Why we don't have free will using logic

[Echogem222]

Can’t speak for the other guy, but I know with 100% certainty that I exist. The reason I know is due to the evidence provided to me by my 5 senses, and the way I evaluate this evidence makes me 100% certain. Granted this evidence might not be good enough to convince you we exist, but it is definitely enough to convince me.

And why does life have to make sense? Can you explain that to me?

 

[Kfox]

And why does life have to make sense? Can you explain that to me?

If life doesn't make sense to me, it becomes unlivable.

 

[Echogem222]

If life doesn't make sense to me, it becomes unlivable.

Sure, I agree, but just because that's true doesn't mean that faith isn't required to think otherwise. Understanding that it requires faith doesn't suddenly change anything, you'll still believe as you do, but you'll no longer be out of sync with myself saying that you're 100% certain.

The point of understanding that you have faith allows yourself to have a gateway of reasonability in having faith in other things, which is why this is important.

 

[Kfox]

Sure, I agree, but just because that's true doesn't mean that faith isn't required to think otherwise. Understanding that it requires faith doesn't suddenly change anything,

How are you defining faith? I define faith as believing when there is no empirical evidence, reason or logic. If reason, logic, and empirical evidence were involved; it wouldn’t be faith, it would be proof.

you'll still believe as you do, but you'll no longer be out of sync with myself saying that you're 100% certain.

The point of understanding that you have faith allows yourself to have a gateway of reasonability in having faith in other things, which is why this is important.

I personally have a problem with faith thus I don’t use it. My problem with faith is that there is no means of establishing the truth. For me truth is more important than believing what I wish were true.

 

[Nimos]

I'm saying that even the mind isn't certain, and even nothing, which goes even further than Solipsism

This is what Solipsism ends up with, which is why it is nonsense. But anyway, if that is not your position that is fine.

You're making the assumption that life must make sense, but life doesn't have to make any sense at all, which is why we must have faith that it does to believe that logic is real, because evidence cannot be evidence of itself, as that is circular reasoning.

Life doesn't have to make sense, the reality you live in has to.

This eventually ends up with the essential question of what is the meaning of life?

To me, to answer this question you first have to split it into 3 categories depending on what life you are speaking about.

1. Why is there life in the Universe?
2. What is the purpose of life?
3. What is the meaning of your own life?

The answer to the first one is that we don't know. And the answer might never be known and it might in fact turn out to have no meaning at all.

The answer to the second one is also unknown and doesn't really seem to follow any rational path, it simply grinds along. What I mean by this, is that I don't think any species, except maybe humans to some degree have an overall plan or strategy for its own survival. Meaning I think it is fair to assume that for instance turtles or other animals don't go around worrying about it being important to make sure that their species survive. They mate with each other without any grand goal in mind. The reason I say that humans do this to some degree is because of our brain which allows us to think abstractly. But even we have our limits, if you for instance were stranded on an island after a catastrophe your goal wouldn't be the survival of the species rather it would be purely about your own survival. But as long as we are not pushed to such limits we can think more abstractly.

The answer to the third one, I think one can logically arrive at, simply as being happy. This would apply to all people regardless of who they are, murderers and none murderers. Doesn't matter, if you wake up each day being happy, whether that is by hurting other people or not, then you essentially are living the life you want. Obviously, this might sound absurd how murdering other people could be meaningful. But looking at it from an individual perspective, what makes one person happy doesn't necessarily have to make sense for anyone else.

But none of these offer any explanation for making sense of life. Either they are unknown or not really explained. The 3 one probably being the one that at least offers a hint of sense, as you can make the argument, that since you are stuck in this life anyway, being happy rather than miserable is more beneficial for you than not be.

I have faith we exist despite not knowing.

What is reality to you?

However, it could be that knowing things is actually possible, so I am not actually certain that people cannot know anything, as I am uncertain of everything and even nothing)

If reality is the current state in which you live, then you can know things within it. Whether it is actually real or not, doesn't matter. Assuming that our reality is a simulation, it wouldn't matter, because the reality in which we live is what it is.

 

[Echogem222]

This is what Solipsism ends up with, which is why it is nonsense. But anyway, if that is not your position that is fine.


Life doesn't have to make sense, the reality you live in has to.

This eventually ends up with the essential question of what is the meaning of life?

To me, to answer this question you first have to split it into 3 categories depending on what life you are speaking about.

1. Why is there life in the Universe?
2. What is the purpose of life?
3. What is the meaning of your own life?

The answer to the first one is that we don't know. And the answer might never be known and it might in fact turn out to have no meaning at all.

The answer to the second one is also unknown and doesn't really seem to follow any rational path, it simply grinds along. What I mean by this, is that I don't think any species, except maybe humans to some degree have an overall plan or strategy for its own survival. Meaning I think it is fair to assume that for instance turtles or other animals don't go around worrying about it being important to make sure that their species survive. They mate with each other without any grand goal in mind. The reason I say that humans do this to some degree is because of our brain which allows us to think abstractly. But even we have our limits, if you for instance were stranded on an island after a catastrophe your goal wouldn't be the survival of the species rather it would be purely about your own survival. But as long as we are not pushed to such limits we can think more abstractly.

The answer to the third one, I think one can logically arrive at, simply as being happy. This would apply to all people regardless of who they are, murderers and none murderers. Doesn't matter, if you wake up each day being happy, whether that is by hurting other people or not, then you essentially are living the life you want. Obviously, this might sound absurd how murdering other people could be meaningful. But looking at it from an individual perspective, what makes one person happy doesn't necessarily have to make sense for anyone else.

But none of these offer any explanation for making sense of life. Either they are unknown or not really explained. The 3 one probably being the one that at least offers a hint of sense, as you can make the argument, that since you are stuck in this life anyway, being happy rather than miserable is more beneficial for you than not be.


What is reality to you?


If reality is the current state in which you live, then you can know things within it. Whether it is actually real or not, doesn't matter. Assuming that our reality is a simulation, it wouldn't matter, because the reality in which we live is what it is.

In other words, you want to have your opinion, and refuse to see it differently. Fine, you do you, but this conversation will go nowhere, so I'm ending it.

 

[Echogem222]

How are you defining faith? I define faith as believing when there is no empirical evidence, reason or logic. If reason, logic, and empirical evidence were involved; it wouldn’t be faith, it would be proof.

Empirical evidence is based on the foundation of wanting to believe that empirical evidence is actually empirical evidence. Reason is based on the foundation of wanting to believe that reason is actually reason. Logic is based on the foundation of wanting to believe that logic is actually logic. So since Empirical Evidence, reason, and logic are all based on faith, everything clearly requires faith.

I personally have a problem with faith thus I don’t use it. My problem with faith is that there is no means of establishing the truth. For me truth is more important than believing what I wish were true.

Yet you're believing that empirical evidence, reason, and logic are true merely because you wish they were with complete certainty.

 

[Kfox]

Empirical evidence is based on the foundation of wanting to believe that empirical evidence is actually empirical evidence.

No; by definition; empirical evidence is evidence that can be demonstrated by people other than yourself. If I want "X" to be true, and I have empirical evidence proving it is true, this truth can be demonstrated by anyone; even those who want "X" to be false.

 

[Ostronomos]

You appear to be affirming what I said, that the only way God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain,.

I certainly don't agree with your belief that God is merely a figment of the imagination. Have you read the Reality Self-Simulation Principle. A Global Identity Operator, or G.O.D, is a necessary Being. God can actually be generated as an external Being within the external world. Hence why I used the term "universal mind".

In the R.S.S. Langan talks about an ontic groundstate or ultimate reality. This is all perfectly logical.

Again, you appear to be affirming what I said above.


I have no reason to think that's correct, since I have no reason to think I'll be imagining or experiencing anything after I die.

Death is a transition from our material realm to the spiritual realm. Your consciousness continues after death. Since as I have demonstrated in my thread "Proof of Consciousness", that consciousness is reality. But not only that, consciousness creates reality through its viewing and perceiving.

Logic needs to be based on facts. A fact is an accurate statement about a state of affairs in the world external to the self, reality.

Unfortunately, you are ignorant of the facts. The world is not external to the self, it is also throughout and within the self. You can only assume that the world is external to the self.

Above, all you offer is ideas about imaginary things, purely conceptual things. I suggest you need real evidence before your argument becomes at all persuasive.

I have provided you with logic, not evidence. If you accept that reality exists within reality for example, you can accept that it is self-contained, leading to the self-inclusion paradox.

 

[Ostronomos]

blu 2,

I gather that you misinterpreted my previous post. I did not intend to leave open room for doubt. You seem to be wanting to prove that my thinking is divorced from reality, but I assure you that is not the case.

I speak with authority when I say that I am well-rounded in my views. And possess knowledge that most do not.

 

[Echogem222]

No; by definition; empirical evidence is evidence that can be demonstrated by people other than yourself. If I want "X" to be true, and I have empirical evidence proving it is true, this truth can be demonstrated by anyone; even those who want "X" to be false.

But you want empirical evidence to actually mean something in the way of proving something, that's what I was referring to. Life doesn't have to make sense, you just want it to, and that want proves nothing in the way of complete certainty.

 

[Kfox]

But you want empirical evidence to actually mean something in the way of proving something,

Irrelevant; empirical evidence means something in the way of proving something whether I want it to or not

that's what I was referring to. Life doesn't have to make sense, you just want it to, and that want proves nothing in the way of complete certainty.

If that were true, everything in life would make sense to me; but that isn’t the case. There are a lot of things in life that don’t make sense to me regardless of me wanting them to

 

[Echogem222]

Irrelevant; empirical evidence means something in the way of proving something whether I want it to or not

Really? I think that you keep believing in empirical evidence being a means of discovering truth because if you suddenly stopped believing in it once it does a few things you don't like, that would mean losing out on the benefits of believing empirical evidence is real. In other words, because empirical evidence benefits you enough to have faith in, you continue to have faith in it.

If that were true, everything in life would make sense to me; but that isn’t the case. There are a lot of things in life that don’t make sense to me regardless of me wanting them to

This is all just because you don't realize you have faith in things. If you understood you had faith in certain things, it would allow you to better understand yourself, and why you have faith in things.

 

[Kfox]

Really? I think that you keep believing in empirical evidence being a means of discovering truth because if you suddenly stopped believing in it once it does a few things you don't like, that would mean losing out on the benefits of believing empirical evidence is real. In other words, because empirical evidence benefits you enough to have faith in, you continue to have faith in it.

Empirical evidence is just evidence that can be demonstrated as true. Why do you think I have more of a vested interest in empirical evidence leading to truth, than you have?

This is all just because you don't realize you have faith in things. If you understood you had faith in certain things, it would allow you to better understand yourself, and why you have faith in things.

On post #64 I gave my definition of faith. If you disagree with that definition, give me your definition, then give an example of how you think I use faith

 

[McBell]

On post #64 I gave my definition of faith. If you disagree with that definition, give me your definition, then give an example of how you think I use faith

From the OP:

It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence.​

 

[Kfox]

From the OP:

It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence.​

We can believe we know things due to empirical evidence. The idea that if I stepped off a 1,000 foot bridge, gravity will pull me to Earth at such a speed that the impact will kill me is something I believe to be true due to empirical evidence. It doesn't require an act of faith to believe this.

 

[McBell]

We can believe we know things due to empirical evidence. The idea that if I stepped off a 1,000 foot bridge, gravity will pull me to Earth as such a speed that the impact will kill me is something I believe to be true due to empirical evidence. It doesn't require an act of faith to believe this.

I agree with:

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject.​

 

[Kfox]

I agree with:

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject.​

I’m not gonna suggest nobody is capable of doing this, but this sounds like something that is impossible for me. For me, belief is not a choice, but a consequence of evidence and how I evaluate that evidence. Either I find the evidence convincing, or I do not. I do not have the option (for example) to believe I can fly like a bird if I stepped off a 1,000 foot bridge, my intellect would force me to recognize such an act would kill me. Does this make sense? If not; tell me where you think I’ve gone wrong.

 

[McBell]

I’m not gonna suggest nobody is capable of doing this, but this sounds like something that is impossible for me. For me, belief is not a choice, but a consequence of evidence and how I evaluate that evidence. Either I find the evidence convincing, or I do not. I do not have the option (for example) to believe I can fly like a bird if I stepped off a 1,000 foot bridge, my intellect would force me to recognize such an act would kill me. Does this make sense? If not; tell me where you think I’ve gone wrong.

Makes sense to me.
Thus I understand what you mean when you say you do not use faith

 

[Echogem222]

I’m not gonna suggest nobody is capable of doing this, but this sounds like something that is impossible for me. For me, belief is not a choice, but a consequence of evidence and how I evaluate that evidence. Either I find the evidence convincing, or I do not. I do not have the option (for example) to believe I can fly like a bird if I stepped off a 1,000 foot bridge, my intellect would force me to recognize such an act would kill me. Does this make sense? If not; tell me where you think I’ve gone wrong.

You are talking about your system of faith. I don't believe we have free will, so yourself not being able to choose what you have faith in makes perfect sense to me, but thinking it's because your system of faith is true with complete certainty is what I believe is an error in judgement.