Hawking says there are no gods

[psionl0]

Correct

A consequence of this argument is that the universe can not be deterministic. Future states of the universe would be determined by its current state and by the random forces.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

A consequence of this argument is that the universe can not be deterministic. Future states of the universe would be determined by its current state and by the random forces.

Yes and no. Imagine that the randomness is limited, in a sense fixed, because other parts are determined as totally fixed. Weird, right?!!
Now this is a thought experiment to explain random in universe that in some sense appears fixed.
"Free will" is then a limited random process which accounts for choices. The problem is that is not free will, it is a random "numbers-generator" and has nothing to do with been free. It is just random.

As for soft determinism if you water it down to match determinism, it ends being not free, but just variations. We are free it seems because we are determined differently by nature/nurture and become free by following our own individual thoughts. The joke is that our own individual thoughts are still determined and not really our own thoughts. E.g. the problem is that "I" and "the mind/consciousness itself" are epiphenomenal.
"Free will" is no different than "god" or "real". You either believe in them or don't.

 

[dann]

The forces of nature is one thing. It's quite another when they are organized into highly complex systems. Gravity sees to it that matter attracts matter ... unless the matter consists of polar opposites, then another force of nature may be stronger. Organized as life, a squirrel may run up a tree away from the centre of gravity. And organized as highly evolved brains, the mind may to a certain extent influence the structure of the brain (and a lot of other things).
The laws of nature don't predetermine what I'm going to think or what I'm going to decide. I may even decide to defy the laws of nature, but I may also kill myself in the attempt to do so. Organized into a mind, other laws than those of ordinary matter and energy rule. Reaching a certain conclusion about something is not predetermined by gravity or any other laws of physics or chemistry.
The 'laws of the mind', see for instance: The Phenomenology of Spirit

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The forces of nature is one thing. It's quite another when they are organized into highly complex systems. Gravity sees to it that matter attracts matter ... unless the matter consists of polar opposites, then another force of nature may be stronger. Organized as life, a squirrel may run up a tree away from the centre of gravity. And organized as highly evolved brains, the mind may to a certain extent influence the structure of the brain (and a lot of other things).
The laws of nature don't predetermine what I'm going to think or what I'm going to decide. I may even decide to defy the laws of nature, but I may also kill myself in the attempt to do so. Organized into a mind, other laws than those of ordinary matter and energy rule. Reaching a certain conclusion about something is not predetermined by gravity or any other laws of physics or chemistry.
The 'laws of the mind', see for instance: The Phenomenology of Spirit

If it works for you, good for you. To me it is thinking run amok. But tastes differ.

 

[GDon]

Define "soft determinism".

Compatibilism, basically. The form of determinism that is compatible with free-will. In a deterministic universe, free-will decisions are one of the vectors that determine the universe.

Look at it this way: imagine a non-deterministic universe that runs for a million years, with free-will creatures making decisions. Someone, Agent X, has perfect knowledge of the past. He looks back for those million years and knows everything that has gone on.

Do the free-will creatures in the past still have free-will? Because if the creatures could have done other than what they chose (one definition of free-will) then Agent X's knowledge would be wrong! But no-one would agree that that is a valid conclusion.

Now imagine Agent Y, sitting at the start of the million years. He has perfect knowledge of everything that happens in the next million years. Do the free-will creatures lose their free-will? If you say 'yes', why? You might argue that 'seeing the future results in the loss of free-will', but that is concluding the very thing you are assuming as a premise.

I'd recommend reading up on the Modal Fallacy, which is used in discussions about Foreknowledge and Free-will. This is from the peer-reviewed International Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

Once the logical error is detected, and removed, the argument for epistemic determinism simply collapses. If some future action/choice is known prior to its occurrence, that event does not thereby become "necessary", "compelled", "forced", or what have you... Knowing – whether by God or a human being – some future event no more forces that event to occur than our learning that dinosaurs lived in (what is now) South Dakota forced those reptiles to take up residence there.​

That would look like a deterministic universe, since you can see every decision being made and the causes for them. Yet it also allows for free-will. What is causing the free-will decisions? I have no idea. I call it 'the free-will engine'. If we could understand the free-will engine, we might see the mechanisms on how free-will decisions get made. As a possible solution, you could say that God gives us the means to run our own free-will engine. I'm a theist, so I'm allowed to make that claim.

 

[Chanakya]

Whooosh.

You missed the point. I didn't say resources should not be expended on study. I said numbers of believers are not evidence real gods exist.

I assumed you were speaking in the same context in which I myself made my original comment. Else it is just a random thing to say, isn't it?

Anyway, for what it is worth, I agree fully with you when you say that simply the number of believers is not evidence for anything, including the exisence of God(s).

(...) Why do you think Hawking bothered with describing this POV of his?

I don't know, exactly. But in as much as that POV describes a rationale for his atheism, well, that's an argument for 'soft' atheism.

Evidence of people's god beliefs being belief in mythical gods is easily found in overwhelming abundance. There is nothing subjective about it.

The lack of evidence of real gods when you'd expect to see evidence is easily exposed such as no evidence prayer has an effect unless the person you are praying for believes they are being prayed for.

I am not talking about subjective evidence.

Still, to decide basis this kind of arguably objective (lack of) evidence that there (definitely) cannot be a God, that remains a purely subjective decision. It does not objectively make sense. But subjectively, that is, from an individual's personal perspective, it can be perfectly reasonable.

 

[psionl0]

Compatibilism, basically. The form of determinism that is compatible with free-will. In a deterministic universe, free-will decisions are one of the vectors that determine the universe.

Apart from this being a circular definition, it has too much of the "a little bit pregnant" rationale. You will have to try harder if you wish me to believe that free will can be part of a deterministic universe.

Look at it this way: imagine a non-deterministic universe that runs for a million years, with free-will creatures making decisions. Someone, Agent X, has perfect knowledge of the past. He looks back for those million years and knows everything that has gone on.

Do the free-will creatures in the past still have free-will? Because if the creatures could have done other than what they chose (one definition of free-will) then Agent X's knowledge would be wrong! But no-one would agree that that is a valid conclusion.

Now imagine Agent Y, sitting at the start of the million years. He has perfect knowledge of everything that happens in the next million years. Do the free-will creatures lose their free-will? If you say 'yes', why? You might argue that 'seeing the future results in the loss of free-will', but that is concluding the very thing you are assuming as a premise.

Slick!

Assume that free will exists in a deterministic universe (like you didn't have to prove anything after all) then try to muddy the waters with some time travel thought experiments.

If somebody managed to insert themselves into the past then clearly that act will change the state of the universe and cause a different set of outcomes from that point onwards regardless of whether free will exists or not. This is "butterfly effect" 101.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Free Will, as the term is used a philosophical concept in esoteric discussion, does not exist as it would require effects that don't have causes.

A thought, an opinion, a memory, an emotion.. these are just a biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain. Something caused it to be in that state because that's how reality works. Period. End of discussion. Any suggestion to the counter is invoking magic.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Free Will, as the term is used a philosophical concept in esoteric discussion, does not exist as it would require effects that don't have causes.

A thought, an opinion, a memory, an emotion.. these are just a biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain. Something caused it to be in that state because that's how reality works. Period. End of discussion. Any suggestion to the counter is invoking magic.

Funny how it sometimes goes. We agree. The same with the term god, it is not needed.

It occurred to me that I apply a double standard. I defend peoples ability to believe in a god/s though I don't in believe in God, yet I go after people who believe in free will.
I think I know what it is. I am triggered by strong atheists, who call believers in a god/s delusional and so on, because I have 3 psychiatric disorders, where as it is not the same with free will.

Back to

A thought, an opinion, a memory, an emotion.. these are just a biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain.

So is the word "I".

 

[epeeist]

What an odd question you start with. Of course I believe in evolution as the way life, including man, developed. I am an atheist and accept the overwhelming proof the scientific method has delivered, for our appraisal. It is only the religious who have trouble with science like this, as they desperately try to make it compatible with their dogma.

I see this struggle in your further explanation of the Adam and Eve "original sin" concept. So you don't believe in a literal, apple eating, version of this story I gather. Well there is little doubt that historical figures in Catholicism did from their writings. These are the ones that foundered and carried the "One True Church", (Acknowledgement to The Big Dog), forward to today. This is where the Roman Catholic Church came from!

The dilemma religions, such as yours, find themselves in is painful I'm sure.

No longer can we pretend we are the centre of creation as the scale of the universe impacts our understanding. What is the meaning of "being created in the image of God", (as I see you struggling with this above), when we evolved from a common source as other apes. How come there is so much imperfection about, (including in our own bodies), if your all powerful God had a hand in the making of all, regardless of the method used.

Why do you have the idea I am talking about evangelicals? The evangelical or fundie position is easier to defend as they just deny what science has given us.

Again


I enjoy discussion and argument. I do get frustrated that you seem to in many instances have an incorrect understanding of Catholicism, but I can sympathize that given your beliefs it's probably not worth a detailed course of study to you.

Noting also that in many areas Catholicism does not give definitive answers any more than any other area of thought. So just as someone might believe in string theory or not, and still be recognized as a physicist, so too Catholics might have different views of a literal Adam and Eve or Genesis generally or limbo or how crowded hell is, but still mutually be recognizably Catholic. The areas of dogmatic belief have more to do with more fundamental faith matters (like in the Apostle's Creed etc.). I don't generally read Catholic Answers as you do, so I can't speak to the quality or lack thereof of its answers. Because of where I am, I have the luxury of discussing matters IRL with more theologically-knowledgeable people.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I enjoy discussion and argument.

People need to stop acting like this absolves them of any need for coherency or consistency.

 

[epeeist]

Funny how it sometimes goes. We agree. The same with the term god, it is not needed.

It occurred to me that I apply a double standard. I defend peoples ability to believe in a god/s though I don't in believe in God, yet I go after people who believe in free will.
I think I know what it is. I am triggered by strong atheists, who call believers in a god/s delusional and so on, because I have 3 psychiatric disorders, where as it is not the same with free will.

Back to

So is the word "I".

I don't want to get personal, but just because I believe in free will doesn't mean that everyone always has perfect free will. There are many circumstances in which someone has a lesser degree of free will (or in some circumstances none depending upon to what extent brainwashing etc. may actually work?). The notion in a number of religions that people with mental health issues (or other circumstances) have diminished moral culpability for some things that they do, reflects that in a way analogous to criminal law.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I don't want to get personal, but just because I believe in free will doesn't mean that everyone always has perfect free will. There are many circumstances in which someone has a lesser degree of free will (or in some circumstances none depending upon to what extent brainwashing etc. may actually work?). The notion in a number of religions that people with mental health issues (or other circumstances) have diminished moral culpability for some things that they do, reflects that in a way analogous to criminal law.

Thanks

To me that is the sensible version of responsibility.
I once debated with a libertarian and no, not all are like this, but it ended with that people are responsible for their own genes.

 

[epeeist]

People need to stop acting like this absolves them of any need for coherency or consistency.

People need to stop quoting single sentences out of context.

The context in this case being an introductory sentence responding to another post, all of which is required for context.

 

[GDon]

Free Will, as the term is used a philosophical concept in esoteric discussion, does not exist as it would require effects that don't have causes.

A thought, an opinion, a memory, an emotion.. these are just a biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain. Something caused it to be in that state because that's how reality works. Period. End of discussion. Any suggestion to the counter is invoking magic.

Why can't Free-will be part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain?

For example, I choose to have eggs for breakfast. In a deterministic universe, physical forces within my brain result in that decision. But in that deterministic universe, I have a choice of two options. That's part of the deterministic universe. That's part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain.

I suspect part of the issue is looking at the universe as though it were a movie and there is no "I", and looking at it with "I" in mind (no pun intended). We don't know enough about the physical causes of consciousness and the apparent free-will that we possess to rule out that free-will can't exist in a deterministic universe, at least in a physical sense. It's a philosophical argument with philosophical implications, certainly. But how does one decide that Free-will exists or doesn't exist due to physical causes in the first place?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why can't Free-will be part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain?

Again because effects need causes, that's how reality works.

Your decisions, thoughts, opinions, etc are physical things, they represent actual chemical and electrical states of the brain. Those states can't just self cause themselves.

For example, I choose to have eggs for breakfast. In a deterministic universe, physical forces within my brain result in that decision. But in that deterministic universe, I have a choice of two options. That's part of the deterministic universe. That's part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain.

That's gibberish. You just defined something one way, then another, then argued for neither.

I suspect part of the issue is looking at the universe as though it were a movie and there is no "I", and looking at it with "I" in mind (no pun intended). We don't know enough about consciousness and the apparent free-will that we possess to rule out that free-will can't exist in a deterministic universe.

Sure we can.

 

[GDon]

Again


I enjoy discussion and argument. I do get frustrated that you seem to in many instances have an incorrect understanding of Catholicism, but I can sympathize that given your beliefs it's probably not worth a detailed course of study to you.

Don't worry too much about Thor 2. His heart's in the right place. He's what I'd call a "Bible Thumping Atheist." He's obsessed by the Bible, esp the OT. Not only will he tell you where Catholicism is wrong, he'll also pull out passages from the Bible to tell you how to do it right! Never mind the long tradition within Catholicism and other Christian denominations of teachings and philosophical standing points -- they are irrelevant to Thor 2, if they somehow disagree with the Bible in his eyes.

 

[GDon]

Again because effects need causes, that's how reality works.

Your decisions, thoughts, opinions, etc are physical things, they represent actual chemical and electrical states of the brain. Those states can't just self cause themselves.

Why does free-will require those states to self-cause themselves? What does that mean physically? And why can't it happen in a deterministic universe?

Are you saying that in a non-deterministic universe, states of the brain COULD self cause themselves?

That's gibberish. You just defined something one way, then another, then argued for neither.

I'd appreciate it if you show me.

 

[Thor 2]

Again


I enjoy discussion and argument. I do get frustrated that you seem to in many instances have an incorrect understanding of Catholicism, but I can sympathize that given your beliefs it's probably not worth a detailed course of study to you.

Noting also that in many areas Catholicism does not give definitive answers any more than any other area of thought. So just as someone might believe in string theory or not, and still be recognized as a physicist, so too Catholics might have different views of a literal Adam and Eve or Genesis generally or limbo or how crowded hell is, but still mutually be recognizably Catholic. The areas of dogmatic belief have more to do with more fundamental faith matters (like in the Apostle's Creed etc.). I don't generally read Catholic Answers as you do, so I can't speak to the quality or lack thereof of its answers. Because of where I am, I have the luxury of discussing matters IRL with more theologically-knowledgeable people.

I would be more impressed if you were to address the questions I raised rather than just commenting that I have an "incorrect understanding of Catholicism". I would have thought Catholic Answers would be the ultimate final word, for explanations about Catholic belief and the contributors of these answers, would be the crème de la crème of Catholic theologians.

Do you allow yourself the luxury of trying to figure out answers yourself, to the tricky conundrums such as those I have detailed? Accepting that evolution is fact, (and in your belief the way God made life including us), when and who got the first souls? I assume you think we, humans, are the only ones who possess souls.

 

[Thor 2]

Don't worry too much about Thor 2. His heart's in the right place. He's what I'd call a "Bible Thumping Atheist." He's obsessed by the Bible, esp the OT. Not only will he tell you where Catholicism is wrong, he'll also pull out passages from the Bible to tell you how to do it right! Never mind the long tradition within Catholicism and other Christian denominations of teachings and philosophical standing points -- they are irrelevant to Thor 2, if they somehow disagree with the Bible in his eyes.

Thanks for the penetrating insightful analysis into my psyche. At least I am glad to hear you think my heart's in the right place.

I was of the understanding that the Bible was what Christianity was all about. Not so? Where else do Catholics and other Christians get their directions? Oh I know there are the writings of various saints etc, but they in turn refer to the Bible do they not?