we have no proofs about the existence of god

[Almost there]

You can repeat the same argument with "unconscionable complexity" instead of orderliness though. And if God could create the universe, it seems fair to assume that He Himself must be even more complex

Infinitely so.

A Hindu/Muslim/etc. would say the same thing... This gets back to the weakness of the architect analogy we were talking about earlier. There are a ton of architects responsible for designing this building.

I don't believe that is what they teach.

I similarly used to feel this way about non-believers, until I began to meet people who fit into "none of the above", who did indeed want to believe in an Almighty, loving Creator, but just weren't convicinced. People who didn't worship their own intelligence, but felt that they just didn't know, and were willing to admit it.

You describe me before I became a believer. I'm sensitive to such people as well.

I look at the whole "Others who believe something different use the same arguments." arguments thusly:

If one group teaches that 2+2=22, another that 2+2=222 and another that 2+2=4, the fact that the first two are wrong doesn't make the third one also wrong.

It's easy to compare them simply because they "seem" equally sincere in their beliefs. But if one actually studies, deeply, the teachings of every major religion, the difference between Christianity and all man made spiritual beliefs become crystal clear.

The biggest difference is the core difference - Grace. It is unique to Christianity.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

The biggest difference is the core difference - Grace. It is unique to Christianity.

Grace may be unique to Christianity, but we're talking about creation stories here, which is something that every religion has.

Infinitely so.

Then if complexity implies design, this would mean that God is infinitely more likely to be designed than I am. Just go through my logic here, but with "complexity" instead of "order":
we have no proofs about the existence of god

 

[Almost there]

Grace may be unique to Christianity, but we're talking about creation stories here, which is something that every religion has.

Well, since they all come from the same planet's history, I would certainly expect that.



Then if complexity implies design, this would mean that God is infinitely more likely to be designed than I am. Just go through my logic here, but with "complexity" instead of "order":
we have no proofs about the existence of god[/QUOTE]
Yes. If He comes from the same source. Does he? Can you test it?

 

[looking_for_answers_]

Yes. If He comes from the same source. Does he? Can you test it?

I don't understand. Am I missing a predicate?

Revised:

Predicates (please add what I am missing here):
A) If something is complex, it must have have a designer.

Given that
B) I am complex

We conclude that
C) I must have a designer (A, B)

But you can also say
E) God is complex

So
F) God must have a designer

If you could revise this to include what I am missing that would help me see what you're trying to say

Edit: fixed E)

 

[Simon_Templar]

I don't understand. Am I missing a predicate?

Revised:

Predicates (please add what I am missing here):
A) If something is complex, it must have have a designer.

Given that
B) I am complex

We conclude that
C) I must have a designer (A, B)

But you can also say
E) God is complex

So
F) God must have a designer

If you could revise this to include what I am missing that would help me see what you're trying to say

Edit: fixed E)

It depends a bit on what you mean by "complex" but Christian philosophers of the classical tradition hold that God is completely simple.

Complex and simple, in this context doesn't mean easy to understand or hard to understand, rather it has to do with the essence of what the being is and how it is composed.

So, for physical beings, we have form and matter. The matter is the physical stuff that we are made of, the form is the essence that defines what a human is. This would be like the soul.
The physical matter is complex, it has parts and is organized in different systems etc.

So, all physical beings are more complex than spiritual beings, because spiritual beings don't have matter. They are much more simple.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Not talking about evolution. Talking about "I exist so God must have designed me" as an argument for God's existence.

God exists and is un-designed. So why do you think design is a necessary thing for existence?

I'm not necessarily saying that the design argument is logically valid, however there is a problem with your refutation here.

God is in a separate category of being from all other things. As a result, things which are true of all other things, might be false when applied to God.

For example,
All things other than than God have causes, but God does not have a cause.

So, a person could say
"I exist, therefor something caused me to come into existence"

Most people would consider that to be a valid logical argument, but if we make God the subject it is not true.

"God exists, therefor something caused him to come into existence"

The difference here is that the arguments are not fully stated so the confusion is hidden.

The full statement would be something more like this.
-All contingent beings that exist have causes
-I am a contingent being
-I exist
Therefore something caused my existence

Applied to God this would not be valid because he is not a contingent being, he is a necessary being
-All contingent beings that exist have causes
-God Exists
-God is NOT a contingent being
Therefore we can't apply this conclusion to God.

So, it is possible to assert that the principle of Order and Design, or Complexity and Design is true of Contingent beings, but not true of Necessary beings.

The problem with the argument is that it relies on the premise being accepted as self-evident. In other words, in order for it to be convincing, the person must accept that it is self-evidently true that order or complexity demands a designer.

If that premise is not accepted as self-evidently true, then the argument is useless whether it's valid or not.

 

[Simon_Templar]

For the record, there are logical and philosophical proofs for the existence of God. Some of them are very good and totally valid.

There are lots of things I believe by faith about God, but that God exists isn't something I believe by faith, because I know it to be true. It is a logical necessity.

