Five Reasons to Believe in God

[lunamoth]

I have a different view of this. There really REALLY REALLY is no I. There is no little person sitting in the cab, driving the meat-mobile. The sum total of all of those chemical/neurological/atomic/whatever interactions is us. There is no other you than that. So yes, you have free will, in the sense that you are that process. When all of those things happen, and result in you tapping your finger on the table, that IS your free will. You making a decision is a chemical etc. process that actually happens.

IOW, you aren't seated in the meat machine; you are the meat machine.

Right, I get it that we are the meat machines and that's all there is to the show.

How can we have free will, or anything such as will at all? You clearly made the point that there is no "I" (me, you). So, what is it that can choose? All the input goes in, blind chemical reactions do what they must do (governed by the physical laws of the universe), output comes out. Sure, different machines have different outcomes and we (currently) can't measure every single input variable, so we can't consciously predict what the outcome is going to be, and perhaps our wiring just prevents from ever being able to measure this. But, the reality is, no actual choice (implying will) is ever made. Input in, output out. The only way to change the output is to change the wiring, and that, it appears, is done by what kind of input goes in.

If the outcome is inevitable where has a choice been made?

But, you stated that there is will, so my question remains. If there is no "I" what is it that can possibly choose/have will?

 

[lunamoth]

Why couldn't we? Computers are wholly rational, and yet such rationality and deduction are merely the result of programmed 1s and 0s. Why can the human brain and the vast and complicated system of biological processes and neuroses therein not provide an adequate and naturalistic explanation for these things?

They could be. I am currently entertaining that idea in my discussion with Autodidact.

This comes down to whether you believe in objective right and wrong. History shows us that morality is never that objective, but as time passes and history moves on we learn which moral codes suit us best and which are best for governing a society with the least amount of suffering. As humans, we're like that. Morality isn't something that is constant, but something that develops alongside society, and ultimately society will always (albeit slowly) gravitate to moral decisions that best protect and serve all people. In other words, it doesn't have to be universally or objectively wrong for us to understand that something is wrong.

I'll think more about that. For the part in red, do you see this as a blind process or a rational process?

 

[lunamoth]

All things being process.
Unfolding.

Nice. :yes:

 

[lunamoth]

Great OP lunamoth. I think you perfectly summarized five of the strongest arguments for belief in God.

I.M.O. points 1-2 are not good reasons to believe in God. They are just good reasons to suspect there is much we do not know. Points 3-5 are also not good reasons to believe in God per se, they are good reasons to believe in an objective basis for higher reasoning, ethics, and virtues. There is an objective basis for such things: it's the real world, which objectively exists, outside our subjective minds. If reality was objectively different -- if human beings had evolved like a colony of ants, say, or if we lived in a universe where 2+2=4 did not accurately describe anything -- then our reasoning and our ethics would be different.

Very concise response; well said!

 

[Copernicus]

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that God exists. These are reasons that make me consider the existence of God to be plausible.

No need to caution me on this point, as you know. It is the plausibility of your arguments that I am attacking.

I guess, if God is limited by the same things that limit us.

The ineffability defense has always struck me as the height of implausibility. How can so-called "limited minds" reason about unlimited ones?

Perhaps everything we know, but I hesitate to say that everything we are is built on sensory experience alone.

Possibly, but you need to give an example of something that is not related to sensory experience in order to defend that idea.

So you are also happy with 'what works,' and that is fine. The distinction between 4 and 5 is that one applies to social ethics (what we think of as responsibilities, but in a 'what works' world these are social contracts without the value of virtue). Some people have the worldview that it is not about the social contracts, but that they are the masters of their own domain and live by personal virtues or personal ethics. In this case the question of whether virtue is meaningful without God is raised.

Well, it is not ecclesiastical authorities, but secular authorities, that seem to be the final arbiters in such matters. There will always be psychopaths, sociopaths, crazy people, and just plain nasty people. Such people have a disturbing tendency to believe, like most other people, that their deities approve of their behavior.

 

[Autodidact]

Right, I get it that we are the meat machines and that's all there is to the show.

How can we have free will, or anything such as will at all? You clearly made the point that there is no "I" (me, you). So, what is it that can choose?

There is no I that is separate from your physical body. There is an I. It is made of cells. That is what chooses. The process of choosing is a physical/chemical/electrical/whatever process.

All the input goes in, blind chemical reactions do what they must do (governed by the physical laws of the universe), output comes out. Sure, different machines have different outcomes and we (currently) can't measure every single input variable, so we can't consciously predict what the outcome is going to be, and perhaps our wiring just prevents from ever being able to measure this. But, the reality is, no actual choice (implying will) is ever made. Input in, output out. The only way to change the output is to change the wiring, and that, it appears, is done by what kind of input goes in.

This process = choice.
btw, I don't think we can predict from input to output, and don't know that we ever will be able to. Remember when you get down to the atomic level, you're dealing with quanta, which can never be fully predicted or accounted for. There is a certain amount of fuzziness/probability there.
It turns out that brain "wiring" changes constantly, as it is used, and one way to change it is to change what you think and what you think about.

If the outcome is inevitable where has a choice been made?

I don't think you can say the output is inevitable. I don't know if I said this before, but for me ontology always reduces to epistemology. We can know someone's genetic heritage, know a lot about their life experience, and still not be able to predict perfectly what they will believe.

OTOH, and I think this is important, we can make a lot of predictions, if we know those things. We can see patterns. For example, if I know that you were born in Sana'a to Muslim parents, and have never left Yemen, are female and not educated beyond 6th grade, I can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that you are Muslim, Shi'ite and wears niqab or equivalent. Just for an example. Does she have free will? Why is she less likely to wear her head uncovered and worship Jesus? Etc.

But, you stated that there is will, so my question remains. If there is no "I" what is it that can possibly choose/have will?

There is an I. It is made of meat.

 

[lunamoth]

No need to caution me on this point, as you know. It is the plausibility of your arguments that I am attacking.


The ineffability defense has always struck me as the height of implausibility. How can so-called "limited minds" reason about unlimited ones?

OK.

Possibly, but you need to give an example of something that is not related to sensory experience in order to defend that idea.

Well, you agreed with my first point in your post # 187. So if you agree that it is likely that there is more to the material world 'out there' than we can sense, wouldn't it by the same token apply to the material world 'in here' (ourselves)?

Well, it is not ecclesiastical authorities, but secular authorities, that seem to be the final arbiters in such matters. There will always be psychopaths, sociopaths, crazy people, and just plain nasty people. Such people have a disturbing tendency to believe, like most other people, that their deities approve of their behavior.

Your comment seems like a non-sequitur to what I wrote above, but, yes, certainly what we think of as virtues are twisted to evil ends (I only beat her because I love her). Let's use the idea of objective morality instead of God, just so we can avoid being confused by all of the twistings that take place because we fallible humans make religions.

You reject this idea (objective morality) - right? All morality is subjective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Excellent point. I agree, and I think that this is what happens most or all of the time. Of course, the opposite is true too. People who do not believe in God look at each of these questions and explain why we do not need God for these, and then conclude this is evidence against God. Wrong on both counts.

Okay... so if both of these approaches are faulty, what's the valid approach that does point toward God?

What works is fine. Why are we bothering with all of these discussions?! It is only an attempt to coerce others to our way. There is nothing loftier than that, when 'what works' rules.

I really don't see why you keep focusing on this.

I'm not saying that truth is defined by utility; I'm saying that reality is consistent with itself, so one way we can test our beliefs to help determine if they're true is to test whether they're consistent... IOW to see "what works". This doesn't lead to perfect certainty (but nothing could, since we're not perfect anyhow), but it does lead to continual improvement.

"What works" is asymptotic to certainty: it never acheives it, but it always approaches it.

OK, I can see how you might think that, but it is not what I intend. What I am getting at is not about certainty, at all. It is about whether it is logical to believe and act as if there is right and wrong. With 'what works,' there is only what is right and wrong for me.

Wait... so you're talking about "right and wrong" in terms of morality, not factual correctness?

If so, then I really don't see what your issue here is. I'd think that it's painfully obvious that morality isn't objective. For one thing, we don't normally impose human moral standards on non-human animals. I wouldn't be able to come up with a single moral precept that could ever be considered objectively coherent, let alone valid.

I think it's more accurate to say that morality is shared; it's not universal or objective, but it is imposed from outside us to the extent that we're not generally free to make it up as whatever we want.

Actually, I think that the whole idea of objective morality comes out of cultural chauvinism: "the moral principles of my religion/culture/society/whatever are so good and correct that they must be universally true and valid."

 

[lunamoth]

There is no I that is separate from your physical body. There is an I. It is made of cells. That is what chooses. The process of choosing is a physical/chemical/electrical/whatever process. This process = choice.

If we are a meat machine and the process is bound by cause and effect, the laws of the physical universe, what makes the choice? If the result is inevitable, where is a choice made? Can a proton choose whether or not to cross a membrane? Can a synapse choose whether or not to fire? The process may be what we call choice, and it looks like choice or will because the input is too complicated and the wiring too little understood to make predictions or anticipate the outcome, but seriously, where is there true option, under some kind of conscious control, at any step of that process?

btw, I don't think we can predict from input to output, and don't know that we ever will be able to. Remember when you get down to the atomic level, you're dealing with quanta, which can never be fully predicted or accounted for. There is a certain amount of fuzziness/probability there.

Even if it pans out that due to quantum mechanics there is fuzziness that translates to randomness in chemical reactions (now wow - that's going to blow the mind of a lot of chemists!), there is no 'tiny invisible man' sorting out the random events, shuttling the ones he likes into the process - is there? Where is the conscious control there?

It turns out that brain "wiring" changes constantly, as it is used, and one way to change it is to change what you think and what you think about.

Exactly. How is that wiring changed? - By the sensory input it receives. Let me say that again. How is that wiring changed? - By the sensory input it receives. See, you read that sentence twice and now that neural network is stronger than if I just typed it once.

If there is no "I" there is no "you" to consciously change what you think and what you think about. "You" are a meat machine, bound by the laws of cause and effect.

I don't think you can say the output is inevitable. I don't know if I said this before, but for me ontology always reduces to epistemology.

Yes, you said that and I see the practicality in that. Seriously, I'm not sure what else we have.

We can know someone's genetic heritage, know a lot about their life experience, and still not be able to predict perfectly what they will believe.

Our inability to predict just means that there are too many variables, many of them unknown, and the machinery is just too complex. And as we just discussed above, the machinery changes as it is used.

OTOH, and I think this is important, we can make a lot of predictions, if we know those things. We can see patterns. For example, if I know that you were born in Sana'a to Muslim parents, and have never left Yemen, are female and not educated beyond 6th grade, I can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that you are Muslim, Shi'ite and wears niqab or equivalent. Just for an example.

Yes, we can make a lot of predictions about behavior because of the dependability of cause and effect, although human choices are one of the areas where we are most in the dark.

Does she have free will? Why is she less likely to wear her head uncovered and worship Jesus? Etc.

I don't think we've yet addressed how any meat machine can have will, free or otherwise.

There is an I. It is made of meat.

I am going by the idea that we are fully meat machines. I put "I" and "you" in quote marks when I am trying to get at exactly what it is that chooses anything, at any level.

 

[PolyHedral]

If we are a meat machine and the process is bound by cause and effect, the laws of the physical universe, what makes the choice? If the result is inevitable, where is a choice made? Can a proton choose whether or not to cross a membrane? Can a synapse choose whether or not to fire? The process may be what we call choice, and it looks like choice or will because the input is too complicated and the wiring too little understood to make predictions or anticipate the outcome, but seriously, where is there true option, under some kind of conscious control, at any step of that process?

There isn't any. The bold is absolutely correct.

 

[lunamoth]

Okay... so if both of these approaches are faulty, what's the valid approach that does point toward God?

In a meat machine world, none.

I really don't see why you keep focusing on this.

I'm not saying that truth is defined by utility; I'm saying that reality is consistent with itself, so one way we can test our beliefs to help determine if they're true is to test whether they're consistent... IOW to see "what works". This doesn't lead to perfect certainty (but nothing could, since we're not perfect anyhow), but it does lead to continual improvement.

Totally agree with respect to facts about the world around us. Facts can be true; philosophy is pointless.

Wait... so you're talking about "right and wrong" in terms of morality, not factual correctness?

If so, then I really don't see what your issue here is. I'd think that it's painfully obvious that morality isn't objective. For one thing, we don't normally impose human moral standards on non-human animals. I wouldn't be able to come up with a single moral precept that could ever be considered objectively coherent, let alone valid.

I think it's more accurate to say that morality is shared; it's not universal or objective, but it is imposed from outside us to the extent that we're not generally free to make it up as whatever we want.

The part is red is awesome, especially the part about it being shared. Nice. :yes:

Actually, I think that the whole idea of objective morality comes out of cultural chauvinism: "the moral principles of my religion/culture/society/whatever are so good and correct that they must be universally true and valid."

Could be.

Rhetorical question: Why should I choose to accept the morals of those around me? Obvious answer: because it is of benefit to myself or those I care about in the long run.
New question: Do we consider it virtuous when we choose good (what is morally right or acceptable) because it benefits ourselves, either directly or indirectly?

 

[lunamoth]

There isn't any. The bold is absolutely correct.

A totally rational answer. Thank you.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I'll pea-shoot here and just say I what I think of free will. Free will is the ability to choose, for better or worse. The only way in this physical reality to have will at all is to be human- to be a meat machine as some of you call it.
You do things at your own accord, and they are not determined, but rather incited, by other things.
Free will is being twisted with semantics. The ultimate conclusion behind the free will some of you are proposing is that since we are not gods and masters of existence, being able to bend or transform anything at our will (including our own thought processes), we do not have it.
It's semantics gone crazy.

 

[lunamoth]

The ultimate conclusion behind the free will some of you are proposing is that since we are not gods and masters of existence, being able to bend or transform anything at our will, we do not have it.
It's semantics gone crazy.

That is not what I am trying to say free will is. I mean the simple ability to freely make any choice. Do you want a banana or an apple?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

That is not what I am trying to say free will is. I mean the simple ability to freely make any choice. Do you want a banana or an apple?

I want an apple. But I could choose to have the banana. My desire is not preventing me from choosing one or the other.

Free will: it means that we have a will, as an individual, and are free to do with it whatever we want.

If you don't believe that is the case, than you are in fact implying that one must be a god to have it. I really don't see any other way around that. Genetics is what makes it possible to have a will period. Robots do not build themselves. We are the very essence of free will if you think about it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Nothing has it. It is a shortcut to describe a concept, but that concept does not technically exist. "Will" as a concept only appears because it is impossible for a human to predict another human accurately, except in very limited circumstances. In reality, humans, and everything else above the QM level, are perfectly predictable given infinite information.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a meat machine world, none.

And how does one go about telling a "meat machine world" from a "non-meat machine world"?

Totally agree with respect to facts about the world around us. Facts can be true; philosophy is pointless.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The part is red is awesome, especially the part about it being shared. Nice. :yes:

Thanks.

Could be.

Rhetorical question: Why should I choose to accept the morals of those around me? Obvious answer: because it is of benefit to myself or those I care about in the long run.

Other obvious answer: Because it "feels right". Because we're hard-wired for certain types of behaviour, and even though they're close to instinctual, we try to rationalize these instinctive decisions and pretend like they were reasoned conclusions.

New question: Do we consider it virtuous when we choose good (what is morally right or acceptable) because it benefits ourselves, either directly or indirectly?

Not usually. We're social creatures; our prestige within the group is helped more by us doing things for the group against our own self-interest than in accordance with it.

 

[lunamoth]

And how does one go about telling a "meat machine world" from a "non-meat machine world"?

Faith.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I'll try to return to this later. Feel free to nudge me.

Other obvious answer: Because it "feels right". Because we're hard-wired for certain types of behaviour, and even though they're close to instinctual, we try to rationalize these instinctive decisions and pretend like they were reasoned conclusions.

Right, a subconscious behavior hammered into us by the patient but blind hand of evolution.

Not usually. We're social creatures; our prestige within the group is helped more by us doing things for the group against our own self-interest than in accordance with it.

Right again. There is no such thing as virtue.

Now, I really do have to go mow the lawn. I have no choice. ;-)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Faith.

How is faith relevant to the question?

 

[Magic Man]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

1. It is highly unlikely that the material world we have access to through our senses is all that there is.

I realize I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to throw my two cents in.

Why is this unlikely?

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

And?

3. Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosphy are not rational without an objective basis outside of our sensory world.

Why not?

4. Ethics (responsibility to others) are an illusion without an objective basis of right and wrong.

That's not true, but why would an objective basis of right and wrong necessarily point to the existence of God?

5. Values/virtues (personal integrity) are an illusion without an objective basis for good.

Discuss. :seesaw:

Same as above.