When Rebutting Arguments For the Existence of God

[Eich]

I know that the following could sound very ridiculous. But when it comes to the language needed to prove the three invalid, I can't think of any straight way to put it. Can anybody help?

1) The human body is vastly more complex than a jumbo jet. But we say that 'natural events' [Evolution] led to humans. Well, could natural events lead to a jumbo jet? Could a natural even like a whirlwind sweep through a scrap yard and somehow assemble all the parts for a jumbo ready for take-off? If not, then natural events can neither account for the jumbo jets nor humans.

2) The Anthropic Argument: From a scientific point of view, any slight changes in anyone of the several aspects of the Universe would have made it impossible for us to exist, or even have evolved. If the Earth were even a little closer to the Sun; if the atmosphere were a little thinner; if the Sun were hotter of cooler; if the structure of water were littler different, etc - we would not exist. All these and millions of other conditions need to be met for us to survive or evolve. What is the probability of that happening? Does that prove that we aren't here by pure chance? Has "someone been monkeying with the laws of physics?"

3) What about God having created the Universe with built-in organizing principles through which all forms of life and non-life developed. So Science is valid but God created science?

 

[loseyourname]

The first two are common arguments that have well known refutations. Michael Martin, in , provides detailed refutations of just about every argument for the existence of God that has ever been made. The third hypothesis, however, doesn't actually present an argument. It proposes a possibility and asks the question of whether or not this is possible. Well, sure, it's possible, but what reason is there to think that that is actually the case? No reason has been given.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think its impossible to argue for or against a God. It really comes down to the impossible question of "If God doesn't exist, where did everything we know come from". The most common response is "evolution" or chemical changes or what not, but people forget to argue that everything that evolved had to have been created at some point. Every atom had an origin and such and its unfortunately, impossible to argue where it came from because all anti-God responses can't explain for before such events like the big bang and all pro-God responses can explain it but have no proof because God is defined as an all-powerful being capable of the infinite and impossible and not defined by any laws or rules; those of which are hte basis of the anti-God responses.

Its rather silly to argue what you can't understand.

 

[Mazuz]

It really comes down to the impossible question of "If God doesn't exist, where did everything we know come from".

Actually I disagree. If God magically existing without creation is a logical explanation of the universe to you than the universe magically existing without God should be equally logical.

 

[Icebreaker]

I think its impossible to argue for or against a God.

If there was a God, then he's doing his damned best to make sure no one finds out about it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If there was a God, then he's doing his damned best to make sure no one finds out about it.

Good one! Couldn't agree more!

 

[Janitor]

At another website discussion page I challenged a believer to ask his deity to do a specific thing. The believer refused to do so, claiming that God does His will and (at least implicit in the guy's answer) ignores pleas from believers asking Him to do their will. So from that answer, it would seem the guy believes human wills are trivial and worthless in the sight of God. But when I asked the fellow why God didn't intervene in the 9-11 hijackings to save the passengers, he said it is because God respects human will so much that God won't intervene, since the will of either the non-Muslim passengers or the will of the hijackers would have been violated by God imposing Himself on the situation.

 

[Billy T]

The first two are common arguments that have well known refutations. Michael Martin, in URL= A Philosophical Justification[/URL], provides detailed refutations of just about every argument for the existence of God that has ever been made.

i would also recommend the blind watchmaker but there are many others also.

The third hypothesis, however, doesn't actually present an argument. It proposes a possibility and asks the question of whether or not this is possible. Well, sure, it's possible, but what reason is there to think that that is actually the case? No reason has been given.

Not true. More than 150 years ago, Bishop George Berkeley, who denyed the existence of the physical world, gave a very good reason for his God making it seem to him (a lesser, but also "immortal spirit") that the universe he perceive appeared to be rigidly controlled my what we now days would call "the physical laws."According to Berkeley, if violation of physical laws often occurred, than miracles would lose their power to inspire belief etc. Hence, because God wanted people to have faith etc, He made their perception of a physical world very regular, so that when He did "work a miracle" (only in their perceptions still, not in true violation of physical world laws, which for Berkeley did not existent.) these rare miracles would win the faithful to Him. Likewise,God did not make the perception chaotic as if there were no regularity to one's perception, how could one behave responsibily, chose to avoid sin etc.

My own position on the reality of the physical world were infer fro our perceptual experiences is also an act of faith - I believe the physical world does exist and doubt that Berkley's God does, but I can not prove Berkeley wrong or that the physical world is real. Certainlly it has less claim to being real than my experiences which are my only basis for inferring that the physical world may exist.

For my answer to where do my experiences come from? (or what causes them if your prefer) see attachment to post one of general Philosophy thread "what price for free will?" - Free will as a posibility that can be consistent with physics is but one of the minor things that falls out of my strange view. The "Out of Africa" event is another, Why phantom limbs seem as real as the not amputated ones, another, halucinations in conflict with retinal images, still another, and dozens of other things that are essentailly impossible to explain with the standard cognitive scientist's view of how perception works. That is, one simple modification of the standard view of how humans perceive, has "great explanatory power." It is a four page read in part because it gives three independent proofs that the standard view is wrong as well as develop the idea with illustrations of these and other applications - I think well worth the read, if you are open to a "paradigm shifting" idea, but I am of course biased.

 

[loseyourname]

i would also recommend the blind watchmaker but there are many others also.

Great book, but it's only useful for debunking the teleological argument, or argument from design, of William Paley.

Not true. More than 150 years ago, Bishop George Berkeley, who denyed the existence of the physical world, gave a very good reason for his God making it seem to him (a lesser, but also "immortal spirit") that the universe he perceive appeared to be rigidly controlled my what we now days would call "the physical laws."According to Berkeley, if violation of physical laws often occurred, than miracles would lose their power to inspire belief etc. Hence, because God wanted people to have faith etc, He made their perception of a physical world very regular, so that when He did "work a miracle" (only in their perceptions still, not in true violation of physical world laws, which for Berkeley did not existent.) these rare miracles would win the faithful to Him. Likewise,God did not make the perception chaotic as if there were no regularity to one's perception, how could one behave responsibily, chose to avoid sin etc.

There is really no basis for Berkeley to say any of this. I'm aware of why he developed his position of idealism in the first place, and he actually has a decent argumentative ground for that, but this reconciliation with his faith is ad hoc as are most reconciliations of metaphysical hypotheses with faith. If physical laws were violated only in instances of miracles, nothing would appear any different to anybody. From the point of view of human psychology, the effect would be exactly the same whether there really was a physical world or if it was all illusory.

My main point of contention, however, is that the author of the thread only posted this:

3) What about God having created the Universe with built-in organizing principles through which all forms of life and non-life developed. So Science is valid but God created science?

This is the deist hypothesis, that there is a physical world that is completely determined by natural laws, but that the natural laws were put in place by a creator. There is no reason, in those two sentences, given to believe that natural laws must have been drafted by a supernatural legislator. Such a belief is anthropomorphic nonsense.

Why phantom limbs seem as real as the not amputated ones, another, halucinations in conflict with retinal images, still another, and dozens of other things that are essentailly impossible to explain with the standard cognitive scientist's view of how perception works.

Phantom limbs and hallucinations are not impossible to explain with our current science. What gives you that impression?

 

[Fliption]

If there was a God, then he's doing his damned best to make sure no one finds out about it.

Considering that most of the people in the world believe in god in some form or another, I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "no one". The problem is that you can't know God the same way you have been raised to know everything else. Some people can deal with that and some cannot.

 

[Royce]

If there was a God, then he's doing his damned best to make sure no one finds out about it.

This blatantly false. There are many, millions, who have found God. Maybe "no one" is looking in the wrong place.

 

[Icebreaker]

Wow. I don't know where to begin; or whether I should acknowledge that at all.

 

[Royce]

Wow. I don't know where to begin; or whether I should acknowledge that at all.

One way to begin is to admit that you made an unsupported, possibly, probably, false blanket statement of which you have no knowledge or experience and then start over speaking for yourself, your opinions and beliefs. You might also try looking inside yourself. You may be surprised with what you may find there.

 

[Icebreaker]

On the contrary, my statement is backed up by the lack of any physical evidence concerning the existence of a god or gods. "No one finds out about it" is a metaphor for this lack of proof. If we assume that a god or gods exist, we may interpret this lack of evidence as its or their doing. The statement, of course, was satirical and sarcastic. I should not even have to explain this, as it is very simple to understand for most people.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Royce thinks that because Royce has "found God" in some internal way or other, that's evidence for God. It's not; it's evidence of the way the mind behaves. I too once "found God"; it took me years to find out it was just a figment of my imagination.

 

[saltydog]

This blatantly false. There are many, millions, who have found God. Maybe "no one" is looking in the wrong place.

Yea, I know what you mean, "found it in their hearts". But that's not what it sounds like. Really, no one has found God and no one will because it's just not there.

 

[Picklehead]

Should'nt a workable definition of god be agreed upon first? Does the absence of evidence signal an evidence of absence, or only constrain the . . . type of god we can reasonably consider to exist?

 

[Icebreaker]

From Webster's:

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

 

[Picklehead]

From Webster's:

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality.

Thats the only one I would truly agree with. The others seem more like wishful thinking.

Wow, that was fast.

 

[Flexor]

1) The human body is vastly more complex than a jumbo jet. But we say that 'natural events' [Evolution] led to humans. Well, could natural events lead to a jumbo jet? Could a natural even like a whirlwind sweep through a scrap yard and somehow assemble all the parts for a jumbo ready for take-off? If not, then natural events can neither account for the jumbo jets nor humans.

A wirlwind can't be compared to evolution, simply because in a storm, there is no factor of selection. To follow the analogy, there is nothing to destroy those pieces that come together and don't form a jumbo jet. You're comparing an inanimate object to something that interacts with it's environment (a lifeform).

2) The Anthropic Argument: From a scientific point of view, any slight changes in anyone of the several aspects of the Universe would have made it impossible for us to exist, or even have evolved. If the Earth were even a little closer to the Sun; if the atmosphere were a little thinner; if the Sun were hotter of cooler; if the structure of water were littler different, etc - we would not exist. All these and millions of other conditions need to be met for us to survive or evolve. What is the probability of that happening? Does that prove that we aren't here by pure chance? Has "someone been monkeying with the laws of physics?"

As for this argument, little do creationists realize that it's in fact an argument against the existence of a god or external force.

Out of the many known planets, how many can support life as we see on earth? Just one. If every single planet known had intelligent life, complex bacterial and animal life and/or vegetation in some form or another, then your argument would have some validity.

Is life on Earth a result of chance? Well that depends on what your definition of chance is. Simple organisms have evolved into complex organisms simply because it was the logical progression on things.

 

[Royce]

On the contrary, my statement is backed up by the lack of any physical evidence concerning the existence of a god or gods. "No one finds out about it" is a metaphor for this lack of proof. If we assume that a god or gods exist, we may interpret this lack of evidence as its or their doing. The statement, of course, was satirical and sarcastic. I should not even have to explain this, as it is very simple to understand for most people.

Why would any rational person expect to find physical evidence of a non- physical entity?

Or, Look around you or in the mirror. what more physical evidence do you need? No, I'm not talking about Biblical Genesis.

The proof that you require is within you. It requires sometimes years of meditation to actually find God within yourself. It is said that Buddha found God but said some thing to the effect of "Let the spirits and angels take care of themselves. It is here now in this life that we must concern ourselves."

 

[Royce]

Royce thinks that because Royce has "found God" in some internal way or other, that's evidence for God.

1. Royce is not the only one and yes it is evidence. It is not physical evidence nor possibly is it empirical evidence but it is evidence whether you chose to accept it as such or not.

I too once "found God"; it took me years to find out it was just a figment of my imagination.

And you must have tried very hard to convince yourself of that. Either that or you didn't look deep enough into your discovery to ascertain its full meaning.

But this is silly. We all been through this a hundred times. I nor anyone else can prove that there is a God and no one can prove that there isn't a God.

I apologize for interrupting and putting in my 2 cents worth. I just couldn't let that statement stand as posted.

 

[Icebreaker]

Why would any rational person expect to find physical evidence of a non- physical entity?

Or, Look around you or in the mirror. what more physical evidence do you need? No, I'm not talking about Biblical Genesis.

The proof that you require is within you. It requires sometimes years of meditation to actually find God within yourself. It is said that Buddha found God but said some thing to the effect of "Let the spirits and angels take care of themselves. It is here now in this life that we must concern ourselves."

If you define god to be the universe in its entireness, then yes, I am part of that sum. I am part of the universe, and nothing more.

 

[Billy T]

...There is really no basis for Berkeley to say any of this. I'm aware of why he developed his position of idealism in the first place, and he actually has a decent argumentative ground for that, but this reconciliation with his faith is ad hoc as are most reconciliations of metaphysical hypotheses with faith. If physical laws were violated only in instances of miracles, nothing would appear any different to anybody. From the point of view of human psychology, the effect would be exactly the same whether there really was a physical world or if it was all illusory.

I was not trying to defend Berkeley's POV. I disagree with it; but am glad you also think he has a self consistent logical one, even though I agree with you that he is just trying to justify his a priory view. (I will note that unlike Descarte, who goes on to "prove" very specific "truths" of a particular Christian sect. GB at least does not over extend his logic.)

I don't have your statement in front of me as I type, but you had said that no one had offered any reason why God would decide to make the universe run according to "physcail laws." (or something quite like that.) All I was trying to do was remind you that GB had given a very plausible reason for God doing this. (Keep miracles powerful by being not too common.) I certainly agree that the existence or not of the physical world would have no effect on human psychology (so long as the percetion of a physical world was so strong that most people will not even consider GB's logical possibility). Again my point was neither to support nor condem GB's view, only to note that he did offer a reason why God made a regular universe (expcept for occasional miracles).

My main point of contention, however, is that the author of the thread only posted this:
3) What about God having created the Universe with built-in organizing principles through which all forms of life and non-life developed. So Science is valid but God created science?
This is the deist hypothesis, that there is a physical world that is completely determined by natural laws, but that the natural laws were put in place by a creator. There is no reason, in those two sentences, given to believe that natural laws must have been drafted by a supernatural legislator. Such a belief is anthropomorphic nonsense.

I completely agree, but might not call such a belief "anthropomorphic nonsense." I hesitate to join you in this terminology because of the "anthropomorphic principle" - idea that physics is as it is because if it were even slightly different, we would not be here.

Phantom limbs and hallucinations are not impossible to explain with our current science. What gives you that impression?

I would not go so far as to claim phantom limbs are impossible to explain outside of the POV I express in the attachment to thread "What Price Free Will?" (Idea that we are only non-material "information" in a parietal real-time simulation of the world we perceive. Hence, being non material, we can have genuine free will without violating physical laws, etc.) But I do note that most of my experience are those of an old man now. My self image is with grey hair, not the blond color my passport still states etc. People with phantom limbs unfortunately usually do not revise their self image to relfect that actual facts. Hallucinations that conflict with the retinal image actually present in the eyes are difficult to explain with the accepted theory that the retinal information flows thru the LGN, to V1 and then different "features" are subsequently separated out for additional processing in other distinct regions of the brain and finally it in some unexplained way it "emerge" as our unified perception.

The theory of my "free will" attachment post 1 offers a rational alternative which is supported by factual observations about phantom limbs, hallucinations, GFW, The "Out of Africa" event, your ability to duck rocks thrown at your head (simulation projects ahead to compensate for the small neural prcessing delays), equally clear visual perception of the forward hemisphere instead of just the 1% corresponding to fovia in high resolution, etc, etc. for many other fact that are at least hard to explain in the standard theory of visual perception.

These things "give me the impression" that my theory is an improvement over the accepted one. It sure does seem to make a lot of things that are not easy to explain fall into place and these things it does easily explain do not even seem to be related to each other in the accepted theory. It is somewhat like the pre James C. Maxwell era, when the laws of magnitism were unrelated to the laws of electricity. Currently many things do not seem to be related, but via my explanation of how we perceive, they are.

 

[sneez]

Does not free will (if we have one) necessitates God not to be perceived by our senses? For if we could see, or touch or detect God and we would find Him all powerfull , etc would we have free will to decide to believe in HIM or not? (i.e we would not have a free will anymore?)

Why would not exists a planet somewher with full of jumbo jets ? :) it does not violate any physical law...

 

[Billy T]

Does not free will (if we have one) necessitates God not to be perceived by our senses? For if we could see, or touch or detect God and we would find Him all powerfull , etc would we have free will to decide to believe in HIM or not? (i.e we would not have a free will anymore?)
Why would not exists a planet somewher with full of jumbo jets ? :) it does not violate any physical law...

Not sure I follow you, but there are well know problems with self consistence of free will and the set of attributes often asscribed to God by Christians (If He knows everything - how can you make a choice to sin? - He has already fixed the future. How can this "loving God" then send you to hell, for his fixation/determination of the future? etc.)

Personnally I bet there is a planet somewhere (or at least will be or was) that is full of jumbo jets. if Airbus and/or Boeing have their way it is called Earth.

 

[Icebreaker]

Does not free will (if we have one) necessitates God not to be perceived by our senses? For if we could see, or touch or detect God and we would find Him all powerfull , etc would we have free will to decide to believe in HIM or not? (i.e we would not have a free will anymore?)

Who said we have free will?

 

[sneez]

Who said we don't have a free will ?

 

[Icebreaker]

Based on observational evidence and assuming that metaphysical things like "souls" don't exist, we can safely say that we don't have "free will".

 

[sneez]

I don't know about you but i do have a soul. (and so claim 10,000 ppl a year only in US who experience near death .., but we would have to probably open a new thread for that one. [i am really interested in your observational evidence])

Anyway, this issue has been around for so long with basically two opposite opinions. To get back on topic. My pre-previous post was trying to point that IF we have a free will than God cannot be detected by default and must be detected only on higher than physical plane which many materialist deny exists.

 

[Icebreaker]

Not really. What is this "higher than physical plane"? Some kind of debug mode that only God can access? Having free will and God have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Billy T]

Based on observational evidence and assuming that metaphysical things like "souls" don't exist, we can safely say that we don't have "free will".

Sneez and his soul are on reasonable secure ground, but as an agnostic, I can not join him (or it). You ,however, are making an "unsafe, not safe" claim. It certainly is true that free will is impossible if the future is determined (either by pre quantumn physics or an "all knowing" God).

IMHO, the type of "chance free will" permitied by fact parts of the universe are in "mixed states" until some observtion forces the state function into a single state is not worth having. It is only an illusion of free will. I would rather be a complex biological machine that has been prefected by evolution to cope reasonallly well with my environment, most of the time.

There is a logical option that permits genuine free will to exist and be consistent wth physics and does not postulate souls etc (or other miracles). This should make you happy, but Sneez is right- this is off subject. See the thread I started "What price Free Will?"

As implied in this title, the genuine free will I suggest is not free - you must pay the price of being non material. Perhaps it is too expensive for your tastes, but read the attachment to the first post of that thread before deciding. The concept advanced there has power to explain a lot of different things that do not even seem to be related and has three proofs that the accepted view of perception is simply wrong.

 

[olde drunk]

in another thread i offered that a very workable definition of god would be a consciousness gestalt. it is extremely difficult to believe that our consciousness only exists for a nano-second when measured against eternity. so if we are a consiousness belonging to a gestalt wherein the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, we have a god consciousness.

coupled with freewill we see that we are our own 'god'. whatever we choose to do/experience adds to the awareness of the whole. this universal consciousness expands as does the universe.

only such a definition would allow for the higher power being all just and all loving and etc etc - since these all everythings cause conterdictions. but, if you are responsible for your all actions and rewards or consequences there is only an expansion of self and 'god' without conflict.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[sneez]

Well, i am sorry becasue this post does not belong here. However, do you believe in ppll able to move things with their minds? Do you think ppl are able to "float" in the air by their will. Do you believe in ppl able with their will rule the physical world?

I have not believed until i was sick and no doctor could help me. Than my friend introduced my to this so called "healer" who healed me (lets say with his will) to a degree than no "normal" doctor could believe. How do you call that? There is undeniably more than matter/untimatter in this universe. But that is just my opinion :)

But i would really want to konw more about your opinions of free will. Maybe if you know some good thread ...im on.

 

[Alkatran]

Well, i am sorry becasue this post does not belong here. However, do you believe in ppll able to move things with their minds? Do you think ppl are able to "float" in the air by their will. Do you believe in ppl able with their will rule the physical world?

I have not believed until i was sick and no doctor could help me. Than my friend introduced my to this so called "healer" who healed me (lets say with his will) to a degree than no "normal" doctor could believe. How do you call that? There is undeniably more than matter/untimatter in this universe. But that is just my opinion :)

But i would really want to konw more about your opinions of free will. Maybe if you know some good thread ...im on.

Don't be so vague. And don't make me quote the "unclaimed Randi Million" line.

 

[sneez]

"A Ukrainian, Albert Ignatenko, demonstrated on the TV show, The Paranormal World of Paul McKenna, that he could rapidly raise or lower the pulse rate of people who were at a remote location. This was a dramatic demonstration of remote-influencing (RI), which is the basis of hypnosis.

My research would seem to indicate that the psi-able operator is capable of affecting the neuronal calcium efflux of another person through remote-viewing, rather like the US National Security Agency's electronic microwave mind-control machines.
"
A psychic energy ?

Im sorry for my vagueness which could not help anybody but i don't feel that my story belongs to this forum...

Anyway guys, let's leave it like you want it. I am not here to persuade you into some belief. So do reasearch if you want or belief what you want. I was rather interested in the free will counter argument if some one knows a thread open to that topic...

 

[quantumdude]

Yea, I know what you mean, "found it in their hearts".

I've heard that one, too. The question I always ask, and not surprisingly I never get an adequate response to, is:

Which ventricle did you find Him in?

 

[quantumdude]

And you must have tried very hard to convince yourself of that. Either that or you didn't look deep enough into your discovery to ascertain its full meaning.

LOL

Royce, you're a mature, experienced man. So how is it that you could come up with such a blatant false dilemma? Is it really that inconceivable to you that someone could just come to the realization that the existence of some god is pure bunk?

Let me ask you something: Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? Well, if you don't then you must either have tried very hard to convince yourself of Her non-existence or you didn't look deep enough into your discovery to ascertain its full meaning.

Hallelujah.

 

[hypnagogue]

Let me ask you something: Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? Well, if you don't then you must either have tried very hard to convince yourself of Her non-existence or you didn't look deep enough into your discovery to ascertain its full meaning.

Well, to be fair, Royce's argument is based on what is called spiritual or religious experience. Spiritual experience is a naturally occurring part of human psychology / consciousness, albeit not ubiquitous. It has received serious treatment from dedicated and well-respected scientists, for instance in William James' The Varities of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature and in Andrew Newberg's and Eugene D'Aquili's Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. This analogy's use of the Tooth Fairy is something of an unfair caricature, as it seems to deny the very existence or validity of spiritual experience itself (certainly there is no analogous 'Tooth Fairy experience' built into human psychology).

Having recognized and respected spiritual experience per se, I cannot share the conclusions Royce draws from it. Spiritual experience is a wonderful and potentially life changing thing to expericne, but we have to reason carefully about what can be confidently concluded from it. Certainly, we cannot deduce from the experience itself the actual existence of a God, anymore than we could conclude from an Escher drawing that it is possible to have an idefinitely ascending staircase, or from a movie projection that the motion picture is a continuous progression rather than a series of still images. The spiritual experience should be treated as just that-- an experience. It should not be denigrated, but nor should it be taken to be a reliable source for insight about some of the grander mysteries of the universe.

 

[Icebreaker]

Spiritual enlightenment should be taken as an inspiration, a challenge to seek out the true nature of the universe; one should not sit on it for too long.

 

[Billy T]

Well, to be fair, Royce's argument is based on what is called spiritual or religious experience ...Spiritual experience is a naturally occurring part of human psychology / consciousness, albeit not ubiquitous...This analogy's use of the Tooth Fairy is something of an unfair caricature, as it seems to deny the very existence or validity of spiritual experience itself (certainly there is no analogous 'Tooth Fairy experience' built into human psychology).

I agree, but would like to know where on the "God - Tooth Fairy" axis you would place "free will"?
Please respond here or in the thread "what price free will." I have my own views, stated there, but want to know yours. You part company with Royce, I think, because you are inclinded towards physical explanations. Does your understanding of physics conflict with (I am presuming here) your feeling that you do chose / have free will? That "feeling" is an almost universal human "experience."

 

[hypnagogue]

I agree, but would like to know where on the "God - Tooth Fairy" axis you would place "free will"?

Well, this is off-topic for this thread, and I already gave some input to the 'What price free will?' thread... so I'll just make a brief tangential statement here, while noting that we shouldn't carry on this point here and hijack this thread.

I regard free will in much the same way I regard the 'God' experience, as I explained above. I recognize that believing in free will, and acting/feeling as if we have it, is a natural, inbuilt part of human psychology and consciousness (and unlike spiritual experience, the natural predisposition to the free will belief/feeling is ubiquitous). However, as with spiritual experience, I do not believe that this experience as of having free will gives us license to conclude that we do, in fact, have free will.

 

[loseyourname]

I recognize that believing in free will, and acting/feeling as if we have it, is a natural, inbuilt part of human psychology and consciousness (and unlike spiritual experience, the natural predisposition to the free will belief/feeling is ubiquitous).

Are you certain of that? It seems to be ubiquitous in contemporary western society, but given the nature of ancient Greek drama and epic poetry, they didn't seem to have much concept of free will before the pre-Socratics at least. They seemed to believe that all of their actions were fated.

 

[hypnagogue]

Are you certain of that? It seems to be ubiquitous in contemporary western society, but given the nature of ancient Greek drama and epic poetry, they didn't seem to have much concept of free will before the pre-Socratics at least. They seemed to believe that all of their actions were fated.

True, that is something to consider. An interesting point in response to that observation is that the characters in Greek tragedies do tend to typically act as if they have free will-- if they are forewarned of their inevitable fate, they nonetheless take action to try to avert it.

In any case, I'm not staking anything important on this 'ubiquitous' claim. I do recognize that it might not be as inherent to human nature as it might seem. Still, I would say the experience of free will is far more widespread and common than spiritual experience. The latter tends to be relatively rare in occurrence and short in duration, across most cultures AFAIK.

 

[IntellectIsStrength]

I'm going to repost what I posted in the other thread about the existence of God.


Can You Prove the Existence of God?
(Why philosophers and atheists love this question)
By Gregory E. Ganssle, Ph.D.
Ever since Immanuel Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason, it has been common for thinking people to insist that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. In fact this claim has been elevated to the level of dogma in American intellectual culture. The reason I know this is considered unquestionable dogma is the reaction I get when I call it into question. When someone says "You cannot prove the existence of God," I want to ask, "How do you know? You just met me! How do you know what I can do?"
What do most people mean when they recite this claim? Most people mean that I cannot provide a philosophical argument for the existence of God which will convince all thinking people. It is impossible, so the story goes, to provide an argument which will compel assent. If my argument will not convince the most ardent atheist, they say, I have not proven God's existence. Since I cannot convince such an atheist to believe, my arguments do not count as proof in their eyes. If they do not count as proof, what good are they?
I agree that I cannot provide an argument that will convince all thinking people. But what does this tell me? Does this tell me anything about God? No. This tells me more about the nature of proof than it does about whether God exists. I cannot provide an argument which will convince everyone, without a possibility of doubt, that God exists. That is no problem. You see, I cannot provide an argument for any interesting philosophical conclusion which will be accepted by everyone without possibility of doubt.
I cannot prove beyond the possibility of doubt -- in a way that will convince all philosophers -- that the Rocky Mountains are really here as a mind-independent object. I cannot prove that the entire universe did not pop into existence five minutes ago and that all of our apparent memories are not illusions. I cannot prove that the other people you see on campus have minds. Perhaps they are very clever robots.
There is no interesting philosophical conclusion that can be proven beyond the possibility of doubt. So the fact that arguments for the existence of God do not produce mathematical certainty does not by itself weaken the case for God's existence. It simply places the question of God's existence in the same category as other questions such as that of the existence of the external, mind-independent world and the question of how we know other people have minds.
Does this mean that arguments for the existence of God are useless? Not at all. Sure, I cannot provide an argument which will convince all thinking people but this does not mean I don't have good reason to believe in God. In fact some of my reasons for believing in God may be persuasive to you. Even if you aren't persuaded to believe that God exists, my arguments may not be useless. It is reasonable to believe that the mountains are real and our memories are generally reliable and that other minds exist. It is reasonable to believe these things even though they cannot be proven. Maybe some argument for God's existence will persuade you that belief in God is reasonable.
So how can we know that God exists? Instead of looking for undoubtable conclusions, we weigh evidence and consider alternatives. Which alternative best fits the evidence?

 

[Billy T]

{concluded with}...So how can we know that God exists? Instead of looking for undoubtable conclusions, we weigh evidence and consider alternatives. ..

Pascal, a very firm believer in a very minor sect, had an interesting POV on how one should act on the alternatives: If God does not exist it won't matter if I believe in him. If he does, then I had better. The "best alternative" is clear.

 

[reilly]

I would like to suggest that many issues once philosophical in nature are increasingly becoming scientific ones. To wit: read Why God Won't Go Away, Newberg, D'Aquili and Rause -- Ballentine 2001. The first two are MDs, and their hypothesis is, "The religious impulse is rooted in the biology of the brain", and they deal with the issue with scientific data, and, of course, verbal arguments. While you may not agree fully, the book will undoubtedly have a subsantial impact upon your thinking.

For much of the last 100 years, physics has had an enormous impact upon our thinking about very fundamental issues. It is my opinion that over the next 100 years, neuroscience will have an even more profound impact, and will totally transform much of philosophy -- think of what we already know about perception and learning -- all that stuff about a "tabla rosa", Kantian eyglasses, as one of my profs used to say, and so forth, are simply brilliant attempts to deduce by reason what we can now understand through observation and experiment.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Billy T]

...An interesting point in response to that observation is that the characters in Greek tragedies do tend to typically act as if they have free will-- if they are forewarned of their inevitable fate, they nonetheless take action to try to avert it.

Two observations:
(1)It has been seriously suggested, by very competent linguist if memory serves me, that humans only became conscious in the later part of the Greek era. I think the book is called "The birth of consciousness in the bicameral mind" or something like that - I read it years ago and no longer have copy. Thus they may indeed have thought quite differently about free will, gods, fate. etc. Even when warned of their fate (killing the father sleeping with their mother etc.) their struggles to avoid it only made it happen.

(2)One of my favorite greek stories on this point, in condensed form, is that of the Rich man's servant who was startled by the angel of death coming close to him, and even asking his name, while he shopped in the market of Athens. Very scared, he returned to his master who agreed to to help his most favored servant. He gave him three of his best horses, one to ride and one to trail on each side of it. "Ride as fast as you can on the first till it drops, then switch to another" the servant was told. "You can reach Sparta before night fall and hide there." Quite angry that the angel of death would single out his faithful servant, who was young, strong and healthy, the merchant went to the market and sought out that angel - "How dare you frighten my servant?" to which the angel of death replied: "I did not mean to startle him. - I was just so surprized to see him here in Athens when I knew that this very eve, just outside of Sparta, I must claim him when his neck breaks as he falls from a galloping horse!"

 

[Barbie]

Pascal, a very firm believer in a very minor sect, had an interesting POV on how one should act on the alternatives: If God does not exist it won't matter if I believe in him. If he does, then I had better. The "best alternative" is clear.

Pascal's Wager! I wrote a paper on it. He did take an interesting and original approach.

I have only one problem with his logic...I can't force myself to believe something even for a possible reward/avoidance of punishment. Thats not how one forms a belief. Maybe there are those out there who can do this, I cannot.

 

[loseyourname]

Pascal's Wager! I wrote a paper on it. He did take an interesting and original approach.

I have only one problem with his logic...I can't force myself to believe something even for a possible reward/avoidance of punishment. Thats not how one forms a belief. Maybe there are those out there who can do this, I cannot.

The other problem with Pascal's wager is that it only holds if you believe in a God that cares whether or not you believe in him and will reward you for such belief. Even in that case, there are no guarantees. Both the God of Islam and the God of Christianity supposedly care and will reward believers, but you will not receive the reward unless you accept the specific doctrines of one faith. Even Pascal, as a good Christian, can be in hell right now if Islam is correct.