No. Mary can understand what I am saying without agreeing with me. If she understands but disagrees, she can say, “I understand what you are arguing for, but I disagree for the following reasons: x,y,z …” See? That’s how philosophical conversations go. Why can’t you learn that?
That’s exactly right. It’s a simple modal logical demonstration.
You certainly haven’t demonstrated much knowledge here, but it does not follow that you necessarily have nothing intelligent to say. See: modal logic.
That’s wrong as a matter of fact. I have already stated that I could be wrong in some of my arguments, though the modal argument described above is a matter of logic. In any case, since I have stated, specifically in the determinism thread, that my take on regularity theory could be wrong, you either can’t read for comprehension, or you are lying.
Yes, as long as the discussion revolves around “simple modal logic”. The demonstration as well basically coming down to how you argue about the theoretical relationship between God and nature and abortion and human pain and suffering.
And how on Earth would you actually demonstrate that your God [the one in your head] can be omniscient and yet Mary can still choose not to do what He as an omniscient entity already knows what she will do from the cradle to the grave. How he knows instead this different thing that she chooses to do.
Really, what might this demonstration actually consist of? Could it perhaps be videotaped and put on YouTube?
You would never allow the fact that next to an omniscient God you are just an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence get in your way would you? After all, consider all the many, many others here over the years with their own grand TOE. They never let that stop them from insisting that, no, it’s how they view these “metaphysical” relationships that pins it down. I call this the James S. Saint Syndrome myself.
No wild ass guesses from them!
Modal logic, meet “the gap”.
Okay, if you admit that you could be wrong about some of your arguments, pin that down to those parts you might be wrong about in a discussion with Mary if she behaves in a manner that causes pain and suffering to others…given that an omniscient God knew that she would cause this pain and suffering for others. How could she logically choose not to cause this pain and suffering instead.
NOTE: I don’t believe that any God, or omniscient, agent exists. This is an argument about logic that predates Christian theism. The argument is called the Problem of Future Contingents, also known as Logical Determinism. Bringing an imaginary God into the picture is just a subset of Logical Determinsim. It is called Epistemic Determinism.
I already have demonstrated it. Pity you can’t read for comprehension.
I will make it simpler.
Here is the fallacious argument that God knowing in advance what Mary will do, forces Mary to do that thing:
gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃ ☐D
————————
∴ ☐D
In the above argument, Premise 3 is false. It commits the modal scope fallacy.
The corrected argument goes:
gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃D
————————
∴ D
The corrected argument shows that Mary can do whatever she wants in the presence of God’s foreknowledge. It’s just that whatever she does, God will foreknow. No big deal. We see (from other threads) that Causal Determinism fails to impugn human free will. Now we see that Logical and Epistemic Determinism also fail to impugn human free will.
Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website
Ah, third parties. The evils that mere mortals are responsible for because God gave them free will and they chose to use it to, among other things, rape and murder and commit themselves to genocide. Then the “logical possibility” that “non-God supernatural beings and fallen angels” are responsible for the natural disasters that are erroneously attributed to the loving, just and merciful God. And why does an omnipotent God not just flick His wrist and send them tumbling into oblivion? Of course: His mysterious ways.
Exactly.
God either is or is not omnipotent. Things like the Devil or supernatural beings are either no match for this omnipotent God or God has His mysterious reasons for allowing them to plague mere mortals with utterly endless calamities that have absolutely nothing to do with their own free will.
And, for all practical purposes, how exactly does the relationship between God and the Devil/supernatural beings work? Why this disaster here and not there? And why would God both allow for these terrible things and yet allow in turn for mere mortals to lessen the damage. Create the covid-19 virus but also allow medical science to create vaccines for it. Then the part where bad things here happen to good people. What on earth is He thinking?
God, the epistemologist! God and logic! Meanwhile the terrible pain and suffering that mere mortals still endure goes on. And they cry out for an explanation that is perhaps a little more substantial than Epistemic Determinism, a subset of Logical Determinism.
Anyone here suffering terribly as a result of one or another natural disaster or “act of God”? Or know of someone who is?
Does this clear things up for you?
Pood hopes it helps.
Note to others:
This part in particular escapes me…
"The corrected argument shows that Mary can do whatever she wants in the presence of God’s foreknowledge. It’s just that whatever she does, God will foreknow. No big deal. "
God, being omniscient, knows everything and knows that Joe murdered Linda. But Linda is not dead because Joe decided not to murder her. So did this omniscient God know both that Joe murdered Linda and that Joe changed his mind and did not murder her?
How “for all practical purposes” does that work?
Again, I’m not asserting that pood is wrong in his analysis here. I’m only noting that it doesn’t make sense to me “here and now”. And that in the absence of proof that a God/the God does in fact exist we can’t know for sure how He Himself would finally resolve it.
Just out of curiosity, are you moreno/karpel tunnel? Some are rather good here at figuring things like that out. The arguments, the inflection, the words used. But I’m not one of them.
It’s just that, as with him, we seem to share the same prejudices in regard to politics and religion. And, as with him, you don’t take well to those who refuse to see things as you do. And, most of all, as with him, this fierce, hostile reaction to me.
On the other hand, I don’t recall him being inclined to things like modal logic and regularity theory.
Anyway, just curious.
Why should it? It’s not the “up in the intellectual clouds” argument about the Problem of Natural Evil that people who suffer terribly from natural disasters and “acts of God” are most concerned with. It’s why on Earth the disasters exist in the first place. Given what most have been told is an omnsicient/omnipotent, loving, just and merciful Creator.
No, as I explained earlier, I am perfectly happy with disagreements. Such as, in regard to the determinism thread, if someone were to read up on regularity theory, and then say: “Interesting, Pood, but I don’t really agree, for the following reasons (lists reasons).” Then a discussion begins. See? That is not what you do, however. You avoid the issue, dodge questions, mischaracterize what I write, and generally behave in a trollish manner. I’m not the only one you do this with, either.
Except I was not addressing the Problem of Natural Evil. I was addressing a DIFFERENT aspect of theodicy, namely the claim that God’s foreknowledge precludes human free will, a claim that YOU brought up. Now, as is your wont, you are shifting the goalposts again.
I created three posts there giving my reactions to it. I stopped though because it really didn’t focus in on determinism/moral responsibility. I’d let you connect those dots for me but I’m not too big on exchanges up in the theoretical clouds where everything revolves around definitional logic and deductions.
Also, once again, why on earth do you follow me around responding to my posts, when you feel such disdain for me? Sounds like a personal problem to me. You know, in the “click” world.
Nature to pood:
He does have a point. Compelled or not. In fact, he’ s even got me not being entirely sure now.
Gasp! We’re addressing two very different approaches to determinism/moral responsibility!! You up in the theoretical clouds, me down in the “for all practical purposes” interactions of actual flesh and blood human beings!!!
No, explain it to Mary who, re the laws of matter, was never able not to abort Jane but who is still moral responsible for killing her.
After all, in a determined universe as I understand it nothing can be contradictory if everything can only unfold as it must. Unfortunately, I am compelled by nature to note in turn that this is entirely applicable to your posts as well as mine.
You really are a goddamned idiot. It DOES focus on determinism/moral responsibility. It shows how the problem is DISSOLVED by abandoning YOUR view of causal determinism as falling dominoes. How many times, in how many ways, have I tried to explain this to you? Whether this is correct or not — whether it’s true, as I hold, and the linked author holds, that “falling dominoes” determinism is false — is another matter. But you won’t even address the merits of the argument, either because you are stupid or a troll or both.
You have no sense of self-knowledge and no understanding of irony.
As I noted, I do not “follow” you around. It is unfortunately the case that you plague this board like herpes, and happen to post in threads about topics that interest me. So inevitably I am going to run across your crap. It’s true I don’t have to respond to it, but after all, this is a discussion board, so if you say something I am likely, sooner or later, to respond to it — to, you know, discuss it.
The irony, and your lack of self-knowledge, has to do with the following:
Earlier, you said that nature had “ordered” you not to respond to me. Yet, here you are, responding! So I guess your idiotic idea that nature “orders” you to do things is false, no?
You claim I am following you around, which is false, but it is demonstrable that you are following Maia around, hectoring her, and, as I believe, stalking her.
You are badgering Maia to consider an alternative version of herself, in which she did not become a Pagan. This from a guy who claims “the laws of matter” make a world different from this one IMPOSSIBLE. O, irony! But you are oblivious to all of it.
No. Since I don’t believe causal determinism actually causes us to do anything, then I think we have full moral responsibility for our acts. I’m not a determinist and I’m not a copmpatibilist. Surely by now you must understand this, unless you are invincibly stupid.
Since I don’t believe the so-called laws of matter compelled Mary to have an abortion, Mary was free not to have an abortion. That solves your whole problem right there.
Note to karpel tunnel. I still think that he is you. And as you [if only in my head] he is little more than just another Stooge. That would make him Moe here.
If you really want to expose to others here what a devastating impact a troll can have in a philosophy forum send them here:
In that case, I challenge you to note a particular chunk of it in which it can be most readily grasped that in regard to things like Mary’s abortion or God’s involvement in nature disasters, moral responsibility is established in a determined universe for both mere mortals and the Gods. Or in however a “theoretical” manner you connect the dots here down on the ground.
Nope, still sounds like a personal problem to me. Either that or complete bullshit.
My “notes to” here are the actual exercises in irony! Or an attempt on my part to introduce a little levity into exchange. Though few things are more excruciating here then your own attempts at…wit?
Badgering? How are my arguments to her and flannel jesus toward the end of this thread – ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 7&start=50 – not sincere attempts on my part to explore the nature of human identity in regard to value judgments?
Well, in the real deal free will world anyway.
Right, like noting what you believe here “theoretically” constitutes a demonstration enough that it is true. Definitional logic being the bottom line “up there”.
Again, the part where you demonstrate to us how you go about putting together an accumulation of actual evidence in order to demonstrate – to illustrate – how your own intellectual contraption concerning physical and scientific laws are able to establish the extent to which both Mary and God either are or are not responsible [morally or otherwise] for aborting Jane or for the existence of millions of miscarriage.
I’ve already explained exactly how this affects Mary numerous times. There’s no reason to explain it again. As for God, this has nothing to do with God — quite the opposite. Regularity theory holds that the belief in “Laws” of nature is a hangover from a false belief in God, the belief that God dictated the laws and hence the laws are prescriptive. I have gone over this again and again with you, and will do so no longer.
Yes, he has “explained” what “Regularity Theory” holds to be true here.
Now let him move on from theory to practice. What experiments can he set up, what practical experiences has he had, that would allow him to demonstrate – beyond a world of words and definitional logic – the existential relationship between Mary and her moral responsibility in aborting Jane, or God and the role He plays down here on Earth when the discussion shifts to theodicy.
Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website
Of course what is the rape and murder of one individual by another compared to such things as the “Final Solution”…or any of a number of other historical accounts of actual genocide. Most of which were justified on moral grounds. Either sacred or secular.
It doesn’t have to be clear. In fact, the more obscure His motivation and intention is here the more it reinforces the belief that the whole point of making a distinction between God and mere mortals lies in this gap itself. As long as we can believe in turn that, in the end, God is loving, just and merciful, and that we are on the road to salvation, we can leave all that stuff to the ecclesiastics. Like moral objectivists of a secular persuasion leaving all that technical stuff to the epistemologists.
And on and and on and on with these intellectual/spiritual contraptions in which everything is shuffled around in a world of words. The bottom line however is that given one or another context in which human beings suffering you need to square your own belief in God with that suffering itself. Pick an argument from the ones above or make up your own. All that matters ultimately is that you can live with it.
And it’s not like this God has ever actually been shown to exist “in reality”.
Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website
Now we’re talking.
Natural evil? How can anything related to “natural disasters” be construed as evil unless one construes the God that brought into existence the planet that creates and then sustains them as evil? Sure, when “human action” is involved you can rationalize ways to keep God out of it. We brought it on ourselves. Even though many, many, many of the victims of “human evil” derived from free will are completely innocent.
It’s “acts of God” that I come back to time and again when those who defend God speak of His mysterious ways. Why? Because that’s all there is to fall back on. These terrible natural disasters – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_disaster – claim the lives of tens of thousands year in and year out. Or for things live the covid-19 virus, hundreds and hundreds of thousands. Or for medical afflictions like cancer, millions and millions.
And that’s before we get to those calamities that are described as “extinction events”.
So, how do some rationalize nature on a rampage?
Take your pick:
That’s the beauty of having a belief in God that is derived largely from faith. With no actual God around to provide “the final answer”, you just have to think up one that makes sense to you. Or be indoctrinated by others to accept their explanation.
Then this part:
Same thing. What do you think is true “in your head” about this given that no one seems able to actually demonstrate that what they think is true is in fact true. Everyone here is basically in the same more or less blind faith boat. You can’t prove that your explanation is the optimal assessment but then neither can they.
Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website
First, of course, in describing natural disasters as evil, we have to go back to the entity who created the planetary components that made them possible in the first place: God.
Then we can delve into the man-made rationalizations for why God might have done this. The first and the foremost being His “mysterious ways”. All of these terrible, horrific, ghastly catastrophes – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n … death_toll – are somehow a part of a loving, just and merciful God’s righteous plan. And what can we mere mortals possibly even begin to grasp about that?
On the other hand, there are those who do in fact think deeply about these “acts of God” and suggest an alternative explanation. That while God is indeed loving, just and merciful, He is not omnipotent. He set into motion all that He created – including planet Earth – but it all got out of control. He is just as appalled by these disasters as we are. But for reasons even He does not understand, it’s now “beyond His control”.
Though even in regard to the “terrible, horrific, ghastly” events down through the ages that were clearly as a result of human involvement, an omnipotent God could have intervened and prevented them.
Yes, that’s the conclusion I have come to myself. But even here it is necessary to first make the assumption that “a God, the God my God” does in fact exist. Which, aside from theodicy, brings into focus these factors:
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed…but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual’s belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
