How is the Bible the Word of God?

[1robin]

Yet, this is exactly what they claim.

That is depressing if true. When I heard an atheist describe the position I understood it to be one which grants actual freewill and actual determinism and finds both compatible but did not find the supernatural necessary for freewill. I disagreed with him but I found that to be a coherent and logical position. In fact I granted that scholar with a lot of credibility partially due to that position. I am sad to learn he was just spewing out psychobabble instead. Just when you can find coherence in an atheist's position even that is extinguished. It is just disheartening to think intelligent people can do this kind of thing.

BTW my entire reason for granting the possibility they do think what you claim is simply your and another posters confidence that that is the case. It is not apposition founded on substantial reasoning so I would not try and cash in too much on it's foundation. Right now and since it does not matter to me anyway I can grant you the likelihood of being correct but that is as far as I can go.

Either determinism is true or it isn't. One single event that defies it, defies the whole thing. Remember its definition I posted from SEP: one single possible future given a certain prior state. The moment you admit two possible futures for the same prior state, you admit that determinism is false, entirely.

You misunderstand what I said. No one denies determinism exists, however almost everyone believes there are exceptions to it, and I have given you trillions of examples. The fact that freewill (and I mean actual freewill not determinism lite) does not defeat determinism, it simply defeats the claim that determinism explains everything.

So you must allow that the claim that determinism explains all reality and the claim that determinism exist are two distinct claims all together. I hope your not going to a swan dive into hyper technical semantics again. Your rendering a coherent definition of compatabalism into the incoherent position you have was quite enough.

Hard determinism is the position that free will is incompatible with determinism (and determinism is true). Soft determinism (compatibilism) is the position that free will is possible even if determinism is true.

Look we have had two discussions. One about determinism which at least was coherent and one about compatabalism which resulted in incoherent nihilism. I really hope you will keep the incoherence to contained to compatabalism and not let it ruin the other debate. For the purposes of the coherent discussion.

Freewill equals our ability to will and which is not governed by determinism. It can be influenced and maybe even coerced but it is not determined by initial conditions.
Determinism is a chain of causation which has no freedom of any kind and is 100% caused by a prior state of affairs.

Those are the traditional explanations of the terms. I do not want to let any hyper modern alternate definitions obscure these simplistic ideas. I believe we both know what the dichotomy is and need no hyper technical semantic involvement.

They both talk of the same underlying determinism. If you strip the free will issue, there is no difference between hard and soft determinists.

I cannot strip the freewill issue, it is the one thing that does defy determinism. Of course stripped of freewill determinism is al that is left and so everyone would agree. It is freewill that is the meaningful issue.

What? Lol. They just defined what compatibilists must assume true and what they are up aganst in their defense that we can still be free under this premise. That is why it is made explicit in that section (about compatibilism.

I do not remember the context of this line of inquiry.

Congratulations. The annihilating argument philosophers were looking for since millenia

I do not get it. Determinism said only X exist but reality includes Y there for the X only argument is wrong.

I am not talking of factors. I am looking for an explicit cause of your decision, according to your views.The same exact conditions or factors can lead to different decisions (unless you believe that decisions and acting upon them are uniquely determined by this set of factors and you have no choice). So, what is this cause? Does it exist?

Yes it exists and it is apparent in a million events every day.
You hold the exclusive position that only determinism exists, therefor you must show that determinism explains everything. I hold a softer position that determinism is not all that exists (that it does not account for all events). For my position to prevail al I have to do is show determinism does not explain certain events. For your to prevail you must show it does explain them all. You have your burdens mixed up.

1. So all I need to show is a negative. Blind initial condition have no explanatory power to explain why it would produce and then gratify my desires.
2. However what your requesting of me is actually your burden, a positive claim. Instead of your showing that determinism does explain both my desires and the ability of initial conditions to gratify them you have instead reversed the burden and are asking me to provide both a source for the events and the proof that that source did produce them.

I don't in fact have that burden, but you do. You must show that all Xs are explained by Y. I only need to show that all Xs are not explained by Y. I gave you my source anyway, freewill (and I mean free). I do not have to explain how freewill works for it to be a source, just as the universal admission that we are conscious is just as good an explanation despite the fact no-one can explain it. I think freewill is a non-natural concept and have no idea how it works, yet it remains a far superior explanation over determinism.

And this is exactly the whole point. For what we know (we don't know a lot about conscious decisions because we do not know much about consciousness, yet),

Yet we all admit consciousness exists, the same way we can say that true freewill exists despite not being able to explain it.

we might be vastly more complex versions of Deep Blue. But still computational machines. And your choice of going to buy milk, when you see you don't have any, might have the same metaphysics of a temperature controller that pumps heat when its sensors measure a low temperature.

