Does God exist? (20 Viewers)

[Stevo.]

How many people have matyred themselves for a cause which may or may not exist? How many more continue to do so now? If you truly believe something, who is there to tell you otherwise whether is real or not? In their minds, they believed and would die for that belief, no matter how ridiculous it may be to others.

Also if you want to see a movie about someone who died for a cause watch The Life Of David Gale.

 

[veloc1ty]

I was reminded of another case of uncanny biblical resemblance today - Pandora's Box:

...In Greek mythology, Pandora was the first woman on earth. Zeus ordered Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship, to create her and he did, using water and earth. The gods endowed her with many talents; Aphrodite gave her beauty, Apollo music, Hermes persuasion, and so forth. Hence her name: Pandora, "all-gifted".

Pandora had a jar which she was not to open under any circumstance. Impelled by her natural curiosity, Pandora opened the jar, and all evil contained escaped and spread over the earth. She hastened to close the lid, but the whole contents of the jar had escaped...

The first woman's curiosity and lack of fortitude lead her to commit a crime (relative to a divine command) which burdens humankind with the evils of the world... sound familiar?

Nice... and I can't believe I hadn't wondered about the origin of the phrase Pandora's Box before. :O

On a rather tangential note, I find any arguments that include the Bible to be a waste of time in the end, when I disagree with more fundamental things like the source of evil and the concept of an afterlife. Often when I discuss things with theist friends they will talk of the Bible or something, diverting the discussion from the basic flaws (whether conciously or not... I guess some feel they don't want to think about the existence of god and instead simply ascribe themselves to following what they see in Jesus, which is admirable but doesn't lend itself to debate).

That rambling aside, I am thinking of asking someone I know what would have to happen for them to discontinue their belief in Catholicism (not god, let's not go that far yet)... I wonder what answer I will get.

 

[wtfisthis]

what about for all atheists and agnostics: "what would have to happen for you to believe in god?" ... any ideal happenings?

Well, there would have to be some scientific breakthrough that said they found evidence of there being a divine creator.

OR there would have to be some extremely impressive world-wide miracle of some sort.. maybe the clouds would have to part, a giant hand would have to reach down from the heavens, and a booming voice would have to tell the entirety of the human race, across all continents that they were all created.. in a language that is somehow universally understood.

 

[Hagaren]

maybe...but i'm not taking any chances.

 

[astro2]

listening to 60minutes about them finding jesus family tomb and that mary magdola becoming a very important part of taking out jesus' message around the world.

it makes me think if christians is nothing more then a old fashion 'scientology' setup.

i mean mary was the adulterous, jesus saves her, but then according to new evidence she was then later admired and a holy women and high up the ranks, this could explain why she had a son and not hated aswell.

They probably used the ancient technique, used over hundreds of years which 'john edwards' is said to use to make people believe he can talk to the dead, called "cold calling"

not to mention how can god exists if there is SUPPOSABLY 'free will' which there isn't, i mean according to jessus he 'KNEW' someone would betray him, plus if god made us and knew what we would do then we have no hope, some try to discourage this theory and say well there are different roads you choose, YOU pick them so its not gods fault, according to the rules he ALREADY knows which road you pick therefore this arguement doesn't work, it doesn't matter if you throw this 'there is more then 1 choice, and we make it' because it still comes down to he knows what choice we make, cause he made us

eitherways i dont' believe in religion anymore, not to mention its corrupted, people killing cause god made them to, allah says its ok to blow people up, buddist not allowed to drink but decide its ok (how can you decide its ok?)

people re-write religion which should be concrete and make it there own "there own religion" why believe in anything at all if you make your own rules

i.e gay priests, gays getting married in church wtf?:angry:

p.s to the last person there is no such thing as "just in case" i don't think you can go to heaven on 'lip service' only, if god exists he won't except you just because you pretend to sing at church and tell people you believe him, if you dont' really believe in your heart.

pps i think its just a western corruption, few years ago I watched news, a business that clones family pets, people said it was playing god, then next news bulletin same channel its about scientific breakthrough, having babies without men, good for lesbian couples.......wtf? how come THATS not playing god?

 

[blakegman]

Religion is a joke. My heart really does go out to teenagers who get heavily into religion. In a couple of years most of them will look back and realised they wasted the best years of their life praising some fairy sky god.

 

[Mabs]

Religion is a joke. My heart really does go out to teenagers who get heavily into religion. In a couple of years most of them will look back and realised they wasted the best years of their life praising some fairy sky god.

Invisible sky daddy*

 

[BradCube]

not to mention how can god exists if there is SUPPOSABLY 'free will' which there isn't, i mean according to jessus he 'KNEW' someone would betray him, plus if god made us and knew what we would do then we have no hope, some try to discourage this theory and say well there are different roads you choose, YOU pick them so its not gods fault, according to the rules he ALREADY knows which road you pick therefore this arguement doesn't work, it doesn't matter if you throw this 'there is more then 1 choice, and we make it' because it still comes down to he knows what choice we make, cause he made us

I used to be stumped on this particular issue. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that we cannot have free will since God knows all of our choices before they happen. Therefore, if God knew what would happen, how was it freewill on your part since he created you and the situation you are in?

The current best explanation I have found is Molinism

 

[KFunk]

The concept of free will seems, to me, to be a fairly questionable one anyway. More specifically, I object the the notion of free will which would posit, as in the case of god, an 'unmoved mover', i.e. a will which has causal efficacy (in that it can cause a body to act in certain ways) but which itself is not determined by any forces external to this. Why does this seem silly to me? Because the will then seems to be external to our beliefs, desires, values, etc... To be truly free it would have to be random (a state of affairs which could generate difficulties for the science of psychology).

If our will is to be constrained by our beliefs, desires and values (as I would want mine to be!) then it needs to be constrained by that which determines our beliefs/desires/values which, as far as I can tell, are largely imparted to me without my choosing. For example, many of my desires come in the form of hard-wired instinct (think seeking out food/security/sex), my values were likely passed down from my parents and social environment and my beliefs are largely generated by my senses (I believe there to be a computer in my room because I see one). As far as I can tell my will is constrained by these things (and I have no issue with such constraint, because these things are a significant part of who I am as a person) but given that their initial conditions seem to be established by forces external to me a form of determinism appears to obtain.

The absurd randomness of a truly free will (of the 'unmoved mover' variety) almost makes it seem like a parody.

 

[BradCube]

Maybe I am confusing what you are saying KFunk, but you seem to be confusing free will with your bodily (or otherwise found) desires (ie the food/security/sex that you mentioned). Your will is not constrained by these desires, it is what give you the ability to fulfill or deny them.

ie. you are perfectly capable of denying your desire for hunger until the point where you die - this is why your will is free

Because the will then seems to be external to our beliefs, desires, values, etc... To be truly free it would have to be random

Not sure that I agree with this. For will to be truly free it doesn't have to be random - it must have the ability to act whatever way it chooses.

 

[KFunk]

Maybe I am confusing what you are saying KFunk, but you seem to be confusing free will with your bodily (or otherwise found) desires (ie the food/security/sex that you mentioned). Your will is not constrained by these desires, it is what give you the ability to fulfill or deny them.

Yes and no. I'm not confusing them as such, but rather I am explaining away 'free will₁' (the unmoved mover kind) whilst putting in place 'free will₂' which is constrained by all the aforementioned factors. Free will₂ might be seen as free in so far as it is able to represent you as a person free of external constraints (of certain kinds... naturally it is constrained by at least some). More will be explained below. I am more than willing to answer any rebutals you might have.

Not sure that I agree with this. For will to be truly free it doesn't have to be random - it must have the ability to act whatever way it chooses.

But then what causes a truly free will to choose one action and not another? If there is a complete absence of guiding factors (i.e. factors which could consist of beliefs, desires, values...) then there is no reason why we should expect a will to choose any action in particular. It is only by virtue of being constrained that the will can:

a) possess relevance to who we are as people (by taking into account our beliefs, desires and values - which an unguided will cannot)
&
b) be seen to act with any order/sense/pattern/rationality, i.e. to act in any non-random way

A will which is entirely unconstrained can't even begin to represent us as people, since it is only by being limited by the parameters which make us who we are that it can even begin to do so. Truly free will (free will₁) doesn't make sense in the context of science, it doesn't make sense in the context of us as persons (in being unable to possess personal relevance) and it is even highly questionable in the context of metaphysics (on the grounds that naturalism can explain why we act as we do by means of science without recourse to a 'spooky', non-natural, unmoved substance).

 

[catty123]

no

 

[BradCube]

Yes and no. I'm not confusing them as such, but rather I am explaining away 'free will₁' (the unmoved mover kind) whilst putting in place 'free will₂' which is constrained by all the aforementioned factors. Free will₂ might be seen as free in so far as it is able to represent you as a person free of external constraints (of certain kinds... naturally it is constrained by at least some). More will be explained below. I am more than willing to answer any rebutals you might have.

I think you're going to have to explain your reasons for believing that free will₁ is not valid while free will₂ is completely valid.

Here are three problems that I find with your own definition of free will.

1. The ability for you to form you're own beliefs (about Gods existence and indeed your free will) indicates that you must have been able to make a choice on what to believe. It seems to me that it would be circular logic to say that your beliefs are what cause your free will to act in the way it does.

2. If your free will is only driven by what conditions you are placed in, then you cannot be held accountable for any decision you make. For example, a murderer could not be held accountable for their actions because it was simply a result of the conditions they were placed in. They were bound to make that choice (hence making it involuntary).

3. If free will can only be driven by what is a rational decision (rational being based on your beliefs, values etc) - then surely it follows that it is impossible to make an irrational decision?

But then what causes a truly free will to choose one action and not another? If there is a complete absence of guiding factors (i.e. factors which could consist of beliefs, desires, values...) then there is no reason why we should expect a will to choose any action in particular.

What causes an agent to choose one particular action over another is external to that agents ability to choose one action over another. Like you said it is rationality that generally causes us to choose one action over another. This however does not affect our ability to choose the other action. It is through this rationality in the decision making process that enables us to achieve relevance to who we are as people and to be seen to act with any order or sense.

 

[BradCube]

theres statistical evidence, which shows that people born into a country like afghanistan (99% muslim) are significantly less likely to become christian (obviously):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_religion
"whatever way it chooses" is largely biased to, as KFunk said "parents and social environment ".

I think we both agree that the "way it chooses" will be influenced by its beliefs, parents, social environment etc. However, that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that it has the ability to choose another action. Surely the fact that Afghanistan doesn't have a 100% Muslim population shows that not all people living their involuntarily choose to be Muslim. ie - they have an ability to choose otherwise.

i would argue that even the most passionate and out spoken atheist, if "given", at some stage a different "parameter", he too could have possibly become a 100% believer in god. it is these parameters which influence our ability and not vise versa (otherwise there would be no correlation between physical location and religion).

Your very point here seems to be self defeating, because it shows that the person has the ability to choose otherwise to what they are now. You are saying that he could choose to become an atheist and under other conditions he could choose to become a believer in god. Of course those changes in parameters may influence which way they choose, but it was them that chose nevertheless.

How then could god judge an atheist justly knowing that he was unlucky enough to be given certain uncontrollable conditions which shaped his way of thinking and entire life?

Because if free will exists, then that atheist has the ability to change their conditions and seek out other information to what they are given. It also means that it was the atheist personal choice to be an atheist - and hence he/she is wholly responsible for making that decision.

 

[KFunk]

I think you're going to have to explain your reasons for believing that free will₁ is not valid while free will₂ is completely valid.

Here are three problems that I find with your own definition of free will.

1. The ability for you to form you're own beliefs (about Gods existence and indeed your free will) indicates that you must have been able to make a choice on what to believe. It seems to me that it would be circular logic to say that your beliefs are what cause your free will to act in the way it does.

2. If your free will is only driven by what conditions you are placed in, then you cannot be held accountable for any decision you make. For example, a murderer could not be held accountable for their actions because it was simply a result of the conditions they were placed in. They were bound to make that choice (hence making it involuntary).

3. If free will can only be driven by what is a rational decision (rational being based on your beliefs, values etc) - then surely it follows that it is impossible to make an irrational decision?

(1) Beliefs can exist in the absence of free will. A lot of our beliefs seem to be explainable by means of deterministic cognitive processes, e.g. the visual input/recognition of a bass guitar acts to form the belief that there is a bass guitar in my room. In some cases rational reflection may be involved, but this process can be deterministic also.

(2) Yes, I agree with this conclusion. I've argued in another thread that people cannot be seen as ultimately responsible for their actions if we reject free will₁. Nonetheless, attenuated concepts of responsibility/accountability can be introduced for their social utility.

(3) That depends on how you define rationality. It seems clear to me that our brain isn't perfectly optimized for rationality - in particular we often have poor judegment when it comes to decisions involving really large/small quantities for which we tend to have a poor base of intuition. But this is on an external conception of rationality which uses a base concept of rationality with which to judge people's actions. An alternative would be to define rationality in subjective terms so that an action is rational depending on one's beliefs, values etc.

 

[BradCube]

(1) Beliefs can exist in the absence of free will. A lot of our beliefs seem to be explainable by means of deterministic cognitive processes, e.g. the visual input/recognition of a bass guitar acts to form the belief that there is a bass guitar in my room. In some cases rational reflection may be involved, but this process can be deterministic also.

(2) Yes, I agree with this conclusion. I've argued in another thread that people cannot be seen as ultimately responsible for their actions if we reject free will₁. Nonetheless, attenuated concepts of responsibility/accountability can be introduced for their social utility.

(3) That depends on how you define rationality. It seems clear to me that our brain isn't perfectly optimized for rationality - in particular we often have poor judegment when it comes to decisions involving really large/small quantities for which we tend to have a poor base of intuition. But this is on an external conception of rationality which uses a base concept of rationality with which to judge people's actions. An alternative would be to define rationality in subjective terms so that an action is rational depending on one's beliefs, values etc.

1. Not sure that I agree with this. I believe we appear to have no free will in this case simply because it is what we rely on as being true for the entirety of our lives. If however, you had constant hallucinations of bass guitars in your room, would you still believe that it was there with without question - or would you test that belief in order to make the choice of whether you believe in its apparent reality?

2. So you would say that you cannot be held responsible for any of your actions?

3. I think you may have missed the point of what I am saying here. Lets say we are presented with a choice that has only two options - one extremely rational, one extremely irrational. Are you saying that we lack any ability at all to chose the irrational one?

 

[KFunk]

What causes an agent to choose one particular action over another is external to that agents ability to choose one action over another. Like you said it is rationality that generally causes us to choose one action over another. This however does not affect our ability to choose the other action. It is through this rationality in the decision making process that enables us to achieve relevance to who we are as people and to be seen to act with any order or sense.

But then you have to find a way of explaining how rationality manages to affect the choices of the will. In particular, you have said that having a free will₁ means that you could have chosen otherwise. Alright, so lets suppose that we have a decision set for any given agent which is constrained by logical/physical possibility:

{d₁, d₂, ... , d_n, ...}

At some point an agent will choose an action (/make a decision) which involves selecting some decision d_n. The question then is, why was d_n chosen and not one of the other options? If the choice is determined by some criterion of rationality then, in effect, the choice is not properly free, but is instead constrained by this principle of rationality.

As soon as you provide a reason for some decision d_n you introduce a factor which has determined or constrained your choice. If no reason can be provided then the decision becomes arbitrary/random.


Why do I reject free will₁ in favour of free will₂? Largely because a naturalistic explanation of why we act the way we do can be provided within a scientific framework without recourse to a supernatural substance (supernatural in that it involves one-way causal isolation from the natural world). It is even plausible that we might provide an explanation of why we even came to believe in free will of the 'unmoved mover' variety (e.g. perhaps it has social utility given the associated notions of moral responsibility and blame). If we turn to occam's razor then given that we can explain human actions in (more or less deterministic) naturalistic terms it becomes intellectually irresponsible, if one respects the razor, to postulate supernatural entities such as an 'umoved' free will. Add to this the fact that a truly free will is somewhat incoherent with our knowledge of ourselves, given the randomness it would involve, and I think there is good reason to reject the concept of an absolutely free will.

 

[KFunk]

1. Not sure that I agree with this. I believe we appear to have no free will in this case simply because it is what we rely on as being true for the entirety of our lives. If however, you had constant hallucinations of bass guitars in your room, would you still believe that it was there with without question - or would you test that belief in order to make the choice of whether you believe in its apparent reality?

2. So you would say that you cannot be held responsible for any of your actions?

3. I think you may have missed the point of what I am saying here. Lets say we are presented with a choice that has only two options - one extremely rational, one extremely irrational. Are you saying that we lack any ability at all to chose the irrational one?

(1) Note that people who have bona fide psychiatric hallucinations will often believe what they see/hear/smell/etc. Sure, a person who believes they spoke to Jimi Hendrix in the year 2007 harbours a false belief. All this tells us is that the belief-forming processes in our brain can go awry and generate false beliefs (look to psychological literature for our susceptibility to various illusions). Natural selection does not ensure that we are optimised to always form true/rational beliefs - it is enough that things work out in day to day situations (beyond that, science enters the picture... but I geuss that's a whole other issue).

(2) No, not in any sense that requires free will. However, I am responsible as a person in so far as my actions are determined by who I am as a person. Certainly, I am not the ultimate determinant of who I am (I am not self causing) but I don't think this really matters - I can still endorse a weak form of responsibility for actions which result from me as a person.

(3) It depends on how rationality is defined. If it is an external judgement then of course it is possible for a person to perform the irrational action. On the other hand, if the definition depends on the individual's subjective state then it will vary from definition to definition. As far as I know there is no single clear definition of what it is to be rational.

 

[BradCube]

At some point an agent will choose an action (/make a decision) which involves selecting some decision d_n. The question then is, why was d_n chosen and not one of the other options? If the choice is determined by some criterion of rationality then, in effect, the choice is not properly free, but is instead constrained by this principle of rationality.

Yeah, of course, the agents choices will be influenced by rationality in the decision making process. However this does not take away from the fact that it is was the agent who personally made that choice - whatever it was. Hence the agent is still responsible for the choice they made because they were the ones that made it.

I must say thank you though KFunk, you're really making me think this through properly.

 

[BradCube]

(2) Certainly, I am not the ultimate determinant of who I am (I am not self causing) but I don't think this really matters - I can still endorse a weak form of responsibility for actions which result from me as a person.

Even if you are not responsible for who you are as a person?

(3) It depends on how rationality is defined. If it is an external judgement then of course it is possible for a person to perform the irrational action. On the other hand, if the definition depends on the individual's subjective state then it will vary from definition to definition. As far as I know there is no single clear definition of what it is to be rational.

By my logic it does not depend on how rationality is defined - it only matters that the individual believes one choice is rational and the other irrational. By your logic it is impossible for them to choose to carry out what they believe is the irrational option.