Secular Morality?

[seer]

We think and act as though we have free will and control over what we believe. And what we believe can be supported and reinforced by verified, empirical evidence. By contrast your belief in free-will agency cannot; the only argument you have is “god-did-it” and this is no answer at all, it is wishful thinking.

Are you really this slow Tass? Or.... You don't actually have control over what you believe, therefore you have no control over what you consider (or not) evidence. You have no control over the conclusions you come to. It is all determined - so speaking of "verified, empirical evidence" is meaningless. You can have no idea is you are understanding any particular issue correctly because you have no control over what you think. Perhaps you don't realize it, but if there is no freedom of thought then you are cutting off the branch that you are sitting on. You have effectively destroyed human rationality - including your own.

[JimL]

Are you really this slow Tass? Or.... You don't actually have control over what you believe, therefore you have no control over what you consider (or not) evidence. You have no control over the conclusions you come to. It is all determined - so speaking of "verified, empirical evidence" is meaningless. You can have no idea is you are understanding any particular issue correctly because you have no control over what you think. Perhaps you don't realize it, but if there is no freedom of thought then you are cutting off the branch that you are sitting on. You have effectively destroyed human rationality - including your own.

That's not true seer. The evidence is empirical whether or not your analysis of it is determined or free. If your analysis is wrong, if it disagrees with the empirical evidence, then whether or not your analysis is determined or free willed, it is still wrong. The way you know whether or not what you believe is true can still be realized if what you believe to be true is in accord with the empirical evidence. You may be determined to disagree with the evidence, but unless your determined point of view matches the empirical evidence, then your determined point of view is still wrong. Being determined doesn't mean that you can not come to the right conclusion based on the evidence, it just means that you are determined to either accept it or not. The empirical evidence is what is key, not what you, or what Tass believes. Being determined doesn't mean that your mind can't be changed. Tass is not only determined, from his perspective, but his beliefs are reasonable in that they match with the empirical evidence, and you merely deny the evidence without refuting it with evidence backing your own point of view. You might be correct, we may have free will, but unless you can refute the physics, the empirical evidence, and show where free will enters the picture, then your beliefs, though determined, are not reason based.

[shunyadragon]

So, you say we have no control over our own selves. That the way we act is merely a "cause" of our own bodily makeup?

I say • Edited by a Moderator •. Seriously man, demonstrably determined? What does that mean? Gibberish?

dont worry guys! My consensus is demonstratively determined!

Not an intelligent response responding to the context of the thread.

[seer]

That's not true seer. The evidence is empirical whether or not your analysis of it is determined or free. If your analysis is wrong, if it disagrees with the empirical evidence, then whether or not your analysis is determined or free willed, it is still wrong. The way you know whether or not what you believe is true can still be realized if what you believe to be true is in accord with the empirical evidence. You may be determined to disagree with the evidence, but unless your determined point of view matches the empirical evidence, then your determined point of view is still wrong. Being determined doesn't mean that you can not come to the right conclusion based on the evidence, it just means that you are determined to either accept it or not. The empirical evidence is what is key, not what you, or what Tass believes. Being determined doesn't mean that your mind can't be changed. Tass is not only determined, from his perspective, but his beliefs are reasonable in that they match with the empirical evidence, and you merely deny the evidence without refuting it with evidence backing your own point of view. You might be correct, we may have free will, but unless you can refute the physics, the empirical evidence, and show where free will enters the picture, then your beliefs, though determined, are not reason based.

This is completely wrong Jim. What decides what evidence is empirical or not? You see determinism colors the whole process, from top to bottom. From how we process the external world to the conclusions we come to. Nothing escapes this deterministic Matrix. So you have no control over what you consider as good evidence, you have no control over the outcome of your reasoning ability. And I didn't say your mind can not be changed - but the change is determined, it is not the result of free thought, and it is not the result of evidence because, again, you have no control what you see or accept as evidence, empirical or not.

[shunyadragon]

This is completely wrong Jim. What decides what evidence is empirical or not? You see determinism colors the whole process, from top to bottom. From how we process the external world to the conclusions we come to. Nothing escapes this deterministic Matrix. So you have no control over what you consider as good evidence, you have no control over the outcome of your reasoning ability. And I didn't say your mind can not be changed - but the change is determined, it is not the result of free thought, and it is not the result of evidence because, again, you have no control what you see or accept as evidence, empirical or not.

