The Problem of Evil

[Immanuel Can]

If you criticise all feminists, as you did, and I am a feminist then you criticise me.

Not necessarily. I neither constituted you to be a Feminist, nor even know you to be one. That frees me up to speak truth about Feminists without necessarily indicting you among them. I can speak freely about what the Feminists are doing...which you can also see for yourself, actually.

And if it turns out that they are being hypocritical, it is not I that made them so. They did that themselves. I only pointed out what was already the case.

[Belinda]

If you criticise all feminists, as you did, and I am a feminist then you criticise me.

Not necessarily. I neither constituted you to be a Feminist, nor even know you to be one. That frees me up to speak truth about Feminists without necessarily indicting you among them. I can speak freely about what the Feminists are doing...which you can also see for yourself, actually.

And if it turns out that they are being hypocritical, it is not I that made them so. They did that themselves. I only pointed out what was already the case.

All Ps are Q
X is P

X is Q

[Skepdick]

It's no big deal. "Epistemic" is irrelevant here. "Epistemic" only deals with human knowledge of things, which is invariably limited. The ontological issue is the only one that has any merit or any implications in this question.

If we were predetermined (ontologically), but did not know it (epistemologically), we would still be predetermined (ontologically). If one supposes it makes any difference then, he/she has simply made the Compatibilist error of thinking epistemology can counterbalance ontology.

Very obviously, it can't.

How can it be irrelevant?

If you don't know that you are predetermined (ontologically) then you can't be a Determinist. To be a Determinist is to know you are a Determinist.

And since you are the one talking about what "the Determinist" (in the ontological sense) would say argue, it sure begs the question: how does an epistemic non-determinist determine Determinism?

[Immanuel Can]

If you criticise all feminists, as you did, and I am a feminist then you criticise me.

Not necessarily. I neither constituted you to be a Feminist, nor even know you to be one. That frees me up to speak truth about Feminists without necessarily indicting you among them. I can speak freely about what the Feminists are doing...which you can also see for yourself, actually.

And if it turns out that they are being hypocritical, it is not I that made them so. They did that themselves. I only pointed out what was already the case.

All Ps are Q
X is P...

If X was a P, then it was X's own fault. Nobody else made her join that group.

[Immanuel Can]

It's no big deal. "Epistemic" is irrelevant here. "Epistemic" only deals with human knowledge of things, which is invariably limited. The ontological issue is the only one that has any merit or any implications in this question.

If we were predetermined (ontologically), but did not know it (epistemologically), we would still be predetermined (ontologically). If one supposes it makes any difference then, he/she has simply made the Compatibilist error of thinking epistemology can counterbalance ontology.

Very obviously, it can't.

How can it be irrelevant?

Because "I don't know..." does not entail, "It doesn't exist..."

If you don't know that you are predetermined (ontologically) then you can't be a Determinist.

You can't be (ideologically) a Determinist, but you can be (factually) predetermined, even if you don't know you are.

[Skepdick]

You can't be (ideologically) a Determinist, but you can be (factually) predetermined, even if you don't know you are.

So if you can't determine whether you are a determinist, why would you say you are one?

[Immanuel Can]

So if you can't determine whether you are a determinist, why would you say you are one?

I never said I was one.

[Skepdick]

So if you can't determine whether you are a determinist, why would you say you are one?

I never said I was one.

You insist that knowing is moot if one is a (factual) Determinist.

How would anybody determine that they are a (factual) Determinists?

If nobody can determine that anyone (including themselves) is a (factual) Determinist then there can be no (factual) Determinists that you or anyone knows about. And yet - you are talking about them.

[Immanuel Can]

You insist that knowing is moot if one is a (factual) Determinist.

It won't change whether or not they are, in fact, predetermined. Their knowledge, for better or worse, is not a prerequisite of ontological determination. That's an ontologically-defined situation, not an epistemologically-defined one.

A person can be in a free-will universe, yet imagine they are in a predetermined one, and be wrong. That's how it is, actually.

How would anybody determine that they are a (factual) Determinists?[/quote]
Well, some think they are. But that's only because Determinism itself is incoherent. You will find that people who believe they are Determinists never act like they really are. For example, they argue, as if other people's views are not predetermined but are changeable. That does not make any sense under Determinism, but they do it anyway.

It's simple, really: Determinism is irrational. It's irrational because it's untrue.

[gaffo]

so are you saying you do value some of the non-canon works?

In some small measure. I've seen some plausible ideas in some of them, but the good ones are confirmed by Scripture. The rest is either dead wrong, or merely speculative. I certainly don't take them as being reliable. There are very good reasons they're not canonical.

fair enough, of them which ones do yuo value and why?

for discussion sake

as stated per me. i value Nermis, didace(sp), and jubalees the most, then book of (not secrets of) enoch.

thansk for relpy.

[Immanuel Can]

for discussion sake

Well, really, it's not a matter I care to discuss here. I know the books you mention. Like all such apocryphal works, they contain some statements that may be right, and a great many that, according to Biblical record, are manifestly wrong. So I don't have a commitment to them like I have to the Bible.

Enoch's stuff about the Watchers and all, for example...interesting...maybe some of it is plausible and perhaps some workable in light of Scripture, but some of it seems quite speculative. So there's not much worth discussing in it, since it's not possible to tell what part of it is even reliable without making reference to the Biblical text itself...in which case, why not just go with the Biblical text, which is much better attested, canonical, historically core, and is intertextually, authoritatively affirmed?

[gaffo]

for discussion sake

Well, really, it's not a matter I care to discuss here. I know the books you mention. Like all such apocryphal works, they contain some statements that may be right, and a great many that, according to Biblical record, are manifestly wrong. So I don't have a commitment to them like I have to the Bible.

Enoch's stuff about the Watchers and all, for example...interesting...maybe some of it is plausible and perhaps some workable in light of Scripture, but some of it seems quite speculative. So there's not much worth discussing in it, since it's not possible to tell what part of it is even reliable without making reference to the Biblical text itself...in which case, why not just go with the Biblical text, which is much better attested, canonical, historically core, and is intertextually, authoritatively affirmed?

sad that you do ot value discussion but that is your right.

per the watchers (angels) were also mentioned in the Kuran Scools many time................and in that cheezy movei theith Meg Ryan and wahts his name - City of angels?


my mem is poor -so many city of------------ movies city of god is the brasilain one, city of joy indian one with swazy(sp).


of those 3 city of god is the best one imo.

[Skepdick]

It won't change whether or not they are, in fact, predetermined.

If they are in fact predetermined, then you are in fact a Determinist.

We all are!

Well, some think they are. But that's only because Determinism itself is incoherent. You will find that people who believe they are Determinists never act like they really are. For example, they argue, as if other people's views are not predetermined but are changeable. That does not make any sense under Determinism, but they do it anyway.

That's precisely what your brand of Determinism entails, though! Doing what we are predetermined to do!

Even if we are predetermined to be stupid, illogical, incoherent, pointless, argumentative, non-sensical, self-defeating and self-contradictory!

It's simple, really: Determinism is irrational. It's irrational because it's untrue.

So you have epistemically determined that ontologically we are not pre-determined?

You have determined that we are not Determinists. How?

[Immanuel Can]

It won't change whether or not they are, in fact, predetermined.

If they are in fact predetermined, then you are in fact a Determinist.

They're not, in fact, predetermined. They only want to imagine they are. And I am no determinist.

We all are!

No. To be fair to their side, we would have to admit that it could be possible you and I only imagine free will exists, but that determinism is still ontologically true, despite our epistemological lack of knowledge.

But I don't think you and I find that plausible, do we?

...your brand of Determinism...

I'm not a Determinist. (That, of course, does not mean I cannot understand or explain their belief, or criticize it afterward, as indeed I do.)

In the rest of your objection, you again mix up the terms Determinism, with the concept predetermined. The former is a form of belief, and the latter a descriptor of a proposed actuality.

Beliefs are not automatically actualities.

[Skepdick]

They're not, in fact, predetermined. They only want to imagine they are. And I am no determinist.

So you've epistemically determined that determinism is not factually/ontologically true?

How?

No. To be fair to their side, we would have to admit that it could be possible you and I only imagine free will exists, but that determinism is still ontologically true, despite our epistemological lack of knowledge.

Look, it's entirely possible that we are all Determinists.
It's also entirely possible that none of us are Determinists.

But it is absolutely impossible that some are determinists and some aren't.

So if you are telling me that you aren't a Determinist what you are telling me is true, then I am not a Determinist either.

Which is why I am asking you: how did you determine that you are not a determinist?

But I don't think you and I find that plausible, do we?

I find both equally plausible/implausible. That's literally what it means to be an (epistemic) non-determinist.

I don't know which one is true. Or false.

I'm not a Determinist.

You could be wrong about that...

In the rest of your objection, you again mix up the terms Determinism, with the concept predetermined. The former is a form of belief, and the latter a descriptor of a proposed actuality.

I am not mixing up anything. I am an epistemic non-determinist.

I don't know how to determine if Determinism OR non-Determinism are ontologically/actually true.

So when you keep telling me that "you are NOT confusing yoru terms", and that "you are NOT a determinist" then I am hearing that you have determined what I cannot.

So I am asking you: How?