I keep seeing you say the same things over and over again in discussions about determinism and free will, but I still have yet to see any actual argument provided in support of your assertions.

Try to convince me that your position is valid using reason. Provide a logical argument instead of conjecture.

Grow up and be a philosopher. — T Clark

I have to second this, @tom, you're displaying a very juvenile attitude with the tone of some of your comments. Being a smartass is extremely detrimental to intelligent conversation.

The Free Will theorem considers actions to be free if they are not a function of the past. — tom

What exactly does it mean for something not to be a function of the past?

Certain theories in Quantum Mechanics claim that there is randomness, but randomness isn't the same "freedom". Or are you referring to something other than randomness that I'm not aware of?

The greatest thing you can think of is hell? — Harjas

This made me laugh.

What does it mean to be better? Better at what or in what way? — Michael

This is the crux of the issue, and "traits" is not a valid answer.
"Better" is an entire subjective thing. Something cannot be objectively "the best", it can only be the best from a certain point of view. And why would a deity be required to conform to our human point of view?

Belief as commonly used. Means accepting things as true you know to be lies; at one extreme. and matters of irrefutable fact on the other. — charleton

That's not at all what belief means or how it is commonly used. The concept of belief is very simple: it means having the notion that something is the case, without absolute proof. Whether absolute proof is truly possible is another topic that has no effect on the concept of belief. When you believe something, there can be very little evidence for it or there can be a plethora of evidence for it, but you cannot "believe" something that is "irrefutable fact"--that would be knowledge.
I think the confusion here comes from our inability to actually prove anything at all. And because of this, some people have this strong desire to hold into the notion of knowledge because they cannot accept the idea that they don't know certain things, so they redefine what knowledge is in order to allow them to keep it. This is definitely what the OP was doing, and it seems to be what you're doing, as well. As others have pointed out already, all of the confusion with this topic seems to stem from a semantic issue. We're all essentially saying the same thing with different words, but we think we disagree because we're using key terms in different ways.

It may be difficult to pinpoint the root cause — CasKev

The root cause of everything would be the event which began the universe, "the unmoved mover" as Aristotle said.

When something is seamless that means there are no gaps in it.

You are saying that there are gaps with events being effects of events that preceded them. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That's not what I'm saying, though. I am saying nature is seamless, that's what "interconnected" means--when two things are connected it means they lead directly to one another with no space in between. I'm saying literally everything in nature is interconnected so that there is no space in between anything.

And you are injecting necessity into nature — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No I'm not. "Necessarily interconnected" means they cannot be disconnected. Everything is dependent on everything else, nothing can be isolated from the rest.

I'm familiar with the notion that causality is an illusion; this Tallis person is not the first to come up with this idea. I just don't find it to be a very compelling claim. But you seem to be misrepresenting the argument you're in opposition to. With the kind of causation I'm talking about, there are no gaps between events--that's the whole point. Maybe this is just a semantic issue, though. We seem to have different understandings of some of the terms we're using.

You can have causality and choice, which is exactly what we experience in our lives. A Mind is making choices based upon memory. — Rich

That's not accurate. If everything is the result of a cause, there cannot be true freedom of choice. A choice in itself does not imply free will. We need to look at the choice and ask: if literally every single thing leading up to that choice were exactly the same, everything in the history of the universe had happened exactly the same, could you possibly have made a different choice than the one you made? If everything that happened is the result of causation, the answer would be no.

Are you saying each individual event is isolated and unconnected, unrelated to all other events? When I eat, and then my hunger is satiated, those two events are unrelated? Despite happening one after the other, every time? And despite us knowing exactly how and why they happen in sequence thanks to our scientific understanding of how the body works?

Very well said.

What can be done, though, by someone with low psychological energy (depression) to remedy their situation? How does one increase their psychological energy?

At any rate, physical reality is seamless and law-governed, (possibly) unfolding over time, not a chain or network of discrete events that have somehow to be connected by causal cement — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't see the relevance of this distinction. Isn't saying "physical reality is seamless" just a more concise way of stating what I said? That everything in the universe is inescapably and necessarily interconnected?

Causes, far from being a constitutive stuff of the physical world, are things we postulate to re-connect that which has been teased apart — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

The two most reasonable explanations seem to be:
1 - We don't know why God planted the tree, He works in mysterious ways
2 - The story isn't literal, but instead is a metaphor or parable meant to teach us something

Personally I believe 2 is the most likely. Whether or not you believe in God, you can believe that the story of Eden is metaphorical. And what the story of the tree seems to be conveying is similar to something said in the Tao Te Ching:

When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and nonbeing produce each other

The moral of the story of the tree in Eden is that good and evil, beauty and ugliness, they cannot exist without each other. They depend on each other. So there cannot be good in the world without evil. There is no escaping this. Maybe we can speculate even further and say that God was trying to tell us that He wants us to be at peace, he wants us to be as Adam and Even in the garden, but he gave us free will, which means He cannot make us be exactly as He wishes, but instead we must struggle on our own between good and evil. We are responsible for ourselves. And this makes life more difficult, but also more significant.

A lot of speculation, I know, and personally I don't even believe the Bible was divinely inspired, but that's just my two cents on what the story might mean.

Example:
You are sitting under a tree. An apple falls from the tree and hits you in the head. What set this event in motion?
There are many lines of causality for this event (and all events) but let's just follow one. The apple was "caused" by the tree. The tree grew in that spot because an animal which had eaten an apple defecated apple seeds in that spot, and the conditions allowed the tree to grow. The animal defecated the seed because it had eaten an apple from another tree. That apple came from a tree which was also a product of an animal defecating seeds, and so on and so forth. Within all of these events there are numerous other events which allowed for things to happen specifically the way they did--the animals, what and where they ate, the weather conditions, the geological conditions...honestly too many factors to comprehend. All of these things create a sort of web of interconnected causality, so that everything that happens is caused by everything else that happens, all the way back to the beginning of the universe.

Physics.

I was going to suggest that we just shut down the forum since all of the discussions were already determined, but then I remembered it was beyond our control since the bouncing particles are making all of the illusory decisions. The proceeding statement is in itself an illusion since everyone knows bouncing particles don't know how to write or talk to each other. They have no interest. They just like bouncing around.

I guess the only remaining question that I have (everything is were clear) is why some bouncing particles (btw, there is no such thing as a particle) make some people think they have free will, while others create the opposite illusion. Is it because they have a sense of humor? — Rich

You again! Haha, I had just mentioned to the OP that I was discussing this same topic here recently. Speak of the devil and he shall appear, as they say.
This issue has been on my mind a lot since we talked last, and I'm trying to figure out how to make sense of things from a non-deterministic viewpoint. No breakthroughs yet, unfortunately.

btw, there is no such thing as a particle — Rich

Are you referencing some sort of religious belief? Or the fact that all matter is composed of electrons and the like--things that don't actually have mass? I've always found that fascinating.

I was discussing this topic on here with a few people recently, and I wish I had more insight to share than I do. I left behind my religion in my early 20s, and since then I have believed in a deterministic universe. I'm not necessarily a materialist, but I don't see how free will could exist for a mind that is part of the universe, since everything that happens in the universe is a result of some cause, going all the way back to the beginning of time. This means that when you make a choice, in reality that choice isn't a result of free will, it's an effect of some cause(s) which were out of your control.

What do you believe?

I can't tell if you're just making a joke, but to be safe I'll clarify that I wasn't trying to be condescending; I was being completely earnest. Reddit has forums for almost every topic you could imagine, including philosophical topics, and it is all based on an upvote/downvote system. I also wasn't trying to imply that Abdul isn't welcome here, which I just realized could have been misconstrued.
I suppose I should have chosen my phrasing more carefully.

Because of Special Theory of Relativity's Receprocity one can say that Earth is accelerating away from the spaceship, so it is the clocks in the Earth that are slowing down. — Rich

I'm far from an expert when it comes to time and relativity, but I don't see how this makes any sense. The Earth and the spaceship aren't two isolated objects in a void, this is the real world we're talking about. When one thing moves, it moves relative to everything else in the universe. So when the spaceship accelerates, you could not say instead that the Earth is accelerating because the Earth isn't accelerating relative to the universe--only the spaceship is.

I should add for clarification, when I say life has no point or purpose, I'm only speaking of inherent purpose. But this lack of purpose is exactly what allows us to give our lives whatever purpose we want them to have, which is an incredible thing.

I live for life. For the experience. Occasionally I still get in a funk and question what the point is, but I always remember--either on my own or with the help of others--that life has no point.

The only purpose of life is to live it. To do it for it's own sake. Like watching a sunset, or listening to a symphony, or dancing. You aren't trying to accomplish anything in these activities. There is no higher purpose beyond the experience itself. Life is the same.

I'd like to voice a stern opposition to this request. This is a forum for discussion. If you like something that someone says, tell them. Discuss it with them. "Likes" and "upvotes" are completely detrimental to intelligent conversation. I have no idea why anybody would want that here.

There are plenty of social media sites to choose from, Abdul. Try Reddit, it sounds like they'll have exactly what you're looking for.

I would be very interested in hearing about them.

Can you present where I supposedly presented 'proof' and 'synonym' to be exactly the same? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Dear lord...I feel like I'm talking to a malfunctioning A.I.

It's absolutely nothing to do with time. — tom

It has everything to do with time.

And He cannot tell which decision you will make, in principle. — tom

You're still subjecting God to time, which doesn't make sense. God sees all of your decisions at once, your entire life as a point, a singularity. This is what the universe looks like outside of time.

I welcome your virtual embrace.

The OP, along with many many responses of mine here, underline that belief does not prioritize evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

We are all aware of the things you have said, the claims you have made.

The point is that you are wrong

The flaws in your reasoning have been demonstrated many times by many people. Your refusal to acknowledge them is irrelevant.

Science prioritizes evidence, but not proof (excluding mathematics) — BlueBanana

I know this was a distinction PGJ insisted on you making, but it isn't necessary because mathematics is not a science; it is a tool that science utilizes.

God cannot tell us what we will do in the future, because what we will do is in principle unknowable (according to science), and if you check your theology, you will find that God only knows what can be known. — tom

You are subjecting God to the constructs of time, which is a mistake. The reality is that everything that ever has existed or happened, and everything that ever will exist or happen, can just be seen as being. A sort of singularity of things going on. We cannot help but view things through the lens of time because that's how our brains process information, but time is not something "out in the world", it only exists inside our minds.

Think of the universe as a hunk of clay, with it's own bumps and shapes and characteristics, all just existing at once as it is. God can look at the clay as a whole and see all of it, because he is not part of the clay. He can also make changes to the clay, make shapes and marks, form it how he wants to. What we experience from inside is not the clay changing, we only experience the clay as it exists "after" whatever God does to it.

So, in the example of the Bible passage being discussed, God did not intervene in time and change anything, the things that God changes are already there when we get to that time. For instance, we cannot say that God could change the past because whatever changes God may have made to the past have already happened for us, meaning it happened as God intended with whatever changes he made to it already.

Is this making sense? I'm sorry if it isn't, I'm having trouble accurately expressing what I'm trying to say.

It may help to think of it in terms of time-travel stories in which people go back in time and "change" something, but when they return to the present nothing is different because the change they made had already happened before they went back.

To quote Rust Cohle from True Detective: "Time is a flat circle."

Whether or not you like or oppose it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all? — ProgrammingGodJordan

I know I said I was done engaging with you, but you are either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting my position, so I feel the need to respond.

You equated "evidence" with "proof", using the terms interchangeably, with the implication that they are the same thing.

In your OP:

belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

My response to that:

This is false. Belief involves a lack of sufficient evidence for knowledge. A lack of proof. — JustSomeGuy

Your response to me:

it is indeed valid that belief generally occurs absent evidence/proof. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You were using the terms to mean the exact same thing. I demonstrated multiple times that they do not mean the exact same thing. Now, it seems you have changed your argument, claiming that you only ever said they were "synonyms" (which is not what you did, you demonstrated their meanings through use) and that synonyms can just be words that are similar or the same, and you are apparently using the former definition of the term.

So not only are you being completely intellectually dishonest about your own previous statements, but even this new argument does not disprove anything I have said.

You are claiming that the term "synonym" has multiple meanings, and that you are using one of them, yet based on the definition which you cited for "synonym", the meaning I am using is also correct.

I'd like to point out again (I did so yesterday at some point but don't feel like finding it) that this is not the first time you have changed your tune based on my or others' arguments against your claims.

When you respond to criticism by changing your argument and acting like the new argument was the argument you were making the whole time, you may as well be a child. This is a forum for intelligent and honest discussion. You may be intelligent, but you have demonstrated many times over that you are not honest.

The only thing I'm still not sure of is whether you're aware or not of your own dishonesty. I'm not sure which would be worse.

Provided that he's not trolling, he certainly believes he's not using them as synonyms! — Πετροκότσυφας

Haven't you been paying attention? He doesn't believe anything....

What, except strong belief, would drive one to suffer the slings and arrows of a site such as this? — Banno

If you follow some of his links you can see that he is actually trying to sell a short book he self-published on Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072TXZ18M

That's not to say selling the book is his soul intention, but you have to wonder why else he would have joined this site just to post this discussion when he clearly has no desire to actually learn, he simply wants to spread his "wisdom"

the crucial distinction between belief in something or other and belief that something or other. The former is about existence. — creativesoul

This isn't accurate. I believe in freedom of speech. That doesn't mean I believe it exists, it means I support the concept. Also, contrary to your claim that...

There is no such thing as a 'belief in science' like there is a belief in God or a belief in astrology or a belief in souls or spirits or re-incarnation, etc. — creativesoul

...you can also believe in science. A belief in science signifies a confidence in it's methods.

This may all be semantics, but I just wanted to point these things out. Your underlying message still stands.

even when you were presented with clear evidence that contrasts your preconceived notion, you proceeded to grovel in your mistakes absent willingness to update those erroneous beliefs. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I quite enjoy irony.

Though this was my suspicion from the beginning, trying to reason with you is a waste of time. You are nothing more than a delusional cult leader trying to recruit members. Thankfully, it seems you've been quite unsuccessful thus far (only 10 members in your "non-beliefism" Facebook group). Maybe try going door to door with pamphlets?

Contrary to what other members have expressed, I don't see any positive result of your attempt to evangelize aside from being a practice dummy with which we can hone our arguing skills.
Either way I'm done here. Goodbye.

I don't detect the relevance of your quote above to the OP.
Nowhere in the OP (or throughout our discussion) did I advocate scientific proof as you describe above. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I'll break it down for you:

As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, science is true whether or not one believes in it! — ProgrammingGodJordan

Your very first sentence claims "science is true". Clearly this is a nonsense phrase in itself, but I'll allow that it's expressing a sentiment which differs from the literal interpretation.
Other ways to rephrase while keeping the same meaning:
"science finds truth"
"science is composed of facts"
Truth and facts rely on proof. In order for something to be a truth or a fact, it must be proven.
So, yes, you did "advocate scientific proof".

You are clearly very deep into this ridiculous ideology of yours, so I don't expect anyone here to be able to change your mind right now. I only hope the things people are saying to you here can plant the seed that eventually blossoms into you waking up and realizing how horribly misled you are.

your words are ironically invalid, for "proof" and "evidence" are quite literally synonymous — ProgrammingGodJordan

No. They aren't. The fact that you think they are should discredit anything else you have to say on this subject.

All you have done throughout this entire discussion (with everyone here) is:
- Make a claim
- Provide a link to a single webpage/article/scientific study
- Conclude that your provided source is proof that your claim is indisputable fact

Not only is that not how logic argument works, that's not even how science works. You of all people, with your scarily dogmatic devotion to science, should understand that nothing in science is proven. Nothing. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Proof is for logic and mathematics. Those are closed, self-contained systems of propositions. Science is empirical.

This Psychology Today article explains it perfectly:

"Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.

Further, proofs are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist."

1. I was not the one who spoke about scientific proof, user "JustSomeGuy" is the one that tried to confluence proof (which differs from scientific proof) with evidence (which the OP referred to). (See source) — ProgrammingGodJordan

1. I didn't say that proof and evidence were not synonymous. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I know you didn't, that's why I did. You implied they were synonymous; I was correcting you. This is the second time in this discussion that you have swapped our positions around after the fact. I don't know if you're really confused or purposefully being dishonest.

Here:

Belief involves a lack of sufficient evidence for knowledge. A lack of proof. — JustSomeGuy

You claimed belief involved ignoring evidence. I corrected you by saying that belief involved a lack of sufficient evidence or proof — JustSomeGuy

You apparently misread or misunderstood. What I said was that "proof" is "sufficient evidence for knowledge". Maybe I should have been more explicit somehow, I don't know.

Proof is a kind of evidence, but they are not synonymous. All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

And I have not once used the phrase "scientific proof" in this discussion, so I have no idea what you're referring to when you claim I was the one who spoke about it.

I remember discussing this paradox in one of college philosophy classes. I can't recall which authors we read, but I remember we watched a portion of Minority Report, because it deals with the same idea--seeing the future, and the implications of that. I wish I remembered more details to share, but unfortunately I don't. Considering it now, though, it's difficult to even comprehend. Essentially, the ability to see/predict the future would require determinism, and yet if you show a person their future you are now adding a variable that wasn't present before (them having knowledge of the future) which means you are changing their future, which shouldn't be possible if you were able to see it in the first place.

Direct quote from the link you provided in regards to "scientific proof":
"While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."

Did you even read your own source? I'm legitimately beginning to wonder of you're trolling. You have presented so many blatant contradictions and inconsistencies in your "arguments" that I don't see how you could be serious about any of this.

Proof and evidence are not synonymous.


Of course, but if he said "no" it would be a lie. He knows that, which is why he refuses to answer. I was just trying to make him aware of one of many beliefs he does, in fact, hold.

1. On the contrary, see scientific research, showing that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence.

3. So, it is indeed valid that belief generally occurs absent evidence/proof. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I'm sorry, did you really just say "On the contrary" before restating what I said?

You claimed belief involved ignoring evidence. I corrected you by saying that belief involved a lack of sufficient evidence or proof, and your next comment is claiming my own sentiment (which was in opposition to yours) as your own?

And I see you're going to make me ask a third time: (I'll narrow it down even more to just one simple question) do you believe you are speaking to a human right now?