Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00182)

Tom Robertson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> Although they can choose to be dishonest about their beliefs, human
> >> beings have no choice about what those beliefs are.
> 
> >       Please explain this; on the surface, it is trivial to disprove.
> 
> How to act on one's beliefs is subject to free will, but beliefs are
> deterministic.  I believe that World War 2 ended in 1945.  It is not
> possible for me to choose to believe it ended last year.

	Japan plans its wars in 100 year increments. By their system, WWII has
not ended yet; it is merely the fronts that have shifted.

> >> Human beings have no choice about philosophical laws.
> 
> >       Perhaps you are changing the English language to suit yourself? 
>BY DEFINITION, human beings have choices about philosophical laws, as
> >philosophical laws exist only in the human mind (once they can be proven
> >to exist outside the human mind, they become SCIENTIFIC laws).
> 
> All human beings have a unique perception of philosophical laws, but the
> laws themselves exist independently of human perception.  Otherwise, truth
> would be entirely subjectivistic, and anyone's truth would be as good as
> anyone else's, with no standard to which to compare the value of each
> perception.

	I now am certain that you are not properly differentiating between
philosophy and science.

> >> Human beings have discovered some laws of logic and of mathematics.
> >> We may use them, but they exist independently of us.  They cannot be
> >> changed.
> 
> >       Mathematics is an entirely artificial system, and can be changed at
> >will.
> 
> Can you decide that 2+2=5?  Can you decide that if all oranges are fruits,
> and if X is a fruit, then X must be an orange?

	Yes. It would not, however, be terribly useful.

	Bart Lidofsky