Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Hobbes" data-source="post: 1407091" data-attributes="member: 8623">&quot;I disagree that determinism necessitates nihilism.&nbsp; I reached the mechanistic conclusion myself whilst considering the incompatibility of evil and the God sub one, which is what my first philosophy teacher designated the standard omnipotent, omni-benevolent deity.&nbsp; The idea was articulated by some French fellow during the enlightenment- if you knew the location and velocity of each particle in the universe, had an appropriate grasp of physics, and had a brain capable of running the calculations, you could figure out what the universe would look like at any point in time, forward or backward, in the same way you can predict where billiard balls will come to rest if certain ones are granted certain speeds.&nbsp; The logic is impeccable, near as I can tell.“But, as you say, it’s not a terribly useful position to hold, much like solipsism.&nbsp; Just because it could, theoretically, be done doesn’t mean it will be- especially considering our apparent inability to know the location and velocity of one atom, let alone all the ones in the universe all at the same time.&nbsp; The ‘control’ of our actions is so small and outside the scope of everyday human endeavor that it’s like trying to say that since butterflies exert some small effect on meteorology that it is predetermined and thus it’s pointless to predict, prepare for, or otherwise act in accordance with.&nbsp; Best, as with solipsism, to ‘act’ like you have free will regardless of the actual truth of the matter.&nbsp; “Mostly I find it useful as a rhetorical tool for the reason I first reached the conclusion- arguing the problem of evil....&quot; Thomas trails off, then shakes his head.&nbsp; &quot;Augh.&nbsp; Cut me off if I start to go on like that again.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Hobbes, post: 1407091, member: 8623"] "I disagree that determinism necessitates nihilism. I reached the mechanistic conclusion myself whilst considering the incompatibility of evil and the God sub one, which is what my first philosophy teacher designated the standard omnipotent, omni-benevolent deity. The idea was articulated by some French fellow during the enlightenment- if you knew the location and velocity of each particle in the universe, had an appropriate grasp of physics, and had a brain capable of running the calculations, you could figure out what the universe would look like at any point in time, forward or backward, in the same way you can predict where billiard balls will come to rest if certain ones are granted certain speeds. The logic is impeccable, near as I can tell. “But, as you say, it’s not a terribly useful position to hold, much like solipsism. Just because it could, theoretically, be done doesn’t mean it will be- especially considering our apparent inability to know the location and velocity of one atom, let alone all the ones in the universe all at the same time. The ‘control’ of our actions is so small and outside the scope of everyday human endeavor that it’s like trying to say that since butterflies exert some small effect on meteorology that it is predetermined and thus it’s pointless to predict, prepare for, or otherwise act in accordance with. Best, as with solipsism, to ‘act’ like you have free will regardless of the actual truth of the matter. “Mostly I find it useful as a rhetorical tool for the reason I first reached the conclusion- arguing the problem of evil...." Thomas trails off, then shakes his head. "Augh. Cut me off if I start to go on like that again." [/QUOTE]

Verification