Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC)

05-22-2010 , 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
No, it doesn't. I said pick a sense of Christian "God" and discuss the evidence problem. The precise characterization isn't important for the problem that I'm discussing. I don't care about specific cases of evidence: I care about what COULD count as evidence.
I would say solving this problem is solely the responsibility of the believer. If you are the one claiming something exists, you presumably have a good reason for this that you can point to.
I do not see why we must give special treatment to a claim, simply because it is undisprovable.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:22 PM
I've made no positive claim about belief in terms of existence or non-existence. Where do you think I've done this?
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:23 PM
what for: anything

what against: nothing.

at least thats how the theists make it. obv yahweh is unfalsifiable.

imo tho, what for: if yahweh showed up and proved it by means of rigerous scientific investigations.

what against: nothing.

edit: nvm, you said evidence. well, empirical data. such as "do we know that most civilizations have made up stories that deal with deities doing crazy ****?" yup. etc.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:29 PM
Maybe you should try again.

People suggest that evidence for God's existence is the ability to observe beauty.

What COULD count as evidence for God's existence?

What COULD count as evidence against God's existence?

Do you not realize that my position is that it's underdetermined: no such possible evidence exists either way. Therefore, the epistemic position we're in requires us to treat them as equiprobable (or to not assign a probability).
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
I believe that you don't know.

Does a unicorn exist? Well, we know what COULD count as evidence. For example, observing a horse-like animal with a real horn. Or, rather than a living one, we could suppose that finding a horse-like skeleton with what appears to be a horn (and not a fake) could count as evidence for unicorns.

I've given you an explanation of what could count as evidence for unicorns. What would count as evidence of them not existing? Well, perhaps some biological argument that a horse couldn't have a horn (though I doubt that such an argument could be made); perhaps we have reason to believe that we have a complete fossil record of the clade that includes horses...and none of them indicate the development of a horn at any stage let alone a fully developed one that a unicorn would have. This would be something that COULD be evidence against their existence.

Now, do that for God. What COULD count as evidence for God's existence? What COULD count as evidence against God's existence.

I'll give you a hint: lots of people think that evil is evidence against God's existence.

Your turn.
Another good post. Good bye to the unicorn argument!
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
I'll give you a hint: lots of people think that evil is evidence against God's existence.
Are we completely forgetting about the Devil?
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
If determinism is true? Then, no...no one is responsible for anything. That's the incompatibility thesis.
Just making sure you're consistent.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
Maybe you should try again.

People suggest that evidence for God's existence is the ability to observe beauty.

What COULD count as evidence for God's existence?

What COULD count as evidence against God's existence?

Do you not realize that my position is that it's underdetermined: no such possible evidence exists either way. Therefore, the epistemic position we're in requires us to treat them as equiprobable (or to not assign a probability).
this question is nonsense. you first have to define the deity you are talking about. if "god" to you is "everything" then this is kinda different than if "god" to you is Yahweh who sends people to heaven or hell depending on if they obey the bible or not.

but it doesnt matter anyway because even if somone who believes in the latter they will not accept anythign as evidence counting against their deity. its unfalsifiable and therefore utterly meaningless.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
Maybe you should try again.

People suggest that evidence for God's existence is the ability to observe beauty.

What COULD count as evidence for God's existence?

What COULD count as evidence against God's existence?

Do you not realize that my position is that it's underdetermined: no such possible evidence exists either way. Therefore, the epistemic position we're in requires us to treat them as equiprobable (or to not assign a probability).
So true implications of a hypothesis do not confirm the hypothesis? I always thought "All ravens are black" is confirmed by a black raven (or a green hat lol)

Likewise, "God created the sun" implies that there is a sun. And there is a sun, so doesn't that provide some degree of confirmation? Not very much, of course, as the prior probability of there being a sun was rather high to begin with. No?
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanb9
this question is nonsense. you first have to define the deity you are talking about. if "god" to you is "everything" then this is kinda different than if "god" to you is Yahweh who sends people to heaven or hell depending on if they obey the bible or not.

but it doesnt matter anyway because even if somone who believes in the latter they will not accept anythign as evidence counting against their deity. its unfalsifiable and therefore utterly meaningless.
You really just don't get it. You pick your definition, I don't care WHAT you pick for defining anything remotely close to the christian god.

Just make your own choice (since it doesn't matter...why can't you understand this?) and tell me what could count as evidence for and evidence against.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vael
So true implications of a hypothesis do not confirm the hypothesis? I always thought "All ravens are black" is confirmed by a black raven (or a green hat lol)

Likewise, "God created the sun" implies that there is a sun. And there is a sun, so doesn't that provide some degree of confirmation? Not very much, of course, as the prior probability of there being a sun was rather high to begin with. No?
Evidence can't beg the question, though. You have to explain why it's evidence for God but not equally good evidence for a contrary (or contradictory) hypothesis...this is the underdetermination problem.

While you may say that "If God is True, then we'd expect the sun to..." whatever...And we observe that the outcome is what may have been predicted, but this is only evidence for God provided that it can't equally explain some contrary hypothesis like not-God and naturalism.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by madnak
Except that fatalism was "prima facie true" in some ancient Greek cultures. In fact, the majority of ancient cultures have no reference to any kind of libertarian free will, you don't see that idea in cultures that don't have contact with Western culture in some form.

I can give plenty of examples of cultures which accept (as self-evident) premises that directly contradict the idea of free will. If everyone experiences free will, then how is that possible? And how is it possible that some people (such as myself) have never believed in or "experienced" free will even when indoctrinated into the idea?

People run around claiming that free will is "how we experience reality," but you know what? Nobody has yet presented one shred of evidence that this is the case, or even attempted to refute my fairly strong evidence that it isn't. Do you doubt that there were cultures where people believed that everything was fated and that human action resulted from the will of the gods? If not, then how do you explain whole societies in which nobody believes in free will, if it's so self-evident? Every culture has some word for consciousness, for awareness, words for numbers, words for logical concepts, every culture we know of invokes these ideas so you can get away with calling them "self-evident" if you like, I don't agree but they are universal. Free will, however, is something people only believe in when they're taught to believe in it. So you can't get away with this. You're just being arbitrary. "We" don't experience libertarianism in reality, you do. And across human history, you're probably in the minority. And frankly I doubt anybody actually "experiences" technical points relating to the incompatibility thesis in the first place, you're really stretching to suggest that your experience of free will somehow implies incompatibility. There's nothing in your experience that says "this cannot be a result of a series of causes."
As far as these cultures, I understand that some have a philosophical belief or religious belief that all is dictated, but as far as I have seen they still in practice structure their lives and cultured based on the idea that we can chose to do A or not A.

It is one thing to say that you believe determinism, it is another to live your life based on this belief. Do you never regret decisions? Do you never deliberate? At the heart of peoples lives everyone is living as if they are capable of controlling the outcome of their lives. Whether or not the admit this on a philosophical level inconsequential imo.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
Evidence can't beg the question, though. You have to explain why it's evidence for God but not equally good evidence for a contrary (or contradictory) hypothesis...this is the underdetermination problem.

While you may say that "If God is True, then we'd expect the sun to..." whatever...And we observe that the outcome is what may have been predicted, but this is only evidence for God provided that it can't equally explain some contrary hypothesis like not-God and naturalism.
Hm..I guess I don't really understand what you're getting at, but couldn't we always (or at least sometimes) think of some contrary or contradictory hypothesis which implies every observed phenomenon the natural sciences explain and thereby undermine the confirmation of the natural sciences?
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vael
Hm..I guess I don't really understand what you're getting at, but couldn't we always (or at least sometimes) think of some contrary or contradictory hypothesis which implies every observed phenomenon the natural sciences explain and thereby undermine the confirmation of the natural sciences?
In the Wittgensteinian sense, yes; but, then you've got the problem of justifying why that hypothesis x +auxilliary hypotheses a,b,c are a better option than hypothesis y that doesn't have a tonne of ad hoc auxilliary hypotheses whose only purpose seems to be to save the tenability of this hypothesis.

The point is that this is DIFFERENT than the global underdeterminism of theory by data (which is what you're pointing to) and the problem of induction in general. This is a local underdeterminism special (but structural) to the question of God.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
You really just don't get it. You pick your definition, I don't care WHAT you pick for defining anything remotely close to the christian god.

Just make your own choice (since it doesn't matter...why can't you understand this?) and tell me what could count as evidence for and evidence against.
im not a theist. have jib do it
or why dont you just define what god you believe in. and saying your not a theist isn't fooling anyone.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:15 PM
I'm struggling with distinguishing local from global underdetermination. Does local underdeterminism occur when the hypothesis posits the existence of an entity that cannot be directly observed? (Which is why we have to rely on its implications to confirm/disconfirm it.)
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butcho22
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because the bible tells you so.
I can't speak for durkadurka, but I think most people believe in free will because it seems the obvious choice and most people around them act as they believe in free will. Further our culture encourages the assumption of free will which would incorporate your point about the bible.

They are wrong of course, but that is another topic.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:23 PM
Durka -

I'm glad you're taking the time to respond to the RGT atheists, and I hope you're having as much fun responding as I am reading.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vael
I'm struggling with distinguishing local from global underdetermination. Does local underdeterminism occur when the hypothesis posits the existence of an entity that cannot be directly observed? (Which is why we have to rely on its implications to confirm/disconfirm it.)
This is close but a decent approximation. Yes, it's an underdetermination that is based on the very subject matter itself and not based on something more general like the problem of induction.

Short answer: yes.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
As far as these cultures, I understand that some have a philosophical belief or religious belief that all is dictated, but as far as I have seen they still in practice structure their lives and cultured based on the idea that we can chose to do A or not A.
We can choose to do A or not A depending on the circumstances. Nobody lives their life with the idea that they can do A or not A under identical conditions.

Quote:
It is one thing to say that you believe determinism, it is another to live your life based on this belief. Do you never regret decisions?
Of course I regret decisions. Regret follows from determinism. I know that my choices have a deterministic effect on the outcome, so if a particular outcome follows from my actions and a different outcome would have followed from different actions, then I have grounds for regret because I have determined a tragic outcome. Care to tell me how it follows from libertarianism? Try to use logic, please. Frankly, I think you'll need some luck - regret, based on how we understand it, is highly deterministic and is a point in the determinism column.

Quote:
Do you never deliberate?
Deliberation is a process that occurs over time. When you actually make your decision, you're done deliberating. The deliberation is in the past. Thus, if deliberation affects your decision, then your decision is affected by prior factors. Deliberation is a prior factor, and the more it affects your choices the more support determinism has. You are suggesting that actions are not determined based on prior factors and cannot be predicted based on prior factors, so you are arguing that deliberation (which is a prior factor) does not affect choices.

Again, this is a point for determinism.

Quote:
At the heart of peoples lives everyone is living as if they are capable of controlling the outcome of their lives.
Yeah, we can control the outcome of our lives. That follows from determinism. We can predict the outcomes based on prior factors. Therefore, we can exert control - if I choose to do A, outcome X will follow. If I choose to do B, outcome Y will follow. Therefore, depending on which outcome I prefer, I choose one of the two actions.

That's a great example of how determinism works. But you say that outcomes are fundamentally unpredictable and are not related to any prior factors. If we "rewind time" and let it go again, then we get a different outcome. That's libertarianism. If libertarianism is valid, then I can have no control - I can't ever know which action I'm going to take, nor can I know what effects my action will have, because unpredictability is fundamental.

I would say that a good definition of "control" is to be able to determine future outcomes with our actions. It's a deterministic concept. Obviously determinists act as though they have control, because control is part of the determinist framework (not part of the libertarian framework).
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanb9
im not a theist. have jib do it
or why dont you just define what god you believe in. and saying your not a theist isn't fooling anyone.
LOL

Epic fail ITT bud.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by madnak
We can choose to do A or not A depending on the circumstances. Nobody lives their life with the idea that they can do A or not A under identical conditions.



Of course I regret decisions. Regret follows from determinism. I know that my choices have a deterministic effect on the outcome, so if a particular outcome follows from my actions and a different outcome would have followed from different actions, then I have grounds for regret because I have determined a tragic outcome. Care to tell me how it follows from libertarianism? Try to use logic, please. Frankly, I think you'll need some luck - regret, based on how we understand it, is highly deterministic and is a point in the determinism column.



Deliberation is a process that occurs over time. When you actually make your decision, you're done deliberating. The deliberation is in the past. Thus, if deliberation affects your decision, then your decision is affected by prior factors. Deliberation is a prior factor, and the more it affects your choices the more support determinism has. You are suggesting that actions are not determined based on prior factors and cannot be predicted based on prior factors, so you are arguing that deliberation (which is a prior factor) does not affect choices.

Again, this is a point for determinism.



Yeah, we can control the outcome of our lives. That follows from determinism. We can predict the outcomes based on prior factors. Therefore, we can exert control - if I choose to do A, outcome X will follow. If I choose to do B, outcome Y will follow. Therefore, depending on which outcome I prefer, I choose one of the two actions.

That's a great example of how determinism works. But you say that outcomes are fundamentally unpredictable and are not related to any prior factors. If we "rewind time" and let it go again, then we get a different outcome. That's libertarianism. If libertarianism is valid, then I can have no control - I can't ever know which action I'm going to take, nor can I know what effects my action will have, because unpredictability is fundamental.

I would say that a good definition of "control" is to be able to determine future outcomes with our actions. It's a deterministic concept. Obviously determinists act as though they have control, because control is part of the determinist framework (not part of the libertarian framework).
I don't think you're responded to me yet, though.

I don't see how you can use terms like "choose" and "deliberate" with much meaning if you assent to the deterministic thesis.

What does it mean to be in "control" of a choice if you believe in determinism? How does this result in responsibility?

Do you think that a tree is responsible for producing offspring? What about waves causing erosion of a cliff?

If not, why not?

If not, why are these things not responsible but a person can be? What is the difference?
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by madnak
We can choose to do A or not A depending on the circumstances. Nobody lives their life with the idea that they can do A or not A under identical conditions.



Of course I regret decisions. Regret follows from determinism. I know that my choices have a deterministic effect on the outcome, so if a particular outcome follows from my actions and a different outcome would have followed from different actions, then I have grounds for regret because I have determined a tragic outcome. Care to tell me how it follows from libertarianism? Try to use logic, please. Frankly, I think you'll need some luck - regret, based on how we understand it, is highly deterministic and is a point in the determinism column.



Deliberation is a process that occurs over time. When you actually make your decision, you're done deliberating. The deliberation is in the past. Thus, if deliberation affects your decision, then your decision is affected by prior factors. Deliberation is a prior factor, and the more it affects your choices the more support determinism has. You are suggesting that actions are not determined based on prior factors and cannot be predicted based on prior factors, so you are arguing that deliberation (which is a prior factor) does not affect choices.

Again, this is a point for determinism.



Yeah, we can control the outcome of our lives. That follows from determinism. We can predict the outcomes based on prior factors. Therefore, we can exert control - if I choose to do A, outcome X will follow. If I choose to do B, outcome Y will follow. Therefore, depending on which outcome I prefer, I choose one of the two actions.

That's a great example of how determinism works. But you say that outcomes are fundamentally unpredictable and are not related to any prior factors. If we "rewind time" and let it go again, then we get a different outcome. That's libertarianism. If libertarianism is valid, then I can have no control - I can't ever know which action I'm going to take, nor can I know what effects my action will have, because unpredictability is fundamental.

I would say that a good definition of "control" is to be able to determine future outcomes with our actions. It's a deterministic concept. Obviously determinists act as though they have control, because control is part of the determinist framework (not part of the libertarian framework).
Can you explain what your use of "determinism" is?
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:32 PM
Hawking's explained it best when he said that even those who do not believe in free will still look both ways when crossing the street....
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote
05-22-2010 , 05:33 PM
By the way Jib, how would you act if determinism were true? What would you do in that case?

If you want to present something as evidence that libertarian free will is true, then you need to show me something that would happen in a world with free will, but that would not happen in a deterministic world.

Talking about things that happen in both kinds of worlds can't support your position.

I can say "apples exist, and apples can exist in a deterministic universe, so apples are great evidence for determinism." But I'm not making a point. Because apples can also exist in a libertarian universe. Apples have nothing to do with determinism and libertarianism. Same applies to regret, control, and deliberation. Don't bring up apples, please.

If you want to support your point, sit down and think about how you would act if you learned for a fact, tonight, that the world is deterministic. How would it differ from how you currently act? Etc. And ideally, give some solid logical reasons why your examples make sense in a world with free will and some logical reasons why they don't make sense in a deterministic world.
durkadurka, you only believe in free will because....(LC) Quote

      
m