I don't see how determinism has anything to do with whether or not my thoughts are true. I don't quite get what it means to have "true" thoughts. Why do you assume thoughts hold some kind of "truth" to them?
When you say, "determinism is true", you are expressing a thought that you assume corresponds with the outside world of reality. When I say, "I am 25 years old", I am also doing this. Thoughts must have truth value in order for us to have a meaningful discussion about anything.
@Kanbei85 Well now you are presupposing there is an "outside" world hence why determinism won't work with your metaphysical theory. If determinism is true, surely there is no outside and therefore there is no need to say thoughts must contain some "truth value". First you have to prove there is an outside world and I'm supposing you'll do this philosophically.
@Kanbei85 On another note, I'm not sure how free will allows me to choose between saying "I'm 25 years old" and not since according to your theory, if I understand it right, we are determined to say only one thing--that which was determined to be said. Hence we MAY be determined to say what is false, right? You seem to be claiming that I'm choosing true thoughts from false thoughts. o.0 How exactly am I doing that?
I'm just reminded of the idea that Hume proposed. In the "Treatise" he wrote that determinism, the fact that the same effect will follow the same cause, is NECESSARY for human freedom. Because to make a choice possible between water and burger, we need to be sure that water (cause) will satisfy thirst (effect) and that burger (cause) will satisfy hunger (effect).
That's confusing a limited scope of determinism in the physical world with absolute determinism, which includes the mind itself. Most nearly everyone accepts that the physical world behaves in a deterministic way.
I don't think it's confusing it. I think Hume gave a more accurate account of what is meant by cause and effect and therefore causal determinism. I don't believe in absolute determinism. As I said, I can't prove the present and future is deterministic. I'd have to extrapolate the evidence (or as you see it lack thereof) of determinism into the present and future. But because science is based on inference, it never deals with absolutes. Therefore it never commits to absolute determinism.
"If determinism is true, then we could never know that determinism is true because we can never trust our own thoughts." I'm not sure why "thought trusting" is necessary for determinism to be true? Elaborate please.
@Kanbei85 "Thought trusting is necessary for us to have reason to believe our own thoughts are objectively true" I'm not sure where you get this concept unless you've invented it yourself. Generally people don't need a reason to believe their own thoughts--they just do. So I don't really see where this is going.
@Kanbei85 What did I say that begs the question? Honestly, you're the one begging the question claiming that we need to trust our thought. What person on the street have you encountered that talks about trusting his thoughts? I'd think he was a weirdo.
"Generally people don't need a reason to believe their own thoughts--they just do."
This is begging the question. It means you don't bother to justify your own assertions, you just assume they're correct. If determinism is true, we have no way of knowing whether our thoughts accurately represent reality or not, and we have no power over them anyway so it's moot. It renders all serious scientific and philosophical inquiry completely ridiculous.
@Kanbei85 "It means you don't bother to justify your own assertions, you just assume they're correct." I'm giving you the self-evident answer and the reason for it is because YOU are asserting a silly thing. Here let me show you: "If determinism is true, we have no way of knowing whether our thoughts accurately represent reality or not" And what reason do you have to suppose we ought to know whether our thoughts represent reality?
We must know whether our thoughts represent reality if we're going to have any meaningful discussions about truth. Since we're both having such a discussion right now, we're both implicitly assuming our thoughts are accurate. Unfortunately, that's a very baseless assumption on determinism/materialism.
It's baseless because it's unfalsifiable and we have no way of testing it, because we have no outside, objective way of testing our thoughts for validity. On materialism, all our thoughts are a necessary consequence of chemical reactions, thus there's no point in discussing whether they're "true" because they can't be changed anyway, nor can anything else. Knowing truth requires objective, outside observers, and if we are just another part of the physical world, we can never be.
@Kanbei85 Thought I have many questions, I'll start here: "Knowing truth requires objective, outside observers" How do we know then that our thoughts are true under free will? How are we exactly "outside observers" under free will?
@stealspell "Knowing truth requires objective, outside observers" I guess I'll go ahead and ask this as well: Why does knowing truth require outside observers? And what do you mean when you say "outside observer"?
Knowing truth requires an outside observer because otherwise we can't trust the objectivity and reality of our thoughts. Our thoughts, on materialism, are just the eventual byproduct of chemical reactions that were selected for their ability to reproduce well. There's no direct connection between reproducing well and being a philosopher and knower of truth. One can be quite ignorant of reality, yet, through useful misconceptions, one might reproduce quite successfully.
And besides that, as I've pointed out before, one implies free will when one talks of these matters in the first place, because we are assuming that we can freely consider our options and make a choice about what to believe. On determinism, such a process is purely fantastical. In reality, all beliefs are absolutely determined by physical realities that could not have been different. This means that all discourse and "mind-changing" is purely illusory.
We are outside observers because we, human souls, are not a member of the physical world, yet we observe and interact with it. We come to understand and manipulate it.
@Kanbei85 We'll go backwards. I'll come back to the other stuff later because I want to clear up something first. "We are outside observers because we, human souls, are not a member of the physical world" Are you suggesting dualism here? That bodies exist and that minds exist? If so, how does the mind interact with the body?
Yes, of course I'm a dualist. I do not have to be able to give an explanation of _how_ the soul and the body interact, in order for that to be in fact the case. The evidence strongly shows that there are separate entities, mind and body, one physical, one spiritual, and that they interact with one another.
@Kanbei85 "The evidence strongly shows that there are separate entities" What evidence? I think you have two different standards of evidence for the body and the mind. That wouldn't exactly make them separate entities if they are under standards of evidence. For example: Prove the mind exists scientifically or prove the body exists philosophically.
@Kanbei85 You don't have any arguments specifically? It's a well known fact that we can't see the mind. We can't point to it when we open up the brain. It has no spatial existence. So where is the scientific evidence it exists? This is a central problem in philosophy that's been around for thousands of years and the sum of it is this: you can't prove the body philosophically and you can't prove the mind scientifically. If you are truly a dualist you are using two different standards of evidence.
Yes, I do have an argument, and I've been elaborating it to you all along. It's not an empirical argument, which is what you seem to be searching for. It's a philosophical one. I don't prove my mind's existence with science, but nonetheless I know it is not just another part of the physical universe, for all the reasons I've already given you. But I do urge you nonetheless to read that book.
@Kanbei85 No, I'm not searching for an empirical argument. All I'm saying, which isn't clear to you as I can tell, is that you can't say that the mind and the brain(body) are two separate entities under the SAME context or standard for which you are to prove them. If you give me a philosophical argument for the mind's existence then you have to give me a philosophical argument for the brain's(body's) existence because that would place them under the SAME context or standard of evidence.
Part 2: If you are persuaded by some mixture of reason and emotion, then it's hard to say. If you are persuaded by emotion, largely not solely, then I'd say you couldn't change your mind if the argument was plain and simple. You strike as the type of person who's persuaded by emotion and maybe reason. Most religious people aren't easily persuaded by reason, though some are. Hence why they cannot dismiss their belief in God when the evidence is against them. It's based on faith not reason.
Evidence does not support determinism. All the evidence of human experience goes directly against it, and that's the whole point of my video here. In this particular case, emotions ARE evidence. Not all truths can be learned by looking at numbers and figures. Humans simply know certain fundamental things about life, and our having free will is one of them. I don't call this faith, I call it self-evident truth. I've also shown how science cannot function in a deterministic world.
@Kanbei85 "Evidence does not support determinism." This is an unfounded assertion. To say this raises many questions. Why on earth are people subscribing to something like determinism if there's no evidence for it? I'd advice you to spend some time studying up on this material because you don't seem very knowledgeable in it--both philosophical and scientific. You seem neither well versed in the subjects nor well mannered. I invite you to an intellectual discussion when you're less vain.
"Why on earth are people subscribing to something like determinism if there's no evidence for it?"
Because it's a result of their intellectual pre-commitment to Darwinistic, anti-supernaturalistic thinking, which is part of their spiritual rebellion against God.
@Kanbei85 "Because it's a result of their intellectual pre-commitment to Darwinistic, anti-supernaturalistic thinking, which is part of their spiritual rebellion against God." David Hume would be considered a determinist. John Locke can be considered one too. Both before Darwin. I don't sense much honesty in your pursuit for wisdom. Rather, you're trying to defend the truth that's been spoon-fed to you. You haven't tried to arrive at it by admitting ignorance first on these matters.
I'm not talking about people from hundreds of years ago, I'm talking about people today. The world of today is very different from the world of Hume and Locke, though they paved the way for it. I'm a long-time personal researcher of these issues; certainly not someone who has just gotten "spoon-fed". You're just resorting to name-calling at this point.
@Kanbei85 "I'm not talking about people from hundreds of years ago" Okay, but that wouldn't make your point valid. I still think your assertion doesn't hold much weight and I don't intend to take it seriously until you persuade me otherwise.
I don't think you've read much philosophy. I think you're just defending your beliefs (Christianity) because you were indoctrinated with them. I doubt you reasoned your way into them.
I'd be curious to know what books/journals/articles you've researched.
Going back to my so-called "adage"--determinism for the mind, free will for the heart--I have to say that our beliefs will always be in accordance with our emotions. An emotionless robot that gathered truth would be able to believe in determinism while we humans cannot because it's grim and, as you say, "utterly dark". This means that we don't see the "Truth". We see the "Truth" as we'd like to see it.
If we see the truth as we like to see it, then what about determinism is it that you like? Because you've already admitted it's a detestable concept, yet you claim it's the truth. If we see what we want to see, then there's something else going on here. Perhaps you aren't comfortable with the idea that there's more to life than what the Discovery channel would have you believe, and that you may not be the final word on what's right and wrong in your own life? Just a guess.
@Kanbei85 "If we see the truth as we like to see it, then what about determinism is it that you like?" I wouldn't say I liked anything about it. I'd just say that what's been observed is deterministic. Can I say the present and future is? Absolutely not. I might have reasons to believe it considering the evidence is unbiased. But when I say it's true, I say so because I try to represent only the evidence not my belief. I'm lost on the Discovery channel part of your comment. I'm quite content.
You have contradicted yourself. Either we see what we want to see, or we have the power to make free choices about our beliefs. The Discovery channel is constantly showing material that promotes a materialistic and anti-supernaturalistic bias. If what you're saying is true, then neither you nor I have the power to control our own beliefs; we are puppets of electrochemical reactions in our brains. Your trying to convince me is totally non-consistent. You don't get it.
@Kanbei85 "Either we see what we want to see..." I can see you've misunderstood. There's no contradiction is saying that scientific observations show determinism, because they are unbiased and do not appeal to emotion. I said I could very well hold the belief that the present and future is/will be determined based on the evidence, but I cannot because it's not part of the human condition to believe in determinism. I think I already explained this, but take your time.
Part 1: "If what you're saying is true, then neither you nor I have the power to control our own beliefs; we are puppets of electrochemical reactions in our brains." No, you're not following. We certainly DO have the power to control our beliefs. Some of us are persuaded by reason; some of us by emotion; some of us by a mixture of the two. Whatever it may be, who we are biologically determines our beliefs. If you are easily persuaded by reason and do not appeal to emotion, then you'll agree.
I find it ridiculous now that you are claiming only people who appeal to emotion disagree with determinism. In fact, I've given a great deal of reasoning which shows that determinism is self defeating. If determinism is true, then we could never know that determinism is true because we can never trust our own thoughts. Our thoughts are merely "biologically determined", and therefore they may be true or false, and it's completely irrelevant.
The foundation of modern science comes from the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, which holds 1: that there is a grand Designer and Sustainer, and therefore order and predictability can be expected in the universe, and 2: that we humans are designed in His own image with the free and objective ability to rationally deduce truths about this world and manipulate it to our advantage. Materialistic determinism undercuts the very foundation of science and makes it a farce. We must be free.
@Kanbei85 "In fact, I've given a great deal of reasoning which shows that determinism is self defeating..." I think that's the first time you've presented that as an argument but I could be wrong. I'm not following your argument.
Maybe I should clarify another thing. If the mind is free from the physical laws of the universe, then the mind has to exist outside the universe. How you plan on explaining that I have no idea, but bare in mind that I think you want us to accept free will only because determinism appears so "utterly dark"--which is an appeal to emotion not logic. Goes back to my: determinism for the mind; free will for the heart.
No. The validity of the mind itself is utterly compromised by determinism, because it means that we have no power to choose rationality over irrationality, and no objective way of knowing the difference. Every thought in our minds is determined by electrochemical reactions that were inevitable at the outset of the universe.
@Kanbei85 I beg to differ. "we have no power to choose rationality over irrationality" A crime of passion is unpremeditated, meaning it's done out of irrationality. We actually do not have the power to choose to be rational or irrational. Hume wrote in the "Treatise", when we are in a calm emotional state we are able to reason better than when we are not. And I believe you avoided one central problem of free will: to avoid being subject to physical laws, the mind must exist outside the universe.
In a way, you are correct about the mind existing "outside" the universe, because the mind is not physical, and the physical universe is. There is only a "central problem" of free will, as you put it, if you refuse to consider worldviews other than materialism. Since free will is a necessary requirement of human life, materialism is unlivable and untenable. It's a non-starter.
@Kanbei85 "Since free will is a necessary requirement of human life" I agree but that wouldn't make materialism any less true. Humans have the emotional desire to live in a world with free will; but the scientific and emotionless truth would be that, gathering the evidence, human beings under the microscope are largely deterministic. Science says the brain creates the mind. Immaterialists say the body is a puppet and the mind animates it from outside the physical. Very hard to prove that theory.
Science does not by any means say that the brain creates the mind. In fact the opposite is true. Read the book "Beyond Death" by Moreland and Habermas. You should do more research on this. Science shows there's a relationship between brain and mind, but that the two are separate.
@Kanbei85 "Science does not by any means say that the brain creates the mind. In fact the opposite is true." No, I'm sorry but that's false. Any scientist that makes that claim would immediately be labeled a philosopher. I agree that the mind isn't well understood, but the claim that they are separate lacks evidence. Most contemporary scientists place trust in the evidence that the brain alters the state of the mind, ergo the brain is not the puppet of the mind. In fact the opposite is true.
You seem to be trying to convince us that we should abandon determinism because it makes life meaningless and embraces "utter darkness". Couldn't it very well be that your desire to have meaning in life is something inherent in your human nature? It seems then that determinism doesn't want you to believe that "it" exists. It wants you to believe that you have free will so your life will have meaning. The mind says determinism. The heart says free will.
My mind does not say determinism. Of course, if determinism is correct, that doesn't matter at all, nor is there anything I can do about it. This whole worldview reduces all life and rational thought to absurdity. If life is meaningless it's also pointless. Any self-respecting scientist should outright reject the idea.
@Kanbei85 "if determinism is correct, that doesn't matter at all, nor is there anything I can do about it." Exactly! Think about this. All scientific phenomena exists in *past* observations; meaning our conclusion to there existing determinism exists in the past. And people have had meaning in the past even if they weren't consciously aware of the fact that their meaning is determined. You seem to want to extrapolate the knowledge of determinism into the present and future; what life WILL BE.
@Kanbei85 You say this worldview reduces life to absurdity but isn't it really the other way around. If your will is free, why are you complying with the rules of society? Why are you seeking a meaningful life? Doesn't it maybe make more sense that you've been determined to want to be happy and moral? Otherwise we'd have all kinds of random "free will" thinkers and it'd be chaos. Descartes once wrote that the mind is free but it's "guided" by reason. That kind of skews the meaning of free.
You seem to have no understanding of freedom of the will. Freedom doesn't mean there are no goals or guidelines whatsoever. Freedom is not equivalent to anarchy. Rather, freedom means that our choices aren't determined necessarily by the events that preceded them. It's not pure physical cause and effect. The only thing that can give rise to that kind of freedom is a supernatural soul, and without it, we lose our personhood and life, again, becomes totally irrelevant and absurd.
@Kanbei85 "You seem to have no understanding of freedom of the will." If you say so. "Freedom is not equivalent to anarchy. Rather, freedom means that our choices aren't determined necessarily by the events that preceded them." Well now you're talking about freedom of choice not freedom of will. Of course we have the freedom to choose to morally wrong things, but our conscience prevents us from doing that. And our conscience is part of our human nature or our biological determinism.
"In the academic world, [materialism] is a pretty common belief" If you mean in philosophy then that's false. Materialism is more or less a philosophical position not a scientific one. Science is swayed by evidence not by reason.
"the belief that only matter exists" To be frank, not one physicist could hold that view earnestly. You go on to describe "forces" just some seconds after this proclamation, which I thought was slightly humorous.
Science is not governed by reason? If that's the case, then how exactly do scientists _deal with_ and _interpret_ the evidence they collect? Have you given even a moment's earnest thought to this? What babble.
@Kanbei85 "Science is not governed by reason?" No, that's not what I wrote. Science is swayed by evidence, meaning the "claims" science makes come from the collection of evidence and not by reason. Philosophers make claims using thinking; scientists do not. That's the difference. Of course scientists have to do some "thinking" and reasoning; but the fundamentals of their theories do not come from thinking but from empirical data. Their claims only represent the evidence. That's what I meant.
Great video, but there are many things I disagree. With regards to science I think that naturalism is an appropiate approach. But when we start talking about human affairs things begin to fall apart partly because humans are complex creatures and because the modes of inquiry are ethically restricted (thankfully). I don't belive it negates freewill (whatever that means) it just states that we don't know whether it's real part of the world or a concept in the head (like numbers or infinity).
I generally agree with your base description of materialism, despite the depression quotes, and do follow it as an ideology.
When I do good, I do so not out of fear of hell, not out of hope for reward, but because it makes be feel good. Perhaps I was pre-determined to do good, but regardless, I feel good when I do good. That is my religion.
So you are unable to account for your own freedom to make choices about your beliefs or actions, and you are also unable to account for any concept of "good" and "evil" beyond simply to say "it's what makes me feel good". I wonder if you would apply the same definition to people who practice pedophilia, rape, murder, or anything else obviously evil. Since it made them "feel good", then it would obviously have been "good" for them. In other words, they become meaningless words.
@Kanbei85 Correct. I do believe that free will is, at least partially, an illusion, and I do not believe in concepts such as "good" and "evil" (not to be confused with doing good/bad deeds, however.)
Personally, I find pedophilia, rape, murder ,etc to be abhorrent, and I oppose them absolutely. I just do not believe the people who commit such acts are "evil". I do believe they dangerous and harmful for society and I believe they are a product of their environment, upbringing and genetics.
How can something be "partially" an illusion? And if free will is an illusion, then why are we having this conversation as if it mattered what we believed, and as if we could freely change those beliefs for "logical" reasons?
I don't see how you can come up with any rational, non-arbitrary definition of "harmful" as you have used it, either, from within your worldview. You're just arbitrarily presupposing values with no ability to justify or explain them.
@Kanbei85 I did say at least partially, meaning I am unsure just how much free will we really have. As to why we are having this conversation? Isn't it obvious, we are predestined to discuss it :D
I do not like it when harm is caused to sentient creatures, perhaps that is arbitrary, but regardless, I do not like it and will work to avoid it.
I don't feel like there's much else for me to say here, since you've conceded we're predestined. :) If we're predestined, we can't be rational (or, at the least, we can't _choose_ to be rational, which is essentially saying the same thing). In that case all argumentation about truth is pointless, and it's very suspect that truth could ever be known in the first place.
And if morality is fictitious and arbitrary, it just becomes a matter of personal preference.
I believe each and every one of us directly experiences the fact that morality _is not_ just a matter of personal preference, and we conduct our lives accordingly. I assure you, you do not live as if your sense of morality is entirely private to your own mind. The same is doubly true for rationality and freedom. It's entirely unlivable. It's also rationally self-defeating, since you admit that you didn't freely choose to believe that we don't have free will!
@Kanbei85 All you've done is made baseless assertions.
As for morality, I do not believe there are objective morals, simple morals that most humans hold in common, which is a product of societal evolution. But since you don't believe humans evolved, then this conversation can't get much further :)
What you said about Darwin is false. He didn't "develop" his theory to defend materialism. His discovery of natural selection led him to materialism, or at least agnosticism. Prior to his journey on the Beagle Darwin had at one point intended to be a clergyman, and as a scientist he rejected the proto-evolutionary idea of transmutation that was popular among some at the time.
You should get your information from the source, not from propaganda machines like Answers in genesis.
As long as anyone who disagrees with Darwin is labeled a propagandist and dismissed, conversations like these will never be productive. Your history is bogus.
@Kanbei85 So Darwin was lying about his trip? Sounds like a conspiracy. Read his books, then talk. People or organizations that knowingly lie after being shown the truth about any given subject ARE propagandists.
Darwin didn't lie about his trip, but he did mislead readers about his philosophical position. At that time, in victorian society, a blatantly materialist ideology would not have been readily accepted. He had to hedge it a bit to get the ball rolling. If you read his personal notes, rather than his published work, you'll get a much more accurate picture.
I suggest the article at creation (dot) com (slash) charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it
@Kanbei85 I read it. I am well aware that Darwin sat on his findings. How exactly do you get from that to "He invented the theory of evolution to push materialism?" If that was his goal, why wait?
Ultimately, one can only speculate on that question. But, it would seem he was afraid to publish, knowing the dangerous implications his work would have. This is the position taken by the author of that article.
That was excellent Kanbei85, I really would love to see what today's popular atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett have to say as far as how humanity could or should cope with the implications if naturalism is true. So far, the only answer I've seen has been from Dawkins and all he says simply is "deal with it". Well humanity can't just "deal with it" for humanity to accept such dark implications they would have to have their brains altered or drugged at the very least in order to cope.
This is a well made discussion of truth. God bless you brother. Materialism and Darwinism are both failed attempts at science and philosophy as an excuse for denying the existance of God.
@NephilimFree So, Evan, the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis asking you to write articles for their websites yet? Your astounding knowledge should be worth something, instead of making crappy videos and grammatically-challenged website postings, right?
Number of scientific discoveries uncovered by reading the Bible: 0
Number of scientific discoveries uncovered by doing science: Incalculable.
You truly think you're smart. All of reality shows you're not. Seek help.
you gotta be an idiot, dude! there's so much suggestion of the existence extra-sensory beings from the standpoint of Quantum physics, and you are completely being IGNORANT! LMAOF......atheists are sooooooo irresponsibly ignorant and dumb! Seek Education!!!
@MeinKleinerTiger "Suggestion of the existence?" Keep digging. Because quantum physics goes over many people's heads doesn't mean it can be invoked to suggest what you want it to. There is a strong correlation between education and atheism, food for thought.
Just because you don't like an ideology that doesn't make it any less true. The universe is dying, nothing has any value, and there's nothing we can do about it... except die. I think eventually every living thing would like to die. Think about living for an eternity in heaven... Mathematically you would run out of things to do, discover, and learn.
That, fortunately, is a statement of great ignorance. And something deep inside us all- including you- knows it isn't true. That's why we choose to live our lives at all. Please stop living in denial of the truth- for your own sake. The reality behind this all is love. We must love each other as God eternally loves us all.
@Kanbei85 It's a statement I hope isn't true. But nobody can really know for sure. I can't refute or deny the existence of a god. There is no strong evidence in either direction. But the burden of proof seems to fall on religion especially since science and it's predictions have advanced to the point they are now.
I don't understand. How is it nihilistic to reject the idea idea of *objective* value or meaning. Things only matter to us because they affect our emotional state of mind, the universe as a whole doesn't value or disvalue anything because the universe as a whole cannot feel stress or happiness. The hardest nihilist will pull his hand away from a burning stove because he feels that pain is disvaluable, even if he logically claims that nothing matters.
I base my ideology on what I perceive to be the laws of nature. Might is right, and by destroying the inferior and advancing the superior we create a more beautiful world. The idea of "human rights" is ridiculous, as our species is just another. My support for eugenics is based on long term collectivism, not the rights of currently living individuals.
Those are a lot of big words, OpqHMg, but what are you really talking about? If it's so contradictory, false, etc... then why can't you give me a single specific example of this? Rebut away!
How can free will give you responsibility? Given that you have many outcomes too pick from, what makes it responsible when picking it with free will? I don't see how it can give you responsibility greater than the way it is picked, and that way we can have in a deterministic universe too.
Interesting how this entire thing really turns on the argument between whether or not QM is deterministic, isn't it? Because if a human really is nothing but a bundle of nerve impulses, the only way to escape determinism is for there to be some uncertainty in the decision making process. For this to occur we need some way to concieve of an 'uncertainty' in the nature of the electrical system - at least partially.
Even if QM turned out to be non-deterministic, this in itself, applied as the cause of human decision-making, would still not amount to free will; it would just mean that instead of predictable robots we were... unpredictable robots. The only thing that can ground true free will, and the only thing that can give true hope and meaning to life, is a supernatural soul.
Predictable robots = you put in the program and 99% of the time you get out what you put in. The only time you don't is when there is a mechanical or electrical failure. (How these occur may not in fact be deterministic - if we can show that QM is not).
Unpredictable robots = you put the program in and you are not sure whether or not they will be followed. I wonder what would determine when it is or is not followed.
Not sure if you agree with my definitions, but they may be a good start.
(I think I could live with that - the unpredictable robot. If I start with the idea that life does not necessarily need to have meaning, it makes sense to me that this is what we would be.)
Even if you start from the idea that life has meaning, does it necessarily require that freewill truly exists? Perhaps life has no meaning to us and is really just a vast experiment being carried out by a set of gods - one demonstrating how a particular set of circumstances will work for the others?
I would argue that the existence of free will is a basic given assumption of conscious life for us humans- something that needs not be proven due to its self-evidence. Without it, all reality would fade to an unintelligible chaos as we would lose the ability to trust our own senses and reason; these things are predicated on free will.
OK, if we assume that we do not have freewill - that he universe is indeed predicated on hard determinism, how would we be able to tell the difference? If we were actually part of the system and so by definition necessary beings, how would we know that we were not simply fulfilling some program predestined by the vectors of the quarks in the big bang?
I only ask because I am not familiar with the philosophical implications. I have no hard and fast opinion on his particular matter at present.
nope, if everything follows cause and effect, we have every reason too trust our senses and reason. It would make sense then. If the world is indeterministic it can not make sense too us, if we make sense of it in such a system, we are just plain worng.
yes, I agree with this point too some extent. But even if we are deterministic does not mean we can not apply reason and logic. Infact it is proven that the consious mind have a stopping action, that it can stop actions that are about too be executed (brain scan test.) I would not say that gives us free will, but it makes us abel too act from the consious mind, and it might be close too rationality, atleast a more "objective view."
The only real problem that I have with your argument is that it is very unclear that quantum mechanics is deterministic.
Objects on the quantum level exist in states that are not clearly defined until they are measured - at which point they can be in any one of a number of states with no deterministic cause.
For example, an electron can have an 'up' or 'down' spin. While we say, "well it must be one or the other", while it is in fact 'neither' until we take a measurement. Odd, right?
Materialism isn't the same as determinism. We have quantum physics which only regulates the fundamental particles and interactions but it's purely non-deterministic. We can only give a probability to states but we can't predict what will truely happen. If you even start mixing things up, the remaining part can only get worse.
You just proved you didn't watch the video. Why do people comment on things they haven't watched? Just to spread their uninformed opinions around I suppose...
As if the last three minutes suddenly aren't filled with mistakes, i'm not going to waste my time, you showed me what quality it has in the first three minutes, enough to make a decision.
Radioactive decay is a completely random process. There is no determinism about when any individual atom will decay. As with most views from the macro level, we cope with this through statistical measurements (such as half-life), which can be highly accurate, yet not precise.
This means there are innumerable RANDOM gamma rays, alpha and beta particles constantly being created, and it completely invalidates your fundamental point, that the state of everything can be known.
Just because our knowledge has not advanced to the point that we can explain all things about the physical universe does not mean that these things are simply inexplicable or random. It just means we don't know. I'm not saying the state of everything can be practically known, I'm saying it can be known in theory and predicted in theory. In other words, I'm saying matter inevitably follows predictable laws of physics. But even if some things ARE random, that still doesnt leave room for free will.
Randomness at any level, while it doesn't directly imply free will, totally debunks your assertion that only ONE future is possible given any past state. Thus your whole critique is for naught.
I already told you I don't think there is true randomness at any physical level; just a practical limitation on what we're able to determine ahead of time.
However, I think you're misunderstanding my "critique". It's about the impossibility of free will in materialism and the consequences of that view- there being only one possible future is really not the main thrust.
If your premise (only one future, since only one past) is invalid, then any conclusions you draw from it are invalid. Rational thought (like free will, without supernatural overtones) is NOT contraindicated.
At their heart, all the "negative" consequences you assert come from materialistic determinacy are, in fact, the consequence of dogma - adherence to principle in contradiction to observed fact. Rational, scientific thought is the EXACT OPPOSITE of dogma.
Here you have addressed neither of the points I just made. What dogma are you talking about? The negative consequences come from there being no higher purpose to life, no life after death and no free will, and none of these things can be extracted from a purely materialistic worldview.
I've directly refuted that there is just one future. I've stated that it's adherence to dogma, that is, unsubstantiated doctrine, which allows such horrors as totalitarianism, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, Manifest Destiny, the Conquistadors and countless other atrocities.
Many, many atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of furthering Christianity, and thus to assert that only materialism leads to such results is disingenuous.
You're ignoring what I'm saying to you. You did not refute that idea, you merely asserted that some things are completely random (how could you know this? there are limits to modern science..) and as I already pointed out and you ignored, simply having a few things be random doesn't suddenly mean that we have free will or that there's purpose or life after death, so you are still dodging the real issues.
Atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christ are hypocrisy. Christ taught meekness, humility, and love for even your enemies. He did not teach us to kill our enemies or those who disagreed with us. From within materialism, however, anything is justifiable. There can be no right or wrong, there is only the simple fact of what is.
I get the feeling that there's just some fundamental disconnect here. When you say there can be no right or wrong, you (and, I think Veritas) are arguing that right and wrong only come from alignment to God's purpose for the world, which we cannot fully know, but to the extent that we can (or that God wants us to), it's revealed in Scripture.
So, yeah. There's no absolute right or wrong because there's no god. But I, as a moral actor, CAN look at any situation and judge right or wrong.
So, would I be correct in saying that you think that morality is an individualistic enterprise- that it's up to the individual to determine what is "good" or "evil" for him or herself?
Ugh..you don't understand cosmology either. When the big bang expanded so didi all the energy within the primordial singularity. After the initial expansion some energy condensed to form matter. So your idea on determanism is wrong.
Hitler was a creationist, as were all the other fascist regimes Christian. So your statement on fascim is wrong.
Also cosmologist do not agree that the universe is 'dying'. The final fate of the universe is still an unknown.
I think its a little bit funny how you state that free will is impossible in a materielist mind set, when you believe in specific prophecies, which could only be fufilled if there were no free will, and the universe had to follow a strict path. How do you explain this?
"After the initial expansion some energy condensed to form matter. So your idea on determanism is wrong."
This claim would be equivalent to me saying that because you can't spell to save your life, your philosophical views are incorrect. The fact that I was imprecise in my explanation of the big bang has absolutely no effect on my argument from determinism. Please think more carefully when making rebuttals.
"Hitler was a creationist, as were all the other fascist regimes Christian. So your statement on fascim is wrong. "
This is completely false. Part of what's bad about the internet is that young people, such as yourself, that really don't have the first clue what they're talking about, go around posting everywhere and making authoritative statements. Then other people read them and get infected with the same misinformation. And the trend continues.
