Recent posts by HeyItsRay on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by TheBSG:

I’d also like to know why any of these things need to use words like God.

Adler arrived at being able to name the being that requires to exist to create and sustain the universe with the following procedure:

What must the being be able to do?
(create and sustain the entire universe)
If this being exists, what would his nature be like?
(Needs to be supernatural to be an efficient cause, needs to be at least powerful enough to create and sustain, and uncaused)
Is there a definition of a being that in itself explains its nature and origin?
(Anselm’s definition of God as a maximum.)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Could there be a thing or force that sustains us? Yes. Must there be a thing that sustains us? Absolutely not.

Until you are able to refute the idea that the universe is a merely possible condition, then this is nothing but a baseless claim.

Especially when talking about the ultimately obscured concept of “outside of our universe,” where “cause and effect” are likely meaningless concepts.

Cause and effect isn’t a solely a law of physics. It applies to everything that exists.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Darkruler wants me to ignore the rest of this thread :(

I too would like a reply to darkruler’s post, because he’s saying exactly what I’m saying. Especially the part about your premise being identical to your conclusion. I’d also like to know why any of these things need to use words like God.

“1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause”

The premise is the logic used to establish the conclusion. The premise leads to the conclusion through qualifying both the universe and the hypothetical effect in question.

That being said, you have not been able to refute the first premise, since all you’ve been doing is scoffing at the notion that something supernatural can exist.
Unless you either find a fallacy in the original premise, or show how the original premise does not apply to the conclusion, you have accomplished nothing.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by TheBSG:

The word “supernatural” is an excuse to invoke the word God,

So if the universe needs a cause sustain it in existence, and that sustaining of existence breaks the rules of said universe, we cannot say whatever sustains the universe is supernatural? I don’t care whether or not you think the universe needs a cause, but do you really think that it makes sense for something to break the rules of the universe and not be called supernatural?

and the term “maximum” is another word for “doesn’t require explanation.”

And how would you like to define the nature of God IF he exists and must be able to do the things needed of him in this argument?

The arguments aren’t actually arguing anything except that the things we don’t know about regarding the universe’s origin have the properties of: Being unknown and mostly immeasurable (supernatural) and do not necessarily abide by the laws of cause and effect (maximum). By existing outside of our universe, there needn’t actually be a cause like you’re insinuating.

So we cannot argue things that are unknown to empirical science? We are not able to argue the intellect, that nature of reality, and God? Might as well burn as metaphysical philosophy books.

It is begging the question, as all religion is, to insinuate that there even is a force, or it could be described as a cause and our universe is the effect, since that’s a property within our universe, not outside of it.

Uh, what? What are you even saying here? That insinuations by us in this universe about this universe is invalidated by the fact that they are in this universe?

To even suggest there is an “Existence” outside of our universe itself is a claim.

Using the soda vending machine analogy, would you say that inferring that soda was in the machine to begin with be a claim?

This whole abstraction of there being a thing that doesn’t need cause that also fulfills the need for the universe’s cause is no different than the universe itself not needing a cause.

Except from what we have inferred about the universe, it needs a cause. Because it needs a cause and exists, then there must be an existing cause. That is the logic being used here, and that is the logic you fail to accept just because that cause must be supernatural. You blatantly contradicted yourself as well. That does not fulfill the need for the universe’s cause, that just means that you don’t acknowledge the cause.

Nothing necessitates the abstraction besides the inference that it must be. The universe was born and needs a mom because everything that is born within our universe has mothers. The word mom is equivalent to the word God, and is equally absurd.

No. Stop using analogies that are completely off the table. You are making grand assertion after grand assertion. You have no logic to back it up, and you are just demeaning yourself through your obvious attempts to parallel logic does not contain fallacies with other things that are nonsensical because of other reasons. Your “mother” analogy is off the table and absurd because we are biological creatures requiring birth, not because we are possible creatures needing causes; obviously. You aren’t even arguing Adler’s argument anymore, you’ve twisted and perverted his words to turn it into something you can poke fun at.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

“I think, therefore I exist. Thus, the universe thinks.” is a cool phrase, but it doesn’t actually mean anything.

