You have to understand that there is a big difference there.

This:
"no basis to condemn slavery or the holocaust in its day?"
Argues on what was moral in history at the time for the current people, not if it was actually morally correct.(try to understand this)
This begs the question, when will we have the absolute right morals? Today?
Since morality is ever growing and subjective to the situation, never.
We make a judgment based on our current morals, which are based on our understanding of reality at the time.

This:
"Would you also say that we have a better morality now than they did in the days of slavery and homophobia?If so, how would you know?"
Morality is mainly based on current knowledge and situation.
Yes we do, since morality is about our understanding of reality(knowledge) and when our understanding of reality grows, our judgments on morality are more tuned.(better)
However, since we do not know every possible situation(we are not omniscient) we can never know an absolute moral thing to do.

Morality is a combination of actions and context.
You cannot treat it as one thing and say since the action is evil, then it does not matter in which context is made.
That is not morality.

Eg:
Raping without any context is an action.
That is not morality since it lacks context/situation.

An action without context like raping can be judged to be evi in the sens that forcing something on someone is evil.
Though that is not the reality we live in, that is abstract.
In the real world every action has a context, that is why oversimplification of these concepts leads to confusion.

Morality is a combination of things and one of these things is an unknown(every possible situation), thus we can never have an absolute there unless we become omniscient.

"I'm sensing that it basically boils down to situational ethics for the majority of people here."

I actually think that is true for both sides, atheists just don't have a revulsion to the consequences of naming their position appropriately. If whether something is right or wrong is situational, that is situational ethics. You cannot have an absolute or unchanging morality that changes according to circumstance or situations, or hinges on intent.

"And apparently, for any given situation, the more one understands about the impact of choices and what drives them, the better we are able to determine a profitable outcome and make a useful choice."

I'd say "preferable" is better suited than "profitable", as there are cases where we have a preference even when there is no personal benefit.

"And I think this is where I, and a lot of other theists, differ from atheists."

I think you would be surprised.

"In an atheistic context, it seems that what is right is determined by what is beneficial to a certain goal, a goal which is set by the majority within a given community. (e.g. the Holocaust was "right" because the majority determined that the goal was the eradication of a certain population...)"

There is a certain personal component that also appears to be relevant when talking about individual morality, but that aside, it seems a accurate enough assessment of collective morality. I would also remind you that the eradication of a certain population wasn't the goal, but the means to it, and more than one specific group was "cleansed" in the holocaust.

"For theists, it's flipped. Beneficence and utility are natural consequences of an action's being "right" or in accordance with the moral laws that God has worked into the universe."

I didn't think it mattered how beneficent or useful the consequence of one of gods laws was, or wasn't, all that mattered was the command.

"Naturally, that which is right it beneficial, but not everything we deem beneficial to a certain end is right."

What about when something is "right" but not beneficial?

"Just an interesting point of distinction to keep in mind should this issue come up again. I think a lot of time, atheists and theists end up misunderstanding and talking past each other."

I think most of us do understand divine command theory to some extent. As well as the fact that theists often define god as being good, so all commands from it MUST be good, regardless of real-world application or consequence. That is partially what we find so objectionable about it...

"Also, if morality derives from instinct, why do we only hold human beings as morally culpable for certain behaviors?"

Because we are the only animals sentient enough to act counter to our instincts, and are able to truly consider the consequences of our behaviors.

"Why are animals not considered moral beings?"

Lack of capacity to make complex moral considerations. In court we even have special considerations for people who lack this capacity.

"Interestingly, some advocate sending people to prison for caging chimpanzees because chimps are considered "persons" nowadays."

I can see how someone would find the practice unethical, and perhaps immoral, considering we tend to anthropomorphize animals when considering their treatment. It has more to do with us, and what we find acceptable, than anything to do with the actual chimp.

"So we give chimps the rights of morality, but not the responsibility... Comments or thoughts?"

Chimps are incapable of moral responsibility because they are incapable of complex moral considerations. I am a little confused about your "rights of morality" statement, as morality isn't a right, and even benefiting from the morals of others is not a right. I am less than clear about what you mean with this.

Actually animals tend to be more sensitive to stimulus then humans, thus if they are born in a zoo with people, they are being "educated" in that environment and thus evolve in it too.

I find it no surprising that animals are so friendly when treated with kindness.
I would find the opposite quite odd instead.

Try to get in the territory of a wild orang-utan and it may be the last we hear from you. :)

"First, I grant you that a lot of theism is often a form of situational ethics. At least the Bible comes out and says as much. BUT, as you've demonstrated here, in any ethical system, there is always a guiding principle which is defined as "good," be it the purity of a particular race, or the overall well-being of mankind, or whatever happens to make me happy at the time."

Then I fail to see how theism is much different than cultural traditions or social legislation.

"In fact, in the first two sentences of the wiki article, situational ethics is defined as that which seeks to fulfill the "law of love." Fletcher says, "All laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love." What he's saying is that there is in fact a thing that, for the sake of the system, we will define as "good." In this case it's Fletcher's definition of love. In any particular situation, we all navigate by some star."

This has more to do with ethics or "morality" in general than situational ethics. All it is is the judgement of a particular action based on a set of criteria. In this instance "love", or specifically Fletcher's particular concept of it, as not even that is a totally universal concept. The only thing that differentiates good from bad, in our individual psyche, is the values we hold. In societies certain values can be instilled through cultural conditioning, which is why we see such moral uniformity in certain regions and cultures. However, even that isn't universal, as there are always outliers. For instance abolitionists during the slave trade, or Germans who hid Jews.

"Situational ethics just brings out peoples' true north, shows their overruling principles. I don't think we can get away from that."

Situational ethics really just throws in the concept that morality is also dependent on circumstance and situation, and that there can be mitigating factors to consider when determining the morality of an action.

"Bottom line, there's something that we're all saying is "good." This isn't a theistic practice, it's a people practice."

Well we aren't all saying the same thing is "good", but I take your point. We do indeed have a multitude of criteria against which we judge actions, some likely not well defined or understood, and that is what causes the thing you call "morality".

"What is your "good" and why?"

Difficult question. What an individual finds "good" is often influenced by a wide variety of factors such as social indoctrination, upbringing, life experiences, and even opinion. Personally I find it in trying to keep a balance between individual autonomy and the good of the society, as it is a delicate one, and seems to produce good results when all lives in society are equally valued.

"Beneficial to what end?"

Any conceivable one. If there were a law mandated from god that had no conceivable benefit, is it still moral, despite one not being able to accurately assess morality. Wouldn't following a law you weren't convinced was moral be an amoral(not immoral) act?

"As a side question, supposing that morality changes with time and circumstance, or is dependent on the majority within a community, do you think that, if a nation is enslaving and torturing its people, another nation has a right to go in and stop them?"

Phew, that is a lot of ground to cover in a single question, so I will have to break it into bits.

"...supposing that morality changes with time and circumstance..."

It does.

"...or is dependent on the majority within a community..."

The predominant morality IS dependent on the majority within a community, but individual morality isn't. An individuals morality can be influenced by, but is not entirely dependent on, the predominant morality of a society. If it were, I doubt we would have as many problems, and morality would remain somewhat static.

"...do you think that, if a nation is enslaving and torturing its people, another nation has a right to go in and stop them..."

This is an immensely complicated issue. When someone uses the term "right" things tend to get rather complicated, because of those values we mentioned earlier. This is further complicated by the fact that there are international organizations and laws concerning invasions into other sovereign nations. Therefore, I will answer to whether we have a moral duty to do so.

If an individual or societies values leaves them with the moral obligation to do so, then they have a moral duty to do so. Doing so, however, does not have the best track record as of late. Some of the worst messes in the middle east were justified with just so reasoning, and has bred open hostility and even more enslavement and torture, despite the best of intentions. Good intentions are nice and all, but are apparently no replacement for knowing what the hell we are doing. A lesson it seems nations can't seem to learn, no matter how many times it explodes in our faces.

"If what they are doing is morally upright given their worldview, does OUR moral system give us a right to say that they "ought" to be doing something differently, or would that be pushing our morals upon them? Could such an action be judged morally?"

Is/Ought fallacy. Peeling potatoes is something you should only do if you plan on wanting or needing some peeled potatoes in the immediate future, but not unless. All we can do is judge the morality of other peoples actions using our own metric, and act accordingly, because there really is no alternative but amorality. We don't so much push morality as enforce it, even in our own countries, as it is all we can do to act in accordance with our values.

