Age and God; A correlation?

[Biochemist]

irrational - : not rational: ...: not governed by or according to reason (WWWebster)

 

As *I* said something either IS A or IS NOT A. As such either something IS "rational" or it IS NOT "rational" (IRrational). NON and IR (and "A") are the same thing as they indicate that something is NOT "A" (rational). Any attempt to differentiate between them is non- or ir-relevant.

My point (explicitly) was that connotaion is more important than denotation in this context for normal usage of "not rational" versus "irrational". Repeating an instance of denotation does not advance your case.

[Biochemist]

One cannot prove things. One can only find evidence for things and observe things. Do we have evidence for free will? Sure. Do we have evidence causality can be circumvented? No? Do we have a conundrum? Of course....have you thought about the implications for YOU if free will does not exist? Getting all riled up... pointless. No one changes their mind because of an argument from either side. Actually, no one really argues. They are just precipitated events from some preceeding events. Why talk? Because we are forced to.

Good post, B-

[Biochemist]

I do not know anout that....have you ever had a wife try to paint a room lavender? :o

Ooh. I picked a bad example. :o

[bumab]

Mmmm... lavender. Or a house were everything scented must smell like lavender? :o

[infamous]

1) please PROVE that Free Will exists. (Oh why do I bother asking a Christian for PROOF?)

 

2) If Free Will does exist, it rules out the possibility of an Omnipotent being/ Creator, ala the Christian superstition.

 

Just as a side observation about your response to the question of free will. I take it from this post that you believe in determinism as I also do myself. I have long believed that free will is based on a false idea, because science spells out the following law, "cause and effect"."For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If I'm mistaken, please forgive me for presenting this following rational. After studying the meaning of the term "free will" and comparing that with your forum name "Freethinker", do we not have here a contradiction in terms???? If determinism is a valid scientific premise, then to think freely without causilty could not rationally exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll fashion some answer to effectively deal with this issue.

[bumab]

After studying the meaning of the term "free will" and comparing that with your forum name "Freethinker", do we not have here a contradiction in terms????

 

Which was my question as well, in a roundabout way.

[lindagarrette]

Just as a side observation about your response to the question of free will. I take it from this post that you believe in determinism as I also do myself. I have long believed that free will is based on a false idea, because science spells out the following law, "cause and effect"."For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If I'm mistaken, please forgive me for presenting this following rational. After studying the meaning of the term "free will" and comparing that with your forum name "Freethinker", do we not have here a contradiction in terms???? If determinism is a valid scientific premise, then to think freely without causilty could not rationally exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll fashion some answer to effectively deal with this issue.

A freethinker is someone who is not constrained by the precepts of religious dogma. It does not mean freedom from causality. There is no such thing.

[bumab]

A freethinker is someone who is not constrained by the precepts of religious dogma. It does not mean freedom from causality. There is no such thing.

 

It's still a contradiction. You can't be "constrained" if you have no control to begin with. Simply because religious dogma has less of a bearing on your thoughts doesn't mean you are any more "free" with those thoughts.

 

I would ask for a definition of freethinker that DOES NOT presuppose free will.

[Fishteacher73]

There are three basic camps of deteminism.

To quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

( http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm )

 

Three Kinds of Determinism

 

There are three distinct versions of determinism: logical, epistemic, and causal. Each has been alleged to pose a threat to the exercise of free will, indeed it has been claimed of each version that its existence is incompatible with the existence of free will.

 

1. Logical determinism is most frequently couched as the problem of 'future contingents'. The threat to the exercise of free will arises from the thesis that the truth-value (i.e. the truth or falsity) of any proposition is timeless, i.e. those propositions that are true are always true, and those propositions that are false are always false. Thus:

 

If a proposition about some future action you undertake (let's say tomorrow) is true, then it is true now. But if it is true now, then tomorrow you must undertake that action, that action must occur, you are powerless to prevent yourself from undertaking that action.

 

(Note that "logical" in the phrase "logical determinism" is not meant to contrast with "illogical", but instead refers to a particular concept of logic, namely truth itself.)

 

2. Epistemic determinism has a strikingly similar formulation. Instead of simply attributing truth (or falsity) to propositions about the future, epistemic determinism concerns such propositions' being known prior to the times of the occurrences they refer to. We then get this argument, parallel to the preceding one:

 

If a proposition about some future action you undertake is known (in advance), then (when the time comes) you must undertake that action, that action must occur, you are powerless to prevent yourself from undertaking that action.

 

3. Causal determinism is the thesis that all events (occurrences, processes, etc.) are the result of Laws of Nature and of antecedent conditions and of nothing else. Thus (to cite an example made famous by Carl Hempel), when a car radiator cracks overnight, it is the consequence of laws pertaining to the tensile strength of iron, of laws pertaining to the expansion of water upon freezing, to the structure of the radiator, to its being filled with water without anti-freeze, and to the temperature's falling well below freezing for several hours. In the case of human beings' acting, the same scenario is said to obtain.

 

Types 1 and two have to deal with foreknowledge in an almost omnipotent fashion, these seem to fall apart without a theistic backing. Type three however requires no foreknlowedge of an event for it to be determined and it can be deduced through basic natural laws. The acceptance of type three does not have any theistic implications (while obviously 1 and 2 do).

[kaelcarp]

("X" substitute is mine)("X" substitute is mine)

Substitute for "X"

Tooth Fairy

Santa Claus

Easter Bunny

leprechaun

Mithra

Zuess

...

 

This approach is rejected by any rational adult at every turn for "X", except when the "X" has the word "god" substituted. Then some supposed "rational adults" draw an imaginary line in the sand and want to pretend a "rational adult" can not make an informed decision based on the application of logic and reason.

 

And even god(s) are not removed from the application of rationality. IF that god myth is not the one the claimant is suckered into or is currently the popular one. e.g., how many adults able to walk and talk at the same time actually accept the serious possibility of the existence of Magni, Zuess, Isis, ... or any of the thousands of god myths humans have suckered for?

 

Yes any rational adult can make an informed decision based on the application of logic and factual support. In thousands of cases, there is not the least hesitation to outright acknowledge that Zuess, Thor, Tooth fairies, ... do not exist. An Atheist merely stays internally consistant. No artifical lines in the sand. No need to pretend a decision can not be made for a singular claim when they can outright reject thousands of others. No need to reliquish the mature process of making a decision.

Sorry for the long quote, but the post is pretty far back.

 

For the record, I am an atheist, and I do reject the many specific ideas of god put forth by religions like Christianity or Hinduism or, for that matter, the Ancient Greeks. To me, there is too much specificity in their god ideas that is unsupported.

 

However, the idea of the existence of a god, something very unspecific, is not something I'd be willing to rule out given the current evidence. If asked to make a choice one way or the other, I'll say that there's probably not one, but I can't say that with 100% confidence because I truly don't know.

 

A is A: the Law of Identity. For any proposition something either IS A or IS NOT A. As such either something IS "rational" or it IS NOT "rational" (IRrational). NON and IR (and "A") are the same thing as they indicate that something is NOT "A" (rational). Any attempt to differentiate between them is non- or ir-relevant.

I was thinking really of the common usage of the word "irrational" meaning that it is not just without reason, but against it. Yes, technically anything not rational is irrational, but that word does carry some weight that I think obscures other meanings. Of course, one could say the same about the common use of the word "atheist," which I use in a sense not everyone would agree with.

 

I'm an atheist. I don't have any beliefs regarding a general "god" idea. However, I think making a positive affirmation that no god of any kind exists is premature.

[bumab]

There are three basic camps of deteminism.

To quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

( http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm )

 

Thanks for the good rundown. Types 1 and 2, however, do not limit free will.

 

Type 1 does not because although some statement about the future may be true, that does not mean in the future, that future was chosen freely. For example, while it may be true that tomorrow I will choose to eat breakfast, that does not mean I am not free to not eat breakfast. It simply means I will choose to eat it.

 

Type 2 does not for similar reasons. Although the future may be known, it does not limit choice for the same reason. Although something is known to happen, that does not mean the choice is not present. Herbert explores this line of reasoning in the Dune series, a great bunch of books! :) Especially for their philisophical musings. Incidentally, this is the Calvinist stance.

 

Type 3 DOES limit free will. This is the type of determinism I was talking about when I asked for someone to give me an explanation for their actions and arguments without presuposing free will. Causal determinism has been alluded to under the name "naturalism" in many threads. I agreed with this until I understood the implications, after which, I really don't think it's tenable.

 

So, my question continues. Can someone give an explanation for their arguments or their postion without presumposing free will?

 

Types 1 and two have to deal with foreknowledge in an almost omnipotent fashion, these seem to fall apart without a theistic backing. Type three however requires no foreknlowedge of an event for it to be determined and it can be deduced through basic natural laws. The acceptance of type three does not have any theistic implications (while obviously 1 and 2 do).

 

I agree wholeheartedly, although 1 and 2 do not neccessarily imply God, but simply some supernatural agent.

[bumab]

Yes any rational adult can make an informed decision based on the application of logic and factual support.

 

No they cant, if you are going to be internally consistent. Free will and your determinism are mutually exclusive. Decisions require free will.

 

Actually, we should move this to the free will thread thats been going...

[Biochemist]

There are three basic camps of deteminism...Types 1 and two have to deal with foreknowledge in an almost omnipotent fashion...Type three however requires no foreknlowedge...The acceptance of type three does not have any theistic implications (while obviously 1 and 2 do).

I think you are correct in your assertion. As I understand this, the epistemic determinism model is the flavor that allows for free will when that freedom is instigated by the Creator. The logical determinism model even removes that, and looks like what a Christian theologian would call Calvinism.

 

Side note: Very few Christians are true Calvinists these days.

[infamous]

A freethinker is someone who is not constrained by the precepts of religious dogma. It does not mean freedom from causality. There is no such thing.

 

Are you saying that the term freethinker only applys to the precepts of religious dogma? If you are, I would respectfully disagree. The term freethinker, if one is to embrace this identification for oneself must apply to the entire thought process if they are to be consistent. To pick and choose which discipline one is to think freely about is somewhat hypocritical.

[Biochemist]

I'm an atheist. I don't have any beliefs regarding a general "god" idea. However, I think making a positive affirmation that no god of any kind exists is premature.

I do think this makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. An agnositc believes that god is either unknown or unknowable. An atheist believes god does not exist.

[C1ay]

I'm an atheist. I don't have any beliefs regarding a general "god" idea. However, I think making a positive affirmation that no god of any kind exists is premature.

I do think this makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. An agnositc believes that god is either unknown or unknowable. An atheist believes god does not exist.

I do think there is kind of a gray area to consider. I can firmly state that I do not believe there is a god. I do not claim there is no god because I cannot prove it. The generally accepted definition for an atheist is one who disbelieves in gods. I meet that definition but I do not claim there is no god, only that I don't believe. Because I have a critical belief in scientific method I believe the statement "there is no God" deserves evidentiary proof as much as "There is a God". Does that make me atheist or agnostic? Not that I care, only pointing out a nitpick that others might make.

[infamous]

I do think this makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. An agnositc believes that god is either unknown or unknowable. An atheist believes god does not exist.

Absolutely Biochemist; And I would submit that the agnostic tenet is by far much more honest with it's decision making than the atheistic point of view. The agnostic can admit that he simply does'nt know while the atheist insists that there is no God. Sounds to me like the agnostic is more inclined to think freely, if you know what I mean.