In a meaningless world, does truth always have value over delusion?

_{scordova
July 6, 2013

Atheism, Philosophy, Religion

3}_{Categories
Atheism
Philosophy
Religion}

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

I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Two thousand years ago, someone echoed those sentiments:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul of Tarsus
1 Cor 15:32

There was an exchange between KeithS and I in another thread, and he fired off this comment:

Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t ask the question “What is most likely to be true?” It only asks, “How can I get the best payoff?”

That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager;Comment 100

To which I responded:

But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.

Further KeithS wrote:

Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God.

To which I responded:

Value means PAYOFF! What is the payoff if there is no God?

I recall Dawkins in a debate with Lennox was asked about how humans can live their lives in a meaningless world. Dawkins said, “we create our own meaning”. Other atheists have repeated that statement such KeithS:

Life is full of meaning even without God. We create our own meanings, whether you realize it or not.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s wager; Comment 59

to which I responded:

[the phrase] “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
…
this whole “we create our own meaning” is worse than the religious ideas you are criticizing. You “know” there is no meaning, but you’ll pretend there is anyway. Reminds me of Coyne who “knows” there is no free will but he’ll pretend there is anyway.

And that is what continues to puzzle me about the atheistic variety of Darwinists (not Christian Darwinists). They seem to find much purpose in life in proving life has no purpose!

[posted by scordova to assist News desk with content and commentary until 7/7/13]

Comments

An explicit argument against the immaterial soul. Assume that: 1. There is an immaterial soul. 2. The immaterial soul is the seat of knowledge. 3. The immaterial soul is the seat of the will. 4. The immaterial soul initiates voluntary actions. 4. The immaterial soul receives information from both hemispheres. 5. The immaterial soul sends commands to both hemispheres. If you disagree with any of these assumptions, I can modify the argument accordingly, but these seem pretty standard among people who believe in a soul. Now assume that we have a normal subject with an intact brain. The subject stares at a screen. We briefly flash the word "dog" on the right side of the screen. We then ask the subject to use his left hand to point to a matching image (with several images to choose from). The subject points to a drawing of a dog. This makes sense in terms of the soul. The information goes into the brain, then to the soul. The soul knows it has seen a dog. The soul hears the instructions to point to a matching drawing with the left hand. The soul sees the drawings, recognizes that one of them is a dog, and decides to point to it. It sends a command to the brain, which causes the left arm to move and point to the dog drawing. Now run the same experiment on a split-brain patient. The word "dog" is flashed on the right side of the screen, which means the information goes only to the left hemisphere. The left hemisphere communicates that information to the soul, which now knows that it saw the word "dog". Since the soul knows that it has seen the word "dog", the soul can easily select the drawing of the dog. It sends a command to the brain and causes the left arm to move and point to the dog drawing. Right? Wrong. That's what should happen if there is a soul, but it's not what actually happens. What actually happens is that the patient gets the wrong answer when pointing with the left hand. If you ask him to point with the right hand, however, he correctly points to the dog. This makes absolutely no sense in terms of the soul. The soul has to make the decision to point to the dog, which means that the soul must know that the word "dog" was flashed on the screen. But if the soul knows that, then it should be able to instruct either hand to point to the dog drawing. This doesn't happen. Now look at these results in terms of the "two minds in one skull" hypothesis. The word "dog" is flashed only on the right side of the screen, so only the left hemisphere sees it. The left hemisphere controls the right arm, so the subject can correctly point to the dog drawing with the right hand. However, if you ask the subject to point to the correct drawing with the left hand, he can't do it. Why? Because the left hand is controlled by the right hemisphere, and the right hemisphere didn't see the word "dog". The right hemisphere doesn't know what to point to, but the left hemisphere does. The results make perfect sense in terms of "two minds in one skull." They make no sense at all in terms of the soul. The evidence is unambiguous. The "two minds in one skull" hypothesis wins hands down. In the face of this kind of evidence (and this is just one piece -- there are many others), there is no rational reason to continue believing in the immaterial soul.keiths_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

StephenB, It's pretty clear where all of this is headed. You claim that there are self-evident truths. By that, you mean that they seem obvious to you -- no evidence or argument required. How do you get from "self-evident" to "absolutely certain"?keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
I said only that I was certain about self-evident truths. I can argue that God is both good and omnipotent. I didn’t say that is was self evident. You are the one who keeps making erroneous assumptions.
But you haven't shown why it is absolutely certain that God must be omnipotent, nor have you shown why it is absolutely certain that he must be good. Until you show us why those statements are absolutely certain, then I have to regard them as mere assumptions that you are making.
I said that God could not deceive because I am talking about a perfect God.
You haven't shown why it is absolutely certain that God is perfect, nor have you shown why it is absolutely certain that a perfect God could not deceive. You're making a lot of (bald) assertions. Can you justify them?keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

keiths
How certain are you that your logic is correct? Are you almost totally certain, somewhat certain, or barely certain? Why is it one level of certitude and not another? If not total certitude, then why any certitude at all?

Quite certain. The evidence is that it seems to work very well.
Evidence? You can't confirm or judge the law of non-contradiction with evidence!!! It is a FIRST PRINCIPLE. It is the thing by which we judge evidence.
It’s possible that it works well despite being wrong, but that seems less likely than the hypothesis that it works well because it is actually right (or close to being right).
Clearly, you do not know what is meant by a self-evident first principle, which means that you don't even know what you have been arguing against. Remakable!StephenB_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

keiths
So many assumptions, and you claim to be ‘absolutely certain’ of all of them. Good luck justifying that.
No, you keep making serious mistakes and misrepresentations. I said only that I was certain about self-evident truths. I can argue that God is both good and omnipotent. I didn't say that is was self evident. You are the one who keeps making erroneous assumptions. SB: No, actually you are making the additional assumption. I am assuming only that deception from God is never a good thing. keiths: Which is an additional assumption. How do you justify it at all, much less being absolutely certain of it? Again, you missed the point. I said that God could not deceive because I am talking about a perfect God. You assumed, improperly and prematurely, and without warrant, that I was saying that no one should ever deceive. Hence, your irrelevant question about the Gestapo. You should attend to what they say and not what you wish they had said. It's the Descartes syndrome all over again--putting your own arguments into someone else's mouth.StephenB_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Keiths
My COGNITION is imperfect,
Yep I am absolutely certain that cognitive activity is present. BTW Keiths still waiting. Vividvividbleau_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

Keiths <blockquoteMy COGNITION is imperfect, Yep I am absolutely certain that cognitive activity is present. BTW Keiths still waiting. Vividvividbleau_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Keiths
My COGNITION is imperfect,/blockquote> Yep I am absolutely certain that cognitive activity is present. BTW Keiths still waiting. Vivid
vividbleau_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

And by the way, you still haven't explained why an omnipotent God must be good. And though I haven't mentioned this before, you also haven't explained why God must be omnipotent at all. So many assumptions, and you claim to be 'absolutely certain' of all of them. Good luck justifying that.keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
No, actually you are making the additional assumption. I am assuming only that deception from God is never a good thing.
Which is an additional assumption. How do you justify it at all, much less being absolutely certain of it?
A good God would never deceive.
That is, to use your phrase, a bald assertion. Can you justify it? Can you show us that it is absolutely certain?
How certain are you that your logic is correct? Are you almost totally certain, somewhat certain, or barely certain? Why is it one level of certitude and not another? If not total certitude, then why any certitude at all?
Quite certain. The evidence is that it seems to work very well. It's possible that it works well despite being wrong, but that seems less likely than the hypothesis that it works well because it is actually right (or close to being right).keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

It is obvious to me. I’m just not absolutely certain of it, because I’m not absolutely certain that my logic is correct, nor am I absolutely certain that my starting assumption is correct.
How certain are you that your logic is correct? Are you almost totally certain, somewhat certain, or barely certain? Why is it one level of certitude and not another? If not total certitude, then why any certitude at all?StephenB_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

keiths [So, I would argue that the Creator who designed the universe must be omnipotent and, therefore, good. Since HE is good, He could not deceive us since it is not consistent with his nature.]
You’re making an additional assumption, which is that deception is never a good thing.
No, actually you are making the additional assumption. I am assuming only that deception from God is never a good thing.
If the Gestapo is at the door and Anne Frank is in the attic, isn’t deception a good thing in those circumstances?
Of course.
Are you absolutely certain that God never has good reasons to deceive us (or to allow us to be deceived by Satan or any other agent)? He allows us to be deceived by other humans, after all.
Apples and oranges. A good God would never deceive. On the other hand, a good God that grants free will to his creatures must allow them to deceive each other at times.StephenB_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Proton:
Twice I said I was a THEIST, and twice you called me an atheist. Do you have memory problems or just reply to comments without reading them?
Everything you have posted so far is very atheistic in tone. I see very little evidence of theism in your worldview.
Again with the circular reasoning? That choosing implies free will is YOUR assumption, it’s not a universal fact (outside of your head). You’re again assuming the conclusion.
Choosing implies free will is my definition, not my assumption. How do you know (with absolute certainty!) that it's not a universal fact outside of my head? Are people making choices today? Did you?
If free will is described as the ability to choose between A and B without being constrained by external factors, then that goes against the empirical evidence, and therefore makes your entire argument a matter of pure wishful thinking.
Free will is, as I've defined it before, freedom of choice. External (and probably some internal) factors would be considered. A smart person weighs the pros and cons before making a choice. But they still have a choice, and that's free will.
The question is: “Can something else other than someone’s background determine their behaviour?”. Empirical evidence says NO. You say yes. Why do you go against empirical observations?
Other than their background? Education, as I mentioned in the other thread. You completely ignored this point, as it contradicted your belief of not having free will. But education definitely affects a person's behavior.
“reasoning, syllogisms, and examples” can’t beat empirical evidence especially if such “reasoning, syllogisms, and examples” are fallacious.
You provided no empirical evidence beyond your own opinion in the other thread. You also never defined what logical fallacies I fell victim to.
Where’s the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that says free will is real?
Right here. I am choosing to respond to your post. I don't have to. I can certainly do other things. But I have a choice and I am making it. Free will in action.
LOL how is it “accurate”?
Because people have freedom of choice. Their backgrounds play a role in their development, but one's background isn't one's destiny.
Besides, by saying “BUT THEY DON’T ALWAYS DO” you’re admitting (increasingly in your comments) that free will is almost always impared (that’s the other end of the “don’t always”), which indicates that you’re giving up space for free will and realizing that free will is often impaired.
Judgment might be impaired, decision-making ability might be impaired, which would affect the decisions we make. However, the fact that we can make a decision and choose one way or the other is free will in action.
However, WHERE’S the empirical evidence that supports your idea that our behaviour is NOT ALWAYS constrained by our circumstances anyway?
Because we all bear personal responsibility for our actions. I gave examples of people who rose above their circumstances to have happy, fulfilling lives ("The Pursuit of Happyness" character was one). His behavior was not constrained by his circumstances. Freedom and responsibility, in fact, are correlatives, the one involves and implies the other. Freedom brings with it the responsibility to choose, and by making a choice one assumes further responsibilities.
As far as evidence goes, our behaviour is ALWAYS constrained by external circumnstances.
No, it's not, and I just gave you an example that proves otherwise.
The only reason someone can have the evidence in their hands and still say “well but there’s still some room for free will in there” is because they want to, because they have this preconceived idea that free will HAS to be there somewhere. The evidence does not suggest free will in any way.
The evidence does suggest this, but you simply refuse to acknowledge that it does. That is evidence only of your own prejudice and close-mindedness.
If we see black crows everywhere, there’s no reason to think a white crow is hiding in there somewhere. But the Bible says white crows exist and so you try to put them into the equation somehow.
Science does this occasionally. It's an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't see white crows doesn't mean they don't exist. Maybe they live on a small island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. For a long time, science was unaware of the existence of subatomic particles, but they always existed.
If I see Design in the world, then I believe in Design. If I see black crows, then I believe in black crows. If the existence of white crows contradicts observation, then believing in them is irrational. And you’re doing just that.
You are not making any sense here. How does the existence of white crows contradict observation? Wouldn't it suggest that you are seeing a new species, or a variation of a species that currently exists? How is that irrational?
The world does not have to conform to your ideas of what choices or thinking should be.
You may wish to repeat this to yourself a few dozen times.
Also, *free* is a subjective word. I feel completely free to think and do what I want. And I enjoy such feeling of freedom. Maybe the sensation of being *free* is something inherent to every human being and something the Designer wired into our brains for us to enjoy. That’s completely independent of whether we’re really free or not (according to the standard of Christians).
We have a measure of freedom as humans. We can't really do whatever we want whenever we want because we have jobs and other obligations. But we're also not automatons, programmed only to do certain things. We do have freedom of choice.
If you feel free to make choices, does that inherently means that because you FEEL free then you ARE free? Of course not. Feeling free does NOT guarantee we’re free (to a particular standard of freedom). Our feelings do not have to correspond to reality.
No, our feelings don't have to correspond to reality. But I do feel free to make choices, and I do make choices. That is free will. I am a free moral agent.
In my view, if I *feel* free, and enjoy such freedom to do and think what I want, then whether such freedom is real or not is not important.
It only becomes important, I think, when you're faced with difficult choices to make. Because your decisions will affect not only you but others as well (friends, family, etc).
You don’t know the Designer’s plans, maybe in it’s plan the high standards of freedom that Christians have is simply not necessary. After all, we humans enjoy being alive on the basis of feeling the world around us. If we feel free, and enjoy such freedom, is it really important if such freedom is illusory? Of course such answer depends on the standards of freedom one has. Maybe Christians just have an irreal standard of freedom imposed by their religion, that does not match reality or the Designer’s plans.
That's one way of looking at it. But I don't believe it's illusory. I believe that God created us as free moral agents. Here's the difference: the bodies in the starry heavens move in assigned orbits at certain rates of speed according to God’s immutable laws. Humans also differ from animals who are subject to instincts and the vicissitudes of their environment. Neither the inanimate creation (the stars and planets) nor the animals are therefore morally accountable; only humans are.
Maybe you don’t like that reality or refuse to aknowledge the possibility of such reality, but that doesn’t make me wrong. The world does not have to conform to your religious standard of freedom.
And the world does not have to conform to your religious standard of freedom. In another thread, you excused the behavior of serial killers because of their backgrounds. It sounds to me like you want free will to be illusory because that would eliminate the need for accountability for one's behavior. And that is a cop out.Barb_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

My COGNITION is imperfect
:) Vividvividbleau_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Clearly, it is metaphysically possible that an evil agent could mislead us in that fashion.
Okay, good.
From there, however, we have moved on to my main objection, namely that the evil agent cannot mislead a non-existent person.
I don't think so either. However, to reach that conclusion, I rely on logic and on the assumption that nonexistent people cannot be misled. Since I cannot be absolutely certain that my logic and my assumption are correct, I cannot be absolutely certain of my conclusion.
For the general argument, I would say, very briefly, that omnipotence is inseparable from goodness and truth. I can explain why if you need to know.
Yes, please explain, because I see no reason why they must be connected.
So, I would argue that the Creator who designed the universe must be omnipotent and, therefore, good. Since HE is good, He could not deceive us since it is not consistent with his nature.
You're making an additional assumption, which is that deception is never a good thing. If the Gestapo is at the door and Anne Frank is in the attic, isn't deception a good thing in those circumstances? Are you absolutely certain that God never has good reasons to deceive us (or to allow us to be deceived by Satan or any other agent)? He allows us to be deceived by other humans, after all.
On the specific problem of deceiving a non-existent person, no argument is necessary. It is obviously a metaphysical impossibility. It if is not obvious to you, then you need to step back and think it through.
It is obvious to me. I'm just not absolutely certain of it, because I'm not absolutely certain that my logic is correct, nor am I absolutely certain that my starting assumption is correct. How could I be? My cognition is imperfect, and God or some other entity might be deceiving me.keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

keiths:
For the nth time, here it is.
OK, I think your points will suffice as an explanation about how we might be deceived as existent human beings. Clearly, it is metaphysically possible that an evil agent could mislead us in that fashion. So I probably should not have said that you have no rationale at all. True, I don't accept it as valid, but you have put something out there. From there, however, we have moved on to my main objection, namely that the evil agent cannot mislead a non-existent person. This is simply a metaphysical impossibility.
Do you have a counterargument, or do you concede that my argument is correct?
For the general argument, I would say, very briefly, that omnipotence is inseparable from goodness and truth. I can explain why if you need to know. So, I would argue that the Creator who designed the universe must be omnipotent and, therefore, good. Since HE is good, He could not deceive us since it is not consistent with his nature. That is a very, very brief account, but I think I can fill in the missing pieces later and show why it works. On the specific problem of deceiving a non-existent person, no argument is necessary. It is obviously a metaphysical impossibility. It if is not obvious to you, then you need to step back and think it through.StephenB_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

SB: Descartes argument is very simple: [a] It is obvious that I think, [b] therefore, I can safely conclude that I exist. keiths
The conclusion doesn’t follow without a) a correct system of logic, and b) the implicit assumption that thoughts require a thinker.
We are talking about Descartes' argument and what it is. Your assessment of it (or my assessment of it) is a different matter.
I think that Descartes’ logic was correct and that his implicit assumption is true. I just don’t think they’re absolutely certain.
I am sure that you think that. We are discussing what Descartes thought. He thought that his existence was certain, which was, if you recall, what I claimed.
You say that they are absolutely certain, but you haven’t given us any reason(s) to accept your claim.
That is a separate matter that I will be happy to elaborate on.
Can you?
Yes. In the next session, I will go into the idea of apprehending being in more detail.StephenB_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Descartes argument is very simple: [a] It is obvious that I think, [b] therefore, I can safely conclude that I exist.
The conclusion doesn't follow without a) a correct system of logic, and b) the implicit assumption that thoughts require a thinker. I think that Descartes' logic was correct and that his implicit assumption is true. I just don't think they're absolutely certain. You say that they are absolutely certain, but you haven't given us any reason(s) to accept your claim. Can you?keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

LOL Keiths doesn't even understand "Cogito ergo sum" and he is lecturing StephenB. Hilarious! BTW Keiths still waiting. Vividvividbleau_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
What is your rationale for asserting that absolutely certainly in knowledge is not attainable.
For the nth time, here it is. Do you have a counterargument, or do you concede that my argument is correct?keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

keiths:
Descartes was making implicit assumptions that he did not acknowledge.
LOL: Oh, so now you know Descartes own mind better than he did. That would be consistent with your conviction that you know more about my conscious awareness that I do.
“I think, therefore I am” is really the following argument: 1) If my logic is correct, and 2) if it is true that thoughts always have thinkers, and 3) if this is a thought, then 4) a thinker exists. Absolute certainty is not justified for #1 and #2, so absolute certainty is not justified for #4. If you disagree, then show us how #1 and #2 can be known with absolute certainty, meaning a 0.0% possibility of error.
That isn't his argument at all. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel in order to avoid refutation. Also, you are intruding your own unfounded assertions onto Descartes argument at the end as if he had asserted them. Descartes argument is very simple: [a] It is obvious that I think, [b] therefore, I can safely conclude that I exist. Anyone who has studied Western philosophy understands that this was Descartes' point. No one has ever accused him of such a muddled formulation as what you just put forth. Descartes had enough faults without having to carry yours from his grave.
If you disagree, then show us how #1 and #2 can be known with absolute certainty, meaning a 0.0% possibility of error.
You are getting so confused that you cannot even distinguish what Descartes thought from what you think. I am, at the moment, refuting your misrepresentation of Descartes argument. Try to stay on topic.StephenB_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

