Free-will and Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Self-referential incoherentism is alive and well on PPR. Most nihilists I've ever seen are at least consistent. Narcissus strikes me as a relativist dressed in nihilist clothing...or just a really bad nihilist.

Basically what you are saying is no different from saying that there is no non-arbitrary rule of chess, so you can make whatever movement you like. In that case there is no point for any chess player (or any thinker) to take you seriously.


You are still having a very naive concept of 'truth'. Science does not establish truth. Scientific theories do not claim to be 'ultimate truth'. Science only rejects what is false.


At least the conclusion resulting from the scientific method is objective and entirely based on reality. By definition falsifiability means no such 'reinterpretation' is possible. Do you have similarity methodology?


It is you who have the bundle to proof there is an objective interpretation that can be used as a basis of objective morality, because it is the theists who claim they have object morality while atheists don't. As long as you cannot provide an interpretation and prove it is free from any subjective opinions, your objection that atheists lack any objective morality fails. It makes no sense to say such morality exists but is unknowable.


Then why can't I declare whatever I get from my own nature 'moral'? Based on what objective measure you say god's nature is more 'moral' than mine? All you can do is arguing in circle.

The problem with this is that people always look at the wrong part of the question.
"Do I exist?"
There's no issue with the "exist" part. I'm asking the question, for a start. I am aware of myself. I have a name, a job, a whole life. I definitely exist.
The philosophical problem is actually "what am I?" It's virtually impossible to point out any part of the universe which is definitely 100% part of me.

If you don't believe you exist, I can see why you might have difficulty believing that god could exist.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the choice to play the game is an arbitrary one. Suppose I don't want to play chess, but would rather play checkers or go. Or I'm bored with chess and would rather play a chess variant like suicide. You can choose to play by the rules of science, by the rules of religion, or by a mix of both. You make an arbitrary choice when you decide to go any one direction.


I have an open concept of truth that includes verifiable elements of science as well as philosophical truth, and religious/spiritual truth.


"Based on reality?" And what is that nature of that reality? And "reinterpretation being impossible," well, that's just silly. Even within the scientific method conclusions are often open ended and allow for alternative explanations.


I'm the one with the burden of proof? That's absolutely laughable. I'm not all that concerned with what other theists have to say and I don't feel any need to convince anyone of what OTHER people think, at least not for the purpose of this particular discussion. I have my own views and can make up my own mind. You're not getting anywhere with these straw men. I never said anywhere (that I recall, and certainly not in this thread) that atheists lack objective morality. All I said was that any person can come up whatever reason they want to justify accepting or rejecting something based on their personal likes/dislikes. In the case of morality, that seems to be the usual case. If all atheists reject evidence for an objective moral code in favor of one that suits their liking, then that rejection is based on subjective opinion and they are not following objective morality. I never said it's necessarily true that atheists do this, so I have no idea why someone would complain to me about it.


You can do whatever you want. I have no control over what you do or what you declare.

What I'm saying is this: If God is the author of all creation and made the universe for His own pleasure and purpose, then He gets to decide the rules and give the commands. If that is true, then God Himself is the objective standard of morality. It would therefore be God's responsibility to communicate that standard, however much is necessary, to the creation. It then becomes the creation's responsibility to choose whether to accept or reject that moral standard.

If and only if God is THE moral standard AND the moral standard is an objective one, any man-made moral code will necessarily be a subjective one.

You are taking what I am saying the wrong way, that’s ok I suppose. I don't think in language, and have to translate my thoughts to language when communicating, for obvious reasons...but my thought process is not restricted by language. So do not presume you can even begin to understand my internal thoughts.

Language fails to illustrate this particular concept properly, every time I've attempted to explain it using language. Sometimes I can guide people with a series of thought experiments, but only if they are actually trying to reach the destination of being uncertain of whether or not they exist.

I really do not care if you believe me one way or another. But I am not confused, and not mistaken.

Everything, to me, has a degree of certainty, or probability. Everything. EVERYTHING. Nothing reaches certainty, and nothing reached impossible either. But many things are very, very, very close. Some things are close enough to certain that I will, out of necessity, risk my life on. I find I am continually "betting" on these things, based on the degree of certainty I have for various factors involved. But the threshold of certainty varies by situation for whether or not I state something as a certitude or not. That threshold is contingent on a vast multitude of factors.

I am certain of nothing, I am not certain that I exist, or that this sentence is accurate. I very probably do exist, and that last sentence very likely is true. So likely are they, that in most discussions I would write "I exist, and I know it to be true", because it is far more practical to do so. It's generally not practical to specify the exact degree of certainty I have for various statements.

This thread is demonstrating exactly why it is not practical. People start claiming I am unable to think what I am thinking, or that I am confused, or exaggerate what I mean by not being completely certain.



Incoherentism isn't even a real word. But just FYI, the statement "I am not certain I exist" is not an example of self referral incoherence. The statement "I do not exist" is an example. They do not say the same thing.

PS I don't give a s**t if you want to call me a relativist, or a nihilist, or a nihilist disguised as a relativist disguised as a marshmallow disguised as whatever else you fancy I am at the moment to make your case. These labels are generally not adequate, exceedingly few people fall into the exact definition of them. I can only assume by labeling me in a derogatory manner you wish to insult me?

Take that one step farther. I do not believe the word "god" has any discernable meaning at all. I equate it to a nonsensical word, such as zzjjttauuulll or kjgvbaboeurh etc. It is not adequately defined, and those who use it change what they mean by it nearly every separate utterance of it. The word has a chameleon meaning; it changes depending on what you mean by it in the moment and thus has no concrete meaning.

This is why I'm not an Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, or Theist. I'm Ignostic. The question "Is there a god?" has no meaning to me. It’s not a matter of belief or disbelief, there has to be something to believe or disbelieve. Can you answer "Is there a sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz?" To answer, first you need to know what sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz means.... to me, the word god has equally little meaning.

This is kind of a cop-out, isn't it? I agree that "God" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But a lot of words that we encounter all the time do not have a single precisely-defined meaning. It doesn't mean that we should just give up! It just means that whenever someone says "God", you should ask them precisely what they mean by it.



Exactly! So the next time someone asks you, "Is there a God?" you should reply, "What do you mean by "God""? They will tell you what they mean, and then you can talk about it!

Experience has taught me that asking that of them will garner me nothing. The person in question I am speaking to will either A) get upset with the request for a definition. B) Simply ignore the question. C) Reply with a vague answer. D) Reply with a precise answer that they later disregard in any subsequent discussion. Or E) reply with irrational contradicting babbling.

The word simply means too many different things, many of which are self contradicting non entities, and I've not met someone yet who can rationally define the word "god" of any consequence. I look forward to someone providing a valid meaningful definition of the word. I genuinely do.

Here's a minimalist candidate: if there is a cause for the universe's existence, then that cause is called "God".

That is a mostly valid definition. However, it is one without any real meaning. This entity is not of any real consequence, for it is not even a real entity per se. It is essentially a phenomenon, like any other event in history; it however would simply be the first of them. This would not even be a conscious thing, more like just an event of some kind. I'm not saying that this version of god is invalid, it certainly could be, but it would just have no bearing on religion whatsoever, really. It would be like worship of the big bang. In the end, I think it might be more appropriate to give this phenomenon a different name, like...Eg. the Big Bang for sake of clarity.

I could take exception to the specific phrasing you used, as your definition included a conditional, which is absurd, but I’ll assume I know what you meant. Which I almost never do on principle, but I honestly think I know what you meant in this case. But please correct me if it seems I’m wrong.

I still think science favors a deterministic theory of choice, rather than an x-factor of free will. Though I think people's desire to feel responsible for their own actions and to sew vengeance on evil-doers has made the deterministic theory unpopular.

Even if it's impersonal?

Sure, why not. Deists and pantheists are usually thought of as believing in God.

Actually, most deists I know believe in a personal God. He just doesn't care about our human affairs.

As for an entity that's impersonal, I think labeling it "God" would be a tiny bit misleading.

You don;t claim you are playing chess when you are playing suicide. Then don't claim you are reasoning in the sense other people know when you are just asserting your magical doctrine.


A bunch of nonsense.


Science is based on reality because the success or failure of a theory is entirely decided by what is happening in reality, not your magic book woo.


What falsifiable theory for objective moral code you have?


Fail. If I create a bunch of humanoids does it mean whatever command I give them is THE moral standard for them?