There are individual arguments, such as the "Uncaused Cause" argument from St. Thomas Aquinas which adequately prove the existence of God, but beyond that the whole body of classical philosophy from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, down to Aquinas etc, proves the point that for our world to exist and make sense as it does, there must be a transcendent reality.

What's more, the Theist belief system is the only one that has a really rational basis. Polytheistic and pantheistic system can't answer the philosophical questions of existence or the problem of the one and the many etc. They have to become theist in order to answer those questions.

Atheism, on the other hand, makes rational thought a literal impossibility, and thus wins for being the most irrational belief system possible.

Few things show this more accurately than looking at the devolution of modern philosophy. The prevailing philosophy of our day literally rejects the existence of reality and reason, because those ideas are fundamentally unsustainable in an atheistic, materialistic belief system.

Belief in transcendent reality is an absolute necessity for reason to exist and to function. That in itself is a proof for the existence of God.


At the end of the day, all of these kinds of proofs are escapable. Logic, no matter how valid, is rarely convincing to most people. Even if you can't figure out a way to get around an argument you can always think to yourself "there is just something I don't know yet that will explain this" or "I am just missing something".

I think that God designed things this way intentionally. He left enough proof that people who are seeking him will be able to find him and that they will see the rationality and reasonableness of belief. Yet at the same time, he left enough outs for people who don't want to believe so that they won't be forced or compelled into belief against their will.

He doesn't want to force people to acknowledge him. Some kinds of proof would constitute force or compulsion.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'm not necessarily saying that the design argument is logically valid, however there is a problem with your refutation here.

God is in a separate category of being from all other things. As a result, things which are true of all other things, might be false when applied to God.

For example,
All things other than than God have causes, but God does not have a cause.

So, a person could say
"I exist, therefor something caused me to come into existence"

Most people would consider that to be a valid logical argument, but if we make God the subject it is not true.

"God exists, therefor something caused him to come into existence"

The difference here is that the arguments are not fully stated so the confusion is hidden.

The full statement would be something more like this.
-All contingent beings that exist have causes
-I am a contingent being
-I exist
Therefore something caused my existence

Applied to God this would not be valid because he is not a contingent being, he is a necessary being
-All contingent beings that exist have causes
-God Exists
-God is NOT a contingent being
Therefore we can't apply this conclusion to God.

So, it is possible to assert that the principle of Order and Design, or Complexity and Design is true of Contingent beings, but not true of Necessary beings.

The problem with the argument is that it relies on the premise being accepted as self-evident. In other words, in order for it to be convincing, the person must accept that it is self-evidently true that order or complexity demands a designer.

If that premise is not accepted as self-evidently true, then the argument is useless whether it's valid or not.

Great Post!

 

[SolomonVII]

For the record, there are logical and philosophical proofs for the existence of God. Some of them are very good and totally valid.

There are lots of things I believe by faith about God, but that God exists isn't something I believe by faith, because I know it to be true. It is a logical necessity.

There are individual arguments, such as the "Uncaused Cause" argument from St. Thomas Aquinas which adequately prove the existence of God, but beyond that the whole body of classical philosophy from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, down to Aquinas etc, proves the point that for our world to exist and make sense as it does, there must be a transcendent reality.

What's more, the Theist belief system is the only one that has a really rational basis. Polytheistic and pantheistic system can't answer the philosophical questions of existence or the problem of the one and the many etc. They have to become theist in order to answer those questions.

Atheism, on the other hand, makes rational thought a literal impossibility, and thus wins for being the most irrational belief system possible.

Few things show this more accurately than looking at the devolution of modern philosophy. The prevailing philosophy of our day literally rejects the existence of reality and reason, because those ideas are fundamentally unsustainable in an atheistic, materialistic belief system.

Belief in transcendent reality is an absolute necessity for reason to exist and to function. That in itself is a proof for the existence of God.


At the end of the day, all of these kinds of proofs are escapable. Logic, no matter how valid, is rarely convincing to most people. Even if you can't figure out a way to get around an argument you can always think to yourself "there is just something I don't know yet that will explain this" or "I am just missing something".

I think that God designed things this way intentionally. He left enough proof that people who are seeking him will be able to find him and that they will see the rationality and reasonableness of belief. Yet at the same time, he left enough outs for people who don't want to believe so that they won't be forced or compelled into belief against their will.

He doesn't want to force people to acknowledge him. Some kinds of proof would constitute force or compulsion.

Modern philosophy since Kant has generally recognized that none of the classical proofs for God are absolute. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, the pragmatic necessity to belief in an essence that is transcendent, and the improbability of a finely tuned universe coming about randomly without rhyme or reason behind it, all tend to make believing in God the more reasonable choice for finite being like ourselves to make.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

For the record, there are logical and philosophical proofs for the existence of God. Some of them are very good and totally valid.

There are lots of things I believe by faith about God, but that God exists isn't something I believe by faith, because I know it to be true. It is a logical necessity.

There are individual arguments, such as the "Uncaused Cause" argument from St. Thomas Aquinas which adequately prove the existence of God, but beyond that the whole body of classical philosophy from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, down to Aquinas etc, proves the point that for our world to exist and make sense as it does, there must be a transcendent reality.

