Five Reasons to Believe in God

[lunamoth]

I'm going to question whether free will = freedom from the chains of cause and effect. If that is what it means, then I deny it exists. How can we ever get away from cause and effect?

Denying free will is one option. However, up to this point you seemed to defend the position that there is free will, or perhaps you make a distinction between 'will' and 'free will.' If so , what is the difference between will and free will?

So I was reading about Watson, the computer. Watson plays Jeopardy against human opponents. Say the answer to the question is, "Thomas Edison," and Watson gives it in 3.4 seconds and Ken Jennings in 3.5 seconds. How is Watson choosing that answer different from Ken Jennings choosing it?

Did Watson choose that answer? Could Watson have given any other answer, barring a program glitch or faulty input into its database? I don't know about you, but when I put data into a computer and get an answer, I don't want the computer to choose the output, but to give me the result it is programmed to produce. Wouldn't we be concerned if computers started choosing different outputs freely?

My point is that if we are indeed like the computer, what is free? Where is will exerted?

Also, how does the existence of an invisible super-powerful magical person make free will any more (or less, for that matter) likely?

It doesn't.

We are discussing it because you and others are defending a material and deterministic (based upon the no exceptions to cause and effect model) world.

It is logical to conclude that there is no free will in a material and deterministic world.

 

[lunamoth]

Your ability to fulfill your greatest desire (which is not something that can be consciously chosen). If someone deprived you of food, and that caused you to lose weight despite your greater desire to satisfy your hunger, then you would lack freedom of choice with respect to what you would most like to do. You would lack the freedom of choice to guide your behavior in the direction you most want. Free will can only ever mean anything with respect to specific choices in the face of competing desires.

The fact that you do not have enough money to buy an ocean liner restricts your free will in a sense. If you were obsessed with purchasing an ocean liner, you might feel frustrated, but that is not exactly what we mean by "free will". Free will is the ability to choose between buying an item or not buying one, given that you can afford the item. It is never a random (acausal) event. Your competing desires will ultimately determine the choice you make. Hence, you must calculate what will bring about the outcome you most desire.


Thanks!

For the sake of discussion I am fully buying the model of cause and effect. You have not answered the question of what is free. What (organ? process? entity of another sort?) is free to choose to buy or not buy?

 

[YmirGF]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

Um, ok.

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

True, but that does not necessitate a god. In my opinion, it is somewhat arrogant to project ones image of god onto unknown reality. Why would it be god?

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

This is akin to making mountains out of mole hills. I'm just saying...

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

Huh? Why is that? If you have explained this already, feel free to point to the specific post.

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

I've never been too big on ethics. Right and wrong represent the movable goalposts of value judgment. What does that have to do with god?

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

Other than "doing good" makes life easier and simpler when interacting with other human animals.

 

[Orias]

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

It is true that most people don't possess an adequate amount of perception, but that does not mean that all people of higher perception believe in a "God" either .

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

That something is nothing.

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

I disagree, all Men are insane.

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

There is nothing objectional about ethics. They are ideals, that only blind people to what actually is.

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

I agree, except without the objective and "good" parts.

 

[Willamena]

Starting over. I haven't read most of the thread. I hope you don't mind a reset.

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

I see "material" as just one of many classifications of "things" so even without an examination solely of the set of "things we perceive through senses" (or "things affected by the laws of physics"), there is already more to the world (than meets the eye).

Is this evidence of "God," though? Essentially, as "this" refers to all "things," it is the same question as the next...

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

Is "something" evidence of "God"?

Is any one thing evidence of "God"? Is "nothing"?

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

Does their status as apart from "the sensory" lend something to evidence for "God"?

And what does that say about "the sensory"?

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

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

From some perspectives, "the sensory" is an illusion. Illusions can be our friends.

But does this lend something to evidence for "God"? Most everything we do (in creating the world around us) as individuals we also have the capacity, as a group, to accomplish, and that includes subconscious manipulations. As individuals we set high standards for ourselves, and fault ourselves when we fail to achieve them; as a group, a society, we do precisely the same things. The "objective basis of right and wrong" can be as real as any zeitgeist without being independent of any of us.

 

[Willamena]

It is true that most people don't possess an adequate amount of perception, but that does not mean that all people of higher perception believe in a "God" either .

Hey! I possess precisely as much perception as I'm supposed to!

 

[Orias]

Hey! I possess precisely as much perception as I'm supposed to!

Do you?

 

[Willamena]

Do you?

Indubitably.

 

[lunamoth]

Huh? Why is that? If you have explained this already, feel free to point to the specific post.

Start at post #8.

I've never been too big on ethics. Right and wrong represent the movable goalposts of value judgment. What does that have to do with god?

Nothing, if you are OK with no objective right or wrong (even in theory). Ethics can be viewed as social contract, no more no less.

Other than "doing good" makes life easier and simpler when interacting with other human animals.

Fair enough. Utilitarianism is the option to God.

 

[lunamoth]

That something is nothing.

Can you say more about this?

 

[lunamoth]

I see "material" as just one of many classifications of "things" so even without an examination solely of the set of "things we perceive through senses" (or "things affected by the laws of physics"), there is already more to the world (than meets the eye).

Is this evidence of "God," though? Essentially, as "this" refers to all "things," it is the same question as the next...


Is "something" evidence of "God"?

Is any one thing evidence of "God"? Is "nothing"?

It is not evidence (in the empirical, scientific sense) of God. I don't have any of that.

I'm building (attempting to build) a gestalt case that belief in God is reasonable.

Does their status as apart from "the sensory" lend something to evidence for "God"?

And what does that say about "the sensory"?

It adds to the case that there is Something More to the material world, or that thinking of it as a material universe is inadequate to explain the validity of reason.

From some perspectives, "the sensory" is an illusion. Illusions can be our friends.

Most people do not want to go there. If we say someone is deluded, we are saying that we can't trust their reason.

But does this lend something to evidence for "God"? Most everything we do (in creating the world around us) as individuals we also have the capacity, as a group, to accomplish, and that includes subconscious manipulations. As individuals we set high standards for ourselves, and fault ourselves when we fail to achieve them; as a group, a society, we do precisely the same things. The "objective basis of right and wrong" can be as real as any zeitgeist without being independent of any of us.

This sounds similar to what 9/10ths was saying about it being shared. I agree there is something to that. OK for now.

 

[Autodidact]

I just want to take a moment to gloat over what a nice, polite, interesting, smart discussion we're having here.

 

[Willamena]

It is not evidence (in the empirical, scientific sense) of God. I don't have any of that.

I'm building (attempting to build) a gestalt case that belief in God is reasonable.

Nah; I just meant "evidence," like what's used to build a case.

 

[lunamoth]

Nah; I just meant "evidence," like what's used to build a case.

OK, in that case cool, what I said above about it adding to the case that the material world and determinism (cause and effect) is not all there is to the show. And, what would you call that which is more than natural?

 

[Willamena]

OK, in that case cool, what I said above about it adding to the case that the material world and determinism (cause and effect) is not all there is to the show. And, what would you call that which is more than natural?

Your question and your attitude, and even the need to make a case, blatently state that the material world is not only the norm but all there is to nature.

I disagree.

 

[Orias]

Indubitably.

Ah, so you do not question truth?

Can you say more about this?

Everything is nothing, nothing is everything. What is, is meaning that we give to our Self. Without the Self, nothing can be. Since it is the Self that allows observation.

Nothing is something, as it is a direction applied to the abysmal scene of the "Unknown". We know the labels we create, we do not necessarily know how they apply to what is. Something is nothing, because in the end most people think that they know "something" when their end is nothingness.

Man knows nothing, its a paradox

 

[Willamena]

Ah, so you do not question truth?

Truth is absolute, but to answer your question, there is no need to question truth. If it were questionable or doubtable, it wouldn't be truth.

Man knows nothing, its a paradox

You know that, do you?

 

[Orias]

Truth is absolute, but to answer your question, there is no need to question truth. If it were questionable or doubtable, it wouldn't be truth.

Ah, but that is what makes a "truth", the doubt.

Truth exists because of false.

"You know it's funny what a young man recollects? 'Cause I don't remember bein' born. I don't recall what I got for my first Christmas and I don't know when I went on my first outdoor picnic. But I do remember the first time I heard the sweetest voice in the wide world."-Forest Gump

Precision is the bullet that bites a convicted truth, with a substituted and self evident "truth".

You know that, do you?

I know that I know mySelf

 

[Copernicus]

For the sake of discussion I am fully buying the model of cause and effect. You have not answered the question of what is free. What (organ? process? entity of another sort?) is free to choose to buy or not buy?

The mind is free to choose. A physical brain generates the mind, but it would be a category mistake to say that the brain chooses, unless you use the word "brain" to be synonymous with "mind".

 

[lunamoth]

The mind is free to choose. A physical brain generates the mind, but it would be a category mistake to say that the brain chooses, unless you use the word "brain" to be synonymous with "mind".

So the mind does not have a cause and effect relationship with the brain? That seems to differ with the position you stated in your own Five Reasons thread:

[FONT=&quot]

While brains come and go, consciousness also comes and goes. And its ebb and flow correlates that of physical brain activity. So the evidence is that the physical brain activity actually causes consciousness.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]there are a number of mental functions, all of which correlate with physical structures in brains: memory, volition, sensation, mood, emotion, calculation, belief, etc.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]nothing that yogins do supports the idea that there is anything other than a physical brain producing their experiences when they go into trance-like states[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, everything is in the mind, but the mind is an effect of a working brain. Without a brain, there is no mind to weigh any evidence.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We see a clear, unmistakable relationship between all forms of mental activity and brain activity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Post #350] Behavior is driven by needs and desires that are beyond our control.[/SIZE]

[/FONT]

There is nothing about mental function that suggests the existence of an unseen agency of any kind. Consciousness waxes and wanes according to brain activity, so there appears to be a well-established causal connection. You can force someone to become unconscious by introducing a powerful sedative to that person's brain. Nobody can resist losing consciousness under those physical conditions by an act of will alone. Therefore, the brain is what causes consciousness.

[/font]


If there is not a cause and effect connection between the mind and the brain, what is their relationship? How are they connected?