I agree. Except no one is saying that :P

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by TheBSG:

…. This is stupid, and purely tautological. I’m backing out of this particular argument because it isn’t one.

The argument is the premises, and if you claim that certain parts of the premises are either fallible or unintelligible, I am going to define and reinforce it. This isn’t a complicated argument, and this isn’t really even a progressive one that is subject to a lot of change that we can make. And if you feel like that kind of argument is stupid, then by all means, withdraw. I just can’t see a base for that kind of feeling. I’m really just posting to solidify my final feelings on the issue about yours, not to reciprocate it.

Adler is begging the question because he is assigning requirements for things that are not inherently required except in his premises.

Adler made a few assertions, primarily that of radical contingency. Though, these assertions are backed by inferences and sound logic.

Yes, there is an origin to existence. Yes, it will not be confined by the laws of nature existent within our universe. No, Adler isn’t sussing out those rules that govern outside of our laws of nature, he’s just using folk concepts to describe that there are things we don’t understand about the origin of our universe.

You’re very right, we cannot fully understand the nature of our universe. That does not stopping us from inferring that it is possible. That is really the only concept that Adler asserts to build upon. It isn’t even a far fetched one. There can very well have been other universes in the past, and more in the future. There is nothing restricting that, but then again, there is nothing enforcing the fact that there were other universes. There may or may not have been.

Defining the agent of cause as having any kind of properties like “maximum” and “supernatural” is begging the question unless there is a particular measurement that would suggest an agent for cause.

Not measurement, but necessity. There needs to be a supernatural cause because something within the universe cannot cause the universe. There needs to be an uncaused cause because then we must assert something else to cause that cause which we cannot infer any existence from, and thus like you said, building layers of complexity. Adler then used the definition of God as a maximum because one cannot reasonably assert something that is uncaused and supernatural and then successfully answering the question of what the nature of said being is like. One can successfully answer that question with the definition of God as a maximum. This answers the question which you say it begs.

Many mathematical models exist, and none of them can be satisfied given our current understanding of the universe that exists within those confounds, so Adler’s thought experiment is even less accurate.

It would be a thought experiment if it isn’t an argument from inference. When we buy a soda from a vending machine, we cannot perceive the soda falling out of it. We infer that the soda was inside it. We do not perform a thought experiment to see if the soda was inside it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by TheBSG:

The only thing agreeable about this claim is that there is, in fact, something to be learned about the origin of the universe. Absolutely everything else you are describing is begging the question. Because the universe exists, it exists. Naming the reason it exists “God” through tautology is clearly divisive.

You didn’t address anything I said, by the way. I am putting no words in Adler’s mouth. Naming the persistence of the universe and giving it properties because they’re the opposite properties of the universe is science fiction. It’s like pointing at the premise of lost and calling it science. (I swear to god if someone ignores the rest of my posts and cites this line and points out that it’s fallacious, I’m ignoring the rest of this thread.)

So other than saying “the universe persists, even though it was a possible condition, because it exists”, what would be your explanation?

I don’t mean to counter a point so hollowly, but I already talked about this. To reiterate, I said that what is only possible needs a cause, and when something is possible to be caused can possibly stop existing unless there is some sustaining law or force keeping it so.

My Understanding:
We Exist.
Existence is persistent.

You’re blatantly leaving out the nature of such existence.

We exist in a cosmos whose existence is persistent

Persistence is not necessary.

Unless there is some force or law sustaining the thing persisting, and the thing persisting is merely contingent, then yes.

If god is necessary, it can enforce persistence.

If persistence of existence is something beyond the laws of nature, then there must be some supernatural being (I use being because thing implies an object that cannot act on its own) allowing existence to persist.

From there, we must try to explain why something supernatural would exist on its own without adding something beyond that supernatural something. That is where we achieve the definition of God as necessary.

We exist, thus, god exists.

We continue to exist, so the thing which sustains us in existence must also continue to act to do so, and so it also exists.

Your understanding is not correct. I don’t know if this is because I did not explain the position well, or simply the book itself isn’t enough to fit on the op.

The 3rd statement is dubious and begs the question.

Your third statement is indeed dubious and begs the question.

The 4th statement also invents a thing that is the opposite of existence simply to fulfill the need for things to exist, and also begs the question.

We cannot say something doesn’t exist before the argument which tries to posit its existence is even done inferring the need of existence of that something. Ugh, that’s a horrid sentence. What I mean to say is, this argument infers existence of that something. You cannot assert that something cannot exist before he has attempted to prove its existence.

Everything after there is just building on assumptions that aren’t actually validated. Not to mention, why can’t the universe in itself contain it’s own cause? If supernatural things exist, then the universe is supernatural, and doesn’t need a supernatural creator.

That right there is an assumption built on assumptions. Why would the universe as a whole be supernatural? Why does the existence of things transcending the physical laws force the universe as a whole to be supernatural? Why would something that as we have defined it, contingent, be able to cause itself, supernatural or not?

My answer is: In the universes that don’t exist, there’s no one to ask why.

I don’t quite understand this.

Cause and effect is a product of existing. If not existing and existing are the two options, as posited, then there is no such thing as not existing. You’re just adding a layer of abstraction and assigning it our folk titles for creator and calling it a day.

Cause and effect are products of the nature of the object to be caused or the condition to be effected. You’re arguing Adler’s first premise which I think is pretty self evident.

1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause

Would you then say

1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause denies the existence and action of that cause

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Nothing I said was incorrect, you’re the one disregarding posts. I like your ad-hominem, because the only reason I could be disregarding this bullshit is because I’m a “close minded atheist.” You think I have a conviction, which is no less than projection.

I think I’ve made it quite clear now that when there is a point to argue, I will argue. When you posted, there was no legitimate point. When you do that, I will call you out on your bullshit.

The original premise is entirely begging the question: The universe exists, therefore it must have a creator. It’s the watchmaker’s argument written in intellectual pros. Science doesn’t start with assertions. Citing cause and effect and then determining that there is only one potential cause and it is “supernatural” isn’t logic in any sense of the word. The need to use words like creator, maximum, and supernatural reveals the stupidity of the argument. The post I made is exactly what Adler’s argument consists of:

No, that is not the original premise. Stop putting words in Adler’s mouth.

He says that the universe exists, therefore it must have a creator; due to the fact that in nature, the universe is merely possible and not necessary. Furthermore, if something is capable of not being, it is also capable of stopping to be at any moment.

The assertion that the universe is possible has support in “the fact that arrangement and disarray of the present cosmos might have been otherwise, might have been different from what it is. There is no compelling reason to think that the natural laws which govern the present cosmos are the only possible natural laws.”
The physicist John G. Cramer has also claimed that recent developments in the theory of the multiverse seem to reinforce Adler’s claim of possibility in the nature of the cosmos.

The universe exists.
Since the universe persists, its existence must be maintained by something else.
God doesn’t make any sense. (is “supernatural”)
For something to make sense, something else has to not make sense.
It makes sense for there to be something that doesn’t make sense in order for the universe to make sense.
Thus God makes sense.

For your first couple premises, see my notes above. Also, how is the concept of supernatural-ity nonsensical? Existence is whatever exists whether or not we think of or perceive it. Things that are natural obey the rules of physics and nature. Things that are supernatural transcend the laws of nature. They would still be capable of existing, even if we can’t study, measure, or even perceive it.

The assumption here is that cause and effect are absolute rules of all things. Not being able to make accurate measurements of things outside of our universe really puts a dent in this argument, since we only know that things within our universe has a cause and effect. Not to mention, the argument nullifies itself by saying that there has to be a first cause but that this first cause is in itself a maximum. You’re abstracting the origin of the universe to include one more domain before you’re left with the question of what created God. The universe is persistent, and the results of a thing, but the God isn’t? What property does a God have that any other made up argument doesn’t have that makes it an effective originator that has no origin? Why couldn’t an infinite cloth rip a hole in itself and thus tear the fabric of time into being?

This is begging the question, which is exactly what I demonstrated in my post.

No. The assumption here is that the universe is possible, and not necessary. Possible things require causes. Necessary things do not.

We get to say God is necessary because we need an answer to the following question:

IF God exists, what is his nature like?

The best answer to that question seems to be that of a maximum, a being than which no greater can be conceived.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

premise 3 has a section between (parentheses) that is blatantly presumtpuous.

premise 4 is utterly retarded and rediculous. especially with the further definitions given.

/thread.

Your assertions are very convincing. I might as well close the thread, you convinced me so well.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

“What is being said here is not that the past is limited (finite rather than infinite), but only that our knowledge of past time is limited – limited to a time beyond which our observations and measurements cannot go.”
Adler then goes on to say that science has remained silent on the subject of the infinite/finite past, and that we are then justified to make a presupposition choosing one side or the other. If one chooses the presupposition of a finite past, with no matter existing, “it has the same effect as to accept the dogmatic assertion made by persons of religious faith. It begs the question. It assumes that God, the exnihilator, exists.”

The rest of the argument demonstrates how one can reconcile the differences between the idea of a really existing God, and an infinite past.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Mind-Body Problem

You’re serious? You really think that Descartes was a Monist? Even after he is largely associated with dualism? Even after he located “where the soul lives” as the pineal gland?

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Mind-Body Problem

Part of my post didn’t go through. The above is a quote from Descartes himself, in Meditations On First Philosophy.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Mind-Body Problem

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

“And of course the universe is possible. But, the cause isn’t provably God, it’s just God is a possibility”

As shown by Adler’s argument, the cause must be something supernatural, capable of creating from nothing and sustaining the universe, and is uncaused.

“Something may simply ‘just exist’, right? I think those things are time and matter/energy.”

But that makes no sense. I don’t know that much about time, and matter and energy I assume had something to do with the big bang. Things that are merely possible need a cause.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can religion be blamed for any grievance in society?

Pragmatic truth is not corresponding truth. That is, “even if something is true because it corresponds to what is” pragmatism can deny that and say that “something is true because it works.” That is a fallacy when debating metaphysics, and must be avoided.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Mind-Body Problem

It is not a monistic point of view.

Allow me to summarize it again.

Descartes doubted everything he couldn’t be sure of, and here was his chain of thought.

My senses cannot be trusted at all times.

I experience my body and the material world through my senses, but I cannot truth them, so I cannot trust that the material world exists.

I think.

There then must be some thinking essence of myself separate of the material that acts for me to think.

I must have a soul.

This means that this is a dualistic argument.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

The definition of efficient cause comes from Aristotle.

" A thing’s efficient or moving cause⁴ is “the primary source of the change or rest.” An efficient cause of x can be present even if x is never actually produced and so should not be confused with a sufficient cause.⁵ (Aristotle argues that, for a table, this would be the art of table-making, which is the principle guiding its creation.)"

Why do you say that there must be something before the cosmos? Something to maintain the laws of physics? I assumed that due to the big bang theory, all the laws of physics came to be.

Adler says that the cosmos needs an efficient cause because he came to believe that the cosmos is possible, not necessary. When something is merely possible, it requires a cause to exnihilate it (create from nothingness); and by extension, when something is merely possible and exists, it is possible that that thing can return to nothingness at any moment (radical contingency), thus needing something to sustain it.

An uncaused cause is needed because things that are merely possible cannot regress.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Mind-Body Problem

Originally posted by NickWalker12:

I think the fact that brain damage affects a persons “soul” is proof enough that, not only is the “soul” physically housed inside the brain , it is dependent on it (monism). One could making an argument for dualism as follows: The brain is merely the “receiver” of the soul… but then you run into problems of, how else is it received? There is also no proof for such an assumption, especially when we consider that: Like a radio receiver, something needs to be transmitting. I think we’ll eventually prove the cause of thought a series of reactions in the brain. Cause and effect. Determinism.

A dualist would say that brain damage would be the equivalent of severing the cable. Monism is not that the soul is dependent on the brain. That is a truth that all dualists must accept, but that in now way disproves dualism. Also, about your argument about how the soul works. It is not a dualistic argument about “how” the soul works, but it says that it must work for our ability of intellectual, conceptual thought.

Originally posted by TheAwsomeOpossum:

I generally take a dualistic perspective, because it’s more preferable from my point of view, than a monistic one.

Monistic skepticism is a great tool for heuristics (and for counterarguments), but, not many people actually like believing in it.

Hehe… and…. ‘I think, therefore I am!’. One of the most interesting concepts that came out of a monistic skeptic point of view =). And, technically, the only undeniable exception to ‘brain in a vat’ style arguments.

“I think therefore I am” isn’t even a monistic skeptic point of view. It is methodological skeptism sure, but it is a dualistic argument. Try reading the OP again.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

As for the premises:

Problematic here are two issues:

1. “Action” seems like a dubious concept to take. It implies a cause is sentient.
2. An “effect” does not necessarily need a cause, even by your own assumption.

1. Not necessarily. It implies that conforming to the laws of nature, or the nature of the object itself, it performs something.
And in the context of this argument, a maximum cannot not be sentient.

2. A merely possible effect requires a cause.

What is existence? It is not observable by us. Scientific existence is what we look at. I know this is a simple assumption to make, but it is key to the conclusion that a god exists.

What? What is this scientific existence? There are only several modes of existence.
1. That which is independent of human thought and perception.
(1 and a half, that which is a material thing, but has a subjective meaning that humans give it ie. words.)
2. The subjective existence of thoughts and ideas we experience through out intellect.

Science seeks descriptive knowledge of the natural world, that which is true. Truth corresponds to what is. Only philosophy can deal with transcendental ideas and concepts, such as God, and it can only prove its ideas to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is this not your conclusion? You seem to take a premise that pretty much predicts your conclusion in such a way no other conclusion is possible.

I don’t understand the point you try to make here.

And here we have the most problematic one. “Supernatural” is not a concept you can just carelessly throw around if you want to avoid certain premises (such as your first). And certainly it is very random to pick out “God” or even any god to make up for this supernatural “first” cause. Though I understand you have a definition below this.

God must be a supernatural being because one cannot sustain the universe in being if it is an object in that universe. I never said God is a “first” cause. I only said that he must have caused the universe, a condition with no cause to be conceived yet.

Why even write an article about your arguments for the existence of a being that cannot not so exist? You’ve defined it to exist, no matter what. However, this does not prove it.

Here you touch upon Anselm’s Ontological argument.
In short, it says the following.
1. God is a being that is greater than any other being can be imagined. He is a maximum

2. Being a maximum, he cannot not exist

3. He must exist

Allow me to tell you the problem with this argument. It is a mind experiment. The idea of God is not inferred, it is only conceived. With this argument, we are not able to say that a maximum actually must exist outside of the concept itself.

Sure, but not proven to be so.

With this argument, as long as he has avoided any fallacies, Adler believed to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by Pleasedonot5:

@OP:

If you hold that this divine being “just was” the first cause, as in it is infinite and not subject to the cause-effect rule, then by definition you hold that existence can be infinite and not subject to the cause-effect rule (because you believe that said divine being exists, right?). Following Occam’s razor (the logical rule of thumb that the simplest hypothesis regarding the issue with the least amount of assumptions is preferred), the divine being is just an extra assumption that hasn’t been proven. So why believe in it if you follow logic and/or science on the big issues like this (and don’t tell me you don’t think logic is effective, you just used logic to try and “prove” God)?

No, this isn’t Thomas Aquinas’ argument of God as first cause.

In this argument, the cause and effect hurdle is tackled not because of the denial of infinites, but because of the difference between a contingent condition and necessary condition.
The cosmos cannot be infinitely regressed because its nature is contingent, and so must be caused. God doesn’t because he is a necessary being in nature, as Adler defined it.

Also, this argument conforms to Occam’s Razor in that a condition that is unexplained, becomes explained with the assertion that a supernatural, uncaused maximum acted to create and acts to sustain the existence of our cosmos.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can religion be blamed for any grievance in society?

Originally posted by NickWalker12:

There is no evidence to assume free-will (to an extend to disprove Hard Determinism) anyway. When we discuss Free-Will vs Determinism, all we can do is speculate. A lot of people try to find middle ground with compatibalism, but I think its quite illogical to conclude that we are free and determined at the same time.

There is hardly any evidence for anything in philosophy. What arguments in philosophy seek is to support something as true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by NickWalker12:

Originally posted by HeyItsRay:
To borrow Bertrand Russells response: To say anything about the Universes existence is to require a leap of faith too big. It is illogical to argue that the Universe is radically contingent.

I’d like to hear the logic he used to determine that. Also, that hasn’t stopped theoretical science’s theorizing about the beginning and existence of the universe.

Just to note, John Cramer concluded that recent developments in theories such as that of the multiverse support Adler’s claim of the nature of the universe.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can religion be blamed for any grievance in society?

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

Originally posted by HeyItsRay:

Originally posted by Indy111:

All right, so I’m not very good at explaining things and this may be total BS. Just take it into consideration. Phobias and overall fear can be a good example. So let’s say there is a big abyss which seemingly doesn’t end. I jump down in it and you don’t see me again. Now it’s obvious you wouldn’t want to jump down because it may kill or hurt you. But that is the fear of dying, it’s not your free will that makes it so you won’t jump. It was pre-determined. You are influenced and so you don’t want to jump because of your brain chemicals (or whatever) is telling you not to do it. There has been similar studies to test “free will” and it’s come up with the result that you make a move before you realize you do, or intend to. Free will is kind of a vague statement, IE if you’re tied up with chains you can’t get out or make something blow up with your mind. But what I mean is physically possible free will that you can intend to break the chains, or blow something up. Like I said bad at explaining Wiki could help explain.

Scientists haven’t been able to find how the brain is able to intellectually think in the first place. So far, the brain has been found to do three things: imagine, remember, and interpret perception.

It does more than that. It controls the body(motor control, homeostasis), generates the mind, processes information to name some other important stuff.

This is true, except for when you say “generates” the mind. The brain is indeed a necessary condition for the intellect, but if we only had our brains for our intellects to work, we wouldn’t be able to apprehend universals/ conceptually think.

Don’t use neuroscience in a philosophical debate.

Why? Is it because reality is inconvenient?

No, because neuroscience deals with what we listed above. It does not deal with the choice making agent within each human. It deals with reflexive and instinctive behavior for the most part.

Free will has to do with choice. Choice implies thinking, deliberation, and understanding.

Nope choice implies a number(at least 2) of different possible actions from which can be selected. Thinking, deliberation and understanding are not needed to make a selection.

They are not needed to make a selection, but you changed your words. Selection and choice is not synonymous when dealing with the metaphysical aspects of the mind. There are such things as instinctive and reflexive behavior, and as such, reflexive selections and instinctive selections. Choice is a mental process, and has to be within the criteria I listed in my post with the i’s and such.

Free will implies that the selections is made without the choice maker being (significantly*) influenced from anything beside his internal/rational* motivations(his will).
*Depending on how hard the definition of Free will is, minor influences can or can not be ignored and internal/rational can also be interpreted differently.

No. Free will just does not apply when the choice maker is significantly influences from anything beside his intellectual will. When they are, they coincide with the criteria I listed.

Free will also does not apply when someone is under the influence of passions or emotions. They become subject to the will of their emotions.

One can certainly disagree on that, if the emotions are not induced directly from an outside source(for example drugs), then it becomes hard to distinguish them as not being part of the internal will of the person.

It again then coincides with the criteria I listed, and the action or selection made is not an intellectual, rational choice.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mortimer J. Adler's Argument For God's Existence

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Here’s a problem which doesn’t exist.
Here’s an answer to that problem that also doesn’t exist.

Thus, it exists.

EG The universe also has a memory otherwise everything would be forgotten. QED bitches.

Here is someone who tries to be witty by not reading the argument.

The problem to be solved here is that the universe has no cause to create and sustain it. It needs both of those because it is radically contingent.

Here is where you deny the existence of something before the argument goes on to assert its needed existence because you are a closed minded “I’m not listening to you” atheist.

Stop trying to sound smart or witty. You didn’t even say anything about the argument. This isn’t god damned youtube comments, however much it may look like them.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by Sinner_7:

The answer is simple, atheists know how to think, while christians, muslims, jews etc. rely on some books and fairytales, ignoring their own reason.

Since the importance of theology in the Middle Ages, there have been numerous philosophers and theologians that have gone on to demonstrate the validity of the philosophy of God, and I swear to you that they all used reason for their conclusions.

I’m not an atheist though, since as far as I know, to be and atheist, you must believe in big bang theory, which is as fucked up as any religion. I simply know how to think. To all religious there; show some intelligence and be sceptic about you holy books and stuff… You’ll find that they are full of flaws etc.

To be an atheist, you just don’t have to believe in a God. You haven’t demonstrated any flaws in any belief system, all you’re doing is accusing them of having flaws.
Also, the Big Bang Theory has barely any anti-theological implications if you’ve actually done some research. Stop trying to sound smart.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can religion be blamed for any grievance in society?

Originally posted by Indy111:

All right, so I’m not very good at explaining things and this may be total BS. Just take it into consideration. Phobias and overall fear can be a good example. So let’s say there is a big abyss which seemingly doesn’t end. I jump down in it and you don’t see me again. Now it’s obvious you wouldn’t want to jump down because it may kill or hurt you. But that is the fear of dying, it’s not your free will that makes it so you won’t jump. It was pre-determined. You are influenced and so you don’t want to jump because of your brain chemicals (or whatever) is telling you not to do it. There has been similar studies to test “free will” and it’s come up with the result that you make a move before you realize you do, or intend to. Free will is kind of a vague statement, IE if you’re tied up with chains you can’t get out or make something blow up with your mind. But what I mean is physically possible free will that you can intend to break the chains, or blow something up. Like I said bad at explaining Wiki could help explain.

Scientists haven’t been able to find how the brain is able to intellectually think in the first place. So far, the brain has been found to do three things: imagine, remember, and interpret perception. Don’t use neuroscience in a philosophical debate. Free will has to do with choice. Choice implies thinking, deliberation, and understanding. Everything that does not include these things are instinctive or reflexive, which is influenced in the brain like you said by chemicals in your brain and nerves or whatever.

Free will also deals with choices that have the following criteria met:
i. That are intrinsically unpredictable, even given all the information about the choice
ii. that are not necessitated
iii. that come from the choice making agent within the person who made the choice.

Free will also does not apply when someone is under the influence of passions or emotions. They become subject to the will of their emotions.

I take it that deterministic arguments stem from that last criteria, that the choice making agent must also be influenced, not any neurological pheromone.