compatibilism

[iambiguous]

From ILP:

Again, I'll let you explain your point to Mary's daughter Jane who exists only because Mary's friend Jean was able to persuade Mary not to abort her.

If I'm explaining it to her then she didn't get aborted. She didn't get aborted in a deterministic world. She didn't get aborted in a free-will world.

If she got aborted, then I wouldn't be talking to her.

But in a determined world as I understand it you are explaining to her only what you were never able not to explain to her. There was no Jean around able of her own volition to explain to you what I'm explaining to you because I opted of my own volition "here and now" to think this instead of that. Convincing you not to think what you do now.

Jane didn't get aborted in a free will world because Mom was talked out of it. Mom was never going to be talked out of it in a wholly determined world so there was never any possibility of her being around for you to explain anything to her.

Now, in a wholly determined universe as I understand it if Mary aborts Jane there was never any possibility that she would have not aborted her. Jane's life was wholly determined to be conceived when a particular sperm fertilized a particular oocyte and together they formed a particular zygote. Jane's life was wholly determined to end at that point in time when Mary was wholly determined to abort her.

That's totally ridiculous.

If Jane exists, then she didn't get aborted.

And she didn't get aborted because Jean was able to persuade Mary to change her mind. In a determined universe she was never able not to be conceived. But she was never able to be born either. And she would have to have been born and grown to the point you could discuss it with her.

Think about a free-will world. If Jane was aborted, then she would not exist. But if she was not aborted, then she might survive long enough to talk to me.

Why? Because Jean's freely thought up argument was not persuasive enough for Mary of her own volition to change her mind. But in a wholly determined universe she was never able to not be aborted.

But in a free will world as I understand it, all the existential variables that came together enabling Mary to meet Jean created a context in which Mary was able of her own volition to hear Jean's argument and as a result of this change her mind about aborting Jane.

Now switch to a determined world. Mary's mother tells her that abortion is wrong. She responds by not aborting.

Blah, blah. She was compelled not to abort.

How is that different from Jean's argument changing Mary's mind?

Again, all I can do here is to request that others make an attempt to explain your point more perspicuously. Mary's mother was never free to rethink her point of view and tell Mary that abortion is right. Mary is not able to think that through and of her own volition change her mind. Mary's Mom, Mary and Jane are just more dominoes toppling over as the laws of matter entail. And Jean here is no less toppling over on cue.

We just don't what that means because we don't fully understand all that unfolds given the points I raise here:

Anyone here thoroughly familiar with how the Big Bang brought into existence existence itself out of nothing at all evolving into stars exploding into supernovas creating the heavy elements that eventually evolved into more complex matter eventually evolving into living matter here on Earth eventually evolving into matter like us able to make the precise, empirical distinction between wanting a cream cake in a dream and wanting a cream cake in the wide awake world?

Please explain to us how this necessarily resulted in determinism in the dream and free will in the waking world.

Or, I suspect, as with phyllo, do you "just know" this? Or, perhaps, have faith that a God, the God is around to explain it?

[Belinda]

I have no idea where you get some of these ideas, Belinda. Many of them sound like typical psychobable and others some kind of mysticism. Whatever you mean by the "central nervous system," or any other part of the nervous system, it does not refine, evaluate, or process anything.

I do not think you really know what feelings and emotions are, but I have not the time to explain the entire subject. If you are interested, please see the following articles in which I much more fully explain them:

# "Feelings,"

# "Feelings And Emotions: Their Nature, Significance, And Importance,"

# "Emotions," and an older version,

# "Emotions: Their Importance and Control."

I learned a lot of it from quite a low academic level of anatomy and physiology studies mostly when I was a student nurse.

Thanks for that Belinda. If you don't mind, I have another question. It's not personal.

Just a few years ago, most nursing schools everywhere [and still today in some places] were still teaching Maslow's "hierarchy of needs." Were they still teaching that when you were studying nursing?

I'm asking because Maslow is such a good example of all that is wrong with psychology and the terrible influence it has had on all it touches. In any case, Maslow's history and Influence on psychology is a good illustration. For your own edification, read the article and check out the links to all the other psychologists and the terrible things they taught and promoted.

If you like, let me know what you think.

As a student nurse I was taught no academic psychology at all. Later on I studied education and became a teacher. As an educationist it was my duty to help children and youths to be able to develop into people who could think for themselves and so be the most able they could be to help themselves and others. Maslow's hierarchy of human needs describes how children develop though stages that include doing what they are told to finally becoming people who are capable of making their own moral and efficient decisions.

[RCSaunders]

Maslow's hierarchy of human needs describes how children develop though stages that include doing what they are told to finally becoming people who are capable of making their own moral and efficient decisions.

If you really believe that, Belinda, and exercise those ideas in dealing with children it would be child abuse. You obviously did not read the article on Maslow or any of the links that would have shown the terrible consequences of Maslow's psychology in practice.

Of course you don't have to. I certainly pity any children you have allowed any of Maslow's ideas to influence.

[iambiguous]

From ILP:

You're just making up two different stories ... a free-will story where Mary does not have an abortion and a determined story where she does have an abortion.

No, I'm assuming that in a determined universe as I understand it I am making up only what the laws of matter [embodied in my brian] compel me to make up. I could never not be typing these words, you could never not be reading them. Jane could never not be aborted.

However, you don't give any reasons why these stories have to unfold as you say.

Same thing. I don't give what I was never able not to not give. Our reasons are just more dominos toppling over onto other reasons emanating from brains going back to this...

Anyone here thoroughly familiar with how the Big Bang brought into existence existence itself out of nothing at all evolving into stars exploding into supernovas creating the heavy elements that eventually evolved into more complex matter eventually evolving into living matter here on Earth eventually evolving into matter like us able to make the precise, empirical distinction between wanting a cream cake in a dream and wanting a cream cake in the wide awake world?

What, you can demonstrate to us that your reasons are...different?

Obviously not all fetuses are aborted in a determined world. So why does determined Mary have to have an abortion? Why is the storyline where she is talked out of the abortion not a possible case?

Obviously because in a wholly determined universe everything is obviously what it can only possibly be.

But, obviously, if matter -- re God or nature itself -- has managed to result in human brains able to opt autonomously among alternative behaviors, Mary has something say about whether Jane lives or dies. That seems important to bring up.

Furthermore, you don't refer to the current state of the world as we are now experiencing it. If I'm talking to Jane, then she was not aborted. That's what actually did happen. The alternate stories never happened. They are paths not taken.

Again, in a wholly determined universe, I refer only to that which I was never able not to refer. But, to the extent I possess the capacity to think through the current state of the world -- and "I" in it -- with some measure of autonomy, I'm talking to Jane because Mary was able to freely opt for Jean's advice and choose not to abort her. Paths taken or not taken...willfully.

Then back to how I still don't really have a clue as to what you think is important about the point you may or may be compelled to make here.

[Belinda]

Maslow's hierarchy of human needs describes how children develop though stages that include doing what they are told to finally becoming people who are capable of making their own moral and efficient decisions.

If you really believe that, Belinda, and exercise those ideas in dealing with children it would be child abuse. You obviously did not read the article on Maslow or any of the links that would have shown the terrible consequences of Maslow's psychology in practice.

Of course you don't have to. I certainly pity any children you have allowed any of Maslow's ideas to influence.

My sons were once dependent on their father and me and when they were older the gradually became capable of independent decisions.

The guiding principles at the college of education I attended were 'child centred' which means the individual child shows the discerning teacher what stage he is at and the teacher provides age and stage- appropriate learning for that individual. The students at this liberal establishment were also encouraged to debate the very principle of liberal education. While individual curriculums may be impractical the methods are what modern educationists aim for.

Right wing dogmatists were gently debated at the college. I once shared a bedroom with one of them, a pleasant young girl who had imbibed a dogmatic form of Christianity.

[RCSaunders]

Maslow's hierarchy of human needs describes how children develop though stages that include doing what they are told to finally becoming people who are capable of making their own moral and efficient decisions.

If you really believe that, Belinda, and exercise those ideas in dealing with children it would be child abuse. You obviously did not read the article on Maslow or any of the links that would have shown the terrible consequences of Maslow's psychology in practice.

Of course you don't have to. I certainly pity any children you have allowed any of Maslow's ideas to influence.

My sons were once dependent on their father and me and when they were older the gradually became capable of independent decisions.

The guiding principles at the college of education I attended were 'child centred' which means the individual child shows the discerning teacher what stage he is at and the teacher provides age and stage- appropriate learning for that individual. The students at this liberal establishment were also encouraged to debate the very principle of liberal education. While individual curriculums may be impractical the methods are what modern educationists aim for.

Right wing dogmatists were gently debated at the college. I once shared a bedroom with one of them, a pleasant young girl who had imbibed a dogmatic form of Christianity.

Thanks for that bit of insight into your personal background. It would be interesting to have a private discussion, perhaps, of some of the ideas coming from that, but I try to avoid as much as possible all personal things on a public forum, so I have no other comments. Perhaps in another time and place. Stay well!

[Belinda]

If you really believe that, Belinda, and exercise those ideas in dealing with children it would be child abuse. You obviously did not read the article on Maslow or any of the links that would have shown the terrible consequences of Maslow's psychology in practice.

Of course you don't have to. I certainly pity any children you have allowed any of Maslow's ideas to influence.

My sons were once dependent on their father and me and when they were older the gradually became capable of independent decisions.

The guiding principles at the college of education I attended were 'child centred' which means the individual child shows the discerning teacher what stage he is at and the teacher provides age and stage- appropriate learning for that individual. The students at this liberal establishment were also encouraged to debate the very principle of liberal education. While individual curriculums may be impractical the methods are what modern educationists aim for.

Right wing dogmatists were gently debated at the college. I once shared a bedroom with one of them, a pleasant young girl who had imbibed a dogmatic form of Christianity.

Thanks for that bit of insight into your personal background. It would be interesting to have a private discussion, perhaps, of some of the ideas coming from that, but I try to avoid as much as possible all personal things on a public forum, so I have no other comments. Perhaps in another time and place. Stay well!

It would be interesting to debate Maslow's hierarchy of needs.You have not entered your own critique but only expressed your opinion.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a useful heuristic device by which we can measure a learner's general stage of motivation. Safe to say no young child under the age of two years has attained the stage of self actualisation as self is identical with mother during the early years.

Remember motivations can vault over deprivation of food and friendships so that self actualisation can take place despite a degree of deprivation. These exceptions are highlighted by Maslow's pyramid of needs taken as the norm.

[iambiguous]

The Paradox of Free Will
Dennis Waite at the Yoga International website

One extreme view is that thoughts arise outside our conscious control, automatically triggering other thoughts until an action eventually results, all in a totally mechanistic way. This indicates a complete absence of free will and is what Western philosophy labels “universal determinism,” the belief that anything that happens does so necessarily as a result of the causes that precede it.

Of course there are no extreme views in a universe where all views unfold like clockwork. Instead there is only the mystery of matter -- us -- able to become aware of what it means for everything to unfold like clockwork. How nature actually brought that about without, say, a God around to bring nature itself about. And, of course, whatever was able to bring God about.

We may feel that we have to act in a certain way, that we are subconsciously coerced by family or society and are thus unable to act freely according to our desires. Nevertheless, the opposite view of “indeterminism,” wherein all that we do is effectively random, scarcely seems plausible and is equally incompatible with free will.

A random universe is just as incomprehensible to me as one in which compatibilism prevails. What exactly does it mean for the laws of matter as we know them in the either/or world to be "random"? What, they popped into existence out of the blue? And even though physics and chemistry and biology seem to follow very, very, very predictable directives from nature...we just never know when, again, out of the blue, that will all change?

Instead, randomness seems to revolve more around the is/ought world. But even then only for matter such as ourselves able to become aware of all the countless variables and factors in our lives that can come at us from all directions. We never really know what exactly is around that next corner. And we certainly can't and/or don't control much of it.

Unless, of course, as with compatibilism, I am simply not understanding an "indeterminist" universe...given, of course, that I do have the capacity to understand it of my own free will.

[Belinda]

The Paradox of Free Will
Dennis Waite at the Yoga International website

One extreme view is that thoughts arise outside our conscious control, automatically triggering other thoughts until an action eventually results, all in a totally mechanistic way. This indicates a complete absence of free will and is what Western philosophy labels “universal determinism,” the belief that anything that happens does so necessarily as a result of the causes that precede it.

Of course there are no extreme views in a universe where all views unfold like clockwork. Instead there is only the mystery of matter -- us -- able to become aware of what it means for everything to unfold like clockwork. How nature actually brought that about without, say, a God around to bring nature itself about. And, of course, whatever was able to bring God about.

We may feel that we have to act in a certain way, that we are subconsciously coerced by family or society and are thus unable to act freely according to our desires. Nevertheless, the opposite view of “indeterminism,” wherein all that we do is effectively random, scarcely seems plausible and is equally incompatible with free will.

A random universe is just as incomprehensible to me as one in which compatibilism prevails. What exactly does it mean for the laws of matter as we know them in the either/or world to be "random"? What, they popped into existence out of the blue? And even though physics and chemistry and biology seem to follow very, very, very predictable directives from nature...we just never know when, again, out of the blue, that will all change?

Instead, randomness seems to revolve more around the is/ought world. But even then only for matter such as ourselves able to become aware of all the countless variables and factors in our lives that can come at us from all directions. We never really know what exactly is around that next corner. And we certainly can't and/or don't control much of it.

Unless, of course, as with compatibilism, I am simply not understanding an "indeterminist" universe...given, of course, that I do have the capacity to understand it of my own free will.

Insofar as God is order and meaning personified, I believe in and trust God.

[iambiguous]

The Paradox of Free Will
Dennis Waite at the Yoga International website

One extreme view is that thoughts arise outside our conscious control, automatically triggering other thoughts until an action eventually results, all in a totally mechanistic way. This indicates a complete absence of free will and is what Western philosophy labels “universal determinism,” the belief that anything that happens does so necessarily as a result of the causes that precede it.

Of course there are no extreme views in a universe where all views unfold like clockwork. Instead there is only the mystery of matter -- us -- able to become aware of what it means for everything to unfold like clockwork. How nature actually brought that about without, say, a God around to bring nature itself about. And, of course, whatever was able to bring God about.

We may feel that we have to act in a certain way, that we are subconsciously coerced by family or society and are thus unable to act freely according to our desires. Nevertheless, the opposite view of “indeterminism,” wherein all that we do is effectively random, scarcely seems plausible and is equally incompatible with free will.

A random universe is just as incomprehensible to me as one in which compatibilism prevails. What exactly does it mean for the laws of matter as we know them in the either/or world to be "random"? What, they popped into existence out of the blue? And even though physics and chemistry and biology seem to follow very, very, very predictable directives from nature...we just never know when, again, out of the blue, that will all change?

Instead, randomness seems to revolve more around the is/ought world. But even then only for matter such as ourselves able to become aware of all the countless variables and factors in our lives that can come at us from all directions. We never really know what exactly is around that next corner. And we certainly can't and/or don't control much of it.

Unless, of course, as with compatibilism, I am simply not understanding an "indeterminist" universe...given, of course, that I do have the capacity to understand it of my own free will.

Insofar as God is order and meaning personified, I believe in and trust God.

Yes, I once did too.

The Christian God. The Protestant Christian God.

Then, over the years, I stopped believing in Him.

Why?

Well, that revolves by and large around these facets of faith:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian God?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and Christian God

So, assuming that "somehow" mindless matter managed to evolve into living matter here on Earth evolving into the human species capable of free will, you are willing to explore these factors with me or not.

Ever mindful of the gap [in a philosophy venue] between what one believes is true and what one is able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true.

After all, a discussion of God in a philosophy venue is not going to be exactly the same as a discussion of God in church or around the dinner table at home.

[Belinda]

The Paradox of Free Will
Dennis Waite at the Yoga International website



Of course there are no extreme views in a universe where all views unfold like clockwork. Instead there is only the mystery of matter -- us -- able to become aware of what it means for everything to unfold like clockwork. How nature actually brought that about without, say, a God around to bring nature itself about. And, of course, whatever was able to bring God about.



A random universe is just as incomprehensible to me as one in which compatibilism prevails. What exactly does it mean for the laws of matter as we know them in the either/or world to be "random"? What, they popped into existence out of the blue? And even though physics and chemistry and biology seem to follow very, very, very predictable directives from nature...we just never know when, again, out of the blue, that will all change?

Instead, randomness seems to revolve more around the is/ought world. But even then only for matter such as ourselves able to become aware of all the countless variables and factors in our lives that can come at us from all directions. We never really know what exactly is around that next corner. And we certainly can't and/or don't control much of it.

Unless, of course, as with compatibilism, I am simply not understanding an "indeterminist" universe...given, of course, that I do have the capacity to understand it of my own free will.

Insofar as God is order and meaning personified, I believe in and trust God.

Yes, I once did too.

The Christian God. The Protestant Christian God.

Then, over the years, I stopped believing in Him.

Why?

Well, that revolves by and large around these facets of faith:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian God?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and Christian God

So, assuming that "somehow" mindless matter managed to evolve into living matter here on Earth evolving into the human species capable of free will, you are willing to explore these factors with me or not.

Ever mindful of the gap [in a philosophy venue] between what one believes is true and what one is able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true.

After all, a discussion of God in a philosophy venue is not going to be exactly the same as a discussion of God in church or around the dinner table at home.

1] I have temporarily forgotten how it goes, but Spinoza did prove God-or-Nature exists. Truth is not correspondence with reality but is coherence with what with the best intentions appears to be reality.

2] The Xian God is only one way to faith in ontic order and meaning. There are as may ways to faith in order and meaning as there are Daseins.

3] Each Dasein is a reflection of God/Allah/Ngebwe/ and so forth. Arguably some Daseins are clearer reflections than others.

4] The problem of evil is a main argument for God as a reflection of goodness, truth, and beauty seen though human comprehension . Evil, albeit evil is absence of good, is sometimes psychologically overwhelming. You only have to read a newspaper to read evidence of evil as absence of good. It would be a shame if intimations of good vanished from the Earth.

[iambiguous]

The Paradox of Free Will
Dennis Waite at the Yoga International website

According to the traditional teaching of Advaita, our ability to choose is restricted by what has happened in the past. This is one element in the theory of karma. Edward de Bono’s metaphor of pouring hot water onto jelly explains how this element operates. The first time that we do this, the water will make faint channels in the surface of the jelly. The next time, there will be a tendency for the water to flow into the same channels. With repetition, over time the channels will become deep and it will be very difficult to get the water to flow anywhere else. This is how habitual modes of behavior come into being. We can employ willpower to overcome these habits and forge a new path, but it is not easy.

Karma...theoretically? But what is karma in a wholly determined universe but just one more manifestation of the only possible reality. Only with karma matter here is truly miraculous. It is matter compelled by physical laws to acquire the capacity to "think up" a theory of karma itself. Habits being just another manifestation of this as well.

And is "our ability to choose restricted by what has happened in the past" far, far more than just restricted? Is the past and the present and the future instead all of but one seamless reality?

Thus conclusions such as this...

"According to Advaita metaphysics, Brahman—the ultimate, transcendent and immanent God of the latter Vedas—appears as the world because of its creative energy (māyā). The world has no separate existence apart from Brahman."

...are, what, entirely interchangeable with conclusions derived from the Christian Bible?

Both being merely inherent, necessary components of the only possible reality in the only possible world?

Eastern philosophy, Western philosophy. As though nature itself somehow just dreamed them up. Two more dominos going all the way back to the Big Bang.

And before that?

Karma is really just the law of cause and effect operating at the level of matter. The real Self is not affected and simply witnesses the actions, but, in our ignorance, we mistakenly think “we” are acting.

Okay, what "on Earth" does that mean? To you for example. How would you intertwine your own real Self in your interactions with the mindless and mindful matter all around you? Here for example?

Determinism. Talk about detachment!

How obscure and abstruse can this all get?

You tell me:

The Bhagavad Gita says: “Whether seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, walking, sleeping, or breathing, the knower of truth should think ‘I do nothing at all.’” This also means, of course, that I do not have free will, because “choosing” is itself an action. But we must remember that as soon as we speak of the “real Self,” we are adopting the absolute, or para-marthika, viewpoint.

Would could be clearer?

[iambiguous]

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian God?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and Christian God

So, assuming that "somehow" mindless matter managed to evolve into living matter here on Earth evolving into the human species capable of free will, you are willing to explore these factors with me or not.

Ever mindful of the gap [in a philosophy venue] between what one believes is true and what one is able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true.

After all, a discussion of God in a philosophy venue is not going to be exactly the same as a discussion of God in church or around the dinner table at home.

1] I have temporarily forgotten how it goes, but Spinoza did prove God-or-Nature exists.

Click.

As noted on another thread with IC, the sort of evidence I'm interested in here is proof that a God, the God does in fact exist on par with the sort of evidence that can be provided to prove that Popes do in fact exist in the Vatican.

Did Spinoza provide us with that sort of confirmation?

Or, in making God, "the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and...not an individual entity or creator” does that make everything God? And how on earth would one go about demonstrating that? Other than by way of "world of words" in which God is deduced into existence.

And how does that all fit in with determinism?

As for this...

Truth is not correspondence with reality but is coherence with what with the best intentions appears to be reality.

I have no idea what this means. Truth in regard to what reality? Let's explore one that we are all likely to be familiar with and, assuming some measure of autonomy and volition, let's explore further coherence and intentions and reality. Given this set of familiar circumstances.

2] The Xian God is only one way to faith in ontic order and meaning. There are as may ways to faith in order and meaning as there are Daseins.

Yes, but given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, there either is one true path to morality and immortality or there isn't. If one can acquire both merely by having faith in whatever they construe God to be -- subjectively, existentially -- as the embodiment of dasein, well, you tell me how that would work for all practical purposes.

3] Each Dasein is a reflection of God/Allah/Ngebwe/ and so forth. Arguably some Daseins are clearer reflections than others.

Same thing though. There either is or is not a Judgment Day in one's religious beliefs. And one's beliefs either are or are not rooted in dasein. Where things get especially tricky with faiths like Christianity is that not only must it be assumed that free will was something that God imparted to mere mortals on planet Earth, but that somehow this free will is made compatible with His own omniscience.

But it all comes back to leaps of faith of course. Or wagers. There is still no definitive evidence for the existence of God. At least not the sort I'm looking for.

4] The problem of evil is a main argument for God as a reflection of goodness, truth, and beauty seen though human comprehension . Evil, albeit evil is absence of good, is sometimes psychologically overwhelming. You only have to read a newspaper to read evidence of evil as absence of good. It would be a shame if intimations of good vanished from the Earth.

Yep, that's where one has to go: God's mysterious ways. And what can mere mortals/human beings comprehend about that?

As for reading the newspaper, who gets to say what behaviors are good and what behaviors are evil. Aren't they often the same folks who tell us they grasp the difference through one or another religious or spiritual Scripture.

IC with his Christian God, Henry with his Deist God.

And those like me with [here and now] No God at all.

All somehow entangled in the profound mystery of human consciousness itself. Brain matter "somehow" being different from all the other matter that we grasp through physics and chemistry and biology.

The deep, deep, deep mystery of existence itself.

And "I" in it.

[Belinda]

Iambiguous wrote:

1] I have temporarily forgotten how it goes, but Spinoza did prove God-or-Nature exists.

Click.

As noted on another thread with IC, the sort of evidence I'm interested in here is proof that a God, the God does in fact exist on par with the sort of evidence that can be provided to prove that Popes do in fact exist in the Vatican.

Did Spinoza provide us with that sort of confirmation?

No. Spinoza's proof was rational not empirical.

Iambiguous wrote:

Or, in making God, "the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and...not an individual entity or creator” does that make everything God? And how on earth would one go about demonstrating that? Other than by way of "world of words" in which God is deduced into existence.

And how does that all fit in with determinism?

For Spinoza, the way to freedom is via reason: the more the reason the more the freedom from mechanical causes such as passions or unreasoning fantasies.


Iambiguous wrote:

Truth is not correspondence with reality but is coherence with what with the best intentions appears to be reality.

I have no idea what this means. Truth in regard to what reality? Let's explore one that we are all likely to be familiar with and, assuming some measure of autonomy and volition, let's explore further coherence and intentions and reality. Given this set of familiar circumstances.

God/Nature is the absolute reality and our best attempt at true to God/Nature is via our reason. Since human reason can't comprehend the infinite possibilities of God/Nature then the best truth we finite beings can attain is coherence with human reason.

Iambiguous wrote:

2] The Xian God is only one way to faith in ontic order and meaning. There are as may ways to faith in order and meaning as there are Daseins.

Yes, but given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, there either is one true path to morality and immortality or there isn't. If one can acquire both merely by having faith in whatever they construe God to be -- subjectively, existentially -- as the embodiment of dasein, well, you tell me how that would work for all practical purposes.

The one true path to morality and immortality is reason. Reason is not all or nothing but is relative to how each Dasein reasons . For instance scepticism is a major part of reason. Scepticism is a powerful tool that's applicable to natural sciences, everyday common sense, social sciences, works of art, and politics. Every school child Dasein and every student Dasein of every discipline needs to be taught sceptical methods in their own and others' interests, especially in these days of lying influencers.


Iambiguous wrote:

3] Each Dasein is a reflection of God/Allah/Ngebwe/ and so forth. Arguably some Daseins are clearer reflections than others.

Same thing though. There either is or is not a Judgment Day in one's religious beliefs. And one's beliefs either are or are not rooted in dasein. Where things get especially tricky with faiths like Christianity is that not only must it be assumed that free will was something that God imparted to mere mortals on planet Earth, but that somehow this free will is made compatible with His own omniscience.

But it all comes back to leaps of faith of course. Or wagers. There is still no definitive evidence for the existence of God. At least not the sort I'm looking for.

I think neither of us believes in all or nothing absolute Free Will . The freedom that remains is only the relative freedom that we get from reasoning. Reasoning for the everyday must be empirical,i.e. learning from experience. A strong determinist must also believe in ultimate God/Nature as God/Nature is the unique uncaused cause.

But is God/Nature just or unjust ? This is where the leap of faith is what we must do, for if we don't do the leap of faith in absolute justice we will be unfree .As unfree we have no capability to approach closer to the uncaused cause but will be swept along by fears and passions. When push comes to shove you will discover you have made the leap of faith, or not. I guess you have leapt.

Iambigous wrote?:

4] The problem of evil is a main argument for God as a reflection of goodness, truth, and beauty seen though human comprehension . Evil, albeit evil is absence of good, is sometimes psychologically overwhelming. You only have to read a newspaper to read evidence of evil as absence of good. It would be a shame if intimations of good vanished from the Earth.

Yep, that's where one has to go: God's mysterious ways. And what can mere mortals/human beings comprehend about that?

As for reading the newspaper, who gets to say what behaviors are good and what behaviors are evil. Aren't they often the same folks who tell us they grasp the difference through one or another religious or spiritual Scripture.

IC with his Christian God, Henry with his Deist God.

And those like me with [here and now] No God at all.

All somehow entangled in the profound mystery of human consciousness itself. Brain matter "somehow" being different from all the other matter that we grasp through physics and chemistry and biology.

The deep, deep, deep mystery of existence itself.

And "I" in it.

Despite that Goodness, Truth, and Beauty are inscrutable and transcend even the best of creating imaginations, the hope and faith of them is a thing that keeps us oriented towards a future that includes living with more quality. An important thing about Christianity and other modern world interpretations is intention. The best histories of God show how God metamorphosed***from tribal law giver and enforcer into universal transcendent Quality which each Dasein aims for.

*** It's helpful to take on board the theory of the Axial Age.Karen Armstrong's History of God

s a good read.

[iambiguous]

The Paradox of Free Will
Dennis Waite at the Yoga International website

Most people believe that they are the body and mind and those are affected by our actions. A diabetic, eating sweets without careful consideration, may end up in a coma. Someone who argues with everybody and openly insults others is likely, eventually, to receive a punch in the nose. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that, as we act, so we become—a person doing good becomes good, one doing evil becomes evil. This is all from the empirical, or vyavaharika, viewpoint.

Yes, but, again, the issue here is not whether these things are reasonable to note, but whether we were able to note something other than what we did note because we thought about them some more and changed our minds of our own volition. It's not that someone argues with others precipitating consequences but whether both the decision to argue and the consequences are or are not together as one in the only possible reality given the only possible world.

That's what can't be pinned down here. Or if it has been pinned down definitively, link us to the argument and the evidence backing it up such that you can demonstrate that in so doing you did so while in possession of free will.

That folks from the West might think about all of this differently from folks in the East doesn't make that go away.

Or, rather, it doesn't for me.

Traditional Advaita explains this using the concept of samskara. Whenever someone performs an action with the desire for a specific result (whether for oneself or another), a samskara is created for that person. These accumulate and determine the situations we will be presented with in the future. Our samskaras will influence the scope of our future actions and also the tendencies that we have to act in a particular way (vasana). Any samskara that is not exhausted in this life will carry forward to determine the nature of our birth in the next.

Same thing. How does one go about addressing this given Schopenhauer's conjecture that while you can do what you desire, you cannot desire what you desire. Ever and always back to the profound mystery embedded in the reality of mindful matter emanating from brain matter either wholly in sync with the laws of matter or not. This going all the way back to what can only be the profoundest mystery of all: existence itself.

Why this existence and not no existence at all? Why this existence and not another? Then those who interject at this point and insist it all goes back to God.

I also suggest that given some measure of free will, how is the samskara -- "mental impressions, recollections, or psychological imprints" -- not just another manifestation of dasein.

Why does someone perform this action given this desire when others in the same situation perform different actions derived from different desires?