Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Hyperskepticism: The Wrong Side Of A Continuum

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Philosophers and scientists who know their business recognize that any attempt to seek knowledge presupposes the existence of a rational universe ripe for investigating. The fact that we even bother to make the effort says something about our nature. As Aristotle says, “all men by nature want to know.” That is why the discovery of a new fact or truth can be a joy for its own sake. To be sure, knowledge also provides practical benefits, empowering us to pursue a self-directed life style, but it also edifies us, leading us on the road to self-actualization. To be intellectually healthy is to be curious.

On the other hand, we can, by virtue of our free will, act against our natural desire to know. For better or worse, there are some truths that many of us would prefer not to know about. The compelling nature of an objective fact can pull us in one direction while the force of our personal desires can pull us in the opposite direction. When this happens, a choice must be made. “Either the thinker conforms desire to truth or he conforms truth to desire.”–E. Michael Jones

Because we experience this ambivalence about the truth, we must be on guard against two errors: (a) talking ourselves out of things that we should believe [hyperskepticism] or (b) talking ourselves into things that we should not believe [gullibility]. Hyperskeptics attempt to justify the first error by calling attention to the second error, as if there was no reasonable alternative to either extreme. On the contrary, the ideal solution is to seek a rational midpoint –to balance a healthy skepticism about unconfirmed truth claims with a healthy confidence in truths already known. The one thing a thinker should not do is be skeptical or open-minded about the first principles of right reason, without which there is no standard for investigating or discoursing about anything “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”– G. K. Chesterton

In the spirit of public service, then, I present this little test for analyzing our readers’ proclivity for hyperskepticism. Hopefully, those who indulge will not find any predictable patterns, since I strove to keep them at a minimum.

Yes or No

[1] Can we know anything about the real world?

In asking this question, I am probing for your orientation on the matter of external facts with respect to our internal experience. Can we really know if such a thing as a tree exists, or is it the case that we simply experience mental representations of something that may not be a tree at all? [Reminiscent of Kant’s hyperskepticism]

[2] If the answer to [1] is no, is it, under those circumstances, possible to conduct rational investigations or participate in rational discourse?

If I can feel the experience of something that seems like a tree, without knowing that it is a tree, or if I am just using words to describe my experience, can I use my reason to draw other meaningful conclusions about the world? In other words, can I, absent a knowable external reality, reason not just validly [with internal consistency] but also soundly [align my understanding with the truth of things]?

True or False

[3] The law of non-contradiction [a thing cannot be and not be at the same time] is not a self-evident truth.

Inasmuch as scientific progress has demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong about the four basic elements of the earth, it is not unreasonable to suggest that he was also wrong about his so-called laws of logic.

[4] The law of causality is a self-evident truth.

I can accept this proposition unconditionally, not only as a second law of logic, but also as an intellectual companion to the first law of logic? Put another way, if a thing cannot be and not be at the same time, that fact influences or informs the law that nothing can come into existence without a cause. There is a logical connection between the claim that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist and the claim that it cannot come into existence without a cause?

[5] Our knowledge of the real world is reliable but imperfect.

We may not know everything there is to know about a tree, but we do know that something is there that we call a tree and that it is more than just a collection of parts–something that exhibits “treeness.”

[6] A finite whole can be less than any one of its parts.

A crankcase can, in some cases, be greater than the automobile of which it is a part.

[7] The universe is ordered.

Material objects move in such a way as to indicate some kind of function or purpose.

[8] The universe may be ordered to a purpose, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it needed an intelligence to do the ordering or establish the purpose.

Purpose can exist without intelligence.

[9] The universe is, indeed, ordered, but that doesn’t mean that its order is synchronized with our mind’s logic.

The mind’s logic [if it’s raining, the streets will get wet] may be inconsistent with the order of the universe [If it’s raining, the streets may not necessarily get wet.] The proposition that there is an unfailing correspondence between the logic our rational minds and ordering of the rational universe is something that should be demonstrated through evidence and cannot be reasonably accepted as a “self-evident truth.”