Please do some research on Naziism and Hitler, as well as on Christianity. You'll find that Hitler was by no means a Christian and in fact was hostile to Christianity. Naziism was Darwinism infused with superstition. Also, a genuine follower of Christ would NEVER commit genocide.
the atheist mindset is one of arrogance. The christian mindset is one of humility. I admit that there are things in the universe I can't fully understand- like God and like prophecies- and I realize that doesn't mean for an instant that they aren't real.
The atheist however takes the stance that if it doesn't fit in their little box, then it can't be real.
There is a great mystery involved when discussing the relationship between human will and God's will, but both must necessarily exist. If you invalidate human will and say it isn't real, then you've just destroyed your own credibility. God also has knowledge of the future which comes from transcending space-time. This is not the same as strictly determining that future; this factors into the explanation of prophecy as well.
No, you're not. Transcending time means God isn't limited to the present as we are. This means he can see all points in time as we can see only the present. This means that our free choices, made at specific points in time, are visible to God regardless of what point in time they were made in.
"Please do some research on Naziism and Hitler, as well as on Christianity."
I have.
"You'll find that Hitler was by no means a Christian and in fact was hostile to Christianity."
O ryly?
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them."
Hitler was a propagandist. Most of Germany was Christian at the time, so wouldn't it make sense that an aspiring politician of the time would claim to be Christian? His actions betrayed the exact opposite.
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." -Hitler
Did you watch the video at all? My argument is no no way based on the specifics of how the big bang occurred.... why are you wasting my time like this? Wait... why am I wasting my own time like this?
Well I don't think it is contradictory. I'm sorry you feel that way. This is probably as far as we would get with the discussion though on account of your religious convictions.
It's been cool though. I enjoyed talking to you. I'll check out that link too. Have a good night.
You start with a great explanation of the topic. However it then falls apart. You then have a straw man, a slippery slope and some quote mining. The latter 2 are based on the straw man. You ignore point of view. Looking at the universe from the outside, it is all there from beginning to end. But from my point of view it is not. For me it hasn't happened yet. Plus I *AM* this bunch of particle reactions. So it does feel like I have free will, and in a way I do, from my point of view.
Was this somehow intended to be a response to my response? You've just restated the thing I already addressed... point of view is the very thing being debated, and yet you're begging the question by just asserting that it's valid.
But he does have control over it. That is because he IS that collection subatomic particles. Even if it is predetermined from looking at the universe from the outside, from his point of view it isn't.
We are more than the sum of the electrical impulses and chemical reactions in our brains. Just because individual cells are not conscious, it does not mean they can't bring that about as part of the brain.
That is the short version of consciousness and free will in materialism.
This is like saying that a house controls its own layout and structure because it IS made of wood and stone and wire. This appeal to different points of view is not grounded in any scientific reality. If materialism is true, there is only one real, objective point of view: the 3rd person.
Objects don't have legitimate points of view, and materialism portrays humans as objects.
Why would you arbitrarily talk about humans having their own points of view when you don't use the same language of computers, or of trees, or of the ocean? You're drawing arbitrary distinctions you can't defend.
"We're more than the sum of the electrical impulses and chemical reactions in our brains."
Is this statement scientifically verifiable? How did you come to this conclusion?
That is because we are complex enough be self aware and computers are not at this time.
Yes that statement is. That is because each cell does not have to have an understanding of what it it is doing to be able to do it. But these cells working in conjunction make up the brain.
I actually came to that conclusion from watching some Dan Dennett lectures on consciousness and free will. Very interesting stuff.
No it's not. That is because a house is not complex enough. We are complex enough. The point of view is not meant to be scientific. The reality IS only the 3rd person. But that doesn't matter to my illusion of free will because for me it has not happened yet. So we can't really go down that slippery slope because me free will feels real even though it isn't.
So... free will isn't real, but let's just go ahead and pretend it is so we feel better about ourselves? Is this your argument? I just want to make sure I understand you properly.
Also-- just how complex does a house have to get before it gets to have its own point of view? Complexity doesn't change the fundamental nature of something- it's a secondary property of it. Determinism is incompatible with free will, and adding more complexity to a deterministic physical thing won't change that.
Yes it's not real. We don't have to pretend though, because it seems real to us. So that's a little different.
It has to be complex enough to think as we do.
The last paragraph doesn't make sense. Free will is an illusion. It is a product of our self awareness. Determinism is incompatible with free will, but not with our illusion of it.
So... how is it that what I said was a strawman? You agree with me that free will is an illusion under materialism, and therefore all the things associated with free will that make human life meaningful are also illusions. The whole human experience becomes one big illusion. Of course, you'd still have to explain how we are consciously capable of having such an illusion in the first place.... something I'm confident a materialist cannot do.
Well because you rephrase what I say and then add a little to it.
as for consciousness, the explanation is that you can get consciousness from a large collection of parts that don't have it. That is because the cell does not have to know what it is doing in order to do it.
We may not know every detail of how consciousness works. However a lack of knowledge does not presuppose a supernatural cause. A creator just starts an infinite regression if that is where you are going with it.
"as for consciousness, the explanation is that you can get consciousness from a large collection of parts that don't have it. "
Is there any scientific evidence for this that doesn't rely on circular reasoning (i.e. appealing to human consciousness itself)?
I would say that you emphatically CANNOT obtain consciousness by assembling a collection of parts that don't have it. Consciousness is a fundamentally non-physical thing.
Consciousness is just a process of the brain. It is non-physical like any thought. Well, other than the electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain that cause it.
You can obtain it by assembling the right collection of parts. Much the same way you can assemble a computer that is capable of running all sorts of programs even though it just boils down to trillions of logic gates arranged in complex circuits.
What evidence do you have that this is a true statement?
By the way, how well do you think a computer would work that just came together by chance instead of being designed first on paper by an intelligent designer and then thoughtfully assembled in a factory? And yet you're saying our mind is a computer with random programming... and we're supposed to trust this why?
Well it is in your brain obviously. So I suppose it is the "just" that you object to. There is no reason to think there is a supernatural cause for that. Just because science does not know every detail of how it works yet, does not mean you just throw your hands up and say "god did it".
Your next paragraph is quite fallacious. Nothing comes together by chance. Are we veering off into natural selection now? You're not going to say words like "Darwinism" are you?
You're just begging the question. You're assuming consciousness must be physical because you don't believe in the nonphysical. But I've already explained why consciousness can't be rooted in the physical: because consciousness requires free will which is physically impossible.
"Nothing comes together by chance."
What about the first living cell that evolutionists say started the tree of life?
Not exactly. I am just saying consciousness is a brain function and it's the supernatural I don't believe in. Even if we knew nothing about how the brain works, or it's evolution, it is still not reasonable to conjure up a supernatural creator.
Nothing comes together by chance. That includes the first living cell. It would probably be hard to even pin down the first living cell. First there were RNA based cells before DNA. Then something like a virus, we are not sure it qualifies as life.
"But I've already explained why consciousness can't be rooted in the physical: because consciousness requires free will which is physically impossible."
Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.
"What about the first living cell that evolutionists say started the tree of life?"
There are various hypothesis on how the first soup of mother cells were formed, but to say they just 'came together' is an oversimplification of abiogenesis. And what exactly is an 'evolutionist'?
Since it can be proven that all NFMs are DFMs, determinism explains epistemology better than nondeterminism. In the case of determinism we can at least think of our actions as being meaningful. The contrary is to introduce meaningless states in the truest sense - utter randomness in which predicates do not represent a map from a domain of possibilities to a range of outcomes - much as you describe determinism to imply. This translates directly to Russel's paradox.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a hard limit on what can be known simultaneously about the position and velocity of a particle under any circumstance, not just a practical limit.
No matter the philosophical implications of materialism - this doesn't affect truth. I find that there are no philosophical implications other than to say that present state and actions tend to influence future state. In set theory that is the very definition of something that is meaningful or "functional".
You are seriously trying to say that materialism- a philosophy- has no philosophical implications? That's really your position? That's like saying that Christ's teachings have no bearing on religion.
This is a false dichotomy. You're asserting that we must choose between two options: determinism and utter randomness. Both presuppose materialism. The mind, or soul, is a source of a free thinking will that is neither inevitable nor random. Free decisions are informed and influenced by prior conditions, but not _determined_ by them in an inevitable sense. Souls are "unmoved movers" in Aquinas's language.
You talk and talk and talk, but you never say anything.
Your religious opinions do not replace facts.
odinata 4 months ago
I don't see how determinism has anything to do with whether or not my thoughts are true. I don't quite get what it means to have "true" thoughts. Why do you assume thoughts hold some kind of "truth" to them?
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
When you say, "determinism is true", you are expressing a thought that you assume corresponds with the outside world of reality. When I say, "I am 25 years old", I am also doing this. Thoughts must have truth value in order for us to have a meaningful discussion about anything.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 Well now you are presupposing there is an "outside" world hence why determinism won't work with your metaphysical theory. If determinism is true, surely there is no outside and therefore there is no need to say thoughts must contain some "truth value". First you have to prove there is an outside world and I'm supposing you'll do this philosophically.
stealspell 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 On another note, I'm not sure how free will allows me to choose between saying "I'm 25 years old" and not since according to your theory, if I understand it right, we are determined to say only one thing--that which was determined to be said. Hence we MAY be determined to say what is false, right? You seem to be claiming that I'm choosing true thoughts from false thoughts. o.0 How exactly am I doing that?
stealspell 5 months ago
I'm just reminded of the idea that Hume proposed. In the "Treatise" he wrote that determinism, the fact that the same effect will follow the same cause, is NECESSARY for human freedom. Because to make a choice possible between water and burger, we need to be sure that water (cause) will satisfy thirst (effect) and that burger (cause) will satisfy hunger (effect).
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
That's confusing a limited scope of determinism in the physical world with absolute determinism, which includes the mind itself. Most nearly everyone accepts that the physical world behaves in a deterministic way.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
I don't think it's confusing it. I think Hume gave a more accurate account of what is meant by cause and effect and therefore causal determinism. I don't believe in absolute determinism. As I said, I can't prove the present and future is deterministic. I'd have to extrapolate the evidence (or as you see it lack thereof) of determinism into the present and future. But because science is based on inference, it never deals with absolutes. Therefore it never commits to absolute determinism.
stealspell 5 months ago
"If determinism is true, then we could never know that determinism is true because we can never trust our own thoughts." I'm not sure why "thought trusting" is necessary for determinism to be true? Elaborate please.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
Thought trusting is necessary for us to have reason to believe our own thoughts are objectively true, and determinism is one such thought.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Thought trusting is necessary for us to have reason to believe our own thoughts are objectively true" I'm not sure where you get this concept unless you've invented it yourself. Generally people don't need a reason to believe their own thoughts--they just do. So I don't really see where this is going.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
Well, so in other words you're just going to beg the question....
