Evidence for the Existence of the Soul

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Evidence for the Existence of the Soul

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Evidence for Ignorance

Paisely.  He presupposes his desired conclusions, even when he claims to be rational.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You've already been PWNED on

You've already been PWNED on this, dumbass. I think you're about ready for the asshat avatar.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Paisely. 

zarathustra wrote:
Paisely.  He presupposes his desired conclusions, even when he claims to be rational.

This is not an argument from ignorance but one based on first-person experience.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Paisley;Explain your

Paisley;

Explain your hypothesis. Right now this is a naked assertion, even assuming the positive claim is true (we possess 'free will'). How do you derive free will as a prediction of your 'people have souls' idea? How can we test this prediction?

 

Details, please. Explain your mechanism, predictions and how might test said predictions.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Free will.

Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

 

So what are you saying, that free will is the evidence of the soul?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


netjaeger
netjaeger's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Free will.

Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it.  

Eh?  Err... Good evening, I hope you are well.

Imho you have a bit of connecting to do, e.g. Free Will ==> Soul.

Noting that I figure I have free will within constraints, ...

and I sleep.  Sigh, I recall that when I was a teen dog I even 'SINNED' in my sleep, quite involuntarily.  Sinned so hard a couple times it woke me up!

tq

 

 

 


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Free will.

Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

 

Hi Paisley.

Just out of curiosity...

 

In your view, what IS a soul?

When exactly does a human being have one? (as an embryo, fetus, at birth or?)

Are there a finite number of souls?

If an unfortunate human being becomes brain dead or otherwise non-functional do they still have free will? If not, where does their soul go?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Paisley;

Explain your hypothesis. Right now this is a naked assertion, even assuming the positive claim is true (we possess 'free will'). How do you derive free will as a prediction of your 'people have souls' idea? How can we test this prediction?

Free will implies that choices are not determined by prior material causes. Assuming that it is true (and you assume it in practice, even if you deny it in theory), then you have to account for it by an immaterial cause.  I believe such an account would be inconsistent with atheistic materialism. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Details, please. Explain your mechanism, predictions and how might test said predictions.

Technically, there is no mechanism and it is unpredictable by definition. That's the whole point! Furthermore, I don't have to prove that I have free will. My first-person experience provides me with ample evidence that I do. You may argue that it is an illusion. However, if that is the tack you wish to pursue, then the onus is upon you to prove that my will is completely predetermined. Good luck! 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

 

So what are you saying, that free will is the evidence of the soul?

Duh!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Great

Another usless thread by Paisley, you have nothing to back up your claim other than a statement that A) you cannot prove that free will = soul, B) you haven't proven the soul exists at all, so please for the sake of this thread, make more than a stupid claim of ignorance and wishfull thinking.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
netjaeger wrote:Paisley

netjaeger wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it.  

Eh?  Err... Good evening, I hope you are well.

Imho you have a bit of connecting to do, e.g. Free Will ==> Soul.

Here are a couple of definitions. I'll let you connect the dots.

Quote:
free will 2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

Quote:
indeterminism 1 a: a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b: a theory that holds that not every event has a cause

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeterminism

netjaeger wrote:
Noting that I figure I have free will within constraints, ... 

You never experienced guilt? You never had regrets?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, Paisley, here's the

Well, Paisley, here's the thing: You still can't actually prove free will. As I've said, we do tend to act under the presupposition that we have it, but if we don't have it, then we were never free to not act under that presupposition to begin with, now were we? Just because we may exist in a state of denial doesn't make it accurate. And if a thing cannot be demonstrated to exist, then it cannot be evidence for the existence of something else.

So. Make your case for the actual existence of free will, not the reassuring presupposition of free will. Then we can move on to the next step.

And do keep in mind before you decide to complain at me about how I'm not accepting the reality of free will despite the inference that can be drawn from our presupposition, that Kevin and I just went around the same merry-go-round about not accepting the certainty of the non-existence of God despite the ability to infer it from the compounding lack of evidence for God. So I'm not holding to you any higher standard here.

In fact, quite the opposite. I fully do expect you to attempt to appeal to a lower standard of proof.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


netjaeger
netjaeger's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Good eve again and kuhl, a

Good eve again and kuhl, a quote in a quote in a quote... gotta try it.

Thank you for your response.

Paisley wrote:

netjaeger wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it.  

Eh?  Err... Good evening, I hope you are well.

Imho you have a bit of connecting to do, e.g. Free Will ==> Soul.

Here are a couple of definitions. I'll let you connect the dots.

Quote:
free will 2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

Quote:
indeterminism 1 a: a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b: a theory that holds that not every event has a cause

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeterminism

netjaeger wrote:
Noting that I figure I have free will within constraints, ... 

You never experienced guilt? You never had regrets?

Ok, you've got a definition of free will presented via dictionary.  Is that the definition you are holding to?  Personally I think it's weak, however if that is what you are using, that will be what I work with.

And you've tossed in indeterminism.  Are you trying to link this with the definition of free will you are using?  If so, please be explicit... as a favor, smile.

Now I am stuck with noting once again, even noting your (presumably) used definition of free will (with possible but undemonstrated support),

that I see no dots leading to Soul.  Specifically, you have barely provided a starting point (e.g. your presented def of free will) and you have not even noted a direction to start looking for your posited endpoint Soul.

I.e. 'Imho you have a bit of connecting to do, e.g. Free Will ==> Soul.'

tq


netjaeger
netjaeger's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Good eve again and oops.  I

Good eve again and oops.  I did not mean to imply your words were mine, my apologies. 


Paisley wrote:

netjaeger wrote:
Noting that I figure I have free will within constraints, ... 

You never experienced guilt? You never had regrets?

Serendipity doo dah tho, since I would have missed asking you what my emotional experiences have to do with free will?  It is an interesting q imho, btw.

tq

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nikimoto wrote:Hi

nikimoto wrote:
Hi Paisley.

Just out of curiosity...

 

In your view, what IS a soul?

That which has "feeling awareness."

nikimoto wrote:
When exactly does a human being have one? (as an embryo, fetus, at birth or?)

I'm not sure, but research is being done in this area. Richard Strassman suggests that the individual's soul or "life-force" enters the pineal gland 49 days after conception. It also leaves the body through the pineal gland at death. See "Rick Strassman"

nikimoto wrote:
Are there a finite number of souls?

Paradoxically, one and many (infinite).

nikimoto wrote:
If an unfortunate human being becomes brain dead or otherwise non-functional do they still have free will? If not, where does their soul go?

Based on the latest thanatological research (the study of NDEs), the soul experiences an in-between-life state.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

 

So what are you saying, that free will is the evidence of the soul?

Duh!

So, if my dog goes out the door and runs down the street he is exercising free will. He may go left he may go right he's not programmed or predisposed to a certain action. So I suppose he therefore has a soul according to your statement.


 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
netjaeger wrote:Good eve

netjaeger wrote:

Good eve again and oops.  I did not mean to imply your words were mine, my apologies. 


 

Paisley wrote:

netjaeger wrote:
Noting that I figure I have free will within constraints, ... 

You never experienced guilt? You never had regrets?

Serendipity doo dah tho, since I would have missed asking you what my emotional experiences have to do with free will?  It is an interesting q imho, btw.

Why would you experience regrets if everything that happens could not have been otherwise? (This is the implication of determinism.)

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:That which has

Paisley wrote:

That which has "feeling awareness."

Could you please expound on this topic? It's a lovely label, but my cat has feelings, and based upon its actions, would appear to be aware of them. Moreover, based on the cat's observable behavior, he appears to be able to react to my 'feelings', my emotional state, and so is aware of it.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:So,

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So, if my dog goes out the door and runs down the street he is exercising free will. He may go left he may go right he's not programmed or predisposed to a certain action. So I suppose he therefore has a soul according to your statement. 

Yes. Why? Do you actually believe that your dog is a "robot with consciousness?"

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:netjaeger

Paisley wrote:

netjaeger wrote:

Paisley wrote:

netjaeger wrote:
Noting that I figure I have free will within constraints, ... 

You never experienced guilt? You never had regrets?

Serendipity doo dah tho, since I would have missed asking you what my emotional experiences have to do with free will?  It is an interesting q imho, btw.

Why would you experience regrets if everything that happens could not have been otherwise? (This is the implication of determinism.)

But, if there is no free will, 'why' wouldn't matter, now would it? After all, if there is no free will, then experiencing regret is just as inevitable as the action that causes them, isn't it?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So, if my dog goes out the door and runs down the street he is exercising free will. He may go left he may go right he's not programmed or predisposed to a certain action. So I suppose he therefore has a soul according to your statement. 

Yes. Why? Do you actually believe that your dog is a "robot with consciousness?"

Nope. But I beginning to think you are.


 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Paisley

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
That which has "feeling awareness."

Could you please expound on this topic? It's a lovely label, but my cat has feelings, and based upon its actions, would appear to be aware of them. Moreover, based on the cat's observable behavior, he appears to be able to react to my 'feelings', my emotional state, and so is aware of it.

Agreed. All life has feeling awareness. Spirit experiences itself through all sentient beings.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Yes. Why? Do you actually believe that your dog is a "robot with consciousness?"

Nope. But I beginning to think you are.

I will ask you to maintain logical consistency. Based on the deterministic and mechanical worldview of atheistic materialism, all human beings (as well as all living organisms) are viewed as biological "robots with consciousness." This includes not only your dog, but also yourself!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
That which has "feeling awareness."

Could you please expound on this topic? It's a lovely label, but my cat has feelings, and based upon its actions, would appear to be aware of them. Moreover, based on the cat's observable behavior, he appears to be able to react to my 'feelings', my emotional state, and so is aware of it.

Agreed. All life has feeling awareness. Spirit experiences itself through all sentient beings.

Then how is this evidence for the existence of a soul, a quintessential component of being that endures beyond death? Do amoeba have souls? Do plants? Trees that have been struck by an axe, or near a tree that has been, have demonstrated physiological reactions to the presence of such an item (increased sap flow, chemical stress indicators in the tissue, etc).

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
OK stupid it's reckoning

OK stupid it's reckoning time. What would be evidence AGAINST a soul?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Then how is this

BMcD wrote:
Then how is this evidence for the existence of a soul, a quintessential component of being that endures beyond death? Do amoeba have souls? Do plants? Trees that have been struck by an axe, or near a tree that has been, have demonstrated physiological reactions to the presence of such an item (increased sap flow, chemical stress indicators in the tissue, etc).

The evidence is "free will," not "feeling awareness" (conscious-awareness is another issue). If free will is true (which you believe to be true in practice, even if you deny it in theory), then it does not have a physical cause by definition.  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The evidence

Paisley wrote:
The evidence is "free will," not "feeling awareness" (conscious-awareness is another issue). If free will is true (which you believe to be true in practice, even if you deny it in theory), then it does not have a physical cause by definition. 

  1. Define "free will"
  2. Prove humans have "free will"

Then we can worry about weather or not that proves a "soul".

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Then how is this evidence for the existence of a soul, a quintessential component of being that endures beyond death? Do amoeba have souls? Do plants? Trees that have been struck by an axe, or near a tree that has been, have demonstrated physiological reactions to the presence of such an item (increased sap flow, chemical stress indicators in the tissue, etc).

The evidence is "free will," not "feeling awareness" (conscious-awareness is another issue). If free will is true (which you believe to be true in practice, even if you deny it in theory), then it does not have a physical cause by definition.  

 

Except that you've defined the soul as 'That which has "feeling awareness".'

Thus, if something has feeling awareness, then it has a soul. Further, you've said that "All life has feeling awareness."

Thus, all life has souls. So, again, I ask you: Do amoeba have souls? Do plants? So far, your statements would necessitate saying that they do.

And if free will is the proof that we have souls, then it follows that anything with a soul must have free will.

Do amoeba have free will? Do trees have free will?

At what point does 'stimulus-response' give way to free will?

 

Edit to add:

 

You've still yet to demonstrate proof of free will. Just because we presuppose free will to exist, on the basis that if it doesn't, we couldn't tell anyway, does not mean it does. Being still unproven, it cannot be the evidence for anything else.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Yes. Why? Do you actually believe that your dog is a "robot with consciousness?"

Nope. But I beginning to think you are.

I will ask you to maintain logical consistency. Based on the deterministic and mechanical worldview of atheistic materialism, all human beings (as well as all living organisms) are viewed as biological "robots with consciousness." This includes not only your dog, but also yourself!

I love your generalizations, not all atheists are as you say.  You are consistent in being persistent I'll give you that. Stuck like a scratched record.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:zarathustra

Paisley wrote:


zarathustra wrote:
Paisely.  He presupposes his desired conclusions, even when he claims to be rational.


This is not an argument from ignorance but one based on first-person experience.



Actually, it's not an argument at all.  It's another one of your meaningless one-liners which you use to start  long,  meandering and ultimately  useless threads.

I surmise that several dozen posts will be spent by others trying to get you to provide a lucid definition of "soul".   With non-sequiturs, haphazard quotes and outright contradictions, you -- through several dozen posts -- will fail to provide said definition.  Eventually you will be driven into the corner by your own nonsense, whereupon you will duck out of the thread, only to open another bullshit thread and let the nonsense spawn anew.  One need only glance over your previous threads to see this well-established precedent.

Citing your first non-effort ('That which has "feeling awareness."'), I'd say we're well on our way to nowhere, yet again.  

 

 

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, just go back to

Paisley, just go back to your midwestern church. I'm sure they miss you, and you're not equipped to handle these post-Christian theological topics you vainly aspire to start. Did you watch a Veritas48 video on YouTube? Is that why this is happening?

 


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The usual rubbish of 'this

The usual rubbish of 'this is the way I feel so its evidence'

The way an individual feels about something is simply not evidence of anything, you may feel your wife loves you but that isnt evidence of it (she may hate your guts), in fact you may not even have a wife.

 

The minute a person talks about how they 'feel' I just switch of they have lost any argument by  rejecting reason

 


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Free will.

Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

 

I agree with you, but I think we can develop that into a more logically rigorous form, if we take "in practice" to mean "in argumentation". I think we can perform a nice little reductio of atheism via free will.

THE ARGUMENT FOR SUPERNATURALISM FROM ATHEISM

P1. Reason is reliable. R

P2. If naturalism and evolution are true, then either reason is unreliable or free will exists. (N&E)->(~R\/F) (from P2.1 and P2.2, by hypothetical syllogism)

P2.1 If reason is not designed for our environment, then either reason is unreliable or free will exists. ~D->(~R\/F)

P2.2 If naturalism and evolution are true, reason is not designed for our environment. (N&E)->~D

P3. Naturalism and evolution are true. N&E (assumption for reductio)

C1. Therefore, either reason is untrustworthy or free will is true. ~R\/F (from P2 and P3, by modus ponens)

C2. Therefore, free will is true. F (from P1 and C1, by disjunctive syllogism)

P4. If an free will is not supernatural, then it is either determined or random. ~S->(T\/A) (note: I'm using "T" for "determined" and "A" for "random" here)

P5. Free will is neither determined nor random (~T&~A), ergo ~(T\/A)

C3. Therefore, free will is supernatural. S (from P4 and P5, by modus tollens) QED

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
LOL.

LOL.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Technically, there is

Quote:
Technically, there is no mechanism and it is unpredictable by definition.

Technically, in that case, your claim is a) unfalsifiable, and b) has no possible practical application. If there's nothing you can predict from your hypothesis, your hypothesis is totally worthless. It's mental masturbation at best.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Paisley

JillSwift wrote:

Paisley wrote:
The evidence is "free will," not "feeling awareness" (conscious-awareness is another issue). If free will is true (which you believe to be true in practice, even if you deny it in theory), then it does not have a physical cause by definition. 

  1. Define "free will"
  2. Prove humans have "free will"

Then we can worry about weather or not that proves a "soul".

I'll do that for a lark, I guess.

I'm assuming you understand what a "reason" for doing something is, yes? Let's say a reason is a proposition that either increases or decreases our inclination to do something. For example, I may be thinking about whether or not to send my hard earned money to Uganda. I may have reasons for it (it would help the poor), and reasons against (I want to buy a stereo with that money instead).

Now, eventually I will do one of those two. I will perform an "action". I will either send money to Uganda, or I will not.

To get from reasons to action, I had to cross a bit of a gap, though. Notice that if I explain why I sent money to Uganda, I cite the reasons behind the decision. But I do not cite the reasons as if they forced me to send the money. I feel like I could have done otherwise in spite of the reasons, and certainly we are inclined to think so, else it would be difficult to explain why people do different things when they are looking at all the same reasons. So, it seems as if at some point, I crossed the gap between reasons and action based on something apart from the reasons. This thing that led me to cross the gap is called a choice. And the faculty of choice is called a will. And a person who believes that the behavior of the will is not entirely determined or random would say that the will is free. This is where we get the concept of free will.

So how do I prove that we actually have this faculty? See the argument I made earlier in this thread. The one with all the formal logic in it.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote:The usual

mrjonno wrote:

The usual rubbish of 'this is the way I feel so its evidence'

The way an individual feels about something is simply not evidence of anything, you may feel your wife loves you but that isnt evidence of it (she may hate your guts), in fact you may not even have a wife.

 

The minute a person talks about how they 'feel' I just switch of they have lost any argument by  rejecting reason

 

Tell that to a philosopher of mind. Most of them use introspection as evidence.

So do neuroscientists, actually. Otherwise we wouldn't know what parts of the brain were responsible for, for example, reasoning. After all, if the subject couldn't be trusted to introspect accurately and report back that he was working on a math problem in his head, they could not know that the areas firing at that time were responsible for math.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

 

I agree with you, but I think we can develop that into a more logically rigorous form, if we take "in practice" to mean "in argumentation". I think we can perform a nice little reductio of atheism via free will.

THE ARGUMENT FOR SUPERNATURALISM FROM ATHEISM

P1. Reason is reliable. R

P2. If naturalism and evolution are true, then either reason is unreliable or free will exists. (N&E)->(~R\/F) (from P2.1 and P2.2, by hypothetical syllogism)

P2.1 If reason is not designed for our environment, then either reason is unreliable or free will exists. ~D->(~R\/F)

This is a major premise of your argument Presupp, and it's not made particularly explicit, which is technically a fallacy.

Now, I assume that by "reason is not designed" you're alluding to Intelligent Design, right? By reason being unreliable you're alluding to a basic argument of presupposition from the problem of induction, Yes? You know most here aren't going to agree to either of those, don't you?

But in any case, regardless of who would or wouldn't agree to reason entailing extra-human design or there even being a necessary POI, what in the name is that bit about free will on the end!? it makes zero sense to claim that free will follows as the alternative to an intelligent immutable designer. How do you arrive at that?

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:


P4. If an free will is not supernatural, then it is either determined or random. ~S->(T\/A) (note: I'm using "T" for "determined" and "A" for "random" here)

This is a false dichotomy. Reason is a system which deals in determination or randomness and is reliable as such, however, that does not necessarily entail that determination or randomness are the only reliable transaction models of a natural system. There must be a fallacy of composition in there somewhere that you've confused reason for naturalism, they aren't the same thing. Naturalism employs reason but it essentially extends beyond it.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Free will.

Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

Yeah, because anything else would not be pragmatic. Operating in a constant state of metaphysical doubt instead of just deciding what kind of ice cream you want would be ridiculous.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Actually the bible says man

Actually the bible says man has a soul and a spirit. Which are you referring to the breath of life (soul) or the immortal (spirit) from Hebrews 4:12? If by soul you mean the breath of life there is no evidence to support the belief that god breathes life into anyone at birth. The body is not animated by a soul but by the mind. If the mind dies so too does the body. Science cannot confirm the existence of a soul so yet again incredible claims require incredible evidence.

 

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cali_Athiest2 wrote:Actually

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

Actually the bible says man has a soul and a spirit. Which are you referring to the breath of life (soul) or the immortal (spirit) from Hebrews 4:12? If by soul you mean the breath of life there is no evidence to support the belief that god breathes life into anyone at birth. The body is not animated by a soul but by the mind. If the mind dies so too does the body. Science cannot confirm the existence of a soul so yet again incredible claims require incredible evidence.

 

If God breathed life into me at birth, why did the doctor have to slap my ass?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Cali_Athiest2 wrote:Actually

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

Actually the bible says man has a soul and a spirit. Which are you referring to the breath of life (soul) or the immortal (spirit) from Hebrews 4:12? If by soul you mean the breath of life there is no evidence to support the belief that god breathes life into anyone at birth. The body is not animated by a soul but by the mind. If the mind dies so too does the body. Science cannot confirm the existence of a soul so yet again incredible claims require incredible evidence.

Actually, I am not basing my argument on the Bible. So your response is moot.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

Yeah, because anything else would not be pragmatic. Operating in a constant state of metaphysical doubt instead of just deciding what kind of ice cream you want would be ridiculous.

The point is that your metaphysical theory (deterministic materialism) does not accord with your practical experience (a.k.a. the evidence).

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:HisWillness

Paisley wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

Yeah, because anything else would not be pragmatic. Operating in a constant state of metaphysical doubt instead of just deciding what kind of ice cream you want would be ridiculous.

The point is that your metaphysical theory (deterministic materialism) does not accord with your practical experience (a.k.a. the evidence).

Only if you redefine the terms to match your conclusion.

check this: http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/20/misunderstanding-materialism.htm

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Technically, there is no mechanism and it is unpredictable by definition.

Technically, in that case, your claim is a) unfalsifiable, and b) has no possible practical application. If there's nothing you can predict from your hypothesis, your hypothesis is totally worthless. It's mental masturbation at best.

Technically, your metaphysical position (i.e. deterministic materialism) does not accound for the evidence. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cali_Athiest2

jcgadfly wrote:

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

Actually the bible says man has a soul and a spirit. Which are you referring to the breath of life (soul) or the immortal (spirit) from Hebrews 4:12? If by soul you mean the breath of life there is no evidence to support the belief that god breathes life into anyone at birth. The body is not animated by a soul but by the mind. If the mind dies so too does the body. Science cannot confirm the existence of a soul so yet again incredible claims require incredible evidence.

 

If God breathed life into me at birth, why did the doctor have to slap my ass?

Maybe he knew you would become an atheist lol.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Cali_Athiest2

Paisley wrote:

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

Actually the bible says man has a soul and a spirit. Which are you referring to the breath of life (soul) or the immortal (spirit) from Hebrews 4:12? If by soul you mean the breath of life there is no evidence to support the belief that god breathes life into anyone at birth. The body is not animated by a soul but by the mind. If the mind dies so too does the body. Science cannot confirm the existence of a soul so yet again incredible claims require incredible evidence.

Actually, I am not basing my argument on the Bible. So your response is moot.

I apologize for my incorrect assertion, but your freewill argument seems to be based on a biblical belief system. If you state that freewill is evidence for the soul then what set of beliefs are you using for the goal post? I was just pointing out that according to my understanding the soul dies upon death of the body but according to the bible the spirit is immortal unlike the claims of most christians. If bible god exists then freewill exists, however just because I have the will to do whatever I want does not mean a god, soul or unicorns exist.

I was just looking for a clarification of your OP. If my point is moot it is because your proposition is incoherent.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:zarathustra

Paisley wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Paisely.  He presupposes his desired conclusions, even when he claims to be rational.

This is not an argument from ignorance but one based on first-person experience.

 

I've had several first-person experiences talking to my dog Allah in English and he talked back to me, in English. So this prooves that dogs are smarter than theists.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The point is that your metaphysical theory (deterministic materialism) does not accord with your practical experience (a.k.a. the evidence).

Only if you redefine the terms to match your conclusion.

check this: http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/20/misunderstanding-materialism.htm   

How did I redefine "free will?"

By the way, Austin Cline (the author of article provided by the link) does not address our first-person experience of free will.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The point is that your metaphysical theory (deterministic materialism) does not accord with your practical experience (a.k.a. the evidence).

Only if you redefine the terms to match your conclusion.

check this: http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/20/misunderstanding-materialism.htm   

How did I redefine "free will?"

By the way, Austin Cline (the author of article provided by the link) does not address our first-person experience of free will.

You didn't - you redefined materialism. Don't you read past bylines?.

You also haven' done anything about proving free will exists beyond assertion. Nothing quite like using one inadequately defines term (free will) to justify another one (soul)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin