What is Faith?

[Komodo]

I dont know about determinism, but not having a free will does. Not having a free will would be similar to our behavior being entirely like our autonomic nervous system. You cannot stop breathing and you cannot will your heart to stop beating.

If your definition of having free will is “being capable of considering and choosing,“ then we have free will, even if determinism is true (I think this position is called “compatibilism”), and I wouldn’t argue with the claim that without free will we wouldn’t be fully human.

 

[El Cid]

Yes, because without a free will you are like an animal just instinctively responding to stimuli.

On a certain level, yes, I think the word you're looking for is that our decision are deterministic: they are determined by our current brain state and by the stimulus.

Yes, our behavior will be like our autonomic nervous system, just like you cant stop breathing nor will your heart to stop beating.

El Cid said:
So the content of what you say is irrelevant, it is only if you produce the right sounds that stimulates the right response to the hearer. So all these abstract arguments are a waste of time.

But the content is part of what makes the right sounds that *may* produce the response you want. So abstract arguments are not a waste of time.

Yes, but the actual argument is irrelevant. It would just be random chance on whether the sound had any real meaning.

El Cid said:
Ok I agree they may be affected, but see above about all it has to be is the right stimuli to produce the right instinctive response.

See above, same considerations.

El Cid said:
Actually without a free will mothers would not love their children, they would just be responding to the stimuli that the children produce.

That's only true if you define love as requiring free will. It's possible to define love as a large group of responses ranging from verbal behavior, other behavior, as well as internal feeling states, without losing anything that we call love except, as previously noted, the free will aspect. But then your proposed reason for why there can't be free will - because without free will mothers would not love their children - becomes a circular argument.

True love involves the will, because feelings change all the time. So true love is not possible without a free will.

El Cid said:
The same with raising their children, it would just be programmed into the parents just like animals instinctive actions.

See above, same considerations.

The mothers behavior would just follow the flow chart by which they have been programmed. No love there.

El Cid said:
Because the conclusion would just be based on the previous cause and effect chains which may or may not have anything to do with evidence or logic.

We first need to extract what might be your first reason - because the conclusion would be deterministic ("based on previous cause and effect chains" - because that would be circular logic. We're then left with the deterministic conclusion may or may not be logical. But that means it is possible, then - it MAY have to do with logic. If you want to claim that it cannot have anything to do with logic, then you still have to show that.

It may have to do with logic, but that would just be a random accident, because the only real basis would be the right stimulus.

El Cid said:
They would just be the result of how the scientist was stimulated by certain things he encountered and his instinctive behavior.

The question is whether being stimulated and exhibiting such behavior cannot be logical. Merely saying that it would be the result is not a reason why the result could not be logical.

See above about how our behavior would be controlled by our built in programming or flow chart. Even scientists.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Yes, our behavior will be like our autonomic nervous system, just like you cant stop breathing nor will your heart to stop beating

Yes, but the actual argument is irrelevant. It would just be random chance on whether the sound had any real meaning.

The argument is not irrelevant. If I said, "You gave me $10, then I gave you $5, so I owe you $5, right?" and you said, "Yes," you're not going to say yes if I said I only owed you $3. The content, the meaning, the sounds are *not* random nor irrelevant. You're expecting me to say I owe you $5, so if I say anything different, especially a smaller figure, you're going to have your behavior changed.

True love involves the will, because feelings change all the time. So true love is not possible without a free will.

Your syllogism and logic isn't working:

P1 - True love involves the will
P2 - Feelings change all the time.
Therefore,
P3 - True love is not possible without a free will.

P3 does not logically follow from P1 and P2.

The mothers behavior would just follow the flow chart by which they have been programmed. No love there.

That is not an argument that love isn't possible with a flow chart, you're just asserting that it isn't.

It may have to do with logic, but that would just be a random accident, because the only real basis would be the right stimulus.

See above about how our behavior would be controlled by our built in programming or flow chart. Even scientists.

Can you state the necessary and sufficient reasons why humans can't do logic without free will? I'm confused as to what your argument actually is.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Beisdes being intuitively true

Which is not evidence, in the slightest...

there is also evidence that we have free will. There is strong evidence that our minds are not tied to cause and effect determinism, ie the physical or naturalism. Therefore, we have free will.

And what is this evidence?

 

[Eightcrackers]

I cant prove it but He is the only one that has a lot of evidence for His existence.

