Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[Stranger]

Oh I may one day, when you answer my question, TRUTH, HONESTY, SYMPATHY, COMPASSION, COURAGE, WISDOM, the list is endless, just things off the top of your head or probably, tell me these are things you think deeply about and I won't have to answer your question, you will know

The list probably is endless, so I've no idea what you're really even asking. Can we even rank human virtues? What relationship do you think they have to your so far meaningless gibberish word 'God'?

And, no, I just don't believe you when you say that thinking about human virtues will mean I will know what's going on in your head and what the fuck you mean by 'God'. Sorry.

[Stranger]

I’m only suggesting that randomness is one of at least two types of freedom.

How the hell can it relate to free will at all?

I don’t think you can successfully argue determinism and the absence of  an ultimate determiner as it were, and this ultimate determiner we call the necessary entity.

No, we don't. To the (unknown) extent that things are deterministic, we as yet have no idea if it stretches back infinitely, or if it is closed off in some way, where determinism breaks down, ends in a loop, or something else.

It doesn't change the argument that when things are changing with time, there can only be fully deterministic changes or ones that involve some degree of randomness.

[Free Willy]

How the hell can it relate to free will at all?

No, we don't. To the (unknown) extent that things are deterministic, we as yet have no idea if it stretches back infinitely, or if it is closed off in some way, where determinism breaks down, ends in a loop, or something else.

It doesn't change the gs are changing with time, there can only be fully deterministic changes or ones that involve some degree of randomness.

Suggesting it may not go back infinitely hardly constitutes "fantasy" as you suggest....and if it doesn't go back infinitely there would be an ultimate determiner.
In the meantime though since you support sufficient reason. What would be the reason for this infinity rather than a finite...or nothing at all?

[Stranger]

Suggesting it may not go back infinitely hardly constitutes "fantasy" as you suggest..

English comprehension still seems to be a skill you haven't mastered. I said you haven't shown that a 'necessary entity' is anything else. That is billions of light-years away from saying a finite past is fantasy.

..and if it doesn't go back infinitely there would be an ultimate determiner.

This is not clear, but it could be random or some brute fact, or indeed, a loop. Hawking suggested that time becomes space-like, so time development and hence determinism would stop being relevant.

In the meantime though since you support sufficient reason...

Who said I did? I'm not arguing for universal determinism, just that the only alternative is randomness. The PSR is already looking dodgy due to quantum theory.

[Free Willy]

English comprehension still seems to be a skill you haven't mastered. I said you haven't shown that a 'necessary entity' is anything else. That is billions of light-years away from saying a finite past is fantasy.

This is not clear, but it could be random or some brute fact, or indeed, a loop. Hawking suggested that time becomes space-like, so time development and hence determinism would stop being relevant.

Who said I did? I'm not arguing for universal determinism, just that the only alternative is randomness. The PSR is already looking dodgy due to quantum theory.

And yet your argument that there is no such thing as free will depends on there being reasons.
Is the PSR looking sufficiently Dodgy though? Can something from nothing be counted as Random, since nothing is not a thing let alone a context?

[Stranger]

And yet your argument that there is no such thing as free will depends on there being reasons.

No, it doesn't.   

It depends on there being reasons (determinism) and not (randomness), in some combination.

Can something from nothing be counted as Random, since nothing is not a thing let alone a context?

Something from (literally) nothing is gibberish.

[Gonnagle]

The list probably is endless, so I've no idea what you're really even asking. Can we even rank human virtues? What relationship do you think they have to your so far meaningless gibberish word 'God'?

And, no, I just don't believe you when you say that thinking about human virtues will mean I will know what's going on in your head and what the fuck you mean by 'God'. Sorry.

Dear Stranger,

No, my turn to apologise ( careful Gonnagle, tread lightly, don't scare the natives ) sorry✝️ that's a Christian apology, it will mean nothing to you but it means a lot to me, but you do raise a very important question Can we even rank human virtues? personally for me ( FFS, do I  need to state this everytime I post ) Compassion for me this is the highest virtue, and the little I know of other religions, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity this virtue shines through.

But I am very open to debate on this subject and we can leave God out of the conversation ( sure he/she/it won't mind ) is Compassion the highest virtue?

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it is both helpful and honest since beliefs exist and are an essential and substantial part of the human experience.

Of course religions consider god to be true for everyone - the belief would not work otherwise so why would they consider them to only be 'true for me'? Kind of defeats the point of the belief. Like many beliefs relating to morality that people hold, they think it should be true for everyone and that those who do not share their belief are making misguided choices/ following a misguided way of living their life. Of course that is not the case for all beliefs as there are many beliefs that people hold as 'true for me' but it probably applies to the really important core beliefs that you think define who you are and what you stand for. You are unlikely to adopt a neutral stance on those.

I think we are talking at cross purposes.

My comment that you responded to was about whether god is considered to be objectively true (true for everyone) or merely subjectively true (true for me if I believe, but not necessarily true for you if you don't believe). That was a response to your comment below:

'I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I meant God as a concept, an idea, a thought, a tool.'

That read to me that you were talking about god being merely a subjective true for me, but not necessarily true for you thing. This would be consistent with the notion of a concept or an idea, rather that something that objectively exists for everyone, regardless of whether people believe in god or not.

However I glad that you have now confirmed that both you and I consider that religions consider god to objectively exist. And the notion that god is merely a subjective 'true for me' thing rather makes the whole discussion of theism vs atheism and its implications irrelevant as it merely boils down to the equivalent of whether you like rap music or baroque music.

[ProfessorDavey]

So we agree on that.

We have been discussing quote mining upthread ... and this is a humdinger. Why have you omitted the next sentence which gives the earlier one meaning in the context of our discussion. What I actually said was:

'Of course there is a choice in looking at things from different perspectives and that is fundamentally a good thing and not just in the case of (a)theism. But that is completely different from a choice in believing something or not believing in something - I can no more choose to wake up tomorrow and believe in god than you can choose tomorrow to wake up and not believe in god. We might change our minds over time, but that is a different matter as that isn't the same as choosing to believe or not believe in god in the same manner as choosing to have cereal or toast for breakfast.'

My point being that while looking at things from different perspectives is valuable (and we can choose to do it or not) it is not the same as being able to choose to believe in something one moment and then choose not to believe in that thing the next moment. Which was me disagreeing with my interpretation (I may have been wrong, please correct me if I was) of your point:

'Some people find their life works better for them without a god in it because of their nature and experiences which go towards them deciding who they want to be.'

Which implied to me that you felt that people could simply choose not to believe in god if they felt that would make their life work better. I don't think that is true.

So when you don't quote mine you will see that I wasn't agreeing with you unless my interpretation of your post was wrong and that you do not think that people can simply choose whether or not to believe in god, as they would choose their breakfast cereal. In which case ... glad you agree with me.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see it as very different. You make it sound as though atheists don't also form identities where they decide who they want to be and what they stand for, and then evaluate their choices against their ethics/ moral beliefs/ core values that form their identity ...which they picked up from reading philosophy books or the culture they were brought up in and by aligning themselves with a particular philosophical idea/ political party ideology or cultural norm.

I think there are very important differences.

Specifically if you are a christian (as an example) you already have a very clear roadmap set out for you as there are christian teachings, scriptures etc etc. An atheist is not like that - atheism is defined as a lack of something (in this case a belief in god) so there is no clear road map, anymore than there might be a clear roadmap for people who do not believe in Thor or who aren't christians.

It is possible, of course that someone who does not believe in the christian god might have a clear roadmap (e.g. if they believed in the hindu gods or had a strong belief in socialism through upbringing) but that again is different.

So what you implying is that some atheists might have a roadmap, but that wouldn't necessarily have any relevance to their atheism (christians can also have a particular political viewpoint etc etc) but there is no 'atheist roadmap' in the manner that there is for religions.

[Stranger]

Compassion for me this is the highest virtue, and the little I know of other religions, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity this virtue shines through.

I agree that compassion is extremely important, but can we even really treat virtues in isolation in order to rank them? Compassion seems inextricably linked to empathy and generosity, to me.

I'd also hesitate to make such generalisation about religions. I mentioned compassion and empathy elsewhere when talking about the basis or morality and immediately got told by a Christian that I was neglecting justice.

But I am very open to debate on this subject and we can leave God out of the conversation ( sure he/she/it won't mind ) is Compassion the highest virtue?

But you first said that God was the greatest human virtues and then contradicted yourself, and now, apparently, it can mind or not about how we're talking about those things.

[Gonnagle]

I agree that compassion is extremely important, but can we even really treat virtues in isolation in order to rank them? Compassion seems inextricably linked to empathy and generosity, to me.

I'd also hesitate to make such generalisation about religions. I mentioned compassion and empathy elsewhere when talking about the basis or morality and immediately got told by a Christian that I was neglecting justice.

But you first said that God was the greatest human virtues and then contradicted yourself, and now, apparently, it can mind or not about how we're talking about those things.

Dear Stranger,

I will really have to stop doing this, 

but can we even really treat virtues in isolation in order to rank them?
no but should we?
Compassion seems inextricably linked to empathy and generosity, to me. but we need to start somewhere, well done👍


But you first said that God was the greatest human virtues and then contradicted yourself, and now, apparently, it can mind or not about how we're talking about those things.

Did I, I really don't remember the contradiction but you may very well be right ( human! what's your excuse ) but why would God mind, two humans talking about virtues, he is probably having a cuppa and a celestial biscuit and thinking, oh this could be interesting.

Gonnagle.

[Maeght]

Dear Maeght,

Maeght ( wee mate, aright mate, I like replying to wee Maeght ) aye okay I am not the most sensible poster on here, guilty yer honour but I am going to get all Atheist on yer ass, EVIDENCE Sir, EVIDENCE

Now my evidence is simple, why the fuck do we keep banging on about the God no God question, do you actually know how old this forum is and how old its former self is, the good old BBC forum, AH!! Halcyon days .

But now ( as I put pen to email ) yes this old forum has knocked some corners off me, thank you forum but I would still argue your "mostly" and shout for EVIDENCE.

To end 🎵and now the end is near and so I face the final curtain🎵 this forum, a question, can it be used as a force for good, climate change perhaps? is there any mileage in that, Mods over to you.

Mostly sensible posters my ass, few and far between.

And then along comes Gabriella to knock my whole argument for six ( why the hell am I using cricketing terms ) but no, you used the word "mostly" not "some".

Gonnagle.

Evidence of what? if it is sensible posters you just have to look at the sensible, well written, and CLEAR posts most people have posted.

In regard to the age of the forum, yes I do. I was on the BBC forum before this one. I initially posted to find out more about why people believe and to clarify what at least one atheists thinks. I still don't really understand why, I'm still waiting for good evidence for God or gods and still see views being expressed about atheists which doesn't represent what this one atheist thinks, so keep dipping in and posting now and again.

[Sriram]

You seem to have missed the point. It's impossible to 'build in', or for anybody to have, freedom is the sense of being able to do differently without randomness. Perhaps read back a bit to see the context?

Superstition. 

You talk a lot about determinism but depend almost entirely on randomness to explain complexity......which is ubiquitous.

What you call randomness is that window where intelligent intervention happens from outside the system.....complexity arises, emergent properties arise, individual freedom exists etc.

[Nearly Sane]

You talk a lot about determinism but depend almost entirely on randomness to explain complexity......which is ubiquitous.

What you call randomness is that window where intelligent intervention happens from outside the system.....complexity arises, emergent properties arise, individual freedom exists etc.

Talking about intelligent influence from 'outside a system' doesn't deal in any sense with the issue of determinism since that 'influence' is still based on reason and therefore is not 'free' in the sense that Alan Burns seems to use it.

Note the sense that 'free' is used by AB and generally is so badly defined that it's difficult to be clear what it means.

[Stranger]

but can we even really treat virtues in isolation in order to rank them?
no but should we?

I dunno. 

Compassion seems inextricably linked to empathy and generosity, to me. but we need to start somewhere, well done👍

Do we? You seem to have forgotten that this is your idea, because, apparently, it's relevant to God, or is God or..., well fuck knows...

But you first said that God was the greatest human virtues and then contradicted yourself, and now, apparently, it can mind or not about how we're talking about those things.

Did I, I really don't remember the contradiction...

Allow me to remind you:

God is every best quality that any man can hope to rise too...

...and just to add, God is real as real as you and me but only realer, much more realer...

There was also Dicky's comment about "sexed up atheism".

[Stranger]

You talk a lot about determinism but depend almost entirely on randomness to explain complexity......which is ubiquitous.

Firstly, my argument is about determinism and its alternative, true randomness.

Secondly, if you're talking about evolution, there is no need for true randomness, just effective randomness. And, of course, the process of evolution is not random because natural selection isn't (neither is it a metaphor).

What you call randomness is that window where intelligent intervention happens from outside the system.....complexity arises, emergent properties arise, individual freedom exists etc.

More superstition. 

[Free Willy]

Firstly, my argument is about determinism and its alternative, true randomness.

Secondly, if you're talking about evolution, there is no need for true randomness, just effective randomness. And, of course, the process of evolution is not random because natural selection isn't (neither is it a metaphor).

More superstition. 

You are still a bit light on randomness and morality though. And morality is really the ground that theological free will operates.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are still a bit light on randomness and morality though. And morality is really the ground that theological free will operates.

But morality (while important to one species on one planet existing in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms) is pretty well irrelevant in any broader sense. To consider morality to be a huge deal in cosmic terms is anthropocentricity in the extreme.

And, of course, the human species and human morality are a by product of evolution.

[Free Willy]

But morality (while important to one species on one planet existing in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms) is pretty well irrelevant in any broader sense. To consider morality to be a huge deal in cosmic terms is anthropocentricity in the extreme.

"This is a size matters argument on your part.
However we can pretty much know that as values skyrocket and
Physics breaks down as we fall into a singularity, 1 +1 will still equal2 and murder will still be murder. 

[Gordon]

You are still a bit light on randomness and morality though. And morality is really the ground that theological free will operates.

So what exactly is 'theological free will' as opposed to 'free will'?

[ProfessorDavey]

"This is a size matters argument on your part.
However we can pretty much know that as values skyrocket and
Physics breaks down as we fall into a singularity, 1 +1 will still equal2 and murder will still be murder.

No it isn't - humans don't need to exist in the universe, and don't exist in 99.99999....% of the universe nor nor for 99.999...% of cosmic time. So human morality and the concept of murder (a human definition) do not need to exist and did not exist for most of cosmic time.

Morality and murder are irrelevant in a cosmic sense, even if they are important to one species on one planet in the blink of an eye. To equate that to cosmic important demonstrates no sense of perspective and is achingly anthropocentric (seeing the cosmos in human terms).

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof, good morning to you

This anthropocentricity, Just asked AI for a definition, but would you say this is basically just an ego thing, sorry for the interruption but just wondering.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof, good morning to you

This anthropocentricity, Just asked AI for a definition, but would you say this is basically just an ego thing, sorry for the interruption but just wondering.

Gonnagle.

Morning Gonners

We've discussed this before:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropocentric

Typically I am thinking of the second definition:

'interpreting or regarding the [universe] in terms of human values and experiences' - my edit.

But Vlad's attitudes (that human morality are critically important when discussing things at a cosmic level) also fit squarely with the first definition:

'considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe'

[Free Willy]

So what exactly is 'theological free will' as opposed to 'free will'?

It's free will in the exercise of morality and moral choice
Since morality is part and parcel of the arena of human behaviour. So the freedom we have is to follow God and/ or his commandments or reject him.

Naturalist views on behaviour veer towards the mechanistic and deterministic.