[10] There can be more than one truth?

Each specialized branch of knowledge can have its own brand of truth, and that truth may well be incompatible with truths found in other specialized areas.

[11] In some cases, a cause can give more than it has to give.

Something can come to exist in the effect that was not first present in the cause. It may well be, for example, that an immaterial mind could emerge from matter even though matter has no raw materials containing anything like immaterial mental substances.

12-20, Yes, No, or I don’t know.

[12] Does truth exist?

Is truth absolute, not relative–objective, not subjective–universal, not contextual–and indivisible, not many?

[13] Is there such a thing as the natural moral law?

Is there an objective standard of right and wrong that we [humans] did not invent [or socially construct] and to which we are morally obliged to follow in spite of our personal preferences or in spite of public opinion?

[14] Does the human conscience exist?

Do we, as humans, possess some kind of inborn instinct that makes us feel bad about ourselves when we do something wrong and feel good about ourselves when we do something right. Can that same conscience be habitually silenced and ignored to the point at which it stops sending signals?

[15] Is design detectable?

Can we discern the presence of intelligence from the biological and cosmological patterns found in nature? Can we discover the presence of intelligence from patterns found in human artifacts even if we know nothing about the history of those artifacts? Can minds detect the activity of other minds?

[16] Does God exist?

Is there a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, self-existent God who created the universe and all the creatures that inhabit it?

[17] Is God organic with the universe?

Could God and the universe be one and the same thing?

[18] Can matter investigate itself?

In order for a scientist or a philosopher to investigate the universe or the world, must he exist as a substance of a different kind than the object of his study? Are two such realms of existence really necessary, or can the relationship between the investigator and the object of investigation be explained from a monistic framework.

[19] Evidence can speak for itself; it need not be interpreted by or mediated through the rules of right reason.

Science can stand alone. It needs no metaphysical foundations in order to be rational.

[20] Ask yourself this question: Do I have free will?

Do I have something to say about my fate? Can I say that I could have made choices other than the ones that I did make, or that I could have created outcomes different than the ones I did create? Do I have the power to act contrary to my nature, predisposition, desires, and appetites?

True/ False

[21] If the ordered universe is synchronized with the laws of logic, it could be a coincidence.

Even if we do have “rational” minds, and even if they do correspond to a “rational universe,” there is no reason to suggeset that it had to be set up by something or someone. It could just be that way.

[22] Theistic Darwinism is a reasonable hypothesis.

A purposeful, mindful God may well have used a purposeless, mindless process to create humans.

[23] A universe can come into existence without a cause.

Not all effects require causes. Further, some things that are often characterized as effects, such as our universe, may not really be effects at all. Even if it does, itself, act as a cause, the physical universe could be, but need not be, the result of a prior cause.

[24] Unguided evolution is a reasonable hypothesis.

There is no reason to believe that humans could not emerge as a lucky accident from solely naturalistic forces.

[25] Cause and effect can occur without a first cause.

Granted, a cause/effect chain exists in nature, but that fact alone does not compel us to posit that only a first cause or causeless cause can explain

Comments
A further thought, Vividbleau: Maybe all epistemological statements are empirical. I suspect they are, but I'd like to see kf's take on that.Pedant
October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Vividbleau @351:
pendant “Is it an incorrect proposition?” That was not what kf asked you.
Correct. It’s a question I asked kf. Vividbleau @352:
pendant “I don’t know” If you dont know then contrary to your assertion you dont know that all statements about the world are empirical.
My “I don’t know” was in answer to kf’s question:
Is, “ALL statements about the world are empirical statements” itself empirical?
I don't know if it's a statement about the world or about epistemology - about how we understand things. But as far as knowing that all statements about the world are empirical, I don’t know that, in the sense of being absolutely certain, but it seems correct to me. Is that OK?Pedant
October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
pendant "I don’t know" If you dont know then contrary to your assertion you dont know that all statements about the world are empirical. Vividvividbleau
October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
pendant "Is it an incorrect proposition?" That was not what kf asked you. Vividvividbleau
October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @346:
Pedant: Is, “ALL statements about the world are empirical statements” itself empirical?
I don’t know. What do you think? Is it an incorrect proposition? Are there any statements one can make about the world that are not empirical?Pedant
October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
It seems that there is a lot of confusion in part of those that defend uncaused states what it means when something is uncaused. Uncaused state is self-originating state from nothing or non-being i.e it is independent from the previous or any states and not initiated by them. Emergence of uncaused state's don't have any limits of what may or may not emerge either as non-being has no attributes that could limit the emerging state. It certainly doesn't follow by any logic that if some quantum or other state's seems to be or are non-deterministic that this randomness implies that the states in question are uncaused. For example the double slit experiment's non-deterministic pattern of photons does not imply uncaused event because the state can be initiated i.e caused in a lab. It should be clear that the uncaused state couldn't be initiated by anything because of it's self-creating nature. Uncaused state's would be a total science and knowledge stopper as well as there would be no way to research self-creating state that pops out of nothing for no reason. In short randomness != uncaused uncaused = end of knowledgeInnerbling
October 19, 2010
October
10
Oct
19
19
2010
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
kf PS: V, last I checked, it is reductio . . . ooops my bad. I could lie and say it was a typo :) Vividvividbleau
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
[Are you arguing for an unchanging law, a non-negotiable principle that informs evidence, or are you arguing for a hypothesis, a negotiable starting point that is informed and can be changed by the evidence?”] ---Aleta: The latter. Yes, which means that, in spite of your earlier claim, you employ no first principles that inform the evidence. With each new commentary, you change your story to fit the argument. On one of your previous posts, you acknowledged that nothing can be in the effect that was not first in the cause, which is a corollary of the law of causality. Now you say there is no law. It's one contradiction after the other. That is why you cannot say with any degree of certainty that a concrete wall cannot come from out of nowhere. You cannot rule out the possibility because you commit to no rational principles that would provide that kind of guidance. That's hyperskepticism. -="I don’t know whether causality, as we know it, applies to everything that might possibly exist in the metaphysical realm." You don't even know if it applies to everything in the physical realm, as you have made clear. ---I’m not going to rule out considering that by declaring the law of causality an inviolable principle. Right. For that same reason, you cannot rule out the possibility that a concrete wall will pop up from out of nowhere. ---"Sure, I can point to the evidence. You are claiming that the statement that everything has a cause is an “assumption by which you interpret the evidence,” but I’m not agreeing with that." Incorrect. You cannot point to evidence as a means of establishing causation, because you already evalute evidence on the basis that events you observe may not have been caused. Clearly, you don't get that. Would this be Aleta in a courtroom?- -- “Your honor, the law of causality is not really a law. The 27 wounds in the victim's chest which appear to have been caused by my client’s knife may not have been caused at all. There are no first principles that would require us to say otherwise. Also, my client’s fingerprints may have just magically on the alleged murder weapon. I agree that they are there, but the way I interpret the evidence my client may not have even been present at the scene. While I don’t really BELIEVE that his fingerprints came from out of nowhere, I can’t be CERTAIN because I hold to no rational principles that would compel me to say that.” Would this be Aleta in the laboratory? ---“As far as I am concerned, there is no reason why the effect cannot be greater than the cause.” There is no non-negotiable principles of right reason to suggest otherwise. The ocean became muddy because a frog jumped in.” The man was killed by a blanket which dropped from the second floor. The dish fell from the table because a fly landed on it.” All these things are possible because evidence can be interpreted according to the whims of the investigator and need not be informed by logical principles.StephenB
