compatibilism

[phyllo]

You misunderstand what 'cooperate 'means in the context of reversing manmade climate change. If conservation measures don't cooperate with nature the measures won't reduce or reverse climate change.

I wasn't referring to "man-made climate change".

And these exchanges are so brief and cryptic, that I have to guess what you mean by "cooperate" from the general meaning of the word. Generally, "cooperate" requires at least two agents. Nature isn't an agent. So I decipher it to the best of my ability and try to move forward.

[Belinda]

IC probably does not see that the days of God are drawing to a close...

Well, we'll see. If you're right, time will tell. But I think you'll find out how wrong you really are.

The reason I like to converse with you is that you understand the nature of your God, and your reply aligns with the sort of optimism that says God will sort it all out despite our foolish ways.

Nonetheless I feel that sceptical pessimism is safer than trusting to the everlasting Hands of the Almighty. I am pessimistic about God because “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” has been proved to no longer work. QED.

[Belinda]

You misunderstand what 'cooperate 'means in the context of reversing manmade climate change. If conservation measures don't cooperate with nature the measures won't reduce or reverse climate change.

I wasn't referring to "man-made climate change".

And these exchanges are so brief and cryptic, that I have to guess what you mean by "cooperate" from the general meaning of the word. Generally, "cooperate" requires at least two agents. Nature isn't an agent. So I decipher it to the best of my ability and try to move forward.

I sincerely wish I could explain better than I do. I hope to improve.

[phyllo]

I sincerely wish I could explain better than I do. I hope to improve.

All you need to do is keep on the topic and your meaning will eventually be clarified during the discussion.

[Belinda]

I sincerely wish I could explain better than I do. I hope to improve.

All you need to do is keep on the topic and your meaning will eventually be clarified during the discussion.

Thanks I hope so.

[Iwannaplato]

As I noted to Phyllo, yes, that does sound familiar. But when you are posting in 3 different philosophy forums, it's easy to lose track of what you posted and where. Not that any of this can in and of itself be pinned down as autonomous or not.

OK, maybe you have dementia. I'm serious, not being insulting. I posted here links to where I made the arguments in the two forums we meet in. I gave you the links. You openly said you weren't going to bother:

Come on, if you are going to resort to out and out bullshit, you might want to reconsider and accept that, yeah, maybe you are posting only what you could never have not posted.

What's the bullshit. You said you weren't going to bother responding to a real world concrete example that wasn't abortion in ILP. Here you said you weren't going to wade through links, though actually you only need to open the first link. Whats the bullshit?

To wit:

And all I asked of others here is that -- click -- if their own memory is still largely intact, would they please attempt to note what they themselves believe you were attempting to convey with that example.

Actually you asked for the gist of the argument. Earlier you gave reasons why you weren't going to read the posts. We went through this once before and 1) it's two forums not three 2) I gave you easy links precisely after you asked Phyllo and you opted not to use them. There was no bullshit in my reaction.

I gave you the links to the two posts in a row in this thread where I presented a concrete example with argument and the first post in ILP where i did this. You chose NOT to follow the links, but want me to rewrite the arguments here for you. In both forums you chose not to respond. As I show in the other links in that post in the sequence in ILP. But you could ignore those other links and just go to the posts where I presented the argument...or not....

If, in a free will universe, this what you have actually managed to think yourself into believing is true about me, then aren't we pretty much wasting each other's time?

Ì have no idea what you're talking about.

don't respond, whatever.......

Click?

I have made it rather clear that the only reason I respond to you here at all is because you insist on following me around from thread to thread in order to "expose" me to others. Look, I respect both your intelligence and your commitment to philosophy. But I almost never read the stuff you post apart from that.

That sentence doesn't make any sense. You respect my intelligence and committment but you almost never read the stuff I write except for that. The first part isn't some portion of my posts, it's an assessment.

You asked me to present an example. I did in two forums. You asked Phyllo to remind you of my argument - which might seem to show interest, or it might not, I don't know. I gave you links so Phyllo didn't have to summarize my posts. You opted not to use them.

Here you seem to be admitting you're not interested. Just say that then, right up front.

And I would not be at all shocked if science and philosophy came around to your own conclusions here. But over and again it seems [to me] that commitment revolves more around exchanges with those like VA here.

And that is just not the sort of philosophical exchanges I pursue in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics.

So, don't respond to me and I won't respond to you.

What? That makes no sense. I haven't complained that you're responded to me. I was pointing out that what you complained never happened, happened. That you have gotten responses that were not in theoretical clouds, and that you opted not to read them...and continued to complain that everyone is responding up in the theoretical clouds.

[phyllo]

One eventually reaches the conclusion that Iambiguous is not interested in an "argument".

If he wants anything, it's a "proof" or a "demonstration".

Words alone are never going to be anything other than "theoretical" and "in the clouds".

[Immanuel Can]

IC probably does not see that the days of God are drawing to a close...

Well, we'll see. If you're right, time will tell. But I think you'll find out how wrong you really are.

...reply aligns with the sort of optimism that says God will sort it all out despite our foolish ways.

That's certainly not what I said, and optimism is reserved for those who have hope, I would say.

Nonetheless I feel that sceptical pessimism is safer than trusting to the everlasting Hands of the Almighty.

Skepticism can be wise, so long as it's not obstinate. But pessimism...how does pessimism ever save anybody from anything...particularly in reference to "the Almighty"?

I am pessimistic about God because “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” has been proved to no longer work.

Well, really, B., what do you think that command means? Do you suppose it means, "Destroy the world and pillage the environment for your own profit?" Does it mean, "Build factories, smelt metals, fill the world with plastic waste and vile chemicals, and fly jet airplanes to climate conferences, all to your heart's content?"

Or do you hold it just possible that when God gave this command, it was in view of man's unique responsibility to steward and manage his environment -- in short, to "have dominion over it," under the authority of God Himself, and within the purposes God Himself had ordained for the Earth?

But as for "dominion," I'm not the only one who thinks that mankind legitimately has it. So does every environmentalist. For to whom do they make their appeals? Do they ask the foxes, the fish and the amoebas to restrain themselves, or to fix the environment? Do they lecture the elk and the lions on how not to pollute the air? Do they yell at the birds and dolphins to clean plastic out of the oceans?

Nope. They lecture human beings on those things. And rightly so: nothing else has dominion over the Earth.

But why do they treat human beings as they treat no other animal, fish or bird, in this respect? If human beings are just another animal, why make human beings responsible for the Earth, when wolves and elephants are not?

There's a good question for you.

[iambiguous]

Not at all. I have not called upon a single Theistic assumption in order to make the case against either Determinism or Compatiblism. All my arguments could be equally made by any Atheist.

Check back. You'll see.

Note to others:

Click.

What to make of IC, right?

Here is someone who is a Christian convinced that "somehow" an omniscient God does not obviate his own autonomy.

Not only that, but his belief in God is not predicated on a leap of faith or "because the Bible says so", so much as on the belief that He does in fact reside in Heaven. And that this is as demonstrable to him as someone else demonstrating that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

And yet you wouldn't know this by following him at PN. Instead, he seems far, far, far more interested in going into any number of threads and getting into these endless "philosophical discussions" about, well, philosophical stuff.

As though establishing his bona fides here is actually more important than saving souls!

Why talk to them, instead of responding? Check out my claim, instead. If it's true, you should have evidence. Otherwise, your allegation is likely to be false.

Right, right, like you actually responded to the points I raised above.

Many, many posters come back to the same complaint about you here. They post points that you simply ignore over and over again in order to get back to your own "philosophical" assessment of God and religion.

Me, I think you are both intelligent and articulate. But you've either got some sort of "condition" that prompts you to post as you do or IC is just a persona you sustain here in order to demonstrate how ludicrous religious fanatics can get.

[Immanuel Can]

Why talk to them, instead of responding? Check out my claim, instead. If it's true, you should have evidence. Otherwise, your allegation is likely to be false.

Right, right, like you actually responded to the points I raised above.

You labeled your note "to others," not to me. So you weren't anticipating a response, were you?

You made a claim. I fact-checked your claim. It was based on nothing. It simply wasn't true. The same arguments I have used are purely secular ones. You didn't even notice that.

[iambiguous]

Why talk to them, instead of responding? Check out my claim, instead. If it's true, you should have evidence. Otherwise, your allegation is likely to be false.

Right, right, like you actually responded to the points I raised above.

You labeled your note "to others," not to me. So you weren't anticipating a response, were you?

You made a claim. I fact-checked your claim. It was based on nothing. It simply wasn't true. The same arguments I have used are purely secular ones. You didn't even notice that.

He did it again!

One more time:

Click.

What to make of IC, right?

Here is someone who is a Christian convinced that "somehow" an omniscient God does not obviate his own autonomy.

Not only that, but his belief in God is not predicated on a leap of faith or "because the Bible says so", so much as on the belief that He does in fact reside in Heaven. And that this is as demonstrable to him as someone else demonstrating that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

And yet you wouldn't know this by following him at PN. Instead, he seems far, far, far more interested in going into any number of threads and getting into these endless "philosophical discussions" about, well, philosophical stuff.

As though establishing his bona fides here is actually more important than saving souls!

Fact check that, okay?

[Immanuel Can]

Right, right, like you actually responded to the points I raised above.

You labeled your note "to others," not to me. So you weren't anticipating a response, were you?

You made a claim. I fact-checked your claim. It was based on nothing. It simply wasn't true. The same arguments I have used are purely secular ones. You didn't even notice that.

He did it again!

Did what? You were talking to other people. You explicitly were not talking to me. But you were saying something that was verifiably untrue, as well.

Fact check that, okay?

Just did.

[iambiguous]

You labeled your note "to others," not to me. So you weren't anticipating a response, were you?

You made a claim. I fact-checked your claim. It was based on nothing. It simply wasn't true. The same arguments I have used are purely secular ones. You didn't even notice that.

He did it again!

Did what? You were talking to other people. You explicitly were not talking to me. But you were saying something that was verifiably untrue, as well.

Fact check that, okay?

Just did.

Well, in that case, Mr. Wiggle, keep checking it until you finally do get around to addressing the points I raised. In the interim, not to worry though...there are plenty of folks here who are more than willing to go up into the philosophical clouds with you.

[Belinda]

He did it again!

Did what? You were talking to other people. You explicitly were not talking to me. But you were saying something that was verifiably untrue, as well.

Fact check that, okay?

Just did.

Well, in that case, Mr. Wiggle, keep checking it until you finally do get around to addressing the points I raised. In the interim, not to worry though...there are plenty of folks here who are more than willing to go up into the philosophical clouds with you.

The existence of God is no"philosophical cloud " .The existence of God aided and abetted the taming of the natural world though agriculture, both as growing of crops in the soil and as domesticating of animals for work and food. And later, the agricultural and industrial revolutions.

Today we find that theism is politically Conservative-capitalist and gives little more than lip service to global over-arching need to conserving and restoring soils, airs, rivers, species diversity, and oceans. Humans still lord it over creation.

God may be worshipped existentially as a work in process of becoming, but not as an established essence.

[Iwannaplato]

One eventually reaches the conclusion that Iambiguous is not interested in an "argument".

If he wants anything, it's a "proof" or a "demonstration".

Words alone are never going to be anything other than "theoretical" and "in the clouds".

Even though he requests these or thinks scientists and his listening to them would not be also potentially determined. IOW he has an ongoing critique of everyone being up in the clouds as if there is another option, but when one chooses that other option, he ignores it. He criticizes and requests as if there could be a right way to speak to him, to avoid being the Durantian serious philosopher, but this is, yes, simply impossible (for him to notice).

If he wants anything, it's a "proof" or a "demonstration".

Which of course might only seem like a proof he is compelled to see as a proof, should one ever come. So, it's silly. Either accept that we can try our best, and yes we might be fooling ourselves, perhaps make some progress. Or stop asking for things given that the dismissals he wields hold just as well for proofs, scientists arguments, etc.

It's funny that he is supposedly so averse to theorectical discussion but back when you and I suggested he actually participate in some of the systems, perhaps ones that might fit his interests or habits, he dismissed this. No, he could never actually try something. There are so many. We, one in million is better than zero. But further he could probably eliminate a huge number just based on the practices and beliefs of the teachers/masters/priests. Yes, he might be wrong, but he might actually find something interesting, and further NOT BE simply going on in a philosophy forum of all places about being up in the theoretical clouds. It'd be hands on, practical, participatory, potentially interpersonal and about as down to earth as possible.

This is like sitting for years in a chess club and complaining that chess isn't physical sport. Every single game he watches isn't physical enough.