mitchellmckain wrote:I know that my wife exists and I know that God exists. For neither of these is something I can call theoretical. They are a matter of first hand experience.
So you know God exists and you know your wife exists. Hmm... If you are using similar reasoning processes to come to these conclusions then frankly I doubt the existence of your wife. Come on MM, trying to equate your first-hand experience of your wife with your experience of God is too much of a stretch. That's just silly! Unless, of course, you have actually met God, hugged him, chatted with him, argued with him, felt his breath in your face and watched him do some of his superpowers - in which case I humbly apologize for misrepresenting your statement.
Yuri wrote: My point is that nobody can provide a purely logical explanation for the existence of God precisely because there is no valid objective premise on which to base such an argument.
Then in that point you are completely and ridiculously wrong. ... What all arguments of the existence of God lack is not premises or logic but objective validity.
So apart from your assertion that I am completely and ridiculously wrong, we appear to agree on this then. Good.
The notion that all observations are subjective and thus equally invalid is just as silly as the notion that your experience of god is as valid a proof of god's existence as your experience of your wife is of your wife's existence. If you really want to claim that no observation can be considered as a valid premise because it is inherently subjective then we all live in the matrix. This kind of philosophical dead-end, whilst it is an interesting idea to play with, is just whimsy. I know that reality exists and I am part of it and if I'm wrong then it really doesn't matter, does it?
You seem to be trying to convince me that logic-based reason is the same as value-based reason. Not an easy task since they are psychologically opposite kinds of mental process.
mitchellmckain wrote:Your decision to label the basis of everything you disagree with as emotional amounts to nothing but empty semantics rhetoric. It is pure bull shit.
That should be simple for you to back up with an example. Just to be clear, it was you who brought the word "emotional" into this. I started off using the phrase "value-based reason" as an equivalent to Jung's "feeling" function. So, put your logic where your emotion is and prove I am talking "bull shit" by giving me an example of value-based reasoning from authority sources in which we can have the same confidence of its truthfulness as we can in a valid logical argument from sound premises.
This is the same type of question you have already dodged that I asked:
"Give me the rational thought process you have used that God exists, without any element of it coming from an assumption or authority source, and I shall know that God exists too!" To which you replied "That does not follow." What aspect of it does not follow? It can't "not follow", it doesn't have a sequence of deductions.
If you think that belief and knowledge are the same thing, it is a simple challenge. If, however, belief and knowledge are different kinds of information, then it is impossible - which is precisely why I ask you to do it, to illustrate that you are in error when you say belief and knowledge are the same.
Yuri wrote:My second challenge (which you accepted) was to provide an explanation of free will with an omniscient God in a deterministic universe. If I may avoid quoting a large chunk of your post and instead summarize your answer in my own words, you say that you believe in free will, a non-deterministic universe, and a partially-sighted God with limited powers. These conclusions are based on physics and comply with certain logical limitations on omniscience and omnipotence. I hope I have understood it correctly.
No you apparently haven't understood very much of anything.
Oh. I thought I had it about right. Shame you haven't told me what I got wrong. Look, let's make this simple:
1. You believe we have free will. Right or wrong?
2. You believe God is not omniscient. Right or wrong?
3. You believe God is not omnipotent. Right or wrong?
Yuri wrote:May I firstly congratulate you on an ingenious example of creative rationalization. You have taken three different jigsaw puzzles and managed to put them together to make one picture that fits your knowledge and beliefs. Outstanding - no wonder you are proud of your theological viewpoint. I am impressed.
Rationalization: a consonant cognition invented by the subject to enable conflicts between his knowledge and belief to be reconciled. E.g. The knowledge that logic precludes free will and an omniscient god is "rationalized" by inventing the consonant cognition that god is only omniscient when he chooses to be so. Thus, Rationalization is hanging on to beliefs by adjusting them slightly so they do not conflict with improvements in knowledge.
There are pitfalls with the use of rationalization, one of which is that it is a form of fabrication that disguises itself as deduction.
mitchellmckain wrote:- explaining some of the results of modern physics and explaining the theological position known as open theism in case you were not aware of it. What was I supposedly rationalizing?
your belief with your knowledge.
mitchellmckain wrote:What jigsaw puzzle pieces are you talking about?
The jigsaws are a metaphor for the conflicting beliefs and knowledge that you are rationalizing.
mitchellmckain wrote:What picture are you talking about
mitchellmckain wrote:and what knowledge and beliefs of mine are you talking about that I am fitting it to?
your knowledge is your education in physics and maths and logic, and your belief is your belief in God.
mitchellmckain wrote:I think you are imagining way too much about me when the fact is that you know practically nothing.
I hope you're right for your sake!
Good lord, you take somthing that a mathematician and astronomer said in 1814 and think that proves something. Am I talking to someone from two centuries ago? I am as flabbergasted as when I spoke to someone from the Flat Earth Society. I must reconstruct all of the science from the last two centuries for you?
(the bible is older!)
I didn't think science had really disproved Laplace's thought experiment. My logic was that we hadn't yet discovered the deterministic model for the interactions between stuff. However, you have given me good reason to know that science has discovered that the universe has an element of randomness which explains the possibility of free will. My knowledge on the subject is comparably incomplete and yours is more advanced than mine. Or as you put it,
mitchellmckain wrote:The laws which you have imagined and decided to believe in by blind faith and emotion have been conclusively proven not to exist.
If it was blind faith and emotion, it would not be easy to abandon my "beliefs". However, like I said, I don't have beliefs in subjects that I know have an ultimate truth, only knowledge. You have given me new information that there is no complete law of nature (known or unknown) that determines interactions between stuff. I'm not taking your word for it; I'm gonna read up on it and try to understand it so I can know it for myself. Wrong knowledge, unlike wrong belief, is so easy to ditch in the light of better evidence. Thank you.
In his book, The Moral Landscape, author and neuroscientist Sam Harris mentions some ways that determinism and modern scientific understanding might challenge the idea of a contra-causal free will. He offers one thought experiment where a mad scientist represents determinism. In Harris' example, the mad scientist uses a machine to control all the desires, and thus all the behaviour, of a particular human. Harris believes that it is no longer as tempting, in this case, to say the victim has "free will". Harris says nothing changes if the machine controls desires at random - the victim still seems to lack free will. Harris then argues that we are also the victims of such unpredictable desires (but due to the unconscious machinations of our brain, rather than those of a mad scientist). Based on this introspection, he writes "This discloses the real mystery of free will: if our experience is compatible with its utter absence, how can we say that we see any evidence for it in the first place?" adding that "Whether they are predictable or not, we do not cause our causes." That is, he believes there is compelling evidence of absence of free will.
How would you respond to Harris?