What's more, the Theist belief system is the only one that has a really rational basis. Polytheistic and pantheistic system can't answer the philosophical questions of existence or the problem of the one and the many etc. They have to become theist in order to answer those questions.

Atheism, on the other hand, makes rational thought a literal impossibility, and thus wins for being the most irrational belief system possible.

Few things show this more accurately than looking at the devolution of modern philosophy. The prevailing philosophy of our day literally rejects the existence of reality and reason, because those ideas are fundamentally unsustainable in an atheistic, materialistic belief system.

Belief in transcendent reality is an absolute necessity for reason to exist and to function. That in itself is a proof for the existence of God.


At the end of the day, all of these kinds of proofs are escapable. Logic, no matter how valid, is rarely convincing to most people. Even if you can't figure out a way to get around an argument you can always think to yourself "there is just something I don't know yet that will explain this" or "I am just missing something".

I think that God designed things this way intentionally. He left enough proof that people who are seeking him will be able to find him and that they will see the rationality and reasonableness of belief. Yet at the same time, he left enough outs for people who don't want to believe so that they won't be forced or compelled into belief against their will.

He doesn't want to force people to acknowledge him. Some kinds of proof would constitute force or compulsion.

What philosophical argument proves the Christian God specifically?

 

[Simon_Templar]

Modern philosophy since Kant has generally recognized that none of the classical proofs for God are absolute. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, the pragmatic necessity to belief in an essence that is transcendent, and the improbability of a finely tuned universe coming about randomly without rhyme or reason behind it, all tend to make believing in God the more reasonable choice for finite being like ourselves to make.

You are correct that Kant, and other modern philosophers offered refutations that they thought disproved the classical arguments. However, in most cases I think their refutations are themselves invalid.

Modern philosophy is based on a totally different foundation and view point. This is particularly true when you come to Kant and everything after him. In a certain sense they almost can't even address classical philosophy because they don't speak the same language.

For example,
The general refutation of St. Thomas Aquinas' Uncaused Cause argument is that it confuses individual items within a set with the set itself.

So, we can say that every individual thing within the universe is contingent, but that doesn't mean the universe itself is contingent. This is logically correct, but it fails as a refutation because it misses the point of the initial argument.

The point of the initial argument is simply that there must be one thing which is not contingent. That thing is by definition necessary. All the refutation says is that the Universe (or the "set") might be the necessary thing.

This amounts to simply saying that the universe is God.

In essence, the refutation just doesn't understand the argument it is trying to refute, and thus it is largely a meaningless refutation. St. Thomas was thinking metaphysically, but Kant basically can't think metaphysically because in his frame of reference, metaphysics doesn't exist.

Once you have come to the conclusion that there must be a necessary thing it is possible to argue further conclusions about that thing. Though it is not possible to deduce everything that we believe about the Abrahamic God. That's where faith comes in.

Kant's refutation of Anselm's ontological argument also is tenuous at best. There are plenty of people who don't think it is valid.

In my opinion modern philosophy has essentially proven itself false by following it's own conclusions to their logical ends. We can see historically that this has lead to complete absurdity of a level that is virtually insane.

This highlights the problem with "proof". We have people who, despite overwhelming evidence, believe that the world is flat. Does their denial of the roundness of the planet mean that we haven't proven the world is round?

I would say no. The reality of human nature is that people can believe things that are patently and self-evidently nonsense. When people embrace something that is nonsense, that doesn't mean it hasn't been proven to be nonsense.

Post-modern relativism is a great example of this. The philosophy literally denies reason and logic themselves. It denies the meaning of language, even as it is being expressed through language. This is patent nonsense and the fact that people believe it doesn't mean it can't be proven to be nonsense.

 

[Simon_Templar]

What philosophical argument proves the Christian God specifically?

Well it depends on what you mean by "God".

Thomas Aquinas "Uncaused Cause" argument, which is a variation of Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" proves that there must be transcendent reality that is outside of the normal order of existence that we observe. It recognizes that all beings we observe are "contingent" in other words, they do not possess existence by their own nature, rather they received existence from something else. This is the relationship of causality. They were "caused". The argument recognizes that for contingent beings to exist, there must be something which is NOT contingent. That is to say, there must be something which has existence by it's very nature. This essentially proves that there is something which is eternal and stands outside of contingent reality as we know it.

This same principle is demonstrated by the variety of arguments that begin with the concept of meaning. Some of these appear more emotionally based (which is debatable) because they rely upon the fact that human beings tend to innately believe that things have meaning. But meaning is not a material thing. It is a transcendent concept. Meaning can't exist if there is no transcendent reality.

This principle, however, is very logical because it applies not only to emotional types of meaning that people usually think of, but also to things like words, and your very thoughts. This argument can ask the simple question, do you think your thoughts have meaning? Or are they just random electro-chemical processes? A synapse in your brain firing with electricity, and interacting with a variety of chemicals doesn't mean anything, unless there is a non-material, transcendent reality in which meaning can actually exist.

