Regarding Franko...

[Upchurch]

Sorry, did I do something wrong

Purr, you didn't do anything wrong except to maybe expect an answer to a direct question from P&R's Troll-In-Residence.

Don't let it get you down. He does this to everyone. He can't help himself.

Upchurch

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Franko
The Christians (as well as other Theists) obey God's will, not some illusionary "free will" that you A-Theists made up.

Didn't God grant us free will when we were booted from Eden? Unless.. the bible was written by A-Theists. *runs screaming into the night*

 

[Mordred]

Why do people who believe in "free will" need to pray so much?

Prayer is what you do when you don't have "free will".

The Christians (as well as other Theists) obey God's will, not some illusionary "free will" that you A-Theists made up.

The self-consistancy of including free will into their religion is their problem not mine...your first question would be a good one to ask a christian (which I am not). However, your last sentence does not accurately portray what christians actually believe when it comes to free will. They obey God's will by CHOICE, which they exercise with the free will that God gave them...or so they say.

 

[Franko]

The self-consistancy of including free will into their religion is their problem not mine...your first question would be a good one to ask a christian (which I am not).

Obviously you don’t know much about Christianity. The Bible never uses the term “free will” in the manner which you A-Theists do. In the Bible “free will” is almost always mentioned in the context of ”free will offering” which means consigning ones self to the will of God. i.e. Freely offering oneself as the servant to God.

In other words, Theists use this term in the sense of conceding to the “will of Fate”

However, your last sentence does not accurately portray what christians actually believe when it comes to free will. They obey God's will by CHOICE, which they exercise with the free will that God gave them...or so they say.

I’m not a Christian either, but I disagree with your interpretation A-Theist.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In the Bible “free will” is almost always mentioned in the context of ”free will offering” which means consigning ones self to the will of God. i.e. Freely offering oneself as the servant to God.

And thats exactly free will. How can you offer something (service) if it is not yours to give? How can you consign youself if already consigned?

Another Christian dogma is resisting temptation . How are you supposed to do that if you have no power of decision?

Hans

 

[Tricky]

Why do people who believe in "free will" need to pray so much?

Prayer is what you do when you don't have "free will".

The Christians (as well as other Theists) obey God's will, not some illusionary "free will" that you A-Theists made up.

You've really painted yourself in a corner here Franko. Since you were raised in a Christian household (I'm guessing Catholic) you know that most prayers are asking for God's guidance to keep them from making the wrong choices. If God's guidance were guaranteed (i.e., no free will) then there would be no need to pray. Without free will, the concept of "sin" could not exist.

Or you could simply ask a Christian if they believe in free will, and I assure you the vast majority will say "yes" (Potato Stew already has done so). Of course, if the concept of free will really was invented by atheists, that means that the Christians borrowed it from them.

 

[Mordred]

Obviously you don’t know much about Christianity. The Bible never uses the term “free will” in the manner which you A-Theists do.

Strange, especially since I was raised Methodist, went through two years of confirmation classes, and was confirmed in a Methodist church at the age of 15. Also, your continuing attempts to classify atheists as an inclusive philosophical group is getting quite old. Atheism requires no specific stance on free will...nor have I actually made one. When addressing me would you mind actually addressing my arguments and not the ones that wish to address in your little conversations with yourself?

In the Bible “free will” is almost always mentioned in the context of ”free will offering” which means consigning ones self to the will of God. i.e. Freely offering oneself as the servant to God.

Quick question...do they believe that all people have the CHOICE of consigning themselves to God's will? The answer is yes if you are wondering. In other words according to them, God does not force anyone to follow his will. Each individual makes that choice freely. If a person can choose freely, do they not have free will?

In other words, Theists use this term in the sense of conceding to the “will of Fate”

Some theists do. Calvinists are the only christians that I know of that would hold such a stance. Of course we could always just simply ask a current christian if you don't believe me...

 

[Franko]

Atheism requires no specific stance on free will...nor have I actually made one.

That’s nonsense. But you can pretend that it is True if you like, just as you pretend there is no evidence for God … perhaps it’s the result of your “free will”?

In other words according to them, God does not force anyone to follow his will. Each individual makes that choice freely.

I would say that according to Theists in general (or Christianity in particular) that you have the choice of working FOR God, or working AGAINST Her. You A-Theist make one “choice”, and we Theists and Deists make the opposite one.

… although in reality it is not a “choice” at all. It is preordained by the intrinsic nature of your Soul. God just need some time to check you out and determine which way you will Fall.

 

[Mordred]

That’s nonsense. But you can pretend that it is True if you like, just as you pretend there is no evidence for God … perhaps it’s the result of your “free will”?

Ok, how does atheism in and of itself necessitate a belief in free will? Put up or shut up.

I would say that according to Theists in general (or Christianity in particular) that you have the choice of working FOR God, or working AGAINST Her. You A-Theist make one “choice”, and we Theists and Deists make the opposite one.

… although in reality it is not a “choice” at all. It is preordained by the intrinsic nature of your Soul. God just need some time to check you out and determine which way you will Fall.

I think if you actually took the time to ask an actual christian as I said...you would find that you are indeed mistaken.

 

[Franko]

Ok, how does atheism in and of itself necessitate a belief in free will? Put up or shut up.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

TLOP = The Laws of Physics

I think if you actually took the time to ask an actual christian as I said...you would find that you are indeed mistaken.

I just knew you would say something like that A-Theist.

 

[CWL]

Franko,

There are many glitches in your imaginary battle between Theism and Atheism.

E.g:

1) As Tricky has rightly pointed out - "Free will" is an important part of the theology of many Christians.

2) Many theists are monists = do not believe in your dualistic separation between "consciousness" and "matter".

3) Immoral theists exist.

4) Moral atheists exist.

The list could be made much longer.

What is it you are trying to acheive by being so contentious?

 

[Mordred]

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

TLOP = The Laws of Physics

A few problems. First, this does not prove that atheism necessitates a belief in free will. It does show that your belief system must be deterministic. Second, it is circular. The term control in your first premise implies consciousness. You then use that premise to conclude that the laws of physics are conscious. Third, the fact that one thing controls another does not necessarily mean that it is more conscious than the thing it controls...that is an assumption on your part.

The laws of physics do not consciously control things...they are a set of rules that dictate the outcome of events by limiting what is possible. There is a rather large difference.

 

[Franko]

A few problems.

If you are an A-Theist … yes,, I agree …

First, this does not prove that atheism necessitates a belief in free will.

Well, only if you want to make the ridiculous claim that there is no evidence for God.

It does show that your belief system must be deterministic. Second, it is circular. The term control in your first premise implies consciousness. You then use that premise to conclude that the laws of physics are conscious.

Fine, then please provide a single example of a non-conscious object controlling a conscious one? Or … demonstrate a inferior consciousness (like a dog) which regularly tends to control a superior one (like a human). You have heard of the “Food Chain” -- haven’t you A-Theist?

Third, the fact that one thing controls another does not necessarily mean that it is more conscious than the thing it controls...that is an assumption on your part.

All of the evidence indicates that this is so. If you disagree, then please provide a single example to the contrary.

Do YOU control your CAR, or does your CAR control YOU? Which has the superior consciousness? Does a chicken farmer tend to control the chickens, or do the chickens tend to control the chicken farmer?

The laws of physics do not consciously control things...

Really? Can you provide an example of when they are NOT controlling things?

they are a set of rules that dictate the outcome of events by limiting what is possible. There is a rather large difference.

I guess you claiming it makes it True?

 

[CWL]

Sorry, did I do something wrong, I have been trying to follow along the way, but I can't see where it is more likely, or even more possible that a rudimentary consiousness spontaneously appeared than the the universe diverged from a non-consious event.

edited for tags

You have done absolutely nothing wrong IMHO. The question is a very valid one indeed.

Franko is very funny on this subject. He always attacks his "A-Theists" for not being able to explain how the Laws of Physics came into being, yet he himself fails to explain how his "Progenitor Solipsist" came into being...

Go figure the difference...

 

[Franko]

CWL is very funny on this subject. He always attacks his Theists for not being able to explain how the Laws of Physics came into being, yet he himself fails to explain how they came into being, and furthermore he can't explain how his "free will" came into being, or what it even means ...

 

[Mordred]

Well, only if you want to make the ridiculous claim that there is no evidence for God.

There is no good evidence for the existance of a god. That is to say that there is nothing in this universe (the existance of the universe itself included) that requires the existance of a god.

Fine, then please provide a single example of a non-conscious object controlling a conscious one?

That would be a neat trick considering that I already objected to the use of the term controlling based on the idea that it implies consciousness. You just asked me to prove a logical impossibility based on a fallacious reasoning of YOURS that I pointed out...

Or … demonstrate a inferior consciousness (like a dog) which regularly tends to control a superior one (like a human). You have heard of the “Food Chain” -- haven’t you A-Theist?

So it is your contention that anything that eats something else has superior consciousness than the thing it eats? Would you mind defining your criteria for what constitutes superior or inferior consciousness?

Do YOU control your CAR, or does your CAR control YOU?

Obviously I control my car (how well I do this is obviously subjective). My car cannot control me becuase it is not conscious (this question is a continuation of your fallacious reasoning).

Which has the superior consciousness?

I do obviously, as the car has none.

Really? Can you provide an example of when they are NOT controlling things?

Sure...right now...and now...and again right now...pretty much all the time, as the laws of physics are not a consciousness. There is no good reason to believe that they are. You have yet to adequately support this useless anthropomorphizing.

 

[Franko]

Sure...right now...and now...and again right now...pretty much all the time, as the laws of physics are not a consciousness.

Question begging

There is no good reason to believe that they are.

There is no good reason to believe that they are NOT.

What is your evidence that you will be alive this time tomorrow?

You have yet to adequately support this useless anthropomorphizing.

You have yet to adequately support this useless non-anthropomorphizing.

 

[Guest]

Initially posted by me! yay!
I can't see where it is more likely, or even more possible that a rudimentary consiousness spontaneously appeared than the the universe diverged from a non-consious event.

Then posted by CWL
Franko is very funny on this subject. He always attacks his "A-Theists" for not being able to explain how the Laws of Physics came into being, yet he himself fails to explain how his "Progenitor Solipsist" came into being...

Okay, in absence of a decent reply from Franko to that one, I guess I'll chalk that up to being a big, ignored problem.

All is not lost for Franko though. I will gladly look over his lack of insight as to the origins of his own system (I am in total ignorance as to the origins of mine too!) provided he can answer Mordred's (and doubtless others) question..

Posted by Franko
TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

TLOP = The Laws of Physics

How exactly does it follow that anything controls something is more conscious that that which it controls? I am ready and willing to hear conclusive evidence that this is always the case.

 

[Mordred]

There is no good reason to believe that they are NOT.

So logically we must conclude that we do not know for certain and default to whichever position is simpler. Law of parsimony ring a bell? Ockham's Razor perhaps?

What is your evidence that you will be alive this time tomorrow?

I have none...I could very likely die on the drive to work I am about to embark on. I could of course state that there is some nonzero probability that I will live to see tomorrow based on the premise that I am alive at the moment. I fail to see how this is applicable to the current discussion however...

You have yet to adequately support this useless non-anthropomorphizing.

Ah, but it is not useless. It does away with needless complexity (see law of parsimony above).

 

[Franko]

So logically we must conclude that we do not know for certain and default to whichever position is simpler. Law of parsimony ring a bell? Ockham's Razor perhaps?

yes – but you are the one who does not understand parsimony.

How is your incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo about “invisible-magical-self-creating-non-conscious-omnipotent-sky-machine-thingy” more parsimonious then God.

I understand exactly what “God” is, but I have no idea what you are talking about with your “invisible-magical-self-creating-non-conscious-omnipotent-sky-machine-thingy”

Franko:
What is your evidence that you will be alive this time tomorrow?

Whodidi
I have none..

Ergo, just like you assume God, you should assume that YOU will NOT exist tomorrow, and live your remaining 24 hours accordingly.