News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Quest for Truth

Started by Absolute_Agent, June 16, 2019, 09:02:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 05:01:09 PM
*whoosh*

There isn't any clear definition - that's the point. I don't think there is any free will, remember?

It's because it simply isn't parsimonious with what we know of how our brains work, and how everything follows a causality chain, because everything is ordered, "following" simple physical rules of nature like Newton's gravity, or thermodynamics. These mechanical rules offers no place for free will to exist in.

Agency is simply a better word what we really have, I also call it volition, but it's basically the same thing: The apparatus in our heads making decisions.

Also, I don't think anything is truly random, the closest we get to randomness is unpredictable behavior, like radioactive decay in unstable atoms, simply because of unknown variables/laws or just inability to calculate the behavior of objects (like throwing dice). Even if there was randomness - how would that square with free will? If it was random, it would mean decision-making apparatus would ultimately also be random, and worse yet, we wouldn't be able to get regularity to be able to ascertain the nature of reality because of this randomness in nature, because for nature to be random also means the laws of nature would allow for randomness - this is an important tautology, I think, that necessarily means nature follows an ordered pattern that we call physical laws.

I think what we have is an illusion of free will, ala Sam Harris' definition. We simply, for good reason, have no direct access to the workings for a lot of the inner workings of our brains because our experience of self is phenomenological, IMO. You no more have a will over your own thoughts than the sensation of hunger or the dilation of your iris when entering a dark room. Just as a thought experiment: What will your next thought be? Do you even choose? No. You make decisions, sure, of the choice of what time the alarm on a clock should be set at, or what flavor of ice cream to buy, or whatever decision.
Seems like circular logic and I disagree with many of the premises, such that we cannot control thought.  Causality is in fact an illusion and you can throw physics in the garbage bin. It's been basically proven a useless model.

You  did not make any clear distinction between free will and agency, so I will stick with the standard definitions, thank you very much.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Baruch

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:50:12 PM
Qadr (Divine destiny) is a complicated subject but it is understood to operate in harmony with free will.  Jewish Kabbalah actually I find does an effective job of explaining the interplay between destiny and self-determination.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Do tell?  Please share what you know of Jewish Kabbah.  I am all peyos.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 05:28:34 PM

Unfortunately you have exposed yet another contradiction in your argument. You said earlier that you believe there is sufficient evidence for God’s existence, yet now state that you will not present it. So you now put forth an argument which is contingent on the presence of a God whose existence you not only haven’t proven, but now actively refuse to prove. Since you either cannot or will not back up your position, I am forced to conclude that your position is worthless; but as I said near the beginning of this thread, I already knew this, because I already knew that you had nothing to present. We have come full circle, and it should now be clear to you why I hold your beliefs in total disdain.

You now have three choices. Choice number one: you continue making your futile arguments which I may or may not respond to for the purpose of my own entertainment. Choice number two: you concede the argument, and we move on. Choice number three: you actually make an attempt to prove that your god exists, and we make actual progress in this discussion.

The contradiction is a figment of your imagination.  I did present evidence--the scriptures, which you rejected, as was your choice.  Henceforth, to argue further would violate your freedom to choose, enshrined in the scriptures themselves--which I clearly demonstrated.

Now, if and only if you seek further evidence, from the scriptures, I can provide such without violating your choice.  The choice, you see is not mine, but yours.  As for a logical argument for God's existence, I never initiated such nor would I, and there is therefore nothing for me to concede.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 05:37:57 PM
Do tell?  Please share what you know of Jewish Kabbah.  I am all peyos.
Rabbi Laitman discusses destiny vs free will in Attaining Worlds Beyond:

Check out this book on Goodreads: Attaining the Worlds Beyond: A Guide to Spiritual Discovery http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/89385.Attaining_the_Worlds_Beyond

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Sal1981

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 05:30:40 PM
Seems like circular logic and I disagree with many of the premises, such that we cannot control thought.  Causality is in fact an illusion and you can throw physics in the garbage bin. It's been basically proven a useless model.

You  did not make any clear distinction between free will and agency, so I will stick with the standard definitions, thank you very much.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


you've pretty much thrown in the towel then.

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PM
The contradiction is a figment of your imagination.
The only figment of anyone's imagination in this thread is your god.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMI did present evidence--the scriptures, which you rejected, as was your choice.
I rejected your scriptures as evidence because they are not evidence. They pre-suppose the existence of your god as their basis of validity, which is a fallacy of circular logic. "God exists because he wrote this document that says he exists."

