compatibilism

[bobmax]

That intelligent God is you.

Maybe you already feel it.
But I think you reject it.

Yet who else but you?
Only begotten son?

And so do I.
Only begotten son.

But it's not like we share the responsibility with this...

It is, we are, the One.

I used to pretend I knew things.

But recently I’ve come clean with myself - I’ve stopped pretending I know, and just accepted that the only thing I can know is nothing.

And that I am this nothing appearing as something.

Everything else is just a fantasy, or it’s a mirage. Just an ocean of empty words. Comparable to a dream. A dream where I am lucid and can only wish for things to happen and not have any power to make them happen….things only happen if they are meant to happen.

What I would like to happen has never existed….so it’s like what’s the point in this dream.

Might as well return to the nothingness that I have always been, and stop dreaming of things that are never going to exist anyway.

But are you sure that evil really does not exist?

Is there not even the slightest possibility that evil in the world really exists?

And if it exists, isn't it up to you to make sure it isn't?

[Dontaskme]

But are you sure that evil really does not exist?

Is there not even the slightest possibility that evil in the world really exists?

And if it exists, isn't it up to you to make sure it isn't?

In the dream of knowing, where there is an awareness of being aware, any known event is possible to be experienced, including evil. The holocaust was evil, but could those who were involved in the experience, have made sure it never happened?

There is no victim without a perpretator, and no perpretator without a victim.
Until both victim and perpretator do not exist...evil will continue to always exist.
Evil will always be here as an experience of known causes and effects and their consequences, which can only be known when there is a live sentient feeling conscious organism existing ...to know it is existing through direct experience.

So I do not understand what you mean by making sure evil does not exist....because as long as there is a sentient feeling conscious organism who can experience the agony of torture, there is no way to eliminate that feeling of torture.

So in my logic, it's the 'you' that is the problem here...the 'you' that is also 'me' and and every other 'I'

How does I make sure I isn't?

[Iwannaplato]

Belief is indispensable in our every thought or action. We are so used to considering true only what can be proven, that we have for otten that all evidence is based on a faith.

Yes, though one really can manage without ever deciding if we have free will or everything is determined or something else. IOW I can do anything, without ever deciding on either one of those. I think there might be negative emotional effects for some in believing in determinism, and likewise for free will if one carries it too far and thinks one should have been able to get away from the rapist or whatever.

But generally I don't see either encompassing belief (free will, determinism) as being a problem for most people. Some achieve incredible things, others dont', most manage.

But you really can just shrug in the face of these broad ideas and not suffer loss.

Other beliefs like memory is often correct, there is an outside world, actions can lead to good consequences, eating aids hunger, I can figure many things out, perception is not just fallible and so on undergird all sorts of actions and if you belief the opposite or disbelieve the affirmative (all the time) you will likely have huge problems, yes.

And it is utterly absurd to expect that all our beliefs meet the criterion that they should be proven or it is irrational to believe them. That is the most ludicrous idiocy and one that you find more often in philosophy forums (generally implicit) than out in the real world.

What you described about your father is in my opinion a clear example of a man of faith.
And faith has nothing to do with religious belief.

Do you mean in the other thread? on atheists coping?

[Belinda]

Determinists don't concede that there is a supernatural cause that intrudes into nature like Free Will is reputed to do.

Yes. Where is the component of free-will which allows decisions independent of the current state of world and the person?

When she asked the surgeon to try to remove her brain tumour she asked him to have a look around in there for common sense. She was of course being ironic and we all know there is no anatomical structure that is the locus of 'Free Will' or common sense.

Descartes said the locus of soul and formation of all thoughts was the pineal gland. He was a great mathematician but not a great physiologist.

[phyllo]

Determinists don't concede that there is a supernatural cause that intrudes into nature like Free Will is reputed to do.

Yes. Where is the component of free-will which allows decisions independent of the current state of world and the person?

When she asked the surgeon to try to remove her brain tumour she asked him to have a look around in there for common sense. She was of course being ironic and we all know there is no anatomical structure that is the locus of 'Free Will' or common sense.

Descartes said the locus of soul and formation of all thoughts was the pineal gland. He was a great mathematician but not a great physiologist.

I would be content just to see what someone with free-will is doing differently when compared to someone without free-will.

Something like the way people can give examples of common sense.

[Belinda]

Yes. Where is the component of free-will which allows decisions independent of the current state of world and the person?

When she asked the surgeon to try to remove her brain tumour she asked him to have a look around in there for common sense. She was of course being ironic and we all know there is no anatomical structure that is the locus of 'Free Will' or common sense.

Descartes said the locus of soul and formation of all thoughts was the pineal gland. He was a great mathematician but not a great physiologist.

I would be content just to see what someone with free-will is doing differently when compared to someone without free-will.

Something like the way people can give examples of common sense.

The only person with absolute Free Will is God. Nobody really knows what God is doing. It's God's nature to be what he has done. However if some human being really had absolute Free Will that man would act unpredictably and would not even know what he himself intended to do from one moment to the next, because it is not any man's nature to be what he has done. God does not change: men change.

Common sense is mostly connotative of approval and doesn't describe much else. Some people think it's common sense to do what gives you pleasure and others think common sense is to do what people around you do.

[phyllo]

When she asked the surgeon to try to remove her brain tumour she asked him to have a look around in there for common sense. She was of course being ironic and we all know there is no anatomical structure that is the locus of 'Free Will' or common sense.

Descartes said the locus of soul and formation of all thoughts was the pineal gland. He was a great mathematician but not a great physiologist.

I would be content just to see what someone with free-will is doing differently when compared to someone without free-will.

Something like the way people can give examples of common sense.

The only person with absolute Free Will is God. Nobody really knows what God is doing. It's God's nature to be what he has done. However if some human being really had absolute Free Will that man would act unpredictably and would not even know what he himself intended to do from one moment to the next, because it is not any man's nature to be what he has done. God does not change: men change

If you go by evolution, that guy and his descendents would get wiped out because they are not adapting to the environment.

[Belinda]

I would be content just to see what someone with free-will is doing differently when compared to someone without free-will.

Something like the way people can give examples of common sense.

The only person with absolute Free Will is God. Nobody really knows what God is doing. It's God's nature to be what he has done. However if some human being really had absolute Free Will that man would act unpredictably and would not even know what he himself intended to do from one moment to the next, because it is not any man's nature to be what he has done. God does not change: men change

If you go by evolution, that guy and his descendents would get wiped out because they are not adapting to the environment.

Of course he would! I quite agree.

[promethean75]

"The only person with absolute Free Will is God."

This is a problematic statement, madam philosopher. when we use the phrase 'freewill' we are using it to describe some feature of human beings, 'persons'. The two go together; we can't imagine a human being without some degree of freewill (unless in a coma or asleep) and we can't imagine freewill existing without there being humans. that is we don't attribute freewill to animals or any other natural phenomena.

in that case we wouldn't be able to make any sense out of the statement 'god has freewill' because 'god' wouldn't be a 'person'  alive in a physical reality making choices, etc.

the concept of freewill isn't really applicable to what 'god' would be like. it wouldn't be a bahavioral feature of 'god', in other words.

before the scholastics took over and anthropomorphized 'god', Spinz (and Aristotle before him) argued that 'god' isn't some intelligent choice-making agency that acts with intention. and insofar as one could manage to show that 'god' had 'freewill', the proof would be in the form of a funky a priori analytical proposition. something like: if substance exists by necessity and doesn't depend on the existence of anything else, to exist, then substance cannot be compelled by anything to exist as it does. ergo, nothing caused it but itself.

but that's about it. all the other aspects, characteristics and features of the thing we describe as 'freewill' simply don't apply to anything about the nature of a would-be existing 'god'.

[bobmax]

"The only person with absolute Free Will is God."

This is a problematic statement, madam philosopher. when we use the phrase 'freewill' we are using it to describe some feature of human beings, 'persons'. The two go together; we can't imagine a human being without some degree of freewill (unless in a coma or asleep) and we can't imagine freewill existing without there being humans. that is we don't attribute freewill to animals or any other natural phenomena.

in that case we wouldn't be able to make any sense out of the statement 'god has freewill' because 'god' wouldn't be a 'person'  alive in a physical reality making choices, etc.

the concept of freewill isn't really applicable to what 'god' would be like. it wouldn't be a bahavioral feature of 'god', in other words.

before the scholastics took over and anthropomorphized 'god', Spinz (and Aristotle before him) argued that 'god' isn't some intelligent choice-making agency that acts with intention. and insofar as one could manage to show that 'god' had 'freewill', the proof would be in the form of a funky a priori analytical proposition. something like: if substance exists by necessity and doesn't depend on the existence of anything else, to exist, then substance cannot be compelled by anything to exist as it does. ergo, nothing caused it but itself.

but that's about it. all the other aspects, characteristics and features of the thing we describe as 'freewill' simply don't apply to anything about the nature of a would-be existing 'god'.

Not as "person" but as "Chaos" God is absolutely free.

Isn't freedom only in randomness?

In both Aristotle and Spinoza the actual reality of individual free will is questioned.

For Aristotle there are two intellects.
One is the personal one which is passive, because it is completely caused.
The other is infinite and is active. The latter is the only one who is free.

In Spinoza's Ethics, the explicit confirmation of the non-existence of free will appears.
Which is however deducible from the impossibility of inadequate ideas.

That God has no intentions means, in my opinion, that God loves.

And love has no why.
Freedom consists in not having why.

[bobmax]

But are you sure that evil really does not exist?

Is there not even the slightest possibility that evil in the world really exists?

And if it exists, isn't it up to you to make sure it isn't?

In the dream of knowing, where there is an awareness of being aware, any known event is possible to be experienced, including evil. The holocaust was evil, but could those who were involved in the experience, have made sure it never happened?

There is no victim without a perpretator, and no perpretator without a victim.
Until both victim and perpretator do not exist...evil will continue to always exist.
Evil will always be here as an experience of known causes and effects and their consequences, which can only be known when there is a live sentient feeling conscious organism existing ...to know it is existing through direct experience.

So I do not understand what you mean by making sure evil does not exist....because as long as there is a sentient feeling conscious organism who can experience the agony of torture, there is no way to eliminate that feeling of torture.

So in my logic, it's the 'you' that is the problem here...the 'you' that is also 'me' and and every other 'I'

How does I make sure I isn't?

Don't you ever feel compassion for this painful world?

But if you have been taken by this all-encompassing compassion, even just once, have you not felt that you, really you, are at the origin of all things?

What other proof do you want more certain than this compassion of yours, which is the highest form of love possible?

[bobmax]

Belief is indispensable in our every thought or action. We are so used to considering true only what can be proven, that we have for otten that all evidence is based on a faith.

Yes, though one really can manage without ever deciding if we have free will or everything is determined or something else. IOW I can do anything, without ever deciding on either one of those. I think there might be negative emotional effects for some in believing in determinism, and likewise for free will if one carries it too far and thinks one should have been able to get away from the rapist or whatever.

But generally I don't see either encompassing belief (free will, determinism) as being a problem for most people. Some achieve incredible things, others dont', most manage.

But you really can just shrug in the face of these broad ideas and not suffer loss.

Other beliefs like memory is often correct, there is an outside world, actions can lead to good consequences, eating aids hunger, I can figure many things out, perception is not just fallible and so on undergird all sorts of actions and if you belief the opposite or disbelieve the affirmative (all the time) you will likely have huge problems, yes.

And it is utterly absurd to expect that all our beliefs meet the criterion that they should be proven or it is irrational to believe them. That is the most ludicrous idiocy and one that you find more often in philosophy forums (generally implicit) than out in the real world.

Issues such as free will or determinism are often approached as something that can be objectified.
That is, we imagine ourselves outside to logically evaluate their logical possibility.

But here logic can only clarify the problem.
Because once we understand what we are talking about, the question turns to us directly.
It becomes a question of meaning addressed to ourselves!

If we flee in horror, the question falls on deaf ears, and therefore in essence we are not.

In fact, the illusion of free will is a source of horror for the unfree man.

While it is a source of bliss for the free man.Which it really is.

What you described about your father is in my opinion a clear example of a man of faith.
And faith has nothing to do with religious belief.

Do you mean in the other thread? on atheists coping?

Yes, I was referring to that intervention of yours, which reminded me of my father. He too was not a believer but he had great faith.

[Belinda]

"The only person with absolute Free Will is God."

This is a problematic statement, madam philosopher. when we use the phrase 'freewill' we are using it to describe some feature of human beings, 'persons'. The two go together; we can't imagine a human being without some degree of freewill (unless in a coma or asleep) and we can't imagine freewill existing without there being humans. that is we don't attribute freewill to animals or any other natural phenomena.

in that case we wouldn't be able to make any sense out of the statement 'god has freewill' because 'god' wouldn't be a 'person'  alive in a physical reality making choices, etc.

the concept of freewill isn't really applicable to what 'god' would be like. it wouldn't be a bahavioral feature of 'god', in other words.

before the scholastics took over and anthropomorphized 'god', Spinz (and Aristotle before him) argued that 'god' isn't some intelligent choice-making agency that acts with intention. and insofar as one could manage to show that 'god' had 'freewill', the proof would be in the form of a funky a priori analytical proposition. something like: if substance exists by necessity and doesn't depend on the existence of anything else, to exist, then substance cannot be compelled by anything to exist as it does. ergo, nothing caused it but itself.

but that's about it. all the other aspects, characteristics and features of the thing we describe as 'freewill' simply don't apply to anything about the nature of a would-be existing 'god'.

I did not say free will I said absolute Free Will. Only eternity (with or without God) is absolute. Nothing in the world is absolute : everything in the world is relative: that is why it's impossible for there to be absolute Free Will for any man.

Or to say it like Spinoza, God-or-Nature is cause of itself. Nothing else is cause of itself. I imagine that idea alone would have been sufficient for the synagogue Jews to throw him out.

[promethean75]

"the insistence on non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch" (wiki)

looks like that's what got him in the biggest trouble.

"If anyone thinks my criticism [regarding the authorship of the Bible] is of too sweeping a nature and lacking sufficient foundation, I would ask him to undertake to show us in these narratives a definite plan such as might legitimately be imitated by historians in their chronicles... If he succeeds, I shall at once admit defeat, and he will be my mighty Apollo. For I confess that all my efforts over a long period have resulted in no such discovery. Indeed, I may add that I write nothing here that is not the fruit of lengthy reflection; and although I have been educated from boyhood in the accepted beliefs concerning Scripture, I have felt bound in the end to embrace the views I here express." - B. Spinz

like a boss.

[Belinda]

"the insistence on non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch" (wiki)

looks like that's what got him in the biggest trouble.

"If anyone thinks my criticism [regarding the authorship of the Bible] is of too sweeping a nature and lacking sufficient foundation, I would ask him to undertake to show us in these narratives a definite plan such as might legitimately be imitated by historians in their chronicles... If he succeeds, I shall at once admit defeat, and he will be my mighty Apollo. For I confess that all my efforts over a long period have resulted in no such discovery. Indeed, I may add that I write nothing here that is not the fruit of lengthy reflection; and although I have been educated from boyhood in the accepted beliefs concerning Scripture, I have felt bound in the end to embrace the views I here express." - B. Spinz

like a boss.

Yes, Spinoza did not believe in the anthropomorphic and providential God of Moses. The article
https://www.neh.gov/article/why-spinoza ... the%20body.

explains how Spinoza's contesting the idea of anthopomorphic and providential God undermined the idea of a chosen people. Jews in Amsterdam were in a precarious situation politically and could not afford to support a theory that would destabilise not only Jews but also Roman Catholics.