Anti-Materialist

Well...

When I say free will is a myth, I mean that it is a concept that defies definition.


The only working definition that I can find for free will is this:

Free from God's control




That definition sort of works, and sort of doesn't. If someone were to tell me that was their definition of free will, then I would agree that it does exist.


However, I don't think there is a workable definition of free will that will free us from the concept of cause and effect.


So, Yguy - you're a Christian, and a veteran user of this message board. I thought this was the Atheists hang out place. I came here, to get these guys to cut my beliefs to shreds, so that I could make them stronger and more logically defensable.


My beliefs are just about as offensive to Christians as they are to Atheists. It's gotten to the point where I have actually learned to enjoy pissing people off.


Why are you here?

yguy

No, just heavily biased in favor of the Judaeo-Christian ethic.

Same reason you are, except that as a rule I don't enjoy ticking people off, although I don't take pains to avoid it, either.

Chiron

A-M: "For every effect there is a cause or causes. If you make a decision, there are a number of factors why you made that decision. For each one of those factors, there are also a number of factors that led up to them. In tracing any chain of cause and effect backwards, each link in that chain brings you further back in time. If you trace it back far enough, you will find that your decisions are the result of actions that go back all the way to when the multiverse was first created."
This seems to me to be correct. If you could actually trace these things backwards, then (I think) you could find the exact causes of everything (like a thunderstorm in New York back to a butterfly in China).
However, the linchpin is that it's conditional. We do not have the capability to do something like this. According to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, we never will, because the act of measurement changes the thing measured. Attempting to trace the causes of decisions made by beings as complex as humans is fruitless.
If we could use some means of measuring that would void Heisenburg's Principle, some sort of "God rays" which wouldn't affect their targets, perhaps then we could trace cause and effect back to the the beginning of everything. These "God rays" would have to be pretty special, though, in order that the device measuring them also was not affected by them -- and so how could we get the measurements?
It's certainly a tricky problem, one which I suspect will never be solved.

A-M: "Ah ha! Yes, thank you - this is my point about taking mathematical concepts too literally.

Assume that zero is nothing.

A=0

A=(-1) + (+1)

Negative one represents a certain amount of energy, and positive one represents a certain amount of opposite energy. From a mathematical perspective, this works just fine. But remember, math is abstract. We are using it to figure out real-world concepts."
True, we are applying the abstract to the concrete. However, this usually works pretty well: conservation of momentum is purely mathematical, but it works out alright. And the idea of "Kinetic Energy = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2", or just "KE=mv^2" seems sound enough. You can split a plank (along the grain!) if you move your hand fast enough, without suffering undue damage. Try just pushing on the plank to break it, though, and you'll get a bruised hand. The "v^2" part is the most relevant, because it's what is supplying all that energy.
A system of two 1kg masses sitting motionless has zero momentum (0kg*m/s); after an explosion, the two 1kg masses are moving away from each other at 10m/s. If you look at only one mass, then it seems that it suddenly gained momentum; looking at both, though, we find that the total momentum is still zero.
Coming back to "creation ex nihilo", if we look only at one portion of the universe, it certainly appears that there's a lot of energy/order/whatever. But this lot is precisely cancelled out by another lot on the other side of the universe.
More on that: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ic/vacuum.html

I don't think you're disagreeing with the concept of the universe having zero total energy, simply the means by which it got there (of course, correct me if I'm wrong). The deist explanation works for the means (the "first cause"), but then, it could also have been the path of least resistance.

Gotta run,
-Chiron

crocodile deathroll

I argue that all of the complexity in the universe is an emergent property and I will give you life as one example of this. As soon as there is a critical level of molecular diversity, life will be self generating as an emergent property and we can cut any notion of divine intervention. So the cause to life the molecular diversity and the effect on emergent complexity.

Anti-Materialist

Exactly.

and the idea that the universe looks created tells us nothing about the creator. It could be a monkey at a type writer, or a team of super computers, or a ghost who is smarter than the average bear - or maybe a few other things.

JGL53

double post - sorry.

JGL53

Exactly, again. Life and all complexity could just be an emergent property of a naturalistic universe, as CDR states.

Why not? We may never have a way to prove, beyond a shadow etc. that it is, but who will ever prove that it ISN'T, i.e, highly unlikely or inferior to another theory?

Ergo, I still see it as the default position - as an ontological belief - simply because it is the simpliest theory that suffices (again, who can prove that it DOESN'T suffice, or another theory is superior?).

Why go one (very unnecessary) step further and posit an intelligent invisible monkey at a typewriter, or an immaterial genie in an immaterial turban whose lower body is nothing but immaterial smoke, etc., etc., ad infinitum, as some ill-defined 'creator'?

Where does positing such an unknown and probably unknowable 'creator' get us? What possible purpose does it serve? It is a trivial postulate. How about whipping a non-trivial postulate (?) on our heads, A-M?

Until then, WTF is wrong with assuming metaphysical naturalism and materialism? Is there some MAJOR philosophical or logical or scientific problem with that? If so, for the love of god, tell us WHAT that could possibly BE, A-T?

Anti-Materialist

And I do not see any reason why we should assume the simplest theory is the default theory to assume. Life is rarely simple. Complexity shows itself in the most surprising places. Mysteries abound everywhere.




Here is a list of purposes it serves:
1) It could be useful in retro engineering reality. We could ask questions such as - if this universe is designed to create intelligent life, then what other properties about this universe might we be able to intuit, based on that idea? If this universe were designed for intelligent creatures to arise, then perhaps some method of faster-than-light communication might be possible, in order to enable sufficiently advanced intelligent creatures to talk to each other.

2) Perhaps, when we feel the presence of God during meditation, we are feeling something that is real. I would much prefer it to be real, than to be a product of my imagination.

3) God gives people advice about living their lives during NDE experiences - is such advice worth listening to, or is it BS? If God gives different people conflicting advice during NDE experiences, then I say that would constitute proof that the NDE talking to God experience is hallucinatory. Just a few examples of conflicting advice would not do though - because, as with all things, data is subject to interpretation. It would require a very systematic approach to writing down the advice that is given, with researchers working apart from each other - and comparing notes after the fact. This sort of study could be conducted using Ketamine to induce NDEs.

4) If there is a God, then it would be of great comfort to people. It would bolster support for the idea that our Soul contains much of the data that constitutes our personality, and thus that a large part of ourselves does not die with physical death.

5) Positing the existence of God could be useful in speculations on just how smart an intelligence can get. Is there a maximum level of complexity before coherence breaks down, or can you achieve a degree of intelligence that is many orders of magnitude beyond what the human brain can achieve? This could be useful in AI research.

6) Positing the existence of God could give legitimacy to prayer. (although - it will not in any way prove that the efficacy of prayer was actually due to direct divine intervention). Studies showing the efficacy of intercessory prayer have been of mixed value. Herbert Benson, of the Harvard Mind/Body institute, is working on an intercessory prayer study that appears to be fairly well controlled. Perhaps his study, when it is published, will shed light on this. If it shows no effect whatsoever - then it could well show that, whether or not there is a God - he doesn't appear to answer our prayers. This would be useful to know. I see no reason to waste time praying for others if it is all in vain.

7) By positing the existence of God, we could begin to posit the nature of God. Can you have an uncaused cause? Can you have a looped chain of cause and effect? Can you have an infinite history that has not reached maximum entropy?

8) God would have to exist outside of the one dimensional time stream in which we exist. Is we posit the existence of God, then we start positing the existence of multiple dimensions of time, which someday might be a testible hypothesis.

9) If there is a God, then perhaps there is a reason for our existence. If there is a reason for our existence, then perhaps we should get busy figuring out exactly what that reason is. I think the reason for our existence inside this universe is to learn and grow, for example.




Here is what is wrong with assuming materialism:
1) Materialism ultimately is based on the idea of getting something from nothing - which I just don't buy. It sounds like intellectual hogwash to me.

2) Materialism is justification for a number of ethical behaviors that might otherwise be unjustifiable.

3) Materialism is boring. If you spend all your time in a room with closed doors, and you assume there is nothing beyond those doors, then you won't bother to get up and look beyond the doors. I think mankind needs to get busy and start looking behind the doors of reality, because, if we find something, it would be really quite fascinating.

4) Materialism assumes that when you die, that is it - you are done and gone with. Wouldn't you like to think your consciousness goes on in another form? Of course, assuming the Christian fundamentalist worldview is even worse. It assumes that the majority of people who die are going to go to Hell and be tortured for eternity just because they didn't worship the right diety - pure nastiness.

emotional

A-M, it's good to see someone take NDEs seriously. However, a caveat: NDEs are not proof of life after death. Not airtight proof; if they were, there would be no scepticism of life after death. I read NDEs literally, as a literal description of what happens to the astral body after death of the material body, but that's my own private decision, because I'm biased towards life after death. Other people (the materialists) here don't buy into that assumption, meaning that there is a latitude of interpretation of the NDEs.

I also find your objections to materialism a bit disturbing:



Quentin Smith and Vic Stenger elaborated on the scenario of "Creation Ex Nihilo Without God" - see pages here on the Secular Web Library for details. While I find their explanations a bit wide of the mark, they show materialists don't assume the idea of getting something from nothing.



This is total rubbish! The 9/11 terrorists weren't materialists, and the US prison system is filled with Christian born-agains. What unethical behaviours are you talking about?!



You mean reality isn't fascinating enough for you? Greedy greedy greedy.

Yes, I would, and in fact I do think my consciousness goes on after bodily death. However, much as I fail to comprehend it, most materialists aren't fearful of the prospect of totally ending at death. You describe a need which many people do not have. And ultimately, the question of consciousness after death is an objective truth-claim which has nothing to do with man's wishes, just like biological evolution: either all people end totally at death, or all people survive after death, regardless of what they wish of the matter.

Jinto

How is assuming something that we don't know to be true, and that we have evidence against, going to help us retro-engineer reality? After all, for ti to produce good results the universe would have to actually BE designed. This argument is assuming its conclusion.

Argumentum ad consiquatem.

You can study NDE's, but since their truthfulness has not been verified (and the best evidence indicates that they are just hallucinations), to then follow their advice is to follow advice from aqn untrustworthy source. It's analogous to following the advice of your garbageman on repairing your computer. Yeah, he might know how to do that properly, but without independent verification, it's still a bad idea.

So? Maybe some people can't handle the truth. That still doesn't provide an argument for positing a lie.

I fail completely to see the connection, and again: it's only useful if it's true. Don't assume your conclusion.

And we can do studies on the effectiveness of prayer regardless of whether a God exists or not. So this doesn't support your point.

And can you have an invisible pink unicorn? What purpose is speculating on the nature of things that don't exist (okay, fanfiction, but aside from that...)

You can test the dimensionality of the universe whether or not there is a God.

And perhaps we are the byproduct of a universe designed to produce inordinate numbers of beetles. But seriously: do you really want the 'purpose' of your life to be determined for you?

Please, Anti-Materialist, you're more intelligent than this. Don't make yourself look like an idiot.