Free Will vs Determinism

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yes.

Even if, for argument's sake, we were to grant Spheres his point, he'd need to tell us how he *knows* that nobody can know God.

Easy IC, "PROVE" IT!

I beg you pardon? Where, above, did I use the expression "prove it" -- especially in caps?
Misdirection! I asked you to PROVE IT!


I said you would need to tell us how you know. That's perfectly reasonable, and makes no use of the word "proof."
That's how I know! Prove that you know? No one has ever provided proof because it's impossible! Be the first that can do otherwise! You can't!


So I cry "red herring."
Fish is very good for you, especially small cold water varieties, like herring. But again you misdirect, seemingly the only thing you are capable of!

Now I hope you're a little more learned than our High School Graduate friend and actually know what the word "PROVE" means!

That's rude to my "friend," but if you were supposing it would induce me to join your side out of shame at being called a "High School Graduate," you aren't correct. He was right, and until you show otherwise, I still have no reason to think your purported "knowledge" is correct.
Nope, I was simply stating that the lack of education lends to belief in anything!


As for knowing what the word "PROVE" means, I do. "Proof" is for things like mathematics and deduction only. And that is why I did not ask you for that. I'm asking you to provide your inductive warrant. And I say again: if you make a claim to know something, you owe people an explanation of how you know. That allows them to understand the scope of your claim correctly. Absent that, they have no reason to think your claim to "knowing" is substantial.
Nope, I clearly said that I know because you can't prove it! No one can!


Time to ante up, then. How do you know what limits there are to what everybody else knows or can know about God?

Pay attention, that you can't prove it! No one ever has and no one ever will!

[thedoc]

My mistake, SOB knows everything about everyone, the end all be all of knowledge.

[Immanuel Can]

Time to ante up, then. How do you know what limits there are to what everybody else knows or can know about God?

Pay attention, that you can't prove it! No one ever has and no one ever will!

"Pay attention" is just another flourish of pretended superiority, an attempt to shame your opposition with the implication, "If you do not believe me without any evidence, you will be guilty of inattention." It is, of course, vacuous and rhetorical, and not relevant to the present discussion. You might save yourself the cyber-ink.

I have not yet put myself in a position to "prove" anything. I asserted that "proof" was not relevant to the case, and that is correct. Evidence, is required, not proof. Moreover, in this case, I was not the one who made the claim to "know" what other people can or cannot know. That was your bold assertion. And thus, you have invited me to ask the obvious question: what evidence led you to this "knowledge" you claim.

Thedoc has provided an experience he had. Of course I do not know if it was real or not -- personal experience, though it may be valid, is not transferable in that way -- but I am in a position to say that if it was genuine, then he has solid reasons to know what he claims to know. He's stepped up. But from you, I've got nothing at all.

Stop running. You've just made your "knowledge" claim again, above. You say, "No one ever has, and no one ever will." So you're making a claim about both the past and the future.

Justify it. Demonstrate how you "know" what you claim you "know." Thedoc has. Now you step up.

[SpheresOfBalance]

My mistake, SOB knows everything about everyone, the end all be all of knowledge.

No, in fact, as to your little experience, all you could possibly "know" is that either it was a show or genuine. The odds are, "knowing" people as I do, and you should too, taking all our history, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology, to name but a few of the humanities one should consider in such a case, is that it was a show. As what happened, was nowhere near what your god is supposed to be capable of, rather small and well within the realm of human capability. And that's why it's not "proof." In this case, "proof" requires that it's something that humans are incapable of, and deception is well within human capability, it's been proven again and again and again and again, ad infinitum. As much was at stake in the minds of your gatherings, orchestrators. So not "proof," merely possibility, and a very shallow one at that! In fact, "probability," taking "all" human things into account, "dictates" that it was merely a "show."

Here, let me smack you on your forehead, "YOU'RE HEALED, LET THE POWER OF GOD MOVE THROUGH ME! YOU SHALL LIVE FOR ETERNITY! Evangelist's! HA!

"Proof" can only be something "irrefutable," taking into account "everything" "all" of humanity "knows", and it would have to be almost "unanimous" in "belief," because even then, it would not "necessarily" be "certain."

You just believe you saw, in that human display, what you wanted to see, because you don't want to die, you want to live in the hereafter! I hear you, I have those same wants. What human wouldn't, given the choice?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Time to ante up, then. How do you know what limits there are to what everybody else knows or can know about God?

Pay attention, that you can't prove it! No one ever has and no one ever will!

"Pay attention" is just another flourish of pretended superiority,
Not at all, it's because you have put words into my mouth instead of reading and being honest about what you've read, a typical evangelical. "YOU'RE HEALED, LET THE POWER OF GOD MOVE THROUGH ME!"

an attempt to shame your opposition with the implication, "If you do not believe me without any evidence, you will be guilty of inattention." It is, of course, vacuous and rhetorical, and not relevant to the present discussion. You might save yourself the cyber-ink.

I have not yet put myself in a position to "prove" anything. I asserted that "proof" was not relevant to the case, and that is correct. Evidence, is required, not proof.
And so here, you've said that you're a fool. For something to be "known" it has to be "proven." "PERIOD!" Thank "god" you're not one of our top scientists. Our technologies, those you use every day, including that keyboard, were "PROVEN!" They my friend, are in fact REAL! You're "belief" is just that, "nothing" more!

Moreover, in this case, I was not the one who made the claim to "know" what other people can or cannot know. That was your bold assertion. And thus, you have invited me to ask the obvious question: what evidence led you to this "knowledge" you claim.
Again PROVE OTHERWISE, you're the one claiming there is something invisible, not I. INVISIBLE! HA HA HA! Such a fool, seemingly such a fool! Of course "PROOF" would cure your probable ill!


Thedoc has provided an experience he had. Of course I do not know if it was real or not -- personal experience, though it may be valid, is not transferable in that way -- but I am in a position to say that if it was genuine, then he has solid reasons to know what he claims to know. He's stepped up. But from you, I've got nothing at all.
How stupid are you? AGAIN for the UMPTEENTH TIME. PAY ATTENTION! IT'S YOU, THAT CLAIMS YOU "KNOW" OF SOMETHING INVISIBLE. WHILE I'M JUST SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T "KNOW" OF SOMETHING INVISIBLE, UNLESS YOU CAN "PROVE" THAT THERE IS SOMETHING INVISIBLE. You, like the doc, have no idea what "knowledge" is. It certainly isn't plucking things out of your "imagination," because you fear death!


Stop running. You've just made your "knowledge" claim again, above. You say, "No one ever has, and no one ever will." So you're making a claim about both the past and the future.
Good, you caught it! You get a point. You may have a bit of logic in you after all; a bit of reason. You're correct about one thing, I, like everyone else, can't see into the future to "know" what truths might unfold. Good Job!


Justify it. Demonstrate how you "know" what you claim you "know." Thedoc has. Now you step up.
I "know" that there is not "proof," that until now there has never been any! You, the "believer" of something invisible, are required to "prove" it, else it's just "belief," not "knowledge." It's that simple. If there had "ever" been any "proof" every believer would be screaming only about that "proof!"

Here, do want some of me pot O gold, you'll find it at the end of me rainbow!

We're "too young" to "know" the answer to the question of whether there is, an intentioned mindful creator, or not!

The only logical solution that is respectable, that has any truth to it, is too agree with this previous statement.

Sure it's "possible," we're intentioned mindful creators! So if once, why not multiple times, on different scales? And then again it's possible that there isn't, that all the universe is this thing, such that it is, a non-intentioned unmindful creator! Either one is possible, based upon the facts that we're aware of!

Being agnostic, is the only rational solution at this particular juncture in time, that is, if one believes that "knowledge" is the ultimate goal of human endeavor, that stamping out "ignorance" is the only way to grow! If one believes otherwise, then throw all your technology away, by having your mind erased, and go running through the woods naked and afraid, just like prehistoric man!

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIM AND US, IS "KNOWING," NOT SIMPLY "BELIEVING," BECAUSE WE FEAR DEATH!

[thedoc]

Where is it written that God must play by human logic? God plays by God's rules, and if humans can't understand those rules, who is at a loss?

[Belinda]

Where is it written that God must play by human logic? God plays by God's rules, and if humans can't understand those rules, who is at a loss?

The huge degree of actual existential suffering lacks moral relevance. We lose faith in a god who permits suffering on this scale.

What can we gain from a god whose rules are incomprehensible?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Where is it written that God must play by human logic? God plays by God's rules, and if humans can't understand those rules, who is at a loss?

A very common smoke screen that the selfish use to divert attention from the fact that they simply have 'faith' and 'know' absolutely nothing for certain. You're just pissing in the wind doc, while hoping you got it right. Hey, I hope you do, but I'm afraid you don't.

[Londoner]

A very common smoke screen that the selfish use to divert attention from the fact that they simply have 'faith' and 'know' absolutely nothing for certain. You're just pissing in the wind doc, while hoping you got it right. Hey, I hope you do, but I'm afraid you don't.

As you say, we don't know anything for certain, so we all have to make some sort of leap of faith.

That being the case, I don't see why we should quarrel over our various choices.

[SpheresOfBalance]

A very common smoke screen that the selfish use to divert attention from the fact that they simply have 'faith' and 'know' absolutely nothing for certain. You're just pissing in the wind doc, while hoping you got it right. Hey, I hope you do, but I'm afraid you don't.

As you say, we don't know anything for certain,
That's not true, there ar many things we know for certain.

so we all have to make some sort of leap of faith.
Nope, not for everything, just those things that are theories, like a man made god!

That being the case,
But it's not!

I don't see why we should quarrel over our various choices.
I do, the truth is all that matters! It's why philosophy exists in the first place. Remember, it is the father of all science!

[Belinda]

Spheres of Balance wrote:

(Londoner wrote)I don't see why we should quarrel over our various choices.
)Spheres replied)I do, the truth is all that matters! It's why philosophy exists in the first place. Remember, it is the father of all science!

I agree with Spheres. Philosophy is about ideas, and ideas affect what people do. Intellectual quarrels are good including when emotions are involved.

[Londoner]

That's not true, there ar many things we know for certain.

I do not know of any, particularly in the sort of areas where religion (and religious type ideas) tend to apply. Nobody can point to some fact that dictates how we should live our lives, yet we cannot duck that question. We have to choose something.

Me: I don't see why we should quarrel over our various choices.
I do, the truth is all that matters! It's why philosophy exists in the first place. Remember, it is the father of all science!

I would say that philosophy encourages us to question 'the truth'. It is indeed the father of science - which is how it can show us the assumptions on which science rests and thus the limitations of science.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres of Balance wrote:

(Londoner wrote)I don't see why we should quarrel over our various choices.
)Spheres replied)I do, the truth is all that matters! It's why philosophy exists in the first place. Remember, it is the father of all science!

I agree with Spheres. Philosophy is about ideas, and ideas affect what people do. Intellectual quarrels are good including when emotions are involved.

Thanks, yes I know I can go too far with my language sometimes. But I try not to attack the speaker as much as I try to attack their words, though sometimes I still do. If only I were perfect!

[SpheresOfBalance]

That's not true, there ar many things we know for certain.

I do not know of any,
Seriously? So all the things we've done in science was just luck, non repeatable?

particularly in the sort of areas where religion (and religious type ideas) tend to apply.
Yep, I agree, there is no certainty, which is why I've elected to consider myself an agnostic, it's the safest ground to stand on. Actually I usually make a little joke. I say that I'm on the fence, that way I'm higher than all those on either side, thus I can see further and with more clarity.

Nobody can point to some fact that dictates how we should live our lives, yet we cannot duck that question. We have to choose something.
I agree, but people seem to believe that one requires religion in order to lead a good life, where one respects others traveling in a different lane. That's not true. All one has to do is recognize the absolute truth in why we differ, understanding that it's currently beyond our control, that it's determined, as this planet, and thus all it's inhabitants, are a metamorphosis! Such that the only rule required, is my version of the golden rule, as it accounts for all things, as well as it can be done.

Me: I don't see why we should quarrel over our various choices.
I do, the truth is all that matters! It's why philosophy exists in the first place. Remember, it is the father of all science!

I would say that philosophy encourages us to question 'the truth'.
I disagree, I would say that it should encourage us to question that which is posed as 'the truth,' not that we should continue to question that which has been found to in fact be 'the truth.' There's just not enough time to continually question everything. As it is, we're very young and don't know, or won't acknowledge, many truths, upon which, our very lives depend. And in most cases it's usually because of the want of a glittering prize. So I agree that these things must be questioned, so as to break down the walls of lies due to money. Let's no longer slowly kill people, in the name of free enterprise.


It is indeed the father of science - which is how it can show us the assumptions on which science rests
I wouldn't say that science "rests" upon assumption. I would say that sometimes it does, and that sometimes it needs to, for progress to be made, trial and error is in fact a teacher!

and thus the limitations of science.
Sure it has limitations, but it serves us well, as you and I type these messages! Which is just the tip of the iceberg; "that which we certainly know!"

[Londoner]

I do not know of any, (things we know for certain)
Seriously? So all the things we've done in science was just luck, non repeatable?

The phrase 'things we've done' is a bit vague. Science provides a coherent description of the world but it can do so only because it leaves some things out. It deals in generalisations, so the language it uses is ultimately tautological.

As an illustration, you use the words 'non repeatable'. But of course, nothing is literally repeatable; every event is unique. You can only say it is repeatable if your description of that event is selective, if you describe only certain aspects of that event.

I didn't really mean to get into the usual argument around forms of skepticism. My point is more that if we more away from the methods of science and start dealing with the subjective, the personal, then few people can claim certainty - and if they do, then they convince nobody. If that is the case, what are we arguing about? Or, why do we feel an urge to argue?

Me: Nobody can point to some fact that dictates how we should live our lives, yet we cannot duck that question. We have to choose something.
I agree, but people seem to believe that one requires religion in order to lead a good life, where one respects others traveling in a different lane. That's not true. All one has to do is recognize the absolute truth in why we differ, understanding that it's currently beyond our control, that it's determined, as this planet, and thus all it's inhabitants, are a metamorphosis! Such that the only rule required, is my version of the golden rule, as it accounts for all things, as well as it can be done.

I may or may not agree with your view, I'm not sure, but I do not imagine I can produce a scientific fact or piece of logic, such that I could say; Now you must accept that you are wrong and I am right! I cannot think what sort of evidence I would be looking for, let alone find it.

Me: I would say that philosophy encourages us to question 'the truth'.
I disagree, I would say that it should encourage us to question that which is posed as 'the truth,' not that we should continue to question that which has been found to in fact be 'the truth.' There's just not enough time to continually question everything. As it is, we're very young and don't know, or won't acknowledge, many truths, upon which, our very lives depend. And in most cases it's usually because of the want of a glittering prize. So I agree that these things must be questioned, so as to break down the walls of lies due to money. Let's no longer slowly kill people, in the name of free enterprise.

Personally, I do not find it difficult to live with the notion that there are no clear truths - and philosophically, although we have not discovered any certainties we have discovered that currently we do not have these certainties. That is an accurate description of how things are; it doesn't prove a negative, that no certainties are possible, but we can know we don't have them.

I think the trouble with putting aside philosophical doubts and simply working on the assumption that we have 'a truth' is that we can't help building on it. So (crudely) if one was to put one's faith in science (say), then necessarily we can't help considering non-scientific knowledge (like our subjective experiences) as somehow second-class.

To put that another way, if one is an agnostic, then I don't see that as just meaning 'I don't know', which has no consequences. I think to say 'we don't know' is to make a positive claim, which does have consequences. For example, if 'we don't know' then I might dispute another person's claim to certainty, but I should not go beyond that and claim I know that their beliefs are wrong.