Every human being ascribes meaning to their own thoughts. It is essentially impossible for a human being to NOT do this. However, in order for such meaning to actually exist as more than an illusion, there must be a transcendent reality in which that meaning exists.

In other words, the logical conclusion of materialism is that your thoughts, as we conceive of them, don't exist and for that matter, you don't exist as we think of a person. "you" are essentially just an organic computer that is running predetermined genetic programming that is accomplished through elctro-chemical processes.

This is why most materialists that actually understand their own view to any degree deny the existence of free will. The very concept of "will" is transcendent. If your thoughts are nothing by electro-chemical processes, then those processes are governed by the "laws" of physics and chemistry. When you mix two chemicals, they don't "decide" whether to react or not. They simply do what the laws of chemistry dictate. Likewise, when you apply electricity to something, there is no "decision" involved, it just does what physics dictate will happen.

This is why I said in my earlier post that atheism / materialism is the most irrational belief possible. In the atheist / materialist view personhood, free-will, and even thought itself are literally impossible. They can't exist. They are nothing more than illusions. In this view "rationality" can't exist. It is meaningless.

For this reason, atheists materialists who engage in debate are walking self-contradictions.

St. Anselm's ontological argument is logically valid, but few people find it convincing except a few hardcore logicians maybe. In fact, few people really understand it except a few hardcore logicians. When you read it, it seems both very simple and almost absurd, but it is logically quite brilliant if you really dig into it.

There are literally dozens of arguments and proofs for the existence of God from different principles. Some are better than others. The problem with most of these kinds of things is not that they aren't valid, or aren't true, rather it is that most people aren't really convinced by logical validity.

As was pointed out earlier, for every proof of God there is a counter argument, but that doesn't mean the proofs aren't valid. You have to examine both sides and see if the refutations are valid etc.

The same is true in reverse. There are dozens of arguments trying to disprove the possibility of God, and all of them have been refuted and answered etc.

This debate has been going on literally since the beginning of human thought. Almost every possible thought has been put forward and responded to. The point is not to try and find an argument that has no answer. The point is to try and find which ones are valid and true.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

Well it depends on what you mean by "God".

Thomas Aquinas "Uncaused Cause" argument, which is a variation of Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" proves that there must be transcendent reality that is outside of the normal order of existence that we observe. It recognizes that all beings we observe are "contingent" in other words, they do not possess existence by their own nature, rather they received existence from something else. This is the relationship of causality. They were "caused". The argument recognizes that for contingent beings to exist, there must be something which is NOT contingent. That is to say, there must be something which has existence by it's very nature. This essentially proves that there is something which is eternal and stands outside of contingent reality as we know it.

This same principle is demonstrated by the variety of arguments that begin with the concept of meaning. Some of these appear more emotionally based (which is debatable) because they rely upon the fact that human beings tend to innately believe that things have meaning. But meaning is not a material thing. It is a transcendent concept. Meaning can't exist if there is no transcendent reality.

This principle, however, is very logical because it applies not only to emotional types of meaning that people usually think of, but also to things like words, and your very thoughts. This argument can ask the simple question, do you think your thoughts have meaning? Or are they just random electro-chemical processes? A synapse in your brain firing with electricity, and interacting with a variety of chemicals doesn't mean anything, unless there is a non-material, transcendent reality in which meaning can actually exist.

Every human being ascribes meaning to their own thoughts. It is essentially impossible for a human being to NOT do this. However, in order for such meaning to actually exist as more than an illusion, there must be a transcendent reality in which that meaning exists.

In other words, the logical conclusion of materialism is that your thoughts, as we conceive of them, don't exist and for that matter, you don't exist as we think of a person. "you" are essentially just an organic computer that is running predetermined genetic programming that is accomplished through elctro-chemical processes.

This is why most materialists that actually understand their own view to any degree deny the existence of free will. The very concept of "will" is transcendent. If your thoughts are nothing by electro-chemical processes, then those processes are governed by the "laws" of physics and chemistry. When you mix two chemicals, they don't "decide" whether to react or not. They simply do what the laws of chemistry dictate. Likewise, when you apply electricity to something, there is no "decision" involved, it just does what physics dictate will happen.

This is why I said in my earlier post that atheism / materialism is the most irrational belief possible. In the atheist / materialist view personhood, free-will, and even thought itself are literally impossible. They can't exist. They are nothing more than illusions. In this view "rationality" can't exist. It is meaningless.

For this reason, atheists materialists who engage in debate are walking self-contradictions.

St. Anselm's ontological argument is logically valid, but few people find it convincing except a few hardcore logicians maybe. In fact, few people really understand it except a few hardcore logicians. When you read it, it seems both very simple and almost absurd, but it is logically quite brilliant if you really dig into it.

There are literally dozens of arguments and proofs for the existence of God from different principles. Some are better than others. The problem with most of these kinds of things is not that they aren't valid, or aren't true, rather it is that most people aren't really convinced by logical validity.

As was pointed out earlier, for every proof of God there is a counter argument, but that doesn't mean the proofs aren't valid. You have to examine both sides and see if the refutations are valid etc.

The same is true in reverse. There are dozens of arguments trying to disprove the possibility of God, and all of them have been refuted and answered etc.

