RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Determinism Dilemma?
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- determinism
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
And TA, you're not getting determinism because you're not seeing how deep it goes. Even if you hesitate just a little when shuffling your cards, that very hesitation is itself determined. You can't make any decisions in a completely determined universe. The course of every atom is set on stone and cannot be altered.
This is why most rational people believe that determinism is absurd. But if the universe is determined, that very belief would be determined as well. So like the old joke goes, it works even if you don't believe in it.
This is why most rational people believe that determinism is absurd. But if the universe is determined, that very belief would be determined as well. So like the old joke goes, it works even if you don't believe in it.
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
That's a bit much. The idea makes sense on a macro level. I'd be a determinist if it weren't for those pesky quantum thingies.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
It makes sense in a classical framework, yes. I think the reason some people think that consciousness has to be a "quantum" phenomenon is that they are still thinking in terms of the universe being governed by classical physics. They can't understand how free will can fit into a classical universe, so they try and claim that the mind is "quantum".
Picking on Christianity as usual. Must be a reason....
With all of the religions of the world that are easily demonstrated to be
inconsistent, it is interesting that you always pick on Christianity....
There are logical reasons why you do this based on your circumstances
and knowledge. Perhaps if there are an infinite amount of circumstances
which determine you to single out Christianity, then your statement was
determined to exist by your authorship.....
What are the consequences, however, if the logical reasons why you single
out one particular religion is because that one particular belief structure
is determined to exist by a Creator?
For the record "Why need a God?" is an improper use of the word "need."
God does not "need" to exist, anymore than He somehow "needs" to be
God. God IS God and the fine tuning of the universe is just one of many
indicators of such objective Existence. God's Existence is not based
on a "need," it is an actuality. The fact that Information needs an Informat,
or Code needs a Code Maker, or Messages need an Author is only from our
understanding...
Not God's.
M
With all of the religions of the world that are easily demonstrated to be
inconsistent, it is interesting that you always pick on Christianity....
There are logical reasons why you do this based on your circumstances
and knowledge. Perhaps if there are an infinite amount of circumstances
which determine you to single out Christianity, then your statement was
determined to exist by your authorship.....
What are the consequences, however, if the logical reasons why you single
out one particular religion is because that one particular belief structure
is determined to exist by a Creator?
For the record "Why need a God?" is an improper use of the word "need."
God does not "need" to exist, anymore than He somehow "needs" to be
God. God IS God and the fine tuning of the universe is just one of many
indicators of such objective Existence. God's Existence is not based
on a "need," it is an actuality. The fact that Information needs an Informat,
or Code needs a Code Maker, or Messages need an Author is only from our
understanding...
Not God's.
M
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
A bit late, but welcome to the forum.
I think you are too readily offended. Arth probably brought up Christianity because he was addressing Plumjam who happens to be Christian.
All of those claims of proof are topics for a different thread. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to talk about it.
I think you are too readily offended. Arth probably brought up Christianity because he was addressing Plumjam who happens to be Christian.
All of those claims of proof are topics for a different thread. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to talk about it.
My apologies if I wrongfully judged Arth
I was not at all offended. It would be illogical for me to be offended by
anything here or even else where. Since I believe all trangressions are
cosmically against God, I believe in patience and forgiveness always.and
NOT in being offended. Thank you for clarifying about Arth, I have observed
his posts are often bent on the belief that Christianity is not true, and if this
is how he was raised, THEN, as I said,there are logical reasons why he would
single out Christianity throughout this forum, just as if Plumjam is a Christian,
then there would be logical reasons why he would ask such a question in
this thread. So thank you for clarifying.
My apologies if I have offended anyone or if I have falsely judged Arth.
I was not at all offended. It would be illogical for me to be offended by
anything here or even else where. Since I believe all trangressions are
cosmically against God, I believe in patience and forgiveness always.and
NOT in being offended. Thank you for clarifying about Arth, I have observed
his posts are often bent on the belief that Christianity is not true, and if this
is how he was raised, THEN, as I said,there are logical reasons why he would
single out Christianity throughout this forum, just as if Plumjam is a Christian,
then there would be logical reasons why he would ask such a question in
this thread. So thank you for clarifying.
My apologies if I have offended anyone or if I have falsely judged Arth.
Different forms of determinism
I think it's important to differentiate between the various positions of
determinism and their applications. Certainly biological and genetic determinism and its relationship to social determinism are quite different
than the Theological determinism that was held by Calvin or the Jesuits.
Also, psychological determinism or even cultural and environmental forms
of determinism do not address the same concepts as the compatibilists
and their understanding of free will.
Also in esoteric Christian circles there is Infinite Determinism which deals
with both the domino effect of choices and circumstances that stem from
original creation, but also deals with God's state of existence as transcendent
or timeless as purposed by Augustine of Hippo, Philo's understanding of the
ancient Hebrews "On creation,"Boethius,and more recently guys like Stump
and Kretzmann. Infinite Determinism is different in that it removes the
contradiction from incompatibilists and comaptibilists as it removes certain
contradictions from Calvinism and Arminianism and Lapsarianism (sub,ante,supra, infra).
So determinism can be quite a wide topic when looking at secular forms
of it and contrasting it with Theological determinism and infinite determinism.
M
I think it's important to differentiate between the various positions of
determinism and their applications. Certainly biological and genetic determinism and its relationship to social determinism are quite different
than the Theological determinism that was held by Calvin or the Jesuits.
Also, psychological determinism or even cultural and environmental forms
of determinism do not address the same concepts as the compatibilists
and their understanding of free will.
Also in esoteric Christian circles there is Infinite Determinism which deals
with both the domino effect of choices and circumstances that stem from
original creation, but also deals with God's state of existence as transcendent
or timeless as purposed by Augustine of Hippo, Philo's understanding of the
ancient Hebrews "On creation,"Boethius,and more recently guys like Stump
and Kretzmann. Infinite Determinism is different in that it removes the
contradiction from incompatibilists and comaptibilists as it removes certain
contradictions from Calvinism and Arminianism and Lapsarianism (sub,ante,supra, infra).
So determinism can be quite a wide topic when looking at secular forms
of it and contrasting it with Theological determinism and infinite determinism.
M
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Now what would make you say a thing like that?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
In all seriousness, I don't know if I have free will. But it sure seems that I ponder things and then make decisions after I weigh the decisions. It feels like I have some concious ability to make decisions. I feel badly when I make a bad decision and good when I make a correct one.
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
My question for determinists is if it is true, then where is culpability? Moral or otherwise?
(ETA: This isn't meant to be "debunking" determinism or anything, it is an honest question)
(ETA: This isn't meant to be "debunking" determinism or anything, it is an honest question)
No free will in this temporary life time
Within the closed set of agreed assumptions of scripture (the "Bible") you
actually do NOT have "free will" because your will is tied to a sin nature
which you inherit and is passed down from Adam.
What you have is "volition" and the ability to make decisions or make
choices but these choices are based on circumstances and knowledge.
If you don't know certain things, then you will make the wrong decision
or a "bad" choice.
When you DO know, you can be set free from the sinful condition someday.
M
Within the closed set of agreed assumptions of scripture (the "Bible") you
actually do NOT have "free will" because your will is tied to a sin nature
which you inherit and is passed down from Adam.
What you have is "volition" and the ability to make decisions or make
choices but these choices are based on circumstances and knowledge.
If you don't know certain things, then you will make the wrong decision
or a "bad" choice.
When you DO know, you can be set free from the sinful condition someday.
M
I didn't mean my thoughts don't decide whatever it is that my body does. I was just saying that I don't feel as though there is an "I" inside my head that decides which thoughts are going to surface. Some thoughts seem to have control over other thoughts, sure, but I don't feel there is an "I" that ultimately decides what the dominant thought is going to be. It's all automatic.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Partially that, but also partially because it's the religion that I know the most about, and the one that is most pervasive in the society that I happen to live in. Now that I am a religon correspondent for The Nonsense Podcast, I hope to have the opportunity to learn a lot more about many other religions.
It's not how I was raised. I came to atheism quite late, after being raised apatheist (with the rare dip into Anglicanism), becoming a born-again pentacostal in my late teens, dabbling somewhat with neopaganism and wicca and finally becoming enamoured of science.
Apology not necessary. I did specifically single out Christianity, and I do so routinely for the reasons I outlined above.
You can not debunk determinism any more than you can debunk results of choices regard
Clearly, it doesn't debunk determinism either way, because "results" are
what morality is supposed to be based on, NOT the reasons for the bad
morality.
Something that is determined through a series of your own choices, whether
their are logical reasons for those choices or not, it is still YOUR own actions
which result in consequences.
Let me give you an example. Let's say that you are blindfolded and you
walk off of a cliff, and let's say this was a so called "accident." But based
upon circumstances of those who were around you, who miscommunicated
or whatever their circumstances were that caused them to blindfold you
for fun, but then abandon you and you walk off of a cliff, gravity is still
a consequence when you begin to fall. So the universe/world is filled
with lessons that teach us that there are finalized consequences for
actions, or in this case "eternal" consequences for our actions. It is as
basic as cause and effect.
There are logical reasons for every illogical thing that happens. The
person falling off of the cliff because he was blindfolded as a practical
joke and his friends all got distracted and had to leave simultaneously,
and thought that someone else had removed his blindfold or told him
to take it off because there was a cliff, etc. whatever the reasons were,
we could set up such a scenario, the issue still comes down to ignorance
in some form or another. But the end result is the same because of
cause and effect.
When we apply this priniciple to morality it is the same. The unbeliever
will scream "that's not fair!" (so do many believers) and guess what,
it ISN'T fair, but fairness when you understand the variable of human
choices is actually an impossibility and not a valid premise to appeal to
anymore than "where" or "when" you were born. There can be NO fair.
There IS no fair. There is only 'grace.'
That is why it is important to try and find that grace from God.
M
Clearly, it doesn't debunk determinism either way, because "results" are
what morality is supposed to be based on, NOT the reasons for the bad
morality.
Something that is determined through a series of your own choices, whether
their are logical reasons for those choices or not, it is still YOUR own actions
which result in consequences.
Let me give you an example. Let's say that you are blindfolded and you
walk off of a cliff, and let's say this was a so called "accident." But based
upon circumstances of those who were around you, who miscommunicated
or whatever their circumstances were that caused them to blindfold you
for fun, but then abandon you and you walk off of a cliff, gravity is still
a consequence when you begin to fall. So the universe/world is filled
with lessons that teach us that there are finalized consequences for
actions, or in this case "eternal" consequences for our actions. It is as
basic as cause and effect.
There are logical reasons for every illogical thing that happens. The
person falling off of the cliff because he was blindfolded as a practical
joke and his friends all got distracted and had to leave simultaneously,
and thought that someone else had removed his blindfold or told him
to take it off because there was a cliff, etc. whatever the reasons were,
we could set up such a scenario, the issue still comes down to ignorance
in some form or another. But the end result is the same because of
cause and effect.
When we apply this priniciple to morality it is the same. The unbeliever
will scream "that's not fair!" (so do many believers) and guess what,
it ISN'T fair, but fairness when you understand the variable of human
choices is actually an impossibility and not a valid premise to appeal to
anymore than "where" or "when" you were born. There can be NO fair.
There IS no fair. There is only 'grace.'
That is why it is important to try and find that grace from God.
M
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
This is aimed at PJ too. I started a new thread for the morality discussion. I'm certain if I didn't it would lead to a derail.
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
You too Breckmin.
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 3,181
(Plumjam's quote is from a reply to KingMerv00)
Or randomness.
It is very simple. Either the state of affairs at one point determines one and only one state of affairs at a later point, or, alternatively, one and the same state of affairs can "result" in two or more possible state of affairs.
The problem in the second case is that you cannot, as you put it, blame anything for latter state of affairs #1 occuring instead of latter state #2 (through latter states #n).
To slap the blame onto something you need determinism. Desperately.
plumjam said:
Or randomness.
It is very simple. Either the state of affairs at one point determines one and only one state of affairs at a later point, or, alternatively, one and the same state of affairs can "result" in two or more possible state of affairs.
The problem in the second case is that you cannot, as you put it, blame anything for latter state of affairs #1 occuring instead of latter state #2 (through latter states #n).
To slap the blame onto something you need determinism. Desperately.
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
(Plumjam's quote is from a reply to KingMerv00)
Or randomness.
It is very simple. Either the state of affairs at one point determines one and only one state of affairs at a later point, or, alternatively, one and the same state of affairs can "result" in two or more possible state of affairs.
The problem in the second case is that you cannot, as you put it, blame anything for latter state of affairs #1 occuring instead of latter state #2 (through latter states #n).
To slap the blame onto something you need determinism. Desperately.
No! *Slaps Lord Emsworth on the wrist*
Take this to the shiny new thread.