Ephesians 2:10

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9 here:

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said " For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator.
...

My emboldenizationin'.

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

[EduChris]

...a proposition with only vague support...

Metaphysics and logic are the price of the admission ticket needed to participate in philosophical discussion. Everyone understands that everything that any of us says may have nothing at all to do with objective reality; nevertheless, all we can do is use the only tools available to us. In other words, your skepticism is noted briefly, and then checked at the door so that we can all go on to engage in logical discourse. The alternative is to sit around silently shuffling our feet and shrugging our shoulders.

...why then should we conclude this god created humans?...

Given volitional non-contingent reality, the logical answer to the "Why?" question is the same as for "Why did you eat Cheerios for breakfast, rather than Corn Flakes?" Answer: "Because I wanted to."

Depends on what you mean by "physical form." For example, in your view, does gravity have a "physical form"? Is gravity constrained by space and time? How about logic? Is logic situated within space and time?

All evidence I'm aware of indicates consciousness is a product of the brain, hence, physicality...

But you admit that things like gravity can exist, even without a definite physical form, right? Do you agree that physical form is not a prerequisite for existence? Or do you claim that gravity doesn't exist?

...But where does this leave your notion...of a conscious entity? Does this entity possess mass? Does it posses a brain - where we have evidence to indicate consciousness there resides?...

Does gravity possess mass? Or is it rather the means by which mass can be detected and measured?

The simple fact is that we do not know what causes our subjective mental experience. We don't know whether our subjective mental experience corresponds in any way to objective reality--but if it does, then as rational beings we are compelled to seek some explanation. Given that there is no obvious reason why impersonal physical "stuff" should conglomerate to produce subjective mental experience--especially a subjective mental experience which makes absolutely no difference in the world--it makes sense to suppose that subjective mental experience involves something more than mere matter. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that evolution invested a lot of resources to produce an intricate sound system for an entirely deaf universe.

...If you can think of even one question where all possible answers are not equally meaningless (given the situation where consciousness and volition are illusory and incapable of affecting the material universe) then I might concede your point...

I fall back to the notion that consciousness has its roots in a physical form...

Okay, then I fall back to my previous paragraph.

...I would further explore how we can determine if such a physical form may be able to create humans "whole cloth"...

If gravity can exist without physical form, then it stands to reason that other things can also exist without physical form. Our brains are the result (so we suppose) of evolutionary processes which normally select for some survival advantage. Yet our subjective mental life does not (per standard non-theist principles) offer any such survival advantatge even though it is highly intricate and resource-intensive. These factors combine to suggest that either our subjective mental experience does make a difference in the world (in which case the physical can be affected by the non-physical) or else our subjective mental experience involves something more than mere conglomerations of matter. Either way, theism offers the best and only explanation. Non-theism, by contrast, is left empty-handed without even any hope for an explanation, even in principle.

...If meaningful questions exist, then theism is the only possible epistemically justified explanation for this fact...

...For the purposes of the OP, I really don't see how the issue applies.

It applies because either the question in your OP is meaningless, or else theism is true. Pick your poison. Which do you prefer?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

First of all, no sanction is being risked here, just Miss TGA arguing as usual. Mods cannot moderate threads they debate in and nobody made a report anyway, least of all me.

My concern is of an observer looking back through the threads with what would be future knowledge of a (now pending) sanction for challenging claims. I have the fullest trust you'd abstain from ruling where you've posted.

You quote a post that was explicitly stated to be in a Christian context and you name your thread after a Bible verse yet you claim that you are not working in a Christian/Bible context. Within that original context the answer to "how do we know God created people" is simple. Genesis says so. The context you are now stating is “whether or not a god has created humans�. A legitimate topic, but judging from the posts so far it is a specialized subset of “Does God exist?� As I said earlier this is a legitimate topic. But it is a non-Christian topic with the trappings of a Christian one.

Exactly. So then, without the trappings of Christianity, the OP seeks to explore the lone statement presented - regardless of its "Christian context" by placing it within an apologetics context.

My issue is still that referring to an explicit post and naming the thread after a Bible verse but switching contexts comes across as a challenge to the original poster but removing the means for answering that challenge. It sounds a whole lot like: ...
...

What other section of this site, beyond Christianity & Apologetics, is most appropriate for exploring a statement that's presented in Christianity & Apologetics (noting I could not with objectivity determine its relatedness to the original OP)?

I retract, plow under, weed-eat, disavow, and swear up and down the original poster never uttered a single syllable, much less a string of 'em, and I mean I'm 'shamed of ever havin' accused 'em of it.

Where does that get us now that the claim is hanging out there, but danged if we don't see it right there in the book I let everyone know where it was at?

Statement: “In my religion the Bible says God created people.�

Challenge: “Prove that God created people without using the Bible.�

Nowhere in the OP, or within this thread have I asked folks to prove anything, nor have I stated that the Bible can't be used to support the contention presented in the OP. Present the entire Bible for all I care. Present the Magna Carta if that bolsters your case. Present twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one. Present your entire collection of Mad magazine.

I don't make the rules for this site, I'm in no position to enforce 'em, and I'm getting a good bit frustrated at being repeatedly, across multiple threads, accused of trying to declare - nay, dictate - what others are allowed to say or post.

I've asked why the statement should be considered the most reasonable and rational take on the issue. What's so difficult about that? Showing it is?

Do you see why people sometimes get ticked off with you?

I'm not here to soothe folks' souls. If by my challenging of claims they find discomfort, I can't help 'em a bit, and ain't so sure if I wanna.

Drop the explicit poster and scriptural references and it comes across a whole lot differently.

From your perspective, which could also be considered as from within the context you seek to frame an OP that you, if for all the right reasons, consider invalid merely because it mentions the one that said it, and mentions the biblical passage the one that said it was referring to.


Frankly, I don't care if the Pope said it, nor do I care if the passage comes from the Quran or someone's bathroom reader. I seek to determine if the statement presented in the OP is the most reasoned and rational take on the issue.

But okay, I'm all about being fair...

God created humans

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

...a proposition with only vague support...

Metaphysics and logic are the price of the admission ticket needed to participate in philosophical discussion. Everyone understands that everything that any of us says may have nothing at all to do with objective reality; nevertheless, all we can do is use the only tools available to us. In other words, your skepticism is noted briefly, and then checked at the door so that we can all go on to engage in logical discourse. The alternative is to sit around silently shuffling our feet and shrugging our shoulders.

I like your phrasing. By vague I meant that the conclusion you present does seem rational, but that a 'seem' isn't a "danged if it ain't" (agreeing we may never get to that). Where you consider volition to be involved, with some sound reasoning, I don't see the need to consider such to be a God, especially when so much theology is tacked onto that one deal. So, I'd say I can't refute your definition, but contend that the definition alone shouldn't lead us to conclude this God created humans (as in "whole cloth", or at least as a literal take on what the Bible says, while granting you've alluded to evolution later).

...why then should we conclude this god created humans?...

Given volitional non-contingent reality, the logical answer to the "Why?" question is the same as for "Why did you eat Cheerios for breakfast, rather than Corn Flakes?" Answer: "Because I wanted to."

I wasn't asking the why you offer. I was asking that if we concede your definition, which I agree is reasonable by itself, why should we then conclude this God created humans?

Are you saying the process was "whole cloth", or do you ascribe to a more evolutionary approach?

All evidence I'm aware of indicates consciousness is a product of the brain, hence, physicality...

But you admit that things like gravity can exist, even without a definite physical form, right?

But I don't say gravity is a product of the brain, even if by having mass, the brain will have gravity to some negligible amount.

Do you agree that physical form is not a prerequisite for existence?

I'm not so sure I can just say yes here. What I seek to understand is that as we know consciousness to be a product of the brain, hence physicality, why should we not conclude this volitional agent must posses such?

Where we posit volition, we are ostensibly positing a physical entity, given what we know about thought. So then, we get right back to what created this volitional entity.

I consider the most reasoned conclusion in this regard is that the universe could be considered its own volitional entity under the terms you propose. With this in mind, I'd say then that if we wish to call the universe "god" or "God", we could consider a god as having created humans.

Or do you claim that gravity doesn't exist?

Of course I consider gravity to exist. What I question is this notion that volition could ostensibly spring from the ether.

...But where does this leave your notion...of a conscious entity? Does this entity possess mass? Does it posses a brain - where we have evidence to indicate consciousness there resides?...

Does gravity possess mass? Or is it rather the means by which mass can be detected and measured?

The issue for me is one of thought, which is volition. I'm unaware of anyone who claims gravity to plot and plan.

The simple fact is that we do not know what causes our subjective mental experience.

There's some good indication that such resides within the brain.

We don't know whether our subjective mental experience corresponds in any way to objective reality--but if it does, then as rational beings we are compelled to seek some explanation. Given that there is no obvious reason why impersonal physical "stuff" should conglomerate to produce subjective mental experience...

I contend that chemicals combine to create this mental experience. This, if only to me, would be an obvious reason.

--especially a subjective mental experience which makes absolutely no difference in the world--it makes sense to suppose that subjective mental experience involves something more than mere matter. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that evolution invested a lot of resources to produce an intricate sound system for an entirely deaf universe.

I propose evolution worked to produce a means by which a not mute universe may be heard.

...If you can think of even one question where all possible answers are not equally meaningless (given the situation where consciousness and volition are illusory and incapable of affecting the material universe) then I might concede your point...

I fall back to the notion that consciousness has its roots in a physical form...

Okay, then I fall back to my previous paragraph.

I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.
[Edit]
Are you falling back to the statement presented here, or another'n?
[/Edit]

...I would further explore how we can determine if such a physical form may be able to create humans "whole cloth"...

If gravity can exist without physical form...

Best I can tell, without some physical form, there is no gravity. Gravity would then be the product of a physical form, if only tangentially.

...then it stands to reason that other things can also exist without physical form.

Yet we have sound evidence for concluding that thought, as volition, doesn't occur without the physical brain.

Our brains are the result (so we suppose) of evolutionary processes which normally select for some survival advantage. Yet our subjective mental life does not (per standard non-theist principles) offer any such survival advantage even though it is highly intricate and resource-intensive.

The ToE doesn't explicitly state that all that composes a life form must be advantageous. Regardless, where we see a resource intensive item such as the brain, we can also reasonably conclude that some redundancy would be built in, and such redundancy could then be used to do other things, such as contemplation.

These factors combine to suggest that either our subjective mental experience does make a difference in the world (in which case the physical can be affected by the non-physical) or else our subjective mental experience involves something more than mere conglomerations of matter. Either way, theism offers the best and only explanation.

This sounds an argument from incredulity. What we know, or reasonably conclude, is that the brain is where our thoughts are stored, and that such thoughts could not take form without the physical brain being there.

Non-theism, by contrast, is left empty-handed without even any hope for an explanation, even in principle.

I think I just put something in the non-theists hands above.

It applies because either the question in your OP is meaningless, or else theism is true.

The question is, is it reasonable to conclude a god created humans. Thus far I've seen you propose a volitional entity that I contend would require some form of physicality. As such, we start to wonder if this entity has physicality, then what caused that physicality.

Pick your poison. Which do you prefer?

Positing a volitional agent without physical form is, I contend, not a rational argument. As such, we're then left to ponder what created that agent.

[EduChris]

...I like your phrasing...

Thanks!

...I don't see the need to consider such to be a God...

I'll address this a little later.

...Are you saying the process was "whole cloth", or do you ascribe to a more evolutionary approach?...

The "How?" question makes no difference to my worldview; what matters to me is the "Why?" question. In my worldview, God is not arbitrarily limited in causal efficacy, and so God chooses whatever means God deems best, all things considered.

...we know consciousness to be a product of the brain, hence physicality...

I'm not sure we know this at all. Most non-theists end up believing consciousness to be an ineffectual, impotent, ephemeral epiphenomenon which makes no difference at all in the world. To believe otherwise, we have to suppose that consciousness is somehow "more than" the sum of the physical parts.

...why should we not conclude this volitional agent must posses such [physicality]?...

What is "physicality" anyway? It is mostly empty space, with a few poorly understood bursts of concentrated energy. If "physicality" is so important, why is there so very little of it? And as mentioned in the previous paragraph, if consciousness makes a difference at all in the world, it has to be more than the simple sum of its physical parts, such that it can turn the causal arrow around and work back on the physical.

...what created this volitional entity...

We are not talking about an "entity" which could be "created." Rather, we are talking about that which cannot not exist, and we are considering the possibilities which would ensue whether or not volition is involved in that which cannot not exist. Now you can always say, "There isn't any such thing as that which cannot not exist," but there are consequences to that assumption, which I will get to shortly.

...the universe could be considered its own volitional entity under the terms you propose...

The problem here is that our physical universe doesn't seem a likely candidate for that which cannot not exist. The universe appears to have had a beginning, and there seems to be no logical contradiction involved in the statement, "The universe doesn't have to exist."

...What I question is this notion that volition could ostensibly spring from the ether...

According to your worldview, volition sprang from slime, which is not much more than empty space, which all started out as a big explosion where all known physical laws break down.

The simple fact is that we do not know what causes our subjective mental experience.

There's some good indication that such resides within the brain...

Actually, not so much. It seems that subjective mental experience (SME) does not reduce down to the simple physical interactions in the brain. SME is something entirely new that occurs, such as when hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to produce water, which is very unlike the individual atoms taken separately. Yes, water is still "physical," but then water can be weighed and measured and heated and frozen in a way which we cannot do with SME, which seems quite different from anything else at all in the entire universe.

...I contend that chemicals combine to create this mental experience. This, if only to me, would be an obvious reason...

You are free to contend whatever you wish. The question is, how can we explain such a contention?

...I propose evolution worked to produce a means by which a not mute universe may be heard...

So evolution works toward some specific goal?

...without some physical form, there is no gravity. Gravity would then be the product of a physical form, if only tangentially...

Assumption noted.

...we have sound evidence for concluding that thought, as volition, doesn't occur without the physical brain...

How would we know whether consciousness, thought, and volition do not occur without a physical brain?