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Pedant: Is, "ALL statements about the world are empirical statements" itself empirical? In short reflect on the self-reference there and where it leads to since the number of statements about the world is indefinitely large, i.e. personally and institutionally infinite. Reductio . . . G PS: Aleta, a quantum event occurs such that it depends on certain prior conditions, e.g. no unstable atom, no radioactive decay (as has been repeatedly pointed out, and BTW that was the exact point Craig, very properly, was making and which Green missed). That is, WE CAN FAIRLY EASILY IDENTIFY NECESSARY CAUSAL FACTORS FOR QUANTUM EVENTS. Events constrained by necessary causal factors are caused, and that we do not know specific SUFFICIENT sets of causal factors does not make the events a-causal. They are not coming out of nothing, nowhere, any-time. Even "empty" space is seen as packed with a rich energy density! (And observe the veiled reference to causal factors -- but too often unrecognised as such -- in the discussion just linked.)kairosfocus
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Aleta + Pendant, There is nothing about QM that denies the law of causality. I think I was right to point out that the problems with your perspective stem from hume’s false conception of causality. Causality is not merely an inference we make about the world via our empirical investigations. It’s a reality whose denial leads to a reductio ad absurdum.above
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Aleta,
The world just isn’t like that. I don’t know why the world is as it is, and I don’t think anyone does.
Exactly, but we do know why certain things follow from others, namely, with metaphysical reality, as with logic, reason, morality, and mathematics.Clive Hayden
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Aleta said:
The root issue is the role of logic. The law of contradiction is a rule of logic. The law of causality is not. It is a statement about the real world in which both the words event and cause need to have meaning, and we are discovering that at some levels of the world, maybe the everyday meanings of those words break down, and the law of causality is not true.
As I understand it, Aleta is correct. All statements about the world are empirical statements, and causal statements are always statements about the world. Therefore, all causal statements are empirical.Pedant
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Aleta, If I am not mistaken, your notion of causality of an efficient cause being a state prior to an event came out of hume and his problematic view on causality. In fact, the issue of causality was never an issue per se but rather was fabricated from this man's false understanding. Think of a rock thrown at a window causing it to break. The immediate (emphasis on immediate for simplicity of example) efficient cause as per your view would be the state of affairs that is temporally prior to the window coming into contact with the rock. From a classical perspective however, the efficient cause simultaneous with its effect. The instant that the rock is in contact with the glass signified by the breaking is the efficient cause. It is only when cause and effect are divorced unnecessarily as in hume’s case that problems arise. I think Kairsofocus commented on the intimate relation of cause and effect earlier in his analysis of causality in physical theory and its centrality to physical effects. It is only when the two are divorced that problems arise.above
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Stephen writes, "The law of causality is not a “hypothesis,” it is an unchanging first principle of right reason that interpreets and informs evidence. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is a provisional proposition that can be informed and changed by the evidence. So, are you arguing for an unchanging law, a non-negotiable principle that informs evidence, or are you arguing for a hypothesis, a negotiable starting point that is informed and can be changed by the evidence?" The latter. If the former, we have to assume that quantum events have a cause, and that may not be true. Stephen writes, "Inasmuch as you also hold that quantum events may be uncaused, you obviously do not, in spite of your earlier claim, fully embrace the proposition that we live in a causally connected universe, meaning that you think causality applies in some areas but not others." I have explained, two or three times, why I omitted mentioning quantum events in the first place (in part because I don't know whether they are uncaused or not, and neither does anyone else), and I've explained also that at the non quantum level, the probability distributions create causality as we normally think of it. Try reading QED by Feynman for more details Stephen writes, "So despite your earlier claims, you don’t really except the assumption that the universe is causally connected, or, at least, you allow for exceptions. [Hence, your language of "hypothesis]." Yes. I don't know whether causality, as we know it, applies to everything that might possibly exist in the metaphysical realm. Both free will and quantum events may (this is a speculation at least worth considering) lie at the interface of the physical and the metaphysical, and true spontaneous