Is Epiphenomenalism Irrational?

[The Thinker]

If God's nature is immutable then it does not follow you definition of arbitrary. He does not simply act on personal whim. That He can change what He is, or His moral sense at the drop of a hat.

Immutable doesn't = non-arbitrary. There could be a million different gods with slightly different natures that never change and it wouldn't in any way take away the arbitrariness of why their nature is the way it is.

If god doesn't act on a personal whim, then he acts for logical reasons right?

Wrong, of course the tokens we assign to numbers are completely arbitrary. And with out those arbitrary tokens you don't have math.

Oh that I agree, the tokens are arbitrary. But I wasn't referring to the tokens, I was referring to the fact that one plus one of anything is two and is logically true, it can never be any other way. The symbols aren't important, it's the logical relation. There will be no alien species that correctly thinks 1+1=4, no matter what symbols they use.

And by arguing that nothing in the universe is arbitrary, are you conceding that your god is arbitrary?

Who knows, why is the universe the way it is? You would have to say just because too.

That's because my worldview allows for brute facts, whereas you must reject them, because if you don't there is no reason for a god to exist because the universe could be a brute fact. So basically you're admitting that you have no logical reason why your god is the way he is, that means he could've been another way, which makes your god arbitrary.

But you have never showed that morality was independent of God without arguing in a circle. And God having an immutable moral nature prevents arbitrary moral decisions on His part - you know that is the case, that is why you are pushing the question back to why is God the way he is.

First, if objectively morality were proven false, it wouldn't affect my atheism one bit, but it would totally destroy your theism. Second, if you think that me arguing in a circle means that I have not shown that morality was independent of god, then since you argue in a circle too, logically, it must be the case that you have not shown that morality was dependent of god. You have no logical justification of your double standard. Third, as I've already told you many times, having an immutable nature doesn't mean the nature isn't arbitrary. I can arbitrarily create my own god on a whim and claim that his nature never changes. That doesn't make his nature non-arbitrary. I think what you don't understand is that the nature of this god doesn't have to change in order to be arbitrary. So me asking you why god is the way he is - and the fact that you can't answer it - exposes exactly why his nature is arbitrary.

If we all die would this principle go away? So the principle depends on our existence, and our existence is not an objective moral good. So again - you got nothing.

It is not required that our existence itself be a moral good. Your logic is flawed here, just as it always is. Morality itself depends on the existence of sentient life. No life, no morality. I've been saying that all along. So my death doesn't in any way take away this principle.

Besides, increased suffering of others can be beneficial to some if they gain wealth and power through it. So even that doesn't fly.

If that were true then your god would support this moral idea. If you disagree, then it must be the case that your god has a logical reason why he wouldn't support such an idea - because otherwise you'd have to admit that his moral views are based on a whim - which is the very thing you must avoid to avoid the arbitrariness claim. But if god has a logical reason why he wouldn't support such an idea - that reason is must be objective because logic exists independently of god (and you said below that what's objective is independent of the viewer, and god is just another viewer). If you claim this is not the case, you must give me a logically deductive reason why, which you know you can't do without running into another dilemma. So either way, your views are stuck in a logical conundrum. It's a pity you are too stupid to realize it.

Objective means something that exists independent of the viewer. The sun is objective, its existence does not depend on our subjective experience of it.

OK, then since god is a viewer, he is subjective.

[seer]

If god doesn't act on a personal whim, then he acts for logical reasons right?

Well of course, since He is the source of all logic and wisdom.

That's because my worldview allows for brute facts, whereas you must reject them, because if you don't there is no reason for a god to exist because the universe could be a brute fact. So basically you're admitting that you have no logical reason why your god is the way he is, that means he could've been another way, which makes your god arbitrary.

And logically God can not be a brute fact why? So by your definitions either both God and the universe are brute facts or arbitrary.

First, if objectively morality were proven false, it wouldn't affect my atheism one bit, but it would totally destroy your theism.

That is nonsense, I haven't even argued for objective morality. My argument has always been that there is an immutable source for ethics, and that we are accountable to that source.

Second, if you think that me arguing in a circle means that I have not shown that morality was independent of god, then since you argue in a circle too, logically, it must be the case that you have not shown that morality was dependent of god. You have no logical justification of your double standard.

I never disagreed with this, we both end up in a circle. I said this very thing a few posts bad, that I would be open to the circular charge. But so are you.

So me asking you why god is the way he is - and the fact that you can't answer it - exposes exactly why his nature is arbitrary.

Then the universe is just as arbitrary.

It is not required that our existence itself be a moral good. Your logic is flawed here, just as it always is. Morality itself depends on the existence of sentient life. No life, no morality. I've been saying that all along. So my death doesn't in any way take away this principle.

But this is meaningless. Yes morality does depend on sentient life (God being the most self-aware being in existence), but what does that get you? What follows? If an alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food how does our sentience dictate or change anything? It doesn't - trivial platitudes.

But if god has a logical reason why he wouldn't support such an idea - that reason is must be objective because logic exists independently of god (and you said below that what's objective is independent of the viewer, and god is just another viewer). If you claim this is not the case, you must give me a logically deductive reason why, which you know you can't do without running into another dilemma. So either way, your views are stuck in a logical conundrum. It's a pity you are too stupid to realize it.

God is the source of all logic and reason, that He is the fount of reason, that rationally and logic are very characteristic of His immutable nature - so I see no problem.

[Tassman]

.


That is nonsense, I haven't even argued for objective morality. My argument has always been that there is an immutable source for ethics, and that we are accountable to that source.

Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. This is the only source of morality and the basis of our attribution of them to God, when we invented him.

God is the source of all logic and reason, that He is the fount of reason, that rationally and logic are very characteristic of His immutable nature - so I see no problem.

Prove it.

[The Thinker]

Well of course, since He is the source of all logic and wisdom.

Can you logically prove that logic would not exist independently of god?

And logically God can not be a brute fact why? So by your definitions either both God and the universe are brute facts or arbitrary.

Then logically explain to me why your god is the way he is?

That is nonsense, I haven't even argued for objective morality. My argument has always been that there is an immutable source for ethics, and that we are accountable to that source.

Those ethics are arbitrary. That's the whole point. You need to logically prove why they couldn't be any other way.

I never disagreed with this, we both end up in a circle. I said this very thing a few posts bad, that I would be open to the circular charge. But so are you.

So you admit then that you have nothing over me, and yet you act as if you do.

Then the universe is just as arbitrary.

If that is the case, I don't care. It doesn't threaten my atheism one bit. For you, god being arbitrary is fatal.

But this is meaningless. Yes morality does depend on sentient life (God being the most self-aware being in existence), but what does that get you? What follows? If an alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food how does our sentience dictate or change anything? It doesn't - trivial platitudes.

Are you aware that positing a god doesn't in any way help you? The aliens could do the same exact thing.

God is the source of all logic and reason, that He is the fount of reason, that rationally and logic are very characteristic of His immutable nature - so I see no problem.

Then you should have no difficulty logically proving this rather than what you are doing -- just asserting it.

So go ahead.

[seer]

Can you logically prove that logic would not exist independently of god?

So you want me to prove a universal negative again? But that was not the point.

Then logically explain to me why your god is the way he is?

It is a brute fact, just like your universe.

Those ethics are arbitrary. That's the whole point. You need to logically prove why they couldn't be any other way.

If God's moral nature is eternal, fixed and immutable then how can it possibly be any other way - you are not making sense.

So you admit then that you have nothing over me, and yet you act as if you do.

Except I have God. Who has the authority and means to institute universal moral law.

Are you aware that positing a god doesn't in any way help you? The aliens could do the same exact thing.

Not the point Homer. The point is that your argument is trivial. In my world a real universal injustice was done, and justice will be done.

Then you should have no difficulty logically proving this rather than what you are doing -- just asserting it.

Of course I'm asserting - all you have been doing is asserting - and?

[The Thinker]

So you want me to prove a universal negative again? But that was not the point.

OK, then logically prove logic is dependent on god. There. Now it's positive.

It is a brute fact, just like your universe.

Then you have no business tell me that it isn't arbitrary - because you just said the universe is arbitrary and if god is as brute as the universe - it's as arbitrary as the universe.

If God's moral nature is eternal, fixed and immutable then how can it possibly be any other way - you are not making sense.

I am making sense because you're not considering the fact that it could have been a different fixed and immutable nature that itself is never changing. Please don't tell me that you don't have the necessary brain cells to comprehend this.

Except I have God. Who has the authority and means to institute universal moral law.

Except your god doesn't exist, and his morality is arbitrary, and none of your fellow Christians can even agree on what the hell it is god wants, and since most people don't even believe in your god, it's worthless.

Not the point Homer. The point is that your argument is trivial. In my world a real universal injustice was done, and justice will be done.

Except that what you consider justice is arbitrary. So all you're offering me is a celestial North Korea. I'll take atheism over that.

Of course I'm asserting - all you have been doing is asserting - and?

But you act as if you could logically prove it. Now it has become known that you're just asserting your god is super awesome totally on faith. I can just assert it isn't.

[seer]

OK, then logically prove logic is dependent on god. There. Now it's positive.

Thinker you are all over the map. I'm not trying to prove that logic depends on God per se, you said: If god doesn't act on a personal whim, then he acts for logical reasons right?

Yes, He acts for logical reasons because He is rational, that is His nature. Then it follows if God is the Creator then logic, an intelligible cosmos, is sourced in Him.

Then you have no business tell me that it isn't arbitrary - because you just said the universe is arbitrary and if god is as brute as the universe - it's as arbitrary as the universe.

No, I'm saying that if I follow your logic then everything is arbitrary. But like you say - words are arbitrary - including the word arbitrary.

I am making sense because you're not considering the fact that it could have been a different fixed and immutable nature that itself is never changing. Please don't tell me that you don't have the necessary brain cells to comprehend this.

How can an eternal, fixed nature, whatever it is, have been different? Please explain. How could God, have another nature that He does not have?

Except your god doesn't exist, and his morality is arbitrary, and none of your fellow Christians can even agree on what the hell it is god wants, and since most people don't even believe in your god, it's worthless.

Again, His moral nature is anything but arbitrary, it is fixed and eternal. And our misunderstandings would not change that fact, or God's universal authority.

Except that what you consider justice is arbitrary. So all you're offering me is a celestial North Korea. I'll take atheism over that.

Yes the New Heavens and Earth where men will finally and fully love God with all their hearts, and their neighbor as themselves will be horrible. That is after all the goal of the Law of God.

But you act as if you could logically prove it. Now it has become known that you're just asserting your god is super awesome totally on faith. I can just assert it isn't.

Of course it is on faith, just as just about everything you believe - like that your brain is reporting truth to your conscious mind. We all live by faith Thinker, I have the honesty to admit it, you don't.

[The Thinker]

Thinker you are all over the map. I'm not trying to prove that logic depends on God per se, you said: If god doesn't act on a personal whim, then he acts for logical reasons right?

Yes, He acts for logical reasons because He is rational, that is His nature. Then it follows if God is the Creator then logic, an intelligible cosmos, is sourced in Him.

No, it does not logically follow at all, it is assumed. Logic exists independently of god, and there is no reason to think it isn't. Even if a god existed that was logical, that would not entail logic does not exist independent of him.

No, I'm saying that if I follow your logic then everything is arbitrary. But like you say - words are arbitrary - including the word arbitrary.

That does not follow. The physical nature of the universe would be arbitrary, but logical relationships between physical things, like 1+1+=2, would not be arbitrary.

How can an eternal, fixed nature, whatever it is, have been different? Please explain. How could God, have another nature that He does not have?

Just as I suspected, you cannot comprehend this. That eternal fixed nature could have been different from eternity. Unless you can point to a logically necessary reason why it must be the way it is -- which you already admitted you can't, there is no reason why it couldn't have been different with that different nature eternally existing.

Again, His moral nature is anything but arbitrary, it is fixed and eternal. And our misunderstandings would not change that fact, or God's universal authority.

It's totally arbitrary if you cannot find a logically necessary reason why it is the way it is, because there could have been another god with a different nature that is fixed and eternal. Nothing changes that fact. And god's authority is merely might makes right.

Yes the New Heavens and Earth where men will finally and fully love God with all their hearts, and their neighbor as themselves will be horrible. That is after all the goal of the Law of God.

Sounds like no free will.

Of course it is on faith, just as just about everything you believe - like that your brain is reporting truth to your conscious mind. We all live by faith Thinker, I have the honesty to admit it, you don't.

But you don't admit it -- you act as if you have logical proof of your beliefs, and you don't. You are merely just asserting your opinion as if it's fact. It's only if and when I corner you that you're willing to surrender and admit it.

[seer]

No, it does not logically follow at all, it is assumed. Logic exists independently of god, and there is no reason to think it isn't. Even if a god existed that was logical, that would not entail logic does not exist independent of him.

Well of course, in a sense logic would exist apart from God since a rational universe exists that is not a part of God - though He created it. So the universe is the way it is because that is the way God created it.

That does not follow. The physical nature of the universe would be arbitrary, but logical relationships between physical things, like 1+1+=2, would not be arbitrary.

OK, so these logical relationships are not arbitrary, but the God who created these very logical relationships (the universe as it is) is arbitrary?

Just as I suspected, you cannot comprehend this. That eternal fixed nature could have been different from eternity.

OK, show how God could have been different.

