The problem of free will
Offline I was reading some arguments and I found a rather interesting discussion involving free will. Free will is usually used as a dodge for Christians to explain why the world is so fucked up, now they also say that God is incapable of doing evil due to the nature of their god. Now I disagree about their gods nature, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are correct. This leads to some problems in regards to free will, as it is two aspects. Aside from the question of how free will is gained, IE what we had beforehand since free will is really just the ability to make choices there is a problem that free will provides. If your god is incapable of comitting an evil act due to nature then your god can't really be said to have free will, so how could a creator provide a trait that they themselves lack. Or to put it another way, if man is made in the image of your god then why would your god give man things that god him/her/itself does not possess? But it also leads to a bigger problem. A beings nature determines what it does, if it is my nature to, say only eat pancakes then my eating pancakes isn't really a matter of choice, it's my nature. I might not think that pancakes are superior to other foodstuffs, I might not even be able to make such an assertion, just having my nature that I will eat pancakes and pancakes alone. If God is only capable of 'doing good' then when you have a flawed humanity that can do good or evil and choose good even in cases where it might be to their benefit to choose evil then in reality such people would in fact be morally superior to this god entity. I'm curious as to what the response would be from you christians or other theists out there.
- Login to post comments
They got it wrong. We have free will (at least I dang better have) but their religious point of view doesn't make sense.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
In order for we to have free will, our conscient choices cannot be based only on relativistic Newtonian physics. Fortunately there are some examples in nature of non determinism - quantum general relativity is non deterministic; "impossible to compute another part of the universal wave function from what it is known in one region about it, and thus it is non-deterministic."
There are plenty of studies to the possibility of conscience being quantum in nature if you want to look for them.
If any one wants to challenge this I would have to ask if their view of determinism could ever be falsified.
Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Allah is the one true god
Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Jesus is the one true god
Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Yahweh is the one true god
Study=you cant prove it isn't true=I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass
QUANTUM mechanics will never produce fictional characters or make magic real. Imagination is only real in the sense it is bullshit humans make up.
Nature and laws of physics are BOTH deterministic AND random. "Laws" are not handed down in science by humans, they are mere labels scientists place on constant observations.
Hurricanes start on the quantum level, by luck of climate. But hurricanes do not plan ahead, that is the random part. A hurricane doesn't say 5 months ahead of time, I am going to be born. Hurricanes are only deterministic in the sense that we can measure them when they do happen because they have structure.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
I forgot who said that, but it IS BULLSHIT.
Brainstorming is fine when done with scrutiny and testing. But air flight never involved brooms just because someone put witches and boys on them in their fantasies.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Your first 4 phrases have nothing to do with what I've said, but I'll amuse you...
Study=you cant prove it isn't true=M-Theory is the ultimate turtle
Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Determinism is the ultimate turtle
Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Imutable physical laws is the ultimate turtle
Study=you cant prove it isn't true=Initial singularity is the ultimate turtle
THE ULTIMATE TURTLE
So you're technically saying that random phenomenons are NOT indeterministic? Thus you are forcefully implying that determinism is not falsifiable... Cause I can't imagine an hypotetical scenario where determinism would be falsifiable... if you can enlighten me please.
BTW! that quote about imagination was from Einstein
NO I am saying reality is BOTH law and random.
Sperm evolved to meet with the female egg, the random part is which one will. Same with a rainstorm, rain happens with condition "that is the law part", the random part is when it starts and how many raindrops it produces.
And it was a bad metaphor on Einstein's part. He meant that the way I corrected it, but people like you always take shit out of context.
He meant is is ok to dream about stuff, but he damned sure would say it is bullshit and will remain a claim unless you put it to test.
FYI go look up his last letter before he died. Read it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't question what you've just said. I agree. My only question, that you keep not answering, is if you consider random phenomenons to be deterministic or indeterministic in nature. That is my only question. What you keep showing is that random phenomenons have repercussions in Newtonian physics, I don't disagree with that.
I cannot dumb down my answer any further than one word for you.
BOTH!
When you go to a restaurant YOU observe food. On the menu you have several items, if you go to that joint multiple times you don't always order the same thing or go there at the same time.
BOTH
But what you wont find at a restaurant are invisible pink unicorns crawling out of your food.
REALITY is observed through the scientific use of OBSERVATION. The "law" part, but a fire will not clone itself down to the exact pattern of quarks a prior one did. "FLAMES HAPPEN" the law part. "FLAMES ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT" the random part.
What won't happen is that fire will drive a car or turn into a frog or write a novel.
BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH
The universe and evolution DO NOT NEED a stupid god to explain anything. Just like a hurricane doesn't need Neptune as an explination.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Another example. BOTH LAW AND RANDOM IN COMBINATION
Humans evolved to talk. Talking is the LAW observation. We can prove that humans can talk.
BUT you don't know what exact words you are going to use in a conversation next week, next month or next year.THAT IS THE RANDOM PART.
What wont happen is my vocal cords magically turning into a real piano. My vocal cords were not an invention of Vishnu, Thor or a pink unicorn.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'll grant you that much, Brian37
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Do I need to remind you that you are the only one talking about God here?!