The level of complexity does not matter. Again my argument is not that determinism cannot explain my having the plan to get milk but it does not explain why the millions of things come together which allow me to get milk. It is also not my claim that we are non-computational machines, but that whatever we are we can will things and act on them which initial condition sis not an explanation for.

You probably do not agree with that. We are not machines, after all, are we? But how do you know? What justifies your singling out minds and how they work, from say other sort of machineries that we observe in the biological world, and for which we have a very popular unintentional process of "creation"?

Of course I do not agree, those who build computers know well that some hurdles that our minds can cross are not crossable by machines of any complexity but it does not matter. Machine or special creation by a divine being we do things that determinism has no explanation for.

 

[viole]

That is depressing if true. When I heard an atheist describe the position I understood it to be one which grants actual freewill and actual determinism and finds both compatible but did not find the supernatural necessary for freewill. I disagreed with him but I found that to be a coherent and logical position. In fact I granted that scholar with a lot of credibility partially due to that position. I am sad to learn he was just spewing out psychobabble instead. Just when you can find coherence in an atheist's position even that is extinguished. It is just disheartening to think intelligent people can do this kind of thing.

BTW my entire reason for granting the possibility they do think what you claim is simply your and another posters confidence that that is the case. It is not apposition founded on substantial reasoning so I would not try and cash in too much on it's foundation. Right now and since it does not matter to me anyway I can grant you the likelihood of being correct but that is as far as I can go.



You misunderstand what I said. No one denies determinism exists, however almost everyone believes there are exceptions to it, and I have given you trillions of examples. The fact that freewill (and I mean actual freewill not determinism lite) does not defeat determinism, it simply defeats the claim that determinism explains everything.

So you must allow that the claim that determinism explains all reality and the claim that determinism exist are two distinct claims all together. I hope your not going to a swan dive into hyper technical semantics again. Your rendering a coherent definition of compatabalism into the incoherent position you have was quite enough.



Look we have had two discussions. One about determinism which at least was coherent and one about compatabalism which resulted in incoherent nihilism. I really hope you will keep the incoherence to contained to compatabalism and not let it ruin the other debate. For the purposes of the coherent discussion.

Freewill equals our ability to will and which is not governed by determinism. It can be influenced and maybe even coerced but it is not determined by initial conditions.
Determinism is a chain of causation which has no freedom of any kind and is 100% caused by a prior state of affairs.

Those are the traditional explanations of the terms. I do not want to let any hyper modern alternate definitions obscure these simplistic ideas. I believe we both know what the dichotomy is and need no hyper technical semantic involvement.

I cannot strip the freewill issue, it is the one thing that does defy determinism. Of course stripped of freewill determinism is al that is left and so everyone would agree. It is freewill that is the meaningful issue.



I do not remember the context of this line of inquiry.



I do not get it. Determinism said only X exist but reality includes Y there for the X only argument is wrong.



Yes it exists and it is apparent in a million events every day.
You hold the exclusive position that only determinism exists, therefor you must show that determinism explains everything. I hold a softer position that determinism is not all that exists (that it does not account for all events). For my position to prevail al I have to do is show determinism does not explain certain events. For your to prevail you must show it does explain them all. You have your burdens mixed up.

1. So all I need to show is a negative. Blind initial condition have no explanatory power to explain why it would produce and then gratify my desires.
2. However what your requesting of me is actually your burden, a positive claim. Instead of your showing that determinism does explain both my desires and the ability of initial conditions to gratify them you have instead reversed the burden and are asking me to provide both a source for the events and the proof that that source did produce them.

I don't in fact have that burden, but you do. You must show that all Xs are explained by Y. I only need to show that all Xs are not explained by Y. I gave you my source anyway, freewill (and I mean free). I do not have to explain how freewill works for it to be a source, just as the universal admission that we are conscious is just as good an explanation despite the fact no-one can explain it. I think freewill is a non-natural concept and have no idea how it works, yet it remains a far superior explanation over determinism.


Yet we all admit consciousness exists, the same way we can say that true freewill exists despite not being able to explain it.

The level of complexity does not matter. Again my argument is not that determinism cannot explain my having the plan to get milk but it does not explain why the millions of things come together which allow me to get milk. It is also not my claim that we are non-computational machines, but that whatever we are we can will things and act on them which initial condition sis not an explanation for.

Of course I do not agree, those who build computers know well that some hurdles that our minds can cross are not crossable by machines of any complexity but it does not matter. Machine or special creation by a divine being we do things that determinism has no explanation for.

Robin,

Determinism does not know exceptions, by definition. Determinism is the position that prior conditions determine a unique future. Anything short of that destroys determinism completely.

I think I know where you are coming from. You somehow like the idea of an ordered universe that is not subject to the whims of random or unpredictable behaviour. And that is why you probably accept determinism when applied to a certain class of phenomena.

But that is too easy, I am afraid. You want a cake and eat it too. Singling out (your version of) free will, kills determinism at once, by postulating the existence of different futures under the same prior conditions. And that is a no go. Unless you redefine determinism to be what it is not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

The Bible is the word of God
The reason is
The most important commandments of the Bible is love
We link between the Gospel and the love of God
The Bible says (God so loved the world as I love you)
So for the first time in the history of humanity shows announce these simple words
It is therefore known as loving God knows
Every ideology calls and declare love is of God;
Every religion or ideology declares that God does not know the enemy of God
That is why Islam does not know God
When the Quran says (and prepared them what you can of power and mooring horse monks by the enemy of Allah and your enemy)
واعدوا لهم ما استطعتم من قوة ورباط الخيل ترهبون به عدو الله وعدوكم
Who is the man to become the enemy of God ???
For this reason, I am a Christian Simple

 

[1robin]

Robin,

Determinism does not know exceptions, by definition. Determinism is the position that prior conditions determine a unique future. Anything short of that destroys determinism completely.

I have been burned out on debate for a week or so. I got enough interest to answer this post eventually.

Determinism is not a conative process and so knows nothing what so ever. I am not sure about the context or intent behind your statement.

I think I know where you are coming from. You somehow like the idea of an ordered universe that is not subject to the whims of random or unpredictable behaviour. And that is why you probably accept determinism when applied to a certain class of phenomena.

I do not like or dislike the universe or any aspect of it. I am not for or against determinism. I simply find determinism to govern most events but free-will to be an exception. It is a simplistic position and has no need of psychoanalyzing.

But that is too easy, I am afraid. You want a cake and eat it too. Singling out (your version of) free will, kills determinism at once, by postulating the existence of different futures under the same prior conditions. And that is a no go. Unless you redefine determinism to be what it is not.

You seem to be so academically minded you confuse models with nature and definitions with reality. I am not talking about what is true of the dogmatic position a determinist holds. I am talking about events governed by natural laws alone. My view would be that natural laws govern the majority of events in the universe and so deterministic events are the majority and therefore determinism exists. I am not talking about the mantra that must be pledged at the "Deterministics are us" meetings. I mean determinism explains a sub set of the whole. And that the smaller subset of the whole of all events involve truly free will. So determinism exists in that the majority of events are the result of natural law or prior states, and freewill exists in that we can freely chose to will a thing not entirely determined by natural law. A sun burning out is a determined event and so determinism exists, a person freely deciding to build a specific house and then making a thousand decision which actualize that specific house is not wholly determined by prior natural states and so freewill exists. I am interested in how reality is, not how we label theories about it. IOW I am talking about the ontological nature of reality and your countering with the epistemological nature of a man made word in a certain context.

 

[viole]

I have been burned out on debate for a week or so. I got enough interest to answer this post eventually.

Determinism is not a conative process and so knows nothing what so ever. I am not sure about the context or intent behind your statement.

I do not like or dislike the universe or any aspect of it. I am not for or against determinism. I simply find determinism to govern most events but free-will to be an exception. It is a simplistic position and has no need of psychoanalyzing.

You seem to be so academically minded you confuse models with nature and definitions with reality. I am not talking about what is true of the dogmatic position a determinist holds. I am talking about events governed by natural laws alone. My view would be that natural laws govern the majority of events in the universe and so deterministic events are the majority and therefore determinism exists. I am not talking about the mantra that must be pledged at the "Deterministics are us" meetings. I mean determinism explains a sub set of the whole. And that the smaller subset of the whole of all events involve truly free will. So determinism exists in that the majority of events are the result of natural law or prior states, and freewill exists in that we can freely chose to will a thing not entirely determined by natural law. A sun burning out is a determined event and so determinism exists, a person freely deciding to build a specific house and then making a thousand decision which actualize that specific house is not wholly determined by prior natural states and so freewill exists. I am interested in how reality is, not how we label theories about it. IOW I am talking about the ontological nature of reality and your countering with the epistemological nature of a man made word in a certain context.

It is not academic at all. It is the definition of determinism. And a pretty simple one.

Determinism states that given conditions or state X, at a certain moment of time, then that sets of conditions determine the future uniquely. I really do not know other definitions or variants thereof that entail something different, or exceptions of any sort. But if you have read anything different, then we can discuss it.

The moment you postulate the possibility of two different futures, given the same exacly state of the Universe, then you deny determinism, by definition. There is not such a thing like determinism with exceptions. Period. It would be like saying that there are some bachelors that are married. Bachelors are defined as being not married, therefore there is not such a thing as a married bachelor.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

It is not academic at all. It is the definition of determinism. And a pretty simple one.

If you debate people that have a tendency to pervert evidence and definitions to meet their own needs, such as many apologist.

You will not successfully have any sort of debate where philosophy is used. There is to much wiggle room for bias to be interjected.


"There are many determinisms, depending upon what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event."


So trying to talk to someone that only see's things there own way despite what education and knowledge posits, might be quite futile.


I think your doing a great job though.

 

[outhouse]

I am not talking about what is true of the dogmatic position a determinist holds.

There is really no such think as a determinist.

Are there also gravitationist?

You seem to be so academically minded

So she is smart and not biased???

 

[1robin]

It is not academic at all. It is the definition of determinism. And a pretty simple one.

So a definition is not a product of academia? Look I do not car either way. I think you know what I mean and it does not matter what the dogmatic doctrine of a world view states. I have short-circuited any need to have a semantic fit by defining exactly hat it is I mean. If you have some objection to my calling events determined by initial conditions and natural law as determinism then fine give me some word to use and I will use it.

Determinism states that given conditions or state X, at a certain moment of time, then that sets of conditions determine the future uniquely. I really do not know other definitions or variants thereof that entail something different, or exceptions of any sort. But if you have read anything different, then we can discuss it.

I know what the doctrine of the philosophical view is. Lets instead get out of this semantic ssippi hole another way. Lets call all events that are determined by initial conditions and natural law X, and those determined by the free exercise of will Y. I believe that both X and Y occur and do so in spite of some sentence that exists in a book somewhere.

The moment you postulate the possibility of two different futures, given the same exacly state of the Universe, then you deny determinism, by definition. There is not such a thing like determinism with exceptions. Period. It would be like saying that there are some bachelors that are married. Bachelors are defined as being not married, therefore there is not such a thing as a married bachelor.

1. I have stated over and over I deny pure determinism.
2. I however believe some events are purely deterministic.
3. I also believe events occur which are not determined by initial conditions and natural law, and those actually include initial conditions and natural law.

Call that whatever you wish, we are talking another of ramp into semantic-ville again.

 

[1robin]

There is really no such think as a determinist.

Oh know, the semantic police are in force. I am talking about a person who believes that all events are the result of initial conditions and natural law. You can assign any term you wish to that. I could not think of a better word for a person who believes in determinism than a determinist, perhaps you can, and then explain why it matters.

Are there also gravitationist?

Are there not evolutionists?

So she is smart and not biased???

Which is why I never suggested either. Your showing back up and the first thing you do is accuse me of something I never stated is not a good start, this is where we left off. Quote anything I ever said that suggested a lack of intelligence or bias about that person. I can find specific statements to the exact opposite but that is not my burden, but yours.

 

[viole]

So a definition is not a product of academia? Look I do not car either way. I think you know what I mean and it does not matter what the dogmatic doctrine of a world view states. I have short-circuited any need to have a semantic fit by defining exactly hat it is I mean. If you have some objection to my calling events determined by initial conditions and natural law as determinism then fine give me some word to use and I will use it.

If definitions are the product of academia, then defining bachelors as not married men might require a PhD in order to be understood, right?

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion if we do not settle on precise definitions.

I know what the doctrine of the philosophical view is. Lets instead get out of this semantic ssippi hole another way. Lets call all events that are determined by initial conditions and natural law X, and those determined by the free exercise of will Y. I believe that both X and Y occur and do so in spite of some sentence that exists in a book somewhere.

Sure, but do not call it determinism, because it isn't.

So, question for you. What caused the events determined by your free will?

1. I have stated over and over I deny pure determinism.
2. I however believe some events are purely deterministic.
3. I also believe events occur which are not determined by initial conditions and natural law, and those actually include initial conditions and natural law.

Call that whatever you wish, we are talking another of ramp into semantic-ville again.

Nope. We are trying to use precise language, the sine-qua-non of any meaningful discussion. Semantics stands for meaning after all. If you do not like semantics, you do not like meaning, I am afraid.

