Is Epiphenomenalism Irrational?

[seer]

Pay attention. I wrote that my conscious rational deliberation does play a part in whether I think something is true or not. This is true if my brain causes my thoughts.

Right, and that is actually meaningless in determining whether something is correct or not.

I was just agreeing for the sake of argument. I don't actually believe this. Why would god have these immutable characteristics rather than another? If you argue that it is logically impossible that god could have other characteristics because only one set is logically compatible with goodness, then you just admitted that this would be true without god existing because logic itself would dictate such a thing and this would exist independently of god. If you disagree, then refute this logically. There, now you have objective morality without god.

It would not matter why God had specific immutable characteristics, it just matter that He does. And no, there is no objective goodness that exists independently of God, there is only God's goodness and that which conforms to that goodness. So once again - you fail to make an objective case for morality.

Of course I do. I have a grounding of morality that is based on what actions do and intend to do, you have no grounding at all except arbitrariness and circularity.

What they do to what, whom? And where does the objective come in? And again God's moral nature is in no way arbitrary.

First define justice. That is a question begging assumption by you and just your opinion.

Are you kidding? I will ask again, what does a rational moral system look like Thinker without justice? And if you don't know what justice is then your whole system is bullocks

No. An agnostic would say it might be possible, or it might not. I'm saying it is possible. My view is clear, consciousness itself causes nothing. That violates physical law. So in no situation does consciousness itself cause action, it is always caused by something in the brain. And a few months ago you believed me.

So again let's be clear - are you saying that awareness never plays a role in our acts? I'm not saying that the brain is not involved, but that both may be necessary to complete certain acts.

[The Thinker]

Right, and that is actually meaningless in determining whether something is correct or not.

Of course it isn't meaningless. Without a brain you can't tell whether anything is correct because you wouldn't be able to even think.

It would not matter why God had specific immutable characteristics, it just matter that He does.

But without a reason why you would never be able to tell which characteristics would be ethical if you were faced with several different gods. How would you know Zeus doesn't have them? How would you know the Islamic god doesn't have them? Or any other thousands of gods? How could you make a logical argument that the god you believe in has them? It seems like all you're stuck with is "he just does." So much for rational conscious deliberation.

And no, there is no objective goodness that exists independently of God, there is only God's goodness and that which conforms to that goodness. So once again - you fail to make an objective case for morality.

All you did was just assert this. You haven't logically demonstrated anything. Give me a logical argument showing this.

What they do to what, whom? And where does the objective come in? And again God's moral nature is in no way arbitrary.

To sentient beings. And yes, his nature is arbitrary. It's totally made up by the people who invented him. That's why every god is different. I dare you to make a logical argument that only your god has immutable morally perfect characteristics. If you can't, then you're basically admitting that its arbitrary.

Are you kidding? I will ask again, what does a rational moral system look like Thinker without justice? And if you don't know what justice is then your whole system is bullocks

Justice is one of those terms that has no agreed upon definition as to what it would be. Of course I know about theories of justice, but unless you can specify a definition of what justice is and isn't you have no basis for saying that my view has no justice. It's just an empty assertion, like all your other claims.

So again let's be clear - are you saying that awareness never plays a role in our acts? I'm not saying that the brain is not involved, but that both may be necessary to complete certain acts.

If by "role" you mean that consciousness itself has a causal impact on physical matter, then no. Science rules that out. The only forces governing your body are the ones in the Standard Model and gravity. In every case where consciousness exists it is due to a particular brain state that wouldn't have existed if there was no consciousness. And if it didn't exist, it's possible that the action wouldn't have happened.

[seer]

Of course it isn't meaningless. Without a brain you can't tell whether anything is correct because you wouldn't be able to even think.

No, I'm speaking of your conscious rational deliberations. They have no role in determining whether something is correct or not, and therefore meaningless.

But without a reason why you would never be able to tell which characteristics would be ethical if you were faced with several different gods. How would you know Zeus doesn't have them? How would you know the Islamic god doesn't have them? Or any other thousands of gods? How could you make a logical argument that the god you believe in has them? It seems like all you're stuck with is "he just does." So much for rational conscious deliberation.

But that is not the argument, nor the point. If God, whichever god, had an immutable moral character then His moral law would not be arbitrary.

All you did was just assert this. You haven't logically demonstrated anything. Give me a logical argument showing this.

Again, I'm not making a deductive argument, I'm just stating what Christians believe. Goodness is not something external to God, an standard that exists independently of God. So your objection would not apply to our concept of God and fails.

To sentient beings. And yes, his nature is arbitrary. It's totally made up by the people who invented him. That's why every god is different. I dare you to make a logical argument that only your god has immutable morally perfect characteristics. If you can't, then you're basically admitting that its arbitrary.

Oh stop. You know your Christian theology well enough. You are just reaching for straws now. And according to our theology His moral character is anything but arbitrary. It is eternal and immutable and certain. Whether a man, or any man, knows this is completely immaterial. And again, where is your argument for objective morality?

Justice is one of those terms that has no agreed upon definition as to what it would be. Of course I know about theories of justice, but unless you can specify a definition of what justice is and isn't you have no basis for saying that my view has no justice. It's just an empty assertion, like all your other claims.

Ok, if I must I will define justice as rewards for good behavior and punishments for bad behavior. And this is basically how Kant's argument goes (if I remember correctly). If acting badly benefits me or mine, then it would be rational to act badly. Men can act badly and escape punishment in this life, so acting badly is rational unless there is reckoning in the afterlife.

If by "role" you mean that consciousness itself has a causal impact on physical matter, then no. Science rules that out. The only forces governing your body are the ones in the Standard Model and gravity. In every case where consciousness exists it is due to a particular brain state that wouldn't have existed if there was no consciousness. And if it didn't exist, it's possible that the action wouldn't have happened.

Then you are back to inductive reasoning, you are generalizing. And I gave you a clear everyday example where awareness played a role - I did not get up and make the coffee until I was consciously aware of the desire for coffee. No conscious desire - no act.

[The Thinker]

No, I'm speaking of your conscious rational deliberations. They have no role in determining whether something is correct or not, and therefore meaningless.

No, it gives us subjectivity. It allow us to experience things, and without that nothing would have meaning.

But that is not the argument, nor the point. If God, whichever god, had an immutable moral character then His moral law would not be arbitrary.

Yeah, but you're just assuming your view is correct. It's like me saying, "If there is no god, then atheism is true." Yes, that would be correct, but the debate would be over whether atheism is true. Your view is also a bit circular. It's basically saying, "If God's character isn't arbitrary, then it isn't arbitrary." And by claiming it isn't arbitrary, you're tacitly admitting that goodness can only be a certain way, that goodness cannot be arbitrary. And the truth of this is irrelevant as to whether god exists or not.

Secondary, if an immutable moral character was a thing that was logically deductively true, then that would exist independently of god.

Again, I'm not making a deductive argument, I'm just stating what Christians believe. Goodness is not something external to God, an standard that exists independently of God. So your objection would not apply to our concept of God and fails.

Your concept of god is incoherent and cannot be the grounding of morality, regardless of what you believe.

Oh stop. You know your Christian theology well enough. You are just reaching for straws now. And according to our theology His moral character is anything but arbitrary. It is eternal and immutable and certain. Whether a man, or any man, knows this is completely immaterial. And again, where is your argument for objective morality?

I know Christian history well enough, and the history of god belief and I know that the Christian god is just another culturally produced concoction, whose traits are arbitrary - even among Christians. You can't just assume they aren't you have to show it. And something being eternal and immutable doesn't make it ethically good. An evil being can have eternal and immutable characteristics. My argument for objective morality was just made before. You even agree that logic requires that certain ethical traits be good or bad. For example, you believe that it is logically impossible for god to be evil or do something evil. So you try to ground them in god. But I've already shown you that god cannot ground goodness or morality because you run into a trilemma - that neither you nor anyone else has refuted. The logic exists independently of god and you have not shown it isn't. You merely assert it.

Ok, if I must I will define justice as rewards for good behavior and punishments for bad behavior. And this is basically how Kant's argument goes (if I remember correctly). If acting badly benefits me or mine, then it would be rational to act badly. Men can act badly and escape punishment in this life, so acting badly is rational unless there is reckoning in the afterlife.

But Christianity doesn't reward or punish for behavior. It's based entirely on belief, regardless of whether your behavior is good or bad. What happens to a good atheist on Christianity? He goes to hell regardless of how good he was. It's actually this system that could make behavior irrelevant. you can argue that Christianity is otherwise, but then you'd just be making up your own version of Christianity on your own. So your own religion doesn't even satisfy your own definition of justice.

Then you are back to inductive reasoning, you are generalizing. And I gave you a clear everyday example where awareness played a role - I did not get up and make the coffee until I was consciously aware of the desire for coffee. No conscious desire - no act.

You mean no brain state that causes conscious desire - no act.

[seer]

No, it gives us subjectivity. It allow us to experience things, and without that nothing would have meaning.

Nothing would change if we didn't have these conscious experiences, we would act just the same.

Yeah, but you're just assuming your view is correct. It's like me saying, "If there is no god, then atheism is true." Yes, that would be correct, but the debate would be over whether atheism is true. Your view is also a bit circular. It's basically saying, "If God's character isn't arbitrary, then it isn't arbitrary." And by claiming it isn't arbitrary, you're tacitly admitting that goodness can only be a certain way, that goodness cannot be arbitrary. And the truth of this is irrelevant as to whether god exists or not.

What? I'm telling you what we believe. The Christian view of God escapes the charge of arbitrariness, since His moral nature is immutable. And no, if God did not exist there would be no immutable grounding or source for goodness.

Secondary, if an immutable moral character was a thing that was logically deductively true, then that would exist independently of god.

I have no idea what your point is.

I know Christian history well enough, and the history of god belief and I know that the Christian god is just another culturally produced concoction, whose traits are arbitrary - even among Christians. You can't just assume they aren't you have to show it. And something being eternal and immutable doesn't make it ethically good. An evil being can have eternal and immutable characteristics. My argument for objective morality was just made before. You even agree that logic requires that certain ethical traits be good or bad. For example, you believe that it is logically impossible for god to be evil or do something evil. So you try to ground them in god. But I've already shown you that god cannot ground goodness or morality because you run into a trilemma - that neither you nor anyone else has refuted. The logic exists independently of god and you have not shown it isn't. You merely assert it.

First, no you did not make a case for objective morality - you asserted. And no, I am already off two horns of the - that God's moral law would be arbitrary, and that there needs to be a moral standard external to Him. On the third point I may end up in a circle - BUT SO DO YOU. You can not make a deductive argument for objective morality. You couldn't on Civis and you can't here.

But Christianity doesn't reward or punish for behavior. It's based entirely on belief, regardless of whether your behavior is good or bad. What happens to a good atheist on Christianity? He goes to hell regardless of how good he was. It's actually this system that could make behavior irrelevant. you can argue that Christianity is otherwise, but then you'd just be making up your own version of Christianity on your own. So your own religion doesn't even satisfy your own definition of justice.

I already proved you wrong Thinker according the Christian scriptures. There are differing degrees of rewards in Heaven, and greater punishments in Hell. So I will ask again - how is your moral system rational without justice?

[The Thinker]

Nothing would change if we didn't have these conscious experiences, we would act just the same.

If P-zombies are possible, but I don't think they are.

What? I'm telling you what we believe. The Christian view of God escapes the charge of arbitrariness, since His moral nature is immutable.

It's irrelevant what you believe, because beliefs can be false. I can find another religion that has another god with different traits from your god whose believers can claim aren't arbitrary. That doesn't mean it is so. You need to logically prove your belief.

And no, if God did not exist there would be no immutable grounding or source for goodness.

You know you cannot actually show with without avoiding the trilemma:

1. God's nature is arbitrary
2. Make a circular argument
3. Show that morality exists independently of god.


So any time you want to make a logical argument showing there would be no immutable grounding or source for goodness without god, be my guest.

I have no idea what your point is.

God is irrelevant to morality.

First, no you did not make a case for objective morality - you asserted. And no, I am already off two horns of the - that God's moral law would be arbitrary, and that there needs to be a moral standard external to Him. On the third point I may end up in a circle - BUT SO DO YOU. You can not make a deductive argument for objective morality. You couldn't on Civis and you can't here.

How did you avoid the two horns? I didn't see an argument showing that. You just asserted that your particular god's nature isn't arbitrary. In that case I can just assert that it isn't.

If I may end up in a circle, and you may end up in a circle, then you have no justification claiming you're right on this point and I'm not.

I already proved you wrong Thinker according the Christian scriptures. There are differing degrees of rewards in Heaven, and greater punishments in Hell. So I will ask again - how is your moral system rational without justice?

But the only thing that is the deciding factor on whether or not you go to heaven at all on Christianity - regardless of whether you get the platinum level or the silver level heaven, is whether or not you believe. It doesn't matter how good an atheist is, he's never going to heaven. Do you think atheists go to heaven? Additionally, who defines what good and bad is anyway on your view? To your second question, since you defined justice "rewards for good behavior and punishments for bad behavior" - you didn't say anything about an afterlife. So on my moral system we have that - it's called the law. So my moral system meets your demands. I'm not saying I agree with your definition, I'm just saying that I meet it.

[seer]

If P-zombies are possible, but I don't think they are.

Yet, our conscious deliberation still play no role in deciding what is right or wrong. As far as the zombie - how could one ever know?

It's irrelevant what you believe, because beliefs can be false. I can find another religion that has another god with different traits from your god whose believers can claim aren't arbitrary. That doesn't mean it is so. You need to logically prove your belief.

That is not the point Thinker and you know it. I am making my case from my Christian worldview, it is completely irrelevant as to what you believe or not.

You know you cannot actually show with without avoiding the trilemma:

1. God's nature is arbitrary
2. Make a circular argument
3. Show that morality exists independently of god.

Let's tackle this; if God's moral nature is immutable and certain and eternal, how is that arbitrary? If that is arbitrary then what in this universe isn't?

So any time you want to make a logical argument showing there would be no immutable grounding or source for goodness without god, be my guest.

So now you want me to prove a universal negative? Weak Thinker. But if you want to offer an argument for a possible immutable source of goodness apart from God, I'm all ears. Plato's forms perhaps?

How did you avoid the two horns? I didn't see an argument showing that. You just asserted that your particular god's nature isn't arbitrary. In that case I can just assert that it isn't.

No Thinker the Christian concept of God avoids those two horns, and that is what we are discussing. His moral standard exists within Himself (not external to Him) and His moral law proceeds from His immutable moral nature and therefore not arbitrary.

If I may end up in a circle, and you may end up in a circle, then you have no justification claiming you're right on this point and I'm not.

Of course you end up in a circle, so on this point we are even. Therefore we must find justification elsewhere.

But the only thing that is the deciding factor on whether or not you go to heaven at all on Christianity - regardless of whether you get the platinum level or the silver level heaven, is whether or not you believe. It doesn't matter how good an atheist is, he's never going to heaven. Do you think atheists go to heaven? Additionally, who defines what good and bad is anyway on your view? To your second question, since you defined justice "rewards for good behavior and punishments for bad behavior" - you didn't say anything about an afterlife. So on my moral system we have that - it's called the law. So my moral system meets your demands. I'm not saying I agree with your definition, I'm just saying that I meet it.

No atheist is ever "good" defined by my beliefs. We are all sinners. But you did not answer my question, or Kant's point. If the bad man can escape consequences in this life it would be rational to act badly to feather his bed. Why wouldn't it be? And no, you do not have this in your system since bad men often do not get their just deserts in this life. So in essence we live in an unjust universe, you have a moral system that is not just. And therefore not rational.

[The Thinker]

Yet, our conscious deliberation still play no role in deciding what is right or wrong. As far as the zombie - how could one ever know?

Technically no one can tell with absolute certainty that any other living thing isn't a zombie. It's one of those weird things about philosophy.

That is not the point Thinker and you know it. I am making my case from my Christian worldview, it is completely irrelevant as to what you believe or not.

It is absolutely relevant. Merely believing that you're right does not in any way show that you're right. You could be believing something incoherent.

Let's tackle this; if God's moral nature is immutable and certain and eternal, how is that arbitrary? If that is arbitrary then what in this universe isn't?

Simple. All I have to do is ask a simple question: Why is god's moral nature the way he is? Try answering this and I will show you the short comings of your view.

So now you want me to prove a universal negative? Weak Thinker. But if you want to offer an argument for a possible immutable source of goodness apart from God, I'm all ears. Plato's forms perhaps?

OK, so you basically admit you can't actually show what you believe. That means your belief that without god there is no source of morality is based on faith.

No Thinker the Christian concept of God avoids those two horns, and that is what we are discussing. His moral standard exists within Himself (not external to Him) and His moral law proceeds from His immutable moral nature and therefore not arbitrary.

Why is god's moral nature the way he is? Could it be different? If not, why not?

Sorry buddy, the Christian concept of god is question begging.

Of course you end up in a circle, so on this point we are even. Therefore we must find justification elsewhere.

Where?

No atheist is ever "good" defined by my beliefs. We are all sinners.

Can you show your beliefs are objectively true? No. So it means nothing. That means all the good deeds an atheist ever done is pointless on your view right?

But you did not answer my question, or Kant's point. If the bad man can escape consequences in this life it would be rational to act badly to feather his bed. Why wouldn't it be? And no, you do not have this in your system since bad men often do not get their just deserts in this life. So in essence we live in an unjust universe, you have a moral system that is not just. And therefore not rational.

3 points.

Since on Christianity I can act bad and be saved by faith, then why wouldn't it be rational for me to act bad? After all, I'm already born with sin. And if Jesus died for my sins, then if I don't sin, his death was pointless. Why shouldn't I sin as much as possible?

One fundamental flaw in your worldview is that you see everything in terms of punishment/reward in the afterlife. This means you're only doing good because you want to get rewarded. And you're only avoiding bad because you want to avoid punishment. It's completely selfish and self-centered. It's like me only assisting someone if I know I'm going to get a promotion. What I really care about is my reward. Helping the person is just a means to that end. It's like work. Is that rational?

A moral system has nothing to do with whether or not people can get a way with crimes. Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. That's the definition of it. Whether or not people can get away with doing something wrong is irrelevant to the moral philosophy itself. Consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics for example do not depend on with whether it's possible for someone to get away with a crime. You made a categorical mistake. So you are the one that's not rational.

[seer]

Technically no one can tell with absolute certainty that any other living thing isn't a zombie. It's one of those weird things about philosophy.

Well right and that is the point. There is something about the human person, qualia, that can not be discovered by science, that is not material in nature.

Simple. All I have to do is ask a simple question: Why is god's moral nature the way he is? Try answering this and I will show you the short comings of your view.

No I asked you first. If God's immutable and eternal character, or being, is arbitrary, then can you show me something in the universe that is not arbitrary? Since we often argue about definitions I need to know how you define arbitrary.

OK, so you basically admit you can't actually show what you believe. That means your belief that without god there is no source of morality is based on faith.

No Thinker you are asking me to prove a universal negative - that is bad form, and you know it. You are the one who has been advocating an objective source for ethics - which you have failed to show.

Where?

Good question, I ground ethics in God? Where would you?

That means all the good deeds an atheist ever done is pointless on your view right?

As far as entering heaven yes, they are pointless. as far as the degree of punishment in hell, no they are not pointless. You will not share the severity of punishments that a Hitler would.

Since on Christianity I can act bad and be saved by faith, then why wouldn't it be rational for me to act bad? After all, I'm already born with sin. And if Jesus died for my sins, then if I don't sin, his death was pointless. Why shouldn't I sin as much as possible?

First if a Christian (as flawed as we are) really thought like that I would question his conversion. Wouldn't you? Second, again there are degrees of rewards and demerits even in heaven. Salvation is by faith, but that is not all there is - we well be judged by the things done in the body - good or bad

One fundamental flaw in your worldview is that you see everything in terms of punishment/reward in the afterlife. This means you're only doing good because you want to get rewarded. And you're only avoiding bad because you want to avoid punishment. It's completely selfish and self-centered. It's like me only assisting someone if I know I'm going to get a promotion. What I really care about is my reward. Helping the person is just a means to that end. It's like work. Is that rational?

No Thinker, I do good because I love God and am eternally grateful (literally) for His grace, mercy and love.

A moral system has nothing to do with whether or not people can get a way with crimes. Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. That's the definition of it. Whether or not people can get away with doing something wrong is irrelevant to the moral philosophy itself. Consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics for example do not depend on with whether it's possible for someone to get away with a crime. You made a categorical mistake. So you are the one that's not rational.

Nonsense, in your system, or any godless system, justice can not be guaranteed, therefore injustice is a common feature. If the bad man can gain wealth and power with little or no exposure to sanctions then he would be completely rational to do so.

[Tassman]

Well right and that is the point. There is something about the human person, qualia, that can not be discovered by science, that is not material in nature.

There is no coherent alternative to materialism.

Good question, I ground ethics in God? Where would you?

Gods don't exist.

No Thinker, I do good because I love God and am eternally grateful (literally) for His grace, mercy and love.

...and you think you'll be punished if you don't do good.

Nonsense, in your system, or any godless system, justice can not be guaranteed, therefore injustice is a common feature. If the bad man can gain wealth and power with little or no exposure to sanctions then he would be completely rational to do so.

If a person has been well socialised into the values of a just society he or she is unlikely to deliberately do wrong.

[seer]

Gods don't exist.

Prove it...

[Tassman]

Prove it...

You're making the positive claim, i.e. "gods exist", therefore the burden of proof rests with you.

[seer]

You're making the positive claim, i.e. "gods exist", therefore the burden of proof rests with you.

Are you daft old boy? You made the positive claim: Gods don't exist. Ok, prove it.

[The Thinker]

Are you daft old boy? You made the positive claim: Gods don't exist. Ok, prove it.

"Gods don't exist" is a negative claim, not a positive claim. Looks like you're the one that's daft, once again.

[seer]

"Gods don't exist" is a negative claim, not a positive claim. Looks like you're the one that's daft, once again.

Then prove it. And it is a positive claim - that is a positive statement, a claim to a truth or fact.