Why argue with someone that is saying the only thing they can say

[TheBigOhMan]

If you want to change other persons opinions then yes it make sense to argue with them.

Why is the thought of arguing with a supercomputer that it shouldn't have come to the conclusion(opinion) it did irrational, but arguing with a person that it shouldn't have come to the conclusion(opinion) they did rational

If the supercomputer has an AI interface a la star trek, then why would arguing with it be irrational?  You may be able to show the supercomputer something it does not know, or it may be able to show you something you do not know.  Either way, arguing could be helpful.

But it can do no other than what it did, why treat it as if it could have?

It's not about asking if the computer can do something different than what it did, it's about changing the future of the computer stream of "thoughts".

remember, you are the same as "they", you can do no other than what you do, can have had no other thought than the one you had given the state of particles in the universe. You aren't freely choosing anything.

Even if you are not free to choose anything, you can still change things. Material objects are changing each other out all the time.

In the sense that water changes the rock that it flows over, yes.
Neither the water nor the rock have an choice in the matter.

If the water wanted to change the rock, and it did, then it would make the water happy. So the water would see it as a good thing and that would justify his actions in the mind of the water.

[Rostos]

"Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. When you think about it – there is a sort of dizzying self-defeating character to determinism. For if you come to believe that determinism is true, then you have to believe that the reason you have come to believe it is simply because you were determined to do so. You haven’t been able, in fact, to sift through the arguments and the evidence and to freely weigh them and make up your mind on the basis of the argument and the evidence. It is just that you have been causally determined to believe in determinism.[1] So, the difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and becomes a determinist and the person who weighs those arguments for determinism and rejects them is simply that the one was determined to believe in them and the other one was determined not to believe in them. So when you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and even your present realization of that fact – you come to realize that your belief in determinism is itself determined – then there is a sort of vertigo that sets in. Everything you think – even the very thought that you are thinking about that – is itself determined. It is outside your control. You were just determined to believe in it. So while it would be the case that determinism could be true – maybe determinism is true – nevertheless it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed. Determinism is literally self-defeating – it is rationally unaffirmable – because its very affirmation would undermine the rationality of that affirmation. In affirming determinism to be true, you are in effect affirming that that decision is not rationally made but simply determined to be true. So universal causal determinism, it seems to me, cannot be rationally affirmed."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s8-10#ixzz42Yg5JFTe

[RichardChad]

If you want to change other persons opinions then yes it make sense to argue with them.

Why is the thought of arguing with a supercomputer that it shouldn't have come to the conclusion(opinion) it did irrational, but arguing with a person that it shouldn't have come to the conclusion(opinion) they did rational

If the supercomputer has an AI interface a la star trek, then why would arguing with it be irrational?  You may be able to show the supercomputer something it does not know, or it may be able to show you something you do not know.  Either way, arguing could be helpful.

But it can do no other than what it did, why treat it as if it could have?

It's not about asking if the computer can do something different than what it did, it's about changing the future of the computer stream of "thoughts".

remember, you are the same as "they", you can do no other than what you do, can have had no other thought than the one you had given the state of particles in the universe. You aren't freely choosing anything.

Even if you are not free to choose anything, you can still change things. Material objects are changing each other out all the time.

In the sense that water changes the rock that it flows over, yes.
Neither the water nor the rock have an choice in the matter.

If the water wanted to change the rock, and it did, then it would make the water happy. So the water would see it as a good thing and that would justify his actions in the mind of the water.

Well, that's just the thing, the water doesn't freely choose, words like "want", "intent", "mind" are meaningless in the context of materialism, so why use them?

A real materialst would have said "If the water was diverted to change the rock, and it did, then it would make the water divert to change the rock. So the water would divert to change the rock and that would change the rock."

[hatsoff]

If you want to change other persons opinions then yes it make sense to argue with them.

Why is the thought of arguing with a supercomputer that it shouldn't have come to the conclusion(opinion) it did irrational, but arguing with a person that it shouldn't have come to the conclusion(opinion) they did rational

If the supercomputer has an AI interface a la star trek, then why would arguing with it be irrational?  You may be able to show the supercomputer something it does not know, or it may be able to show you something you do not know.  Either way, arguing could be helpful.

But it can do no other than what it did, why treat it as if it could have?

Didn't I just answer that question?  I said:  because you may be able to convince the supercomputer by showing it something it does not know, or it may be able to convince you in a likewise manner.  Or any of the other usual reasons we argue.

[TheBigOhMan]

Well, that's just the thing, the water doesn't freely choose, words like "want", "intent", "mind" are meaningless in the context of materialism, so why use them?

The water can want, or hve an intention for something. For example, the water may want to change the bunch of leafs that are at the tree near the rocks. Of course since it's determined to change the rocks and not the leafs, it won't change the leafs, but that doesn't mean it doesn't want or have the intention to change the leafs, it just mean this desires wouldn't be fullfilled.

So the terms clearly have meaning, they mean what the water wants, even if this desire is determined.