This debate has been going on literally since the beginning of human thought. Almost every possible thought has been put forward and responded to. The point is not to try and find an argument that has no answer. The point is to try and find which ones are valid and true.

Immaterialism does not open the door for free will though. If an atomic (undividable) event E happens, was E caused by some previous state, or underlying rules? If so, then it's not free will. Was it not caused by any prior events or underlying rules at all (like morality or logic)? Then it's still not free will, it's just randomness.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Immaterialism does not open the door for free will though. If an atomic (undividable) event E happens, was E caused by some previous state, or underlying rules? If so, then it's not free will. Was it not caused by any prior events or underlying rules at all (like morality or logic)? Then it's still not free will, it's just randomness.

I think that you are attempting to think about the immaterial in material terms. That's not a knock on you by the way, all of us in the modern world are conditioned by the cultures we are raised in to think along certain lines and it is very difficult to get outside of that and think differently. I struggle with that as well.

If you look at what you say here, you are only allowing two types of causality. Actually really it's only one type of causality, but just varying whether the cause was random or predetermined. Aristotle outlined four different types of causality. In modern philosophy two of those four types are commonly rejected or ignored because they don't belong to the material world. The type of cause that you are envisioning here would probably fall under what Aristotle termed "efficient cause".

You can think of material causality like a chain. A causes B causes C etc. It is possible that some of the events in the chain may be probability based, as you point out with your comment on randomness. True randomness is also not really possible in a purely material system. Randomness is our inability to understand all of the complex and often unknown factors that influence the outcome of events.
So maybe A causes B, but B has a 48% chance of causing C and a 52% chance of causing D. Something like that.

In a purely material system, as you correctly noted, once A has occurred, the subsequent events are inevitable and pre-determined. Even whether C or D eventually occurs is determined from the beginning. But what causes A?

When I talk about Transcendent reality, I mean by that something that exists outside of the material universe. So, if we introduce the idea of a transcendent reality, the things in that reality are not necessarily bound by the same rules of causality that govern the material world. We generally think of those rules as things like the laws of physics, chemistry and so on that govern how things interact. Those material laws are certainly not applicable.

A kind of cause that you don't allow for, because it doesn't exist in the pure-material world is what we might call "purpose". Purpose is like meaning. It is transcendent. It is non-material. This is what Aristotle would term as the "final cause". Purpose is the reason why something is done. The end goal that is envisioned or desired.

If we go back to our chain of causality, A causes B which causes C (or D) that chain has to start somewhere. Namely A. The chain also, cannot cause itself. What I mean by that is that A cannot cause A. So there has to be something which is completely outside of the chain that starts the chain. That outside thing is not bound by the rules within the chain.

Where most people struggle to grasp this is that they think this is just saying, "take the chain A causes B causes C and append another cause at the beginning so it becomes X causes A causes B causes C. The problem with this way of thinking is that it puts X inside the material world as just another cause. In order to properly conceive of it you have to keep X outside of the chain altogether.

Because X is not material it is possible for X to have purpose. X can cause for a reason. X can act with meaning.

Because it is outside, it can insert itself anywhere in the chain even at multiple points in the chain, even after the chain has already started. If there is something outside of the chain of causality, then it is free to interact with the chain outside of the normal rules within the chain. The outside thing can start the chain, it can interrupt the chain, and it can even conceivable change the course of events by interrupting and introducing a different new causal chain.

Another way to think about it.
In your statement you talk about Event E arising from a previous state or underlying rules. Let us assume for the moment that the transcendent reality exists, and let us call it "spirit" because that is traditionally how it has been labeled and conceived.

We can meaningfully talk about states in material systems, but what is the state of a spirit? Does that idea even have meaning? In matter "state" comes down to the position and motion of particles at a given point in time. What does state mean if there are no particles?

There very well may be rules that govern the realm of spirit, but they are nothing like those that govern the material world. The rules of the material world govern how particles move and interact, how forces interact with material etc.
But if there are no particles, no matter, and no forces (as we know them) what would the "rules" be like?

All material objects or material things are made up of parts and systems and subsystems etc. But transcendent things have no parts, no systems, etc.

In short the way that we think about the physical world simply will not work when it comes to thinking about a non-physical transcendent reality. Even analogies are very tenuous at best and usually fall dreadfully short.

Now, leaving all of that aside for a moment, I think ideas should be also subjected to a certain kind of practical test. The specific practical test that I mean is this.. If an idea so radically goes against our experience of life that it literally is impossible for a human being to live out, then it should probably be discarded.

Another way of saying that would be, if applying an idea logically to your daily life would make you either insane or totally ruin your life, then you probably should not accept that idea.

I think determinism (denial of free-will) fails this test. There is almost nothing in our daily experience of life that is more self-evident than free will. It is literally impossible to live without assuming that you do in fact have free will.

There are things in philosophy that run contrary to intuition and sometimes require us to interpret our experience differently that are, in my opinion, true. It is also true, in my opinion, that believing false philosophies (like modernism and post-modernism) can cause us to view the world in ways that are significantly flawed to the point where our view of the world is much like an illusion, or perhaps a dark enchantment.

