This is a thread to allow discussions about how those lucky enough to have free will make decisions.
As materialism doesn’t explain squat, this thread is a place for explanations from those that presumably have them.
And if they can’t provide them, well, this will be a short thread.
So do phoodoo, mung, WJM et al care to provide your explanations of how decisions are actually made?
I’d broadly agree with that. But there are philosophers still arguing for a regression of cause (Ed Feser is my prime example) who justify their “ground of being” arguments by being convinced there is a continuum of causes for all that we see radiating out from the “first uncaused cause”. It’s so Nineteenth-century! What amazes me is Jerry Coyne conceding that quantum indeterminacy might have some impact on strict determinism rather than dispensing with determinism altogether. I did like the phrase “mesh of causation” but maybe it is better to talk of a “web of causation”.
Simplifying the model to facilitate testing is a sound approach.
thank you captain anal retentive
😉
peace
the answer of course is revelation. Your inability to understand or even acknowledge that an answer has been given is quite telling
peace
you would need to elaborate about what in my answers you find to be insufficient. Communication is a two way street
peace
No, as I made clear when you asked how the immaterial interacted with the materiel the ‘mechanism’ was whatever is necessary.
What is required to choose a grocery bag is not the same thing required to create ex nihilo. But in both cases what ever needs to happen happens
peace
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/us/gravitational-waves-feat/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amir-aczel/higgs-boson-history_b_1765353.html
peace
That seems a bit vague. I might, from a realist’s point of view, suggest there is no creation ex nihilo in our universe. Things don’t come into or out of existence. The total of matter and energy in the universe doesn’t change – only the assemblages change.
I’m trying to visualise creating ex nihilo. Pouring wine from an empty jug would work for me.
You might but then you would have to explain the reason why our universe exists.
Good luck with that 😉
peace
I think this is important, When discussing processes that are non algorithmic the history will be necessarily vague.
It’s impossible to give a step by step account of something that is not a step by step process
peace
Not sure about “have to” but I’d only need to do that if I was sure the universe hasn’t always existed. I see there are cosmologists who have theorized on a “Big Bounce” rather than a “Big Bang”.
No, even if the universe always existed you would need to explain why it rather than nothing existed.
Now you could I suppose fall back on “I don’t know and I don’t care” but that is not a very scientific attitude
peace
Someone can act in a moral way without it being a free act. A narcissistic person is a slave to their vanity. Having an unconditional love for the deed makes it a free act.
You can be act morally without acting in freedom but you cannot be free and act in an immoral way.
amen
peace
Not sure about that but…
Sure there’s a long list of things I don’t know and there are issues that interest me less than others. It’s probably a matter of consequences. I could ask myself “what are the consequences of not knowing about the origin of the universe” and I could ask myself “what are the consequences in believing an incorrect explanation for the origin of the universe”. The problem is there is still lively argument among cosmologists on scientific explanations so not knowing seems to be the only option, currently.
This is shallit at his unwitting best.
Well we do understand that computers are designed by humans so if we want to understand how a computer works, we just need to ask the computer designers how they made the hardware and how they wrote the software and why they designed both they way they did.
So to follow Shallits superb logic, we can also do the same with the brain. In order to truly understand the brain, we need to ask the brain designer how he made the hardward and how he made the sofware and why he designed the hardware and the software of the brain the way he did.
Its sounds like intelligent design all the way down.
Okay, you can shut down this thread now.
Problem solved.
To me if something is self-imposed it means that there is inner conflict. For example someone is in difficulty, the lifeguard doesn’t want to attempt a rescue because a shark has been spotted. But s(he) dives in anyway despite h(is)er misgivings. S(he) is acting morally but not freely. They may think to themselves, “I don’t want to be doing this but my duty compels me do do it”.
I think everyone should grant that.
I think YOU should understand by now that that is not the sort of answer (responsive or not) that is likely be very useful to anybody. It is like saying in response to a question about what causes some event that the event is “self-caused.” I agree that it’s an answer. But since it’s an answer depending on a circle–the very definition of a petito principii fallacy– it doesn’t exactly move the discussion forward.
One wonders what you think the point is of these little tete-a-tetes. It’s just endless repetition at this point, no? I guess you must enjoy it. But really.
I’m curious, FMM. Have you ever convinced anybody of anything, anywhere?
Would either of you testifiers here care to explain why a “free act” cannot be immoral? Thanks.
No mention of revelation ,fifth.
Revelation
You want evidence for the existence of a God, but you are willing to accept “emergence”?
Does emergence even have ANY meaning other than, something happened that we can’t explain?
Seems to me materialists have replaced God of the Gaps with Emergence of the Gaps.
I never demand but I’m up for anything, really. 🙂
It was simply Newton asking more-or-less the same question that has occurred to me often when involved in discussions about ID. How does the (immaterial) “designer” design?
Well, it’s intriguing. Start with a proton, add an electron and you have hydrogen. Increase number of protons and at each increase of one (plus electrons and neutrons) you have one of the ninety-odd naturally occurring elements found on Earth.
Well, like all science, it starts with observation of what there is and attempts to model those observations. Models evolve in the light of new observations and experimental results.
Seems to me those looking for religious explanations from scientists are bound to be as disappointed as scientists might be if they looked for scientific explanations from religion.
Frankly, I think when materialists claim they want evidence for a God, before they will believe it, that is essentially a lie. Because what kind of evidence can you think of, that wouldn’t actually qualify as proof? Something that says, well it could be because of a God would suffice? Like what?
Lawrence Krauss said, well, if he wrote it in the sky in big letters one day, I AM REAL, then he might start to believe? Oh that would do it for you Lawrence would it? Or maybe you might say, well, someone wrote that, we just don’t know who, right? So that still wouldn’t be the “evidence” you need would it?
So I am pretty sure there is NOTHING that would qualify as evidence other than downright materializing of a God that would work. The Big bang apparently doesn’t qualify. Nor do the consistency of the laws of physics. Consciousness doesn’t qualify for the materialists. Life from on-life what do either.
So what could possibly, EVER, qualify as evidence? I am guessing your list is pretty darn short.
phoodoo,
I think that depends on your definition of “God,” phoodoo. If, in order to be God, something must have not only created the world, but be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good, then it’s a tough row to hoe. If you add in all the Jesus stuff too, it’s even tougher. So when you ask what evidence is needed for proof, you need to tell us specifically what it is that you’re attempting to prove.
Re “emergence”: I think you’re right that it’s basically an admission of ignorance. But that’s not the same thing as saying “God did it,” is it? I’d think you theists would be the first to insist that the latter is a much bigger deal. With big claims come big responsibilities.
ETA: And, incidentally, just saying “Revelation” is not going to cut it.
Pick any act you consider to be immoral and explain in what way you think it could be free. In other words discuss the possible motives for the act.
walto,
I am not picky, any God you wish.
What would be evidence for that God, that wouldn’t also be considered essentially flat out proof?
Perhaps, but Mendeleev was able to use his periodic table to predict the properties of eight (I think) elements before their discovery.
Really? You’re denying that someone can intentionally and freely chose what they know to be wrong?
I don’t know about that. I think that depends on how one thinks about what knowing does.
Could someone know that what they were doing was wrong but not care, and therefore freely and intentionally do it?
I put it in scare-quotes for two reasons: firstly, because it is trivially true that ‘the supernatural’ and ‘the natural’ are defined in terms of each other, so neither term means anything without further explication. Secondly, because there are as many different versions of ‘the supernatural’ as there are of ‘the natural’ and I didn’t want to commit myself to any of them.
Firstly, a lot of people actually do believe in those ‘straw-man deities’. Just ask the regulars at a conservative evangelical congregation anywhere in the Deep South or Midwest.
Secondly, if you want to insist that “reasons are supernatural”, then there’s an argumentative burden on you to show that — just as there’s an argumentative burden on me to show that reasons are natural.
I’ll take up my responsibility in the parallel thread. This one is all for you. What do you mean by “supernatural”, such that reasons and decisions are among the things that are supernatural?
I might ask the same of you, rather than attack a caricatured version of “materialism”.
I think answers to these sorts of hypothetical questions are unreliable. What people claim they would do in unique or unusual scenarios may not turn out to be what they do faced with the situation in reality. I struggle to imagine what a “revelation” might need to be. It would be cute if God decided to talk to me in the way Neale Donald Walsch claims God talked to him. And he hasn’t been locked up as a loonie!
Alan Fox,
But Alan, this is certainly not the first time you have heard this sentiment from the world of the non-believers. This is what EVERY atheist, so called scientific truther claims. That the reason they don’t believe in God is because they just need some evidence. From Krauss to Penn Jillette to Michael Shermer, to Dawkins, to Hitchens, they all claim the same thing. Its the one refrain that unites all atheists, give me some evidence.
So have none of them, have not you, or Walto or KN or anyone ever stopped to think what evidence they would imagine as possible?
Isn’t this a huge gaping hole in the logic of the atheist, they want evidence, but surely don’t ask them to ever say what that means?
You, and the people you mention, are making a different point from me. I think they are asking for substantiation of claims about particular deities, such as the Catholic God or the Southern Baptist God and deities that to me seem to have the common quality of being invented by human imagination.
I already said voices in my head would be likely very convincing to me, especially if they made sense. They might not be convincing evidence for anyone else. I doubt very much Neale Walsch has been conversing with God.
I doubt logic would convince me about God. The whole concept seems bound to the emotions.
Phoodoo
How about if God spoke to everyone as a voice in their head with a consistent message. That would work, perhaps, even for me! 🙂
ETA might be a really powerful evil demon though.
Everyone who has cancer being cured in one day would work for me, faith would do the rest.
Then of course which God would be an issue
Alan Fox,
You have never wondered if any of your thoughts are God trying to communicate with you?
It seems instead what you want is a loud booming voice, that is so clear, so unambiguous, it could only be interpreted as essential proof.
newton,
So you are saying that if everyone in the world who had cancer was suddenly cured in one day, that might make you consider it was from a God? You wouldn’t really be sure, but you would start to consider it, is that it? You still might have doubts though?
Unambiguous seems good
Never struck me, so far. It always seems like my own voice in my head.
As I said, I find hypothetical situations unhelpful. But I don’t think it would matter so much about the volume as much as the content (and that it was unequivocally not my own voice).
newton,
Indeed!
phoodoo, Mung, fifth, CharlieM, Steve:
Can any of you explain how decision making works in terms of immaterial entities and/or forces?
It would be evidence of God that would be convincing to me but I think faith is always required for beings with finite knowledge.
So Newton is saying that if every person on the planet who had cancer, suddenly were all cured in one day, it still might be reasonable for some people to doubt there is a God that performs miracles.
I find that interesting.
And Alan is saying, if he heard voices in his head, and the content seemed believable, he wouldn’t think he had schizophrenia, he would believe it is likely God.
I’m not sure it would work for me. A God that can cure cancer overnight can also not inflict such apparent random suffering across humanity: not to mention famine, disease, poverty, insecurity, war.
I chat with someone who does hear voices, including the voice of god.
Auditory hallucinations aren’t all that rare. John Nash had them.
But who else would believe me? Depends on the message I could relay, perhaps. I could ask God why there is famine, disease, poverty, war. Maybe there’s an explanation that people need to hear.
I told you I’m not good with hypotheticals. 😉
And, I imagine, utterly convincing to the one hearing the voices.
I’m sorry but will that somehow answer the question I asked you? Can’t you just tell me what you were trying to say?