Although the argument in the Op fails because of the equivocal use of "responsibility", premise 1 seems true and constitutes a good reason to believe that our choices are not the product of libertarian free will (LFW).

The choices we make are the product of our beliefs, dispositions, and impulses. These seem to be the cause of the choice. Each belief, disposition, and impulse seem to have been caused. Hence, our choices could not have been different.

As a thought experiment: In the actual world, you are presented with a choice between X and Y. You deliberate on the options, weighing pros &cons consistent with your background beliefs and desires, and you ultimately choose X (possibly influenced by some sudden impulse). Is there a possible world with an identical history to this one, so that you have exactly the same background beliefs, desires and impulses at the point at which the choice is presented - but you instead choose Y?

If yes, then your choice is made for no reason.
If no, then your choice has been caused (consistent with determinism).

Consequently, LFW entails making choices for no reason. I don't think it's reasonable to believe we make choices for no reason, which suggests LFW is false.

Why not just edit the post, and enter what you wanted to say?

This is an ontological, not an epistemological question about ethics. I am aware atheists can be very moral beings.
- This is a question for non-theists who hold to objectivity in ethics (moral realists) - e.g. it is always true that murdering someone for no reason is morally wrong, etc.
- Grounding morality in: evolution (naturalistic fallacy), sentiment (subjectivity), or human reason (ultimately subjective, for whose reason are we speaking of? And human reason, limited as it is, cannot construct moral laws) seems incoherent. Short of Platonism, are these all the options a non-theist has at his disposal? — Modern Conviviality

Humans have the capacity to make moral judgments. These judgments are rooted in empathy, the feeling invoked when considering the condition of others. We don't have to be taught that it's"wrong" to cause another pain and suffering; we literally feel it to be so - if we function properly (sociopaths do not function properly). That act x is wrong is a semantic description of our natural empathy-based sensation of wrongness. It is a properly basic belief, and not mere opinion because we have the belief innately. The belief/feeling is analyzable and seen to be consistent with the survival and thriving of our species. So the ontic fact to which the proposition "x is wrong" corresponds is: the ingrained empathetic feeling in conjunction with the objective benefit to the species of a proper moral judgment.

I don't find the "association with a bleak past" very compelling — Bitter Crank

I don't find your reasoning very compelling. You know that the term is considered offensive by some people, and abandoning the term doesn't constrain your ability to communicate since other terms are available that have the exact same referrent. Therefore willfully continuing to use the term implies you're fine with offending some people.

John McWhorter, a Professor of Linguistics, writes
in this article on use of the term "colored":

Malcolm X didn’t spearhead a change from colored and Negro to black because he wanted to keep the white man on his toes, but because he felt that those terms had associations with evil, negativity, and more specifically slavery and Jim Crow. He wanted to start afresh with a more neutral and even muscular term...The rolling terminology, then, is an attempt to refashion thought, not to be annoying....
...colored was replaced not because it was processed as an insult but because of something subtler, its association with a bleak past. As such it can seem odd that anyone would treat someone’s slipping and saying the term as an insult, given that “Colored!” was never a slur in the way that a word I need not mention was and is...

"The reason 'colored people' is offensive without being a term of abuse is that it reminds many people of times when we were, whatever we were being called, abused."

How many people do we want to have in America? — Jake

Picking a number would be arbitrary.

We should want continued prosperity, which depends on economic growth, and economic growth depends on population growth to provide workforce and consumption.

I am an American, and disagree that mentioning colored people is in any way insulting — LD Saunders

Here's why it's insulting:



It reminds one of those times. Semantically equivalent, but less charged, is the term "people of color".

Your earlier comment was obviously based on right wing propaganda about BLM. It's not an organization, it's a movement, so what they say about themselves is what defines the movement. But if you want external views, go to this website and search for "black lives matter".

I might not be well informed about Black Lives Matter then. I thought they had a racial, victimist, whites are to blame, approach to social issues. Exactly what is different between BLM and gang terror. From outside it looks like related phenomena, as riots promoted in the name of BLM are usually linked to pillage, burning and violence. Please explain to the outside world what BLM stands for and what makes it a separate thing from the violence provoked by gangs. — DiegoT

You are reading right-wing mischaracterizations of BLM. Read their own literature to see what they are about.