What if you prayed, but there is no god, and the headache went away on its own?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Because even thoughts are non-physical so you cannot have even have thoughts.

Sounds are non-physical, but arise from the physical.
Why can't thoughts be the same?

 

[El Cid]

In science you often make tentative conclusions, like my black hole example. We can do the same with supernatural events.
....
See above about tentative conclusions, which is done in science all the time, but never tentatively supernatural because of the potential job loss or persecution.

I think we do have a tentative conclusion it is supernatural.

I've already addressed your point about tentative conclusions here, perhaps you missed it:

Gus Bovona said:
“A tentative conclusion” means nothing. What actually matters is whether we have a conclusion that is confirmed and accepted, or not. A tentative conclusion is merely the latter, one that has not been accepted nor confirmed.

Science is nowhere near concluding that the supernatural is real.

Only because of scientist's commitment to the philosophy of naturalism.

Then,

El Cid said:
The book I referenced below provides many examples of scientists being discriminated against because they believe in a supernatural origin to life.

I dont have a copy of the book but he provides many examples of scientists being discriminated against because they believe in a supernatural origin to life.

If you don't have the book and can't be bothered to get it to find a specific example to talk about - because the details of a particular scientist's case will be crucial - then neither should I, so now there's nothing to discuss.

I provided several examples in an earlier post.

El Cid said:
I think if someone interviewed her and asked her to elaborate, I think she would admit that they violated the laws of physics.

When that scientist is on record somewhere about a violation of the laws of physics, then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, this is just you speculating.

Dr. J. Allen Hynek has admitted that UFOs have violated the laws of physics.

 

[Whatsisface]

Dr. J. Allen Hynek has admitted that UFOs have violated the laws of physics.

You need more than that.

 

[El Cid]

So how do you know you're not one of those? Those that falsely think they're having a relationship with Allah don't think it's false, just like you don't think yours is false.

The nature of reality and the universe fits the Christian God the best.

 

[Eightcrackers]

The nature of reality and the universe fits the Christian God the best.

Which may mean nothing more than that the god of the Bible was constructed to explain the universe, as they understood it at the time.

 

[Whatsisface]

The nature of reality and the universe fits the Christian God the best.

That's what Muslims say about Islam. They sound just like you, and you like them.

But both Christianity and Islam don't explain the universe anything like science does. Christianity gets the origin of the universe and the Earth utterly wrong.

 

[Tiburon]

The nature of reality and the universe fits the Christian God the best.

In what way?

 

[El Cid]

If there are Laws of logic, to be laws they must be absolute. If they are absolute they would pertain in any worldview. If they didn't, they wouldn't be laws.

But if nonphysical things dont exist, then they dont exist whatever they are. That is one of the problems with naturalism.

Also, I think you are confusing naturalism with materialism.

What's the difference?

 

[Whatsisface]

But if nonphysical things dont exist, then they dont exist whatever they are. That is one of the problems with naturalism.

I don't see why abstract concepts are a defeater of naturalism. Brains capable of abstract thought can be explained somewhat by naturalism, and the laws of logic are necessary abstract concepts that will occur to such minds that think of such things

What's the difference?

Ok, Interesting question and I've only had one coffee so far. Here and now I'm not sure it matters too much to what we're talking about.

 

[Whatsisface]

What's the difference?

Naturalism holds that everything can be explained by nature, but Materialism simply believes that everything in existence is material.

 

[El Cid]

Again: I offered an argument to show that if naturalism was true, we could indeed still think rationally and come to rational conclusions. You didn't challenge the premises. You didn't challenge the logic. You are just saying "If naturalism is true we couldn't think rationally, because if naturalism is true, we couldn't think rationally." I suggest we stop here.

You made the following claim in your argument that I am not sure is valid: You said "which in turn seems to rest on the claim that "a cause cannot produce an effect which possesses properties the cause itself does not possess," a claim which seems positively false, for reasons I've already offered." I didnt claim that a cause must possess the identical properties that the effect possesses. I am just claiming that the cause must possess the properties that are sufficient to produce the properties that the effect possesses. What is your evidence that this is not true?

 

[Komodo]

You made the following claim in your argument that I am not sure is valid: You said "which in turn seems to rest on the claim that "a cause cannot produce an effect which possesses properties the cause itself does not possess," a claim which seems positively false, for reasons I've already offered." I didnt claim that a cause must possess the identical properties that the effect possesses. I am just claiming that the cause must possess the properties that are sufficient to produce the properties that the effect possesses. What is your evidence that this is not true?

Of course that claim is true; it is tautologically true. It says nothing more than "if a cause produces an effect, the cause must be able to produce that effect." But like most tautologies, it doesn't get us anywhere. It doesn't, for example, show that physical activities cannot cause mental activities.

But this wasn't even part of the argument I was asking you to respond to. Again, again, you are offering an argument that naturalism is false, but the claim I am responding to isn't "naturalism is false," it's "if naturalism is true, then rational thought is impossible." And the argument I offered against that claim was:

P1. [If naturalism is true, then] chemical actions (which are in themselves non-rational) cause mental states in people such as considering, judging and concluding.
P2. A person who is in the mental state of considering, judging and concluding is capable of doing those things well: that is, rationally.
C. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then non-rational chemical actions are capable of producing rational thoughts.

Do you dispute either premise? Do you claim that the conclusion does not follow, if the premises are true?

 

[El Cid]

Because the difference between the physical and the non-physical is far greater than the difference between shields and spears.

Nobody possesses a "differencometer" which can tell which differences are surmountable in the emergence of new properties and which are not. More importantly, you apparently do not believe this is an unbridgeable difference at all! (See the end of this post.)

The difference between the physical and non-physical is insurmountable if anything is insurmountable. Yes, I made a mistake in my statement.

El Cid said:
If you have evidence how such a thing can occur, I am all ears.

The fact that changes to the physical brain cause changes to the mind is evidence that physical events cause mental events. (Your denial of this below does not stand up.)

El Cid said:

[ME}: First, you're flatly refusing to answer my question, which was: do you, or do you not agree that 1) "it is impossible for reasoning to emerge from chemistry" and 2) "if it is not impossible, if reasoning actually does emerge from chemistry, then all reasoning is unreliable" are two different claims? I have no idea whether or not you recognize that they are in fact different claims.

See above about why it is probably impossible.

You are still flatly refusing to answer my question! I didn't ask whether "it" was possible or impossible, for any value of "it." I asked whether these were two different claims or not. Why is it impossible for you to say?

Yes they are two different claims.

El Cid said:
But if naturalism was true then your conclusions would be based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, not based on logical reasoning based on premises and weighing of evidence.

I've addressed this claim again and again and you simply make no effort to show why my counter-arguments are wrong: you just repeat and repeat the claim. Tell me, please, which of the following premises you dispute.

1. If naturalism is true, then chemical reactions cause logical reasoning based on premises and weighing of evidence.
2. If it is true that chemical reactions cause logical reasoning based on premises and weighing of evidence, then it must be true that logical reasoning based on premises and weighing of evidence is real.
3. If logical evidence based on premises and weighing of evidence is real, then logical evidence based on premises and weighing of evidence can be the real cause of our conclusions.
Therefore, if naturalism is true, then logical evidence based on premises and weighing of evidence can be the real cause of our conclusions.

No, if naturalism were true we would be automatons without a free will and unable to freely evaluate the premises and evidence.

If you can't dispute any of the premises, and you can't dispute the logic, you can't dispute the conclusion, and the conclusion is that your claim -- that if naturalism is true, our conclusions are not caused by logical reasoning and weighing of evidence -- is false.

And again, "but how can chemical reactions cause logical reasoning?" is NOT a legitimate objection to claim 1. Claim 1 is a claim about what naturalism is asserting, not about what is the truth of that assertion. It can be true that "naturalism asserts X," even if naturalism is wrong to assert X.

See above.

El Cid said:
No, none of that refutes the fact that it could be that the mind uses the brain to interact with the outside world so, if the brain is damaged it appears as if the mind is damaged but in fact it is not because it is not totally based on the physical brain.

People who have damage to a particular area of the brain lose the ability to acquire short-term memories (Korsakoff Syndrome). You are asserting that the mind is not damaged when this happens, which is absurd.

Just because the mind can not articulate the memory to the outside world due to the brain damage does not mean it is lost. Again, using the computer analogy. if my keyboard was broken you would think that I had lost my ability to acquire short term memory as well.

El Cid said:
The mind causes certain neurons to fire and you experience the various mental states.

And with that, you have entirely abandoned your own thesis.

First, if the mind is the cause of neuron firings, then something non-physical is the cause of something physical. But you were asserting, just now, that these two things are too different for one to cause the other! That was your only argument for saying naturalism could not be true.

Secondly, either you are saying that neurons firing is the cause of the mental states -- in which case you are explicitly agreeing that physical events can cause mental events, and your thesis is fully out the window -- or you are saying that the mind causes the neuron firings, but those neuron firings do... what, exactly? You can say "interact with the outside world," but that's basically a meaningless phrase unless you can say specifically what you think they accomplish, what they cause.

You are right, I made a mistake. But I stand by my statement that the physical and nonphysical are very different from each other, but because the mind is made of spirit it can transcend that difference and cause physical effects.

 

[Komodo]

The difference between the physical and non-physical is insurmountable if anything is insurmountable. Yes, I made a mistake in my statement.

First, this is just a proclamation, not a demonstration. Second, though you say you make a mistake, you have not withdrawn the claim that the non-physical can cause the physical (see below). If that is the case, you can't possibly say that this is an "insurmountable" difference!

Yes they are two different claims.

Then if I dispute claim 1), it does no good for you to reply by asserting claim 2), or vice versa.

No, if naturalism were true we would be automatons without a free will and unable to freely evaluate the premises and evidence.

I just finished saying -- in the part you're replying to -- that I've repeatedly addressed this claim but you have made no effort to show why my counter-arguments are wrong: you just repeat the claim. And again you simply make no effort to show why I'm wrong, you just again repeat the claim. But I'm going to try once more:

1. If naturalism is true, then chemical reactions cause logical reasoning based on premises and weighing of evidence.
2. If it is true that chemical reactions cause logical reasoning based on premises and weighing of evidence, then it must be true that logical reasoning based on premises and weighing of evidence is real.
3. If logical evidence based on premises and weighing of evidence is real, then logical evidence based on premises and weighing of evidence can be the real cause of our conclusions.
Therefore, if naturalism is true, then logical evidence based on premises and weighing of evidence can be the real cause of our conclusions.

So, now could you please, please, tell me which of those premises you dispute?

Maybe we can start small, and you can tell me if you dispute the following proposition: if an argument is presented, and you don't dispute the premises, and you don't dispute that the conclusion follows logically from those premises, you can't reasonably dispute the conclusion. Agree?

I'd really, seriously like an answer to this. If you don't agree, if you're just asserting that you can't tell me where my argument is wrong, but you know that it is... then I think you can see why this is an obstacle to discussion.

Just because the mind can not articulate the memory to the outside world due to the brain damage does not mean it is lost.

People with Korsakoff's don't just have a problem "articulating the memory to the outside world": they simply fail to retain the memory. A Korsakoff's patient asks whether his father will visit him today, and is told that his father has died. Naturally, he cries at this news. Next day, he asks again whether his father will visit him today, and is again told that his father has died. Again, he cries at this news, which is obviously new to him. Next day, he asks again...

How can you possibly say that the memory of his father's death remains in his undamaged mind, when he behaves entirely as if he has no memory that his father has died?

Again, using the computer analogy. if my keyboard was broken you would think that I had lost my ability to acquire short term memory as well.

I don't know what scenario you have in mind -- how we are communicating, what gets broken -- or how it would be analogous to the behavior of the Korsakoff's patient.

You are right, I made a mistake. But I stand by my statement that the physical and nonphysical are very different from each other, but because the mind is made of spirit it can transcend that difference and cause physical effects.

[My emphasis.] Again, if you are not withdrawing the claim that the non-physical can cause the physical, then you can't possibly say that this is an "insurmountable" difference; you're saying it is surmounted every moment for every one of us!

Also, if the mind does cause neuron firings, what do those firings do?

 

[El Cid]

Computers are bound to the flowchart of the program, humans are not bound by a flowchart thereby allowing them free will and the ability to come up with things never discovered before.

This is your claim, it’s not an argument or evidence.

You deny that computers are programmed?

El Cid said:
Digital processing is best understood as the use of syntactical rules to manipulate symbols rather than anything semantical. Semantics is needed for logic based on language, such as Aristotelian logic and abstract reasoning. Only personal beings can do this.

I can grant that for the time being, but even if I do, you still need to show that free will is necessary to do semantics.

With semantics you have to choose what word to use. Without free will you dont have a choice.