Unless you can point to a logically necessary reason why it must be the way it is -- which you already admitted you can't, there is no reason why it couldn't have been different with that different nature eternally existing.

Nonsense, you are the one claiming that God could have been different. Please demonstrate.

It's totally arbitrary if you cannot find a logically necessary reason why it is the way it is, because there could have been another god with a different nature that is fixed and eternal. Nothing changes that fact. And god's authority is merely might makes right.

And again, like you said - words are arbitrary. That includes the word arbitrary, so your whole objection is as meaningless as your words. Sad. And it is not God's might that makes right - it is again His immutable moral character that defines right, it His supreme power that will institute His moral principles.

Sounds like no free will.

Sure there is, you can either choose to join with God and allow Him to make you perfect or you can reject him (we call that hell).

But you don't admit it -- you act as if you have logical proof of your beliefs, and you don't. You are merely just asserting your opinion as if it's fact. It's only if and when I corner you that you're willing to surrender and admit it.

Just as you have no logical proofs for much of what you believe Thinker. And where did I ever in our debates offer logical proofs for God? You are the hypocrite bro, demanding logical justifications when you offer few if any yourself.

[The Thinker]

Well of course, in a sense logic would exist apart from God since a rational universe exists that is not a part of God - though He created it. So the universe is the way it is because that is the way God created it.

He didn't create it, that's the thing, and it even if he did it doesn't entail logic is based or sources in him.

OK, so these logical relationships are not arbitrary, but the God who created these very logical relationships (the universe as it is) is arbitrary?

God doesn't create these logical relationships, they exist necessarily. That's the whole point seer.

OK, show how God could have been different.

Easy. There could be a god who existed from eternity who is not a total douchebag like yours. Like for example, he thinks slavery is morally wrong and never condones it. Another example would be if the god of Islam existed from eternity -- it's a different god with a different personality. I could give you many examples. Unless you can logically show that this cannot be the case, you have no business asserting god's nature isn't arbitrary.

Nonsense, you are the one claiming that God could have been different. Please demonstrate.

See above.

And again, like you said - words are arbitrary. That includes the word arbitrary, so your whole objection is as meaningless as your words. Sad. And it is not God's might that makes right - it is again His immutable moral character that defines right, it His supreme power that will institute His moral principles.

That does not entail at all. LOL. You are so utterly ridiculous. Words being arbitrary just means that there could be many different sounds and symbols used to represent the meaning of the words. The meaning is what matters.

And since you've already admitted his moral character is arbitrary, it is might makes right. A different god with different rules would be just as authoritative as your god. So there is no logically necessary reason why your god is the way it is. It is totally arbitrary. Being able to punish someone for not doing what you want does not at all make it morally right.

Sure there is, you can either choose to join with God and allow Him to make you perfect or you can reject him (we call that hell).

It won't make me perfect. It will just make me a drone. Logically prove that it will and you are not just asserting your opinion, as it seems you always are.

Just as you have no logical proofs for much of what you believe Thinker. And where did I ever in our debates offer logical proofs for God? You are the hypocrite bro, demanding logical justifications when you offer few if any yourself.

I do have logical proofs for what I believe. 1+1=2. It is logically impossible for that to be false. From now on why don't you make it more clear that you are just offering a faith-based opinion when you say what you say? It will save us lots of time. I'll be able to just ignore it since it isn't based on any evidence.

[seer]

Easy. There could be a god who existed from eternity who is not a total douchebag like yours. Like for example, he thinks slavery is morally wrong and never condones it. Another example would be if the god of Islam existed from eternity -- it's a different god with a different personality. I could give you many examples. Unless you can logically show that this cannot be the case, you have no business asserting god's nature isn't arbitrary.

Douchebag bag? Really Thinker... I'm done with you until you apologize.

[The Thinker]

Douchebag bag? Really Thinker... I'm done with you until you apologize.

Apologize for your god condoning slavery? That's absurd.

[seer]

Apologize for your god condoning slavery? That's absurd.

Then we are done, obviously you are emotional and irrational...

[The Thinker]

Then we are done, obviously you are emotional and irrational...

I'm emotional and irrational for calling a person who condones slavery a douchebag? You've got some messed up ethical values.


As it stands this thread did not demonstrate that epiphenominalism is irrational.

[Tassman]

Douchebag bag? Really Thinker... I'm done with you until you apologize.

Apology not required from Thinker...although it is required from the supporters of a particularly nasty deity. Something the Southern Baptist Convention didn't get around to until the 1990's regarding its biblical justification of slavery.

Richard Dawkins got in right in 'The God Delusion':

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Richard Dawkins.