Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

[Obvious Leo]

This is all very well Leo, but what form of 'determinism' is Hobbes postulating? And for that matter Hobbes, when are you going to state your definition of "Christianity"?

Hobbes is an adult over the age of consent and can thus address your question in whichever way he chooses. I was merely making the technical distinction between linear and non-linear determinism as these terms are used in philosophy. Linearly determined systems behave in the way they do because that's the way they were intended to behave and non-linearly determined systems behave in the way they do simply because of cause and effect. In other words non-linearly determined systems are SELF-DETERMINING.

IC. You're embarrassing yourself so I'll offer you a word of advice from one of my least favourite philosophers.

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

Non-linear dynamic systems theory is a major branch of science and philosophy with a rigorous methodology. It is used in every single science except physics and I suggest you acquaint yourself with the basic principles of it before dismissing it as irrelevant to this discussion.

[Immanuel Can]

...non-linearly determined systems behave in the way they do simply because of cause and effect. In other words non-linearly determined systems are SELF-DETERMINING.

If, as you say here, by "self-" (as in "self-determining") you mean only "cause and effect," then it is, indeed a totally uninformative explanation. It is "The universe is a universe of the particular causes and effects it has because of the particular causes and effects it has."

[Hobbes' Choice]

Christianity is not compatible with reason, and neither is free will.

If you didn't suspect that the latter half of that statement were actually untrue you would not be debating anything. If you didn't suspect that the first part could be untrue, you wouldn't be debating Christianity. But you do both, all the time, don't you?

We've had all this out before, and like then, you are not receiving. When you get flustered you respond with the sort of idiotic comments like the one at the top of this last post. It was you that invited this latest exchange, so please take your thoughts back with you when you crawl back under your rock.

I think we are done here.

[Immanuel Can]

I think we are done here.

You thought we were done from the start, apparently. And you were also "done" from the start. Remember? Nobody can change his or her mind, because none of us has genuine "volition." We're only "wanting" what we were programmed by prior forces to "want." So in your view, neither one of us was going to end up anywhere but where we are. So here we are.

If you really believed all that, though, it makes me marvel that you bothered to debate...you don't believe in debate, apparently, by the logic of your own explanation. But you can always change your view, if you happen to discover you actually do have a free choice.

Be well, then. Although, I must suppose you would say there's no other way you could be.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is all very well Leo, but what form of 'determinism' is Hobbes postulating? And for that matter Hobbes, when are you going to state your definition of "Christianity"?

Well we already talked about Calvinism, which tries to address the problem of the incompatibility of free-will and omnipotence; And as the rest of Xity do not seem bothered and prefer to live in sycophantic confusion, or just ignore the problem, of them I have nothing to say.
They can keep their delusion of free-will, because the great thing about delusions is that you can have a number of incompatible ones without any difficulty.
For me - I prefer to do philosophy

We're only "wanting" what we were programmed by prior forces to "want."

Strawman caricature of determinism.

[Obvious Leo]

...non-linearly determined systems behave in the way they do simply because of cause and effect. In other words non-linearly determined systems are SELF-DETERMINING.

If, as you say here, by "self-" (as in "self-determining") you mean only "cause and effect," then it is, indeed a totally uninformative explanation. It is "The universe is a universe of the particular causes and effects it has because of the particular causes and effects it has."

Why is it uninformative? The difference between immanent cause and transcendent cause is simple undergraduate philosophy and if you don't understand it then there is ample literature available in the public domain with which you can educate yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

Well we already talked about Calvinism, which tries to address the problem of the incompatibility of free-will and omnipotence; And as the rest of Xity do not seem bothered and prefer to live in sycophantic confusion, or just ignore the problem, of them I have nothing to say.

I guess this does answer the question, Atto.

Hobbes speaks only with Calvinists.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is it uninformative?

If a man says that the reason he exists is because he gave birth to himself, we would probably lock him up for his own safety. But if that same man says "The universe causes itself to exist," he's not doing any better.

The fundamental axiom of cause-and-effect attributions is that the cause must be sufficient explain the claimed effect. Thus, the universe can no more "self-determine" than a man can give birth to himself. Whatever "determines" the universe (if anything does) has got to be bigger/more complex/more sophisticated/prior to the universe itself, in order to be a credible explanation. Its got to be capable of generating the 'rules' by which the material universe has come into existence and by which it is presently "determined."

If it doesn't, it's no adequate explanation. It's mere circularity.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well we already talked about Calvinism, which tries to address the problem of the incompatibility of free-will and omnipotence; And as the rest of Xity do not seem bothered and prefer to live in sycophantic confusion, or just ignore the problem, of them I have nothing to say.

I guess this does answer the question, Atto.

Hobbes speaks only with Calvinists.

Hobbes can and does speak for himself. So fuck off.

[Obvious Leo]

Why is it uninformative?

If a man says that the reason he exists is because he gave birth to himself, we would probably lock him up for his own safety. But if that same man says "The universe causes itself to exist," he's not doing any better.

The fundamental axiom of cause-and-effect attributions is that the cause must be sufficient explain the claimed effect. Thus, the universe can no more "self-determine" than a man can give birth to himself. Whatever "determines" the universe (if anything does) has got to be bigger/more complex/more sophisticated/prior to the universe itself, in order to be a credible explanation. Its got to be capable of generating the 'rules' by which the material universe has come into existence and by which it is presently "determined."

If it doesn't, it's no adequate explanation. It's mere circularity.

Bollocks. This entire offering is completely circular because you assume as a premise that which you then attempt to derive as a conclusion. By what convoluted perversion of logic can you assume that the universe had a beginning?

Clearly you don't understand the notion of immanent cause at all because immanent cause means that there's no such thing as a suite of "rules" by which physical reality is determined. You're falling for the same logical fallacy as Newton and for precisely the same reason. You're assuming transcendent cause a priori.

[Immanuel Can]

Clearly you don't understand the notion of immanent cause at all because immanent cause means that there's no such thing as a suite of "rules" by which physical reality is determined.

Ah. I see. So you're still operating on the old Aristotelian cosmology, in which the universe itself is believed to be eternal? Has no one told you it's been discredited...thoroughly...by science, not theologians? Hubble and Einstein thoroughly disproved it last century.

You're assuming transcendent cause a priori.

Not at all. I'm assuming it by scientific principle. It's called "cause and effect."

Every temporal effect has a cause.
The universe is a temporal effect.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So easy!

[Arising_uk]

Every temporal effect has a cause. ...

What's a 'temporal effect'?

The universe is a temporal effect. ...

Inside of what?

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Are you saying your ''God' does not exist in a time? Then it doesn't exist. If it does exist in a time then according to you it has a cause.

So easy!

Lemon squeezy.

[Obvious Leo]

Ah. I see. So you're still operating on the old Aristotelian cosmology, in which the universe itself is believed to be eternal? Has no one told you it's been discredited...thoroughly...by science, not theologians? Hubble and Einstein thoroughly disproved it last century.

They did no such thing and no theoretical physicist would nowadays ever dare to make such a claim. I caution you not to step into the treacherous waters of the metaphysical foundations of physics because this subject has been my life's work and you'll be torn to pieces.

Not at all. I'm assuming it by scientific principle. It's called "cause and effect."

Cause and effect is not a scientific principle and in one of the most successful models of physics it is even refuted mathematically. However it has always been a metaphysical first principle and will always remain so, which is why this particular mathematical model is not regarded as a model of physical reality, even by physicists who are not generally regarded as intellectual giants in the field of metaphysics.

Every temporal effect has a cause.
The universe is a temporal effect.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So easy!

So banal, you mean. You assume that the universe is insufficient to its own existence and then in your ignorance you make an appeal to a science which is beyond your domain of expertise. However even the most scientifically illiterate should at some stage have heard of the first law of thermodynamics and if you haven't you should look it up. Not only is this "law" a foundational principle of all of modern physics it is also a metaphysical first principle with a very long and illustrious pedigree. If you reckon you're good enough to refute it then knock yourself out.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Every temporal effect has a cause. ...

What's a 'temporal effect'??.

It a massive tautology.
There are no other effects but temporal ones.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Every temporal effect has a cause.
The universe is a temporal effect.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So easy!

All deductions are, but then all deductions are self justifying, and teach us nothing but re-iterate definitions.
Simple things please simple minds.