However, there are ideas that so radically break the world and so radically deny our experience of life and the world that they basically can't be believed by a sane mind. For example, Solipsism, the belief that only you exist, and everything else is illusion, or in some early ancient Greek philosophers who denied the existence of motion or the multiplicity of things.

These ideas may be fun to play around with intellectually but they can't really be believed. If your beliefs about the world end up leading you to one of these ideas, then it is strong evidence, in my opinion, that your belief system or logic or something is significantly flawed.

I would put determinism in that category. The difference between determinism and the ideas I listed above is that those ideas went out of style and the beliefs they were founded on have been rejected. Determinism, on the other hand, is the inevitable logical result of the reigning beliefs of our culture and time. As a result, a lot of people claim to believe it, because to deny it would mean admitting that the entire cognitive framework and worldview of our culture is wrong. But nobody ACTUALLY believes in determinism. What you ACTUALLY believe is determined by how you live your life and no one lives as if they don't exist.

In this regard determinism is much like moral relativism. People are only moral relativists in arguments and when it is convenient to justify something they want to do. No one ACTUALLY fully lives out moral relativism.

So, I actually use the fact that a given worldview leads to determinism as evidence or even proof that said worldview is incorrect. I think that is effective with most people as well.

I love philosophy and I love intellectual life etc. But I will also admit that there are some ideas so dumb that only intellectuals and scholars could possibly believe them.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is always interesting to hear so many modern philosophers speak and come to the conclusion that free will and consciousness are an illusion, all the while understanding that to live out that reality would be absolutely and literally impossible for them to do so. To just live, it is necessary to believe in the illusion, even if you reason it out to be nothing more than an illusion.

Modernist and post modernist relentlessly refute the possibility of God, and meaning and truth, with pristine logic and precision. Their minds are steel traps that even they cannot escape.
So in doing so, they refute themselves and their very lives.

Maybe the way back from that precipice is, as I have heard Jordan Peterson suggest, to begin by recognizing that at least pain is real. Suffering is a form of consciousness that can neither be refuted or denied, or argued out of existence

The journey back to the truth of God begins at the Cross.
.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It is always interesting to hear so many modern philosophers speak and come to the conclusion that free will and consciousness are an illusion, all the while understanding that to live out that reality would be absolutely and literally impossible for them to do so. To just live, it is necessary to believe in the illusion, even if you reason it out to be nothing more than an illusion.

Modernist and post modernist relentlessly refute the possibility of God, and meaning and truth, with pristine logic and precision. Their minds are steel traps that even they cannot escape.
So in doing so, they refute themselves and their very lives.

Maybe the way back from that precipice is, as I have heard Jordan Peterson suggest, to begin by recognizing that at least pain is real. Suffering is a form of consciousness that can neither be refuted or denied, or argued out of existence

The journey back to the truth of God begins at the Cross.
.

So true.

Love the saying ‘Their minds are steel traps that even they can’t escape’.

Some people’s minds work against them. Their understanding of spiritual is clearing their mind during yoga.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

It is always interesting to hear so many modern philosophers speak and come to the conclusion that free will and consciousness are an illusion, all the while understanding that to live out that reality would be absolutely and literally impossible for them to do so. To just live, it is necessary to believe in the illusion, even if you reason it out to be nothing more than an illusion.

Modernist and post modernist relentlessly refute the possibility of God, and meaning and truth, with pristine logic and precision. Their minds are steel traps that even they cannot escape.
So in doing so, they refute themselves and their very lives.

Maybe the way back from that precipice is, as I have heard Jordan Peterson suggest, to begin by recognizing that at least pain is real. Suffering is a form of consciousness that can neither be refuted or denied, or argued out of existence

The journey back to the truth of God begins at the Cross.
.

Can you define free will?

 

[looking_for_answers_]

I think that you are attempting to think about the immaterial in material terms. That's not a knock on you by the way, all of us in the modern world are conditioned by the cultures we are raised in to think along certain lines and it is very difficult to get outside of that and think differently. I struggle with that as well.

If you look at what you say here, you are only allowing two types of causality. Actually really it's only one type of causality, but just varying whether the cause was random or predetermined. Aristotle outlined four different types of causality. In modern philosophy two of those four types are commonly rejected or ignored because they don't belong to the material world. The type of cause that you are envisioning here would probably fall under what Aristotle termed "efficient cause".

You can think of material causality like a chain. A causes B causes C etc. It is possible that some of the events in the chain may be probability based, as you point out with your comment on randomness. True randomness is also not really possible in a purely material system. Randomness is our inability to understand all of the complex and often unknown factors that influence the outcome of events.
So maybe A causes B, but B has a 48% chance of causing C and a 52% chance of causing D. Something like that.

In a purely material system, as you correctly noted, once A has occurred, the subsequent events are inevitable and pre-determined. Even whether C or D eventually occurs is determined from the beginning. But what causes A?

