Free agent cannot be created

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:51 am

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:19 am
What part of the claim was the "argument" in the opening post actually attacking?
The conclusion: Free agent cannot be created/caused.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:19 am
Are human beings caused or not caused?
I think we are not caused as it is stated in OP.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:19 am
What is YOUR definition of 'God'?
The creator of everything excluding minds which are very essence of free agents. I am not sure if there is any God given the definition.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:19 am
Are adult human beings free?
Yes.

Age
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:51 am
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:19 am
What part of the claim was the "argument" in the opening post actually attacking?
The conclusion: Free agent cannot be created/caused.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:19 am
Are human beings caused or not caused?
I think we are not caused as it is stated in OP.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:19 am
What is YOUR definition of 'God'?
The creator of everything excluding minds which are very essence of free agents. I am not sure if there is any God given the definition.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:19 am
Are adult human beings free?
Yes.
Thank you very much for answering all of my questions. Only on very rarest of occasions, in this forum, do My clarifying questions get answered. Receiving answers is very refreshing, so thank you again.

I now realize that I was misreading what you were arguing for before. So, a couple more clarifying questions now:

If human beings are not caused/created, then how do/did they come to exist?

Your first premise 1) Causation requires knowledge, to me, did not make sense, and thus was incorrect. And, on first glance/reading of your explanation of this premise it seemed absurd. But on second glance/reading it is 'paradoxical', to me anyway. By the way a 'paradox', to me, is some thing that seems absurd or contradictory but expresses a truth. I did not notice the truth in it the first time round.

How all of this now fits in with the opening post argument gave me great insight into how to express better, what it is that I want to express. However, you are saying that human beings, who are free agents, are not caused/created. If you can explain how human beings exist but are not caused/created, and it makes sense, then I will change my view. But, as I SEE things now 'human beings', who are free agents, were naturally caused/created by one thing.

Do you think or believe that other things are caused/created and only human beings are not?
Or, do you think or believe that every thing is not caused/created?

If it is the latter, then how do you think every thing came to exist?

Your definition of 'God', by the way, is probably the closest, and thus best, definition from ALL the definitions of what 'God' is, which I have seen anyway, to what 'God' actually IS. Besides your misuse of the word 'Mind', (Mind is singular, so no 's'), you are just about spot on with YOUR definition for God. YOUR definition is so very close to describing and showing WHAT 'God' really IS, and how 'God' really exists.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Logik » Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:45 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:47 am
Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:16 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:08 am
Yes. But you are free to choose not to buy in spite of the fact that you want it.
Yes. Choosing not to choose is a choice.

I am not sure what your point is?

I can choose to make coffee, tea, coffee and tea; or neither. Each option has its respective cost/consequence.
The point is that you normally choose the option you like unless you freely decide to do otherwise. You are caused to choose by option in the first case and you freely decide to do otherwise in the second case. You are free if you have the ability to freely decide.
Yes but between an option you like and option you don’t like is a trivial choice.

For one can always say “you had no choice in the matter - anybody would have chosen the easy way out!”.

Surely true freedom would be being able to choose the option you don’t like, because you know it is morally correct to do so?

To only choose what you like is not freedom. It is slavery to Epicureanism.
Last edited by Logik on Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Thank you very much for answering all of my questions. Only on very rarest of occasions, in this forum, do My clarifying questions get answered. Receiving answers is very refreshing, so thank you again.
You are very welcome. :-)
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
I now realize that I was misreading what you were arguing for before. So, a couple more clarifying questions now:
No problem. I am open to discuss things.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
If human beings are not caused/created, then how do/did they come to exist?
We have always existed as mind, mind being the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause. We just have a chance to interact with material as a form of human being now.We have been other things in the past.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Your first premise 1) Causation requires knowledge, to me, did not make sense, and thus was incorrect. And, on first glance/reading of your explanation of this premise it seemed absurd. But on second glance/reading it is 'paradoxical', to me anyway. By the way a 'paradox', to me, is some thing that seems absurd or contradictory but expresses a truth. I did not notice the truth in it the first time round.
Let me give you a couple of examples to show what do I mean with the first premise. Think of a seed which turns into a tree. The causation is a at work at any moment of its development from one stage to another stage. Yet knowledge which is encrypted as DNA exists in the seed and it is necessary for the development of the seed. Now think of a cue ball which hits another ball. Again, the balls react upon collision based on their nature. Knowledge requires for causation since things should go somewhere, an end from a beginning. This applies to the act of creation of mind if such a thing is possible. God should have specific knowledge in order to create a mind. The first premise is in fact very general and the act of creation is one example of it.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
How all of this now fits in with the opening post argument gave me great insight into how to express better, what it is that I want to express. However, you are saying that human beings, who are free agents, are not caused/created. If you can explain how human beings exist but are not caused/created, and it makes sense, then I will change my view. But, as I SEE things now 'human beings', who are free agents, were naturally caused/created by one thing.
I already explain what I think is true about our existence.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Do you think or believe that other things are caused/created and only human beings are not?
To me reality is very simple. It has two ingredient: 1) Minds and 2) The stuff created by minds. The first thing is very essence of us. The second, we experience, we live within, and we communicate by it, etc.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Or, do you think or believe that every thing is not caused/created?
The stuff that we experience is caused.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
If it is the latter, then how do you think every thing came to exist?
That is a little long. To me minds existed at the beginning. There was nothing but minds and time (time cannot be created, I have an argument for that). So the beginning started either as a result of a Mind wishing to creating the stuff or as a result of nothingness being unstable could turns into all possible things. The creation or the universe is eternal in the sense that its origin lays in infinite past since time cannot be created and it is eternal.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Your definition of 'God', by the way, is probably the closest, and thus best, definition from ALL the definitions of what 'God' is, which I have seen anyway, to what 'God' actually IS. Besides your misuse of the word 'Mind', (Mind is singular, so no 's'), you are just about spot on with YOUR definition for God. YOUR definition is so very close to describing and showing WHAT 'God' really IS, and how 'God' really exists.
Thank you.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:04 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:45 pm
Yes but between an option you like and option you don’t like is a trivial choice.

For one can always say “you had no choice in the matter - anybody would have chosen the easy way out!”.
Yes, if you are caused to choose what you like if you pick it up.
Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:45 pm
Surely true freedom would be being able to choose the option you don’t like, because you know it is morally correct to do so?
Yes, but you have always ability to pick up what you don't like.
Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:45 pm
To only choose what you like is not freedom. It is slavery to Epicureanism.
Yes, we are slave of our pleasures. Yet, we are free.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Logik » Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:40 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:04 pm
Yes, we are slave of our pleasures. Yet, we are free.
The Epicureans and Stoics have a different perspective on the matter.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:04 am

(1.) Just wondering is there any thing that is actually incompatible between what is in religion and what is empirically observed as being true?

I just ask because I do not see any incompatibility between the two.

(2.)What is bullshit in religions?
(1.) Religion: there are supernatural forces affecting the physical world. Examples: Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results.
Science: Prayer's effect is random and statistically ineffectual. Nobody can move against laws of nature, such as defeating gravity by employing supernatural forces. Healing the blind with putting a hand over her eyes exists only in fairy tales.

(2.) Bullshit in religion: denial of the evolutionary process. Accepting that some people have prophetic abilities. Accepting that one person on Earth is god. Accepting that one person on Earth can communicate directly with god. Accepting that the religious are righteous and the heathen are lost sheep. Rejecting that the Earth is very nearly of a ball shape. Insisting there is an afterlife. Insisting to know the nature of the afterlife. Insisting on claims of knowledge how to behave on Earth to direct a human to a spot in the afterlife.

These are just some of the bullshit teachings, and some of the incompatibilities between religious tenets or dogmas, and scientific findings.

If you say that some of the examples of religious beliefs or dogmas here are only true to some specific religions, you're right. But they are still religions. You can't deny that, Age, even if you wanted to.

Age
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Thank you very much for answering all of my questions. Only on very rarest of occasions, in this forum, do My clarifying questions get answered. Receiving answers is very refreshing, so thank you again.
You are very welcome. :-)
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
I now realize that I was misreading what you were arguing for before. So, a couple more clarifying questions now:
No problem. I am open to discuss things.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
If human beings are not caused/created, then how do/did they come to exist?
We have always existed as mind, mind being the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause.
When you use the word 'we' having always existed as 'mind', is that the collective 'we' as one, and that is also is the one Mind/Essence, right?

After all, 'always existed' implies an eternalness to it. And, 'we', individual, human beings, have not always existed.

Or, are there many 'minds' that have always existed?

Do you see/mean the 'we' as individuals, each with its own 'mind/essence'?

If so, then is this individual mind just a part of some Universal One Mind? Or, is there some thing else going on here?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
We just have a chance to interact with material as a form of human being now.We have been other things in the past.
Fair enough, but that does not explain HOW human beings did come to exist, if they are not caused/created.

By the way, ALL of this can be fully explained and completely understood in a very easy and simple way. But i am just trying to work out why you are trying to argue the way you are, and all of the finer details, and how they relate to each other, within your argument.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Your first premise 1) Causation requires knowledge, to me, did not make sense, and thus was incorrect. And, on first glance/reading of your explanation of this premise it seemed absurd. But on second glance/reading it is 'paradoxical', to me anyway. By the way a 'paradox', to me, is some thing that seems absurd or contradictory but expresses a truth. I did not notice the truth in it the first time round.
Let me give you a couple of examples to show what do I mean with the first premise. Think of a seed which turns into a tree. The causation is a at work at any moment of its development from one stage to another stage. Yet knowledge which is encrypted as DNA exists in the seed and it is necessary for the development of the seed. Now think of a cue ball which hits another ball. Again, the balls react upon collision based on their nature. Knowledge requires for causation since things should go somewhere, an end from a beginning.
The word 'knowledge' is what did not make sense to me, in your argument, and of which seemed incorrect, the first time i read it. But as explained the second time i read it, i could see that what you said expressed a truth. To me, a 'paradox' is just some thing which SEEMS absurd or contradictory but which ACTUALLY does express a truth.

How do you define the word 'knowledge'?

To me, i had previous seen 'knowledge' as some thing that was held within human brains and/or within human text and/or speech. So, your first premise; Causation requires knowledge did not make sense because causation was happening well before humans, and thus knowledge, came into existence. But on deeper reflection i remembered that there is a KNOWING held deep within every one. This KNOWING is the 'knowledge', which i think you are talking about here, that is inbuilt within dna, which causes all things to act and interact with each other. The resulted reaction, is creation. The reacting, of things together, is creating, or some times known as evolving, things, from a "beginning" to and "end".

You did not need to give examples here because this is how i understood it, the second time around anyway. But I will say that with each perceived beginning there may be an, also perceived, end, however, there is no actual beginning as there was no actual end.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
This applies to the act of creation of mind if such a thing is possible.
But such a thing could not be possible as you have already stated, 'We have always existed as mind'. If 'we' (when who/what the 'we' actually is revealed/known, then that makes understanding ALL of this much easier), but anyway, if 'we' have ALWAYS EXISTED as 'mind', then there is, obviously, NO creation of mind.

If some thing is around forever, then it can not be created.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
God should have specific knowledge in order to create a mind.
Again, how could God 'create' a 'mind', if 'mind' has ALWAYS existed?

You are very close to coming to understand this fully, but you can not and will not gain fully understanding with a contradictory view like this one is.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The first premise is in fact very general and the act of creation is one example of it.
I do not understand what you mean by 'the act of creation', nor that that act being 'one example of it'. What 'act of creation', and what is the 'it'?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
How all of this now fits in with the opening post argument gave me great insight into how to express better, what it is that I want to express. However, you are saying that human beings, who are free agents, are not caused/created. If you can explain how human beings exist but are not caused/created, and it makes sense, then I will change my view. But, as I SEE things now 'human beings', who are free agents, were naturally caused/created by one thing.
I already explain what I think is true about our existence.
When did you? I must of missed it.

What is true about our existence?

How did you humans come into existence if they were not caused/created?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Do you think or believe that other things are caused/created and only human beings are not?
To me reality is very simple. It has two ingredient: 1) Minds and 2) The stuff created by minds.
How many 'minds' (with s) are there?

If there was 'stuff' before human beings existed, then where else do you propose these 'minds' are, which creates stuff?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The first thing is very essence of us. The second, we experience, we live within, and we communicate by it, etc.
I do agree with you, up to a certain extent. But you will have to be able to answer the clarifying questions sufficiently and so show a uniformed picture. Answering the questions properly and correctly will show how this uniformed picture was formed. However, until then from what I see of Reality it is much simpler than how you are trying to explain it here. Although as I suggested previously you are far closer than any one else has been at understanding, and explaining this.

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Or, do you think or believe that every thing is not caused/created?
The stuff that we experience is caused.
Are you able to explain who/what 'we' are/is?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
If it is the latter, then how do you think every thing came to exist?
That is a little long.
I do not understand. What is a little long?

To me minds existed at the beginning. [/quote]

How many 'minds' existed at the "beginning", and when was that 'beginning'?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
There was nothing but minds and time (time cannot be created, I have an argument for that).
I would love to hear that argument, sometime.

So the beginning started either as a result of a Mind wishing to creating the stuff or as a result of nothingness being unstable could turns into all possible things.

Before you said, " 'minds' existed at the beginning", but now you are saying "the beginning started with 'a Mind' (or for some other reason). So, was there was one Mind, or, minds (with an s)?

A 'Mind', or 'minds', that always existed, without absolutely anything else existing, seems a bit far fetched. What seems more inconceivable that one "day" or at some point, this Mind or minds suddenly wished to create stuff. What also seems just as inconceivable is how 'nothingness' could become unstable, and then that turns into stuff.

There is a far quicker, very simply conceived, and more easily understood explanation of how ALL of this came to be.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The creation or the universe is eternal in the sense that its origin lays in infinite past since time cannot be created and it is eternal.
This is all well and good. But it is contradictory to say, "minds existed at the 'beginning' ", and then say, "The creation or the universe is, 'eternal' ". If some thing has a beginning, then it obviously could not be eternal, and vice-versa, if some thing is eternal, then it obviously could not have a beginning.

Also, again how many 'minds' do you propose was at this "beginning"?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Your definition of 'God', by the way, is probably the closest, and thus best, definition from ALL the definitions of what 'God' is, which I have seen anyway, to what 'God' actually IS. Besides your misuse of the word 'Mind', (Mind is singular, so no 's'), you are just about spot on with YOUR definition for God. YOUR definition is so very close to describing and showing WHAT 'God' really IS, and how 'God' really exists.
Thank you.
Just a hint; one reason human beings have not yet unraveled the, so called, "mysteries" of the Universe, like what actually IS 'God' and so forth, yet, is because human beings think/believe that there are many "minds". Discovering and understanding what the one 'Mind' actually IS, and how It works, creates, and interacts in relation to, and with, the human brain, then the solution of HOW to solve ALL of those, past, "mysteries" starts being revealed,and becoming more obvious.

With this revealing knowledge, then comes the realization of how ALL of these answers are already KNOWN, but are, at the moment, to most human beings, just hidden. Part of this revealing knowledge contains HOW ALL of this 'knowledge' was being hidden, and more importantly, WHY it was being hidden, hitherto.

Age
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:11 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:04 am

(1.) Just wondering is there any thing that is actually incompatible between what is in religion and what is empirically observed as being true?

I just ask because I do not see any incompatibility between the two.

(2.)What is bullshit in religions?
(1.) Religion: there are supernatural forces affecting the physical world. Examples: Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results.
Science: Prayer's effect is random and statistically ineffectual. Nobody can move against laws of nature, such as defeating gravity by employing supernatural forces. Healing the blind with putting a hand over her eyes exists only in fairy tales.

(2.) Bullshit in religion: denial of the evolutionary process.

I have yet to see denial of the evolutionary process in religion. In fact in some religious texts it clearly, to me anyway, states the evolutionary process.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that some people have prophetic abilities.

Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for EVERY, and ALL, human being to be able to prophesize?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that one person on Earth is god.
To you, could it be possible?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that one person on Earth can communicate directly with god.
To you, could it be possible?

Accepting that the religious are righteous and the heathen are lost sheep. [/quote]


Is there one that is truly religious or righteous?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Rejecting that the Earth is very nearly of a ball shape.
Does it state in religious text that the earth is not very nearly of a ball shape?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Insisting there is an afterlife.
Well how could there not be an afterlife?

There is either Life, which is eternal, or, there is life, with some thing after it.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Insisting to know the nature of the afterlife.
The nature of the, so called, 'afterlife' is extremely simple and easy to understand, and to KNOW.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Insisting on claims of knowledge how to behave on Earth to direct a human to a spot in the afterlife.
Again, very simple and easy to understand, and KNOW.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
These are just some of the bullshit teachings, and some of the incompatibilities between religious tenets or dogmas, and scientific findings.
From science explanation and understanding of how the; Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results, can happen, and will happen, will be very easily understood.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. And, you obviously read, and read into, things differently than I do.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
If you say that some of the examples of religious beliefs or dogmas here are only true to some specific religions, you're right.
But i would have NEVER of had said that.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
But they are still religions. You can't deny that, Age, even if you wanted to.
WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Thank you very much for answering all of my questions. Only on very rarest of occasions, in this forum, do My clarifying questions get answered. Receiving answers is very refreshing, so thank you again.
You are very welcome. :-)
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
I now realize that I was misreading what you were arguing for before. So, a couple more clarifying questions now:
No problem. I am open to discuss things.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
If human beings are not caused/created, then how do/did they come to exist?
We have always existed as mind, mind being the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause.
When you use the word 'we' having always existed as 'mind', is that the collective 'we' as one, and that is also is the one Mind/Essence, right?

After all, 'always existed' implies an eternalness to it. And, 'we', individual, human beings, have not always existed.

Or, are there many 'minds' that have always existed?
That was my mistake. I should have written minds instead of mind.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
Do you see/mean the 'we' as individuals, each with its own 'mind/essence'?
Yes.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
If so, then is this individual mind just a part of some Universal One Mind? Or, is there some thing else going on here?
We are separate minds.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

We just have a chance to interact with material as a form of human being now.We have been other things in the past.
Fair enough, but that does not explain HOW human beings did come to exist, if they are not caused/created.
Yes, that is completely another story. I believe that things have been evolving because of existence of minds.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
By the way, ALL of this can be fully explained and completely understood in a very easy and simple way. But i am just trying to work out why you are trying to argue the way you are, and all of the finer details, and how they relate to each other, within your argument.
Yes, the whole story is a little long.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Your first premise 1) Causation requires knowledge, to me, did not make sense, and thus was incorrect. And, on first glance/reading of your explanation of this premise it seemed absurd. But on second glance/reading it is 'paradoxical', to me anyway. By the way a 'paradox', to me, is some thing that seems absurd or contradictory but expresses a truth. I did not notice the truth in it the first time round.
Let me give you a couple of examples to show what do I mean with the first premise. Think of a seed which turns into a tree. The causation is a at work at any moment of its development from one stage to another stage. Yet knowledge which is encrypted as DNA exists in the seed and it is necessary for the development of the seed. Now think of a cue ball which hits another ball. Again, the balls react upon collision based on their nature. Knowledge requires for causation since things should go somewhere, an end from a beginning.
The word 'knowledge' is what did not make sense to me, in your argument, and of which seemed incorrect, the first time i read it. But as explained the second time i read it, i could see that what you said expressed a truth. To me, a 'paradox' is just some thing which SEEMS absurd or contradictory but which ACTUALLY does express a truth.

How do you define the word 'knowledge'?
Knowledge is what is derived from the relation between concepts. Knowledge is something encrypted in any statement: We have concepts, "it", "raining", "is" and sum of them "it is raining". We know something when it is said that "it is raining".
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
To me, i had previous seen 'knowledge' as some thing that was held within human brains and/or within human text and/or speech. So, your first premise; Causation requires knowledge did not make sense because causation was happening well before humans, and thus knowledge, came into existence. But on deeper reflection i remembered that there is a KNOWING held deep within every one. This KNOWING is the 'knowledge', which i think you are talking about here, that is inbuilt within dna, which causes all things to act and interact with each other. The resulted reaction, is creation. The reacting, of things together, is creating, or some times known as evolving, things, from a "beginning" to and "end".
Yes.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
You did not need to give examples here because this is how i understood it, the second time around anyway. But I will say that with each perceived beginning there may be an, also perceived, end, however, there is no actual beginning as there was no actual end.
Yes. Beginning and end define a step of causality.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
This applies to the act of creation of mind if such a thing is possible.
But such a thing could not be possible as you have already stated, 'We have always existed as mind'. If 'we' (when who/what the 'we' actually is revealed/known, then that makes understanding ALL of this much easier), but anyway, if 'we' have ALWAYS EXISTED as 'mind', then there is, obviously, NO creation of mind.
I meant if mind is created then a knowledge related to such a act is required. I need to assume so and show that it leads to a contradiction. The opposite is then correct.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
If some thing is around forever, then it can not be created.
Yes.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
God should have specific knowledge in order to create a mind.
Again, how could God 'create' a 'mind', if 'mind' has ALWAYS existed?
I meant, if creation of mind was possible then the appropriate knowledge is required. We assume this and see that this leads to a contradiction, basically premises (1) and (4) contradict each other. (4) is true therefore (1) is wrong.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
You are very close to coming to understand this fully, but you can not and will not gain fully understanding with a contradictory view like this one is.
I don't think if there is any contradiction in my understanding. This was just a misunderstanding.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The first premise is in fact very general and the act of creation is one example of it.
I do not understand what you mean by 'the act of creation', nor that that act being 'one example of it'. What 'act of creation', and what is the 'it'?
Let's say the creation instead of act of creation. By it I meant the first premise.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
How all of this now fits in with the opening post argument gave me great insight into how to express better, what it is that I want to express. However, you are saying that human beings, who are free agents, are not caused/created. If you can explain how human beings exist but are not caused/created, and it makes sense, then I will change my view. But, as I SEE things now 'human beings', who are free agents, were naturally caused/created by one thing.
I already explain what I think is true about our existence.
When did you? I must of missed it.
I mentioned that we have always existed. That is another conclusion of the argument: We have always existed if we could not be created.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
What is true about our existence?
That we have always existed.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
How did you humans come into existence if they were not caused/created?
We have always existed therefore we were not created.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Do you think or believe that other things are caused/created and only human beings are not?
To me reality is very simple. It has two ingredient: 1) Minds and 2) The stuff created by minds.
How many 'minds' (with s) are there?
I guess infinite. I don't have any argument in favor of this claim though.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
If there was 'stuff' before human beings existed, then where else do you propose these 'minds' are, which creates stuff?
Another level of reality. I believe that reality has infinite levels. We just don't have access to higher level.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The first thing is very essence of us. The second, we experience, we live within, and we communicate by it, etc.
I do agree with you, up to a certain extent. But you will have to be able to answer the clarifying questions sufficiently and so show a uniformed picture. Answering the questions properly and correctly will show how this uniformed picture was formed. However, until then from what I see of Reality it is much simpler than how you are trying to explain it here. Although as I suggested previously you are far closer than any one else has been at understanding, and explaining this.
Thanks. There are several questions that I have no answer for them yet. I am however ready to explain things that I have understood the best I can.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Or, do you think or believe that every thing is not caused/created?
The stuff that we experience is caused.
Are you able to explain who/what 'we' are/is?
We are simply minds embedded inside the stuff.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
If it is the latter, then how do you think every thing came to exist?
That is a little long.
I do not understand. What is a little long?
The explainaing of how we come to be in here.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
To me minds existed at the beginning.

How many 'minds' existed at the "beginning", and when was that 'beginning'?
Beginning lies at eternal past. All mind existed at the beginning.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
There was nothing but minds and time (time cannot be created, I have an argument for that).
I would love to hear that argument, sometime.
Here is the argument: Time is fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. This means that time cannot be an emergent property of any dynamical theory otherwise we are dealing with a contradiction. Therefore time cannot be created/emergent.
What this arguments states is simply that you need time in first place, because time is fundamental variable, in order to create time and this a contradiction. Time could not be emergent either.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
So the beginning started either as a result of a Mind wishing to creating the stuff or as a result of nothingness being unstable could turns into all possible things.

Before you said, " 'minds' existed at the beginning", but now you are saying "the beginning started with 'a Mind' (or for some other reason). So, was there was one Mind, or, minds (with an s)?
I mean that stuff didn't exist.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
A 'Mind', or 'minds', that always existed, without absolutely anything else existing, seems a bit far fetched. What seems more inconceivable that one "day" or at some point, this Mind or minds suddenly wished to create stuff. What also seems just as inconceivable is how 'nothingness' could become unstable, and then that turns into stuff.
There was either a Mind who created the stuff or the nothingness (no stuff) in presence of minds is unstable. We don't have any other option.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
There is a far quicker, very simply conceived, and more easily understood explanation of how ALL of this came to be.
What is that?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The creation or the universe is eternal in the sense that its origin lays in infinite past since time cannot be created and it is eternal.
This is all well and good. But it is contradictory to say, "minds existed at the 'beginning' ", and then say, "The creation or the universe is, 'eternal' ". If some thing has a beginning, then it obviously could not be eternal, and vice-versa, if some thing is eternal, then it obviously could not have a beginning.
There is no contradiction in here if we can agree that the beginning lies at eternal past.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Also, again how many 'minds' do you propose was at this "beginning"?
All minds. Whatever number of minds exist now existed at the beginning.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Your definition of 'God', by the way, is probably the closest, and thus best, definition from ALL the definitions of what 'God' is, which I have seen anyway, to what 'God' actually IS. Besides your misuse of the word 'Mind', (Mind is singular, so no 's'), you are just about spot on with YOUR definition for God. YOUR definition is so very close to describing and showing WHAT 'God' really IS, and how 'God' really exists.
Thank you.
Just a hint; one reason human beings have not yet unraveled the, so called, "mysteries" of the Universe, like what actually IS 'God' and so forth, yet, is because human beings think/believe that there are many "minds". Discovering and understanding what the one 'Mind' actually IS, and how It works, creates, and interacts in relation to, and with, the human brain, then the solution of HOW to solve ALL of those, past, "mysteries" starts being revealed,and becoming more obvious.

With this revealing knowledge, then comes the realization of how ALL of these answers are already KNOWN, but are, at the moment, to most human beings, just hidden. Part of this revealing knowledge contains HOW ALL of this 'knowledge' was being hidden, and more importantly, WHY it was being hidden, hitherto.
I agree with you.

Walker
Posts: 6679
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Walker » Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:11 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am
Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.
Structure causes freedom.

Freedom is only realized as a transcendence of structure.

e.g., the freedom of nature is realized because of the boundaries caused by the structure of a picture frame surrounding a Van Gogh creation.

e.g., Viktor Frankl realized the freedom of love while his existence, his relationships with other people, was structured as a slave.

e.g., F. Scott Fitzgerald graduated from college and lived in his parent’s attic. He was bound into that structure, that limitation. The limitation of that circumstance created F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Transcendence of structure reveals the illusion of limitations (e.g., caused by slavery or paint or words).

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:48 am

Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:11 pm
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:04 am

(1.) Just wondering is there any thing that is actually incompatible between what is in religion and what is empirically observed as being true?

I just ask because I do not see any incompatibility between the two.

(2.)What is bullshit in religions?
(1.) Religion: there are supernatural forces affecting the physical world. Examples: Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results.
Science: Prayer's effect is random and statistically ineffectual. Nobody can move against laws of nature, such as defeating gravity by employing supernatural forces. Healing the blind with putting a hand over her eyes exists only in fairy tales.

(2.) Bullshit in religion: denial of the evolutionary process.

I have yet to see denial of the evolutionary process in religion. In fact in some religious texts it clearly, to me anyway, states the evolutionary process.
Your religion is different from other religions.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that some people have prophetic abilities.

Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for EVERY, and ALL, human being to be able to prophesize?
I am saying that according to science, it is not possible to prophecize without data and logic and reason. My opinion does not matter. You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that one person on Earth is god.
To you, could it be possible?
My stance is not indicative. It is immaterial. According to science, it is unacceptable, because there is no evidence of it, never has been. You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that one person on Earth can communicate directly with god.
To you, could it be possible?
My stance is not indicative. It is immaterial. According to science, it is unacceptable, because there is no evidence of it, never has been. You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that the religious are righteous and the heathen are lost sheep.

Is there one that is truly religious or righteous?
It is not for me to say. The religious think that, the scientific community denies that.
You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Rejecting that the Earth is very nearly of a ball shape.
Does it state in religious text that the earth is not very nearly of a ball shape?

Don't play dumb with me. Religious texts are not the entire body of religious beliefs.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Insisting there is an afterlife.
Well how could there not be an afterlife?

There is either Life, which is eternal, or, there is life, with some thing after it.
You are playing dumb on purpose? "Afterlife" is not "after life". Get to know English, or rather, stop pretending that you don't know English.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Insisting to know the nature of the afterlife.
The nature of the, so called, 'afterlife' is extremely simple and easy to understand, and to KNOW.
Except on a scientific basis. There is no evidence of what happens to the human mind after the body dies. There is no knowledge, nothing of the sort. For the religious, it is easy to "know" and understand. They believe anything, so why not believe the dogmas on this.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Insisting on claims of knowledge how to behave on Earth to direct a human to a spot in the afterlife.
Again, very simple and easy to understand, and KNOW.
Except on a scientific basis. There is no evidence of what happens to the human mind after the body dies. There is no knowledge, nothing of the sort. For the religious, it is easy to "know" and understand. They believe anything, so why not believe the dogmas on this.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
These are just some of the bullshit teachings, and some of the incompatibilities between religious tenets or dogmas, and scientific findings.
From science explanation and understanding of how the; Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results, can happen, and will happen, will be very easily understood.
Except on a scientific basis. Maybe you meant "church of science" when you used "science" in "From science explanation". There is no evidence of any of these ever happening, and there is evidence they are not possible to happen. For the religious, it is easy to "know" and understand. They believe anything, so why not dogmas on this.
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. And, you obviously read, and read into, things differently than I do.
This claim by you is absolutely unscientific. Science is based on the assumption that the universe is knowable, and that humans can learn how it operates. That involves repeatability. If everyone interpreted data and relationships differently from everyone else, we would have no science. Your observation and claim is false.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
If you say that some of the examples of religious beliefs or dogmas here are only true to some specific religions, you're right.
But i would have NEVER of had said that.
Interesting English. Plus you don't undersand the nature of a conditional construct. I am not saying you ARE saying that; I am saying "IF" you said that; that is, in case you said that, but that does not carry the claim at all that you WOULD say that for sure.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
But they are still religions. You can't deny that, Age, even if you wanted to.
WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?
I am not assuming anything in what you refer to as assumption. Plus, it's a mute point.
Last edited by -1- on Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:19 am

Age wrote:
Are human beings caused or not caused ?
What is YOUR definition of God ?
Are adult human beings free ?
Human beings are caused because the law of cause and effect [ a physics law ] also applies to biological reproduction
I would define God as Existence per panentheism but only in an abstract sense since I do not actually believe in him
Human beings are not ABSOLUTELY free but are in a less limited sense where freedom is between actual possibilities

Age
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:41 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:19 am
Age wrote:
Are human beings caused or not caused ?
What is YOUR definition of God ?
Are adult human beings free ?
Human beings are caused because the law of cause and effect [ a physics law ] also applies to biological reproduction
I would define God as Existence per panentheism but only in an abstract sense since I do not actually believe in him
Human beings are not ABSOLUTELY free but are in a less limited sense where freedom is between actual possibilities
Are you at all open to anything else? Or, is that how it IS?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:03 am

Age wrote:
Are you at all open to anything else ? Or is that how it IS ?
I am open to anything which could be true but what I have stated here is true for now at least if not always so
As it can and indeed will be subject to revision when new information or understanding becomes known to me

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests