What Is Man?

[The Thinker]

I did not say your acts or thought were random, only that you have no control over your conclusions. And you are begging the question: make a deductive argument that you are correct about the B-Theory of time. That your brain rightly reported and understood the facts. I will be waiting.

But it is true that we have no control over our thoughts or conclusions regardless of what worldview you hold because it is logically impossible to have control over your thoughts. I already proved that on the thread Is libertarian free will coherent? So I don't have to show a logical argument for anything unless you can prove LFW is even coherent. If you can't do it I want you to admit that you cannot logically show LFW is coherent and that you take it solely on faith.

Nonsense, if we are created in the image of God that is an inherent quality. As inherent as our reasoning powers. And it is not merely about living forever, but that there is a teleology for man, that we are created for a purpose. And you are correct, in your world we are free to create our own value, you have yours, Stalin and Mao theirs.

Being created in the image of god is an extrinsic quality, because the value would depend on god. The fact that you claim there is no value without god actually proves my point - that on your view all value is extrinsic - but you're just too uneducated to see this.

And if it's as inherent as reasoning powers - which is something we naturally have - then our value is intrinsic and the atheist's worldview can accommodate that easily. So you're screwed both ways. Either you admit that on your view all value is extrinsic, or you admit that there is intrinsic value because of our properties and thereby allow the atheist to have that same value.

And I want to hear a logical positive argument why being created in the image of god has any value. Since we're evolved primates, does that mean that god is an evolved primate?

More nonsense, you took different attributes and judged them to be more valuable than say the attributes that set the bacteria apart like survivability or reproduction. That is a value judgement and based on your opinion. Our attributes do not make us anymore valuable or meaningful than any other creature.

Our attributes make us distinct from bacteria, and you so were just flat out wrong to say that humans are the same exact thing as bacteria. To justify this you'd need to make a logical argument showing how your worldview allows this distinction without appeal to natural traits like sentience, rationality, empathy, etc. Go head. The burden of proof is on you.

So you admit that you can not make an objective argument for why we as a species should survive in the first place - noted.

No. I noted that the burden of proof is on you to make a logical argument showing that "[sentience, rationality, emotions, and things like it] are as meaningless, as we are by nature, if [my] worldview is correct." So far you have not demonstrated that, you just asserted it.

[seer]

But it is true that we have no control over our thoughts or conclusions regardless of what worldview you hold because it is logically impossible to have control over your thoughts. I already proved that on the thread Is libertarian free will coherent? So I don't have to show a logical argument for anything unless you can prove LFW is even coherent. If you can't do it I want you to admit that you cannot logically show LFW is coherent and that you take it solely on faith.

Then admit that you have no control over what you believe is true or not, what you find logical or not, what you find coherent or not.

And if it's as inherent as reasoning powers - which is something we naturally have - then our value is intrinsic and the atheist's worldview can accommodate that easily. So you're screwed both ways. Either you admit that on your view all value is extrinsic, or you admit that there is intrinsic value because of our properties and thereby allow the atheist to have that same value.

Nonsense, the image of God, not our reasoning powers, is what sets us apart from other animals, though they may go hand and hand. It is an inherent quality, and the single most important quality.

And I want to hear a logical positive argument why being created in the image of god has any value. Since we're evolved primates, does that mean that god is an evolved primate?

You already know the answer, primates do not have a spirit.

Our attributes make us distinct from bacteria, and you so were just flat out wrong to say that humans are the same exact thing as bacteria. To justify this you'd need to make a logical argument showing how your worldview allows this distinction without appeal to natural traits like sentience, rationality, empathy, etc. Go head. The burden of proof is on you.

I did not say that we were not different from bacteria, but that your choice of attributes to give value to is mere opinion. That because men have attribute A,B or C that that makes them somehow valuable. Well why don't the attributes that bacteria have give them just as much value?

No. I noted that the burden of proof is on you to make a logical argument showing that "[sentience, rationality, emotions, and things like it] are as meaningless, as we are by nature, if [my] worldview is correct." So far you have not demonstrated that, you just asserted it.

I have made the case that your choice of attributes to assign value too is no more than opinion. So make your objective argument for why we as a species should survive in the first place.

[The Thinker]

Then admit that you have no control over what you believe is true or not, what you find logical or not, what you find coherent or not.

You seem to be acting as if the "you" that I am must be distinct from my body. That's assuming dualism. I am my body. They are not distinct. You seem to think that if my brain causes me to think X, that somehow my "brain" and "me" are two different things, as if the "me" is being controlled by some outside thing. That is false.

The difference with me is that I acknowledge that LFW is false and incoherent. You haven't realized that yet. So you can go around and keep claiming you have it, but all you're really doing is claiming you have something incoherent.

Nonsense, the image of God, not our reasoning powers, is what sets us apart from other animals, though they may go hand and hand. It is an inherent quality, and the single most important quality.

1. Wait, so "God" is an evolved primate? You didn't answer this.

2. When in our evolutionary history did we get the "image of God"? Were neanderthals also in the "image of God"?

3. You have not shown that being in the "image of God" has any value at all. You just claimed it. Logically demonstrate that being in the "image of God" has any value at all, and make sure you don't make the mistake again with confusing intrinsic value with extrinsic value.

You already know the answer, primates do not have a spirit.

We are primates. So you just said that we have no spirit. And logically demonstrate why having a spirit gives something any value. It's not a given.

I did not say that we were not different from bacteria, but that your choice of attributes to give value to is mere opinion. That because men have attribute A,B or C that that makes them somehow valuable. Well why don't the attributes that bacteria have give them just as much value?

Oh I see, mere "opinion". You mean like when you claim being in the "image of God" has any value at all? You just asserted that. I need to hear an argument showing this. What if a species of primate evolved completely naturally into the exact same form as someone that's in the "image of God" by coincidence. What would be of any less value about it?

Once you take away our attributes as reasons that we're different from bacteria you cease to be able to make a coherent argument. What does image of god have? I see no value in this. Would we have value if we were in the image of god but didn't have traits like sentience, rationality, empathy, etc?

I have made the case that your choice of attributes to assign value too is no more than opinion. So make your objective argument for why we as a species should survive in the first place.

There is no objective argument why we should survive. Even theism can't provide this. If god wanted us to live, that would be subjective. He could easily change his mind. Even if he doesn't it's still as subjective as the opinion of an alien race.

I'm arguing that the only way you can rationally ground human value is in our inherent traits like sentience, rationality, empathy, etc. Take them away and make an argument for intrinsic (not extrinsic) human value.

[seer]

You seem to be acting as if the "you" that I am must be distinct from my body. That's assuming dualism. I am my body. They are not distinct. You seem to think that if my brain causes me to think X, that somehow my "brain" and "me" are two different things, as if the "me" is being controlled by some outside thing. That is false.

Thinker, do you have control over what you think, do or say? Yes or no, and if yes, in what sense do you have control?

[JimL]

Thinker, do you have control over what you think, do or say? Yes or no, and if yes, in what sense do you have control?

The truth seer, is that the answer isn't known with certainty. If, with respect to the universe eternalism is true, i.e. if the B-theory of time is true, or if the observed physics of the universe is the complete description of reality, then the universe is either a-temporal, or physically determined, and so we would have no control over either what we think or what we do. That is the view of science, it was the view of Einstein, and that is the argument that you are trying to refute, but you are trying to refute it without regard to the science. You don't have to believe the science, I'm not convinced myself, if the science is correct, then there is no point in worrying about our futures or the future of the enviroment, i.e. the effects of climate change, or of anything else, since it is either already a fact, or it is determined to be so. To be perfectly honest, I think we are missing something.

[Tassman]

Thinker, do you have control over what you think, do or say? Yes or no, and if yes, in what sense do you have control?

...and around we go again.

"YOU" are not separate from your brain, you ARE your brain. The very phrasing of your question implies 'dualism', for which there's no evidence whatsoever. It is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions. There's not a shred of credible evidence supporting your assertion that one can exercise agency outside of those laws.

The truth seer, is that the answer isn't known with certainty. If, with respect to the universe eternalism is true, i.e. if the B-theory of time is true, or if the observed physics of the universe is the complete description of reality, then the universe is either a-temporal, or physically determined, and so we would have no control over either what we think or what we do. That is the view of science, it was the view of Einstein, and that is the argument that you are trying to refute, but you are trying to refute it without regard to the science. You don't have to believe the science, I'm not convinced myself, if the science is correct, then there is no point in worrying about our futures or the future of the enviroment, i.e. the effects of climate change, or of anything else, since it is either already a fact, or it is determined to be so. To be perfectly honest, I think we are missing something.

http://breakingthefreewillillusion.c...m-infographic/

[seer]

...and around we go again.

"YOU" are not separate from your brain, you ARE your brain. The very phrasing of your question implies 'dualism', for which there's no evidence whatsoever. It is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions. There's not a shred of credible evidence supporting your assertion that one can exercise agency outside of those laws.

Nonsense Tass, if this is the case then you have no control over anything you think, do or say. It is all determined.

[JimL]

...and around we go again.

"YOU" are not separate from your brain, you AREhttp://breakingthefreewillillusion.c...m-infographic/

You may be right Tass, but I don't think it a very convincing argument. Unless the will itself is somehow freed from the causal stream then I don't see how determinism is any different than fatalism. If we are going to stick with the science in so far as we understand it, then either our choices and actions are predetermined by physics, or time and change are themselves illusions and our choices and actions already exist in the now. We can't argue that free will is an illusion and then argue that we are somehow responsible for the choices we make. Its a contradiction. Einstein himself argued against the idea of free will based on the science calling it a "persistent illusion." To paraphrase a qoute of his regarding this he said: "I know that it isn't the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, but I wouldn't want to sit at tea with him." By not being his fault Einstein meant that he had no choice in the matter, no freedom to do otherwise. Personally, I am just not convinced, I think we are probably overlooking something in the science itself, but don't ask me what it is.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, if this is the case then you have no control over anything you think, do or say. It is all determined.

thinks it does, just as you and I think we make free-will decisions. In fact our choices can only be made under the illusion of free- will, but they nevertheless have a real effect within the causal chain.

You have not provided an argument against this logic. You've not provided a shred of credible evidence supporting your assertion that one can exercise agency outside of the natural laws. If you think one can then present your argument. To date, you've been totally unable to support your bald assertion of LFW.

[Tassman]

You may be right Tass, but I don't think it a very convincing argument. Unless the will itself is somehow freed from the causal stream then I don't see how determinism is any different than fatalism.

If we are going to stick with the science in so far as we understand it, then either our choices and actions are predetermined by physics, or time and change are themselves illusions and our choices and actions already exist in the now. We can't argue that free will is an illusion and then argue that we are somehow responsible for the choices we make. Its a contradiction. Einstein himself argued against the idea of free will based on the science calling it a "persistent illusion." To paraphrase a qoute of his regarding this he said: "I know that it isn't the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, but I wouldn't want to sit at tea with him." By not being his fault Einstein meant that he had no choice in the matter, no freedom to do otherwise. Personally, I am just not convinced, I think we are probably overlooking something in the science itself, but don't ask me what it is.

[seer]

thinks it does, just as you and I think we make free-will decisions. In fact our choices can only be made under the illusion of free- will, but they nevertheless have a real effect within the causal chain.

Sure and a rock rolling down a hill and killing a bunny rabbit has a real effect on the causal chain. But so what? But I'm glad you admit you have no control over what you think do or say. Including the fact that you have no control over believing what you wrote above - true or not, right or wrong.

[The Thinker]

Thinker, do you have control over what you think, do or say? Yes or no, and if yes, in what sense do you have control?

Define "you".

[seer]

Define "you".

Word games. You already agreed Thinker that you have no control over what you believe, think or do. You are determined - totally and completely. A biological automaton.

[The Thinker]

Word games. You already agreed Thinker that you have no control over what you believe, think or do. You are determined - totally and completely. A biological automaton.

And your way out of this is logically incoherent.

[seer]

And your way out of this is logically incoherent.

OK, so I'm logically incoherent, and you can not logically know if your what you consider incoherent or not is actually correct.