Free Will: Yea or Nay?

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Accurate descriptions of reality.

Are you saying that you've not yet found nor been presented one? How will you be sure you've found one?

 

[cuja1]

How did man come to know leprechauns?

If I may, no one that I know of claims to know leprechauns. A huge number of people however claim to know God. Whether they really do know God or not may be debatable.

 

[cuja1]

Never sure how to handle loaded questions like this. You or I may not know that there's never been any direct evidence, but then there is indirect evidence. I'll just post this from G. K. Chesterton:

If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can only answer, "For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity." I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts. The secularist is not to be blamed because his objections to Christianity are miscellaneous and even scrappy; it is precisely such scrappy evidence that does convince the mind. I mean that a man may well be less convinced of a philosophy from four books, than from one book, one battle, one landscape, and one old friend. The very fact that the things are of different kinds increases the importance of the fact that they all point to one conclusion. Now, the non-Christianity of the average educated man to-day is almost always, to do him justice, made up of these loose but living experiences. I can only say that my evidences for Christianity are of the same vivid but varied kind as his evidences against it. For when I look at these various anti-Christian truths, I simply discover that none of them are true. I discover that the true tide and force of all the facts flows the other way.

I like the way this is stated. It explains why I believe in God. That's probably the only evidence an atheist will ever get. But I still think that it is God that gives the person the power to put it all together, thus free will does not exist IMO, or it does at some very small, blurred level that I am incapable of detecting.

 

[Albion]

Good point. I can't think of anything that would put the possible existence of leprechauns and that of God on the same level.

Those whose minds are already made up that there is no god would seem to be the only ones to use such an argument, but in that case, there's no purpose in pretending it's an open question.

 

[Davian]

None. I thought we had at least agreed on that.

Strange then how you talk as if there are other options.

Then your beliefs are as true or false as your digestion, which is to say they can't be true or false. If you feel otherwise you're deluded.

I do not consider my beleifs as 'true' or 'false'. As models or descriptions of reality, they will always be in some way incomplete, and subject to change.

You have to tell me what they're doing first.

Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YouTube?

Is that where you keep your evidence for gods?

No, not better, just the same case, meaning you have the same problem with gods and aliens: where did they come from? If you make the "g" a capital "G", then you have an answer. God. So the next question is where did God come from and the answer is He didn't come from anywhere He just is.

Special pleading? Just when I thought we were making some headway.

Just for curiousity's sake, or are you working on a project of some sort?

I was completely apathetic about religion for my first 38 years, but then dug into science and religion so that I could give coherent answers about life, the universe, and everything to my now teenage children. I helps me also to speak somewhat coherently to my honour-roll-with-distinction kids on the subjects of chemistry and physics (intelligence must be inherited from the mothers side).

I also anticipated a lot of religious pressure from the wife's side of the family, and these exchanges were to be practice for real life, but that never appeared. I stay because I still find this place fascinating, educational, and entertaining, and to pull highlights out for the kids. (We don't get the exposure to religion in real life or the school system as it seems to happen in the USA)

 

[Davian]

Are you saying that you've not yet found nor been presented one?

No.

How will you be sure you've found one?

Generally, they will be falsifiable, evidenced, appeal to parsimony.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

 

[Davian]

If I may, no one that I know of claims to know leprechauns. A huge number of people however claim to know God. Whether they really do know God or not may be debatable.

Of this "huge number", is there one that can demonstrate that this "knowledge" is not simply a product of their imagination?

 

[Davian]

I like the way this is stated. It explains why I believe in God. That's probably the only evidence an atheist will ever get. But I still think that it is God that gives the person the power to put it all together, thus free will does not exist IMO, or it does at some very small, blurred level that I am incapable of detecting.

Is it not the premise of your religion that an individual is ultimately held responsible for decision to believe/disbelieve? When belief is not a choice, how is this just?

 

[Davian]

Good point. I can't think of anything that would put the possible existence of leprechauns and that of God on the same level.

Those whose minds are already made up that there is no god would seem to be the only ones to use such an argument, but in that case, there's no purpose in pretending it's an open question.

I approach this without your presuppositions. I ask, what is it about gods - or your "God" - that would elevate it beyond that of leprechauns that is not fallacious, such as an appeal to popularity, or special pleading?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Nothing about leprechauns in Celtic lore makes claims for them as being "bearers of truth". They don't teach life principles which they expect humans to follow, there are no philosophical constructs for "leprechaunism", nor are there any claims attached to leprechauns about the origin of life, or even what happens in the afterlife - if anything - for either humans or leprechauns themselves. If any of these things could be construed from leprechaun lore, there would be people who identify as leprechaunists.

 

[Star Adept]

Dibs on starting leprechaunism as a philoso....oh man it's a genetic disorder.

 

[Albion]

I approach this without your presuppositions. I ask, what is it about gods - or your "God" - that would elevate it beyond that of leprechauns that is not fallacious, such as an appeal to popularity, or special pleading?

For one, the near universality of the concept. That doesn't apply to leprechauns. For another, the rationale that is often summarized in the expression that "the heavens (or universe) testify to a creator or to a higher and orderly power." Leprechauns serve no particular purpose and are not even contemplated in this way by anyone. Additionally, there is a huge amount of literature about God or gods. Some of it is more persuasive than the rest, but there's nothing to compare with...leprechauns. If any of that literature is considered revelation and there's good reason for thinking it may be exactly that, once again there is nothing about leprechauns that compares.

 

[Davian]

Nothing about leprechauns in Celtic lore makes claims for them as being "bearers of truth". They don't teach life principles which they expect humans to follow, there are no philosophical constructs for "leprechaunism", nor are there any claims attached to leprechauns about the origin of life, or even what happens in the afterlife - if anything - for either humans or leprechauns themselves.

This only shows that people have written different things about gods than they have of leprechauns. It does not speak to whether they actually exist or not.

If any of these things could be construed from leprechaun lore, there would be people who identify as leprechaunists.

That there are those that believe that something exists does not make it so.

“All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.” ― Isaac Asimov

 

[Davian]

I approach this without your presuppositions. I ask, what is it about gods - or your "God" - that would elevate it beyond that of leprechauns that is not fallacious, such as an appeal to popularity, or special pleading?

For one, the near universality of the concept. That doesn't apply to leprechauns.

Appeal to popularity.

For another, the rationale that is often summarized in the expression that "the heavens (or universe) testify to a creator or to a higher and orderly power."

Meaningless and unfalsifiable. What would it look like if it were only the product of natural processes?

Leprechauns serve no particular purpose and are not even contemplated in this way by anyone.

Leprechauns are shoemakers. They provide the footwear for all the fairy kingdom.

https://www.enchantedgarden.ie/everything-enchanted/30-fun-leprechaun-facts

Additionally, there is a huge amount of literature about God or gods. Some of it is more persuasive than the rest, but there's nothing to compare with...leprechauns.

Appeal to popularity.

If any of that literature is considered revelation and there's good reason for thinking it may be exactly that, once again there is nothing about leprechauns that compares.

If it is not "revelation" (I am not even sure what you mean by that), and you cannot show it to be, then we are simply dealing with characters in books.

 

[Albion]

Appeal to popularity.

It is not an appeal to popularity.

Meaningless and unfalsifiable. What would it look like if it were only the product of natural processes?

Nor is it meaningless or "unfalsifiable," either.

You seem to be unwilling to actually discuss the issue but prefer to sneer, out of hand, anything that's written to you. You are guaranteed to succeed in finding out that Christians cannot justify a belief in God if you aren't going to listen to what they say. Is that the idea here? Or is it a matter of not understanding what I was telling you? It's OK to say so, if that's the case. I see that you did in one instance:

If it is not "revelation" (I am not even sure what you mean by that)

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Last time I checked, this wasn't a Leprechaunist's Forum...why are you here, Davian? Is it because Christianity "won't go away"? Or do you believe it someday will?

 

[Star Adept]

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.

just sayin'

Last time I checked, this wasn't a Leprechaunist's Forum...why are you here, Davian? Is it because Christianity "won't go away"? Or do you believe it someday will?

Last time I checked, we were in the subsection of discussion and debate and further into the subsection of philosophy. Free will, as a concept up for discussion and debate, in reference to philosophy, and in reference to anybody supporting a biblical version (or any!) must support their arguments well enough in a debate-like manner if they choose to respond to devian (or anyone!) who is very clearly debating. We all have the option of responding or not responding and in any manner we so choose that is not in-flame of another. Thus, free will. Devian is doing a good job of proof of it by action of the concept

 

[Davian]

It is not an appeal to popularity.

Leprechauns lack the popularity of gods, hence the dearth - but not complete absence - of literature about them.

Nor is it meaningless or "unfalsifiable," either.

It is, as you could point at anything and declare that it to "testify to a creator or to a higher and orderly power".

You seem to be unwilling to actually discuss the issue but prefer to sneer, out of hand, anything that's written to you. You are guaranteed to succeed in finding out that Christians cannot justify a belief in God if you aren't going to listen to what they say. Is that the idea here? Or is it a matter of not understanding what I was telling you? It's OK to say so, if that's the case. I see that you did in one instance:

This is not about justifying belief; this is about belief not being a choice, or the illusion that we have 'free will'.

What interests me here is the mechanics of how our brains work; if gods are actually a part of reality, then we can apply scientific methodology to them, but that is a separate discussion.

 

[cuja1]

Of this "huge number", is there one that can demonstrate that this "knowledge" is not simply a product of their imagination?

What do you mean by imagination? Chesterton posted a good quote about how people that believe in God believe in Him due to a culmination of small evidences (Chesterton's quote explained it better). My point was that belief in God is not the same as the supposed belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and one big reason that it's not is because of the large number of people that actually believe in God. No one really believes in the FSM. I suppose there are those that believe in Leprechauns but not to the extent of those that believe in God. I think that in itself shows that belief in God is not as ridiculous as a belief in Leprechauns.

I won't deny that you nor I have any hard evidence, but I think it's unfair to compare a belief in God to a belief in Leprechauns.

 

[Davian]

Last time I checked, this wasn't a Leprechaunist's Forum...why are you here, Davian? Is it because Christianity "won't go away"? Or do you believe it someday will?

Religion (and religionists) are a part of reality, something that I have little exposure to in the real world. Rather than trying this out with the in-laws, I practice on you guys (and gals).

We do get religionists on the more more skeptical discussion boards, but they tend to get swamped by the non-believers, and banned when they are reduced to preaching.