinite in volume. That doesn't mean a kilometer has no meaning.

Well, technically if meaning is finite then a kilometer is actually meaningless. Remember the ratio of finite to infinite is 0.

Maybe you have a different understanding of this?

The problem all along was not the quantity of the measurement you were proposing but rather the units. The only measurement for which people are units is in regards to population.

Agreed.

 

[Chriliman]

Is there sin in Heaven?

There was sin in heaven and it was cast out.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, technically if meaning is finite

I don't understand what this means.

then a kilometer is actually meaningless. Remember the ratio of finite to infinite is 0.

0 is no more or less meaningless than any other finite number. Transfinite numbers are no more or less meaningless than finite numbers. Meaning is subjective and numbers are objective.

So your statement, "Remember the ratio of finite to infinite is 0" is correct by itself but does not serve to complement or bolster the previous statement.

Maybe you have a different understanding of this?

Hopefully the above spells out my take on it.

Agreed.

Then how do you intend to show we have purpose or even that purpose exists?