Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

[IamMe90]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

free will is an illusion

agreed.

however, the nonexistence of free-will does not imply determinism.* from what i understand, hard determinism does not really cohere with modern physics.

*not saying you necessarily believe the universe is deterministic, but it does seem to be quite common for people to go reeling from one end (free will) right to the other (hard determinism) with their beliefs

[dabomb2223]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

along the lines of people getting really mad when you tell them they don't have free will I've also found that people get really mad when you cast morality as a human construct and not a constant of the universe that all beings must abide by

I love doing this actually. It blows people's minds when I make this argument whether they're religious or not, because most people think there is concrete morality in the universe. I like to use the following example:

It's generally accepted across civilized communities that human life is precious and shouldn't be taken except in the most extreme of circumstances. This is why murderers are often killed or imprisoned for life (a life for a life), and why things like abortion or euthanasia are such controversial topics.

One of the situations that most people agree it's okay to kill another person is in self defense. If you're going to die if you don't kill the other person, it's okay to kill the other person. A lot of people will disagree with me on this, not because of the most obvious case (where the other person is going to kill you, so you kill them instead), but because of the second case: a third person is going to kill you unless you kill the second person. You can't kill the third person, you can only kill or not kill the second person.

Almost everyone that's presented with this predicament will say that they would choose to not kill the second person, and instead let themselves be killed. However, put them in the situation and I guarantee a lot more people will kill the second person rather than die themselves than you would predict based off their responses.

Now how does this tie in with morality being a construct of humanity? It's simple, we take the third person and replace it with someone in power. Whether it's God, or the government, or your commanding officer in the military, etc. It doesn't matter.

Pretend there's a religion called the Purifiers. They're extremely radical, and go so far as to kill anyone who says that their religion is false, whom they outnumber 10 to 1. You were born into a family of Purifiers, and have been taught from the day you could understand that there were people in the world who were evil and needed to die because they are preaching against the word of God. The Purifiers believe that in order to get into Heaven, you must kill at least one slanderer to prove that you're worthy.

In this case, it would be morally correct to kill the slanderer.

History is written by the winners, laws are created by those in power, and morality is created by the masses. If you're surrounded by Purifiers, killing slanderers is good, and you would never doubt it.

My situation is very similar to rushyrulz's. Except, instead of Catholicism I was born into Mormonism. Unlike rushyrulz however, I did believe. I would pray before tests and do really well. I would go to church and feel good when I got home because I thought I was part of something that was making the world a better place. I never heard voices in my head, or saw angels, but I did get a warm feeling in my chest when things got really spiritual (Mormons call this the Holy Ghost).

And I lived in a place where the population is vastly Mormon. To leave the church would be social suicide, and I don't mean that in the angst-y high school sense, I mean you could lose your job because your boss is Mormon. Your neighbors who used to wave as they walked by would look away and keep their kids away from the house of the "sinner". People who you thought were your friends would just fade away if you're lucky, in the worst cases they would cut all ties. You could lose your spouse, you could lose your family, and you could be totally ostracized. I watched it happen first hand.

Luckily for me, my dad left the church when I was nine years old. My mom, hardcore Mormon, kicked him out of the house for three months while they went to marriage counselling and discussed getting a divorce. My friends weren't allowed to come over to my house, both by their parents and my mom. My Sunday School teachers would pull me aside and ask how my testimony was doing. Instead of asking me how I was doing while I was potentially losing my dad, everyone asked me how my testimony was doing. Did I still believe?

Long story short my parents stayed together, I talked to my dad more and more over the years, decided that the Church wasn't true, and left.

I'm with rushyrulz, in the subsection of atheists who believe there is no god. I agree with MinaciousGrace and choof on the subject of free will, that the universe is deterministic and everything that is ever going to happen will and there's nothing we can do to change it. I also agree with devonin, that I feel like I have free will and I think he's dead on with the second scenario that the illusion of free will is an illusion perfect in its fidelity.

hard determinism does not really cohere with modern physics.

This is a big subject of debate haha. I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you, but I find myself on the side of the debate that thinks hard determinism does cohere with modern physics. The reason that it's even a debate at all is because of a few concepts within Quantum Physics, such as quantum tunneling and wave-particle duality.

I've read and seen some compelling arguments that help get around the notion of wave-particle duality to allow the universe to be deterministic, for example this video, and this video. But I haven't really read anything to convince me regarding quantum tunneling.

If you made it this far I'm impressed and a little disappointed in you really.

TL;DR: I argue that morality is a human construct, with a couple examples. I then argue that religion creates morality through sheer numbers. I provide evidence for morality being a malleable, dynamic idea that changes from person to person. Then I agree with rushyrulz that there is no god, I agree with MinaciousGrace and choof on the subject of free will, I think that devonin's second scenario regarding free will is reality, and I argue against IamMe90 saying that a deterministic universe doesn't cohere with modern physics, as I believe it does.

[MinaciousGrace]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

not saying you necessarily believe the universe is deterministic, but it does seem to be quite common for people to go reeling from one end (free will) right to the other (hard determinism) with their beliefs

i don't really have any strong feelings one way or another about hard determinism, though i do tend to lean towards it

granted, i'm not studied on the topic too much but afaik the main counterpoint to hard determinism tends to be our understanding of quantum mechanics which sort of loops back to choofs point about our understanding of the universe

insofar as we understand quantum mechanics it seems to provide a framework for the universe that is incompatible with hard determinism, however, that's just our understanding of quantum mechanics at this point in time

newtonian physics was eventually understood to be incomplete (or wrong) whose to say our understanding of quantum physics won't follow suit

i'm mostly inclined towards hard determinism because it ascribes a pristine elegance to the universe (imo), so ironically enough this is sort of my version of faith

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

As an apatheist my stance on the issue of a deity is that it ultimately doesn't matter. From my perspective the fundamental issue is that there is the religious perception of a deity resembling traits of a human.

Say for the sake of argument a deity does exist. We have absolutely no idea what this entity is. Supposedly it has the ability to create an entire universe that adheres to several well-defined laws that are supported through evidence from the scientific method (physics, chemistry, you name it). This entity is so powerful it was able to create what we know as the universe.

Ultimately, why would this entity even care about humans? It had the ability to create an entire universe (and probably destroy it). Questioning the motives of said entity puts forward the assumption that it resembles a human, which there is no evidence of. God usually is portrayed as something that resembles a human, yet that makes the assumption that it would want to be a human. Why?

[rushyrulz]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

There are also theories out there of solpisism and that we're all in a computer simulation. The shit we dream up..

[Nullifidian]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

If you think the extinction of 99% of other species is something you can call "working well" then idk what to tell you. Disregarding the implications of "free will", it seems to me that if there is a deity as described, he's been experimenting on all species.

[dabomb2223]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

I'm in a philosophy 1000 class right now at university, and we've discussed both Solipsism and the idea that we're in a computer simulation while I've been here.

It's funny because my Professor argued for Solipsism, but I wrote a paper that weekend in response to a reading that we did and I argued that it's a logical impossibility to prove that a universe exists in which no minds exist.

All he had to say on the matter was "Wow, a logical impossibility is quite a bold statement." But, it isn't bold, it's just true.

It's impossible to prove that there's a universe in which no minds exist, because there's no way that a mind can perceive such a universe without simultaneously being within said universe.

And holy shit, I would love it so much if I found out that the only mind that really exists is my own and I'm just part of a massive computer simulation.

[M0nkeyz]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

You can't prove there is a god.

People can act the way they want, but they can't always be the way they want. What someone wants is also highly determined by their surroundings and environment. External factors play a big part in whether someone experiences free will. In other words we are largely conditioned to think the way we think and want the things we want.

I personally think Religion is a man-made concept to control the masses. I think it was needed at some point to control all the selfish masses of humans, but we have laws, schools and democracy for that now. I also think religion stopped and society moved on, effectively making religion useless for the majority of people.

Most religions are predeterministic by itself so the concept of free will can not exist within those religions.

[devonin]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

I think Free Will can definitely exist inside the teachings of plenty of religions. It's really only contradicted by deities that are omniscient forward and backward in time (which is actually pretty few of them globally)

There are a number of philosophical proofs for the existence of at least some form of creative power beyond our understanding, though your mileage with those proofs may vary.

Religion is definitely a human-created construct, and most people even religious people will accept that religion is created by humans, though they may feel that the religion was brought up around the concept of and/or intervention of a God/Gods/etc.

There's certainly an argument that there's not really anything positive religion can do that secular humanism can't, outside of things like belief in miracles, or just some good old fashioned Pascal's Wager, but I've generally been of the opinion that if you are doing good, I really don't care why you are, whether it is because you believe it is right to do good, or you believe a God will punish you if you don't.

[V-Ormix]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

I think consciousness is the grand testament of there being a creator - but at the end of the day, choose what you want to believe... with you're free will... but make no mistake, just as sure as this world abides by laws of its own as would another dimension to itself :v

edit: gods mistake? that we are alive? dangit god y u spoil mee save me the pain and pleasure... common u guys know u like life and will cling on to it till the last moment nice way to take tension off tho knowing this could all be a game pre eternal life phase 8u

[dabomb2223]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

I think consciousness is the grand testament of there being a creator

How so? Could consciousness not merely have come around through a grand series of events spanning 13 billion years? I'd like to hear your reasoning for consciousness being a testament of a creator.

[ScylaX]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

forms of *natural* organizations make lotsa room for speculations about the existence of an author and even though there are undiscutable refutations that bring down that kind of argument the fact remains

there are forms of organization precise enough to raise the question of an author..........

so even though you can admit a "grand series of events spanning 13 billion years" as vivid as that image can be, nothing really enforces you to assume that something should have happened in a span this big, and it also doesn't explain much about why anything that resemble life should have begun to form step by step, degree by degree, until it reaches some sort of sentience and consciousness. It doesn't amount to grant an explanation of necessities that would make the counterpart inconceivable or impossible.

you can always describe the "mechanical" details that lead a bunch of molecules into forming microbes and bacteria, but as to "why" some sort of scattered matter can form some rudiment of life (manifesting a behaviour whose a primal form of subjectivity emerges) in the right conditions, , it's a complete mystery. And this is not a mystery you can answer through any physical science, as you can only describe physical processes through them, but to handle what justifies their actual unfolding is a matter of metaphysical answer.

[Soundwave-]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

How so? Could consciousness not merely have come around through a grand series of events spanning 13 billion years? I'd like to hear your reasoning for consciousness being a testament of a creator.

Then answer would seem to lie here:

with you're free will...

Which arguably is a rather incredible coincidence, that might be indicative of a greater motive...

If it weren't for the fact that free will isn't supported by anything but personal perception.

[Cavernio]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

Then answer would seem to lie here:



Which arguably is a rather incredible coincidence, that might be indicative of a greater motive...

If it weren't for the fact that free will isn't supported by anything but personal perception.

Personal perception is the support for literally everything. In fact, whoever 'you' define yourself as, is an entity who only perceives their own perceptions.

[Soundwave-]

Re: Humans: God's only mistake? Or the sign of no deity?

Personal perception is the support for literally everything. In fact, whoever 'you' define yourself as, is an entity who only perceives their own perceptions.

Sure, but to then apply arguments to other people based on only your perception is a fallacy.