Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Carter Blunt]

Atheism and theisms are two sides of a coin for which there is no other choice; like having sex and virginity.

That... was the point. I was answering absurdity with absurdity. Then he said he drops the pretext of logic, so I abused logic. Hopefully he agrees with me now. Lol.

[value]

I am not religious and I am also not an atheist which is a religion in my opinion.
...
I prefer to step outside the boundaries of dialectical reasoning.

Atheism and theisms are two sides of a coin for which there is no other choice; like having sex and virginity.

Anything else is an abuse of language.

That is invalid. It is a dogma to subject one's self to the limit imposed by dialectical logic.

You once mentioned the following which indicates that such a dogma results in an absurd limited scope of 'options'.

There are 4 possible states of the universe.

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
2) A universe with no beginning but with and end.
3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
4) A universe with a beginning and an end.

These supposed 'only options' can be reduced to:

1. the universe magically always existed
2. the universe magically sprung into existence from nothing

The absurdness of both options must provide a strong clue that it is not justified to maintain the dogma that one is subjected to the limit imposed by dialectical logic.

At question could be, for example, how a logically limited 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.

Therefore (philosophically and in my opinion) one is step outside the boundaries of dialectical reasoning when one intends to explain the fundamental nature of the cosmos.

[value]

Value

Your entire line of reasoning is just fine, except:
"It is false to claim that there is no alternative. One would just have to look at the prophecy of Albert Einstein or the idea of non-locality being applicable to reality (in real time) to know that the why question of the cosmos cannot be limited to an idea of existence or non-existence within the boundaries of logic".

Without the [Reason] there would be no such question "WHY" and the following doesn't make sense without the [Reason]:

"Residing in the essence of philosophical exploration on behalf of what can be considered 'good' has no name other than the pursuit of virtue or a 'moral life'. It doesn't require any dogma or belief".

The denoted Why question of the cosmos isn't bound by reason. It denotes a fundamental inquiry into the purpose or meaning of existence (Being itself). That which it intends to inquire doesn't depend on the question being asked (it's inquiry spans beyond Being itself).

With regard the concept reason to be foundational.

In my opinion philosophical exploration (sensing) on behalf of (what can be considered) 'good' is the foundation of reason and not the other way around.

Reason is an illusive concept. As an example. Kant considers reason to be 'given' by nature to serve a purpose and he never went into depth about the nature of reason.

"we might note that Kant rarely discusses reason as such. This leaves a difficult interpretative task: just what is Kant’s general and positive account of reason?

The first thing to note is Kant’s bold claim that reason is the arbiter of truth in all judgments—empirical as well as metaphysical. Unfortunately, he barely develops this thought, and the issue has attracted surprisingly little attention in the literature."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/

I have searched for Kant's view on the origin of reason and one of the only references that I noticed in the Critique of Pure Reason is the following:

"Nevertheless, reason is given to us as a practical faculty, that is, one that is meant to have an influence on the will."

Not much more appears to be said about the origin of reason.

In my opinion sensing - the act of valuing or 'signification' - fundamentally underlays the world and it requires a concept that can be denoted as 'good'. It explains the following notion by French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today.

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness." (Levinas in film Absent God 1:06:22)

It would imply that conscious 'options' involve a moral reasoning component and that reason itself is a product (Kant's given by nature argument) that follows the essence of philosophical consideration 'on behalf of' what can be considered 'good'.

[Pattern-chaser]

"an event being random, uncaused" - This is another gem often claimed as being "obvious". I'm unaware of any event ever to be "uncaused", so I'll relegate it to the realm of imagination.

I think that's a shame. You think, because you know of no supporting example, that you should dismiss the idea? Such a lack of flexibility surely makes learning very difficult?

[Sculptor1]

Atheism and theisms are two sides of a coin for which there is no other choice; like having sex and virginity.

That... was the point. I was answering absurdity with absurdity. Then he said he drops the pretext of logic, so I abused logic. Hopefully he agrees with me now. Lol.

good luck with that!!

[Sculptor1]

I am not religious and I am also not an atheist which is a religion in my opinion.
...
I prefer to step outside the boundaries of dialectical reasoning.

Atheism and theisms are two sides of a coin for which there is no other choice; like having sex and virginity.

Anything else is an abuse of language.

That is invalid. It is a dogma to subject one's self to the limit imposed by dialectical logic.

But you claim to want to step outside the dialectic!!


Presumably to a magical land where all the words have only the meanings you want them to have.
Lewis Carrol called it "WONDERLAND". But this is a philosophy Forum and as such we need to have respect for definitions.

[Sculptor1]

"an event being random, uncaused" - This is another gem often claimed as being "obvious". I'm unaware of any event ever to be "uncaused", so I'll relegate it to the realm of imagination.

I think that's a shame. You think, because you know of no supporting example, that you should dismiss the idea? Such a lack of flexibility surely makes learning very difficult?

Yes its such a shame when you've never actually seen the Blugbatter Beast of Trall, yet so want to believe in him remarkable Beastly BLugginess.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.Ludwig Wittgenstein

[value]

That is invalid. It is a dogma to subject one's self to the limit imposed by dialectical logic.

But you claim to want to step outside the dialectic!!

Kant mentioned the following about dialectical logic in The Critique of Pure Reason (Second Part—TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC - III - Of the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic.)

Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this term (dialectic) for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of it, that with them it was nothing else than a logic of illusion—a sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional sophistries, the colouring of truth...
...
[dialectical logic] is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy.
...
These sophistical assertions of dialectic open, as it were, a battle-field, where that side obtains the victory which has been permitted to make the attack, and he is compelled to yield who has been unfortunately obliged to stand on the defensive. And hence, champions of ability, whether on the right or on the wrong side, are certain to carry away the crown of victory, if they only take care to have the right to make the last attack, and are not obliged to sustain another onset from their opponent. ... Perhaps, after they have wearied more than injured each other, they will discover the nothingness of their cause of quarrel and part good friends.

Presumably to a magical land where all the words have only the meanings you want them to have.
Lewis Carrol called it "WONDERLAND". But this is a philosophy Forum and as such we need to have respect for definitions.

Albert Einstein called it "an attempt to breathe in empty space" but should that hinder philosophy to continue its pursuit?

"Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

My argument: the why question of the cosmos cannot be limited to an idea of existence or non-existence within the boundaries of logic. Therefore your argument that one is either a theist or an atheist is false. Both theism and atheism are based on a dogma.

[Ranvier]

Value

"The denoted Why question of the cosmos isn't bound by reason. It denotes a fundamental inquiry into the purpose or meaning of existence (Being itself). That which it intends to inquire doesn't depend on the question being asked (it's inquiry spans beyond Being itself)".

How did you arrive to this conclusion without the [reason]? - "The denoted Why question of the cosmos isn't bound by reason".
In my estimation the "inquiry" you describe is [Reason].

There was a [Reason] for emergence of this universe where particles and anti-particles engaged in a combat, which particles won from [Reason] to form physical matter. There was a [Reason] why these particles of matter assembled into more complex elements on the periodic table, as there was a [Reason] why they eventually formed organic compounds, which then from this [Reason] formed the first life. From the same [Reason] life continued to evolve to become a much more complex "life", capable of asking for the first time the question "WHY?".

Can you appreciate this pattern of [Reason]?

You: "In my opinion philosophical exploration (sensing) on behalf of (what can be considered) 'good' is the foundation of reason and not the other way around".

I respect your opinion but I highly disagree. For one "sensing" didn't emerge until life and your sentiment offers no explanation for the patterns prior to life. Not a very sophisticated word "better", from my contemplations is one of the fundamental principles of [Reason], which can be interpreted as 'good' but it wouldn't be necessarily true.

You: "Reason is an illusive concept. As an example. Kant considers reason to be 'given' by nature to serve a purpose and he never went into depth about the nature of reason".

I don't require Kant or any other philosopher. Kant was often conflating [Reason] with "reasoning", I'm not. The body has a "purpose" the mind has access to [Reason]. From my own contemplations, after all [Reason] is God to all concepts; without the [Reason] we might still be a "mindless" earthworm or inorganic molecules forming a common pebble on the ground.

[Ranvier]

"an event being random, uncaused" - This is another gem often claimed as being "obvious". I'm unaware of any event ever to be "uncaused", so I'll relegate it to the realm of imagination.

I think that's a shame. You think, because you know of no supporting example, that you should dismiss the idea? Such a lack of flexibility surely makes learning very difficult?

Is that how you interpret what I wrote: "...relegate it to the realm of imagination."
On the contrary, it makes my learning more focused but always with the "abstract" in the background of my imagination.

[Sculptor1]

That is invalid. It is a dogma to subject one's self to the limit imposed by dialectical logic.

But you claim to want to step outside the dialectic!!

Kant mentioned the following about dialectical logic in The Critique of Pure Reason (Second Part—TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC - III - Of the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic.)

Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this term (dialectic) for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of it, that with them it was nothing else than a logic of illusion—a sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional sophistries, the colouring of truth...
...
[dialectical logic] is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy.
...
These sophistical assertions of dialectic open, as it were, a battle-field, where that side obtains the victory which has been permitted to make the attack, and he is compelled to yield who has been unfortunately obliged to stand on the defensive. And hence, champions of ability, whether on the right or on the wrong side, are certain to carry away the crown of victory, if they only take care to have the right to make the last attack, and are not obliged to sustain another onset from their opponent. ... Perhaps, after they have wearied more than injured each other, they will discover the nothingness of their cause of quarrel and part good friends.

Presumably to a magical land where all the words have only the meanings you want them to have.
Lewis Carrol called it "WONDERLAND". But this is a philosophy Forum and as such we need to have respect for definitions.

Albert Einstein called it "an attempt to breathe in empty space" but should that hinder philosophy to continue its pursuit?

"Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

My argument: the why question of the cosmos cannot be limited to an idea of existence or non-existence within the boundaries of logic. Therefore your argument that one is either a theist or an atheist is false. Both theism and atheism are based on a dogma.

I can see you are very clever at copy paste. But that does not change the facts of the matter, nor do your quotes advance any kind of argument in your favour.

[LuckyR]

"How are choices made?" This is one of the most profound questions about "consciousness".

No it is not.
Maybe I should re-phrase? How do YOU make a choice?
I mean just in the ordinary day to day sense of the word. You made a choice. What was happening?

You continue to ask this question, "simply", as it's something obvious in your mind, as we all should somehow "know" what "consciousness" actually is. That would be just fine, except what your proposed: "determined choice" doesn't make sense.

"If a choice were "free" would we not be flouting the most basic fabric of the universe by being able to ignore cause and effect?"
How so? How would "free Will" violate cause and effect, when your Will is the "cause"?

If you could have chosen otherwise then none of our choices are valid.
If you have the option of chocolate or strawberry ice-cream, you cannot choses vanilla.
But the truth is that before you have the option your choice is already determined with as much surety as not having vanilla.
If your choice is chocolate then it does not matter how many times you could turn the clock back 5 seconds, your choice will remain chocolate for an infinite number of times. Now tell me, if you turned back the clock what would it mean for your choice to change to strawberry as you freely think you can? Would that not potentially invalidate every single choice you ever made? Surely given the circumstances of the moment chocolate was the choice based on your needs, desire, volition, taste. None of which you have control over; none.
And when you reached adolescence did you chose your sexual orientation? Did you chose to be gay or straight or trans? Do you chose to be born? Did you chose your body, your parents your school.
And when you did start to make your "free" choices - how do you do that, what did you base your conscious choices on?

The "truth"? According to what? Don't get me wrong your theory is possible, but since it goes against all subjective and objective experience in the entirety of the existance of humans, it is the epitome of hubris to try to pass it off as the "truth".

The truth is in the scenario was that vanilla is not a possible choice since it in not part of the scenario. The fact that you chose chocolate is the choice of that unique moment in history of the individual and so, like it or not, even though strawberry is on the table that too is not a possible choice; was never a possible choice. From hindsight choosing strawberry could only ever have been meaningless and random, because you favour chocolate.
The TRUTH is that our decisions are made consciously, and providing no one has a gun at our head these endogenous choices may be termed free because they are Determined by us alone.
And this is how the idea of freewill is compatible with an utterly deterministic universe.
And if you are like Value, worried by change, you have only to imagine a situation where you find you are fed up with chocolate, or this time it tasted of, or someone said that the strawberry is better - these ARE potentially causal factors that might mean that next time you will try strawberry.
That would be your WILL. Determined but changed. Determinism is all about change; meaningful change.

Ah so. I think I understand better. If I am getting your point, people have Free Will and the exercising of that free will is the Determining factor that leads to the decision. I don't disagree, though I use the terminology differently (as I suspect most Determinists do, me being not a member of that group). The way I see it you are drawing a bright line between Determinism and predetermined outcomes. Close?

[Leontiskos]

The TRUTH is that our decisions are made consciously, and providing no one has a gun at our head these endogenous choices may be termed free because they are Determined by us alone.
And this is how the idea of freewill is compatible with an utterly deterministic universe.

It's so interesting to see anti-theists regurgitating positions that come directly from the Augustinian-Calvinistic tradition. It's more proof that folks don't really understand where their thinking comes from. Most atheists have a Protestant inheritance.

Here is how John Calvin said the same thing, 500 years ago:

• "If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free, and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in the sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection."
• (Calvin, Bondage and Liberation of the Will)

Calvin thought man's acts were free albeit determined because choice is "moving of its own accord." Sculptor thinks that man's acts are free albeit determined because decisions are "determined by us alone." Both are silly positions, of course. No amount of quibbling will undo the fact that necessitated acts are not free.

[Sculptor1]

No it is not.
Maybe I should re-phrase? How do YOU make a choice?
I mean just in the ordinary day to day sense of the word. You made a choice. What was happening?


If you could have chosen otherwise then none of our choices are valid.
If you have the option of chocolate or strawberry ice-cream, you cannot choses vanilla.
But the truth is that before you have the option your choice is already determined with as much surety as not having vanilla.
If your choice is chocolate then it does not matter how many times you could turn the clock back 5 seconds, your choice will remain chocolate for an infinite number of times. Now tell me, if you turned back the clock what would it mean for your choice to change to strawberry as you freely think you can? Would that not potentially invalidate every single choice you ever made? Surely given the circumstances of the moment chocolate was the choice based on your needs, desire, volition, taste. None of which you have control over; none.
And when you reached adolescence did you chose your sexual orientation? Did you chose to be gay or straight or trans? Do you chose to be born? Did you chose your body, your parents your school.
And when you did start to make your "free" choices - how do you do that, what did you base your conscious choices on?

The "truth"? According to what? Don't get me wrong your theory is possible, but since it goes against all subjective and objective experience in the entirety of the existance of humans, it is the epitome of hubris to try to pass it off as the "truth".

The truth is in the scenario was that vanilla is not a possible choice since it in not part of the scenario. The fact that you chose chocolate is the choice of that unique moment in history of the individual and so, like it or not, even though strawberry is on the table that too is not a possible choice; was never a possible choice. From hindsight choosing strawberry could only ever have been meaningless and random, because you favour chocolate.
The TRUTH is that our decisions are made consciously, and providing no one has a gun at our head these endogenous choices may be termed free because they are Determined by us alone.
And this is how the idea of freewill is compatible with an utterly deterministic universe.
And if you are like Value, worried by change, you have only to imagine a situation where you find you are fed up with chocolate, or this time it tasted of, or someone said that the strawberry is better - these ARE potentially causal factors that might mean that next time you will try strawberry.
That would be your WILL. Determined but changed. Determinism is all about change; meaningful change.

Ah so. I think I understand better. If I am getting your point, people have Free Will and the exercising of that free will is the Determining factor that leads to the decision. I don't disagree, though I use the terminology differently (as I suspect most Determinists do, me being not a member of that group). The way I see it you are drawing a bright line between Determinism and predetermined outcomes. Close?

Um not exactly.
I am saying that people make willful decisions which are determined by them and them alone; such examples may be termed "free".
If you ask me a question, the answer forms sub consciously and the expression of it contains a reflection of who and what I am*. It would be absurd and useless to say that I could have made a different utterance in that moment, in the sense those that are pushing a "free will" agenda, would have us believe. To have been able to do otherwise would negate the value of the event in the first place.

The "predetermination" idea is just a way that the radicalists try to insist that life would be meaningless if "free will" were not true.
The fact is that though we are bound by cause and effect, we are causative agents making the future as we act. That future is unknown, and so predetermination is not a valid objection.
THere are no predetermined outcomes unless you have a god like perspective. So yes, your last sentence is correct.

* what I am is the sum of my experience, and learning; my biology; desires wants, fears, and the events of the universe from the Big Bang to this current moment which have contributed to my existence. I can only reflect upon these thing with tools that are determined by the past. And in the same way that I did not chose to be born I have no control over my will, though I am free to act on my will.

Schopenhauer said something like I am free to act as I will but I cannot will as I will.

[Sculptor1]

The TRUTH is that our decisions are made consciously, and providing no one has a gun at our head these endogenous choices may be termed free because they are Determined by us alone.
And this is how the idea of freewill is compatible with an utterly deterministic universe.

It's so interesting to see anti-theists regurgitating positions that come directly from the Augustinian-Calvinistic tradition. It's more proof that folks don't really understand where their thinking comes from. Most atheists have a Protestant inheritance.

Here is how John Calvin said the same thing, 500 years ago:

• "If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free, and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in the sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection."
• (Calvin, Bondage and Liberation of the Will)

Calvin thought man's acts were free albeit determined because choice is "moving of its own accord." Sculptor thinks that man's acts are free albeit determined because decisions are "determined by us alone." Both are silly positions, of course. No amount of quibbling will undo the fact that necessitated acts are not free.

tut tut. Such rudeness on a moderated Forum.
I'll let that go for now
But FYI.
Such ideas pre-dated Christianity. Old before Calvin and Augustus. LOge before the baby Jesus was a sperm in Mary's mouth

What are you regurgitating today?