Einstein solves the problem of evil

[Excaljnur]

I think you misunderstood the conclusion of my argument and this is my argument based on my understanding of Hume's On Liberty. Free Will does not stand in opposition to determinism because determinism by antecedent conditions is based on assumed connections that we believe necessary through nothing more than a strong feeling and subsequent habituation of that strong feeling. I can only define free will as it stands in opposition to Constraint. The definition would be: Free Will - the capacity to disobey the determinations of one's will; this capacity is infinite unless constrained (ie. social constraints, psychological constraints, physical constraints). We tend to live in a default state of Constraint with a limited exercise of Free Will, which I will explain further down. That definition should suffice, but let me know if there is a hole in it.

These are the operational principles of Free Will: I cannot choose my beliefs, but I can control what situations I put myself in, what books I decide to read, a morning walk that I decide to go on, a class that I decide to take. The beliefs that I acquire or conclude as a result of participating in certain events and doing certain activities are not up to me. For example, what if I met Pro-life demonstrators on my walk and they was quite convincing about their beliefs. I would walk away considering and possibly believing them. I could have avoided them, but I chose to walk towards them. What I couldn't control and was not random was their presence on my walk and the arguments they proposed among there things. Now, influenced without my control by these Pro-life beliefs, I could exercise my free will by choosing to Google a Pro-choice website and educate myself on their arguments. Ultimately, I could control what situations I put myself in, but not was what beliefs were impressed upon me. However, I feel inclined to Google Pro-choice arguments because I've been raised to analyze both perspectives for greater understanding. Because of the inclination, a determinism would conclude that I will Google Pro-choice, but this inclination is simply the determination of my will, which I can choose to obey or not. It is ultimately the existence of this choice that explains why people's behavior cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy. We can only predict in patterns. However, if you notice, this choice to not Google Pro-choice represents my desire to remain ignorant of Pro-choice arguments. Remaining ignorant would constrain my future behavior to be closer to what human behavior patterns suggest.

By saying everyone has Free Will, I'm not saying that everyone can exercise their free will to the same extent. Our constraints limit our capacity to disregard the determination of our will. In other words, if we do not actively exercise our free will by educating ourselves and ultimately realizing that we have more options and a wider array of choices, we are living not by choice, but by the ignorance of choice in perpetual constraint. In a perfect scenario of perpetual constraint, we would see no existence of free will and we could with 100% accuracy predict this persons behavior according to assumed patterns of human behavior. That accuracy is only 100% when a person is under complete perfect constraint.

In terms of constraints, my walk could have been limited because I had hurt my back and didn't want to walk too far, so I took a shortcut down the road with the protesters. You could say that this happened the way it did and could not have happened any other way, but that would ignore he options that I had available to me. I could walk on the side of the street where the protesters where on, or I could walk on the other side of the street. The constraints here are my back pain which is preventing me from walking a further distance back around the block to avoid the protesters, but I am not so constrained as not be able to cross the street to avoid the protesters.

I do believe I am affirming Free Will with a very practical explanation that is not enigmatic and displays operational principles.

Operational Principles:
1) We cannot choose our beliefs.
2) We can choose to obey or disobey the determinations of our will.
3) A determination of the will is the action that requires no Free Will, is bound by constraint and can be described as an assumed human pattern of behavior.
4) Disobeying the determinations of our will results in not behaving according to assumed patterns of human behavior.
5) Not behaving according to assumed patterns of human behavior is an exercise of Free Will.
6) A person acting against assumed human patterns of behavior simultaneously realizes that they have a choice to behave according to assumed human patterns of behavior or to not do so; the realization that Free Will exists.
7) Putting yourself in situations that are against assumed human patterns of behavior results in an education (for lack of a better word) of the available choices (ie. options; ways to exercise Free Will).
8) In accord with principle 1 we cannot choose what these choices, that are revealed to us by disobeying the determinations of our will, will be.

 

[Skwim]

determinism by antecedent conditions is based on assumed connections that we believe necessary through nothing more than a strong feeling and subsequent habituation of that strong feeling.

Wrong. Determinism is based on overwhelming observational evidence, AND the principle of most plausible alternative. Aside from some possible quantum events, no event has ever been known to have arisen uncaused. And, if it was uncaused it would have to have been an utterly random event.
As I pointed out in my previous post, determinism is the default explanation of how stuff happens.

Free Will - the capacity to disobey the determinations of one's will; this capacity is infinite unless constrained (ie. social constraints, psychological constraints, physical constraints).

So, just how does this capacity operate. What form does this capacity take? What is the nitty-gritty of this capacity?

Operational Principles:
2) We can choose to obey or disobey the determinations of our will.

A "choosing" that in itself is determined. (Actually, there's no such thing as choosing, as in somehow freely choosing.) One "chooses" A rather than B beCAUSE. . . . . And, of course, the determinations of our will are themselves the result of cause. All of which puts us right back at determinism, while the notion of freewill goes *poof*.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..And, of course, the determinations of our will are themselves the result of cause. All of which puts us right back at determinism, as the notion of freewill goes *poof*.

I don't see why .. What IS this 'result of cause' ? Is it not our own decision?

I would say that it was. I wouldn't like to be a passenger in your car if you weren't really in control of it

 

[Skwim]

I don't see why .. What IS this 'result of cause' ? Is it not our own decision?

It's the effect that cause creates. Your decision, the result of deciding, isn't any different than your "choosing." Both are illusions. There aren't any true options in what you do. You do what you do because you can't do any differently. The antecedent conditions that led up to the moment of your doing forced you to do what you do. There was no intervening machinery, such as a the vaunted free will, that played any part in the outcome.

 

[Excaljnur]

Wrong. Determinism is based on overwhelming observational evidence,

You are still missing my point entirely. I'm not criticizing determinism directly I'm criticizing its foundation. I'm criticizing observable evidence (empirical observation). Like you said, determinism is based on observable evidence, which would mean that a hole in the certainty of observational evidence would weaken, if not refute, determinism.

I explained why determinism is not a sufficient theory to refute free will. If the causality of everything can be determined as a direct antecedent condition to the effect, we would be able to theoretically predict human behavior indefinitely; thus, dissolving the foundational uncertainty necessary for free will to be a plausible theory. Causality follows logical patterns which translate into predictable human behavioral patterns, this is why it makes so much sense that determinism would be a sufficient theory to refute free will. However, not only is the nature of prediction false because any context in which induction exists (which is necessary for prediction), is ultimately based on assumed connections that we believe necessary through nothing more than a strong feeling and subsequent habituation of that strong feeling --this is what empirical observation is, but determinism also believes that we always follow those patters of predictable human behavior. We do not always follow those patterns of predictable human behavior because we have the capacity to act irrationally. Every causal relationship creates an assumed logical connection between the cause and the effect. That logical connection only applies when we are behaving rationally. Although we are creatures who have the capacity to reason, we also have the capacity to neglect reason and act irrationally. Irrationality in humans in conjunction with the false nature of causal relationships is why determinism is refutable.

So, just how does this capacity operate. What form does this capacity take? What is the nitty-gritty of this capacity?

The capacity is the ability to obey or disobey the determinations of our will, that capacity to obey and disobey operates through our rational and irrational behavior. Determinism operates solely through rational behavior and cannot explain irrational behavior. In fact, determinism posits that irrational behavior cannot exist. However, that neglects to acknowledge that although there may be a clear rational choice and a clear irrational choice, or multiple clear rational choices and multiple clear irrational choices, the causal connection involved with an irrational choice could not have been predicted because it is inherently irrational. Logical reasoning cannot predict the irrational, which is a contradiction. Determinism depends on the logical connections between two events. I've explained that effects caused by irrationality cannot be predicted through logical reasoning because logical reasoning is necessary for a legitimate causal relationship to exist. I'm saying that a causal relationship can only exist in hindsight and even then, only when it involves a rational cause.

A "choosing" that in itself is determined. (Actually, there's no such thing as choosing, as in somehow freely choosing.) One "chooses" A rather than B beCAUSE. . . . . And, of course, the determinations of our will are themselves the result of cause.

You would be correct in saying that everything has a perceived cause, especially in the interaction of material objects. Almost everything can be explained by saying one chooses A rather that B because... However, if I were to say "I choose A rather than B because B would be the rational choice," you could not apply that to future scenarios because you could not repeat that scenario and prove that the causal relationship exists since collecting data on the empirical results of multiple identical scenarios would result in a skew of data resembling no rational conclusion other than "Bob chose A because that was an irrational choice..." which as a behavioral pattern is unreliable.

In hindsight, you can determine the assumed causal relationships, with the exception of assumed irrational causal relationships, but in foresight, determinism fails to explain the effects of causes made irrationally. Irrationality, if predicted at all, can only be predicted in a general and unreliable pattern. This is not randomness because randomness would imply there is no possibility of prediction. Furthermore, the existence of assumed logical connections refutes randomness as a theory at all because the fact that some experiments can be repeated so many times -- which is not to say infinite -- without failure is an astronomical improbability. That astronomical improbability, or chance is what proponents of randomness cling to -- which I believe both you and I agree is ridiculous, not just because it is astronomical, but because there is a better alternatives. We just disagree on the alternative.

no event has ever been known to have arisen uncaused.

If you count irrationality as a cause, then you are correct.

I believe I've explained and refuted the basis of your Determinism (causality based on empirical observation) a couple times now and your insistence that it still refutes Free Will without explanation is mere reassertion--what you previously accused of the defense of free will. You haven't defended determinism beyond claiming that the merits of observable evidence are supported "overwhelmingly" by observable evidence; a circular argument. I believe you keep bringing up randomness because you don't know that there are different theories of free will. Libertarian (not to be confused with the political ideology) Free Will is a form of extreme free will essentially claiming that nothing can be predicted because nothing constrains our will to act any way we want, which seems like complete randomness. Its opposite being extreme Predetermination where somehow every action, thought and event in your entire existence was and is predetermined; this is absolutely no free will or an extreme absence of free will. And as with extremist theories, they are just theoretical impossibilities that exist only as a reference to conceptualize what the most distant points on an ideological/ conceptual spectrum are (i.e. extreme conservatism--reactionary to extreme liberal--socialist). The theory of free will that I have argued is called a compatibilist theory because it postulates that there is no conflict between Determinism and Free Will.

 

[Skwim]

You are still missing my point entirely. I'm not criticizing determinism directly I'm criticizing its foundation. I'm criticizing observable evidence (empirical observation). Like you said, determinism is based on observable evidence, which would mean that a hole in the certainty of observational evidence would weaken, if not refute, determinism.

I explained why determinism is not a sufficient theory to refute free will. If the causality of everything can be determined as a direct antecedent condition to the effect, we would be able to theoretically predict human behavior indefinitely; thus, dissolving the foundational uncertainty necessary for free will to be a plausible theory. Causality follows logical patterns which translate into predictable human behavioral patterns, this is why it makes so much sense that determinism would be a sufficient theory to refute free will. However, not only is the nature of prediction false because any context in which induction exists (which is necessary for prediction), is ultimately based on assumed connections that we believe necessary through nothing more than a strong feeling and subsequent habituation of that strong feeling --this is what empirical observation is, but determinism also believes that we always follow those patters of predictable human behavior. We do not always follow those patterns of predictable human behavior because we have the capacity to act irrationally. Every causal relationship creates an assumed logical connection between the cause and the effect. That logical connection only applies when we are behaving rationally. Although we are creatures who have the capacity to reason, we also have the capacity to neglect reason and act irrationally. Irrationality in humans in conjunction with the false nature of causal relationships is why determinism is refutable.



The capacity is the ability to obey or disobey the determinations of our will, that capacity to obey and disobey operates through our rational and irrational behavior. Determinism operates solely through rational behavior and cannot explain irrational behavior. In fact, determinism posits that irrational behavior cannot exist. However, that neglects to acknowledge that although there may be a clear rational choice and a clear irrational choice, or multiple clear rational choices and multiple clear irrational choices, the causal connection involved with an irrational choice could not have been predicted because it is inherently irrational. Logical reasoning cannot predict the irrational, which is a contradiction. Determinism depends on the logical connections between two events. I've explained that effects caused by irrationality cannot be predicted through logical reasoning because logical reasoning is necessary for a legitimate causal relationship to exist. I'm saying that a causal relationship can only exist in hindsight and even then, only when it involves a rational cause.



You would be correct in saying that everything has a perceived cause, especially in the interaction of material objects. Almost everything can be explained by saying one chooses A rather that B because... However, if I were to say "I choose A rather than B because B would be the rational choice," you could not apply that to future scenarios because you could not repeat that scenario and prove that the causal relationship exists since collecting data on the empirical results of multiple identical scenarios would result in a skew of data resembling no rational conclusion other than "Bob chose A because that was an irrational choice..." which as a behavioral pattern is unreliable.

