Armand Jacks Destroys ID in One Sentence

_{Barry Arrington

April 16, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Armand Jacks says he has a knock down show stopping argument to rebut ID’s claim that intelligent agency is the only known cause of specified complexity.

Get ready.

Hold on to your hat.

Here it is:

Using the same argument, the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes.

Are blind unguided material forces capable of typing the post you just posted AJ? If you say “no” your argument is refuted. If you say “yes” you look like a fool or a liar or both. Talk about the Scylla and Charybdis.

AJ, you really should stop and think for 10 seconds before you write something like that down. I know, I know. Thinking is hard, and 10 seconds is a long time. But still.

As for the title of this post, on reflection maybe I overstated AJ’s accomplishment a little.

Comments

Armand Jack: You apparently missed the point of my last post. If there were only ONE player in a hockey game, then either there will be a 'tie,' or there will be a 'win.' If it's a scoring player, since his 'intention' is to score--his 'free will' has chosen to do this--then he will score since there is no goalie to stop him. He can score as many times as he likes. OTOH, if the player is a 'goalie', then no one can score against him--which, presumably, is the 'choice' he has made using his 'free will'. The result is a tie: 0 - 0. However, when a game involves multiple players, each exercising their own 'free will,' then conflicts arise, and split-second decisions are made, and the result is somewhat in question (unless the Russian hockey team is playing Miami high school). IOW, no one person, in a game that involves multiple persons, determines the outcome: it is a 'summation' of all the individual 'free will' decisions the players make (and, of course, luck [bad bounce off the board]). In physics, it is virtually impossible to know the exact movements of a particular gas molecule; however, the statistical average of an ensemble of gas molecules can be known. So, we're back to where we started: knowing the outcome of a game does not vitiate the free will of the players.PaV_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

lets say that scientists will create a robot with a living traits like self replication and may contain even DNA. i guess we may all agree that this kind of speciel robot will be evidence for design and not a natural process like evolution. if so: why not human itself that have the same traits?mk_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

"‘The Elect’, is a Protestant belief? Is that right? That before creation, those who would live in eternity with God had all ready been chosen? These are (not were, or will be), the ‘elect’." rvb8, I would say that election/predestination, is biblical idea that found its resurrection in the Protestant Reformation, at least in regard to understanding it as a refutation of man's ability to choose God via man's own free will. Predestination/election is, and has always been, found in all versions, translations and ancient texts that make up the Bible. How people understand it, is different across denominations with Roman Catholics rejecting it for the reasons you describe, and various other denominations accepting or rejecting it to one degree or another, so one can still be "Christian," and reject the idea that predestination overrides man's free will, but the fact remains that people who claim a felicity to the Bible, must do something with the verses that touch on it. Explanations range from, "those verses are just talking about God making the Hebrews His 'chosen' people," to a fully fatalistic belief that, as you put it, raises the question, "where is the free will?" The fact remains that there are many verses that speak to God choosing "before the foundation of the world." If you are interested, Bible Gateway offers a search function. Search the words, "chose, chosen, elect, election and predestined," to see the how pervasively the idea runs through scripture. It's in nearly every book of the NT. https://www.biblegateway.com Here is one of the more famous passages: Ephesians 1:3-14 (NIV) "3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory." Yes, passages like this open up a can of worms, and your question below, nails it. "This being the case, and knowing (hoping), myself not to be amongst them, where is ‘free will’?" My answer is a simple one -- dead men don't have ANY will -- free or otherwise. If the Bible is a consistent continuum, from beginning to end, and I believe it is, we all died in the garden. The joke is, "Adam, you had one job!" And you blew it. I know, I know. You're not dead, right? You're a living breathing organism. In answer to this valid objection, I would say first, far smarter men and women than me have wrestled with the implications of these verses, and as far as I'm concerned, none of them have solved the mystery that you have hit upon. As for me, I'm content to understand it as a spiritual reality. Adam was made to live forever physically and spiritually. When he sinned, he died spiritually (with death being synonymous with being separated from God) and he began to die physically. l think most people have a intuitive understanding that death is foreign to us as human beings. When someone dies, it shocks us, even though we know it is inevitable. I believe we still retain the ancient understanding, although its been long reduced to a shadow, that human beings should not die. Man was created to be in eternal communion with his creator. This fits with what we see. Man is far different than any other creature. Man was the pinnacle of God's creation. Man was made, "like God," with a spiritual, mental, moral, volitional, creative, component like no other creature. No other creature is like man. There is still a chasm between man and his closest animal relatives. There is no evolutionary explanation for this. Anyway, my simple answer, that I have become comfortable with, is that, after the fall, God HAD TO choose those who would be "made alive." If you invented a miraculous medicine that brought the dead back to life, and you brought it to your brother's funeral, and set it on the edge of the open casket, and said, "take it brother, and you will be alive again," your brother would still lay dead for all eternity. The only way for your miracle medicine to work on your dead brother, would be for you to force it into his cells, cell by cell, until all the cells were finally reanimated. I believe that's what happened when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, Jesus was giving us an illustration of what He has done for those whom He has chosen to live, and of course, Jesus' own resurrection was among other things, a "victory over death," which is the great hope of those of us who look to Christ. Death is not the end for us. When we are "born again," we are born into a life that will go on forever, physically and spiritually, and in every other way, I believe. But a "new birth" is necessary because we are dead, and because we are dead, we cannot choose the medicine that will reanimate our cells. We must be made alive to live. We must be born "from above." It is interesting to me that with all of our modern scientific prowess, life only comes from life, and I think that applies to spiritual life as well. And yes, that opens another whole can of worms. Is God a monster because He doesn't choose all, to which I give the same answer, Paul gave: "10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy." Romans 9:10-16 (NIV) God does not need my approval to do as He chooses with His creation. He is God and we are His creatures. Whether we understand God's purposes is another question. I don't for a second claim to understand God's purposes, but I do believe that God is good, and God's good purpose for me is beyond my wildest imagination. As far as your last point, "You can not have an all ‘knowing’ God, who is everywhere, and controls everything, without removing mortal choice, or as we know it, free will. The point is inescapable, either God controls everything, and if He does not, He is a kind of semi-God, or more accurately, not there at all." I think you are absolutely right, and the view that God is sort of a half human demigod like the Greek gods, is a grave error. God is bigger than we can ever imagine. Take a look at the scale of just our solar system. http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html The universe with all its billions of galaxies, was just tossed out from the fingertips of God (figuratively of course). Why would you think that God and His purposes could be understood by our puny brains or that He even wants us to understand them? When we have created a god that we can understand, we have created a tiny god in our own image. There are things that we will probably never understand even in eternity. I'm ok with that, but God has given us much we can understand, and what we can understand is enough to know that there is a God who cares about us and has redeemed a race of people to fulfill His original purposes of creation. I am glad that I will be among them.Florabama_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Andrew @ 46: Well said!Truth Will Set You Free_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

I think your logic and argument is “airtight” WJM. Either AJ doesn’t understand logic or he doesn’t respect it. From what I can see for AJ and most of our other regular interlocutors, winning is being able to either to deflect from, derail or shut down the discussion and debate. So when you try to reason with them they don’t see it as an offer to play fair but an opportunity to obstruct and obfuscate. Again if they are able undermine the discussion in any way they see that as winning. Apparently, Armand Jacks is latest incarnation of a sock puppet who keeps showing up here. I keep wondering about this: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wjm-is-on-a-roll-2/#comment-629372 Is that true? If it’s not why hasn’t he said anything? If it is, we are pretty much wasting our time trying to reason with him. Again, he apparently doesn’t really understand or respect reason, let alone have any respect for his fellow man. It doesn’t take much intelligence, talent or skill to do what AJ is doing. However, it does require being dishonest, disingenuous and unethical-- something most people recognize as morally wrong. Sadly AJ's behavior is something we are seeing more and more of in our society, especially on the internet.john_a_designer_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Can anyone explain to me what Armand means in #74? Is he being sarcastic - does he think the quoted statement of mine is, or implies, a claim that free will factually exists, or that I'm trying to support such a claim with evidence? Or is he saying that I was clear in that statement that that I was making no such claim? I can't see how the statement he quoted has anything at all to do with the question of whether or not I have asserted and am arguing that free will exists. Seriously, can someone explain it to me? Is it just me, or is everyone else here clear that I'm only arguing about the logical consequences of materialism and how - logically - such a state would disallow true free will, and also explaining the devastating consequential effects such a state would have with regards to our existence if we do not have acausal free will?William J Murray_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Armand Jacks: … the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes.
I have news for you: matter is directed by immaterial laws of nature. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies recently wrote:
There has long been a tacit assumption that the laws of physics were somehow imprinted on the universe at the outset, and have remained immutable thereafter.
Davies goes on to acknowledge that there is no bottom-up explanation, from the level of say bosons, for the laws of nature, since such an explanation should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws — different circumstances, different laws. But this is not what we find. Again, Paul Davies:
Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted. …
Where do the “physical” laws come from?
Davies: Trying to explain the origin of the amazing laws of physics may lie beyond the scientific enterprise, and at the end of the day we may just have to accept them as an unexplained mystery. … What is the origin of these laws? Why do they have the form that they do, as opposed to a limitless number of other forms?
Indeed. And a naturalistic answer is not forthcoming. Looking for it is even considered "unscientific". Davies:
But what are these ultimate laws and where do they come from? Such questions are often dismissed as being pointless or even unscientific. As the cosmologist Sean Carroll has written, “There is a chain of explanations concerning things that happen in the universe, which ultimately reaches to the fundamental laws of nature and stops… at the end of the day the laws are what they are… And that’s okay. I’m happy to take the universe just as we find it.”
So how do the laws work? How are they enforced? Cosmologist Joel Primack, a cosmologist once posed the question:
“What is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws?”
Indeed, what power compels physical objects to follow the laws of nature? - - - - See also W J Murray #23Origenes_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

