wintermute

I agree that "before we can look at a brainscan ... we have to exist as mental beings"; however, to exist as mental beings requires brain activity. It is impossible to prove that the mind precedes matter because matter is the only medium through which we experience existence. To illustrate the problem, let me ask you two questions: did you exist as a "mental being" prior to your physical conception? If so, how would you prove it?

I'm interested in the question of whether or not God is real. Why does it seem confusing or strange to you that a person would be interested in this perennial question? What I'm asking is why Atheists think God is self-contradictory. It can't be due to God's "complexity" because this isn't even a definable thing.

I think your explanation is plausible, but I don't think there is any way to prove it because there is nothing observable which is not moved by something else. Both emotions and wave-particles are caused in all cases we can observe, both dissipate over time, and neither one can be observed to spontaneously manifest in a true vacuum.

These are good questions. Since each would require an extensive essay, let me focus on what seems like the simplest to answer: "...what in your reality have you observed that is a display of these qualities of omnipotence or omniscience?" I would answer this in two ways: one positively and one negatively. Negatively, I've seen nothing which conclusively proves that omnipotence is not possible. Positively, I believe in the law of entropy, and this has power over the entire universe to destroy it. This seems like omnipotence; however, there must be a creative force more powerful than entropy in order to explain the origin of reality. Returning to the original question, I have not observed anything in reality displaying omnipotence; it is the observation of reality itself that displays the quality of an omnipotent creative power. Omniscience is more difficult. This is because I do not have a clear idea of what "sentience" means. Most people agree that walls and doors are not sentience, but the same could be said of neurons and blood vessels. At what level of anatomy does a human being become "sentient"? Do multiple humans have "sentience" beyond the individuals? At what stage in life do humans gain and lose the quality of "sentience"? Questions like these must be answered before I can hope to approach the problem of omniscience.

This sounds like an adhoc argument. Why do you feel it necessary to postulate an eternal, self-causing bundle of emotionally-charged stimuli rather than a simple, unemotional wave-particle?

I think it is safe to say that any recognizable form of Christianity will include belief in a personal and eternal god with the properties of omniscience and omnipotence. Even early semi-Christian systems such as Gnosticism, Nestorianism, and Arianism accepted this. It is not necessary to debate the "branches" (Scripture, infallibility, free will, etc.). The root of the question is whether or it is possible for a being to possess the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and sentience. If "complexity" is not a valid reason for denying this possibility, what is?

I was brought up Christian, I pray and read Scripture on a daily basis, and I attend Mass periodically, though not regularly. I don't feel qualified to answer the very large question of what it means to "believe" and whether or not I qualify. What I do feel qualified to say is that I want to believe in what is real. To that end, I want is to answer the question: is God self-contradictory? I've read "Against the Gods" several times, and I found the reasons given there for God's self-contradiction both extremely thought-provoking and also unsatisfying. By "unsatisfying" I mean that the full implications of these questions were not discussed in the book, so I thought I would explore each more fully on the forums. Each argument raised such a formidable array of deep questions in my mind that I felt it best to isolate each argument within its own discussion, so far as possible. The issue at hand (the complexity of an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent god) touches upon several difficult questions: What do we mean by "complex"? Is "omnipotence" conceivable? What is "sentient"? Is it possible to be "eternal"? I agree with thebeardslastcall that "complex" is a subjective standard in the sense that the same thing can be described either as "complex" or as "simple" depending on what aspect of that thing you are describing; therefore, I suggest that perhaps "complexity" is a distraction from the the other questions mentioned above: "is 'omnipotence' conceivable?", "what is 'sentient'?" and "is it possible to be 'eternal'?" I'm not sure I agree that Stefan is intentionally attempting to create a straw man of God, but I am open the possibility that this was his intention. Nevertheless, his arguments raise substantial questions. Perhaps my original post should have been: "are omnipotence, sentience, and eternity possible either in isolation or in combination" because the question of why someone would say God is complex is less significant that the above questions.

In "Against the Gods" (available from https://freedomainradio.com/free/). Stefan gives four reasons why gods are contradictory. These are described in the section "Why Are Gods Self-Contradictory?". The first reason is that: "Since gods are portrayed as the most complex beings imaginable, they may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them." The premise that gods are portrayed as complex does not correlate with the concept of God as historically developed in the West. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy begins its article on "Divine Simplicity" by bluntly stating: "Divine simplicity is central to the classical Western concept of God." (Para. 1, Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/).The Encyclopedia stresses that the concept of Divine Simplicity is not unique to Christianity but developed from Plato and Aristotle: "The Platonic idea of a highest principle, combining supreme unity and utter perfection, strongly influenced Jewish and early Christian discussions of God’s supreme unity and perfection. . . . Aristotle’s first mover is a simple, unchanging form that still causally affects other beings... The Platonic notion of a supreme perfection at a remove from all things and Aristotle’s causally efficacious, disembodied mind would combine to suggest a powerful model for Western theologians seeking language to describe God’s nature." (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Divine Simplicity", section "1. Origins", para. 1). God is specifically described as simple, not complex in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts — a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God." (Catholic Encyclopedia > G > The Nature and Attributes of God, "Simplicity of God", Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC). Radio Replies Vol. 1 also specifically defines God as being simple: "God is a spiritual, substantial, personal being, infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, absolutely simple or lacking composition, immutable, happy in Himself and by Himself, and infinitely superior to all that is or can be conceived apart from Himself. He is incomprehensible in His infinite perfection by all lesser intelligences, although knowable as to the fact of His existence as Living Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immense, and distinct from all that He has created. That is what I mean by God." ([emphasis mine] "8. What do you mean by the term God?", Retrieved from http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=2). Why does Stefan say that "gods are portrayed as complex"?

Emotion comes in response to stimuli like everything else, so why is emotion a sufficient reason for anything?

Ah, I see what you mean at last. Let us assume that the Origin can "sense" itself. Why would this mean that it chooses to generate the multiverse?

The "intelligible alternative" is an "eternal machine" or "God particle" which causes perpetually by force of nature without will or consciousness. This causation would have to form a multiverse in order to account for the random variables in our own universe which allow for life to develop, but I do not know of a reason to say that such a scenario is not intelligible.

When you say, "The apparent brute facticity of the Creator's will is a necessary component of consciousness which is a necessary state." This sounds circular to me because it resolves to: 1. The Creator's will is appears as a brute fact 2. This apparent fact is necessarily associated with consciousness 3. Consciousness is therefore a necessary state of the Creator The problem with this is that the Creator's will is *not* apparent. This is precisely my objection. I do not argue that something came from nothing. What I doubt is that the Origin is conscious.

To argue that will or soul is the Brute Fact seems to violate the principal of sufficient reason no less than arguing that change is the Brute Fact. What reason do we have for accepting will rather than change? I can think of at least one precedent for each position. To argue that change is the Brute Fact seems correspondent with the "Panta Rhei" of Heraclitus, while to argue that will is the Brute Fact seems close to Descartes position that the only certain reality (the "brute fact", if you will) is the mind which he describes as, "A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sense perceptions" (Descartes [emphasis mine] as in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Call me old fashioned, but I incline toward Heraclitus over Descartes in this, but perhaps you prefer some third option...

I certainly agree that perceptions are the only way we can know that anything exists (in so far as we *can* know this at all), but why does it follow that will is necessary to perception?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be your logic concerning substance: "soul is the only substance possible" because... "Substance is efficient cause [which] requires will" because... substance is "necessarily conscious" I do not yet see your reason for this third premise. Why do you think substance is conscious? Put another way: why is the Efficient Cause not an "eternal machine" which causes perpetually by force of nature without will or consciousness? Forgive me if this question is ignorant or foolish. I am not a trained philosopher, nor have I read Leibniz, but I do find your posts extremely interesting and significant.

Your statement that all properties originate from the Creator seems to flow from what appears to be this central idea: "efficient cause requires will." How do you know this? It seems plausible that the First Cause is cause of an infinite number of realities simply by nature of its being, without any act of will on its part.

Points 2 and 3 are entirely contingent on point 1, so I will focus on the three parts (a - c) of that. 1a.I take issue with this: "soul is the only substance possible". I say (for sake of argument) that substance needs no qualification but can exist in itself without being either soul, body, or anything else. 1b. "there would be no reason for it, as a soul, not to be perfect as we understand the direction of soulful perfection". Stefan gives a reason why the eternal soul must not be perfect: observed perfection only arises from a long process of evolution. 1c. "God would become a Creator only out of love" This assumes "agapic love" is the most perfect disposition of the soul, but I (as Devil's advocate / Sith Lord / Anarcho-capitalist) contend that the most perfect disposition of the soul is self-love. Can you falsify these contentions?

"Never had much use for fundies of any sort coming from a Catholic background," have you listened to Stefan's video on the Crusades or read any of the material debunking the hype about the Inquisition? I think that would give you a more balanced view.

I have always been surprised by Stefan's openness toward homosexuality. While I appreciate the libertarian philosophical principals that motivate him to approve of homosexuality, I wonder if people are fully aware of the physical and psycholigical dangers statistically associated with the gay lifestyle. I read this article titled "Medical consequences of homosexual sexual behaviors" that describes some of the medical problems with homosexual intercourse. A few highlights from the article are: * 75% of white gay males (3 of every 4) claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners * Syphilis: gay men contracted syphilis at 3 to 4 times the rate of heterosexuals. * HIV/AIDS: A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50% chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55. As of June 2001, nearly 64% of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men. * An extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections is documented among male homosexual practitioners because of oral-anal contact. There are so many infections that a syndrome called “the Gay Bowel” is described in the medical literature. The root cause of these problems was identified in the article as being the immunological vulnerability of the rectum combined with the unsanitary nature of feces, both of which play an essential role of homosexual intercourse. Mental health problems are also well known to be prevalent among gay men, and the article cites evidence indicating that this is not due to homophobia or other cultural antagonism: "The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex. Gay men were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder". If all this is true, then encouraging or approving the gay lifestyle is like telling people it's okay to drink sewer water from an urban ghetto, eat dinner out of an unwashed bed pan, or spend a week sleeping without repiratory protection in a hospital ward full of coughing influenza patients. Do people who aren't gay themselves, yet approve the gay lifestyle simply not know the medical consequences of homosexual intercourse, or are all these statistics bogus such that homosexuality is perfectly safe and sanitary?

John Chapter 10 [17] Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. [18] No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father. [19] A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words. [20] And many of them said: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear you him? [21] Others said: These are not the words of one that hath a devil: Can a devil open the eyes of the blind? [22] And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter. [23] And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon' s porch. [24] The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. [25] Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.

I just read this article from Imprimis written by Frank Buckley and entitled Restoring America’s Economic Mobility. In it, the author cites Pew Charitable Trusts' "Economic Mobility Rankings" as demonstration of the fact that Canada has much greater economic mobility. He makes the case that America is now locked under the control of a "New Class of lawyers, academics, trust-fund babies, and media types - a group that wield undue influence in both political parties and dominates our culture." (Buckley, p. 4). He goes on to explain how Canada has greater economic mobility, better education for the middle-class, stricter immigration laws, more legal respect for the "sanctity of contract" and property rights, lower corruption, and more conservative legal institutions. (Buckley, pp. 4-5). This all came as something of a surprise to me. What do you think?

I just finished listening to Stefan's lecture on the fall of Rome which enunciates the theory that Rome collapsed due to the internal pressures of bureaucracy, taxation and government oppression. This will be taken as a given fact for purposes of this discussion because I want to move beyond it to seek logical and practical conclusions from this premise, rather than question the premise itself. That said, my question is this: is there any other practical means to deal with the problems that destroyed Western Rome and the modern West than total collapse of the social system such that it can be rebuilt from the ground up? If not, it seems we should support and encourage the destructive forces which are collapsing the current sociopolitical and economic structures of Western civilization since resistance to these forces simply prolongs the agony of the decline rather than accelerate the painful, but necessary, process of social reform through devastation. What this means in practice for a person acting on this principal would be that he would actively promote the destruction of culture by means of mass, unregulated immigration. He would actively work towards the destruction of traditional monogamy by means of promiscuity (preferably interracial), polygamy, bestiality, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.. This person might also join the military, police, or black-op intelligence communities and actively murder noncombatants, brutalize innocent civilians, and orchestrate false-flag terror / psyops all in order to foment social upheaval. Such a person would do these things not out of pleasure but because they are the means to achieving a clean slate of total barbarism from which to build a fresh, young and vigorous social system free from the corruption and failures of its predecessor. What are your thoughts?

I am unable to put a checkmark in the box for the email option in my notification settings. There is a note stating that email may not be available for all options, but I can't select it for any option. I do have my email entered and saved, and I have tried un-checking the other, non-email option first. Any ideas?

I listened to the podcast and found the contrast between the objectives, techniques, and effectiveness of the Threat Management Center (a private security organization) versus the public-sector police services to be very eye-opening. This dovetails precisely with what Will said about the financial implementation of policing: The only thing I would add is that society *is* ready for private police. As the podcast pointed-out, private security agencies fill a gap that is completely outside the scope of public police forces. That gap is non-aggressive, pre-crime prevention. Police agencies react to crimes after the fact with maximum aggression. Private security firms prevent crimes through non-aggressive tactics (video surveillance, psy-ops, negotiation, etc.) applied before the crime starts, only applying force defensively if they are attacked. I think this model of non-aggressive, privatized defense is a fantastic solution to a serious problem which federalized police forces are unable to handle effectively. I see the public-sector police as being the victims of an idiotic and ineffective bureaucracy that needs to be replaced by free enterprise security agencies.

On principal, would you encourage someone to enter the police force (U.S., U.K. or elsewhere)? Do libertarians even consider police necessary? If not, what means is there to keep order in a society plagued by violent, often mentally unstable, criminals? What spawned this was "An Honest Conversation With A Police Officer" along with some research from other testimonies online. Police Officers are generally hated by the public they serve, they are forced to uphold ridiculous laws passed by corrupt politicians, and they are subjected to political liberalism in training and recruitment practices on a continual basis. On the other hand, police officers protect law abiding citizens from the increasingly dark and violent criminal underclass, honest police officers also act as a buffer against bad legislation passed by corrupt bureaucrats, and both of these functions become all the more critical in a sociopolitical crisis.