David Roemer: free will
free will
What's that?
David Roemer: conscious knowledge
conscious knowledge
What would "unconscious knowledge" be?
David Roemer: embodied spirits
embodied spirits
What's that mean?
David Roemer: Humans are superior to animals
Humans are superior to animals
Superior for what?
David Roemer: The soul or form
The soul or form
What's a "soul" or "form"?
David Roemer: metaphysical principle or incomplete being
metaphysical principle or incomplete being
What's a "metaphysical principle" or "incomplete being"?
David Roemer: the human soul is spiritual
the human soul is spiritual
Maybe I would understand that claim if I knew what an "embodied spirit" was?
David Roemer: According to the science of evolution, the human body evolved from animals, not the human soul.
According to the science of evolution, the human body evolved from animals, not the human soul.
And maybe I would get what it would even mean to "evolve from the human soul" if I knew what a soul was?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
1) We know we have free will because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. We can comprehend free will, but we can't define it.
2) Conscious knowledge: Consider knowing that this page is white and black. This means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going to the brain. It means an awareness of this. What is it? There is the conscious knowledge of humans and the sense knowledge of animals. There is no such thing as unconscious knowledge.
3) Another way of saying humans are embodied spirits is that they are indefinabilities that become conscious of their own existence.
4) The soul is the metaphysical principle that makes humans members of the same category of being. The body is the principle that makes humans different from one another. Biologists need the concepts of body and soul to put the study of humans (embodied spirits) on a rational basis.
David Roemer
David Roemer: We know we have free will because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. We can comprehend free will, but we can't define it.
We know we have free will because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. We can comprehend free will, but we can't define it.
What's the difference between "comprehending" and "defining"?
(And, of course if you use the word "free will" to just mean knowing about ourselves, then nobody would even come close to denying that we have it.)
David Roemer: There is the conscious knowledge of humans and the sense knowledge of animals.
There is the conscious knowledge of humans and the sense knowledge of animals.
See this post (and this clarification) to see why I don't think that there's even a difference between those two things.
David Roemer: they are indefinabilities that become conscious of their own existence.
they are indefinabilities that become conscious of their own existence.
Well, I understand what it means to be conscious of your own existence (I mean, I know that I am).
But what's an "indefinability"?
David Roemer: members of the same category of being
members of the same category of being
What category of being would that be?
David Roemer: Biologists need the concepts of body and soul to put the study of humans (embodied spirits) on a rational basis.
Biologists need the concepts of body and soul to put the study of humans (embodied spirits) on a rational basis.
Did you explain why in your essay?
Liberalism is based upon a purely rational and scientific theory of social cooperation. The policies it recommends are the application of a system of knowledge which does not refer in any way to sentiments, intuitive creeds for which no logically sufficient proof can be provided, mystical experiences, and the personal awareness of superhuman phenomena. In this sense the often misunderstood and erroneously interpreted epithets atheistic and agnostic can be attributed to it. It would, however, be a serious mistake to conclude that the sciences of human action and the policy derived from their teachings, liberalism, are antitheistic and hostile to religion. They are radically opposed to all systems of theocracy. But they are entirely neutral with regard to religious beliefs which do not pretend to interfere with the conduct of social, political, and economic affairs.
Theocracy is a social system which lays claim to a superhuman title for its legitimation. The fundamental law of a theocratic regime is an insight not open to examination by reason and to demonstration by logical methods. Its ultimate standard is intuition providing the mind with subjective certainty about things which cannot be conceived by reason and ratiocination. If this intuition refers to one of the traditional systems of teaching concerning the existence of a Divine Creator and Ruler of the universe, we call it a religious belief. If it refers to another system we call it a metaphysical belief. Thus a system of theocratic government need not be founded on one of the great historical religions of the world. It may be the outcome of [p. 156] metaphysical tenets which reject all traditional churches and denominations and take pride in emphasizing their antitheistic and antimetaphysical character. In our time the most powerful theocratic parties are opposed to Christianity and to all other religions which evolved from Jewish monotheism. What characterizes them as theocratic is their craving to organize the earthly affairs of mankind according to the contents of a complex of ideas whose validity cannot be demonstrated by reasoning. They pretend that their leaders are blessed by a knowledge inaccessible to the rest of mankind and contrary to the ideas maintained by those to whom the charisma is denied. The charismatic leaders have been entrusted by a mystical higher power with the office of managing the affairs of erring mankind. They alone are enlightened; all other people are either blind and deaf or malefactors.
It is a fact that many varieties of the great historical religions were affected by theocratic tendencies. Their apostles were inspired by a craving for power and the oppression and annihilation of all dissenting groups. However, we must not confuse the two things, religion and theocracy.
William James calls religious "the feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine." [5] He enumerates the following beliefs as the characteristics of the religious life: That the visible world is part of a more spiritual universe from which it draws its chief significance; that union or harmonious relation with that higher universe is our true end; that prayer or inner communion with the spirit thereof?-?-be that spirit "God" or "law"?--is a process wherein work is really done, and spiritual energy flows in and produces effects, psychological or material, within the phenomenal world. Religion, James goes on to say, also includes the following psychological characteristics: A zest which adds itself like a gift to life, and takes the form either of lyrical enchantment or of appeal to earnestness and heroism, and furthermore an assurance of safety and a temper of peace, and, in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affection.[6]
This characterization of mankind's religious experience and feelings does not make any reference to the arrangement of social cooperation. Religion, as James sees it, is a purely personal and individual relation between man and a holy, mysterious, and awe???-inspiring divine Reality. It enjoins upon man a certain mode of individual conduct. But it does not assert anything with regard to the problems of social organization. [p. 157] St. Francis d'Assisi, the greatest religious genius of the West, did not concern himself with politics and economics. He wanted to teach his disciples how to live piously; he did not draft a plan for the organization of production and did not urge his followers to resort to violence against dissenters. He is not responsible for the interpretation of his teachings by the order he founded.
Liberalism puts no obstacles in the way of a man eager to adjust his personal conduct and his private affairs according to the mode in which he individually or his church or denomination interprets the teachings of the Gospels. But it is radically opposed to all endeavors to silence the rational discussion of problems of social welfare by an appeal to religious intuition and revelation. It does not enjoin divorce or the practice of birth control upon anybody. But it fights those who want to prevent other people from freely discussing the pros and cons of these matters.
In the liberal opinion the aim of the moral law is to impel individuals to adjust their conduct to the requirements of life in society, to abstain from all acts detrimental to the preservation of peaceful social cooperation and to the improvement of interhuman relations. Liberals welcome the support which religious teachings may give to those moral precepts of which they themselves approve, but they are opposed to all those norms which are bound to bring about social disintegration from whatever source they may stem.
It is a distortion of fact to say, as many champions of religious theocracy do, that liberalism fights religion. Where the principle of church interference with secular issues is in force, the various churches, denominations and sects are fighting one another. By separating church and state, liberalism establishes peace between the various religious factions and gives to each of them the opportunity to preach its gospel unmolested.
Liberalism is rationalistic. It maintains that it is possible to convince the immense majority that peaceful cooperation within the framework of society better serves their rightly understood interests than mutual battling and social disintegration. It has full confidence in man's reason. It may be that this optimism is unfounded and that the liberals have erred. But then there is no hope left for mankind's future.
------------
[3] Many economists, among them Adam Smith and Bastiat, believed in God. Hence they admired in the facts they had discovered the providential care of "the great Director of Nature." Atheist critics blame them for this attitude. However, these critics fail to realize that to sneer at the references to the "invisible hand" does not invalidate the essential teachings of the rationalist and utilitarian social philosophy. One must comprehend that the alternative is this: Either association is a human process because it best serves the aims of the individuals concerned and the individuals themselves have the ability to realize the advantages they derive from their adjustment to life in social cooperation. Or a superior being enjoins upon reluctant men subordination to the law and to the social authorities. It is of minor importance whether one calls this supreme being God, Weltgeist, Destiny, History, Wotan, or Material Productive Forces and what title one assigns to its apostles, the dictators.
[4] Cf. Max Stirner (Johan Kaspar Schmidt). The Ego and His Own, trans. by S.T. Byington (New York, 1907).
Hopefully that could be used as a guide as to how relgious discussion is kind of pointless within the framework we are trying to talk about. Also, bonus points for me for using Mises' reference in HA to Max Stirner.
Fuck arguing the soul. Human beings are superior to other animals, we are the only animals to bypass evolution and beat the time it takes to adapt soley by using our brains. That's an insane feat. We evolve through thinking.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
David Roemer--Gratuitous assumptions are gratuitous.
Libertyandlife: Human beings are superior to other animals, we are the only animals to bypass evolution and beat the time it takes to adapt soley by using our brains. That's an insane feat. We evolve through thinking.
Human beings are superior to other animals, we are the only animals to bypass evolution and beat the time it takes to adapt soley by using our brains. That's an insane feat. We evolve through thinking.
How does that make us "superior"?
And what are we superior for? In other words, superior for what?
I'm just saying in regards to evolution and what a species can accomplish, adaptability, we are superior. No other species has an imagination or such an ability to create. Then again insects will probably outlive us all.
I'm not arguing the soul. How'd this get to biology and religion so quickly?
When did humans evolve a soul?
Does the OP have a more precise definition for soul? Esoteric ideas like that can mean all kinds of things to different people- truly some cherish it- but what is it to you?
In my opinion, the term liberalism refers to a political movement that began with Machiavelli and ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Reagan-Thatcher tax-cuts, and welfare reform. A liberal is not a political movement but refers to someone who says things like, "Liberalism is based on a purely scientific and rational theory of social cooperation." This hogwash means laissez faire to some liberals and government ownership to other liberals.
The reference to "intuitive creeds for which no logically sufficient proof can be provided" is a derogatory reference to revealed religion. The author of this screed thinks people who believe in the Bible are his intellectual inferiors. Such people are immature and prone to political extremism.
It is absurd for a biologist to say, "free will evolved" because free will is not a scientific concept. We can comprehend free will because we have it. However, we can not explain, explicate, or define free will. But it is because humans have free will and animals don't that slavery is wrong, but it is okay to own animals and use them for food. Humans are a separate class or category of being.
While many liberals say, "free will is an illusion," they live their lives as if they have free will. They feel guilty when they do something wrong, apologize, and promise not to do it again. In any case, an honest scientist has to leave questions about human rationality aside and deal only with observable and measurable concepts. A biologist can do this with the metaphysical categories of form (soul) and matter (body), as I explained above. Biology is the study of the human body, not the human spiritual soul.
David Roemer: However, we can not explain, explicate, or define free will.
However, we can not explain, explicate, or define free will.
If you can't even tell us what you're talking about, why exactly should we listen to you?
David Roemer: free will is not a scientific concept
free will is not a scientific concept
What's the phrase "scientific concept" refer to?
David Roemer: We can comprehend free will because we have it.
We can comprehend free will because we have it.
How could I know whether I have something if I don't even know what it is?
David Roemer: humans have free will and animals don't
humans have free will and animals don't
Why don't animals have "free will" (whatever that means)?
David Roemer: They feel guilty when they do something wrong, apologize, and promise not to do it again.
They feel guilty when they do something wrong, apologize, and promise not to do it again.
Maybe because they're "determined" to do so?
David Roemer: In any case, an honest scientist has to leave questions about human rationality aside and deal only with observable and measurable concepts.
In any case, an honest scientist has to leave questions about human rationality aside and deal only with observable and measurable concepts.
So now your ideological enemies are a bunch of liars?
David Roemer: not the human spiritual soul.
not the human spiritual soul.
Honestly I still have no idea what that means.
My theory is that defining liberalism and conservatism in terms of concern for property rights is no longer relevant. This is my definition of liberalism: According to the Bible and the Koran, our purpose in life is to serve God in this world and be with him in the world to come. There are many who don’t believe this, but they keep their negative response to revelation to themselves and give religion to their children. They have the maturity to realize they are deprived of the gift of faith and a meaningful life. A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. This lack of integrity and immaturity makes them prone to political fanaticism.
So.. it's ok for you to assume moral superiority but nor for liberals (when in fact you mean a small subset of the liberal... and more imporatntly the atheist community, who many happen to be leftists [not necessarily liberals])?
I see
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
What is negative about liberalism is that liberals think religious faith is irrational.
If you're saying that libertarians think religious faith is irrational, then that's (1) extremely collectivist of you and (2) a joke. I'm very Catholic.
Haha, seriously. Whether you believe in God or are purely atheist (believing in evolution alone), human beings are superior to other animals.
Well I'd say that Marxism is more of a philosophy that entails both ideology and religion. In order to be a "true Marxist" you must be atheist. Or at least that's what self-proclaimed "true Marxists" claim.
Wasn't Marx against ideology in the first place? What can be a true Marxist but a person who embraces ideology and thus ends up rejecting Marx himself? I have started to guess that Marxism is not an ideology so much as a broad umbrella of thought under which many people fall. The word is used to describe people as disparate as Gramsci, Trotsky, Farrakhan, Malcolm X,.etc.
See, I think the whole philosophy/ideology/religion thing is actually separated by a thin line, and that's probably why, despite some Marxian socialists content being otherwise Christian (or Muslim or whatever religion), many of them end up taking their ideas to their logical endpoint, until you have socialists who condemn marriage and even taboo against pedophilia or adultery. The latter is an extreme case, but it's a sign of a socialist who has taken his ideas to a religious end.
Yet, you have James Burnham, who once identified himself as a socialist but still admired many philosophers other than Trotsky, such as Machiaevelli. He eventually called himself a conservative, after he was content with not all socialist ideas being applicable to the world. More of a philosopher than a rigid true believer.
Only a liberal would have pretend that they did not understand the concept of free will. Free will leads logically to God's existence, which means we may have to pay for our sins. Free will means we possess a center of action that makes us unified with respect to ourselves and different from other beings. It is because of free will that humans are finite beings. God is an infinite being.
Not all libertarians are liberals. Only the ones who think religious faith is irrational are liberals.
If you don't even tell me what your words point to, you're simply talking to yourself.
David Roemer: Only a liberal would have pretend that they did not understand the concept of free will.
Only a liberal would have pretend that they did not understand the concept of free will.
Understand what?
David Roemer: Free will leads logically to God's existence, which means we may have to pay for our sins.
Free will leads logically to God's existence, which means we may have to pay for our sins.
Where did you find that logical connection?
David Roemer: Free will means we possess a center of action
Free will means we possess a center of action
What's a "center of action"?
David Roemer: that makes us unified with respect to ourselves
that makes us unified with respect to ourselves
Unified how?
David Roemer: and different from other beings.
and different from other beings.
Different in what respect?
David Roemer: It is because of free will that humans are finite beings.
It is because of free will that humans are finite beings.
What's a "finite being"?
David Roemer: God is an infinite being.
God is an infinite being.
And what's an "infinite being"?
David Roemer:Not all libertarians are liberals. Only the ones who think religious faith is irrational are liberals.
So Soren Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, Karl Jaspers, and other Christian existentialist theologians are all liberals?
Political Atheists Blog
You and me are finite beings because we are different from one another. We also both exist. This means we are compositions of two incomplete beings or metaphysical principles: essence and existence. Our essence limits our existence to ourselves. God is a pure act of existence. God has existence, but no limiting essence. God is an infinite being.
One of the reasons to believe God has communicated himself to mankind is that the Jewish name for God is "Yahwey" (Exodus 3.14). This means, "I am who am." The human authors of Exodus did not know anything about essence and existence. They were inspired by God to get his name right.
Kierkegaard and Tillich are not liberals because they believe in life after death. Jaspers is a liberal because he makes a point of saying there is no life after death, I think. Liberal = believing in heaven and hell is unenlightened.
Liberalism is a political philosophy, stance, view or movement. It's not a religious or ontological viewpoint.
The trouble with defining liberalism as a political philosophy is that you have to spell out what that philosophy is. If the philosophy makes no sense and is irrational, you can't spell it out. The statement "human beings have rights" is nonsense. The only rights humans have are given to them by governments. (We can say U.S. citizens have more rights than Cuban citizens. ) Liberalism as a movement , however, can be defined as being made up of people who say "human beings have rights."
David Roemer:Karl Rahner gave a more general definition of power than is given by libertarians. Libertarians define power in terms of utility theory. Rahner defined power as the ability to affect somebodies consciousness without their consent. Before the fall of man, Adam and Eve interacted freely. The way I think of it is that if Eve tried to nag Adam, Adam could tune her out. After the fall, Adam and Eve were subject to death, concupiscence, and unwanted interference from each other.
By that definition of "power", typing this response to you gives me power over you. Also, no matter how much Adam could tune Eve out, she had power over him every time she nagged him.
David Roemer:It is completely arbitrary to define power in terms of force.
How is it any less arbitrary to define "power" in terms of affecting someone's consciousness without his consent?
David Roemer:Suppose you are stranded alone on an island, struggling to survive, and another weaker persons lands there. Should you cooperate or should you make that person your slave? Liberal answer: cooperation. Conservative answer: follow your conscience. The liberal answer makes no sense at all because we all know what utility theory says. There is no point in saying it twice. What to do in a concrete case depends on the circumstances. The conservative answer is the more rational one.
How is the conservative answer more rational? What is your definition of "rational"?
David Roemer:What is negative about liberalism is that liberals think religious faith is irrational.
What makes religious faith rational, in your view?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos, the basic idea is that liberals have a faith in rationality, which is itself irrational.
We can't answer the hardest questions about this universe through rationality, what with chaos theory and everything.
Prateek Sanjay:Autolykos, the basic idea is that liberals have a faith in rationality, which is itself irrational. We can't answer the hardest questions about this universe through rationality, what with chaos theory and everything.
How are you defining "rational" and "rationality", Prateek?
Mr. Roemer, I hope you don't mind if I respond to several posts of yours within one post of mine.
David Roemer:Since humans have free will and conscious knowledge, they are embodied spirits.
I fail to see how embodiment of spirit follows from having free will and conscious knowledge. Can you provide your reasoning for this?
David Roemer:1) We know we have free will because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. We can comprehend free will, but we can't define it.
How can one comprehend something without defining it, at least implicitly?
David Roemer:2) Conscious knowledge: Consider knowing that this page is white and black. This means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going to the brain. It means an awareness of this. What is it? There is the conscious knowledge of humans and the sense knowledge of animals. There is no such thing as unconscious knowledge.
How do you know whether animals have awareness of things like "whiteness" and "blackness"? If there's no such thing as unconscious knowledge, why not simply use "knowledge" and define it as implicitly requiring consciousness?
David Roemer:3) Another way of saying humans are embodied spirits is that they are indefinabilities that become conscious of their own existence.
Would you say that becoming conscious of something is the same as comprehending it?
David Roemer:4) The soul is the metaphysical principle that makes humans members of the same category of being. The body is the principle that makes humans different from one another. Biologists need the concepts of body and soul to put the study of humans (embodied spirits) on a rational basis.
Once again, can you please explain what you mean by "rational"?
David Roemer:The reference to "intuitive creeds for which no logically sufficient proof can be provided" is a derogatory reference to revealed religion. The author of this screed thinks people who believe in the Bible are his intellectual inferiors. Such people are immature and prone to political extremism.
How does one determine whether his religious revelations are true? Or are they all true by definition, according to you?
What is it that leads from believing religious revelations are irrational to immaturity and political extremism, in your view? Or again, are you simply defining "immaturity" as "believing religious revelations are irrational" and "political extremism" as "political movements founded upon such belief"?
David Roemer:It is absurd for a biologist to say, "free will evolved" because free will is not a scientific concept. We can comprehend free will because we have it. However, we can not explain, explicate, or define free will. But it is because humans have free will and animals don't that slavery is wrong, but it is okay to own animals and use them for food. Humans are a separate class or category of being.
Why can't "free will" be a scientific concept? How are you defining "scientific concept"? Why can't we define "free will"?
David Roemer:While many liberals say, "free will is an illusion," they live their lives as if they have free will. They feel guilty when they do something wrong, apologize, and promise not to do it again. In any case, an honest scientist has to leave questions about human rationality aside and deal only with observable and measurable concepts. A biologist can do this with the metaphysical categories of form (soul) and matter (body), as I explained above. Biology is the study of the human body, not the human spiritual soul.
That presumes there is such a thing as what you call "the human spiritual soul". Is it possible for free will to be an illusion, but also be a useful illusion when it comes to human behavior?
David Roemer:Only a liberal would have pretend that they did not understand the concept of free will. Free will leads logically to God's existence, which means we may have to pay for our sins. Free will means we possess a center of action that makes us unified with respect to ourselves and different from other beings. It is because of free will that humans are finite beings. God is an infinite being.
Please explain how free will leads logically to God's existence. As far as I can tell, you haven't done this yet.
David Roemer:The trouble with defining liberalism as a political philosophy is that you have to spell out what that philosophy is. If the philosophy makes no sense and is irrational, you can't spell it out. The statement "human beings have rights" is nonsense. The only rights humans have are given to them by governments. (We can say U.S. citizens have more rights than Cuban citizens. ) Liberalism as a movement , however, can be defined as being made up of people who say "human beings have rights."
Where do you think governments get the ability to give people rights?
I said that in half jest. I didn't really mean it.
But if I were serious, I guess it's the idea that observing things and deducing from them will lead you to the truth - that's not going to be feasible when things change faster than you can observe them. That's what the chaos theory tells us.
Prateek Sanjay:I said that in half jest. I didn't really mean it.
Sorry, I had no way of knowing that. But thanks for telling me.
Prateek Sanjay:But if I were serious, I guess it's the idea that observing things and deducing from them will lead you to the truth - that's not going to be feasible when things change faster than you can observe them. That's what the chaos theory tells us.
Things changing faster than current observation techniques in no way invalidates the general principles of observation and deduction.
This is turning out to be like that "Ask a Marxist anything" thread. The guy gets dogpiled by everyone here and can evade the hard questions by scattering back a bunch of quick responses to the numerous challenges. This of course prompts more dogpiling, rinse and repeat.
Maybe instead of having massive lists of quotes with one-line responses, one or two posters can discuss his central ideas one at a time?
Defining power in terms of affecting another person's consciousness without their consent includes coercion. It is more general.
If you are stranded on an island with another person, slavery might be called for. You may need a beast of burden and cannot afford to pay. The slave may grumble from time to time, but suppose the slave thanks you for being tough with him?
There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason we know something is true because we can see the truth of it. In faith, we know something is true because God is telling us. I am giving you my reasons to believe and am summoning you to believe. I am not demanding belief or criticizing you for not believing.
David Roemer:Defining power in terms of affecting another person's consciousness without their consent includes coercion. It is more general.
So what? Why are more general definitions better or, at least, less arbitrary?
Regardless, if we go along with your implicit assertion (as noted above), we should define "power" such that everything that exists, has ever existed, or could ever exist falls under it. After all, that's the most general definition that can be used for any word, right?
David Roemer:If you are stranded on an island with another person, slavery might be called for. You may need a beast of burden and cannot afford to pay. The slave may grumble from time to time, but suppose the slave thanks you for being tough with him?
I fail to see how this denotes or demonstrates a fundamental distinction between "the liberal mindset" and "the conservative mindset". Can you please explain how it does?
David Roemer:There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason we know something is true because we can see the truth of it. In faith, we know something is true because God is telling us. I am giving you my reasons to believe and am summoning you to believe. I am not demanding belief or criticizing you for not believing.
What makes faith knowledge? How are you defining "knowledge"?
In your description of faith, you assume that the God of the Bible exists. Yet you've also claimed that the God of the Bible's existence can be proven by reason. So which is it? Can the God of the Bible be proven to exist, or must he simply be assumed to exist? If the latter, why should anyone else agree with that assumption?
Can you please respond to this post?
David Roemer:Kierkegaard and Tillich are not liberals because they believe in life after death. Jaspers is a liberal because he makes a point of saying there is no life after death, I think. Liberal = believing in heaven and hell is unenlightened.
But previously you stated that anyone who believes that faith is irrational is a liberal! Surely then, Kierkegaard and Tillich are liberals?
1) What makes humans different from animals is free will, conscious knowledge, mental beings, and human speech. None of these things can be defined. They are not scientific concepts. Hence, humans are indefinabilites. Since we have bodies, we are embodied spirits: indefinable = embodied spirit.
2) We don't know whether or not animals have conscious knowledge and free will because animals don't speak.
3) An example of irrationality is saying, "free will is an illusion." Being and reason are fundamental metaphysical concepts and can't be defined.
4) I believe in revelation for three reasons: 1) historical events, 2) the proof of God's existence, and 3) people who don't believe give bad reasons for not believing.
5) Free will isn't a scientific concept because we don't know of it from our senses.
6) Free will means that humans are finite beings. But finite beings need a cause. If every being in the universe needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, an infinite being exists.
7) Governments get the ability to give people rights because they have power over people.
Please explain how this isn't a series of non-sequitors? Are you basically saying "the universe had to come from somewhere, therefore god exists"? If that's the case then the "rational" definition of the divine is so vauge that most if not all of the assertations you're making in this thread are baseless assumptions rather than logical proofs.
Thanks for responding, Mr. Roemer. My responses to you are below.
David Roemer:1) What makes humans different from animals is free will, conscious knowledge, mental beings, and human speech. None of these things can be defined. They are not scientific concepts. Hence, humans are indefinabilites. Since we have bodies, we are embodied spirits: indefinable = embodied spirit.
You assert (again) that "free will" and "conscious knowledge", now along with "mental being" and "human speech", can't be defined. Why not?
Thanks just the same for explaining that you consider "spirit" to be the same as "something that is undefinable".
David Roemer:2) We don't know whether or not animals have conscious knowledge and free will because animals don't speak.
Is that the only possible way to find out whether animals have conscious knowledge or free will?
David Roemer:3) An example of irrationality is saying, "free will is an illusion." Being and reason are fundamental metaphysical concepts and can't be defined.
Thanks for the example, but I still don't understand what you mean by "rational". Can you please tell me?
David Roemer:4) I believe in revelation for three reasons: 1) historical events, 2) the proof of God's existence, and 3) people who don't believe give bad reasons for not believing.
Do you consider "believing in [something]" to be the same as "determining that [something] is true"? Why or why not?
Otherwise, can you please explain those three points in more detail?
David Roemer:5) Free will isn't a scientific concept because we don't know of it from our senses.
How do we not know of it from our senses? Couldn't we say that, whenever we see a person doing something, we're observing free will?
Either way, if we don't know of free will from our senses, how do we know of it?
David Roemer:6) Free will means that humans are finite beings. But finite beings need a cause. If every being in the universe needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, an infinite being exists.
As I mentioned before, "an infinite being" is in no way necessarily the same as "the God of the Bible".
David Roemer:7) Governments get the ability to give people rights because they have power over people.
By "power", do you mean "physical force" or "the ability to affect a person's consciousness without his consent"? Either way, where does government's power over people come from?
The basic idea is that a finite being needs a cause. The reason is a finite being can't exist except as finite. Hence, a finite being can't be the reason for its own existence. There must be some other being that caused it. If the other being is finite, that being needs a cause. Hence there must exist at least one being that is not finite.
I don't think the concept of an infinite being is vague. A finite being is a composition of essence and existence. An infinite being is a pure act of existence.