A real materialst would have said "If the water was diverted to change the rock, and it did, then it would make the water divert to change the rock. So the water would divert to change the rock and that would change the rock."

Yes, ¿so?

[RichardChad]

Well, that's just the thing, the water doesn't freely choose, words like "want", "intent", "mind" are meaningless in the context of materialism, so why use them?

The water can want, or hve an intention for something. For example, the water may want to change the bunch of leafs that are at the tree near the rocks. Of course since it's determined to change the rocks and not the leafs, it won't change the leafs, but that doesn't mean it doesn't want or have the intention to change the leafs, it just mean this desires wouldn't be fullfilled.

So the terms clearly have meaning, they mean what the water wants, even if this desire is determined.

Want: have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for
intend: have (a course of action) as one's purpose or objective; plan.
desire:  strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen


water can want, intend, desire??

This is really what outs the materialist, their insistence on using terms that only make sense if LFW is true.

A real materialst would have said "If the water was diverted to change the rock, and it did, then it would make the water divert to change the rock. So the water would divert to change the rock and that would change the rock."

Yes, ¿so?

so, why not use words consistent with the view? Why the insistence on hijacking words that only make sense on LFW?

[TheBigOhMan]

Want: have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for
intend: have (a course of action) as one's purpose or objective; plan.
desire:  strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen


water can want, intend, desire??

If water was sentient then yes. Wanting, intending, or desirng things doesn't have nothing to do with being able to achieve those things, so even on determinism it makes sense.

so, why not use words consistent with the view? Why the insistence on hijacking words that only make sense on LFW?

But they do make sense on determinism. You could be determined to do Y, and still want X.

[RichardChad]

Want: have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for
intend: have (a course of action) as one's purpose or objective; plan.
desire:  strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen


water can want, intend, desire??

If water was sentient then yes. Wanting, intending, or desirng things doesn't have nothing to do with being able to achieve those things, so even on determinism it makes sense.

what?

On materialism, sentience, want, intent, volition, desire, ALL are identical with material interactions.

so, why not use words consistent with the view? Why the insistence on hijacking words that only make sense on LFW?

But they do make sense on determinism. You could be determined to do Y, and still want X.

what?

[TheBigOhMan]

On materialism, sentience, want, intent, volition, desire, ALL are identical with material interactions.

Yes, and material interactions are real, so if wanting, volition and the such are material interactions, and since material interactions are real then they are perfectly possible on materialism.

what?

Imagine someone that has a chip in it's brain that is controled by a computer. The chip controls all the movements the person does. The person can still have desires and the such, despite it's behaviour being determined by the computer.

[john doe]

Wow there sure are a lot threads on these forums of the nature of ..

"If materialism is true, materialist's brains would be made of sawdust."

"If naturalism is true, naturalists can't help but babble incoherently as they swing through the trees."

"If evolutions is true, Darwin must be a monkey's uncle."

"If atheism is true, then atheists must not know whether to kill their kids or copulate with them first."

Isn't this a little over done?  Gawd knows we hear this sort of thing all the time from hit and run theists over at AtheistForums.org and, trust me, no one is amused or impressed.

[Hawke123]

Wow there sure are a lot threads on these forums of the nature of ..

"If materialism is true, materialist's brains would be made of sawdust."

"If naturalism is true, naturalists can't help but babble incoherently as they swing through the trees."

"If evolutions is true, Darwin must be a monkey's uncle."

"If atheism is true, then atheists must not know whether to kill their kids or copulate with them first."

Isn't this a little over done?  Gawd knows we hear this sort of thing all the time from hit and run theists over at AtheistForums.org and, trust me, no one is amused or impressed.

Is there something wrong with critiquing materialism via reductio ad absurdum reasoning?  How come on the relatively rare occasions that theists go on the attack during philosophical debate is it so often presented as inappropriate?  There's nothing being over done here.

Here are some examples of the kind of things that theists hear ALL the time:

"Most wars were caused by religion."

"If God is all good and all powerful then why is there evil in the world?"

"If God commanded that rape for fun was good, would theists obey?"

"Atheists generally know the bible better than most Christians."

"There's no evidence that Jesus even existed."

"Your superstitious religious text is not evidence for anything."

"If God is the first cause of everything, then what caused God?"

"A belief can only be rational if it is based on scientific evidence."

"How can anyone believe in Jesus yet vote Republican?"

"But quantum physics makes no sense, so your argument is invalid."

[RichardChad]

On materialism, sentience, want, intent, volition, desire, ALL are identical with material interactions.

Yes, and material interactions are real, so if wanting, volition and the such are material interactions, and since material interactions are real then they are perfectly possible on materialism.

Does a flower want to turn to the sun?
A yes answer is clearly misusing the term "want".

what?

Imagine someone that has a chip in it's brain that is controled by a computer. The chip controls all the movements the person does. The person can still have desires and the such, despite it's behaviour being determined by the computer.

on materailism there is no "person" having desires and such independent of the chip, being overruled by the chip.
there's just the chip.

[RichardChad]

Wow there sure are a lot threads on these forums of the nature of ..

"If materialism is true, materialist's brains would be made of sawdust."

"If naturalism is true, naturalists can't help but babble incoherently as they swing through the trees."

"If evolutions is true, Darwin must be a monkey's uncle."

"If atheism is true, then atheists must not know whether to kill their kids or copulate with them first."

Isn't this a little over done?  Gawd knows we hear this sort of thing all the time from hit and run theists over at AtheistForums.org and, trust me, no one is amused or impressed.

what's always interesting to me is how despite claiming to embrace materialism, it's extremely rare to find an atheist advocating it, or at least defending it, and even rarer to find one that acts as if they believe in it.

How is it possible for a real materialiist to say anything other than "well, the theist has no more ability to freely choose to believe in theism than I have to freely choose to not, so it's pointless to argue"

[john doe]

Wow there sure are a lot threads on these forums of the nature of ..

"If materialism is true, materialist's brains would be made of sawdust."

"If naturalism is true, naturalists can't help but babble incoherently as they swing through the trees."

"If evolutions is true, Darwin must be a monkey's uncle."

"If atheism is true, then atheists must not know whether to kill their kids or copulate with them first."

Isn't this a little over done?  Gawd knows we hear this sort of thing all the time from hit and run theists over at AtheistForums.org and, trust me, no one is amused or impressed.

Is there something wrong with critiquing materialism via reductio ad absurdum reasoning?  How come on the relatively rare occasions that theists go on the attack during philosophical debate is it so often presented as inappropriate?  There's nothing being over done here.

Here are some examples of the kind of things that theists hear ALL the time:

Well I feel it is idiocy which ever side does it and call it out wherever I see it, whoever may be doing it.  Let me take your examples one by one and see which I find objectionable.

"Most wars were caused by religion."

Gross over generalization.  I object.

"If God is all good and all powerful then why is there evil in the world?"

Ignores the possibility that leaving evil in the world isn't a necessary evil for the greater good, not to mention the alleged omni-powers are greatly exaggerated.  Object.

"If God commanded that rape for fun was good, would theists obey?"

It may not be the most irenic tact to take but the criticism is fair.  Ultimately, for a Christian, which is the greater imperative?  To obey God's will or to obey one's conscience - specifically when the two do not align.  This bothers me because to my mind your God would greatly prefer you honor your own moral values while hoping you eventually come to embrace His.  I think He would place a greater value on your growth than on your getting in line.  But my reference point for what God could be is much, much different than your own.

"Atheists generally know the bible better than most Christians."

That canard might actually be true at least as often as it isn't.  My impression is that the great majority of people who identify "Christian" don't dwell on the written word a great deal.  (I could certainly be mistaken about this.)  Anyhow, when Christians become atheists, if they're thoughtful, they probably do get inspired to pour over the bible looking for a way back in.  If this one is true it only because those who do not fall away from their faith are just more comfortable and less driven to burrow in.

"There's no evidence that Jesus even existed."

Never been tempted by that one.  Seems like the over-reaction of a jilted believer to me.  I suspect there was a historical Jesus who probably was regarded as an enlightened teacher.  I don't personally believe in miracles or anything else supernatural which are said to affect the physical world out there.  However I have no problem attaching meaning to the idea of transformation on the inside and these can sometimes seem miraculous.

"Your superstitious religious text is not evidence for anything."

Overly harsh.  I think "Crime and Punishment" is evidence for a great number of things.  The bible read allegorically is too.  But no I don't think you can use the word to prove the word.  Call me old fashioned but that just seems rather circular to me.

"If God is the first cause of everything, then what caused God?"

Seems like a good point to me.  I can attach no meaning to a creator god who makes everything from nothing.  I'm tolerant enough of people disagreeing with me on this.  I have no deeply felt beliefs about the origins of the cosmos.  For me that is a deep mystery, as it is for you too even if you point to an intermediary in God who you say did it all.  How and why remain mysterious unless you choose to believe that the bible is that very same creator God's galactic reference book for man.

"A belief can only be rational if it is based on scientific evidence."

Absurd.  Science has no way of measuring what is in mens hearts.  However not all beliefs need be rational to be actionable.  And the scientific method remains the very best means of determining which claims regarding the empirical world most merit belief.

"How can anyone believe in Jesus yet vote Republican?"

Excellent point.  Must have something to do with our corrupted and unavoidably sinful nature I assume.  Damn that Adam.  *rolls eyes*

"But quantum physics makes no sense, so your argument is invalid."

Utter fecal matter.

[RichardChad]

Well I feel it is idiocy which ever side does it and call it out wherever I see it, whoever may be doing it.  Let me take your examples one by one and see which I find objectionable.

idiocy: something notably stupid or foolish
foolish: unwise, ​stupid, or not ​showing good ​judgment:

how could you, as a materialist, possibly use the word "idiocy" when referring to something a person did when they could not have done anything else?

The thing that always outs the "materialist" is their clear belief that they and others can freely choose.