JAD, 76: You too. Notice, how scarce objectors are in these parts these days -- when they are perfectly free, even invited to come here and substantially refute us? (Don't forget, the UD pro-darwinism essay challenge is still open after I forget how many years. Apart from an unsatisfactory composite after a year and apart from Wiki as stand-in, there has been a strange want of objectors wishing to pony up with a 6,000 word or so essay that can link copiously but needs to make the case in a nutshell.) KFkairosfocus_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

WJM, 71: Well said -- as usual. KFkairosfocus_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Macauley86, 69: The attempt is being made to suggest that the major alternative worldview available to us, ethical theism, does not make good sense, runs into similar difficulties with freedom. Hence my response to thread jumping just now, on one track of the discussion. On the other track, I have already pointed to the videotape analogy. If you have a tape of a game and watch it, does your knowledge of how the game plays out rob the players of their agency and freedom of action? Patently, no. Just so, God uses his sovereign power to enable us to be creatures capable of love -- the pivot of the virtues; which requires radical freedom. In that context, God is also beyond temporality and so has the tape in hand so to speak. That does not rob us of our ability to love and thus to really be able to choose. So, we need to challenge objectors: are we genuinely able to love? To answer no is absurd given, say, mothers. To recognise the reality of love implies that we have to face radical freedom, genuine self-moved agency, responsibility and rationality. Thence, the crucial challenge: what sort of world enables creatures like that? KF PS: Back on focal topic, designers as observed give every appearance of agency. And, even though the design inference, strictly does not require a commitment on this point, people who instinctively or upon reflection recognise it, will be much more open to see that there are strong, empirically reliable signs of intelligently directed configuration, such as functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (which I sum up FSCO/I for short). Then, when we look at a world of life based on DNA carrying text expressing coded algorithms and data, we will be far more willing to see it for what it is and where it points. Likewise when we see a cosmos that is fine tuned in ways that support c-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life.kairosfocus_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

F/N: The endless loop of rhetorical talking points continues while side-stepping the comparative difficulties challenge. As one aspect, I see the turnabout projection, oh yes I may be in self-referential incoherence, but you need to get your side to admit much the same. Which, takes advantage of thread jumping the discussion so that it is not readily seen that after showing why evo mat scientism (and fellow travellers) invariably ends in self refutation as a chance and mechanical necessity driven computational substrate is simply not carrying out a rational, insight driven ground-consequent process but a blind causal chain, the alternative is sought starting from recognising that just to have a responsible, reason-driven, meaningful discussion we must be significantly free. So, as we obviously cannot avoid such discussion, on pain of reduction to absurdity, we must accept the massive evidence of agency. Indeed, even those who are trying to talk us out of such a view implicitly assume that we have an inner voice of conscience urging us to the truth and the right, and that if we can at least find something appearing to be that, we are moved towards it. Never mind that on evo mat and fellow traveller schemes, such is viewed as a convenient delusion to be manipulated to gain the advantage. (So, you wondered about the rise of cultural marxist identity-victim politics, astro turfed agit prop movements, turning every body they disagree with into a "fascist" and linked media shadow show narratives? No prizes for guessing why and how they came to be so dominant, post Frankfurt School, post the subsequent rise of so-called Critical Studies and post the the rise of the Alinsky Chicago School of Community Organisers. Tut, tut, how naive we have been, Plato warned about this sort of strategy 2350+ years ago in The Laws, Bk X.) By contrast, a sounder approach then proceeds to address, what sort of world must we inhabit if we are to be significantly free, self-moved responsible and rational agents? Notice, it BUILDS on recognising a self evident reality and then proceeds to use coherence at worldview level as a crucial guiding light, applying comparative difficulties and grand inference to best explanation (which brings up, that's how question-begging . . . the failed rhetorical gambit in the other thread . . . is resolved). Which of course is why this approach is far more likely to be coherent. This is where the IS-OUGHT gap becomes pivotal, as post Hume et al, it is clear that these can only be properly fused at world root level. That calls for a root-level IS that inherently is capable of grounding ought. So, let's clip that other thread that was run away from, at 219. Pardon, necessary length to be responsible rather than playing at mere rhetorical sniping:
219 kairosfocusApril 12, 2017 at 9:23 pm (Edit) FFT6B: At 178 above, we looked at a key question for comparative difficulties analysis: What sort of world do we have to live in for there to be creatures like us? This surfaces a key issue, that two truths x and y must be such that we never have y = NOT-x; that is in a coherent world all true statements — those that accurately describe facets of reality — will be mutually compatible. I note this, fully recognising that for many, this is actually quite a difficult point today; as, various ideologies have led to a conflation of truth with perception or opinion. Hence, a conversation I had today that turned on the concept, “my truth.” Language decay is an old problem, and Orwell pointed out what could be done through new-speak and double-talk. How many are two plus two, Mr Smith? My answer was and is, that we already have perfectly adequate words for opinions and perceptions; so, there is no need to corrupt the meaning of the precious or even vital word, truth. The truth — as Ari noted long ago in Metaphysics 1011b — says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. This in turn brings us to the question of being and non-being, of possible and impossible being, of contingent and necessary being. Thus, of causal roots of the world, of reality. And it points to the issue of possible worlds: comprehensive enough descriptions of how things could be or are. Impossible beings such as a square circle cannot exist in any possible world. As, core characteristics stand in mutual contradiction and cannot hold of the same thing, X, under the same circumstances. Here, squarishness and circularity. By contrast, possible beings could exist in at least one possible world. Contingent ones would not do so in all possible worlds but would exist in at least one. I think, in 100 years there will be unicorns, as biotech will be there and people will be willing to pay to have one. Just as we seem to be seeing ever more miniature sized horses already. Necessary beings must exist in any possible world, as they are frameworking requisites of a world existing. For instance, two-ness or distinct identity (equivalent) must be there for a distinct world to be. This is non-trivial, as distinct identity has three immediate corollaries: Law of Identity, Law of Excluded Middle, Law of Non-Contradiction. That is, core logic is built into any possible world; including of course the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. mathematical realities. (NB: We already see here, a key reason for the awesome power of Mathematics in our world and especially in scientific work. [So much for the sneer that this thread has little or no relevance to Science.]) Back to us, as being able to significantly freely discuss our concerns responsibly and rationally, and having an inner compass-sense that insistently points to the truth and the right — conscience. What sort of world must this be to allow such. and what must be in its frameworking structure? First, we already saw that the denial of responsible, rational, significant freedom lets grand delusion loose and instantly ends in absurdity. Self-evidently, this is a world in which responsibly rational and significantly free, morally governed creatures are possible and in fact actual. That’s already a huge result and it sweeps away all worldviews — their name is legion — that are incompatible with such creatures. This of course includes evolutionary materialistic scientism, its fellow travellers, radical subjectivism and radical relativism. (Cf. the chain of comments here on, above.) Next, we face the implication of the IS-OUGHT gap, on many levels. A world with moral government has to be such that OUGHT is well-rooted in the fabric and framework of reality. Post Hume et al and post Euthyphro et al, that can only be in the very root of reality, i.e. there must be a necessary being that so fuses IS-ness and OUGHT-ness, that they are inextricably entangled in the roots of reality. What sort of being is capable of such? The answer is utterly challenging, and I have long thought it is best posed in light of comparative difficulties and worldview level inference to the best candidate explanation. We need to look at serious candidates (as opposed to something like a flying spaghetti monster, which will not be a necessary being — made up from bits and pieces, i.e. composite.) There is just one serious candidate, after centuries of debate: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature (thus, the law of our nature). This is not an arbitrary imposition, if you doubt, simply put up a viable alternative: ________ (this is after all comparative difficulties analysis). Prediction: hard to do. This also has a further highly relevant implication. For a serious candidate necessary being will either be impossible as a square circle is, or else it will be possible thus would exist in at least one world. And, as it would be a frameworking reality, it would be present in every possible world, including our own — an actual world. (And yes, I am not saying THE actual world.) The God of ethical theism as described, is a serious candidate [e.g. NB’s have no beginning or end, are eternal]. This means that God is either impossible as a square circle is impossible, or he is actual. And decades ago, the problem of evils used to be trotted out to make that argument, but that option is effectively dead post-Plantinga and in fact post Boethius. Then, too, if one claims to be an atheist or agnostic, s/he implies knowing good reason to doubt or dismiss the God of ethical theism as impossible even as a square circle is impossible. It would be interesting to hear what such a reason is: _______ (esp. post, problem of evils as a serious view as opposed to a handy piece of intimidatory rhetoric). So, now, we are at a very important threshold, the God of ethical theism is on the table as a serious candidate necessary being, root of reality that grounds a world in which responsibly and rationally free creatures such as ourselves are possible and indeed actual. That is a momentous turning-point, and it would be interesting to see if we will hear of the viable alternatives, including reasons why such a God is an impossible being.
Yup, the argument is put on the table, and objectors are invited, twice, to put up a serious alternative. Unsurprisingly, ducked. No prizes for guessing that, that's because the discussion circle in the penumbra of attack sites and associated private forums does not have a handy refutation or link to such. That's also why the dismissal tactics above are in play. We are dealing with agit prop in support of a manipulative, decades long now ruinous civilisational march of folly, now reaching flash-point at Berkeley. If we are going to successfully step back from the cliff-edge, we are going to have to take the time to use our responsible rational freedom to understand and respond by moving towards the truth and the right. Where, time is running out. KFkairosfocus_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

Besides freewill, atheistic materialism/naturalism cannot provide an explanation or grouding for any of following: 1. An ultimate explanation for existence. Why does anything at all exist? 2. An explanation for the nature of existence. Why does the universe appear to exhibit teleology, or design and purpose? 3. A sufficient foundation for truth, knowledge and meaning. 4. A sufficient foundation for moral values and obligations. Compared to any form of theism (including non-religious philosophical forms of theism) atheistic M/N is not the best explanation for our existence. Any form of atheistic M/N leads to any infinite regress which cannot be proven to be true scientifically, metaphysically or logically. Oh sure you can claim there is a contingent explanation but that explanation will always need another contingent explanation and so on and so on... It is logically impossible for atheist to reach any kind of ultimate explanation-- that's impossible. The only option for someone who believes in atheistic M/N is to accept it by faith. That seems like a very irrational kind of faith, especially since atheists make the pretense of rejecting faith.john_a_designer_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

AJ @ 68: He doesn't speak for me. I learn from him. His subsequent post makes perfect sense. You on the other hand, are amusing. Like a monkey in a cage, who's sure he's smarter than everyone, so he throws poop to show just how much. He just can't see the cage that imprisons him, and thinks it's not there...AnimatedDust_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

WJM:
Armand’s post #52 is written from the erroneous perspective that I have made a claim that free will exists and that I am attempting to prove or provide evidence that it does.
I don't know how anyone could jump to that conclusion from this statement:
Whether or not god is all-knowing doesn’t change the logical fact that materialism cannot ground free will.
Armand Jacks_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

RVB8: Again, you're equating omniscience and an enforcing action to omniscience alone. Omniscience alone does not produce your conundrum. Moreover, we can preserve free will even with God tuning everything provided God operates with "intent preserving" operations, i.e. optimizing results or even framing circumstances in such a way that it produces desirable results without compromising the character of the subjects.LocalMinimum_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

AJ @ 36: What I meant by reduce it to a cause is to simply forget what you're handling and just consider what it does. Black box it. Make it the output of an uninvestigable function. This does not eliminate it, of course, as you're assuming its existence for the sake of argument if you're looking for anything more than a vacuous contradiction leading from an a priori denial.LocalMinimum_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Animated Dust @66: Armand's post #52 is written from the erroneous perspective that I have made a claim that free will exists and that I am attempting to prove or provide evidence that it does. At least, I think that's what he's doing, since he asks me for a scientific paper to support something he thinks is related to some claim he think's I've made. As far as materialism not being able to ground acausal free will - that's hardly worth debating it's so trivially accepted and actually self-evident. That's the whole reason materialists came up with compatibalism. I don't know of a single materialist philosopher who claims materialism can ground true free will since it requires acausal intention as a causal property affecting the physical world. I have no idea what he means when he says "materialism cannot ground free will is a circular argument". Is a materialist here going to claim that physical materials and forces cause a thing that is required to be acausal? You realize that's self-contradictory; material forces cannot cause a thing to exist that is necessarily acausal. You get that, right? This form of free will (premised by non-materialists, not asserted or proven) literally means that it is not caused, so physical forces cannot cause it or else it cannot be acausal free will. It is definitionally self-evident (like "there are no married bachelors") that libertarian or acausal free will cannot be caused to exist by material forces - or any forces, material or supernatural. If it was caused, it's not free. So, materialism cannot by definition ground an acausal cause like free will. That's not a circular argument; that's a definitional certainty, like "there are no married bachelors". Does Armand need evidence that there are no married bachelors? Now, materialism can ground an illusion (or, as Armand says, a percpetion of) of free will; it might be able to produce creatures that can pass the Turing test without actually having it; or, we might not actually have real free will, only the illusion of it as chemical forces put that sensation and idea in our head. But, materialism cannot give us actual libertarian/acausal free will because it cannot exist in a materialist world. But I'm not arguing about any of that. None of that is the issue I am addressing. There are logical consequences if libertarian free will does not exist. That is the issue I and others are trying (in vain) to draw Armand's attention to - the logical consequences of an existence without libertarian free will. If Armand asserts that we materialism can cause libertarian/acausal free will, I challenge him to explain how the material world can cause an acausal (uncaused) phenomena. Since that is an absurd proposition, then I would once again ask Armand (or any other materialist) to explain what their materialist "free will" is free from. What makes materialist will "free"? How are we going to avoid the problem of being programmed or caused by physical forces to believe untrue or even absurd things?William J Murray_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Armand Jack:
But their free will can not affect the outcome of the game. Given that their entire purpose is to win the game. They might be a tad pissed off to find out that their free will can’t impact it.
The atomic bomb works by the cascading of neutrons through enriched radioactive compounds. The release of 'one' neutron triggers the release of more than 'one' neutron in adjacent atoms, with an exponential release of neutrons and energy. Now, the release of the energy of 'one' neutron is minimal; but that of trillions of trillions of them is quite powerful. The individual 'will' of 'one' hockey player is not going to directly affect the final outcome as the final outcome is a resultant sum of every player's 'free will,' just as the destructive force of an atomic bomb isn't the result of the decay of a single atom but that of an astronomically high number of neutrons released from the entire ensemble of atoms.PaV_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

rvb8 @ 67 I'm not sure what your point is. What does the Calvinist God have to do with the original post? And doesn't materialistic atheism have a free-will problem as well? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200901/can-atheist-believe-in-free-willMacauley86_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

AD:
WJM. I really am hoping you’ll respond to AJ at 52 and not leave it at 53.
Do you really need WJM to speak for you? If so, I suggest picking a better spokesperson. He is woefully inadequate.Armand Jacks_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

'The Elect', is a Protestant belief? Is that right? That before creation, those who would live in eternity with God had all ready been chosen? These are (not were, or will be), the 'elect'. This being the case, and knowing (hoping), myself not to be amongst them, where is 'free will'? You can not have an all 'knowing' God, who is everywhere, and controls everything, without removing mortal choice, or as we know it, free will. The point is inescapable, either God controls everything, and if He does not, He is a kind of semi-God, or more accurately, not there at all. And yes, WJM, please respond to Armand, @52. The chemicals in my brain have come together to reach this decision, they also are giving me a headache, as I had one too many last night; chemicals are so predictable; God is far more difficult!rvb8_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

WJM. I really am hoping you'll respond to AJ at 52 and not leave it at 53.AnimatedDust_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

PaV:
If hockey players have ‘free will’ before the hockey game, then they have it during the hockey game.
Agreed.
If I know the outcome of the hockey–or if God knows the outcome of the hockey game–the ‘free will’ of the players is not affected in any way by this knowledge.
But their free will can not affect the outcome of the game. Given that their entire purpose is to win the game. They might be a tad pissed off to find out that their free will can't impact it.Armand Jacks_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Armand Jack:
So you believe that god has no knowledge of the future?
You either completely 'missed' the point I was making, or you simply 'side-stepped' it. The point clearly is that my prior knowledge of the result of a hockey game does not affect its outcomes. If hockey players have 'free will' before the hockey game, then they have it during the hockey game. If I know the outcome of the hockey--or if God knows the outcome of the hockey game--the 'free will' of the players is not affected in any way by this knowledge. You're taking the position that God's Will obviates human will. That's a theological and moral position that needs defending. You're not allowed to simply posit your theology like that.PaV_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Using the same argument, the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes.
Material causes that only act because of specific governing parameters, which, in turn, postulate a mind. You can't get away from the obvious conclusion.Macauley86_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

O:
How can you prove that there is any truth in what you’re saying?
I like your sense of humour. :)Armand Jacks_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Amand Jacks @60 How can you prove that there is any truth in what you're saying?Origenes_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

F:
AJ, isn’t your premise self refuting?
Quite possibly. Now maybe you can get WJM and KF to admit the same. Do you want to put money on them making this admission? Sorry. You don't deserve that. What is advantageous and not is not a "truth". Conditions change, as do advantageous decisions. Surely "truth" does not change.
How can “advantageous” or “detrimental” even exist if truth is a delusion?
"Truth" is inerrant. Or so I have been told on repeated occasions here. Advantageous and detremental are not. Avoiding excess heat may be advantageous under one circumstance, detrimental under another.
Have you not argued vehemently that you are “right,” while WJM is “wrong?”
Yes. But I admit that I do that for fun because WJM repeatedly acts as a child. I am not proud of it, but it is what it is.
Are you not, by arguing for your position, making the statement that there exists a standard of truth that matches your position.
No. I am arguing for a view that better explains reality. That doesn't mean that we are talking about "truth". A prime example is WJM's insistence of objective morality. Personally, I would love to believe that it existed. But I haven't seen any evidence of it. And neither has he. Yet he hangs on to it like a kid hangs on to a security blanket.Armand Jacks_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

PaV,
Consider this: I’m out for the day. I’ve taped the Maple Leaf hockey game. On the way home, I hear the final score. Does this mean that when I watch the game on replay, there is no free will involved at all, e.g., the losing side pulling its goalie? This makes no sense in terms of the normal persons everyday experience of things. You need to make some sensible statement of how ‘free will’ is absent here.
I would say that what’s on the tape has been determined. I would also say, at the moment they pulled the goalie, that they did so out of free will. On a related note - I would say that it is probably impossible to get a tape of them pulling the goalie before they actually did so. That is something well outside the normal persons everyday experience of things. If it turns out that it’s possible to get such a tape, I would rethink whether they pulled the goalie out of free will. I’m not sure what I’d believe about free will at that moment. Perhaps I’d become a compatibilist. I think such a discovery would have most people rethinking what they believe about free will.goodusername_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

AJ, isn't your premise self refuting? "If this brain pattern and process couldn’t discern between what is to our advantage and what is not, we would long be extinct. Notice that I didn’t say “truth” because “truth” is the pervue (and delusion) of the theist." How do you know what is advantageous and what is not, if truth is a delusion? If column "A" is "Advantageous" and column "B" is "Detrimental" how does the brain decide, "Column A is advantageous," without truth? Why not pick "Detrimental," since the truth of one being better than the other, is delusion? Are you not trying to use truth while denying that truth exists? How can "advantageous" or "detrimental" even exist if truth is a delusion? Why do you even bother to argue here that your position is the "right" one if truth is a delusion. Have you not argued vehemently that you are "right," while WJM is "wrong?" Why are you arguing for your position if there is no truth? Are you not, by arguing for your position, making the statement that there exists a standard of truth that matches your position. If truth doesn't exist, why bother arguing? How can one ever be right or wrong if there is no truth?Florabama_{April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply