Oh Free-Will. Where art Thou???

[danieldemol]

Do you believe there is anything metaphysical? Like God concepts, deities, divinity, meta physical truths, anything at all?

Sure, but not for rational reasons, I dont consider there to be evidence for any of the above, and because I don't know of evidence for them I couldn't give you an example of such evidence.

Not sure if this extra information is helpful, but I dont really believe in trying to convince non-believers that there is a God, because the hurdle of evidence is one I see i can't leap.

So I instead happily await God to provide evidence of God's existence. If God cares whether we believe or not it seems reasonable for God to provide it.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Sure, but not for rational reasons, I dont consider there to be evidence for any of the above, and because I don't know of evidence for them I couldn't give you an example of such evidence.

Not sure if this extra information is helpful, but I dont really believe in trying to convince non-believers that there is a God, because the hurdle of evidence is one I see i can't leap.

So I instead happily await God to provide evidence of God's existence. If God cares whether we believe or not it seems reasonable for God to provide it.

In my opinion.

The extra information is you preempting an apologetic. I understand.

Okay. So you have faith without evidence. No problem. @blü 2 has a completely different epistemic stand point. He is in fact, exactly the opposite to you.

Anyway, you say "not for rational reasons". Then what other reasons do you have this faith?

 

[firedragon]

If @Brian2 wants to argue that God is real

then first we need his definition of "real", and the test that follows from it as to whether any X is real or not.

You already have my definition of "real".

What is real for you seems to be from an empiricists point of view. Yet you are not giving a clear understanding of your epistemic stand point.

And you still have not given a clear understanding of what you mean by evidence from your epistemic stand point.

Daniel above instead has given a small idea. He has faith without evidence. Thats a sliver, but something.

 

[blü 2]

What is real for you seems to be from an empiricists point of view. Yet you are not giving a clear understanding of your epistemic stand point.

It appears you can't work it out from what I've said, and from knowing that I'm a materialist, so rather than repeat myself, I'll leave you to think about it.

And you still have not given a clear understanding of what you mean by evidence from your epistemic stand point.

I've said that this will depend on how @Brian2 defines "real".

If his definition is the same as mine then he needs to state clearly what real thing is "God" and to provide a satisfactory demonstration of the objective existence of "God".

If it is not, then what happens next will depend on his definition of "real".

Daniel above instead has given a small idea. He has faith without evidence. Thats a sliver, but something.

That, of course, won't of itself persuade the skeptical but impartial onlooker.

 

[firedragon]

It appears you can't work it out from what I've said, and from knowing that I'm a materialist, so rather than repeat myself, I'll leave you to think about it.

Okay. SO you differentiate between empiricism and materialism. Okay. No problem.

I've said that this will depend on how @Brian2 defines "real".

If his definition is the same as mine then he needs to state clearly what real thing is "God" and to provide a satisfactory demonstration of the objective existence of "God".

If it is not, then what happens next will depend on his definition of "real".

Okay. Lets see if @Brian2 has some time to make the clear.

Does that mean you are not sure if he means a metaphysical "real"?

That, of course, won't of itself persuade the skeptical but impartial onlooker.

I did not speak of "persuading" Blu. I was only asking you for your epistemology.

And I would like to know where Prof Malet disagrees with the description of "metaphysical" I gave you since you disagreed. Maybe in the same book you quoted from.

Thanks.

 

[blü 2]

Okay. SO you differentiate between empiricism and materialism. Okay. No problem.

Why would I do that?

Okay. Lets see if @Brian2 has some time to make the clear.

That would be handy.

Does that mean you are not sure if he means a metaphysical "real"?

I'm reasonably sure he's real physically. I'm reasonably sure that he's not, supernaturally. But let's hear what he has to say.

And I would like to know where Prof Malet disagrees with the description of "metaphysical" I gave you since you disagreed. Maybe in the same book you quoted from.

Ah, David Mallett Armstrong. Cute.

So you meant to exclude "supernatural" when you said "metaphysical", did you?

 

[danieldemol]

The extra information is you preempting an apologetic. I understand.

Okay. So you have faith without evidence. No problem. @blü 2 has a completely different epistemic stand point. He is in fact, exactly the opposite to you.

Anyway, you say "not for rational reasons". Then what other reasons do you have this faith?

Irrational reasons are not fully known by me, but could be a combination of genetic, cultural indoctrination, attachments and other unknown reasons, or it could be that God inspires me to believe, but God doesn't seem to provide that inspiration to everyone, because honest people such as @blü 2 don't report being the recipient of such inspiration.

I'm not sure that blü 2 is entirely the opposite of me, because we would both accept that I have no solid logical reason or evidence for faith which I could present to a disbelieving enquiring third party to convince them that my faith is justified.

Rather there is overlap between me and him, I have faith without evidence, he has no faith also without evidence.

So we have common ground even though in the singular aspect of having faith and having no faith we are opposite.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Why would I do that?

I cant say why, but it seems like you just did. But if you dont, that's fine. Your position is that empiricism and materialism is the same?

I'm reasonably sure he's real physically. I'm reasonably sure that he's not, supernaturally. But let's hear what he has to say.

Okay.

Ah, David Mallett Armstrong. Cute.

So you meant to exclude "supernatural" when you said "metaphysical", did you?

No.

 

[firedragon]

Irrational reasons are not fully known by me, but could be a combination of genetic, cultural indoctrination, attachments and other unknown reasons, or it could be that God inspires me to believe, but God doesn't seem to provide that inspiration to everyone, because honest people such as @blü 2 don't report being the recipient of such inspiration.

I'm not sure that blü 2 is entirely the opposite of me, because we would both accept that I have no solid logical reason or evidence for faith which I could present to a disbelieving enquiring third party to convince them that my faith is justified.

Rather there is overlap between me and him, I have faith without evidence, he has no faith also without evidence.

So we have common ground even though in the singular aspect of having faith and having no faith we are opposite.

In my opinion.

So you dont think that having no faith without evidence, and having faith without evidence are not the opposite? See, the point is that you seem like a theist, but Blu is not. They are opposing positions. At least that's what it seems like.

Does @blü 2 Concur with this? Are you with @danieldemol ?

 

[danieldemol]

So you dont think that having no faith without evidence, and having faith without evidence are not the opposite? See, the point is that you seem like a theist, but Blu is not. They are opposing positions. At least that's what it seems like.

Does @blü 2 Concur with this? Are you with @danieldemol ?

To clarify I think that in one respect - that of having faith and no faith - we are opposite.

But in another respect - that we agree there is no evidence which could be presented to a disbelieving yet enquiring third party to convince them - we are agreed.

So to determine whether we are overall opposites depends on how you weight each field of agreement and disagreement I suppose.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

To clarify I think that in one respect - that of having faith and no faith - we are opposite.

But in another respect - that we agree there is no evidence which could be presented to a disbelieving yet enquiring third party to convince them - we are agreed.

So to determine whether we are overall opposites depends on how you weight each field of agreement and disagreement I suppose.

In my opinion.

See, everyone would have some agreement in some aspect.

Anyway, you said that your position is not in a rational point of view. So what point of view is your position you are taking? If not rational, what is your position? Is it empirical? It is pretty clear that @blü 2 is of the empirical standpoint. But he can describe otherwise.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Ah, David Mallett Armstrong. Cute.

Err. Mate. You think prof Malet is "cute"?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

‘Denied’ and ‘refused.’

lol.

 

[firedragon]

@blü 2 You have not yet shown how prof Malet disagrees with the description of what metaphysical means I gave. Its pretty strange that you said I am wrong, cut and pasted some part of his book, but has not yet shown where he disagrees.

I am waiting to read the page of his book you cut and pasted from where he disagrees.

So just to clarify and remind you, what I said was "Metaphysics is a component of philosophy. It means things that transcend physical sciences in a broad sense. What belongs to that is metaphysical."

Thus, since you quoted and cut and pasted from his book, could you please quote where he disagrees from this simply worded description?

I am surprised you have not provided this after asking you several times. Please do provide your "evidence" where he disagrees. Quote his book.

 

[blü 2]

@blü 2 You have not yet shown how prof Malet disagrees with the description of what metaphysical means I gave. Its pretty strange that you said I am wrong, cut and pasted some part of his book, but has not yet shown where he disagrees.

You've ducked answering my question I'll ask you again ─ when you said "metaphysical", did you mean to exclude the supernatural? Reading what you wrote, I saw nothing to indicate that you'd done so, but feel free to correct me.

 

[firedragon]

You've ducked answering my question I'll ask you again ─ when you said "metaphysical", did you mean to exclude the supernatural?

I thought I said "no". So to elaborate "I do not exclude the supernatural".

Again, You have not yet shown how prof Malet disagrees with the description of what metaphysical means I gave. Its pretty strange that you said I am wrong, cut and pasted some part of his book, but has not yet shown where he disagrees.

 

[blü 2]

I thought I said "no". So to elaborate "I do not exclude the supernatural".

Thank you. Professor Armstrong doesn't expressly exclude the supernatural in the quote I gave you, but he does so here:

Chapter 1 / Introduction
I begin with the assumption that all that exists is the space-time world, the physical world as we say.​

The quotes are from Armstrong's Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics (2010). (Where I notice your 'Malet' is right and my 'Mallett' is wrong.)

So you differ from Armstrong in including the supernatural.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you. Professor Armstrong doesn't expressly exclude the supernatural in the quote I gave you, but he does so here:

Chapter 1 / Introduction
I begin with the assumption that all that exists is the space-time world, the physical world as we say.​

The quotes are from Armstrong's Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics (2010). (Where I notice your 'Malet' is right and my 'Mallett' is wrong.)

So you differ from Armstrong in including the supernatural.

The thing is this. The definition I gave from my own words does not differ from Armstrong. Never. But you said no to that. Him not "expressly" excluding the supernatural does not mean he disagrees with my definition.

Malet and Mallet being is no problem. But read the book. His whole book is based on the definition I gave you. Everyone who speaks of metaphysics does not have to believe in God. Its absurd. that is why you can never give one single page in his whole book where he disagrees with my definition of the metaphysical. You can never achieve that no matter how hard you try. But you said "not quite". And you cut and pasted from his book some passage in the introduction. He absolutely begins his entire thesis with the premise that I outlined.

that is why you can never in your life substantiate your "not quite" claim.

Leave it. This is absurd.

 

[blü 2]

The thing is this. The definition I gave from my own words does not differ from Armstrong. Never. But you said no to that. Him not "expressly" excluding the supernatural does not mean he disagrees with my definition.

That's why I asked you the clarifying question, which shows that your version of the meaning of metaphysics differs from his.

Malet and Mallet being is no problem. But read the book.

I've not only read his book, I've had lunch with him, thanks to a philosophical friend of mine at Stanford. (Armstrong was Australian, of course.)

 

[Brian2]

That's been the subject of medical research for centuries, but particular since the 1990s when better tools for the job became available, and it became possible to watch eg blood flow as the brain operated, showing which parts were involved to address which questions the body (or the researcher) put to the subject. That research has only accelerated since then. I don't suggest that we have all the answers, BUT we're actively looking for them ─ unlike supporters of other views.

Science has learnt some things about our computer, the brain and how it is connected with the body. That however does not tell us about how molecules become conscious and make decisions.
Why do you suggest that science is owned by skeptics and atheists. It is the tool of all humans.

See above ─ especially the failure of your team, not only not to have any evidence for that view, but to be actively looking for some.

If our team find that it is molecules that are conscious, great, we can learn something from that. If they do not find that the molecules of the brain become conscious we will not learn from that, and have not.

No, but the sense of self is basic to all of us. How it arises is one of the questions that science is pursuing.

We can and do step beyond what the brain tells us. I for example am a Christian without proof and you, an atheist without proof. We like to think that we are rational in our choices, but our choices defy that and our reason can just be used to justify our beliefs much of the time.