Given that the physical brain is mostly empty space, with a few poorly understood bursts of concentrated energy, why should it be unreasonable to suppose that science might one day (far down the road) advance to the point where we have intelligent, conscious "computers" comprised of pure energy and virtual quantum particles? Why should we not be able to download every last bit of information inside our brains to these "computers"? I'm not saying that this would ever happen, but I am asking, "Is it really that hard to believe, at least in principle?" After all, if blind nature can cobble together something as magnificent as the brain, why should science not be able to improve on nature's handiwork?

...The ToE doesn't explicitly state that all that composes a life form must be advantageous. Regardless, where we see a resource intensive item such as the brain, we can also reasonably conclude that some redundancy would be built in, and such redundancy could then be used to do other things, such as contemplation...

So evolution selects for "contemplation"? I thought evolution selects for adaptive behavior! Do you believe that SME (subjective mental experience) actually leads to adaptive behavior? Most non-theists believe it is the ephemeral illusion which arises from physical processes that do whatever it is that they do quite apart from the epiphenomenon of SME.

...an argument from incredulity. What we know, or reasonably conclude, is that the brain is where our thoughts are stored, and that such thoughts could not take form without the physical brain being there...The question is, is it reasonable to conclude a god created humans. Thus far I've seen you propose a volitional entity that I contend would require some form of physicality. As such, we start to wonder if this entity has physicality, then what caused that physicality...Positing a volitional agent without physical form is, I contend, not a rational argument...

Okay, we're finally down to the heart of the matter. I'm going to get back to this question in my next post, when I have time. But for now, at least you have some of my preliminary responses/objections to some of the points you raise.

[Xian Pugilist]

From Post 9 here:

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said " For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator.
...

My emboldenizationin'.

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

Reasonable, able to reason a conclusion regarding...

Rational, able to think it out logically.

Reason, is determined by our observations and knowledge.
Rational is determined by our particular "logic".

IF there is a creator God, as the faith's you question presents, then said God would live outside the creation. Being supra/supernatural would not be bound in the laws within the creation, so would be outside of the reasoning and rationalizing we have.

So, yes it's unreasonable.

Let me flip the question to you, In the late 400 bce a dude named Democritus resolved that if you continued dividing a piece of matter in half, you would get smaller and smaller until you couldn't see it and he called that last and final piece ATOM.

Aristotle (tutor of Alexendar known as the Great) foofooed the idea and it went away. Since it was unreasonable at the time, and irrational at the time, does that mean it didn't exist? Did Atom's only exist after man could comprehend them? You know the answer isn't yes.

So the answer is, it may be irrational, and unreasonable, but that doesn't exclude Him from being. We simply haven't amassed an ability to find Him, prove Him, etc... I don't see it ever happening, but, I'm quite sure of His existance.

Is that a fair question?

[EduChris]

...Positing a volitional agent without physical form is, I contend, not a rational argument...

The "evidence" that we have is our entire physical universe. What we seek is a rational explanation for this universe--particuarly, the "specificity" of the universe (to use ThatGirlAgain's terminology). Our universe is not some amorphous, uninteresting, inert blob, but rather a highly organized, information-laden, consciousness-inhabited spectacle, which, so far as we can tell, didn't have to exist.

No one claims to know all of the precise steps which came together to produce this universe, with all of its very specific physical "laws." However, we have the following general options:

1) Chance. This is the "Poof! It just happened!" option. On the one hand, it's form is like an explanation, but in reality, it is a lack of an explanation. When we explain something in terms of "chance," it means that we do not have a full and complete causal chain for all of the steps involved. As a practical matter, sometimes we might be wrong to attribute something to "chance." In such cases, there really is an explanation, but we just haven't discovered it yet. But I am not using "chance" in this way here; when I speak of "chance" as the explanation for the specificity of our universe, I mean that there literally is no complete causal chain which explains the universe from start to finish. In this scenario, the explanation for our universe is simply that it was somehow possible, and we just happened to pop into existence for no particular reason at all, without any need to address the question of whether any other universe(s) might also have popped into existence.

2) Necessity. This is the "Omniverse" option--all possibilities are necessarily instantiated. We don't know how many universes are actually possible, but the simplest assumption is an infinite number. In this universe, I ate Cheerios for breakfast. Although it might seem like I could have eaten Corn Flakes instead, in reality I could not have done so; that option was already taken in some other universe. This explanation eliminates the need to explain why our specific universe came to be: there wasn't any option. All possible universes just had to become actualized, and it just happens that we are in this universe--with its set of possibilities assigned to become actualized--rather than in one of the multitudes of other universes.

3) Volition. This is the theistic option. In order to rule out this option, we have two options: 1) we could present a very strong argument that our human volition is an illusion, a chimera, an impotent mirage which does not actually cause anything to happen in our universe, wherein absolutely everything derives from chance and/or necessity; or 2) we could present a very strong argument that volition cannot exist in the absence of some highly specific physical substructure (such as our brain).