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMHenceforth, to argue further would violate your freedom to choose, enshrined in the scriptures themselves--which I clearly demonstrated.
The only thing you've demonstrated is a willingness to base your entire worldview on a fallacy.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMNow, if and only if you seek further evidence, from the scriptures, I can provide such without violating your choice.
The scriptures are not evidence. I have been very clear as to why. Like all apologists, you are intentionally obtuse about this subject. You know that what you're saying is preposterous, and you're hoping to exhaust me into accepting it anyway. Unfortunately for you, this is an internet forum and I can take breaks.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMThe choice, you see is not mine, but yours.
There is no choice. I, being of sound mind and body, am incapable of accepting bullshit as proper evidence. The choice to build a proper case is yours. I have made my position quite clear and backed it up where necessary. It's your turn.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMAs for a logical argument for God's existence, I never initiated such nor would I, and there is therefore nothing for me to concede.
I am well aware that you never promised to provide proof, but you are still obligated to provide it in order for any of your arguments to be logically sound, much less convincing.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Blackleaf

#126
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 05:30:40 PM
Seems like circular logic and I disagree with many of the premises, such that we cannot control thought.  Causality is in fact an illusion and you can throw physics in the garbage bin. It's been basically proven a useless model.

You  did not make any clear distinction between free will and agency, so I will stick with the standard definitions, thank you very much.

What standard definition? You haven't picked one yet. Are you under the impression that dictionaries define words? All they do is list commonly used definitions, often contradictory of one another. To know which definition one is using requires the use of context and  sometimes clarification. These guys have been trying to get you to pick a definition for "god" and "free will" so that the conversation doesn't devolve into a pointless argument over semantics, yet you've refused to cooperate.

Given how often religious nuts like to redefine words in self-serving ways, you should be well aware of all this.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Baruch

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:19:55 PM
Rabbi Laitman discusses destiny vs free will in Attaining Worlds Beyond:

Check out this book on Goodreads: Attaining the Worlds Beyond: A Guide to Spiritual Discovery http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/89385.Attaining_the_Worlds_Beyond

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Will check it out.  As a Kabbalist myself (Jewish mystic) I will also evaluate (relative to masters I already acknowledge).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:58:20 PM
It means you should use your own brain to evaluate the contents of a book, you know, use analysis and judgement about its contents.

Besides, the Nazis didn't burn any old book - they burned Communist books, or "subversive" books, amongst others that challenged Nazi ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings
What are you even on about? You've blindly accepted a 1400 year old book as sanctified truth, without analysing it. You. Have. No. Free. Will. if you accept it uncritically, in the first place.

Besides, I don't believe in free will. I think we have agency, but that's another discussion altogether.Asserted where? You know what, I don't care.

What I do care about are claims about the world that also align with reality. The other stuff is just entertainment.

They burned Einstein's theory of relativity, because it was Jewish physics.  Are you sure you want to go there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHCmiWaHUCw

so you support destruction of freedom of speech, expression, publication ... based on political ideology?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#129
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 05:30:40 PM
Seems like circular logic and I disagree with many of the premises, such that we cannot control thought.  Causality is in fact an illusion and you can throw physics in the garbage bin. It's been basically proven a useless model.

You  did not make any clear distinction between free will and agency, so I will stick with the standard definitions, thank you very much.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Cause/effect is cave man physics.  Aristotelian.  Is is rather obsolete.  But on a metaphysical level, it is still used in Eastern religion (karma etc).

Some things won't happen unless preconditions are met ... this is a precondition that is logical (not time dependent) or which is time dependent.  But that is not the level at which modern physical analysis operates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPUL8Zcb2P0

What is happening is transfer of momentum/energy.  And it takes a short time to transfer from the first ball to the last ball.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Absolute_Agent

#130
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 09:10:03 PM
What standard definition? You haven't picked one yet. Are you under the impression that dictionaries define words? All they do is list commonly used definitions, often contradictory of one another. To know which definition one is using requires the use of context and  sometimes clarification. These guys have been trying to get you to pick a definition for "god" and "free will" so that the conversation doesn't devolve into a pointless argument over semantics, yet you've refused to cooperate.

Given how often religious nuts like to redefine words in self-serving ways, you should be well aware of all this.
Unless otherwise noted I always use the dictionary definition of words.  Since you have requested a personalized definition, though:

Free Will = the ability and /or right of self-determination, self-efficacy, and the right to choose one's destiny, beliefs, behaviors and attitudes, to be who you choose to be, to be with who you choose, and all other freedom of choice not otherwise denoted.

God: the incomprehensible, the immanent, transcendent eternal absolute sovereign of all worlds and realities, the Sublime, the Self-existent, the Abundantly Merciful, omnipotent, omniscient, Originator; Prime Source (An inexhaustive definition for that Infinite Being which is inherently undefinable and greater than all).

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Absolute_Agent

#131
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 07:21:35 PM
The only figment of anyone's imagination in this thread is your god.
I rejected your scriptures as evidence because they are not evidence. They pre-suppose the existence of your god as their basis of validity, which is a fallacy of circular logic. "God exists because he wrote this document that says he exists."
The only thing you've demonstrated is a willingness to base your entire worldview on a fallacy.
The scriptures are not evidence. I have been very clear as to why. Like all apologists, you are intentionally obtuse about this subject. You know that what you're saying is preposterous, and you're hoping to exhaust me into accepting it anyway. Unfortunately for you, this is an internet forum and I can take breaks.
There is no choice. I, being of sound mind and body, am incapable of accepting bullshit as proper evidence. The choice to build a proper case is yours. I have made my position quite clear and backed it up where necessary. It's your turn.
I am well aware that you never promised to provide proof, but you are still obligated to provide it in order for any of your arguments to be logically sound, much less convincing.
"Obligated?" That's a pretty strong word. Maybe I missed that in the forum rules... Seems like you think I'm desperate for you or others to adopt my beliefs.  This in itself is a fallacy.  The scriptures are sufficient evidence for those whose hearts desire belief, but skeptics will always find a way to disparage them.  If Allah wished He could compell all to belief but He has made things as they are.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Blackleaf

#132
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 10:04:04 PM
Unless otherwise noted I always use the dictionary definition of words.  Since you have requested a personalized definition, though:

Free Will = the ability and /or right of self-determination, self-efficacy, and the right to choose one's destiny, beliefs, behaviors and attitudes, to be who you choose to be, to be with who you choose, and all other freedom of choice not otherwise denoted.

God: the incomprehensible transcendent eternal absolute sovereign of all worlds and realities, the Sublime, the Self-existent, the Abundantly Merciful, omnipotent, omniscient, Originator; Prime Source (An inexhaustive definition for that Infinite Being which is inherently undefinable and greater than all).

There is no single dictionary definition. Dictionary.com, for example, has two different definitions:

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision

2. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Notice one of these definitions are more broad than the other. The first definition is using it in the sense of having the ability to make a choice without pressure. If someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Give me your wallet," your free will is taken away in that situation.

In the second definition, free will is a much more specific thing. It describes a person's ability to make decisions independently from physical or divine cause. In the previously mentioned scenario, a man putting a gun to your head would not be taking away your free will. You still have it. You're just choosing to use it to comply.

This is why deciding on a specific definition is important. These two definitions are not describing the same idea. The definition you gave was not very clear. It sounds like the first definition, but I have a feeling you mean to be using the second.

As for your definition of God, it's not very helpful either. You basically defined him as being indefinable. So let me try to help by narrowing things down. Which of the following traits do you believe your god to have?

1. Omniscience - Knowing literally everything there is to know.

2. Omnipotence - Having the power to do anything. And I'll add the addendum that limits this to what is logically possible, so we don't have to worry about whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't lift it.

3. Omnipresence - Being everywhere.

4. Being outside of time - Living in every moment at once, rather than from moment to moment like us.

5. Benevolence - Wanting to do no harm, and to do good by others.

6. Jealousy - Wanting attention, and being upset when others get it instead.

7. Patience - Tolerating others, withholding anger, when most would not.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Absolute_Agent

#133
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 10:55:12 PM
There is no single dictionary definition. Dictionary.com, for example, has two different definitions:

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision

2. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Notice one of these definitions are more broad than the other. The first definition is using it in the sense of having the ability to make a choice without pressure. If someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Give me your wallet," your free will is taken away in that situation.

In the second definition, free will is a much more specific thing. It describes a person's ability to make decisions independently from physical or divine cause. In the previously mentioned scenario, a man putting a gun to your head would not be taking away your free will. You still have it. You're just choosing to use it to comply.

This is why deciding on a specific definition is important. These two definitions are not describing the same idea. The definition you gave was not very clear. It sounds like the first definition, but I have a feeling you mean to be using the second.

As for your definition of God, it's not very helpful either. You basically defined him as being indefinable. So let me try to help by narrowing things down. Which of the following traits do you believe your god to have?

1. Omniscience - Knowing literally everything there is to know.

2. Omnipotence - Having the power to do anything. And I'll add the addendum that limits this to what is logically possible, so we don't have to worry about whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't lift it.

3. Omnipresence - Being everywhere.

4. Being outside of time - Living in every moment at once, rather than from moment to moment like us.

5. Benevolence - Wanting to do no harm, and to do good by others.

6. Jealousy - Wanting attention, and being upset when others get it instead.

7. Patience - Tolerating others, withholding anger, when most would not.
Definitions are fluid things, always in motion, like life.  When something stops changing, it dies, including language.  This is why I avoid them until it becomes unavoidable.  Like schroedinger's cat, not defining things allows one to layer multiple simultaneous layers of meaning into one's communication, focusing on that which is pertinent the moment it naturally presents itself.

All the attributes mentioned except 6, I would ascribe to God, with the caveat that the list is not comprehensive, as a defining characteristic of God is to be outside all human comprehension.  This follows logically as He is the Creator of comprehension itself.  This is part of His attribute of transcendence.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Baruch

#134
The Jewish scripture does describe G-d as jealous!  But all writing, all scripture, is a dead thing, compared to the living idea.  This is why in the book Fahrenheit 451, people fight censorship, by memorizing the book, they become the book.  A religion starts to die, as soon as it is put to paper.  The living experience of the religion, that is the living thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMBu6RUMJg0

What are words?  Semaphores that allow two sentient beings to communicate.  If I have been fishing, and you have been fishing, then even though we didn't go fishing together, we can share our fishing stories.  If either of us hasn't gone fishing, then the dictionary definition is weak soup.  Yes, actual thoughts are living things, because they come from living beings.  Words are tools of expression, they aren't the things themselves.  The word "fish" isn't alive, it doesn't stink dead in the sun shine.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.