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 What did I say that begs the question? Honestly, you're the one begging the question claiming that we need to trust our thought. What person on the street have you encountered that talks about trusting his thoughts? I'd think he was a weirdo.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
"Generally people don't need a reason to believe their own thoughts--they just do."
This is begging the question. It means you don't bother to justify your own assertions, you just assume they're correct. If determinism is true, we have no way of knowing whether our thoughts accurately represent reality or not, and we have no power over them anyway so it's moot. It renders all serious scientific and philosophical inquiry completely ridiculous.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "It means you don't bother to justify your own assertions, you just assume they're correct." I'm giving you the self-evident answer and the reason for it is because YOU are asserting a silly thing. Here let me show you: "If determinism is true, we have no way of knowing whether our thoughts accurately represent reality or not" And what reason do you have to suppose we ought to know whether our thoughts represent reality?
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
We must know whether our thoughts represent reality if we're going to have any meaningful discussions about truth. Since we're both having such a discussion right now, we're both implicitly assuming our thoughts are accurate. Unfortunately, that's a very baseless assumption on determinism/materialism.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 Why is it a baseless assumption for determinism to assume that we are implicitly assuming our thoughts to be accurate?
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
It's baseless because it's unfalsifiable and we have no way of testing it, because we have no outside, objective way of testing our thoughts for validity. On materialism, all our thoughts are a necessary consequence of chemical reactions, thus there's no point in discussing whether they're "true" because they can't be changed anyway, nor can anything else. Knowing truth requires objective, outside observers, and if we are just another part of the physical world, we can never be.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 Thought I have many questions, I'll start here: "Knowing truth requires objective, outside observers" How do we know then that our thoughts are true under free will? How are we exactly "outside observers" under free will?
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell "Knowing truth requires objective, outside observers" I guess I'll go ahead and ask this as well: Why does knowing truth require outside observers? And what do you mean when you say "outside observer"?
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
Knowing truth requires an outside observer because otherwise we can't trust the objectivity and reality of our thoughts. Our thoughts, on materialism, are just the eventual byproduct of chemical reactions that were selected for their ability to reproduce well. There's no direct connection between reproducing well and being a philosopher and knower of truth. One can be quite ignorant of reality, yet, through useful misconceptions, one might reproduce quite successfully.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@stealspell
And besides that, as I've pointed out before, one implies free will when one talks of these matters in the first place, because we are assuming that we can freely consider our options and make a choice about what to believe. On determinism, such a process is purely fantastical. In reality, all beliefs are absolutely determined by physical realities that could not have been different. This means that all discourse and "mind-changing" is purely illusory.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@stealspell
We are outside observers because we, human souls, are not a member of the physical world, yet we observe and interact with it. We come to understand and manipulate it.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 We'll go backwards. I'll come back to the other stuff later because I want to clear up something first. "We are outside observers because we, human souls, are not a member of the physical world" Are you suggesting dualism here? That bodies exist and that minds exist? If so, how does the mind interact with the body?
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
Yes, of course I'm a dualist. I do not have to be able to give an explanation of _how_ the soul and the body interact, in order for that to be in fact the case. The evidence strongly shows that there are separate entities, mind and body, one physical, one spiritual, and that they interact with one another.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "The evidence strongly shows that there are separate entities" What evidence? I think you have two different standards of evidence for the body and the mind. That wouldn't exactly make them separate entities if they are under standards of evidence. For example: Prove the mind exists scientifically or prove the body exists philosophically.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
I would direct you to the book "Beyond Death" by J.P. Moreland and Gary Habermas for a great exposition of specific evidence for the soul.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 You don't have any arguments specifically? It's a well known fact that we can't see the mind. We can't point to it when we open up the brain. It has no spatial existence. So where is the scientific evidence it exists? This is a central problem in philosophy that's been around for thousands of years and the sum of it is this: you can't prove the body philosophically and you can't prove the mind scientifically. If you are truly a dualist you are using two different standards of evidence.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
Yes, I do have an argument, and I've been elaborating it to you all along. It's not an empirical argument, which is what you seem to be searching for. It's a philosophical one. I don't prove my mind's existence with science, but nonetheless I know it is not just another part of the physical universe, for all the reasons I've already given you. But I do urge you nonetheless to read that book.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 No, I'm not searching for an empirical argument. All I'm saying, which isn't clear to you as I can tell, is that you can't say that the mind and the brain(body) are two separate entities under the SAME context or standard for which you are to prove them. If you give me a philosophical argument for the mind's existence then you have to give me a philosophical argument for the brain's(body's) existence because that would place them under the SAME context or standard of evidence.
stealspell 5 months ago
Part 2: If you are persuaded by some mixture of reason and emotion, then it's hard to say. If you are persuaded by emotion, largely not solely, then I'd say you couldn't change your mind if the argument was plain and simple. You strike as the type of person who's persuaded by emotion and maybe reason. Most religious people aren't easily persuaded by reason, though some are. Hence why they cannot dismiss their belief in God when the evidence is against them. It's based on faith not reason.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
Evidence does not support determinism. All the evidence of human experience goes directly against it, and that's the whole point of my video here. In this particular case, emotions ARE evidence. Not all truths can be learned by looking at numbers and figures. Humans simply know certain fundamental things about life, and our having free will is one of them. I don't call this faith, I call it self-evident truth. I've also shown how science cannot function in a deterministic world.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Evidence does not support determinism." This is an unfounded assertion. To say this raises many questions. Why on earth are people subscribing to something like determinism if there's no evidence for it? I'd advice you to spend some time studying up on this material because you don't seem very knowledgeable in it--both philosophical and scientific. You seem neither well versed in the subjects nor well mannered. I invite you to an intellectual discussion when you're less vain.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
"Why on earth are people subscribing to something like determinism if there's no evidence for it?"
Because it's a result of their intellectual pre-commitment to Darwinistic, anti-supernaturalistic thinking, which is part of their spiritual rebellion against God.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Because it's a result of their intellectual pre-commitment to Darwinistic, anti-supernaturalistic thinking, which is part of their spiritual rebellion against God." David Hume would be considered a determinist. John Locke can be considered one too. Both before Darwin. I don't sense much honesty in your pursuit for wisdom. Rather, you're trying to defend the truth that's been spoon-fed to you. You haven't tried to arrive at it by admitting ignorance first on these matters.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
I'm not talking about people from hundreds of years ago, I'm talking about people today. The world of today is very different from the world of Hume and Locke, though they paved the way for it. I'm a long-time personal researcher of these issues; certainly not someone who has just gotten "spoon-fed". You're just resorting to name-calling at this point.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "I'm not talking about people from hundreds of years ago" Okay, but that wouldn't make your point valid. I still think your assertion doesn't hold much weight and I don't intend to take it seriously until you persuade me otherwise.
I don't think you've read much philosophy. I think you're just defending your beliefs (Christianity) because you were indoctrinated with them. I doubt you reasoned your way into them.
I'd be curious to know what books/journals/articles you've researched.
stealspell 5 months ago
Going back to my so-called "adage"--determinism for the mind, free will for the heart--I have to say that our beliefs will always be in accordance with our emotions. An emotionless robot that gathered truth would be able to believe in determinism while we humans cannot because it's grim and, as you say, "utterly dark". This means that we don't see the "Truth". We see the "Truth" as we'd like to see it.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
If we see the truth as we like to see it, then what about determinism is it that you like? Because you've already admitted it's a detestable concept, yet you claim it's the truth. If we see what we want to see, then there's something else going on here. Perhaps you aren't comfortable with the idea that there's more to life than what the Discovery channel would have you believe, and that you may not be the final word on what's right and wrong in your own life? Just a guess.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "If we see the truth as we like to see it, then what about determinism is it that you like?" I wouldn't say I liked anything about it. I'd just say that what's been observed is deterministic. Can I say the present and future is? Absolutely not. I might have reasons to believe it considering the evidence is unbiased. But when I say it's true, I say so because I try to represent only the evidence not my belief. I'm lost on the Discovery channel part of your comment. I'm quite content.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
You have contradicted yourself. Either we see what we want to see, or we have the power to make free choices about our beliefs. The Discovery channel is constantly showing material that promotes a materialistic and anti-supernaturalistic bias. If what you're saying is true, then neither you nor I have the power to control our own beliefs; we are puppets of electrochemical reactions in our brains. Your trying to convince me is totally non-consistent. You don't get it.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Either we see what we want to see..." I can see you've misunderstood. There's no contradiction is saying that scientific observations show determinism, because they are unbiased and do not appeal to emotion. I said I could very well hold the belief that the present and future is/will be determined based on the evidence, but I cannot because it's not part of the human condition to believe in determinism. I think I already explained this, but take your time.
stealspell 5 months ago
Part 1: "If what you're saying is true, then neither you nor I have the power to control our own beliefs; we are puppets of electrochemical reactions in our brains." No, you're not following. We certainly DO have the power to control our beliefs. Some of us are persuaded by reason; some of us by emotion; some of us by a mixture of the two. Whatever it may be, who we are biologically determines our beliefs. If you are easily persuaded by reason and do not appeal to emotion, then you'll agree.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
I find it ridiculous now that you are claiming only people who appeal to emotion disagree with determinism. In fact, I've given a great deal of reasoning which shows that determinism is self defeating. If determinism is true, then we could never know that determinism is true because we can never trust our own thoughts. Our thoughts are merely "biologically determined", and therefore they may be true or false, and it's completely irrelevant.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@stealspell
The foundation of modern science comes from the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, which holds 1: that there is a grand Designer and Sustainer, and therefore order and predictability can be expected in the universe, and 2: that we humans are designed in His own image with the free and objective ability to rationally deduce truths about this world and manipulate it to our advantage. Materialistic determinism undercuts the very foundation of science and makes it a farce. We must be free.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 Actually it comes from Aristotle but believe whatever you want.
stealspell 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "In fact, I've given a great deal of reasoning which shows that determinism is self defeating..." I think that's the first time you've presented that as an argument but I could be wrong. I'm not following your argument.
stealspell 5 months ago
Maybe I should clarify another thing. If the mind is free from the physical laws of the universe, then the mind has to exist outside the universe. How you plan on explaining that I have no idea, but bare in mind that I think you want us to accept free will only because determinism appears so "utterly dark"--which is an appeal to emotion not logic. Goes back to my: determinism for the mind; free will for the heart.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
No. The validity of the mind itself is utterly compromised by determinism, because it means that we have no power to choose rationality over irrationality, and no objective way of knowing the difference. Every thought in our minds is determined by electrochemical reactions that were inevitable at the outset of the universe.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 I beg to differ. "we have no power to choose rationality over irrationality" A crime of passion is unpremeditated, meaning it's done out of irrationality. We actually do not have the power to choose to be rational or irrational. Hume wrote in the "Treatise", when we are in a calm emotional state we are able to reason better than when we are not. And I believe you avoided one central problem of free will: to avoid being subject to physical laws, the mind must exist outside the universe.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
In a way, you are correct about the mind existing "outside" the universe, because the mind is not physical, and the physical universe is. There is only a "central problem" of free will, as you put it, if you refuse to consider worldviews other than materialism. Since free will is a necessary requirement of human life, materialism is unlivable and untenable. It's a non-starter.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Since free will is a necessary requirement of human life" I agree but that wouldn't make materialism any less true. Humans have the emotional desire to live in a world with free will; but the scientific and emotionless truth would be that, gathering the evidence, human beings under the microscope are largely deterministic. Science says the brain creates the mind. Immaterialists say the body is a puppet and the mind animates it from outside the physical. Very hard to prove that theory.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
Science does not by any means say that the brain creates the mind. In fact the opposite is true. Read the book "Beyond Death" by Moreland and Habermas. You should do more research on this. Science shows there's a relationship between brain and mind, but that the two are separate.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Science does not by any means say that the brain creates the mind. In fact the opposite is true." No, I'm sorry but that's false. Any scientist that makes that claim would immediately be labeled a philosopher. I agree that the mind isn't well understood, but the claim that they are separate lacks evidence. Most contemporary scientists place trust in the evidence that the brain alters the state of the mind, ergo the brain is not the puppet of the mind. In fact the opposite is true.
stealspell 5 months ago
You seem to be trying to convince us that we should abandon determinism because it makes life meaningless and embraces "utter darkness". Couldn't it very well be that your desire to have meaning in life is something inherent in your human nature? It seems then that determinism doesn't want you to believe that "it" exists. It wants you to believe that you have free will so your life will have meaning. The mind says determinism. The heart says free will.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
My mind does not say determinism. Of course, if determinism is correct, that doesn't matter at all, nor is there anything I can do about it. This whole worldview reduces all life and rational thought to absurdity. If life is meaningless it's also pointless. Any self-respecting scientist should outright reject the idea.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "if determinism is correct, that doesn't matter at all, nor is there anything I can do about it." Exactly! Think about this. All scientific phenomena exists in *past* observations; meaning our conclusion to there existing determinism exists in the past. And people have had meaning in the past even if they weren't consciously aware of the fact that their meaning is determined. You seem to want to extrapolate the knowledge of determinism into the present and future; what life WILL BE.
stealspell 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 You say this worldview reduces life to absurdity but isn't it really the other way around. If your will is free, why are you complying with the rules of society? Why are you seeking a meaningful life? Doesn't it maybe make more sense that you've been determined to want to be happy and moral? Otherwise we'd have all kinds of random "free will" thinkers and it'd be chaos. Descartes once wrote that the mind is free but it's "guided" by reason. That kind of skews the meaning of free.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
You seem to have no understanding of freedom of the will. Freedom doesn't mean there are no goals or guidelines whatsoever. Freedom is not equivalent to anarchy. Rather, freedom means that our choices aren't determined necessarily by the events that preceded them. It's not pure physical cause and effect. The only thing that can give rise to that kind of freedom is a supernatural soul, and without it, we lose our personhood and life, again, becomes totally irrelevant and absurd.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "You seem to have no understanding of freedom of the will." If you say so. "Freedom is not equivalent to anarchy. Rather, freedom means that our choices aren't determined necessarily by the events that preceded them." Well now you're talking about freedom of choice not freedom of will. Of course we have the freedom to choose to morally wrong things, but our conscience prevents us from doing that. And our conscience is part of our human nature or our biological determinism.
stealspell 5 months ago
"In the academic world, [materialism] is a pretty common belief" If you mean in philosophy then that's false. Materialism is more or less a philosophical position not a scientific one. Science is swayed by evidence not by reason.
"the belief that only matter exists" To be frank, not one physicist could hold that view earnestly. You go on to describe "forces" just some seconds after this proclamation, which I thought was slightly humorous.
stealspell 5 months ago
@stealspell
Science is not governed by reason? If that's the case, then how exactly do scientists _deal with_ and _interpret_ the evidence they collect? Have you given even a moment's earnest thought to this? What babble.
Kanbei85 5 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Science is not governed by reason?" No, that's not what I wrote. Science is swayed by evidence, meaning the "claims" science makes come from the collection of evidence and not by reason. Philosophers make claims using thinking; scientists do not. That's the difference. Of course scientists have to do some "thinking" and reasoning; but the fundamentals of their theories do not come from thinking but from empirical data. Their claims only represent the evidence. That's what I meant.
stealspell 5 months ago
Great video, but there are many things I disagree. With regards to science I think that naturalism is an appropiate approach. But when we start talking about human affairs things begin to fall apart partly because humans are complex creatures and because the modes of inquiry are ethically restricted (thankfully). I don't belive it negates freewill (whatever that means) it just states that we don't know whether it's real part of the world or a concept in the head (like numbers or infinity).
hlvs44 8 months ago
I generally agree with your base description of materialism, despite the depression quotes, and do follow it as an ideology.
When I do good, I do so not out of fear of hell, not out of hope for reward, but because it makes be feel good. Perhaps I was pre-determined to do good, but regardless, I feel good when I do good. That is my religion.
SwissTopper 8 months ago
@SwissTopper
So you are unable to account for your own freedom to make choices about your beliefs or actions, and you are also unable to account for any concept of "good" and "evil" beyond simply to say "it's what makes me feel good". I wonder if you would apply the same definition to people who practice pedophilia, rape, murder, or anything else obviously evil. Since it made them "feel good", then it would obviously have been "good" for them. In other words, they become meaningless words.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Correct. I do believe that free will is, at least partially, an illusion, and I do not believe in concepts such as "good" and "evil" (not to be confused with doing good/bad deeds, however.)
Personally, I find pedophilia, rape, murder ,etc to be abhorrent, and I oppose them absolutely. I just do not believe the people who commit such acts are "evil". I do believe they dangerous and harmful for society and I believe they are a product of their environment, upbringing and genetics.
SwissTopper 8 months ago
@SwissTopper
How can something be "partially" an illusion? And if free will is an illusion, then why are we having this conversation as if it mattered what we believed, and as if we could freely change those beliefs for "logical" reasons?
I don't see how you can come up with any rational, non-arbitrary definition of "harmful" as you have used it, either, from within your worldview. You're just arbitrarily presupposing values with no ability to justify or explain them.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 I did say at least partially, meaning I am unsure just how much free will we really have. As to why we are having this conversation? Isn't it obvious, we are predestined to discuss it :D
I do not like it when harm is caused to sentient creatures, perhaps that is arbitrary, but regardless, I do not like it and will work to avoid it.
SwissTopper 8 months ago
@SwissTopper
I don't feel like there's much else for me to say here, since you've conceded we're predestined. :) If we're predestined, we can't be rational (or, at the least, we can't _choose_ to be rational, which is essentially saying the same thing). In that case all argumentation about truth is pointless, and it's very suspect that truth could ever be known in the first place.
And if morality is fictitious and arbitrary, it just becomes a matter of personal preference.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@SwissTopper
I believe each and every one of us directly experiences the fact that morality _is not_ just a matter of personal preference, and we conduct our lives accordingly. I assure you, you do not live as if your sense of morality is entirely private to your own mind. The same is doubly true for rationality and freedom. It's entirely unlivable. It's also rationally self-defeating, since you admit that you didn't freely choose to believe that we don't have free will!
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 All you've done is made baseless assertions.
As for morality, I do not believe there are objective morals, simple morals that most humans hold in common, which is a product of societal evolution. But since you don't believe humans evolved, then this conversation can't get much further :)
SwissTopper 8 months ago
What you said about Darwin is false. He didn't "develop" his theory to defend materialism. His discovery of natural selection led him to materialism, or at least agnosticism. Prior to his journey on the Beagle Darwin had at one point intended to be a clergyman, and as a scientist he rejected the proto-evolutionary idea of transmutation that was popular among some at the time.
You should get your information from the source, not from propaganda machines like Answers in genesis.
IamLiterallyRetarded 8 months ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded
As long as anyone who disagrees with Darwin is labeled a propagandist and dismissed, conversations like these will never be productive. Your history is bogus.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 So Darwin was lying about his trip? Sounds like a conspiracy. Read his books, then talk. People or organizations that knowingly lie after being shown the truth about any given subject ARE propagandists.
IamLiterallyRetarded 8 months ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded
Darwin didn't lie about his trip, but he did mislead readers about his philosophical position. At that time, in victorian society, a blatantly materialist ideology would not have been readily accepted. He had to hedge it a bit to get the ball rolling. If you read his personal notes, rather than his published work, you'll get a much more accurate picture.
I suggest the article at creation (dot) com (slash) charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 I read it. I am well aware that Darwin sat on his findings. How exactly do you get from that to "He invented the theory of evolution to push materialism?" If that was his goal, why wait?
IamLiterallyRetarded 8 months ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded
Ultimately, one can only speculate on that question. But, it would seem he was afraid to publish, knowing the dangerous implications his work would have. This is the position taken by the author of that article.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Why would he be afraid if his whole goal was to push materialism? More likely he was afraid of being blacklisted or even murdered.
IamLiterallyRetarded 8 months ago
That was excellent Kanbei85, I really would love to see what today's popular atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett have to say as far as how humanity could or should cope with the implications if naturalism is true. So far, the only answer I've seen has been from Dawkins and all he says simply is "deal with it". Well humanity can't just "deal with it" for humanity to accept such dark implications they would have to have their brains altered or drugged at the very least in order to cope.
2011derricks 9 months ago
This is a well made discussion of truth. God bless you brother. Materialism and Darwinism are both failed attempts at science and philosophy as an excuse for denying the existance of God.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree So, Evan, the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis asking you to write articles for their websites yet? Your astounding knowledge should be worth something, instead of making crappy videos and grammatically-challenged website postings, right?
Number of scientific discoveries uncovered by reading the Bible: 0
Number of scientific discoveries uncovered by doing science: Incalculable.
You truly think you're smart. All of reality shows you're not. Seek help.
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair
you gotta be an idiot, dude! there's so much suggestion of the existence extra-sensory beings from the standpoint of Quantum physics, and you are completely being IGNORANT! LMAOF......atheists are sooooooo irresponsibly ignorant and dumb! Seek Education!!!
MeinKleinerTiger 1 year ago
@MeinKleinerTiger "Suggestion of the existence?" Keep digging. Because quantum physics goes over many people's heads doesn't mean it can be invoked to suggest what you want it to. There is a strong correlation between education and atheism, food for thought.
csbair 1 year ago
Just because you don't like an ideology that doesn't make it any less true. The universe is dying, nothing has any value, and there's nothing we can do about it... except die. I think eventually every living thing would like to die. Think about living for an eternity in heaven... Mathematically you would run out of things to do, discover, and learn.
The0Burger0King 1 year ago
@The0Burger0King
That, fortunately, is a statement of great ignorance. And something deep inside us all- including you- knows it isn't true. That's why we choose to live our lives at all. Please stop living in denial of the truth- for your own sake. The reality behind this all is love. We must love each other as God eternally loves us all.
Kanbei85 1 year ago
@Kanbei85 It's a statement I hope isn't true. But nobody can really know for sure. I can't refute or deny the existence of a god. There is no strong evidence in either direction. But the burden of proof seems to fall on religion especially since science and it's predictions have advanced to the point they are now.
The0Burger0King 1 year ago
I don't understand. How is it nihilistic to reject the idea idea of *objective* value or meaning. Things only matter to us because they affect our emotional state of mind, the universe as a whole doesn't value or disvalue anything because the universe as a whole cannot feel stress or happiness. The hardest nihilist will pull his hand away from a burning stove because he feels that pain is disvaluable, even if he logically claims that nothing matters.
AfricanPrince 1 year ago
Materialism does not lead to nihilism. Meaning and value are subjective.
AfricanPrince 1 year ago
@AfricanPrince
The result of the view that meaning and value are "subjective" IS nihilism. You have shown yourself wrong in a matter of only two sentences.
Kanbei85 1 year ago
I base my ideology on what I perceive to be the laws of nature. Might is right, and by destroying the inferior and advancing the superior we create a more beautiful world. The idea of "human rights" is ridiculous, as our species is just another. My support for eugenics is based on long term collectivism, not the rights of currently living individuals.
q1451 1 year ago
@q1451
This is the very definition of Naziism. Everyone please take note.
Kanbei85 1 year ago
my reply's way too long, imma just msg it.
OpqHMg 1 year ago
Materialism or naturalism?
i am disappointed. There is a lot of contradiction in what you're saying, and i spy slippery slopes, false information and straw men.
Again, i think you're a nice intelligent guy. many of your points though ive seen others make, and rebutted effectively.
OpqHMg 1 year ago
@OpqHMg
Those are a lot of big words, OpqHMg, but what are you really talking about? If it's so contradictory, false, etc... then why can't you give me a single specific example of this? Rebut away!
Kanbei85 1 year ago
How can free will give you responsibility? Given that you have many outcomes too pick from, what makes it responsible when picking it with free will? I don't see how it can give you responsibility greater than the way it is picked, and that way we can have in a deterministic universe too.
moegreen2 2 years ago
Interesting how this entire thing really turns on the argument between whether or not QM is deterministic, isn't it? Because if a human really is nothing but a bundle of nerve impulses, the only way to escape determinism is for there to be some uncertainty in the decision making process. For this to occur we need some way to concieve of an 'uncertainty' in the nature of the electrical system - at least partially.
"Fascinating" -- Mr. Spock
(a more fun quote than the Hitler ones)
physicsguy13 2 years ago
Even if QM turned out to be non-deterministic, this in itself, applied as the cause of human decision-making, would still not amount to free will; it would just mean that instead of predictable robots we were... unpredictable robots. The only thing that can ground true free will, and the only thing that can give true hope and meaning to life, is a supernatural soul.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Predictable robots = you put in the program and 99% of the time you get out what you put in. The only time you don't is when there is a mechanical or electrical failure. (How these occur may not in fact be deterministic - if we can show that QM is not).
Unpredictable robots = you put the program in and you are not sure whether or not they will be followed. I wonder what would determine when it is or is not followed.
Not sure if you agree with my definitions, but they may be a good start.
physicsguy13 2 years ago
(I think I could live with that - the unpredictable robot. If I start with the idea that life does not necessarily need to have meaning, it makes sense to me that this is what we would be.)
Even if you start from the idea that life has meaning, does it necessarily require that freewill truly exists? Perhaps life has no meaning to us and is really just a vast experiment being carried out by a set of gods - one demonstrating how a particular set of circumstances will work for the others?
physicsguy13 2 years ago
I would argue that the existence of free will is a basic given assumption of conscious life for us humans- something that needs not be proven due to its self-evidence. Without it, all reality would fade to an unintelligible chaos as we would lose the ability to trust our own senses and reason; these things are predicated on free will.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
OK, if we assume that we do not have freewill - that he universe is indeed predicated on hard determinism, how would we be able to tell the difference? If we were actually part of the system and so by definition necessary beings, how would we know that we were not simply fulfilling some program predestined by the vectors of the quarks in the big bang?
I only ask because I am not familiar with the philosophical implications. I have no hard and fast opinion on his particular matter at present.
physicsguy13 2 years ago
nope, if everything follows cause and effect, we have every reason too trust our senses and reason. It would make sense then. If the world is indeterministic it can not make sense too us, if we make sense of it in such a system, we are just plain worng.
moegreen2 2 years ago
yes, I agree with this point too some extent. But even if we are deterministic does not mean we can not apply reason and logic. Infact it is proven that the consious mind have a stopping action, that it can stop actions that are about too be executed (brain scan test.) I would not say that gives us free will, but it makes us abel too act from the consious mind, and it might be close too rationality, atleast a more "objective view."
moegreen2 2 years ago
The only real problem that I have with your argument is that it is very unclear that quantum mechanics is deterministic.
Objects on the quantum level exist in states that are not clearly defined until they are measured - at which point they can be in any one of a number of states with no deterministic cause.
For example, an electron can have an 'up' or 'down' spin. While we say, "well it must be one or the other", while it is in fact 'neither' until we take a measurement. Odd, right?
physicsguy13 2 years ago
Materialism isn't the same as determinism. We have quantum physics which only regulates the fundamental particles and interactions but it's purely non-deterministic. We can only give a probability to states but we can't predict what will truely happen. If you even start mixing things up, the remaining part can only get worse.
jantjeislol 2 years ago
You just proved you didn't watch the video. Why do people comment on things they haven't watched? Just to spread their uninformed opinions around I suppose...
Kanbei85 2 years ago
As if the last three minutes suddenly aren't filled with mistakes, i'm not going to waste my time, you showed me what quality it has in the first three minutes, enough to make a decision.
jantjeislol 2 years ago
Ah. :)
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Radioactive decay is a completely random process. There is no determinism about when any individual atom will decay. As with most views from the macro level, we cope with this through statistical measurements (such as half-life), which can be highly accurate, yet not precise.
This means there are innumerable RANDOM gamma rays, alpha and beta particles constantly being created, and it completely invalidates your fundamental point, that the state of everything can be known.
jagmarz 2 years ago
Just because our knowledge has not advanced to the point that we can explain all things about the physical universe does not mean that these things are simply inexplicable or random. It just means we don't know. I'm not saying the state of everything can be practically known, I'm saying it can be known in theory and predicted in theory. In other words, I'm saying matter inevitably follows predictable laws of physics. But even if some things ARE random, that still doesnt leave room for free will.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Randomness at any level, while it doesn't directly imply free will, totally debunks your assertion that only ONE future is possible given any past state. Thus your whole critique is for naught.
jagmarz 2 years ago
I already told you I don't think there is true randomness at any physical level; just a practical limitation on what we're able to determine ahead of time.
However, I think you're misunderstanding my "critique". It's about the impossibility of free will in materialism and the consequences of that view- there being only one possible future is really not the main thrust.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
If your premise (only one future, since only one past) is invalid, then any conclusions you draw from it are invalid. Rational thought (like free will, without supernatural overtones) is NOT contraindicated.
At their heart, all the "negative" consequences you assert come from materialistic determinacy are, in fact, the consequence of dogma - adherence to principle in contradiction to observed fact. Rational, scientific thought is the EXACT OPPOSITE of dogma.
jagmarz 2 years ago
Here you have addressed neither of the points I just made. What dogma are you talking about? The negative consequences come from there being no higher purpose to life, no life after death and no free will, and none of these things can be extracted from a purely materialistic worldview.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
I've directly refuted that there is just one future. I've stated that it's adherence to dogma, that is, unsubstantiated doctrine, which allows such horrors as totalitarianism, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, Manifest Destiny, the Conquistadors and countless other atrocities.
Many, many atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of furthering Christianity, and thus to assert that only materialism leads to such results is disingenuous.
jagmarz 2 years ago
You're ignoring what I'm saying to you. You did not refute that idea, you merely asserted that some things are completely random (how could you know this? there are limits to modern science..) and as I already pointed out and you ignored, simply having a few things be random doesn't suddenly mean that we have free will or that there's purpose or life after death, so you are still dodging the real issues.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christ are hypocrisy. Christ taught meekness, humility, and love for even your enemies. He did not teach us to kill our enemies or those who disagreed with us. From within materialism, however, anything is justifiable. There can be no right or wrong, there is only the simple fact of what is.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
I get the feeling that there's just some fundamental disconnect here. When you say there can be no right or wrong, you (and, I think Veritas) are arguing that right and wrong only come from alignment to God's purpose for the world, which we cannot fully know, but to the extent that we can (or that God wants us to), it's revealed in Scripture.
So, yeah. There's no absolute right or wrong because there's no god. But I, as a moral actor, CAN look at any situation and judge right or wrong.
jagmarz 2 years ago
So, would I be correct in saying that you think that morality is an individualistic enterprise- that it's up to the individual to determine what is "good" or "evil" for him or herself?
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Ugh..you don't understand cosmology either. When the big bang expanded so didi all the energy within the primordial singularity. After the initial expansion some energy condensed to form matter. So your idea on determanism is wrong.
Hitler was a creationist, as were all the other fascist regimes Christian. So your statement on fascim is wrong.
whitefox998 2 years ago
Also cosmologist do not agree that the universe is 'dying'. The final fate of the universe is still an unknown.
I think its a little bit funny how you state that free will is impossible in a materielist mind set, when you believe in specific prophecies, which could only be fufilled if there were no free will, and the universe had to follow a strict path. How do you explain this?
whitefox998 2 years ago
"After the initial expansion some energy condensed to form matter. So your idea on determanism is wrong."
This claim would be equivalent to me saying that because you can't spell to save your life, your philosophical views are incorrect. The fact that I was imprecise in my explanation of the big bang has absolutely no effect on my argument from determinism. Please think more carefully when making rebuttals.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
"Hitler was a creationist, as were all the other fascist regimes Christian. So your statement on fascim is wrong. "
This is completely false. Part of what's bad about the internet is that young people, such as yourself, that really don't have the first clue what they're talking about, go around posting everywhere and making authoritative statements. Then other people read them and get infected with the same misinformation. And the trend continues.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Please do some research on Naziism and Hitler, as well as on Christianity. You'll find that Hitler was by no means a Christian and in fact was hostile to Christianity. Naziism was Darwinism infused with superstition. Also, a genuine follower of Christ would NEVER commit genocide.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Regarding prophecy:
the atheist mindset is one of arrogance. The christian mindset is one of humility. I admit that there are things in the universe I can't fully understand- like God and like prophecies- and I realize that doesn't mean for an instant that they aren't real.
The atheist however takes the stance that if it doesn't fit in their little box, then it can't be real.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
There is a great mystery involved when discussing the relationship between human will and God's will, but both must necessarily exist. If you invalidate human will and say it isn't real, then you've just destroyed your own credibility. God also has knowledge of the future which comes from transcending space-time. This is not the same as strictly determining that future; this factors into the explanation of prophecy as well.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
"If you invalidate human will and say it isn't real, then you've just destroyed your own credibility."
I didn't.
"God also has knowledge of the future which comes from transcending space-time."
Then you must believe free will doesn't exist, unless the future is always changing. Am I right?
whitefox998 2 years ago
No, you're not. Transcending time means God isn't limited to the present as we are. This means he can see all points in time as we can see only the present. This means that our free choices, made at specific points in time, are visible to God regardless of what point in time they were made in.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
"Please do some research on Naziism and Hitler, as well as on Christianity."
I have.
"You'll find that Hitler was by no means a Christian and in fact was hostile to Christianity."
O ryly?
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them."
Adolf Hitler
whitefox998 2 years ago
Hitler was a propagandist. Most of Germany was Christian at the time, so wouldn't it make sense that an aspiring politician of the time would claim to be Christian? His actions betrayed the exact opposite.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
"Most of Germany was Christian at the time, so wouldn't it make sensse that an aspiring politician of teh time would claim to be Christian?"
So you do accept that Christians were responsible for Hitler and the Nazi's rise, WWII, and the Holocaust?
whitefox998 2 years ago
No I don't, and you just used up your last moronic comment pass.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." -Hitler
Kanbei85 2 years ago
"Also, a genuine follower of Christ would NEVER commit genocide."
Funny how most of the bible encourages genocide, are you sure about that statement?
whitefox998 2 years ago
You're pretty good at making false statements, I get the point.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
"The fact that I was imprecise in my explanation of the big bang has absolutely no effect on my argument from determinism."
Yes it does. You have an incorrect understanding of the big bang, and you think that that by extension somehow makes free will impossible.
whitefox998 2 years ago
Did you watch the video at all? My argument is no no way based on the specifics of how the big bang occurred.... why are you wasting my time like this? Wait... why am I wasting my own time like this?
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Well I don't think it is contradictory. I'm sorry you feel that way. This is probably as far as we would get with the discussion though on account of your religious convictions.
It's been cool though. I enjoyed talking to you. I'll check out that link too. Have a good night.
sonnygll 2 years ago
You start with a great explanation of the topic. However it then falls apart. You then have a straw man, a slippery slope and some quote mining. The latter 2 are based on the straw man. You ignore point of view. Looking at the universe from the outside, it is all there from beginning to end. But from my point of view it is not. For me it hasn't happened yet. Plus I *AM* this bunch of particle reactions. So it does feel like I have free will, and in a way I do, from my point of view.
sonnygll 2 years ago
Was this somehow intended to be a response to my response? You've just restated the thing I already addressed... point of view is the very thing being debated, and yet you're begging the question by just asserting that it's valid.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
I keep meaning to leave a real response. 500 characters plus the broken comment system makes things tough. When I find some time... :)
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Well if materialism/determinism is true then either you will or you won't and neither of us has any control over that eventuality.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
But he does have control over it. That is because he IS that collection subatomic particles. Even if it is predetermined from looking at the universe from the outside, from his point of view it isn't.
We are more than the sum of the electrical impulses and chemical reactions in our brains. Just because individual cells are not conscious, it does not mean they can't bring that about as part of the brain.
That is the short version of consciousness and free will in materialism.
sonnygll 2 years ago
This is like saying that a house controls its own layout and structure because it IS made of wood and stone and wire. This appeal to different points of view is not grounded in any scientific reality. If materialism is true, there is only one real, objective point of view: the 3rd person.
Objects don't have legitimate points of view, and materialism portrays humans as objects.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Why would you arbitrarily talk about humans having their own points of view when you don't use the same language of computers, or of trees, or of the ocean? You're drawing arbitrary distinctions you can't defend.
"We're more than the sum of the electrical impulses and chemical reactions in our brains."
Is this statement scientifically verifiable? How did you come to this conclusion?
Kanbei85 2 years ago
That is because we are complex enough be self aware and computers are not at this time.
Yes that statement is. That is because each cell does not have to have an understanding of what it it is doing to be able to do it. But these cells working in conjunction make up the brain.
I actually came to that conclusion from watching some Dan Dennett lectures on consciousness and free will. Very interesting stuff.
sonnygll 2 years ago
No it's not. That is because a house is not complex enough. We are complex enough. The point of view is not meant to be scientific. The reality IS only the 3rd person. But that doesn't matter to my illusion of free will because for me it has not happened yet. So we can't really go down that slippery slope because me free will feels real even though it isn't.
sonnygll 2 years ago
So... free will isn't real, but let's just go ahead and pretend it is so we feel better about ourselves? Is this your argument? I just want to make sure I understand you properly.
Also-- just how complex does a house have to get before it gets to have its own point of view? Complexity doesn't change the fundamental nature of something- it's a secondary property of it. Determinism is incompatible with free will, and adding more complexity to a deterministic physical thing won't change that.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Yes it's not real. We don't have to pretend though, because it seems real to us. So that's a little different.
It has to be complex enough to think as we do.
The last paragraph doesn't make sense. Free will is an illusion. It is a product of our self awareness. Determinism is incompatible with free will, but not with our illusion of it.
sonnygll 2 years ago
So... how is it that what I said was a strawman? You agree with me that free will is an illusion under materialism, and therefore all the things associated with free will that make human life meaningful are also illusions. The whole human experience becomes one big illusion. Of course, you'd still have to explain how we are consciously capable of having such an illusion in the first place.... something I'm confident a materialist cannot do.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Well because you rephrase what I say and then add a little to it.
as for consciousness, the explanation is that you can get consciousness from a large collection of parts that don't have it. That is because the cell does not have to know what it is doing in order to do it.
We may not know every detail of how consciousness works. However a lack of knowledge does not presuppose a supernatural cause. A creator just starts an infinite regression if that is where you are going with it.
sonnygll 2 years ago
"as for consciousness, the explanation is that you can get consciousness from a large collection of parts that don't have it. "
Is there any scientific evidence for this that doesn't rely on circular reasoning (i.e. appealing to human consciousness itself)?
I would say that you emphatically CANNOT obtain consciousness by assembling a collection of parts that don't have it. Consciousness is a fundamentally non-physical thing.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
"A creator just starts an infinite regression if that is where you are going with it. "
No it isn't. I'll PM you a link of a talk that explains this.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Consciousness is just a process of the brain. It is non-physical like any thought. Well, other than the electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain that cause it.
You can obtain it by assembling the right collection of parts. Much the same way you can assemble a computer that is capable of running all sorts of programs even though it just boils down to trillions of logic gates arranged in complex circuits.
sonnygll 2 years ago
"Consciousness is just a process of the brain."
What evidence do you have that this is a true statement?
By the way, how well do you think a computer would work that just came together by chance instead of being designed first on paper by an intelligent designer and then thoughtfully assembled in a factory? And yet you're saying our mind is a computer with random programming... and we're supposed to trust this why?
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Well it is in your brain obviously. So I suppose it is the "just" that you object to. There is no reason to think there is a supernatural cause for that. Just because science does not know every detail of how it works yet, does not mean you just throw your hands up and say "god did it".
Your next paragraph is quite fallacious. Nothing comes together by chance. Are we veering off into natural selection now? You're not going to say words like "Darwinism" are you?
sonnygll 2 years ago
You're just begging the question. You're assuming consciousness must be physical because you don't believe in the nonphysical. But I've already explained why consciousness can't be rooted in the physical: because consciousness requires free will which is physically impossible.
"Nothing comes together by chance."
What about the first living cell that evolutionists say started the tree of life?
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Not exactly. I am just saying consciousness is a brain function and it's the supernatural I don't believe in. Even if we knew nothing about how the brain works, or it's evolution, it is still not reasonable to conjure up a supernatural creator.
Nothing comes together by chance. That includes the first living cell. It would probably be hard to even pin down the first living cell. First there were RNA based cells before DNA. Then something like a virus, we are not sure it qualifies as life.
sonnygll 2 years ago
"But I've already explained why consciousness can't be rooted in the physical: because consciousness requires free will which is physically impossible."
Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.
"What about the first living cell that evolutionists say started the tree of life?"
There are various hypothesis on how the first soup of mother cells were formed, but to say they just 'came together' is an oversimplification of abiogenesis. And what exactly is an 'evolutionist'?
whitefox998 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Since it can be proven that all NFMs are DFMs, determinism explains epistemology better than nondeterminism. In the case of determinism we can at least think of our actions as being meaningful. The contrary is to introduce meaningless states in the truest sense - utter randomness in which predicates do not represent a map from a domain of possibilities to a range of outcomes - much as you describe determinism to imply. This translates directly to Russel's paradox.
Ormaaj 2 years ago
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a hard limit on what can be known simultaneously about the position and velocity of a particle under any circumstance, not just a practical limit.
No matter the philosophical implications of materialism - this doesn't affect truth. I find that there are no philosophical implications other than to say that present state and actions tend to influence future state. In set theory that is the very definition of something that is meaningful or "functional".
Ormaaj 2 years ago
You are seriously trying to say that materialism- a philosophy- has no philosophical implications? That's really your position? That's like saying that Christ's teachings have no bearing on religion.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
This is a false dichotomy. You're asserting that we must choose between two options: determinism and utter randomness. Both presuppose materialism. The mind, or soul, is a source of a free thinking will that is neither inevitable nor random. Free decisions are informed and influenced by prior conditions, but not _determined_ by them in an inevitable sense. Souls are "unmoved movers" in Aquinas's language.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Such a simplistic view of your chosen topic.
agnosticsalvation 2 years ago