keiths
This is going to get very boring if you keep pretending that I haven’t answered your question. Please don’t bore me, Stephen.
You have not answered the question at all. It will get boring if you try to bluff me. Please to not try to bluff me. What is your rationale for asserting that absolutely certainly in knowledge is not attainable. You have no rationale. Just admit it and we can move on.StephenB_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

keiths
Followed immediately by this bald assertion:
LOL keiths. It is not a bald assertion for me to tell you that I am certain about my own conscious awareness. It is a bald assertion on your part to tell me that I can't be certain about it.StephenB_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Axel,
Sorry for being so abrasive, Keiths, rancorous even. You don’t seem very truculent tonicht.
Don't worry about it, Axel. A little bit of emotion can spice up the debate. As long as it doesn't derail the discussion, it can be a good thing, and entertaining for the onlookers. :)keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Hi Axel, Welcome to the discussion, and thank you for directly addressing my numbered argument. keiths:
3. If he has the power to deceive us, then he might be exercising that power at any particular time.
Axel:
Technically, presumably. In reality, the context of the Christian faith precludes it.
Don't forget, 'he' in step 3 can refer to God, Satan, a demon, or any other entity capable of deceiving us. Also consider that since you can't be absolutely certain that Christianity is true, you can't be absolutely certain about the nature of God. Perhaps he is willing to deceive you for some reason(s). keiths:
4. Being human, we cannot reliably determine when he is deceiving us and when he isn’t.
Axel:
Wrong. See 3.
See my response to #3 above. keiths:
5. Any particular thought we have might coincide with a time when God/Satan/the demon is deceiving us.
Axel:
Possible, in the case of satan, depending though on the nature of the thought. Thoughts may be beautiful and impossible to use for bad ends in any context; in which case, they would be too painful for him to have anything to do with.
That is an assumption about Satan that you cannot be absolutely certain of. It may be that Satan can use beautiful thoughts for deceitful purposes. You can't rule it out completely. The rest of your comment depends on the erroneous claims above, so the rebuttal fails.keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Sorry for being so abrasive, Keiths, rancorous even. You don't seem very truculent tonicht.Axel_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

'1. It’s possible that God exists. (or Satan, or demons, etc.) Yes. 2. If God (or Satan, etc.) exists, then it is possible that he has the power to deceive us. Yes. 3. If he has the power to deceive us, then he might be exercising that power at any particular time. Technically, presumably. In reality, the context of the Christian faith precludes it. (Don't argue. I won't be arguing with you in small circles) 4. Being human, we cannot reliably determine when he is deceiving us and when he isn’t. Wrong. See 3. 5. Any particular thought we have might coincide with a time when God/Satan/the demon is deceiving us. Possible, in the case of satan, depending though on the nature of the thought. Thoughts may be beautiful and impossible to use for bad ends in any context; in which case, they would be too painful for him to have anything to do with. 6. Thus, any particular thought might be mistaken. Non sequitur. See above. 7. If we claim to be absolutely certain of something that isn’t true, we have erred. ditto. 8. Therefore we should never claim absolute certainty for a thought that might be mistaken. ditto. Although it would be applicable enough to atheists, for sure. 9. Since any particular thought might be mistaken (by #6), we should never claim absolute certainty for any thought. Note that this argument can also be made simply by appealing to the imperfection of human cognition, but it’s more fun this way. Now, a gratuitous multiplication of non sequiturs. You're gilding the lily. Also note that the argument applies to atheists and theists equally. Atheists don’t think there is a God, of course, but it is still possible that there is a God, and possibility is all that is necessary for the argument to work.Axel_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