When I talk about Transcendent reality, I mean by that something that exists outside of the material universe. So, if we introduce the idea of a transcendent reality, the things in that reality are not necessarily bound by the same rules of causality that govern the material world. We generally think of those rules as things like the laws of physics, chemistry and so on that govern how things interact. Those material laws are certainly not applicable.

A kind of cause that you don't allow for, because it doesn't exist in the pure-material world is what we might call "purpose". Purpose is like meaning. It is transcendent. It is non-material. This is what Aristotle would term as the "final cause". Purpose is the reason why something is done. The end goal that is envisioned or desired.

You talk about "purpose". Can a purposeful agent do something against it's own purpose? If so, how was it caused to do so? Even the immaterial, if it has rules, has to obey those rules. You can't just say "no, that's wrong, we just can't comprehend it with our material minds" if you can't even come up with a logically coherent definition of what it is. This has nothing to do with causal chains or time. I have yet to hear a third alternative to determinism or randomness that made any sense.

If we go back to our chain of causality, A causes B which causes C (or D) that chain has to start somewhere. Namely A. The chain also, cannot cause itself. What I mean by that is that A cannot cause A. So there has to be something which is completely outside of the chain that starts the chain. That outside thing is not bound by the rules within the chain.

Where most people struggle to grasp this is that they think this is just saying, "take the chain A causes B causes C and append another cause at the beginning so it becomes X causes A causes B causes C. The problem with this way of thinking is that it puts X inside the material world as just another cause. In order to properly conceive of it you have to keep X outside of the chain altogether.

Because X is not material it is possible for X to have purpose. X can cause for a reason. X can act with meaning.

Because it is outside, it can insert itself anywhere in the chain even at multiple points in the chain, even after the chain has already started. If there is something outside of the chain of causality, then it is free to interact with the chain outside of the normal rules within the chain. The outside thing can start the chain, it can interrupt the chain, and it can even conceivable change the course of events by interrupting and introducing a different new causal chain.

Another way to think about it.
In your statement you talk about Event E arising from a previous state or underlying rules. Let us assume for the moment that the transcendent reality exists, and let us call it "spirit" because that is traditionally how it has been labeled and conceived.

We can meaningfully talk about states in material systems, but what is the state of a spirit? Does that idea even have meaning? In matter "state" comes down to the position and motion of particles at a given point in time. What does state mean if there are no particles?

There very well may be rules that govern the realm of spirit, but they are nothing like those that govern the material world. The rules of the material world govern how particles move and interact, how forces interact with material etc.
But if there are no particles, no matter, and no forces (as we know them) what would the "rules" be like?

All material objects or material things are made up of parts and systems and subsystems etc. But transcendent things have no parts, no systems, etc.

In short the way that we think about the physical world simply will not work when it comes to thinking about a non-physical transcendent reality. Even analogies are very tenuous at best and usually fall dreadfully short.

But you can't just hand-wave and say "transcendentalism". You're also kind of arguing semantics. We can imagine immaterial things having some rules without having parts or systems. And this still keeps them in the "rules vs. no rules" dichotemy. I don't care what the specific rules are, they are irrelevant to the discussion.

Now, leaving all of that aside for a moment, I think ideas should be also subjected to a certain kind of practical test. The specific practical test that I mean is this.. If an idea so radically goes against our experience of life that it literally is impossible for a human being to live out, then it should probably be discarded.

Unfortunately the truth doesn't give a crap about my reaction to it. The universe could be something horrific and we could all be blithely unaware. So it would be more accurate to say that I should not allow the idea to change how I act, not that I should reject it just because it makes me uncomfortable.

Another way of saying that would be, if applying an idea logically to your daily life would make you either insane or totally ruin your life, then you probably should not accept that idea.

Not quite. I can believe in determinism and not really give a crap. It doesn't change anything about my life. I can still enjoy pizza, get chills when listening to the skyrim soundtrack, enjoy the thrill of skiing down the mountainside. I realized determinism a long time ago, have not gone crazy or had my life ruined - in fact not much has changed.

I think determinism (denial of free-will) fails this test. There is almost nothing in our daily experience of life that is more self-evident than free will. It is literally impossible to live without assuming that you do in fact have free will.

It is self-evident that nothing outside of me forces my decisions. It is certainly not self-evidence to me that my decisions are free from internal determinism though.

There are things in philosophy that run contrary to intuition and sometimes require us to interpret our experience differently that are, in my opinion, true. It is also true, in my opinion, that believing false philosophies (like modernism and post-modernism) can cause us to view the world in ways that are significantly flawed to the point where our view of the world is much like an illusion, or perhaps a dark enchantment.

However, there are ideas that so radically break the world and so radically deny our experience of life and the world that they basically can't be believed by a sane mind. For example, Solipsism, the belief that only you exist, and everything else is illusion, or in some early ancient Greek philosophers who denied the existence of motion or the multiplicity of things.

These ideas may be fun to play around with intellectually but they can't really be believed. If your beliefs about the world end up leading you to one of these ideas, then it is strong evidence, in my opinion, that your belief system or logic or something is significantly flawed.

I would put determinism in that category. The difference between determinism and the ideas I listed above is that those ideas went out of style and the beliefs they were founded on have been rejected. Determinism, on the other hand, is the inevitable logical result of the reigning beliefs of our culture and time. As a result, a lot of people claim to believe it, because to deny it would mean admitting that the entire cognitive framework and worldview of our culture is wrong. But nobody ACTUALLY believes in determinism. What you ACTUALLY believe is determined by how you live your life and no one lives as if they don't exist.

In this regard determinism is much like moral relativism. People are only moral relativists in arguments and when it is convenient to justify something they want to do. No one ACTUALLY fully lives out moral relativism.

Well, I am an example of someone who believes in determinism. I don't want to, but I have yet to hear an alternative that makes sense and is actually based in something we percieve in the universe. Determinism does not really say much about how I should live my life, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. The most it does is give me humility about my accomplishments, and makes me feel a lot more empathetic and forgiving of people who I would have previously seen as "bad" and been quick to judge.

So, I actually use the fact that a given worldview leads to determinism as evidence or even proof that said worldview is incorrect. I think that is effective with most people as well.

2+2 is determined to be 4. Does this make 2+2=4 incorrect?

I love philosophy and I love intellectual life etc. But I will also admit that there are some ideas so dumb that only intellectuals and scholars could possibly believe them.

Imagine I am reading the test results of three agents who are answering a questionairre about ethics. One agent gives determined answers. Another gives random answers. The third has been given the gift of free will, so he gives free answers. How on earth can I tell it apart from the other two? If the answer is "it's indistinguishable" then this just underlines how weak the construct is.

 

[SolomonVII]

Can you define free will?

I always loved John Serle's definition of free will " I decide to lift my arm, and the dam thing goes up!"
For sure it is a complex problem, and hard definitions of what consciousness is after all the studies on it are also wickedly elusive, and yet totally necessary in order to define the noun "I" in the above definition of free will.
ON the other hand, it is ironically the most simple thing that there can be to understand what we are talking of when we talk about free will and who we are. It is the one thing that we are familiar with on a level even more intimate than Adam knowing Eve. We notice ourselves thinking, we notice ourselves willing our arm to stretch out in a wave. There is nothing that we are more intimately knowledgeable of in the whole world than of ourselves acting out as free agents in the universe.
Psychologists then do experiments, and they find that our central nervous systems often make decisions that are started before we are conscious of them, and they make note that free will and and "I" excercising free will is an illusion.
But, practically speaking, that is not how we experience the world. Pragmatically speaking it is impossible to live out a life from the world view that all is but a meaningless illusion.
And we don't live our life that way. Nobody does, not even the philosophers who teach this as what constitutes reality.
For me, from my Christian perspective, I reject the duality of mind and body. We are not spirits inhabiting a body, but we are our bodies. Our bodies, which include nervous systems are intricately involved in our freedom and our actions R US.

Ask a child to point out to where they are and they invariably point to their hearts, and not their heads. The "I am" of consciousness invariably involves crossing your arm to your heart and not to your head. Our consciousness lies in our bodies as a whole, and our free will is an act of our body and not a mind that is in any way exterior to the body.
The dogma of Resurrection of the Body recognizes this truth. What is eternal about us, what is Spirit is our body. Our bodies define free will and consciousness.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

I always loved John Serle's definition of free will " I decide to lift my arm, and the dam thing goes up!"
For sure it is a complex problem, and hard definitions of what consciousness is after all the studies on it are also wickedly elusive, and yet totally necessary in order to define the noun "I" in the above definition of free will.
ON the other hand, it is ironically the most simple thing that there can be to understand what we are talking of when we talk about free will and who we are. It is the one thing that we are familiar with on a level even more intimate than Adam knowing Eve. We notice ourselves thinking, we notice ourselves willing our arm to stretch out in a wave. There is nothing that we are more intimately knowledgeable of in the whole world than of ourselves acting out as free agents in the universe.
Psychologists then do experiments, and they find that our central nervous systems often make decisions that are started before we are conscious of them, and they make note that free will and and "I" excercising free will is an illusion.
But, practically speaking, that is not how we experience the world. Pragmatically speaking it is impossible to live out a life from the world view that all is but a meaningless illusion.
And we don't live our life that way. Nobody does, not even the philosophers who teach this as what constitutes reality.
For me, from my Christian perspective, I reject the duality of mind and body. We are not spirits inhabiting a body, but we are our bodies. Our bodies, which include nervous systems are intricately involved in our freedom and our actions R US.

Ask a child to point out to where they are and they invariably point to their hearts, and not their heads. The "I am" of consciousness invariably involves crossing your arm to your heart and not to your head. Our consciousness lies in our bodies as a whole, and our free will is an act of our body and not a mind that is in any way exterior to the body.
The dogma of Resurrection of the Body recognizes this truth. What is eternal about us, what is Spirit is our body. Our bodies define free will and consciousness.

What you're describing is called "compatibilism", which is what I would ascribe to. Nothing is externally forcing you to make decisions, so yes, you do indeed make choices. That's what you're experiencing. However, that does not change the fact that you were determined to experience making that specific choice.