The first problem with the "volition-as-illusion" option is that we have excellent prima facie evidence that our personal volition does cause (or select) certain things to happen, for the purpose of realizing some subjective value. This prima facie evidence is as direct and unmediated as anything could ever be, and so the burden of proof needed to deny the efficacy of our volition seems insurmountable. The second problem with the "volition-as-illusion" option is that we have a diffiicult time explaining how evolution could have produced conscious thoughts which have no bearing whatsoever on behavior. Conscious thoughts which do not affect behavior in any way cannot have been built and honed according to adaptive advantage, for the very reason that these conscious thoughts produced no behaviors at all. Thus the "evolutionary accident" explanation for SME seems too ad hoc to be taken seriously, especially since we apparently do use our inner conscious subjective thought life to weigh and evaluate arguments, resulting in specific behaviors every single day.

The problem with the "volition-requires-physicality" option is that we don't know this. We can't know this. When it comes right down to it, we don't even know what "physicality" is. We sometimes assume that we know, but yet appearances can be deceiving. We are not solid masses, but rather mostly empty space. Physicists seem to be finding newer and smaller particles every year, and now we have begun to speak of "virtual particles" as opposed to "real particles." No one has ever seen a virtual particle, or even a real particle; these are just hypothetical postulates that help us explain and predict results of very complicated experiments and procedures, all of which are multiply mediated through any number of mechanical apparati and any number of human observers, each of whom might interpret the results in various ways. At the end of the day, we don't know what our subjective mental experience really is: we can't measure it or weigh it. We can tamper with it in various ways, by poking around in the brain, but this hardly proves that an actual brain is required for SME, any more than a leaky straw proves that there is no water in the glass.

So any way we look at it, we apparently have some sort of "possibility reservoir" from which our very specific universe became actualized. The "chance" option doesn't give us an actual explanation, and it seems entirely ad hoc. The "necessity" option requires an infinite number of other universes, the majority of which will be amorphous blobs, in order to avoid the ad hoc problem. But we have no empirical evidence for these other universes, nor can we have ever have any empirical evidence for them, even in principle, since we don't have the luxury of getting outside our own universe to observe these putative universes.

This leaves us with the third option. If this option can be shown to be logically impossible, then we should pick one of the other options--either one, actually, since it wouldn't make any difference if volition is an illusion.

But we don't have any good basis for excluding volition, and every reason for retaining it. The "volition" option is the least ad hoc, the most privative, and in best accord with our natural sense of who we are as persons. This option alone provides the possibility that some answers to some questions are actually better than other answers. This option alone provides the necessary metaphysical framework for the sort of wordview most of us employ in our daily lives. For all of these reasons and more, most people have been, are, and will continue to be, theists.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

This seems our principle bone of contention, so let's mark it by itself...

...Positing a volitional agent without physical form is, I contend, not a rational argument...

The "evidence" that we have is our entire physical universe. What we seek is a rational explanation for this universe--particuarly, the "specificity" of the universe (to use ThatGirlAgain's terminology).

I'm not so sure if I accept a charge of specificity. Such language seems too subjective (while admitting here we are subjectivin' to beat the band).

I note also that where I propose a volitional agent would require physicality, you present the physical universe as evidence it doesn't.

Our universe is not some amorphous, uninteresting...

Uninteresting is a purely subjective value.

inert blob...

A "blob" is what we make of it. Where some see a "blob", others may see an amoeba.

but rather a highly organized...

By who's determination must we consider the universe "organized"?

information-laden...

I contend that where there's something, there's information to be had. Upon considering such, a charge of "information laden" is only dependent on one's ability to investigate.

consciousness-inhabited spectacle...

This is where I contend all evidence indicates that consciousness-inhabited would be a product of the brain, a physical form, as expressed through the mind.

"Spectacle" of course being a rather incredulous position, but danged if I don't agree.

which, so far as we can tell, didn't have to exist.

I can agree with that, with a qualifier to follow...

No one claims to know all of the precise steps which came together to produce this universe, with all of its very specific physical "laws." However, we have the following general options:

1) Chance...

Snipped for brevity and for I'm kinda with ya here.

I would add that as above, where you declare "didn't have to exist", you are positing a position based on chance, but saying such a position is not warranted.

2) Necessity. This is the "Omniverse" option--all possibilities are necessarily instantiated...

This is where I propose that necessity is the ultimate rule that things act according to their properties. In this fashion then, the universe could be considered "necessary" because of its own (pre-) composition.

We'll cover this next'n completely because it seems the fundamental deal here...

3) Volition. This is the theistic option. In order to rule out this option, we have two options: 1) we could present a very strong argument that our human volition is an illusion, a chimera, an impotent mirage which does not actually cause anything to happen in our universe, wherein absolutely everything derives from chance and/or necessity; or 2) we could present a very strong argument that volition cannot exist in the absence of some highly specific physical substructure (such as our brain).

Of course we have more data to sift through, but I'm gonna point out the notion that EduChris seemingly accepts that volition can't exist without some physical structure (with apologies if that ain't what he's getting at here).

The first problem with the "volition-as-illusion" option is that we have excellent prima facie evidence that our personal volition does cause (or select) certain things to happen, for the purpose of realizing some subjective value. This prima facie evidence is as direct and unmediated as anything could ever be, and so the burden of proof needed to deny the efficacy of our volition seems insurmountable.

I don't argue that our volition need be efficient, but that there it is, as expressed in the physical brain.

The second problem with the "volition-as-illusion" option is that we have a diffiicult time explaining how evolution could have produced conscious thoughts which have no bearing whatsoever on behavior.

Where I perceive light, it has little impact on my hearing. Thus, the perception of light need not impact on my behavior, except for when it does.

Conscious thoughts which do not affect behavior in any way cannot have been built and honed according to adaptive advantage, for the very reason that these conscious thoughts produced no behaviors at all.

As above, where I perceive light, that notion need not impact on my ability to know a fire, which produces light, may be a good way to cook a biscuit. Thus, my sense of taste is impacted, somewhat tangentially, by my sense of sight.

I contend that our perceptions of our various senses have presented in us an ability to extrapolate, and that such is not in conflict with the ToE (not that you directly argue against it).

Thus the "evolutionary accident" explanation for SME seems too ad hoc to be taken seriously, especially since we apparently do use our inner conscious subjective thought life to weigh and evaluate arguments, resulting in specific behaviors every single day.

When something "seems", we are displaying our ability to cognitize, to think, to discern, and such are or is the very product, best we can tell, of a physical brain.

The problem with the "volition-requires-physicality" option is that we don't know this. We can't know this.
...

I contend this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, where you propose we can't know it ain't, so therefore it is.

When it comes right down to it, we don't even know what "physicality" is. We sometimes assume that we know, but yet appearances can be deceiving. We are not solid masses, but rather mostly empty space.

With all respect, this reeks of a "god of the gaps" argument - noting you're willing to clarify.

Physicists seem to be finding newer and smaller particles every year, and now we have begun to speak of "virtual particles" as opposed to "real particles." No one has ever seen a virtual particle, or even a real particle; these are just hypothetical postulates that help us explain and predict results of very complicated experiments and procedures, all of which are multiply mediated through any number of mechanical apparati and any number of human observers, each of whom might interpret the results in various ways. At the end of the day, we don't know what our subjective mental experience really is: we can't measure it or weigh it. We can tamper with it in various ways, by poking around in the brain, but this hardly proves that an actual brain is required for SME, any more than a leaky straw proves that there is no water in the glass.

This condition does nothing to show that a volitional agent wouldn't require physicality. What it does is show that where we don't know something, some'll insert a god into that gap. I say that with the full appreciation that I may misunderstand what you're getting at.

So any way we look at it, we apparently have some sort of "possibility reservoir" from which our very specific universe became actualized.

I fear the use of "specific" in this sense may be borne of an entity observing such from within. It is a subjective term, even if one may produce objective criteria for determining just how "specific" this universe may be.

The "chance" option doesn't give us an actual explanation, and it seems entirely ad hoc.

Agreed, if we discount the purely mathematical notion of "danged if there it ain't, and what are the odds on that".

The "necessity" option requires an infinite number of other universes...

I'm not so sure it does, where necessity would be understood as stuff acting according to its properties.

the majority of which will be amorphous blobs, in order to avoid the ad hoc problem.

Okay, so the majority of all other universes are amorphous blobs. Here we sit in one that aint. How might such a condition show us the rational take is that a god created humans?

But we have no empirical evidence for these other universes, nor can we have ever have any empirical evidence for them, even in principle, since we don't have the luxury of getting outside our own universe to observe these putative universes.

So then, we discount as irrational a belief in other universes, and sit here wondering my we should consider a god as creating this'n, so by extension, humans.

This leaves us with the third option. If this option can be shown to be logically impossible, then we should pick one of the other options--either one, actually, since it wouldn't make any difference if volition is an illusion.

But we don't have any good basis for excluding volition, and every reason for retaining it.

By what rationale should we include volition if we don't contend that such is borne of a physical brain (or analogous component)?

The "volition" option is the least ad hoc, the most privative, and in best accord with our natural sense of who we are as persons.

While I contend it's a very ad hoc position, given that it refuses to accept that volition, through thought, is seen as a component of a physical brain.

This option alone provides the possibility that some answers to some questions are actually better than other answers.

Providing for a possibility is not providing for a most rational basis. It's possible I'm smart, but impossible to find an entire planet that'll agree with me about it.

This option alone provides the necessary metaphysical framework for the sort of wordview most of us employ in our daily lives. For all of these reasons and more, most people have been, are, and will continue to be, theists.

Argumentum ad populum.

[Mithrae]

The "volition" option is the least ad hoc, the most privative, and in best accord with our natural sense of who we are as persons.

While I contend it's a very ad hoc position, given that it refuses to accept that volition, through thought, is seen as a component of a physical brain.

I hope you don't mind me butting in, but as you note this does seem to be a core point of disagreement, and it seems to me that EduChris has offered two points here which you haven't really answered.

In his prior post, the hypothetical suggestion that far-future technologies might possibly produce computers "comprised of pure energy and virtual quantum particles" which possess the capacity for thought/volition some folk say will be achieved by our mundane metal and plastic computers this very century. Obviously even the latter, if it occurred, would show that volition/thought needn't come from a brain. I'm not sure whether you deny or doubt the future possibility of 'computers' with a similar capacity for thought and choice as our own? But assuming for now that you do not, your objection would not really be that thoughts and choices come from brains, but that they come from physical stuff.

• EduChris wrote:
  Physicists seem to be finding newer and smaller particles every year, and now we have begun to speak of "virtual particles" as opposed to "real particles." No one has ever seen a virtual particle, or even a real particle; these are just hypothetical postulates that help us explain and predict results of very complicated experiments and procedures, all of which are multiply mediated through any number of mechanical apparati and any number of human observers, each of whom might interpret the results in various ways. At the end of the day, we don't know what our subjective mental experience really is: we can't measure it or weigh it. We can tamper with it in various ways, by poking around in the brain, but this hardly proves that an actual brain is required for SME, any more than a leaky straw proves that there is no water in the glass.
  
  JoeyKnothead wrote:
  This condition does nothing to show that a volitional agent wouldn't require physicality. What it does is show that where we don't know something, some'll insert a god into that gap. I say that with the full appreciation that I may misunderstand what you're getting at.

I could be misunderstanding him too, but I think what he's getting at is that the word 'physical' - which we associate with tables, houses, planets and so on - can often imply limitations which the available evidence does not support.

To use a different term, what I'm aware of regarding our current knowledge or strong theories about 'stuff' is that:
- there are several different types of 'quarks,' several different types of 'leptons,' and several different types of 'bosons' which, as far as we currently know, make up all the stuff
- there are four fundamental ways in which bits of stuff interact with other bits of stuff (called gravitation, weak interaction, strong interaction and electro-magnetism)
- there are four inter-related 'dimensions,' which don't serve as a mere substrate or place to be for stuff, but are themselves actually affected by it
- there's a great deal more 'dark stuff' in the known universe than there is 'regular stuff,' but we don't know anything much at all about it
- the tables, houses, planets and so on which we see and touch are mostly not stuff at all; there's really very little stuff on earth, let alone in the universe as a whole
- far as we can tell, stuff doesn't have a single discernable nature, instead behaving both as we'd conceive a particle might and as a wave might

Now supposing it's true that volition does have to come from stuff, what have we reliably learned? Or what possibilities can we reliably exclude?

[Flail]

...Positing a volitional agent without physical form is, I contend, not a rational argument...

The "evidence" that we have is our entire physical universe. What we seek is a rational explanation for this universe--particuarly, the "specificity" of the universe (to use ThatGirlAgain's terminology). Our universe is not some amorphous, uninteresting, inert blob, but rather a highly organized, information-laden, consciousness-inhabited spectacle, which, so far as we can tell, didn't have to exist.

No one claims to know all of the precise steps which came together to produce this universe, with all of its very specific physical "laws." However, we have the following general options:

1) Chance. This is the "Poof! It just happened!" option. On the one hand, it's form is like an explanation, but in reality, it is a lack of an explanation. When we explain something in terms of "chance," it means that we do not have a full and complete causal chain for all of the steps involved. As a practical matter, sometimes we might be wrong to attribute something to "chance." In such cases, there really is an explanation, but we just haven't discovered it yet. But I am not using "chance" in this way here; when I speak of "chance" as the explanation for the specificity of our universe, I mean that there literally is no complete causal chain which explains the universe from start to finish. In this scenario, the explanation for our universe is simply that it was somehow possible, and we just happened to pop into existence for no particular reason at all, without any need to address the question of whether any other universe(s) might also have popped into existence.

2) Necessity. This is the "Omniverse" option--all possibilities are necessarily instantiated. We don't know how many universes are actually possible, but the simplest assumption is an infinite number. In this universe, I ate Cheerios for breakfast. Although it might seem like I could have eaten Corn Flakes instead, in reality I could not have done so; that option was already taken in some other universe. This explanation eliminates the need to explain why our specific universe came to be: there wasn't any option. All possible universes just had to become actualized, and it just happens that we are in this universe--with its set of possibilities assigned to become actualized--rather than in one of the multitudes of other universes.

3) Volition. This is the theistic option. In order to rule out this option, we have two options: 1) we could present a very strong argument that our human volition is an illusion, a chimera, an impotent mirage which does not actually cause anything to happen in our universe, wherein absolutely everything derives from chance and/or necessity; or 2) we could present a very strong argument that volition cannot exist in the absence of some highly specific physical substructure (such as our brain).

The first problem with the "volition-as-illusion" option is that we have excellent prima facie evidence that our personal volition does cause (or select) certain things to happen, for the purpose of realizing some subjective value. This prima facie evidence is as direct and unmediated as anything could ever be, and so the burden of proof needed to deny the efficacy of our volition seems insurmountable. The second problem with the "volition-as-illusion" option is that we have a diffiicult time explaining how evolution could have produced conscious thoughts which have no bearing whatsoever on behavior. Conscious thoughts which do not affect behavior in any way cannot have been built and honed according to adaptive advantage, for the very reason that these conscious thoughts produced no behaviors at all. Thus the "evolutionary accident" explanation for SME seems too ad hoc to be taken seriously, especially since we apparently do use our inner conscious subjective thought life to weigh and evaluate arguments, resulting in specific behaviors every single day.

The problem with the "volition-requires-physicality" option is that we don't know this. We can't know this. When it comes right down to it, we don't even know what "physicality" is. We sometimes assume that we know, but yet appearances can be deceiving. We are not solid masses, but rather mostly empty space. Physicists seem to be finding newer and smaller particles every year, and now we have begun to speak of "virtual particles" as opposed to "real particles." No one has ever seen a virtual particle, or even a real particle; these are just hypothetical postulates that help us explain and predict results of very complicated experiments and procedures, all of which are multiply mediated through any number of mechanical apparati and any number of human observers, each of whom might interpret the results in various ways. At the end of the day, we don't know what our subjective mental experience really is: we can't measure it or weigh it. We can tamper with it in various ways, by poking around in the brain, but this hardly proves that an actual brain is required for SME, any more than a leaky straw proves that there is no water in the glass.

So any way we look at it, we apparently have some sort of "possibility reservoir" from which our very specific universe became actualized. The "chance" option doesn't give us an actual explanation, and it seems entirely ad hoc. The "necessity" option requires an infinite number of other universes, the majority of which will be amorphous blobs, in order to avoid the ad hoc problem. But we have no empirical evidence for these other universes, nor can we have ever have any empirical evidence for them, even in principle, since we don't have the luxury of getting outside our own universe to observe these putative universes.

This leaves us with the third option. If this option can be shown to be logically impossible, then we should pick one of the other options--either one, actually, since it wouldn't make any difference if volition is an illusion.

But we don't have any good basis for excluding volition, and every reason for retaining it. The "volition" option is the least ad hoc, the most privative, and in best accord with our natural sense of who we are as persons. This option alone provides the possibility that some answers to some questions are actually better than other answers. This option alone provides the necessary metaphysical framework for the sort of wordview most of us employ in our daily lives. For all of these reasons and more, most people have been, are, and will continue to be, theists.

Excellent and thought provoking summation. I have a question: on what basis do you conclude that theism is the default position from volition as opposed to deism? From my ignostic point of view, the specificity of particular Gods emanating from theism like the BibleGod or KoranGod etc are non-sensical; whereas I could concede some basis or argument for deism (a supreme supernatural creative entity of some sort that chooses not to intervene in the world).

[Xian Pugilist]

It seems the human brain is as much a mystery as what was the first particle of nothing that started this whole process.

We know hoe the brain works. We know the mechanics of it. Its chemical and electrical navigation. If you feel pleasure its two particular components coming together like a puzzle and the result is pleasure. What we can't answer yet is why they come together at certain, repeated times.

Well in a fight or flight scenario you are flooded with the right chemicals....but what told the chemicals that came together to give you the feeling of flight or fight? Something has to direct whicn chemicals do what when and where. You will say the eyes see and register the threat, the brain reacts. We just keep going deeper and deeper, what chemicals had to be connected and why were they suddenly connecting at that moment to cause the brain to release the chemicals to cause the thought that caused the chemicals that.... blah blah, its like how many times can you tear something in parts before there only remains something that can't be torn apart?

So, chemically speaking if we were to reproduce the brain, we could dump the right chemical combinations into a punch bowl and we would get all the combinations our minds can create. But why does the brain produce more of some than others? We controlled the intake to the bowl, but what floods the brain during orgasm or fear. How did the chemicals that connect to make the reaction evident to our brain know to be more, consistently at that point? They don't know....