"I suppose in a way this is true. The way the Bible puts it is that every system, deep down, is a system of worship - in a Biblically defined sense of that word. That's why there are similarities. Everybody worships something. Whatever you deem "good" in your system is what you worship. Or, to paraphrase Christ, "find your treasure, and that's where your heart is.""

In a sense, this could be considered accurate. I could quibble about semantics, but I don't see the need, as I don't think you were using it with the usual baggage. We all have some concept of the society we would like to live in, and work together to build one that makes as many satisfied as possible, so it is a bit different than religious worship. Religion tends to be rather static and uncompromising, to say the least, making it an undesirable metric to many. There are a lot of laws in just about any religious book, and even followers rarely support all of them, only the ones they deem suitable.

"My particular stripe of theism seeks to center man's heart back on God where it belongs, so that's one distinction."

As someone who does not believe in your god, we would likely disagree on this point, as you might expect.

"Also, it does entail certain absolutes that I would place upon everyone at all times, and that's another distinction."

That is some dangerous territory, bound to cause some friction.

"Right. And again, Christianity argues that our psyches are flawed, and should be reoriented if we desire to live truly good lives."

Doesn't change the importance of values in the equation, only the values themselves, and it is still just as dependent on individual contract.

"This is the crisis Abraham faced. And again, it totally depends on your center. How do you assess morality? Some say it's by love. You would assess it morally by seeing if it preserves the balance of personal autonomy and the good of society (whatever the "good of society" is. Who decides that anyway?) I assess morality by the character and will of God, so naturally, I would say it is moral."

So you would abandon you personal moral reasoning in favor of your conviction in your gods benevolence? Not being nitpicky, just making sure I have accurately assessed your position. I would hate to argue a position you don't even hold.

"I would also point out that God is working to bring blessing into the lives of those who will follow Him in faith, so any such action will eventually turn out for my good, though I may not realize the implications of that now. And that's a comforting promise."

What if it was your gods will that you suffer for the benefit of another of his flock, one you did not know of, and it never "turned out for your good"? I think it would be fair to call this "sacrifice". If god commanded you to sacrifice something for another, without a promise of recompense, would you value that command over your own comfort? I am willing to bet you would, whether promised recompense or not, based solely on the loyalty you have exhibited here.

I am not saying that is bad, but I think it is something worth my consideration, as it seem to me an integral part of religious worship. In the end, our values are different. There is little I would not do to keep my wife and child safe, hale, and whole. I would gladly break every single one of your gods commands, to that end.

"Do you think that, given the amorality of the universe, it is inconsistent with reality to judge one another using any metric?"

To not do so would be inconsistent with our very nature, which is a part of that reality, so no.

"And given that we are, as Neil deGrasse Tyson would say, "the universe experiencing itself," do you find it odd that we do such a thing at all?"

Not particularly. We are not the universe, we are but one semi-sentient being in it, there is a difference.

"How does an amoral universe come to judge itself by any standard of "oughts" or "shoulds"?"

See above.

"Why would chemicals feel the need to apologize to each other? (I know that's simplistic, but I think you understand the root of my question.)"

We are conscious. We are capable of thought and behavior, and even considering the behavior of ourselves and others. That gives rise to judgement as naturally as the ability to count gives rise to math.

"Again, true words. Worse yet is the friction that comes when judgment is brought in. According to the Bible (and you) we all have moral systems that we can't help but judge one another by. But my particular worldview does entail a final judgment on those who fail to live up to the code. That's not exactly popular, understandably."

I'm honestly not too concerned about it, considering. I can see that you are, and that you do have good intentions in trying to save people from the hell you believe in. You will likely find many people that are hostile to the concept of a hell, and may take that out on you for believing in it, but it is really the concept they find reprehensible. It truly isn't you.

"Should I find the two in conflict, I'd like to think that I would abandon my own reasoning, yes. Hypotheticals are always hard to work through, but that would be the ideal. I believe that if I steer my moral compass by that conviction, I will do well. We've all got to stay centered somewhere. We're wired that way."

I don't think I could do that, it takes quit a bit of trust and faith in something that can scarcely be cognitively assessed. Even if I was absolutely CONVINCED a god existed, the fact that I wouldn't be able to understand it would prevent that level of trust.

"Wow. Again, I think I hope so. The apostle Paul writes passionately that he would choose to be sent to Hell in place of unsaved men if it could work their salvation (which it couldn't). I don't know that I have that kind of commitment, but it's something to strive for. If I believe that God is inherently good, as He claims, then what furthers God's glory has furthered goodness, whether or not I feel the direct benefits of it or not."

Then that is your "greater good" or the "good of the society", if you will. It isn't so much that the equation is fundamentally different, as it is the values calculated are. We essentially us the same process, but different foundations. Also, if we are to be honest, we probably agree on more instances than we disagree on. However, now that we understand the different variables, it is easy to see why we differ in certain instances.

"It's one thing to say that something is a certain way. It's another thing to attempt to give an account for a certain behavior. In such situations, "Because it is so," is an unsatisfactory answer."

I gave the best account that I can, given the fact that there is a great deal of philosophical conundrums tied into it all. Take consciousness, it is a simple question to ask why and how, but they are questions that still give the greatest minds of our time a headache. While I do not "like" having to say that something is a certain way, because it is that way, without having a comprehensive explanation of why it is that way; I can't very well lie and give one anyway.

Also, on this point, you surely understand why I find the answer "god did it" as fundamentally unsatisfactory and unhelpful as you find "because it is".

"Why should it be that an amoral universe would ever condemn another part of itself for not acting as it should? How can one segment of an amoral reality look at a another and say, "You really oughtn't do X""

Because we are neither the universe or reality. We are separate entities in them that perceive them differently. This discord in perception causes us to consider other perceptions "wrong" when they do not align with our own.

"You say "conscious" as if that concept still doesn't dissolve into chemistry under a microscope. I'm talking fundamentally here. What does sentience, by your definition, add to the mix to move us beyond the realm of the chemical?"

I am actually fairly sure it isn't simple chemistry, there appears to be a LOT more going on under the hood, but I take your point. I think I see where this is going, so I will try to answer below, if I can.

"Just look around and try to imagine the vast flux of atoms we call the universe, all bumping and interacting according to set laws. How does any part of that system come to know itself?"

First off, I need to clarify that I am not entirely sure that we do know either ourselves or the universe as well as some would assert, so I can only give the best answer I can with the limited and flawed knowledge that I personally possess. It seems to me undeniable that our cognitive abilities evolved in lock-step with the brain, as did consciousness. Think of it as a gradient, or a scale, with the simplest of brains on one side and the more complex on the other. I think it is fair to say that the more sizable and complex the brain, the more conscious and capable a species becomes. I would also think it is fair to say that moral awareness, which is necessary for culpability, would proceed similarly.

I realize that this is not the most satisfying of answers, and leave a great deal of questions on the table, but some of the fields in question here are ones I am not well versed on. So we will have to do the best we can with what I have, I will just have to hope that it is up to the task. Perhaps I should have taken a little more philosophy instead of all those sciences...

"I would certainly hope to match my belief in Hell with a fervency for warning people about it. And my point was not at all that I felt as though I were personally attacked. I totally recognize that the idea itself is the source of hostility. The Bible says as much. Though if we're honest, people have been killed for saying it... Christ being the supreme example. Stephen being another. And, in the interest of honesty, I readily admit that people who believe in judgment have also killed other people over the issue. But all of this, though important, is tangential to the issue of what the truth of the matter actually is."

It wasn't my intention to divert, only to caution and explain.

"I'm not going to lie, it can get tough. I will point out, however, that no worldview will ever remove from you the danger of making choices you don't fully understand. How could anyone know the end of choice fully?"

It is not unknown consequences that prevent it, it is the faith and conviction in them that I find difficult. If I don't understand something I don't generally put a great deal of conviction or trust in the idea that it is "good"...

"Perhaps if our woefully limited observatory capacities or our understanding had been a little greater, you would have made the other choice."

Possible. Hell, even if just my experiences and history were slightly altered, it is possible that I wouldn't be an atheist. A lot of it is perspective, we perceive the world from different platforms(so to speak), so while viewing the same world we see it differently.

"Don't think that by removing appeals to deity, you've necessarily gained "cognitive assessment." You're guided by something, and you must follow that principle, whether you understand it or not. Thankfully, the Bible tells us that there actually is a knowable thrust and purpose to history that we can make choices in accordance with."

A well-defined situation is far more easily cognitively assessed than an unknowable entity beyond our comprehension. I'll leave the bible bit alone, because it is another point of contention we will have, and I don't intend to offend you; let's just say we disagree on the bible.