To equate BLM with fringe groups of violent blacks is analogous to equating the Republican party with the KKK.

There is an uncertainty principle which indicates that the measurements are indisputably not factual. That's what the Fourier transform indicates, some measurements cannot be made. If the measurements cannot be made, then whatever it is which takes the place of these measurements cannot be indisputably factual measurements, but are the opposite of this. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's absurd. Of course measurements are factual! A measurement is made, and it has certain values. There's an a priori degree of uncertainty in what one measurement will yield, but there's certainty about the distribution of repeated measurements. If your ontology is inconsistent with these results then your ontology is falsified.

When philosophers talk about possible worlds and such, especially if they claim that such and such is indeed possible, I wonder how they think they can know this. — petrichor

They don't know; it's just a thought experiment - a way to consider the implications of counterfactuals, including what contradictions it might entail.

The actual world is likely also the necessary.

Perhaps so, but it's hard to see how contingency can be avoided. If there is no god, what explains the fundamental structure of the world? Why fundamental x instead if y? If there's a god, what explains this particular god rather than another?

"a particle could move through empty space."
Make a case for this.

As I said, the ability to predict doesn't concern me, it is irrelevant, because it can be used just as easily to support falsehood as it can be used to support truth.

You're missing my point. The measurements are indisputably factual, and the success of the predictions needs to be accounted for. If your metaphysics cannot account for it, then it has a fatal flaw.

Is economica a science? It depends on how you define science. Merriam-Webster thinks it is, because there is systematuzed knowledge.

So, it makes sense for Trump to attack foreigners and make fearful claims about a foreign invasion, if his goal is to motivate his base. However, it will turn off everyone else who does not share that view, — LD Saunders

The biggest danger is letting Trump define the opposition position, which the left is letting him do right now. The opposition is characterized as wanting open borders, though hardly anyone actually wants that. The Democrats need a coherent, comprehensive plan that applies both compassion and practicality. A good start would be the 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

The whole intention is just to get the left to be outraged and simply to give the appeareance of something being done. Appearances are enough. People actually don't care if things really are done or not because they are too obsessed in hating the other side. — ssu

This is a good observation. Trump is a marketer who likes to win, devoid of principles. Deploying troops to the border is theatrics that is cheered by his supporters and decried by his detractors. When his detractors react hyperbolically, he "wins". By continually discussing his nonsense, we keep it alive and keep his supporters energized. The "invasion" by the caravan has become a major issue in the election because Trump made it so, and we detractors keep discussing it. News sources that attempt to expose Trump's absurdity with facts add to the problem because 1) his supporters aren't interested in facts, they cheer Trump because they agree with his sentiments 2) his detractors keep the discussion going; the more absurd his behavior seems, the more we react, the more we pump up his supporters - especially when our reaction is hyperbolic.

Consider his assertion that he'd eliminate birthright citizenship. When his supporters go on TV and are confronted with the facts, they jump immediately to the absurdity of birthright citizenship - appealing to the base despite having no legitimate means of doing anything about it. This multiplies the opposition responses, since now there's the urge to respond to the notion that it's absurd, added to the unconstitutional nature of his claim and the implied racist/xenophobic attitude. This creates even more passion in his followers and keeps the discussion alive. This is a win for Trump.

QFT doesn't entail wave-particle duality, it assumes it, as a premise. And if your claim is that QFT renders the particle unreal, and the wave as the only real aspect, then you still have the contradiction of a wave without a medium, and so an inability to say what a particle is (other than a particle). As I said, QFT doesn't resolve the contradiction of wave-particle duality, it only obscures it, hides it behind complex mathematics. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's simply not true. Particles are real, but they are not independent billiard balls floating in nothingness. A particle is a wave packet, a segment of the field (often referred to as a "ripple" in the field) - so there's no fundamental duality. The "medium" is the quantum field. Movement of the particle consists of the "ripple" traversing the field:



In the above, the rope is analogous to a field, and the ripple is a particle. (If particles were free standing entities, it would beg the question of a medium). This is why the momentum and position of a particle cannot be measured with infinite precision, as one would expect if it were analogous to a billiard ball. Since a particle is actually a wave, the measurement will be some uncertain point on the wave (imagine measuring the amplitude and wavelength of the above rope ripple). The perceived "duality" is a consequence of measurement.

This is, of course, a realist interpretation of QFT, and therefore it is metaphysical. But it's consistent with the math. You don't have to accept realism, but if your ontology conflicts with the math of QFT (the math that produces the correct predictions) then your ontology clearly conflicts with reality and is falsified.

Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and QFT have been remarkably successful at making predictions. How is that "deceptive"? — Relativist
I already explained how QFT is deceptive — Metaphysician Undercover

The only alleged deception you've stated is wave particle duality. That's pretty silly, because QFT does not assume wave particle duality.

it would have to be one or the other, or something completely different — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed, and that's exactly what QFT says. So there's not actually a contradiction. I made the mistake of taking you seriously when you mentioned contradictions in physics. There ARE some contradictions in physics - where general relativity breaks down, and quantum theory doesn't apply. I assumed that's what you were talking about. My bad.

But making successful predictions is a good tool to aid one's capacity to deceive, so I don't see how making predictions is evidence that it's not deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Successful predictions provide a good reason at least to accept an instrumentalist understanding of QFT. The success of a theory in this respect is the exact opposite of a deception.

I already told you, the theories involved are deficient. They need to be examined, the deficient aspects exposed and discarded. — Metaphysician Undercover

The only "deficiency" you've identified is your incorrect assumption that it entails wave-particle duality.

By the way, I don't really believe that particles are fundamental, my point was that physics treats particles as fundamental.

Particles are the building blocks of matter, but the known particles are within the standard model of particle physics. Quantum field theory provides the mathematical framework for the Standard Model, describing the dynamics and kinematics.

Field EQUATIONS are mathematical entities, and since they accurately predict behavior, they must be describing something that is actually there. If not actual fields, then what? — Relativist


Field equations accurately predict the appearance of particles. Therefore what they are describing "that is actually there", is the appearance of particles. — Metaphysician Undercover

It accounts for both the appearance and disappearance of particles. If you dispense with fields, matter/energy is not conserved. Without fields, there's no explanation for vacuum energy.

I'm not proposing any alternative model so I am not proposing a fiction. I am stating the obvious, that the entire theoretical structure of QFT revolves around a fundamental contradiction, wave-particle duality.

So your entire claim seems to hinge in a misconception of yours.

If I am correct, your acceptance of it as true, is as faith based as my theism. — Rank Amateur

Let's test that.

I trust the instrumentalism of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory - the calculations seem to work. I have no emotional attachment to this belief. If an alternative theory (X) came about with equivalent explanatory scope, I'd alter my belief to "either QFT or alternative X" is true. Is your belief in God like this? I doubt it. I expect you'd continue to believe in God even if there were an alternative with equivalent explanatory scope. Many theists go even further, asserting they'd believe unless God were absolutely disproven. The latter is the most committed type of faith; the former is still more committed than I to my belief about QFT. It is these commitments that distinguish faith from mere belief.

And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. — Relativist

I think in this sentence is the crux of many of these discussions. This just shows a faith in the ability of science. To be clear, I think that belief is reasonable- and there is nothing at all wrong with that. I just don't see it as a superior faith belief than theism. I just think it is very common to treat science, and faith in science's ability as the same concept. And they are not. — Rank Amateur

Accepting scientific theory as true doesn't entail faith, it just implies that one can justifiably believe them. But scientific theories must be treated as tentative because they are merely the inference to the best explanation, and the history of science shows that what is CURRENTLY the best explanation tends to change as more information is gathered. I'd be interested in seeing a theist propose a biblical God as inference to best explanation for something.