freedom might be a property of the metaphysical. I'm not going to rule out considering that by declaring the law of causality an inviolable principle. You write, "On what principle do you make these exceptions and how many exceptions will you allow? You cannot justify these exceptiions by pointing to the evidence, because we are talking about the assumptions by which you interpret the evidence." Sure, I can point to the evidence. You are claiming that the statement that everything has a cause is an "assumption by which you interpret the evidence," but I'm not agreeing with that. You're the one who can't point to the evidence because you've limited yourself by the principle you have adopted as inviolable. And last, you write, "Why do you assume, in some cases, that unknown causes are causes that have not yet been detected, while in other causes, you assume that unknown causes are causes that do not really exist?" I don't believe I've done that. I've said it's possible that quantum events are truly uncaused, and it's possible they have an unknown (and unknowable) cause. I base this on reading the works of physicists and others who have speculated on this. At the non quantum level, once the effects of large numbers of quantum events are averaged out, I believe everything is caused. (And for the record, I am talking about proximate, efficient causes that connect each moment in time to the next.) The root issue is the role of logic. The law of contradiction is a rule of logic. The law of causality is not. It is a statement about the real world in which both the words event and cause need to have meaning, and we are discovering that at some levels of the world, maybe the everyday meanings of those words break down, and the law of causality is not true. ... We've probably said, both of us, all there is to say about this for now. I understand your point, and disagree that it is the best way to look at things. Let me close with a quote from Einstein that summarizes my main point about logic:
As far as the laws of mathematics [and logic] refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
and my motto from Feymnan (paraphrased): "I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true." This thread is on the subject of hyperskepticism, which is a pejorative term. I'm a skeptic, and proud of it - I see it as a virtue. not a vice. Unless I can see some evidence or other compelling argument for believing something, I will stay uncommitted. The thread also put hyperskepticism on the other end of a spectrum with gullibility, and that may apply to some, including some here on this forum. But I think a more reasonable counterpoint to hyperskepticism is hyperconfident certainty, which is a category I put many of you here in. So we differ significantly in how we see ourselves and how we see each other, and perhaps we gain something from discussing with each other (and perhaps not.) I have learned things from this thread - both understanding you guys better (although you would probably disagree with what I think I understand) and understanding myself better, both what I think and how to communicate what I think. So despite my nagging background feeling that I shouldn't be spending my time coming here and getting involved in these discussions, there is obviously reasons why I come back occasionally and get involved again. So until the next time, AletaAleta
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
H'mm: Interesting . . . Those who evidently struggle with the idea of a wall emerging out of nothing, for no reason, anywhere, also seem to have no problem with a whole universe emerging out of nowhere, nothing, and for no reason. I also find it significant that those who actually experience being selves that make choices and carry out acts, struggle with the concept that the self is a causal force, a personal one: the self-acting soul or person or "I", if you will. One that was created by the self who caused the cosmos. Interesting. G PS: V, last I checked, it is reductio . . .kairosfocus
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
---Aleta: "No I don’t think concrete walls can pop into existence without a cause. In general, as I said way back up at the start of the thread, I believe that we live in a causally connected universe." I am not asking if you think that concrete walls cannot just pop into existence without a cause. I am asking if you know that concrete walls cannot just pop into existence without a cause. ---"This is one of those starting hypotheses that we have made, and which our experience continues to confirm. Looking for regular causes for hings has been a very succesful enterprise." The law of causality is not a "hypothesis," it is an unchanging first principle of right reason that interpreets and informs evidence. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is a provisional proposition that can be informed and changed by the evidence. So, are you arguing for an unchanging law, a non-negotiable principle that informs evidence, or are you arguing for a hypothesis, a negotiable starting point that is informed and can be changed by the evidence? Inasmuch as you also hold that quantum events may be uncaused, you abviously do not, in spite of your earlier claim, fully embrace the proposition that we live in a causally connected universe, meaning that you think causality applies in some areas but not others. You write: ---"At the time I stated my belief in a causal universe, I didn’t mention quantum events (for reasons I have explained upthread someplace), but from what I understand, even if quantum events are truly uncaused in a probabilistic fashion (and we don’t know whether that is true or not),.." So, in spite of your earlier claims, you don't really except the assumption that the universe is causally connected, or, at least, you allow for exceptions. [Hence, your language of "hypothesis]. On what principle do you make these exceptions and how many exceptions will you allow? You cannot justify these exceptiions by pointing to the evidence, because we are talking about the assumptions by which you interpret the evidence. Why do you assume, in some cases, that unknown causes are causes that have not yet been detected, while in other causes, you assume that unknown causes are causes that do not really exist?StephenB
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Aleta, I found some quotes that made me think of you: "Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis" Robert Wilson - Nobel laureate - co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Arno Penzias - Nobel laureate - co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation "There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing." George Smoot - Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE ",,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same." Robert Jastrow - Founder of NASA's Goddard Institute - Pg.15 'God and the Astronomers' ------ The following quotes are bit more on point: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." "There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgements to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause... "This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control... Jastrowbornagain77
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
P.S I wrote 335 in response to 333, before I saw 334. 336 is in response to 334.Aleta
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
I see. Looking back, I see that your original question said "without a cause", but in 314 you wrote "Why cannot concrete walls pop up from out of nowhere? How do you know that it is not possible?", which didn't mention "without a cause" so I forgot that was part of the original question. No I don't think concrete walls can pop into existence without a cause. In general, as I said way back up at the start of the thread, I believe that we live in a causally connected universe. This is one of those starting hypotheses that we have made, and which our experience continues to confirm. Looking for regular causes for hings has been a very succesful enterprise. At the time I stated my belief in a causal universe, I didn't mention quantum events (for reasons I have explained upthread someplace), but from what I understand, even if quantum events are truly uncaused in a probabilistic fashion (and we don't know whether that is true or not), there effect is very limited in time and space, and so the probability distributions create an "average" that functions causally, with regularity. Therefore, a macroscopic structure such as a concrete wall could not come about from a quantum event. I hope I have now answered the question you wanting me to answer.Aleta
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
I said that based on a huge amount of evidence I firmly believe, and so does every person on this planet, I imagine, that it [the concrete wall popping into existence] can't happen. You then wrote, "I am not asking you about your experience or whether or not it has happened. I am asking if you know whether or not it CAN happen–ever." To that, I answered that I don't know that it couldn't possibly happen. Given the world as I think it is, it couldn't happen, but maybe the world is different than I think it is (God exists, and he would do this type of thing someday), in which case, as I said, I would have to change my mind about some major things. I am pretty much repeating what I've already said: it seems like a simple distinction, and a straightforward answer. Maybe you could be more explicit about what you think about whether concrete walls can pop into existence or not, and our your position differs from mine.Aleta
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
---Aleta: "If an omnipotent God exists, as you folks believe, then theoretically he could pop one into existence." Then the wall would not be coming into existence without a cause. God would be putting it there. The question is whether or not it can appear there WITHOUT a cause. You have taken two positions on the matter. I am asking you to narrow it down to one.StephenB
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
[Can a brick wall just pop up in front of your moving vehicle as you are driving down the highway] ---Aleta: "No, I don’t “know whether or not it CAN happen Earlier, you said things like that don't happen, so I asked you how you can know that. Now you say that you don't know if it can happen. So, can you tell me which position is the one you hold. Either [a] you know it can't happen, in which case you could tell us why, or [b] you don't know if it can happen, which means that you do not rule out the possibility. If you do not rule out the possibility, then you are open to the possibility. Please choose one position.StephenB
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
William J. Murray, you say "Such reasons do not coerce the intent of a free will agency, they just provide contextual opportunity for specified expression ***IF ONE WISHES*** to utilize them in that manner". (italics mine) I rest my case!M. Holcumbrink
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
William J Murray, re #77, you say: - - - "I would like to add that, IMO, “desires” and other reasons are contextualized opportunities within which a person with free will can make meaningful intentions. A reason to “do” something, or intend something, is not the same as sufficient cause." And yet "desire", or "will", is the only reason anybody does anything at all. Every single conscious decision or action anybody ever does can be traced back to a “desire” or “will”. Take it to the bank. - - - "Because apple pie exists, and I like the taste, is not the sufficient cause for an intent to eat apple pie." Not per se, no. But when we eat apple pie, rest assured there is a reason for it, and the reason boils down to a desire on our part. Maybe we are hungry and that's all there is (desire to eat), maybe we just like the taste (desire for pleasure), or maybe we have a gun to our head (eat this ,or else!), which would be a desire to preserve one's own life. - - - "Such reasons do not coerce the intent of a free will agency, they just provide contextual opportunity for specified expression if one wishes to utilize them in that manner." If "desire”, or "will" is not the drive behind our decisions or actions, then what is?M. Holcumbrink
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Sorry Aleta, ,,, As for the miracle of God creating a wall, I think it would be much more appropriate to pay proper appreciation to the miracle of the wall that God has tore down, than to demand that God erect a wall instantaneously. ,,, The wall God breeched that had separated infinite God from finite man. A impregnable wall that no mortal man could possibly have traversed by his own effort, nor is possible for man by his own effort today: ,,, The unification, into a 'theory of everything', between what is in essence the 'infinite world of Quantum Mechanics' and the 'finite world of the space-time of General Relativity' seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian, that was leveled against the preceding Shroud of Turin video, that God indeed needed no help from the 'universe' in the resurrection event of Christ since all things are possible with God, I am none-the-less very happy to see that what is considered the number one problem facing Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a 'unification into a theory of everything' for what is in essence the finite world of General Relativity and the infinite world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a successful resolution for 'unification' within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the 'scientific evidence' we now have that Christ literally ripped a hole in the finite entropic space-time of this universe to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart. Though to be sure the video is not saying with 100% certainty whether God acted completely of His own free will at that specific moment in time of the resurrection, or whether it was a cumulative act of His free will spread over all time, and all eternity, from the foundation of the universe. Yet none-the-less there seems to be strong indication, from the empirical evidence itself, of it being a cumulative act of His free will spread over all time focused on that particular moment of time (i.e. A timeless act within time). That the resurrection event would fit so neatly within the number 1 problem of physics today, seems to mock, with a full belly laughter, those who would pretend 'science' has 'liberated' them from religious 'superstitions.bornagain77
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Re #60: William J. Murray, you say: "Do you not define intent the same way most dictionaries do? From dictionary.com: “1. to have in mind as something to be done or brought about.” Note that it can be about something to be done, or just something “to be brought about” … such as jupiter turnig blue." The way you have used the word is in no way comparable to how the dictionary defines it, or how anyone would use it in everyday language. When I say "I intend to go to work in the morning", that means I will indeed go to work unless something prevents me from carrying that out. Just thinking about doing something (turning Jupiter blue?) does not describe "intent" in any sense of the term, unless you knew how to actually do it, and you were consequently so inclined to put it on your list of things to ACTUALLY DO. - - - "Please note dictionary.com’s definition of the noun “will”: “1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.” Please note the latter part of that definition: the power of control the mind has over it’s own actions. IOW, my consciousness has the power to control its own behavior before it manifests as physical actions." Please note that this definition can be boiled down to this: "the power to deliberately do what I am so inclined to do", which comports with what most people think of when they use the term “free will”. But what I am saying is that whatever we are inclined to do is outside of our control, and everything we actually DO is the result of the inclination. IOW, this definition is superficial, just like most people's understanding of the issue. But the "will" is most certainly used to describe our desire. Our "will" is that which we want, or would like to see come about (Thy will be none), so I would profoundly disagree with this particular definition as it pertains to this discussion. - - - "How can the mind control itself, if mental actions like intent are caused by uncontrollable desires? How can one say that the mind controls itself at all if such “controls” are simply the effects of that which is not controlled by the conscious?" The mind certainly controls our actions, but the self is DEFINED by our inclinations (or will, or desire), which in turn directs our mind to this or that action. - - - "IMO, you are attempting to subvert the very essential meaning of free will by categorizing it as something caused by something else." ... "you seem to be seeking to define “intent” or “free will” conveniently so that it precludes my spot-on example from consideration." If we are to discuss this issue, we must carefully define our terms, and I am saying that the "typical" use of the term "free will" is insufficient, and your use of the term "intent" is completely out of the ordinary. These sloppy usages misdirect and confuse the conversation.M. Holcumbrink
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
BornAgain77, I hope this response is not too long... Re #58: I very much appreciate your personal story. And when you say "I could not control my desires in the least", believe me when I say I know exactly what you are talking about, for I was enslaved to a most heinous desire myself. And I was so ensnared by this sin, I was willing to abandon anyone and anything to continue in it. And I mean ANYTHING. At one point, though, I thought my ability to indulge in this behavior was going to be taken from me, and I realized that if it was, I would be left with nothing; nothing in the sense that I had no desire for anything or anyone else. IT was the only thing I wanted. However, once I realized that, I started to have desires for other desires (any desire other than the one that had been at the root of every single decision I had been making). In addition, I eventually started to see that this wretched desire was itself the manifestation of other desires in my heart (I was full of covetousness, greedy and selfish). In short, I only cared about ME and my well being and pleasure. I could not be moved to act for the sake of anyone or anything unless it benefited ME in the end. I was utterly appalled by this, and this realization caused me to want the good desires instead (the desire to be kind, gentle, caring, responsible), to be moved to act for the sake of others, not for my sake. I wanted to be able to love anyone or anything besides just me, but how to go about making that happen I could not find within myself. So for me, it was the overwhelming desire for virtuous desires that cancelled out the wretched ones (not the virtuous desires themselves, but the desire for them). But not finding it within myself to conjure them up, I began to ask for them. Eventually, I found in scripture that this is exactly what we are supposed to do (Psalm 51:10, 119:36, 141:4, 1 Chron 29:18 ). It is God who works in us, to give us virtuous desires, thereby causing us to walk in his ways (Deut 30:6, Ezek 36:26-27, Jeremiah 32:39-40, 2 Chron 30:6-12, Phil 2:13). Thus, my personal experience has shown me not only that desires are what drive our every action, but that we are enslaved to them, unless some other desire arises and cancels them out. Or IOW, we are and always will be slaves to one thing or another (One cannot serve two masters, but rest assured, we will always have a master). Regarding speaking truth to your desires, this is an important point. But like I said before, truth awakens desire, and in your example, it would seem to me that reminding yourself that you look and act like a fool when drunken and carousing is enough to prevent it. But it is important to note that not wanting to look like a fool (which is a desire in and of itself) apparently outweighs your desire to drink and carouse. OR, I suppose, if your main desire is for women to think of you as suave and good looking, and then you learn that heavy drinking is NOT the way to accomplish that, it’s no wonder your drinking has come under control (I am speculating, I do not pretend to know you that well, I am only trying to illustrate my point). In this sense, truth can alter our behavior in that we learn what is and is not effective in fulfilling our will, or desire. However, I have found it possible to keep certain desires from being enflamed (like taking every thought captive). The desire is there (I can feel it, and it still calls to me to gratify it), but it is very much weakened, or "dormant", sort of. But I know if it were to be enflamed again, it could very well enslave me, yet again. I greatly fear this possibility. I will therefore avoid certain things like the plague. And in regards to truth awakening certain desires, it is contingent on the hearer of the truth actually believing it. Consequently, I don’t think we can control what we truly believe, either.M. Holcumbrink
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Hi BA. I have never "said that the entire universe could just pop into existence ‘uncaused’" You must be thinking of someone else.Aleta
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Aleta you state: 'If that actually happened, I would have to seriously re-evaluate my worldview. :) ' But Aleta have you not previously said that the entire universe could just pop into existence 'uncaused' just so to avoid Theistic implications? Then why in the world would a paltry brick wall cause you any less resolve in your determination to deny the obvious?bornagain77
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Stephen asks, "I am not asking you about your experience or whether or not it [a concrete wall popping inot existence0 has happened. I am asking if you know whether or not it CAN happen–ever–and if so, how you know that. No, I don't "know whether or not it CAN happen–ever–". If an omnipotent God exists, as you folks believe, then theoretically he could pop one into existence. If that actually happened, I would have to seriously re-evaluate my worldview. :)Aleta
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3 12

Leave a Reply