So, you do not accept determinism. Fine. You are perfectly entitled to do that. Just call it for what it is, instead of trying to make up definitions and adapt them to your worldview.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Oh know, the semantic police are in force

How about grammar and English

Don't you mean "Oh now" or "Oh no" ??????????

 

[outhouse]

Are there not evolutionists?

No there are not.

They are called biologist.

 

[outhouse]

. I am talking about a person who believes that all events are the result of initial conditions and natural law.

You mean the vast majority of educated people of many different scientific branches that don't believe in mythology ????????????????????

 

[outhouse]

There is no such thing as credible Christian science, outside theology.

Same for islam or Judaism or any religion.


Science does not belong to a personal faith or interpretation of religious text, nor religious bias or fanaticism or fundamentalism.

 

[outhouse]

Prehistoric crocodile discovered in Chatham County

Why do you hate the scientist findings in this article???

 

[1robin]

If definitions are the product of academia, then defining bachelors as not married men might require a PhD in order to be understood, right?

I think your making a joke but the term bachelor requires a lot less rigor than the term determinism.

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion if we do not settle on precise definitions.

You can't honestly be suggesting you do not know what I have been saying. I have not controverted a single definition you have given. I have not attempted to restate what determinism means. I have instead stated what I meant in several ways, and have even offered for you to select any word you wish. I have no other word for events that were determined by initial conditions other than determinism. You give me one and I will use it.

Sure, but do not call it determinism, because it isn't.

I have explained what I meant, offered you to come up with a term for it, and even offered to call it simply X. Are you trying to win a debate by removing the ability to have one?

So, question for you. What caused the events determined by your free will?

I don't get it. You mean my personal freewill? I think you have already asked this and I said it is choice or will and that no further explanation can be given for it. I am not attempting to be able to explain freewill though I can define it. I am claiming that determinism does nothing to explain things that the mystery of freewill perfectly explains. So I don't know exactly what your asking, don't think anyone on earth could answer whatever it is your asking, but whatever the explanation is determinism does not seem to be possible.

Nope. We are trying to use precise language, the sine-qua-non of any meaningful discussion. Semantics stands for meaning after all. If you do not like semantics, you do not like meaning, I am afraid.

If that is all that we were doing then my explaining what I meant in detail would have cleared up any problems. The purpose of language is to convey an idea. If I have (and I cannot possibly see how I have failed to convey exactly what I mean) then language has served it's purpose.

So, you do not accept determinism. Fine. You are perfectly entitled to do that. Just call it for what it is, instead of trying to make up definitions and adapt them to your worldview.

I do not have another word nor can I explain what I am referring to any clearer.

 

[1robin]

How about grammar and English

Don't you mean "Oh now" or "Oh no" ??????????

I got shanked by spell correct. Do you expect me to believe you had no way to know what I meant? I see dozens of typing mistakes a day, I take it is trivial and unnecessarily divisive to point them out. This is petty and ridiculous. You can't start back doing what it is you ended our prior debate doing and think things will turn out any different.

 

[1robin]

You mean the vast majority of educated people of many different scientific branches that don't believe in mythology ????????????????????

Prove any of the three claims you made above, after you go back and provide proof I suggested anyone was not smart or biased. That is four claims to knowledge without a hint of evidence so far. If your going to worry about my typing I am going to actually require you to back up your claims to knowledge which BTW were contentions against a claim I never made to begin with.

 

[1robin]

No there are not.

They are called biologist.

So this group of people:

ev·o·lu·tion·ist
ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/
noun
noun: evolutionist; plural noun: evolutionists

1. a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.

Does not exist?

The same noun can be found at:
Evolutionist | Define Evolutionist at Dictionary.com
Evolution - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
evolutionist - definition of evolutionist by The Free Dictionary
evolutionist: definition of evolutionist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

 

[outhouse]

So this group of people:

Does not exist?

Makes as much sense as calling someone a gravitationist. OMG people actually believe in gravity!!!!

What next ??? please don't call me a round earther because we know the earth is round.

Evolutionist - RationalWiki

The term "evolutionist" is commonly used as an anti-science label by proponents of creationism and intelligent design. Sometimes the word changes to 'evilution' to indicate that belief in evolution is, in some creationist opinions, evil and of the devil. Both "evolutionist" and "evolutionism" refer to scientists and others who accept that the evidence-based theory of evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on the earth (otherwise known as over 99% of all scientists in relevant fields). Often, the term just gets thrown around to refer to anyone else they're disagreeing with at the time, such as atheists or libruls. To compound this st&^%$y some creationists even argue that "evolutionism" is a secular religion leading to sexual freedom and other supposed failings of present day society. [1] All in all, this represents mainly a bunch of...