@Barb Barb Barb...
LOL, atheists. You believe—you honestly believe—that atheists have no internal bias, no prejudice?
Twice I said I was a THEIST, and twice you called me an atheist. Do you have memory problems or just reply to comments without reading them?
I believe that humans have free will on the basis of their ability to weigh the pros and cons of situations and make choices. That is free will in a nutshell. Freedom of choice. As I explained before.
Again with the circular reasoning? That choosing implies free will is YOUR assumption, it's not a universal fact (outside of your head). You're again assuming the conclusion. If free will is described as the ability to choose between A and B without being constrained by external factors, then that goes against the empirical evidence, and therefore makes your entire argument a matter of pure wishful thinking. The question is: "Can something else other than someone's background determine their behaviour?". Empirical evidence says NO. You say yes. Why do you go against empirical observations?
Behavior is not always constrained by external circumstances. I provided proof for this claim in the form of reasoning, syllogisms, and examples, all of which you ignored.
"reasoning, syllogisms, and examples" can't beat empirical evidence especially if such "reasoning, syllogisms, and examples" are fallacious. Where's the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that says free will is real? I gave a couple of real life examples here that indicate clearly that free will is NOT real (comments #39 and #40, and I'll add more later). This is not a matter of definition, this is a matter of common sense.
External circumstances can influence one’s behavior, BUT THEY DON’T ALWAYS DO. The fact that you repeatedly ignore a simple, accurate fact...
LOL how is it "accurate"? Besides, by saying "BUT THEY DON’T ALWAYS DO" you're admitting (increasingly in your comments) that free will is almost always impared (that's the other end of the "don't always"), which indicates that you're giving up space for free will and realizing that free will is often impaired. However, WHERE'S the empirical evidence that supports your idea that our behaviour is NOT ALWAYS constrained by our circumstances anyway? As far as evidence goes, our behaviour is ALWAYS constrained by external circumnstances. The only reason someone can have the evidence in their hands and still say "well but there's still some room for free will in there" is because they want to, because they have this preconceived idea that free will HAS to be there somewhere. The evidence does not suggest free will in any way. If we see black crows everywhere, there's no reason to think a white crow is hiding in there somewhere. But the Bible says white crows exist and so you try to put them into the equation somehow. If I see Design in the world, then I believe in Design. If I see black crows, then I believe in black crows. If the existence of white crows contradicts observation, then believing in them is irrational. And you're doing just that.
Are you going to argue that nobody is free to think for themselves? Because you would be completely wrong if you did.
The world does not have to conform to your ideas of what choices or thinking should be. Also, *free* is a subjective word. I feel completely free to think and do what I want. And I enjoy such feeling of freedom. Maybe the sensation of being *free* is something inherent to every human being and something the Designer wired into our brains for us to enjoy. That's completely independent of whether we're really free or not (according to the standard of Christians). If you feel free to make choices, does that inherently means that because you FEEL free then you ARE free? Of course not. Feeling free does NOT guarantee we're free (to a particular standard of freedom). Our feelings do not have to correspond to reality. In my view, if I *feel* free, and enjoy such freedom to do and think what I want, then whether such freedom is real or not is not important. You don't know the Designer's plans, maybe in it's plan the high standards of freedom that Christians have is simply not necessary. After all, we humans enjoy being alive on the basis of feeling the world around us. If we feel free, and enjoy such freedom, is it really important if such freedom is illusory? Of course such answer depends on the standards of freedom one has. Maybe Christians just have an irreal standard of freedom imposed by their religion, that does not match reality or the Designer's plans. Maybe you don't like that reality or refuse to aknowledge the possibility of such reality, but that doesn't make me wrong. The world does not have to conform to your religious standard of freedom.Proton_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Descartes was making implicit assumptions that he did not acknowledge. "I think, therefore I am" is really the following argument: 1) If my logic is correct, and 2) if it is true that thoughts always have thinkers, and 3) if this is a thought, then 4) a thinker exists. Absolute certainty is not justified for #1 and #2, so absolute certainty is not justified for #4. If you disagree, then show us how #1 and #2 can be known with absolute certainty, meaning a 0.0% possibility of error.keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

On the other hand, thank you for this bit of irony. You wrote:
Its just another bald assertion.
Followed immediately by this bald assertion:
I am infallibly certain of my own consciousness and self awareness. It is ridiculous for you to argue otherwise.
keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply