God, gods, or none of the above?

[Ginkgo]

"Free will" has plenty of proponents on the secular side. The division between Determinists and Voluntarists goes straight down the middle of a whole lot of ideologies. Kant was no determinist. Existentialism is non-deterministic.

Yes, and there is a good reason for this and such reasons are not necessarily ideological based. The main reason being the possibility of soft determinism. Kant wasn't a determinist, but by the same token this doesn't automatically make him a voluntarist. Kant may well argue for this position ,but this doesn't make it so. Are you saying "straight down the middle' is too ideological?

In fact, the whole field of secular ethics is by definition non-deterministic, since it asks "What ought we to do?" a question one simply could not coherently ask in a truly Deterministic world...of if one tried, one would only be speaking out of some sort of prior Determinist programming, not issuing a statement with any real-world possibilities.

Yes you can. Legalize asks such question all of the time.

Argumentation is also premised on voluntarism. For if one cannot choose one's views, one cannot be persuaded to choose otherwise than one does. All positions are then merely situationally determined, not personally believed. And if Determinism is true, then the "god botherers" you are at pains to distain are not able to change their views, nor are you able to change yours.

As premised beforehand. you are assuming there is no such thing as a middle ground (compatibilism). In other words, somehow we we are committed to one choice or the other. In practical terms this is not the case.

The whole thing is simply self-contradicting. One cannot "believe" or "disbelieve" in Determinism if Determinism is true: one can only ridiculously play out the hand one has been dealt by forces at work long before one's birth. In short, Determinism is unlivable; and if true, it's also trivial, since no one can resist his/her programming.[/color]

Not at all. In a court room some do and this may or may not be taken into account when sentencing.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you saying "straight down the middle' is too ideological? ...you are assuming there is no such thing as a middle ground (compatibilism)

No, but I think Compatibilism doesn't work. It amounts to Determinism with an incoherent and nominal tip-of-the-hat to Voluntarism, but not a fully-integrated response to Voluntarism. I think we're dealing here with a situation in which Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle does indeed apply: there's no "middle" between strict Determinism and any degree of Voluntarism. And I think Compatibilism is actually a manifestation of this fact, for it cannot be articulated in any genuinely-Voluntaristic way.

Yes you can. Legalize asks such question all of the time.

"Legalize"?

Do you mean "lawyers"? We don't charge children, the mentally-handicapped or insane persons in the same way we charge persons of sound mind. And the reasoning for that is clear: a person's responsibility is diminished precisely in proportion to the degree that he/she could make a rational choice. If there was no choice -- say, when a person was forced to commit a crime at gun point, or if he/she was mentally incapacitated by a drug he/she did not choose to take -- we treat that person as a victim, not as a perpetrator. And rightly so, I believe.

Thus "choice" is the premise of all Ethics. As the axiom goes, "Ought implies can." You cannot charge a person with doing what they "ought" not to have done if they could not have done otherwise.

So were Determinism true, our jails all ought to be empty.

[ReliStuPhD]

In fact, the whole field of secular ethics is by definition non-deterministic, since it asks "What ought we to do?" a question one simply could not coherently ask in a truly Deterministic world...of if one tried, one would only be speaking out of some sort of prior Determinist programming, not issuing a statement with any real-world possibilities.

Yes you can. Legalize asks such question all of the time.

Could you expound on this? I fail to see how there can be any "ought" if all outcomes are determined. How can there by a duty if there is no choice? (This is why we don't try lions for the murder of wildebeests: their choice are determined by instinct, so there is no "ought" for them) Perhaps this hinges on whatever or whoever "Legalize" is? (A website?)

[Hobbes' Choice]

The Bible would constitute evidence for God, that you reject it as evidence, does not change what is written, just your acceptance of it. In the same way the Bible presents evidence that God is male, due to the references in the Bible. Like it or not this is some of the evidence for God being male. However there is current thinking that includes the idea that God is either genderless or includes both genders.

If you think the bible constitutes evidence for god, then your standards of evidence are poor indeed.
Just because a story book says something is true does not make it evidence.
The bible is not a book of evidence in any reasonable definition of the word. It is no different in quality from you simply telling me that god exists.
I can tell you with as much conviction that you are mistaken. And so we each cancel one another.

That could be true, but it is also true that evidence is often a pick and choose proposition, where the evidence is selected based on what is desired to be proven. I am reminded of a statement by my professor at the start of a statistics class, "Give a good statistician the raw data, and they will prove anything you want." So what are you starting out to prove? I really don't have a problem with whatever you choose to believe, just don't expect me to jump onto your wagon. I've got my own problems to deal with.

I have no problems, as I have no beliefs. I cannot recall asking you to believe in anything. I have nothing to prove. The reason I have no beliefs is that belief is a matter of choice. Knowledge is not. I dare to know.

[thedoc]

If you think the bible constitutes evidence for god, then your standards of evidence are poor indeed.

Poor evidence is better than no evidence at all, and there is very little apart from the Bible. So take it and assign whatever value you choose, since there is little to compare it with on the subjects it addresses. For example there is an account of the Exodus from Egypt, yet there is little or nothing in the Egyptian history. One explanation is that it didn't happen, but the alternate explanation is that it was a defeat for Egypt, and their ego would not let them record a defeat. Other records indicate a great victory over other enemies but the records of the enemy indicates more of a draw. So Egyptian history is suspect on the subject of defeats that they suffered. And how often has a King or Pharaoh, that has fallen into disfavor with their successors, had all records of their reign erased.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no problems, as I have no beliefs. I cannot recall asking you to believe in anything. I have nothing to prove.

Ahem.

An announcement...attention, all...

Hobbes does not believe anything. He doesn't ask us to believe in anything. He doesn't promise to prove anything. So says Hobbes.

Therefore, by his own testimony, Hobbes has nothing to say, and no proof for anything if he did believe it.

Classic.

[ReliStuPhD]

But you've forgotten that he knows (and dares to, at that). Hobbes has managed to accomplish what no other human in history has. Well, no other human except for Jesus.

...

Wait a minute....

[Immanuel Can]

Wow, right...

[Hobbes' Choice]

But you've forgotten that he knows (and dares to, at that). Hobbes has managed to accomplish what no other human in history has. Well, no other human except for Jesus.

...

Wait a minute....

True.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I have no problems, as I have no beliefs. I cannot recall asking you to believe in anything. I have nothing to prove.

Ahem.

An announcement...attention, all...

Hobbes does not believe anything. He doesn't ask us to believe in anything. He doesn't promise to prove anything. So says Hobbes.

Therefore, by his own testimony, Hobbes has nothing to say, and no proof for anything if he did believe it.

Classic.

Knowledge is more than belief.

[Immanuel Can]

Do tell, Hobbes...

What is "knowledge," according to you?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Do tell, Hobbes...

What is "knowledge," according to you?

You are unworthy.

[Immanuel Can]

You are incapable.

[Greylorn Ell]

Since I was an annoying teenager I felt that the enforcement of small rules was essential to civilization. Shortly after spending $100 and days of work to make a legal exhaust system for my souped-up and modified car, I learned that the cops no longer enforced decibel level restrictions. I predicted that city streets would become increasingly unruly, and then watched it happen.

Small things make big differences. For example, the grammatically incorrect open quotes now used on PNow forums, because some pinhead must have decided that they were stylish. There's a big difference between stylish and stupid.

Notice how quickly the once-civil exchanges on this thread have deteriorated into churlish name-calling.

I predict that unless the limited powers-that-be get their heads out of their dorsal orifices and clean up their new format, beginning with closed quotes, this entire forum will continue to deteriorate. Even better, they could return to the original format which needed no fixes except a better choice of smiley-faces. Not likely to happen. The grammatically incorrect stylishness is the kind of crap that could only be dreamed up by a female, and she is probably the primary squeeze of someone up in the hierarchy. I don't care.

Greylorn

[ReliStuPhD]

The new format proves to be superior on mobile devices, so at least there's that.