Since quantum field theory is nothing but a mathematical attempt to cover up a fundamental, underlying contradiction, it is nothing but deception — Metaphysician Undercover

Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and QFT have been remarkably successful at making predictions. How is that "deceptive"?

Better science would address the contradiction directly, and remove the offending theories, instead of hiding the fundamental contradiction behind a veil of mathematics, and appearance of reconciliation.

QFT DOES resolve wave-particle duality. Since you believe particles are fundamental, how do you explain the dualistic results of double-experiments? QFT mathematically explains the results, and the implication is that this is due to the nature of the stuff (e.g. photons) that is being measured. You are free to account for this meta physically, but if your metaphysics just ignores it, then your metaphysics is falsified.

Because they are mathematical entities, fields are not directly observable. Fields are mathematical equations designed to deal with the appearance of particles. QFT is the model, the empirical observations of particles is what is being modeled. — Metaphysician Undercover

Field EQUATIONS are mathematical entities, and since they accurately predict behavior, they must be describing something that is actually there. If not actual fields, then what?

Fields are manipulated by physicists, they do not actually have any independent behaviour — Metaphysician Undercover

The manipulation of fields has results that are predicted by QFT, such as confirming standard model of particle physics. I'll grant QFT is just a model that can be treated as purely instrumentalist without necessarily buying into the description. I wouldn't object to that, but it would lead to two reasonable options: 1) agnosticism regarding the nature of what QFT is describing; 2) an alternative model that accounts for QFT success. You don't seem to be doing either, since you just toss out the entire theory so you can propose a fiction.

You haven't provided me with any examples of what physics has gotten right yet, — Metaphysician Undercover

Here:
Quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum field theory of the interactions of charged particles with the electromagnetic field. It describes mathematically not only all interactions of light with matter but also those of charged particles with one another. QED is a relativistic theory in that Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity is built into each of its equations. Because the behaviour of atoms and molecules is primarily electromagnetic in nature, all of atomic physics can be considered a test laboratory for the theory. Some of the most precise tests of QED have been experiments dealing with the properties of subatomic particles known as muons. The magnetic moment of this type of particle has been shown to agree with the theory to nine significant digits. Agreement of such high accuracy makes QED one of the most successful physical theories so far devised.

You must have missed his call for the troops at the border to treat thrown rocks as rifles.

The absurdity of his desire to void the 14th amendment is that his defenders then jump into proposing the Supreme Court could reinterpret it. You know, the same guys who inist on justices who strictly interpret the constitution.

You had asserted: "The fundamental particle is the foundation for physical existence, and the field mathematics can be used to represent the possibility for particles, not the real existence of particles."

I pointed out that QFT theorizes that quantum fields, not particles, are fundamental; particles are disturbances in a field (quanta). This paper states:

In its mature form, the idea of quantum field theory is that quantum fields are the basic ingredients of the universe, and particles are just bundles of energy and momentum of the fields. In a relativistic theory the wave function is a functional of these fields, not a function of particle coordinates. Quantum field theory hence led to a more unified view of nature than the old dualistic interpretation in terms of both fields and particles.

QFT explains wave-particle duality. If you treat particles as fundamental, you abandon this explanation and therefore require an alternative explanation. QFT explains the behavior of particle interactions with Schroedinger wave equations. Abandoning the core principle that "field is fundamental" reopens explanatory problems that are treated as already closed by QFT.

I sense you might be trying to claim that fields are just mathematical entities, but this doesn't address field behavior that does not fit a particle paradigm. Perhaps you're only treating classical objects (the stuff of the macro world) as truly "physical" - but this is question begging because the particles themselves are best explained as field quanta.

why ought metaphysics be consistent with physics? Metaphysics is a distinct subject from physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Metaphysics aims to account for what exists. The best science tells us that quantum fields exist, and they behave per quantum field theory. If you don't account for quantum fields, then your metaphysics is at best incomplete, at worst - it is incoherent.

Metaphysics also deals with causality. QFT describes causality better than any other paradigm. If your metaphysics can't account for the success of QFT, your metaphysics is worthless.

I've already told you why physics is obviously wrong, it is rife with contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

You still have to account for what physics gets right. If you treat particles as fundamental, you will get even more wrong than physics does.

Above, you seem to be saying that it's a contingent matter whether someone's metaphysics can depart from physics. But that's not the same as saying "A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics."

"Must be" means you see it as something necessary. As a requirement. — Terrapin Station

I was alluding to his burden to make a case, not claiming it to be logical necessity. Sorry if my informal language was misleading.

If physics is full of contradictions (as it is) then most likely it has some things wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. QFT is widely accepted by physicists, so if your metaphysics is not consistent with it, you have a burden to show that your assumptions are more likely to be true than QFT. For yourself, you need to show justification; for your theistic argument, you have a higher burden to make a persuasive case for those assumptions. The latter is what I'm focusing on.

Two issues:
1) Is the metaphysican's belief justified? We SawIn the present case, it remains to be seen - a case has not been made.
2) In the present duscussion, an argument for God's existence has been proposed. That argument is dependent on certain metaphysical assumptions, so the presenter of the argument has the burden to show these assumptions are more likely than not to be true. If it is inconsistent with accepted physics, I expect he will not be able to meet that burden.

When a theist makes metaphysical assumptions that lead to "proving" his belief in God, it raises suspicions that those assumptions were chosen for the purpose.

No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics.
— Relativist
Actually, usually it's the other way 'round. If, for example, the most recent batch of sacrificial virgins doesn't seem to propitiate the volcano god,... — tim wood

You're conflating metaphysical beliefs with well-supported beliefs about the world. It would be silly to hold a metaphysical belief that is contradicted by (for example) belief in gravity. Getting more esoteric, if your metaphysical belief is inconsistent with the standard model of particle physics, your burden would be to show that you can account for the empirical evidence explained by the standard model.

"Since I'm a metaphysician, and he's a physicist, and we're talking metaphysical principles, it's seems more likely that he's the one who is out of touch. Wouldn't you agree"
No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics. You are making an ad hoc assumption. Labelling this a "metaphysical principle" doesn't change that. It's obvious that you are rationalizing God's existence, not "proving" it.

Such fields are mathematical though, and are not representative of any real physical existence because they represent probabilities, possibilities for physical existence. The fundamental particle is the foundation for physical existence, and the field mathematics can be used to represent the possibility for particles, not the real existence of particles. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are out of touch. I suggest you watch this video, starting at 15:00. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll gives a brief overview of Quantum Field Theory. You will hear him say "Particles are not what nature is made of...what nature is made of is fields". "Quantum Field theory is the best idea we have about understanding the world at a fundamental level."

Fields are real, they exist, they are the most fundamental thing we're aware of in the material world, and they are not mere equations.

time may pass without physical change. — Metaphysician Undercover

That flies in the face of quantum field theory (QFT). Under QFT, fields (waves) are fundamental, and every point in a field is constantly fluctuating (and thus changing); that's why there is energy in "empty" space. Belouie's assumption entails a premise that is false, or at least unjustified.

When we understand "time" in this way, as not necessarily tied to physical existence,

How do you explain special relativity? Time slows near a strong gavitational field and at high velocities, which suggests time and the material universe are intertwined.

whereby God, being non-physical, i.e. immaterial, has time to "act". — Metaphysician Undercover

Setting aside the above objections, this imp!ies an infinite past. Why did God wait an infinite period of time before creating the universe? How did he traverse infinite time to reach the time of creation?

But since we need to alter this concept of "time" to allow for the actions of God

This confirms the circularity I identified. You're choosing a conception of time that is consistent with God creating, and then claiming to prove God.

"And to equate 'pain' with bad, and 'pleasure' with good, is surely just to default to basic hedonism."

I wasn't equating pain with bad and pleasure with good. I referred to pain as an analogy to the unique feeling of empathy. Empathetic feelings are not the same thing as pain.

Is it really possible to instantiate "maximal greatness"? That is questionable, and so it is just as reasonable to reject it as it is to accept it.

One might be tempted to assent to the first premise, because as far as we know, it does not seem impossible. However, this is epistemic possibility (which is subjective, depending on background beliefs) and is not the modlity that is needed - it needs to be metaphysically possible because that is the modality that would have to be associated with "excellence."

I'm only using references to time-- "when," "before," etc.-- because we are temporal beings who cannot think outside of events in relation to time. Perhaps a better word would be "outside"-- outside of the creation of the universe, which obviously includes time, the GCB still existed, otherwise it would not be greater than the universe. — adhomienem

You earlier said: "I'm offering the following proof as evidence that God existed when time did not exist." But you have to assume that something can actually exist atemporally and somehow perform an action, despite the fact that actions entail time. i.e. you have to assume there is a God. Your reasoning is circular. What you really have is a rationalization of God's creating spacetime, not a proof of God's existence. Further, it seems a weak, ad hoc rationalization, since you can't actually explain how an action can possibly be performed without an elapse of time.

“there are no facts of the matter about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad

Is there no "fact of the matter" regarding the pain experience (the quale)? I think there is: pain is a state of consciousness. IMO, the sense of right/wrong is something like that - and this is why I relate it to empathy: we actually feel something when we see, or even ponder, some basic wrongs.

My question to you would be, how did empathy rise up as the dominant moral compass for humankind? — Abecedarian

Perhaps pointing to "empathy" is too specific, but I think it's clear that we have an innate sense of right and wrong - certainly it entails a non-verbal, mental capacity. Certain things SEEM wrong, like if we see a person being beaten or killed - this touches our emotions. So empathy doesn't capture this exactly, but it's close.

It is an innate feeling that we have, and I suggest morality stems from this feeling. It's not "dominant" it IS the basis of morality. My hypothesis isn't arrived at by deduction, rather - by abduction. It's the best explanation I'm aware of for morality, although I'm open to considering other possibilities.

The factors that led me to this hypothesis: we actually do have empathetic feelings - these are not learned and therefore they seem innate. Morality is consistent with morality - it entails putting ourselves in someone else's place. The "golden rule" seems to have risen in various cultures independent of one another, which suggests it is a rational interpretation of our innate feelings, including empathy. The golden rule encapsulates much of morality.

China is indubitably hell-bent on stealing the world's trade secrets and at attaining technological and business dominance by whatever means possible. But I'm not sure that the blunt object of tariffs is going to achieve those ends. — Wayfarer

I'm also doubtful, but shouldn't we be open to the possibility it will help - even while maintaining skepticism? I'd be inclined to stop Trump, but since we can't - we're going to have to let it play out, and the right thing to do is to hope for the best. Republicans wanted Obama to fail, even though failure meant bad things for the country. Let's not be that way.

So my definition of faith is a basis to believe something is true and can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

If you believe something that is conflict with fact or reason - the problem is you - not faith. — Rank Amateur

You should rethink this. People have faith in all sorts of irrational things. Suggestion: accept what you know by faith AS LONG AS it does not conflict with reason. God's non-existence cannot be proven, so you're position is safe. Philosophers of religion puzzle through various aspects of God, and sometimes change their opinions after rational analysis. If they simply had faith in their view of God, there would be no role for rational analysis.

If a mob-boss tells an underling to go and kill somebody, the mob-boss didn't directly cause the death, but he deserves to be held accountable anyway. Trump didn't order anyone to kill, but he did encourage violence, and should likewise be held accountable - not to the point of deserving prison-time, but he absolutely deserves to be called out on it.

"1. When the universe did not exist, nothing existed except for the GCB."

Incoherent. The universe=spacetime. There is no time (a "when") at which the universe didn't exlst (i.e. there is no time prior to time - that would be self-contradictory).

If you're granting that the appearance of fine-tuning in this world makes it possible that a Creator exists, ... — adhomienem

You're conflating epistemic possiblity with metaphysical possibility. Your argument depends on this being true:

1. If it is metaphysically possible that the GCB exists, then there is some metaphysically possible world in which the GCB exists.

But we don't really know that it is metaphysically possible. If physicalism is true, then it is metaphysically impossible for a God to exist.