Natural Law

[Truthseeker]

That's not true seer. The evidence is empirical whether or not your analysis of it is determined or free. If your analysis is wrong, if it disagrees with the empirical evidence, then whether or not your analysis is determined or free willed, it is still wrong. The way you know whether or not what you believe is true can still be realized if what you believe to be true is in accord with the empirical evidence. You may be determined to disagree with the evidence, but unless your determined point of view matches the empirical evidence, then your determined point of view is still wrong. Being determined doesn't mean that you can not come to the right conclusion based on the evidence, it just means that you are determined to either accept it or not. The empirical evidence is what is key, not what you, or what Tass believes. Being determined doesn't mean that your mind can't be changed. Tass is not only determined, from his perspective, but his beliefs are reasonable in that they match with the empirical evidence, and you merely deny the evidence without refuting it with evidence backing your own point of view. You might be correct, we may have free will, but unless you can refute the physics, the empirical evidence, and show where free will enters the picture, then your beliefs, though determined, are not reason based.

It seems as though neither you nor Tassman accepts the idea of fundamental indeterminacy that some scientists see in quantum mechanics. If you can't decisively knock out the possibility that the universe is to some extent random, then . . .

[Tassman]

It seems as though neither you nor Tassman accepts the idea of fundamental indeterminacy that some scientists see in quantum mechanics. If you can't decisively knock out the possibility that the universe is to some extent random, then . . .

Are you really this slow Tass? Or.... You don't actually have control over what you believe, therefore you have no control over what you consider (or not) evidence. You have no control over the conclusions you come to. It is all determined - so speaking of "verified, empirical evidence" is meaningless. You can have no idea is you are understanding any particular issue correctly because you have no control over what you think. Perhaps you don't realize it, but if there is no freedom of thought then you are cutting off the branch that you are sitting on. You have effectively destroyed human rationality - including your own.

Change the record seer, you're getting repetitive. Your entire argument is an Argument from Incredulity - a Logical Fallacy.

[seer]

Change the record seer, you're getting repetitive. Your entire argument is an Argument from Incredulity - a Logical Fallacy.

Nonsense Tass, it is an argument from fact if your worldview is correct.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Tass, it is an argument from fact if your worldview is correct.

IF which world view is correct? The world, universe, and all of natural existence is as it is regardless of our world view. From all the evidence we have at present Natural Law determines the course of all observed events and their nature.

The question remains 'Is Natural Law is Divinely Created or simply exists without another cause?' That question cannot be answered objectively.

If God exists, determinism is Divine. If God does not exist, determinism is Natural Law.

[seer]

I
If God exists, determinism is Divine. If God does not exist, determinism is Natural Law.

Nonsense, the human soul is not determined.

The essential identity of every human being is a rational and immortal soul, which is “entirely out of the order of the physical creation

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, the human soul is not determined.

The essential identity of every human being is a rational and immortal soul, which is “entirely out of the order of the physical creation

You were not discussing the soul when you previously proposed 'Determinism.' Your changing the subject and dodging the issue that you presented. You want to discuss the soul, you will not get far with atheists.

[seer]

You were not discussing the soul when you previously proposed 'Determinism.' Your changing the subject and dodging the issue that you presented. You want to discuss the soul, you will not get far with atheists.

No, I'm not changing anything Shuny. I believe in free will. Because of the soul. And I don't care what the atheist "believes." We both believe in a human soul that is not determined by the laws of nature - agreed?

[shunyadragon]

No, I'm not changing anything Shuny. I believe in free will. Because of the soul. And I don't care what the atheist "believes." We both believe in a human soul that is not determined by the laws of nature - agreed?

No the topic of this particular issue.

[shunyadragon]

It seems as though neither you nor Tassman accepts the idea of fundamental indeterminacy that some scientists see in quantum mechanics. If you can't decisively knock out the possibility that the universe is to some extent random, then . . .

I believe you do not understand the concept as it applies to quantum Mechanics as Tassman and JimL nor science considers it.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, the human soul is not determined.


[/I]

There is no credible evidence that the "human soul" even exists.

Nonsense Tass, it is an argument from fact if your worldview is correct.

No, it is an argument from your garbled version of scientific determinism and more akin to fatalism than determinism - and generously laced with incredulity.