Occam's Razor V. Goddidit

[Guest Davka]

Hans, you're just

[Ouroboros]

Here, I would agree with you. Theists don't use Kalam in isolation to prove the God of the Bible as it is not sufficient to do so. However, it does, I believe, get us to an intelligent agent as the cause of the universe, which is how William Lane Craig and others use it.

Actually, the First Cause only give an argument to a First Cause, not an intelligent agent.

 

Intelligence require thought.

 

Thought is a process.

 

Process requires time.

 

Time is measurement of a temporal environment.

 

God is non-temporal, hence not intelligent.

 

It is part of a cumulative case argument that includes the design argument, the moral argument, and the argument for the resurrection, each of which takes us a step closer to the God of the Bible as revealed through Jesus Christ.

The design argument requires a being who spent time thinking about the design, but since time didn't exist "before" the Universe, God didn't think or plan anything.

 

The moral argument fails for your God since he commanded genocide. Genocide is not an absolute or objective moral law, but rather something which we consider immoral. If it's God's nature to be good and moral, then it would make genocide moral, but it is not. The moral argument would rather define God as a different god than YHWH.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, you're just

I know. But I got criticized for being too hard on the guy and calling him a troll (which I still think he is to some degree). I was told I didn't debate him honestly and falsely accused him, so here I am, trying to debate him honestly, but it should be obvious now that it doesn't work. I'm glad that you can see it, but understand, I'm not debating him to change his mind, because I know I can't, but rather doing it to exactly showing that he will not change his mind. He is using the same arguments he used 11 months ago. Nothing has changed.

[Caretaker]

Pure curiosity: I totally get the fact that you can have a countably infinite subset of an infinite set. What I was wondering, while reading through your post, is whether there could be an infinite number of countably infinite subsets?

 

For example, it seems to me that the set of real numbers would have an infinite number of countably infinite subsets. Is this accurate?

 

Yes. Even mutually disjoint. You should be careful in your wording. Here is an infinite collection of infinite subsets of the natural numbers:

 

{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ....}

{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ....}

{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ....}

{3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ....}

{4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ....}

...

...

...

 

And yes, even if you want them to be pairwise disjoint, just remember that you can always split any infinite set into two disjoint infinite subsets (even and odd numbers, for example)

 

All you need to do is split the infinite set once, call one set S1

 

Then take the remainder, split it into two disjoint infinite sets again, and call one of them S2. Then repeat with that remainder as well. Lather, rinse, repeat, and next thing you know, you have a countably infinite collection of sets {S(n)}, each of them disjoint from another, that are all subsets of your original infinite set.

 

Oh, also, here's a slightly more practical example using the real numbers.

 

For each natural number, if you let S(n) = [n,n+1), the interval of real numbers x such that n≤x<n+1, you have an infinite collection of infinite subsets, and from each infinite set, you can always pick out a countably infinite subset.

[Deva]

I find that if we are purely accidents of nature or products of some evolutionary process, then all beliefs are simply the result of a blind process that has been encoded into our circuitry and therefore, not necessarily correspondent with reality. That doesn't just include my beliefs, that includes yours as well. Reasoning ability is just an illusion given naturalism, both yours and mine. We are just determined by the events of our pasts and the memories stored up in our brains and how those memories output through us. So, your beliefs would be no more valid than mine.

 

Can you refute that idea?

 

Natural selection, properly understood, is not a "accident" or a "blind process". However, I do think you bring up a good point, and that is how far any of our beliefs, even our personal experience, correspond with reality.

 

I do question our "reasoning ability". It seems to depend on our memories, our past experience, our inclinations, attraction and repulsion, aesthetics, emotion and bias. We are determined by the events of our past and our memories, but the memories and our experience change also, all the time.

 

I don't think all beliefs are equally valid. I take a pragmatic and admittedly personal approach. My criteria is whether or not a certain belief system makes me better, happier, more courageous, freer, stronger in the face of adversity, more generous, kind and compassionate toward my fellow human beings. The set of beliefs either works or it does not. Christianity fails in these areas, for me. It also fails as an explanation of the natural world, but that is a secondary matter to me. We are all essentially alone with our thoughts and feelings and must work it out for ourselves. Life is a serious business.

[Guest Davka]

Personal beliefs come in different flavors. For example, there are the beliefs we hold about our physical surroundings - these are based on repeated experience. I believe that this desk in front of me will hold my coffee cup because I have seen it do so before. I have also seem similar desklike objects support similar coffee cups, and thus extrapolate that this desk should behave similarly. This type of belief is akin to scientific belief, in that it is based on observation, testing, and refinement.

 

Then there are beliefs based on personal experience plus personal convictions. Political beliefs fall into this category. I believe that socialized medicine is desirable, based in part on personal experience, and in part on conversations with people who live in Canada, Holland, and Norway. Other people have equally valid opposing beliefs about socialized medicine which are based on different experiences, as well as conversations with people in countries where the system is not working very well, or with individuals for whom the system has not worked very well. This type of belief is a blend of personal opinion and scientific observation.

 

Finally, there are religious beliefs, which are based on private, non-replicable individual experience. I used to believe in biblegod and biblejesus based on purely subjective internal experiences combined with conversations with other people. These conversations tend to reinforce such beliefs because certain categories of subjective experience are comprised of similar neurochemical impulses. I know what it feels like to be in love, so I can listen to someone else describe the sensation and truthfully say "I know what you mean." Similarly, two individuals whose amygdala and neo-paretial cortex have quieted in what has been called the "god circuit" will describe similar (if not identical) sensations of transcendence and euphoria. Thus, conversations between people who have attended a religious service which incorporates rituals designed to trigger such internal phenomena can agree that what they felt was "real."

 

This last type of belief is the least scientific, because although the underlying cause may be measurable and replicable, the method used to trigger an endorphin release (or the "god circuit" or whichever "religious" experience might be shared) is deceptive. This can be demonstrated by the fact that people in dramatically different religious traditions experience the same neurochemical patterns, and report the same sensations - yet they attribute those sensations to completely different causes.

 

The claim that beliefs are all based on irrational or random impulses is refutable. The claim that all beliefs are purely subjective is similarly refutable. The physical world is experienced in more-or-less the same way by all people, regardless of their beliefs about it. Only the very primitive or very superstitious ascribe the physical properties of my desk to anything other than simple material laws. Replicable beliefs about the physical world, which can be shared across cultures and belief systems, are of a different order than non-replicable spiritual beliefs (YHWH did it v. Thor did it), which do not travel well across cultures and belief systems.

[NotBlinded]

I know. But I got criticized for being too hard on the guy and calling him a troll (which I still think he is to some degree). I was told I didn't debate him honestly and falsely accused him, so here I am, trying to debate him honestly, but it should be obvious now that it doesn't work. I'm glad that you can see it, but understand, I'm not debating him to change his mind, because I know I can't, but rather doing it to exactly showing that he will not change his mind. He is using the same arguments he used 11 months ago. Nothing has changed.

I agree with you Hans. I have yet to see him say, "Wow, I never thought about that." Do you think that will ever happen? Nope...not even a tiny crack in the mortar of that brick wall.

[Ouroboros]

I agree with you Hans. I have yet to see him say, "Wow, I never thought about that." Do you think that will ever happen? Nope...not even a tiny crack in the mortar of that brick wall.

Exactly. You nailed it.

 

I think the honest way of being human is to admit that we do not know everything, and that there is a healthy level of doubt and distrust of so called facts and evidences. And I usually judge people on the ability of how they can admit this. I might seem to be an asshat and stand my point, but mostly I'm truly a skeptic to most things in life, and I have learned many things on this website, and through life I had to change my view many times over. So if I wasn't right in the past, I can't be completely sure I'm right in the present. And I can readily admit this.

[NotBlinded]

I agree with you Hans. I have yet to see him say, "Wow, I never thought about that." Do you think that will ever happen? Nope...not even a tiny crack in the mortar of that brick wall.

Exactly. You nailed it.

 

I think the honest way of being human is to admit that we do not know everything, and that there is a healthy level of doubt and distrust of so called facts and evidences. And I usually judge people on the ability of how they can admit this. I might seem to be an asshat and stand my point, but mostly I'm truly a skeptic to most things in life, and I have learned many things on this website, and through life I had to change my view many times over. So if I wasn't right in the past, I can't be completely sure I'm right in the present. And I can readily admit this.

I was thinking about that on the drive home yesterday Hans while trying to listen to Ken Wilber on CDs. I realize how my beliefs have changed over the years and how they will still grow or change for the rest of my life. Ken takes things in a direction that I just can't agree with at this point in my life. Not to say that he isn't speaking truths, it's just I don't see them as such right now. Who knows, I may later. I made it through 6 disks out of 10 and took it out this morning and stuck some Alan Watts in. I relaxed pretty quickly. I have yet to make it all the way through and I've had these CDs for awhile. I honestly tried, but some things he says just doesn't fit right with me. He rubs me the wrong way, but something may come up somewhere, sometime that will make me go, "Ok, now I understand what he was saying."

 

I tried to build my wall with holy mortar.

[Shyone]

I agree with you Hans. I have yet to see him say, "Wow, I never thought about that." Do you think that will ever happen? Nope...not even a tiny crack in the mortar of that brick wall.

Exactly. You nailed it.

 

I think the honest way of being human is to admit that we do not know everything, and that there is a healthy level of doubt and distrust of so called facts and evidences. And I usually judge people on the ability of how they can admit this. I might seem to be an asshat and stand my point, but mostly I'm truly a skeptic to most things in life, and I have learned many things on this website, and through life I had to change my view many times over. So if I wasn't right in the past, I can't be completely sure I'm right in the present. And I can readily admit this.

For reasons that escape me at the moment, religion and politics are particularly resistant to allowing any concessions to the other side.

 

I suppose it's a sign of weakness or surrender to grant a point to the opposition. That's different from the way debate has been carried out in general, but maybe it's how to win an argument. Reminds me of Bush (43). Never admitted he was wrong about anything.

[NotBlinded]

I agree with you Hans. I have yet to see him say, "Wow, I never thought about that." Do you think that will ever happen? Nope...not even a tiny crack in the mortar of that brick wall.

Exactly. You nailed it.

 

I think the honest way of being human is to admit that we do not know everything, and that there is a healthy level of doubt and distrust of so called facts and evidences. And I usually judge people on the ability of how they can admit this. I might seem to be an asshat and stand my point, but mostly I'm truly a skeptic to most things in life, and I have learned many things on this website, and through life I had to change my view many times over. So if I wasn't right in the past, I can't be completely sure I'm right in the present. And I can readily admit this.

For reasons that escape me at the moment, religion and politics are particularly resistant to allowing any concessions to the other side.

 

I suppose it's a sign of weakness or surrender to grant a point to the opposition. That's different from the way debate has been carried out in general, but maybe it's how to win an argument. Reminds me of Bush (43). Never admitted he was wrong about anything.

It's hard for Bush to admit he was wrong when he didn't have a clue to what he was doing to begin with.

 

 

 

(I'm exaggerating...just a )

[LNC]

Well, at least you're consistent. Once again, you leap triumphantly on irrelevant semantic arguments, while completely ignoring the irrefutable core argument. You don't like the adjectives "unfathomable" and "omnipotent?" Fine, deal with the ones that actually affect the conversation: INVISIBLE and UNMEASURABLE. Do you deny that these are near-universally accepted descriptions of the Bible God?

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read the who post before you posted this point. I don't consider it to be an irrelevant semantic point, it actually strikes at the ontological core of the argument of who or what God is. There is a difference between being invisible and unmeasurable (whatever that means as regards to an immaterial being) and being unfathomable. A being can be fathomable, though material invisible. We have senses other than sight by which we can connect with God.

 

Positing, Hell. I'm pointing out to you the irrefutable truth of the matter. To deny that claiming the existence of an invisible, immeasurable being is anything other than introducing a completely unnecessary entity is to deny reality. That you would even argue this point shows an incredible amount of arrogance and/or intellectual dishonesty on your part.

 

That is an assertion, not an explanation. Please provide an actual reason for your assertion. Invisible doesn't equal non-existence, nor does it automatically necessitate that God is unnecessary.

 

Once again your ignorance is staggering. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy/matter/light (all the same thing according to Einstein) cannot be destroyed. It can only change form. Think about that: ENERGY = MASSC². And it cannot be destroyed. That's another way of saying that it's eternal. It will always be around. Entropy has nothing to do with that. "Lasts forever" = "is eternal." Get it?

 

You're point is right but your derogatory statements are unnecessary, I actually was not precise in the way that I stated my point. OK, so we end up in a cold dead universe that has expended its usable energy. If the universe is past-eternal, why aren't we in that state now?

 

And once again I am gobsmacked by your abysmal inability to comprehend the basics of what you are talking about. Let me give you an example of this kind of mathematical paradox in the real world, and how it is overcome:

 

Let's say you wish to walk across a street. Before you can cross the street, you must first reach the halfway point. But before you reach the halfway point, you must first reach the point halfway between where you begin and the halfway point. In fact, before you reach that point, you must first reach the point halfway between where you are and it.

 

Since it will always be possible to divide the space you must first cross in half, there are an infinite number of "halfway points" between where you start out and the other side of the street. And since it is clearly impossible to ever pass through an infinite number of points, it is also clearly impossible to ever cross the street.

 

This is the same absurd logic you use to demonstrate that we cannot have passed through an infinite amount of time to reach the present. It is a variant on the Hilbert's Hotel paradox. It is a way of demonstrating mathematically that something which clearly can be accomplished is "impossible."

 

It is one thing to discuss mathematics and another to talk about what happens in the real world. Are you suggesting that all mathematical theories can be instantiated in the real world? If so, please divide anything (your choice of the object) into an infinite series of equally divided sections, then we can continue our talk. Until then, it is you who are confusing the two concepts.

 

Unfounded assertion.

 

Please give me one example of an uncaused effect in the physical world and show your evidence. You seem to want to do away with the foundation of scientific inquiry.

 

Do you deny that assuming the existence of God is anything other than a metaphysical assumption?

 

I believe that there is good philosophical and empirical reasoning that leads to an abductive conclusion that God is the best explanation of the data. So, no I don't believe it is merely a metaphysical assumption.

 

Gee - the Universe is observable. "God" isn't. And yet you claim that "goddidit" is somehow a more reasonable assumption than "it was always thus"?

 

Did you even bother to read Quentin Smith's article? Or did you simple google for a refutation and post it? You claimed that nobody has made an argument for a self-caused Universe. I linked to precisely such an argument. YOU WERE WRONG.

 

The thing is, LNC, you are not willing to actually chew on, ponder, or honestly examine any argument presented here. You won't wrestle with the concepts personally - you merely spout blather and dodge questions with semantic drivel. You are not here to learn, you are here only to offer kneejerk refutations.

 

I have demonstrated a number of times that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You idiotically assert that 2LOT somehow negates 1LOT, a line of reasoning which would get you an F in a real school. But because you attend a school which teaches moonbeams and fairy wings, your professors will never point out the fallacy in your pathetic excuses for arguments.

 

If you were willing to really struggle with these very complex and very difficult issues, you would be worth talking to. Abiyoyo manages to do that and remain a Christian, as does end3. But your compartmentalized thinking seems to be too threatened by reality. You are a waste of time.

 

You just got pwned, smacked down, and teabagged. And you're too thick to even realize it. I'm done with you.

 

You will be added to my "ignore" list as soon as I click "Add Reply." It's been enlightening - the last time I dealt with such a severe case of obtuse ineffectual resistance to reality it was in conversation with a Jehovah's Witness. Congratulations, you win the "brainwashed cultist of the year" award.

 

Drink your kool-aid in good health.

 

OK, so you only believe that what is observable is real, is that what you are asserting? If so, your thoughts are not real since your thoughts cannot be observed. Why don't you actually try to refute my arguments before reducing my argument to "goddidit."

 

I have read Smith's article, which you didn't seem to want to interact with, so I responded in-kind by posting a link to the refutation. Now, if you want to do the work of actually interacting and arguing Smith's case, I will be happy to post replies to those arguments. However, I am not going to do your work for you of arguing both Smith's case and the refutation. I make it a policy not to interact with arguments that the other person hasn't taken the time to make themselves. If you post a link to an article, I will merely do the same.

 

Davka, for you to say that I am not willing to chew on and ponder the arguments is disingenuous, disrespectful, and disconnected with reality. I have made over 800 posts to this website (not to this thread, of course) and have made some very compelling arguments. So, your statement is grossly inaccurate.

 

You have asserted a past-eternal universe, you have not given one shred of evidence for that assertion. You want to assert effects without causes, thus undermining scientific investigation. You confuse mathematical theories with the real world. Please don't tell me that I am not willing to interact with your arguments when you pass off these ideas as if they have evidence. You need to do a little more struggling with these ideas as well.

 

No, I won't add ignore to your posts, I want to continue interacting with you, no matter how disrespectful you can be, because I believe that it is worth wrestling through these ideas. Hopefully, we will both be honest enough to follow the arguments to their logical conclusions rather than let our a prior assumptions cloud our vision.

 

BTW, I don't like Kool-Aid, it is far too sugary for me.

[Ouroboros]

I have made over 800 posts to this website (not to this thread, of course) and have made some very compelling arguments.

 

 

 

Not yet!

The little problem you have is called being delusional.

[Guest Davka]

I think the honest way of being human is to admit that we do not know everything

Wow - I never thought about that!

[Ouroboros]

I think the honest way of being human is to admit that we do not know everything

Wow - I never thought about that!

Serious, or are you teasing me?

[agnosticator]

Hans, you're just

I know. But I got criticized for being too hard on the guy and calling him a troll (which I still think he is to some degree). I was told I didn't debate him honestly and falsely accused him, so here I am, trying to debate him honestly, but it should be obvious now that it doesn't work.

 

I agree with Phanta that doing so helps others on the site. I have learned some things in this thread. Thanks Han and even LNC!

 

Sometimes it's better to debate point-by-point, without the mudslinging. But other times it's more fun to watch the mud balls fly!

[Ouroboros]

Well, good. I stand corrected. It seems it did something useful after all.

[agnosticator]

A being can be fathomable, though material invisible. We have senses other than sight by which we can connect with God.

 

 

Oh, I like this one! So is it ESP, christian magical sight and hearing, or that protrusion from the frontal lobe/pituitary gland in the movie "FROM BEYOND"?

[Guest Davka]

I think the honest way of being human is to admit that we do not know everything

Wow - I never thought about that!

Serious, or are you teasing me?

just messing around.

[LNC]

Quantum events are considered by some (or many?) scientists to be self-caused. Of course we can't be sure if that's true, but at least that's more evidence than God.

 

And I'm equally surprised that you wouldn't demand supporting empirical evidence for something like a non-temporal super-being.

 

How can you say that quantum events, the origin of which are unproved present more evidence than God? You just said that their origins are unproved, so at best, from your vantage point, its a draw. Yet, I believe that there are plenty of other arguments that give evidence of God, so I think that the greater weight is on the side of God. In fact, if quantum events are not caused by physical events, many philosophers actually point out that this gives evidence for the existence of an immaterial realm that includes God, not against it.

 

I do have empirical evidence for an immaterial supernatural being in the existence of a temporal universe, that shows design, with creatures that have immaterial minds, and who act according to objective moral values.

 

Back at you. Are we to assume that just because Craig says that the universe is caused by an outside non-temporal being (infinite nonetheless), and a priori eliminated all other possible explanations for causation or time, therefore he is right?

 

I am looking for realistic alternatives to this explanation that address all of the data and have yet to find one. Do you have any suggestions? Consider the data from the last sentence of my first post.

 

And I don't consider a First Cause explanation based on a post hoc fallacy to be good enough argument, since it lacks explanatory paower and doesn't account for other factors or other possibilities.

 

Can you explain how this commits the post hoc fallacy? Can you present another viably alternative explanation? Can you explain why an intelligent agent as first cause lacks explanatory power or account for other factors? I have given clues as to why I don't believe a natural explanation fits, what are your reasons that you believe a supernatural explanation doesn't fit?

 

Quantum Mechanics, but you don't believe it does.

 

Where is the evidence for a non-temporal being?

 

---edit---

 

Just an addition here, what is Free Will? Is it self-caused or is it caused by an outside force? When you use your Free Will to decided something, is God the First Cause to that particular decision, or did You cause that decision? If you caused it, isn't that a self-caused event to "will that decision into existence"?

 

To me it sounds like you are describing a complete deterministic world. Are you? If not, then what is your Free Will, if not a self-causing instrument?

 

Quantum mechanics has not been empirically verified to involve self-causation, so it is not appropriate to use as an example. Can you provide a valid example of self-causation? I have provided a list of data that I believe is best explained by an intelligent, immaterial cause. You can address that data and provide an alternative explanation or tell me why this explanation doesn't work with the data if you would like.

 

Free will is dependent upon agents who are not causally determined by past events. That agency can be bestowed by another free agent, but assumes that there is an ultimate agent in the universe who possesses such characteristics (i.e., we are not in a completely closed system). When I use my agency to make a decision, it is made freely by me. I believe you are conflating and confusing terms here. The fact that I may be the product of another free agent doesn't in any way reduce or negate my own agency, nor does it mean that I am self-caused. The cause of me and the cause of my decisions is two separate issues. I am not self-caused nor are my decisions determined, necessarily, by those who caused me to be (my parents, God, or anyone else).

[Ouroboros]

How can you say that quantum events, the origin of which are unproved present more evidence than God?

I'm not. I'm saying that they're equal. God is not more likely explanation than quantum mechanics. That's why agnostic view on First Cause is the only honest viewpoint. To take a religious attitude and assume God to be the only answer is specious and pretentious.

 

If you can believe that God is the First Cause. Then I can believe a quantum event is the first cause. You will be in agreement with a bunch of biblical scholars, while I will be in agreement with scientists.

 

You just said that their origins are unproved, so at best, from your vantage point, its a draw. Yet, I believe that there are plenty of other arguments that give evidence of God, so I think that the greater weight is on the side of God. In fact, if quantum events are not caused by physical events, many philosophers actually point out that this gives evidence for the existence of an immaterial realm that includes God, not against it.

I think it only gives credence to the belief that there are an outside realm of our universe, but not necessarily God. But it also depends on how you define God, since the word "God" has many interpretations. I see Nature (in a larger perspective than our Universe and traditional physics, I mean it as to include more than just our Universe) as God. So by a simple redefinition, we would be in agreement, but if we'd look at characteristics of each others said God, we most likely would be in disagreement.

 

I do have empirical evidence for an immaterial supernatural being in the existence of a temporal universe, that shows design, with creatures that have immaterial minds, and who act according to objective moral values.

What? You have empirical evidence for God? Ok. I'll bite. What is it?

 

I am looking for realistic alternatives to this explanation that address all of the data and have yet to find one. Do you have any suggestions? Consider the data from the last sentence of my first post.

First post in this thread, or first post on this website from last year?

 

Well, I think it's an interesting phrasing you have there. You say, "and have yet to find one," does it mean that you are still searching for an answer?

 

Can you explain how this commits the post hoc fallacy?

Sorry, I meant the begging the question fallacy. And it's also a fallacy of definition, since its premise is a broad definition, while the conclusion uses a strict/narrow definition. The definition of cause must be equal in premise and conclusion.

 

Can you present another viably alternative explanation? Can you explain why an intelligent agent as first cause lacks explanatory power or account for other factors? I have given clues as to why I don't believe a natural explanation fits, what are your reasons that you believe a supernatural explanation doesn't fit?

Supernatural is fine. In the definition of: outside of our Universe, beyond our laws of physics.

 

However, intelligent means a mind.

A mind means thoughts.

Thoughts mean process.

Process means a timely process.

A timely process means temporal.

If God is infinite and intelligent, then he has an infinite temporal past of thoughts.

But the paradox and Kalaam argument claims this is impossible.

So I can't see or understand how intelligence can exist in a non-temporal being.

It just does not make sense.

 

Put it this way:

p1) actual infinite does not exist

p2) God is an actual infinite

c) God does not exist

 

Quantum mechanics has not been empirically verified to involve self-causation, so it is not appropriate to use as an example.

Special pleading.

 

It's just like God. God has not been empirically verified, so it's not appropriate to use as an explanation.

 

Besides quantum tunneling, radioactive decays, and the casimir effect, I think, provides evidence that quantum mechanics works on a completely different level of causality than we think of in traditional physics. And the time-backward light experiment suggests the possibility of causes to be going backwards in time.

 

And if you then suggest that this is only a matter of epistemology, then I can tell you that the same problem exists for God. If we can't know (we can only believe) or test God, then God is not an answer to the questions.

 

Can you provide a valid example of self-causation?

Quantum events and Free Will (if it exists).

 

 

I have provided a list of data that I believe is best explained by an intelligent, immaterial cause. You can address that data and provide an alternative explanation or tell me why this explanation doesn't work with the data if you would like.

Theoretical physicists are quite certain the first cause of big bang was a quantum event. You disagree with them, I don't.

 

What data did you provide? I haven't seen any data? I've seen a bunch of inductive arguments, but no data.

[Ouroboros]

Free will is dependent upon agents who are not causally determined by past events.

Exactly. Which means they are First Causes to events. So where do these First Causes gets their cause from? Nowhere. Ergo, self-causing. It's simple. Really simple.

 

That agency can be bestowed by another free agent, but assumes that there is an ultimate agent in the universe who possesses such characteristics (i.e., we are not in a completely closed system). When I use my agency to make a decision, it is made freely by me. I believe you are conflating and confusing terms here.

Not at all.

 

Free Will = First Cause.

First Cause = uncaused.

Another way of saying Uncaused is Self-Caused.

 

The fact that I may be the product of another free agent doesn't in any way reduce or negate my own agency, nor does it mean that I am self-caused. The cause of me and the cause of my decisions is two separate issues. I am not self-caused nor are my decisions determined, necessarily, by those who caused me to be (my parents, God, or anyone else).

You are now conflating and confusing my argument. I'm not talking about "what cause the existence of my free will," but "what is causing my willing to do something." Which is: nothing. Since it is a Free will, it means the will is self-causing (except for when it's influenced of external causes).

 

Lets put it in a different way, perhaps in your Biblical way:

 

Lets assume God exists. Lets assume God is the First Cause. Lets assume God has Free Will.

 

God created Humans in his image. With spirit and free will.

 

Wouldn't it include that we also have the "first cause" in us for the things we do and decide? Isn't that the whole point of free will?

 

If that is so, then what is causing our first cause? Nothing. It is self-causing. Same thing.

 

It's funny, really, since the assumption of free will is an important part of the Kalaam argument. You're the one who should argue for free will as a first cause and self-causing, since the assumption that we have that, and are that, means that God is that too, by inference.

 

So why are we arguing this again? Did we switch sides somehow?

 

Let me summarize my standpoint: Kalaam, because of various previously stated problems with the premises and the fair chance of alternative explanations, is not strong enough to prove God. It is only a proof to those who already believe, while it's not proof enough for those who do not. An agnostic view of Kalaam is the only healthy and supported final standpoint. Agreed?

 

But my personal opinion is that life, time, and existence are mysteries, and they give rise to paradoxes which are hard to explain, but personally I don't feel the answer to a mystery is to invent another mystery. Replacing a paradox with another paradox, is not an answer. Keep it simple, and it will all be keep together, succinct and comprehensive. To me, God is just a superfluous explanation, and to accept Nature and its mysteries, as it stands, is parsimonious.

[Guest Davka]

I believe that there are plenty of other arguments that give evidence of God, so I think that the greater weight is on the side of God.

[Ouroboros]

I believe that there are plenty of other arguments that give evidence of God, so I think that the greater weight is on the side of God.

Yeah. Seriously.

 

Okay. LNC, you have convinced me. I am converting to Islam.

 

 

*NOT*!

[NotBlinded]

Okay. LNC, you have convinced me. I am converting to Islam.

 

 

*NOT*!

No virgins for you, you infidel!