"This has been my point. There is an a priori assumption that everybody makes about how the universe functions and how we ought to behave. Eventually, if you work it back, there is just a maxim that one accepts on faith, to make the system work."

I don't think taking the universe exactly as it appears takes a whole lot of faith, only observation. Now anything we try to add to it beyond that, that takes faith. My stubborn belief that I will be alive tomorrow is a bit of faith, but my belief that I am currently laying on a couch is more of a "just so" statement that requires little faith on my part. I would actually argue that it would take MORE faith for me to not believe it...

"Without faith, none of us would ever leave our houses or do anything."

A bit of an oversimplification. Even if I was a complete Nihilist, I could still leave the house and do things, and would have to if I were to survive.

"The question is which maxim allows us to live consistently and best accounts for how we experience life. I would argue that the God of the Bible offers vast explanatory power and consistent living. Not total explanatory power, mind you, but it accounts wonderfully with the deeper issues that science cannot touch, but which we all must live under."

I would disagree. I have never personally found your bible to be all that accurate nor helpful.

"Frankly, on this point, I don't."

For precisely the same reasons, it is a "just so" statement that tells us, quite literally, nothing useful.

"Maybe on another point... If we were talking about how lightning is formed, I would largely agree. But to talk about the origins of consciousness and morality in a seemingly amoral and material universe is to discuss deeply philosophical issues that frankly imply a Person of some sort. Just what sort is unclear, but it seems reasonable and very much more explanatory to work it back to God than to leave the question unanswered."

Except that it doesn't, it merely moves it a step out and pretends that it is solved, it explains a mystery with an even greater and more unexplained mystery. When discussing consciousness, invoking a god merely posits another question, what is the origin of its consciousness? It is literally invoking unexplained entities, with the same problems, to explain a problem. That is about as unhelpful as it gets.

"Let me rephrase it. If you break a table up into its tiniest parts, you'd have atoms and quarks, etc. If you break up a person into his tiniest parts, do you have anything more than that? Is the distinction between person and non-person only a matter of complexity?"

Consciousness. I don't think this is that hard to grasp, consciousness is the distinction between the utterly deterministic and the ability to choose.

"Thank you for saying so! I have heard several noted scientists say things like, "Science is omnipotent," or describing our vast understanding of biology and physics. We know nothing, in the grand scheme of things."

I think of it more as a puzzle, with an undefined shape and totally white, with many missing pieces. We have SOME of the pieces, and can fit a few together and speculate about the whole, but with so many missing it is still an exciting mystery. I wouldn't say we know nothing, but our knowledge is limited, and it is far from complete.

"Capable perhaps, but conscious? That doesn't seem a fair statement to me at all. What evidence do we have to support such an idea?"

Various studies on which animals appear to have things like self-awareness, identity, empathy, etc... Almost unilaterally, the simplest brains lack the range of consciousness we experience.

"I mean it's fine as a statement of faith, I suppose."

I'd contend it is a bit more than that.

"All we mean by "complex" is that it's made of numerous component parts that are difficult to separate and quantify. If we take a test-tube and work some reactions in it, and then keep adding more complex reactions to the mixture, I see no evidence in the body of data we have to suggest that at some point, it becomes aware of itself."

You are making a false equivocation. We will not be able to get anywhere if you insist on treating beings the same as inanimate objects.

"We don't even really know what consciousness means... Again, simplistic, but important. Whatever worldview you choose, it has to account for these things, and I don't see that materialism can."

A. We understand what it is, to the extent we have it and other things do not, but not its origin.

B. Can materialism account for the existence of language, numbers, or even art? The concepts aren't exactly material, but I don't think we need evoke spiritualism or mysticism to explain it. Same with consciousness. There are genetic mutations that effect a persons level of consciousness, so materialism is a definitive factor in it, at the very least.

"Out of curiosity, are you a determinist?"

Compatablist. A rather strange position that allows for will, but that will is constrained by reality. We can't choose to fly unassisted to the moon, for the universe is not such to allow for it, so our possible choices are limited by what an engineer might call "budget constraints". Our will is not free, but not predetermined either, just limited to a realistic array of possibilities.

Sorry for the delay, but I have been working on the reply off and on since I saw it, but I was horribly busy.

"Your assumption that your cognitive abilities are accurate and useful is, as an a priori assumption, a certain act of faith for which there is no proof."

Except that It has allowed me, and the rest of mankind in general, to survive and propagate the planet. I could see you arguing that it wasn't entirely accurate, but useful? I don't think anyone could deny our cognitive faculties were instrumental to our current discussion, our current position in the natural order, or our technological progress. I would also argue that the success of these endeavors is some powerful evidence that it is at least partially accurate, as one would not expect our cognitive ability to provide such a cornucopia of success were it otherwise.

"I believe it was Socrates who stated that no system could ever prove its own baseline assumptions."

Perhaps he did, doesn't mean he was right. A claim will stand or fall on its own merit, not that of its claimant.

"We put faith in things like numbers, logic, and the constancy of their laws, but we cannot prove them because we take such truths for granted in the act of proving things."

I would argue that we put our faith in them because they appear to work. We have predicted some pretty damn specific events, to the point of landing a probe on a speeding comet, and I just can't see that as anything but spectacular evidence that they are accurate to a fairly precise extent.

"Faith in things that are not evidence-based or readily understood is not difficult for people."

If I am not even certain that the thing exists, and it doesn't appear to work very reliably in reality, it tends to be difficult to put a lot of faith into it.

"Faith in things beyond our everyday experience could be."

I can't very well argue that, for there are a select minority of people who still believe the Earth is flat because they can't personally see the curve.

"A very valid point."

Thank you, I though you might find it interesting.

"There are, however, certain facets of the universe "as is" that point to things outside of the universe, and certain theological inferences that can reasonably be deduced about these things. At least that's what I would say. But I think I have reason on my side."

That would probably lead to a very interesting, albeit VERY long conversation. I am not against it, by any means, but I also don't want it to lure you into a tangent unless you would like to go there.

"Are there any specific parts that give you trouble?"

It would depend on what you mean by trouble, considering that I don't find it particularly hard to comprehend, but simply find it less realistic and authoritative than a believer would. I have read it, a few times even, just as I have the Qur'an and the Mahabharata; and don't find it all that special or informative. I would recommend it to anyone interested in cultural traditions and anthropology of Hebrews, but not so much as a history book.

"I feel like you're misunderstanding the issue. Consciousness is either past-eternal, or it's existence was caused by something else. We know that it's not past-eternal, so there must be a sufficient cause for it."

Except that you have already contradicted yourself by asserting that it isn't past-eternal, and then positing that something past-eternal with it must have caused it, thereby making it past-eternal.

"God is a sufficient cause. (I would posit that the material world is not sufficient to create consciousness, but even if it were, the material world is not past-eternal and itself requires a sufficient cause. This, again, we call God.)"

Only sufficient insomuch as we simply assume that god exists and is past-eternal, otherwise it is an insufficient cause much like past-eternal pixies would be.

"Now to ask where God came from would be to multiply causes to ourselves unduly. That would go against Occam's Razor, which says we need not add complexity to an issue without reason. It's more reasonable to assume that He is eternal, especially since He began time, and has no cause."

Actually, to assume an entity at all would go against Occam's Razor, as it carries a rather large wheelbarrow full of assumption that must be simply accepted for it to function at all. Whereas, proposing that it is an emergent property of the evolution of the mind, only need assume that such is possible; which we have little reason to doubt considering the effect of a brain on consciousness.

"I grasp it fine. I believe it. What I can't figure out is why you do... I'm pressing you on this because I can't seem to peg your position."

Well, I think we are getting somewhere, though we may wind up writing a book or two on the way. Ha ha. Ask away, maybe sneak a little Socratic Method in there, and who knows what might shake out.

"(A) Science hinges on the idea that all material interaction is describable by a set of physical laws."

Yes, ALL material interaction is describable by physical laws.

"(B) It is also assumed that the physical laws are predictable and stable."

The ones we know do appear to be, so I'll mark that as a "yes".

"(C) Human consciousness, in a purely material universe, is reducible to physical interactions. Daniel Dennett argues this way."

Aha, here is the thorn, as it were. I think that abstract concepts exist, though not in a platonic fashion. You won't find the concept of four under a rock, they don't work that way. I think that things like logic, math, language, and numbers DO exist as some kind of immaterial phenomena in the mind; even if it is learned. I think consciousness is much the same, but instead of it being a product of learning, it seems more innate in creatures with a capable enough brain. This seems to imply that while a certain capacity is necessary, that the consciousness also relies on a component of the abstract, meaning that it isn't strictly material much like language and math isn't.

I think the term for it is duality, and it is the leading model for consciousness at the moment.

"(D) Therefore, the interactions that bring about human consciousness and choice are based on predictable and stable laws."

Given (C), no.

"(E) It follows from this, that, given a complete understand of the stimulus-response interactions and the laws that govern them, human choice is predictable and therefore free in a real sense."

A. If it is predictable, it wouldn't be free, are you sure that isn't what you meant?

B. "A complete understanding of the stimulus-response interactions and the laws that govern them" isn't possible without omniscience, so precise and accurate prediction would be impossible.

C. Duality introduces a component of the abstract, which could cause predictions to become more difficult, and could make them impossible.

"Freedom would technically be illusory. It would, in fact be predetermined based on the natural progression of interactions."

Freedom would technically be illusory in a purely deterministic universe, as long as we are not omniscient. That is part of what makes the subject so unfalsifiable, there would be no way to determine a true choice from an illusory one.

"If you wish to say that man is actually free, you would have to say that (a) the mechanisms of choice are not reducible to physical interactions or (b) the physical laws are not predictable or stable when applied to cognition. If choice is not reducible to physical interactions, I have to ask what else you think it's comprised of."

Firstly, I avoided the word "free" as that doesn't exist in this universe. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch in physics, and since that is more my forte, I try to avoid the implication that there is. In a universe with true free-will, you would be able to defy physics on a whim, and that doesn't happen. That is the reason why I am not an advocate of free-will. I am also not convinced that interpersonal interaction between beings is materially causal, as there are abstracts that motivate human behavior, such as love. That is why I am not an advocate of determinism. Compatablism is the premise that there appears to be immaterial causes to some of our actions, and as they are immaterial, they are not subject to physical laws like a falling rock would be.

I know this has become a little bloated, but I hope it is at least understandable, and doesn't simply come across as a word salad.

"Do you believe that there is an entity in the universe that acts independently of physical law?"

Given that I think some of our motivations are immaterial, I think we act in spite of the physical law, but not independent from it.

"And don't worry about offending by the way! I'd rather have an honest discussion than a timid one."

I will worry. You have been nothing but respectful and polite about my beliefs and principles, and I will endeavor to do the same. I will do my best not to offend you, because I think it is possible to continue the discussion without doing so, and I am enjoying the discussion. It has been quite a while since I have talked to someone of faith that has demonstrated the willingness or capability to have the level of earnest conversation we are having, and hope to encourage you to continue.

Sometimes exposure to the perspective of another improves you, sometimes it improves you both, and I think I can say that I am at least learning some things that will help me in future conversations.

"I do hope not to frustrate you, so be patient if I'm slow understanding some things."

No problem, I play Sudoku and read for FUN, as long as we are getting somewhere I will continue to find the conversation enthralling. You will find me a hard person to bore.

"Yes, I will grant that. Though given the vast scope of evolutionary history and the tiny pinprick of time we represent in it, our recent cognition has not been nearly so large a factor in our survival as unthinkable blind luck has been. But that's tangential..."

Perhaps, but I do think our cognition has had a fairly big impact in our success as a species.

"Let's definitely keep it handy on the shelf, and we'll pull it down when the time is right."

Agreed, I will look forward to it. Like a fine wine, some conversations fare better with time to ferment.

"Thank you, I misspoke. Consciousness within the universe is not past-eternal, not consciousness as an extant entity. But I think you are still missing the point. Something that is past-eternal is needed, or else we have an infinite regress of actual events, which reduces eventually to absurdity."

Depends, we don't know anything about anything outside of our universe. Time itself could not exist at all there, or function in a loop, we honestly have no idea. Ergo, an infinite regress is not presently necessary to explain extra-universal events. At some point, the forces in the universe colluded to produce the first star, we would not argue that because stars aren't past-eternal we need some special super-sentient agent to make the first one from scratch.

"Were the universe past-eternal, we needn't look for causes beyond it. It would be a sufficient explanation for itself. But it is not eternal. There must be a sufficient cause."

This is actually a misinterpretation of Big Bang cosmology. The theory ONLY gets you back to the point that the universe was about a trillionth of an atom wide, it doesn't posit an origin or time scale for it. That singularity could have been created, or always have been, we really don't know. Granted most physicists, myself included, believe that there must have been an external cause to the universe; but we also posit those causes to be states and conditions that could exist without any god. However, that is hypothetical at this time, as we have no means of gathering evidence from before the universe began to exist.

"Such a cause must have the capacity for the creation of the universe. That much is almost tautologically true."

This brings up more problems, as we do not actually know enough about the "creation" to know what is necessary to "create" it. As such, we can't reasonably determine what would be necessary or sufficient, it would be like trying to calculate the probability of a Yahtzee without either knowing how many dice there are or how many sides they have.

"The only such cause we can deduce would be an immaterial"

Not necessarily, material universes may exist outside our own.

"immensely powerful"

Not necessarily, the quantum vacuum hypothesis would not actually require much power at all.

"timeless"

Not necessarily, outside this universe time may function differently.

"entity with an arguable consciousness."

Seems a leap, considering you are essentially arguing a something(god) that you think existed in a nothing, created everything. That is philosophically and physically unsound.

"These are not assumptions, these are largely necessitated by the attributes of the universe which it caused."

See above, they are assumptions, based on an assumption about what may or not be outside of this universe.

"To cause time, a thing must be timeless, or at least totally removed from the time we understand."

The latter part includes any states or conditions beyond this universe, sentient or not.

"To cause space, it must be spaceless, or at least not inhabiting our plane of space."

Same as above.

"To cause physical matter, it must be immaterial."

Not necessarily, there may be physical matter beyond our particular bubble of space-time.

"Think it through. I'm not merely "assuming" the cause exists. It must. And it must bear these attributes to be sufficient."

Oh, I have no doubt that there was a cause, but I think you are jumping the gun on what attributes it MUST have to be sufficient. It would be like me telling you what tools you will need to build a house, without knowing how to build a house. We should be VERY careful when deciding what something MUST have, as very often in the past, we have made such propositions and they wound up being patently absurd.

"Definitely, immaterial concepts exist in an abstract sense. But no number has ever been known to choose anything."

We have been known to make decisions based on numbers. So the immaterial motivates and causes us to behave differently than a purely materialistic universe might.

"Love, as an abstraction, never stood in causal relation to anything else."

You don't think this abstraction influences our behavior? If you do, then you have to admit that abstractions bear a causal relationship to the behavior of conscious beings, making their interaction less than materially deterministic.

"When we're talking about consciousness, I think we're dealing with something distinct from every other abstraction we know, due to it's apparent ability to act with volition."

Absolutely, and it leaves a bad philosophical aftertaste to treat it like any other abstraction. More-so when we consider that unlike what I think, it may not be an abstraction at all, but the phenomena that allows for all other abstraction. I am quite willing to concede that there are perfectly legitimate arguments against my position, especially philosophical arguments, but it is the position that is the most compatible with the premise that rocks are deterministic and we are not. For if consciousness isn't an abstract, it would almost certainly be material, and we both know just how unpalatable THAT scenario would be to the both of us.

"I'm not saying that we can choose anything we want. We are certainly not free in a total sense."

Thanks for that, as a physicist the normal rhetoric concerning free will drives me nuts, so this concession makes me quite giddy.

"But the fact that we can choose anything is unusual given the material nature of things."

In my estimation facts quite often are more unusual, and even more counter-intuitive, than the fantasy our perceptions sometimes give us.

"I mean, given a range of possible options, what is it that finally determines our choices?"

That is a good question, and one that nobody has a falsifiable answer to. I, personally, think we come to decisions based off of a synthesis of abstract constructs(feelings, preferences) and the more material(history, experience, observation). While I could be wrong, I think fields like psychology and sociology would be much less credible than they are if I were.

"Is there anything constraining us besides our own decision? Yes, our desires, our histories, and a host of stimuli are involved, but is the decision I make ultimately traceable to responses to these stimuli over which I have no control? Does the chemical makeup of my mind simply act as in accordance with nature to bring about choice, or is the agent of choice something that we could not qualify? That's the question."

Hard to say. I do think there is a spark of abstraction, call it divine if you will, in us that allows us to FEEL and make choices based on those subjective a turbulent emotions. Hopefully that clarified my position a little bit more, as philosophically slipshod as I generally tend to be, I can never be too sure.