In hindsight, you can determine the assumed causal relationships, with the exception of assumed irrational causal relationships, but in foresight, determinism fails to explain the effects of causes made irrationally. Irrationality, if predicted at all, can only be predicted in a general and unreliable pattern. This is not randomness because randomness would imply there is no possibility of prediction. Furthermore, the existence of assumed logical connections refutes randomness as a theory at all because the fact that some experiments can be repeated so many times -- which is not to say infinite -- without failure is an astronomical improbability. That astronomical improbability, or chance is what proponents of randomness cling to -- which I believe both you and I agree is ridiculous, not just because it is astronomical, but because there is a better alternatives. We just disagree on the alternative.


If you count irrationality as a cause, then you are correct.

I believe I've explained and refuted the basis of your Determinism (causality based on empirical observation) a couple times now and your insistence that it still refutes Free Will without explanation is mere reassertion--what you previously accused of the defense of free will. You haven't defended determinism beyond claiming that the merits of observable evidence are supported "overwhelmingly" by observable evidence; a circular argument. I believe you keep bringing up randomness because you don't know that there are different theories of free will. Libertarian (not to be confused with the political ideology) Free Will is a form of extreme free will essentially claiming that nothing can be predicted because nothing constrains our will to act any way we want, which seems like complete randomness. Its opposite being extreme Predetermination where somehow every action, thought and event in your entire existence was and is predetermined; this is absolutely no free will or an extreme absence of free will. And as with extremist theories, they are just theoretical impossibilities that exist only as a reference to conceptualize what the most distant points on an ideological/ conceptual spectrum are (i.e. extreme conservatism--reactionary to extreme liberal--socialist). The theory of free will that I have argued is called a compatibilist theory because it postulates that there is no conflict between Determinism and Free Will.

Your dreadful prolixity, your irrelevancies, and your twisted misunderstandings are too much to endure anymore. Have a good day.

 

[Excaljnur]

Your dreadful prolixity, your irrelevancies, and your twisted misunderstandings are too much to endure anymore. Have a good day.

Good Game.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..There aren't any true options in what you do. You do what you do because you can't do any differently. The antecedent conditions that led up to the moment of your doing forced you to do what you do. There was no intervening machinery, such as a the vaunted free will, that played any part in the outcome.

Your deluded, my friend

Safe driving!

 

[jreedmx]

Is evil the absence of good?

It seems to me that evil is malicious, aggressive, serves it's own ends at even the expense of human life and suffering. It doesn't appear to be just the absence of good. If there was no evil then there would be no evil if good was absent. So evil may exist independently of good, regardless of whether good is present or not. I think that the more of a foundation of good that you have then evil people have less of an influence and are restricted in their activities. If there are laws and punishments then there is a deterrent. It almost seems like humans need to have a framework like that to stop them degenerating into evil. The collective conscience of a group can be lower than the standard of conscience of the individual, and the force within the group can be manipulated by people in authority to serve evil ambitions. So good can exist within the individual and the group but can easily be manipulated by evil if we allow it. So it may not be as simple as evil just being the absence of good. Evil seems to have it's own momentum. If we do not have the structure in place to deal with it then we are helpless to do anything. Even if a society like America where there are so many protections a leader can still invade another country and take the citizens down the path of war and have those citizens powerless to stop it from happening. It's been 100 years since the start of the first world war. The normal person was caught up in the dynamics of families in authority who had all the power and were fighting among themselves. So I think that evil may exist always potentially but is limited by those good people in authority, the framework we have, as well as the quality of good in the individual. I think there will always be evil people.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Like you said, determinism is based on observable evidence

Only it isn't. It's basically as philosophical/metaphysical assumption that seemed great in the 19th century when classical physics was interpreted (and still largely is) as being entirely deterministic and very successful. So it was assumed that as we really had no empirical reason to doubt that some later experiment would suddenly reveal problems with the deterministic model, it became increasingly unquestioned. However, it had philosohpical and metaphysical challenges from the start, these never left, and the empirical evidence was blown away about a century ago. Quantum physics is ontologically indeterminate, general relativity admits causal paradoxes, and complexity sciences allow for circular causality/closed causal loops. Determinism is a 19th century relic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Of course, another problem here as elsewhere is equating simplistic causality (i.e., given any effect E, there exists a cause or set of causes C, because I can always linguistically formulate effects in terms of causes) with what determinism actually is; a (to put it generously) informal treatment of randomness; an assumed conception of what causality is that ignores roughly 2,500 years of academic, philosophical, and scientific debate; claims about physics (both classical and quantum) made without much knowledge of either, a basic disconnect between the inter-disciplinary literature on subjects such as reductionism, emergence, determinism, causality, etc., and repetitive claims that because one can state "every effect has a cause" this is somehow a truism (the alternative, such as any is allowed to exist, is the "informal" treatment of random combined with references to little-understood notions from quantum physics).

 

[metis]

Thus adding an item such as "... as far as we can tell" often is a wise move.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

I don't think there is any proof that the boy in the story was actually Einstein (or that it is even based on a true event). I'd welcome being proven wrong, however.

The point being what? That it's okay to promote a shopworn theodicy by lying about Einstein's beliefs about religion? Here's a little newsflash. God is supposedly omnipotent, evil deeds are often proactive ones, and victims do not freely will their victimization.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

I think it's the idea that is important, not who actually said it.

Attributing the argument to one of the world's most brilliant minds doesn't prove the argument, but does suggest that one should at least think long and hard before dismissing it. If the attribution is false, however, then the apparent appeal to superior intellect is false as well.

 

[ChristineES]

Attributing the argument to one of the world's most brilliant minds doesn't prove the argument, but does suggest that one should at least think long and hard before dismissing it. If the attribution is false, however, then the apparent appeal to superior intellect is false as well.

I doubt that someone who is not intelligent came up with the argument.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

I doubt that someone who is not intelligent came up with the argument.

I'm sure that the person who came up with the argument was, at least, reasonably intelligent. But it wasn't necessarily the work of one of the world's great geniuses. And if it wasn't Einstein specifically, then the claim that Einstein endorsed or invented the argument is a lie.

 

[ChristineES]

I'm sure that the person who came up with the argument was, at least, reasonably intelligent. But it wasn't necessarily the work of one of the world's great geniuses. And if it wasn't Einstein specifically, then the claim that Einstein endorsed or invented the argument is a lie.

Attributing it to Einstein, if Einstein did not come up with it, would be a lie; but the argument itself is not a lie.

 

[Parsimony]

The point being what? That it's okay to promote a shopworn theodicy by lying about Einstein's beliefs about religion? Here's a little newsflash. God is supposedly omnipotent, evil deeds are often proactive ones, and victims do not freely will their victimization.

I'm not sure I understand your post.

 

[Ouroboros]

I doubt that someone who is not intelligent came up with the argument.

Yeah, but imagine if someone came up with something great and then spread it out, telling people that Jesus said it.

For instance, "Thou who devour strawberry ice cream are evil and will go to Hell without passing Go!" That was Jesus who said it, to his teacher, during a debate. Regardless if the statement in itself was true or not, wouldn't it upset you that someone is lying about what Jesus said only to promote their own ideas? How about having Jesus say, "Christianity is a false religion." Christians would blow a gasket, I'm sure if someone claimed this. Why? Because they know Jesus wouldn't have said it, but rather the opposite. Attributing Einstein to say something that he probably wouldn't have said at all is rude and dishonest. I wouldn't invent and lie about what Jesus said, so why would any religious person lie about Einstein? There's no need for it. Present the idea, but don't put it in the mouth of those who is dead and can't defend themselves.

 

[Ouroboros]

Attributing it to Einstein, if Einstein did not come up with it, would be a lie; but the argument itself is not a lie.

The argument is an argument. It can't technically be a lie. It can be true or false, however, but not a lie, since "lying" is an act of a human being. So yea, it's not a "lie". It could never be, even if the argument was false.

But you have to see it from the perspective from people who respect and read Einstein. It's offensive to them, just as much as if someone would be lying about your savior. Did you know that when Jesus wrote in the sand he wrote "Christians are liars"? Amazing, isn't it. So it must be true since he said that. Right? Isn't it hurtful to hear something like that? Well, it is to people who respect Einstein and his views too when this lies about him are spread around.

Put it this way, I have personally a hard time getting past the offence. I can't quite start thinking about the "evil argument" when this blatant disrespect to a great person is staring in my face. The argument itself is drowned in this.