All you are doing is giving examples of quantum effects in newtonian physics. What you are describing is a chain of phenomenons that starts with a "random" phenomenon (like the Hurricane) that after turn into mesurable one in "macrophysics". This is the main reason no one was able to unite newtonian mechanics with quantum mechanics...
But anyway... that again was not what I've asked, I've asked if a purely random phenomenon is deterministic or indeterministic... since you don't seem to understand the question I take it that by answering BOTH 7 times you agree that a "purely quantum phenomenon" is indeterministic.
Then we agree! You see it wasn't that hard! It was just the bias and the bigotry stench that prevent this conclusion sooner... it's ok.
Because my initial claim was: "We can only have free will if conscience choices are not be based only on relativistic Newtonian physics" I didn't do any claim as to we have in fact free will or not.
In my mind, QP is bullshit because it was conceived (primarily) by a bunch of Idiot Byantines™ and/or physicists from Copenhagen. I think it could be argued or decisively claimed that most people vaguely familiar with the "framework" of Quantum Physics consider it largely a bunch of nonsensical gibberish devised by highly imaginative goons who enjoy making untestable claims just for the fuck of it.
You can't actually test for most of the shit ideas conceived by QP because it's framework renders it nigh-untestable!
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The most amazing thing I was ever told, which I completely see as being true, is that nothing is random and we don't have free will. Every thing has been already determined through actions which have already been put in to place billions of years ago.
None of us have free will because there are too many variables out of our control which influence us to say, think and do things.
Nothing is random because there are too many variables which have already been set in to motion and with out our influence.
Yes we can say, "I'm going to the store to buy gum" but which gum?
You get to the counter, "Should I get strawberry or mint?"
The idea to get strawberry or mint was planted a long time ago when you were exposed to those flavors. If you pick mint it is because you desire that feeling you haven't had in a long time. Or maybe it was strawberry because you like the after taste".
The fact that you like these two flavors might have been influenced by your a sibling or parent who only had those two flavors and you have never tried any thing else or some other influence.
Which could have been influenced by another person on them, many years ago, and so on, and so on...
When I finished reading this I thought I was on some Jihad forum. But then I realized I'm on rational responders... I rest my case.
No you are NOT going to pull that crap. Brian does not put the label "theist" under someone who doesn't believe in a god. You are avoiding your own pet god as a distraction to eventually go "SEE SEE SEE, you dont know everything so my pet god claim is true by default."
You simply don't like the fact that I am not dancing down your Yellow Brick Road.
God is your starting point and your end goal. I am telling you your claim(formula) from start to finish SUCKS logically speaking.
I am simply cutting through the crap and simplifying it for you in hopes to drag you out of your elaborate claptrap.
Naked assertion<=pseudo formula<=desired outcome. That is all you are doing.
Now you want to use that bullshit formula to justify in your own mind "anything goes"
Anything in your mind will work with "anything goes", and that does not prove shit other than you have an imagination.
Not talking about god right now in a post does not change the fact you have the label "theist". Now unless Brian made a mistake and you are an atheist, then you DO believe in a god. So not talking about god is merely your distraction to avoid the fact you have no evidence.
I am merely trying to tell you that it is merely in your head and god as a claim is NOT a workable formula and does not explain anything other than people like the idea of super heros protecting them.
IT IS MERE ANTHROPOMORPHISM, projecting human qualities on the world around them.
Now again, take someone elses god claim that you rightfully reject and see if that different god claim will work in your formula. Would you buy Allah if a Muslim used the same arguments you are trying to use on me?
Disembodied magical super brains with no location and no material are ALL absurd claims, everyone claimed in human history are all products of human imagination.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm not doing nothing of the sort. You, on the other hand, are just confirming your bigotry.
I don't care on what road you dance. It's just exausting to talk to someone who is incapable of having a rational conversation thinking I have a hidden dagger... so jumps in denial on every statement I make.
I'm not even sure if I believe in a God or not. Depends on the definition of God.
There is more to life than this Theism/Atheism thing that apperently you put on everything.
I know you find it amazing but when I'm talking about cheese I'm really talking about cheese, not the God cheese... maybe it's not your fault maybe it's all those "Fox news asses" that come here.
With an outstandingly stupid comment like this what is the difference between you having a "Nazi" label and I claiming that ANY comment you make here being merely a distraction to avoid the fact that you want the ultimate solution??
Now again, stop projecting your bigotry and let's try to have rational conversations without implying things that are not there. There are no Nazis, No pink unicorns, or Gods in my statement in this specific thread!
[edit]Adjective
random (comparative more random, superlative most random)
Having unpredictable outcomes and, in the ideal case, all outcomes equally probable; resulting from such selection; lacking statistical correlation.
Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. You really just said something could be both? HAHAHAHA!!! Can I subscribe to your posts?
"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig
And you were right about being unable to "dumb" it down anymore. You really want to argue that if the conditions for combustion are present, then those conditions are repeated, it will not yield identical results? Right.....I guess combustion isn't a physical process then. Considering what you've said, it must have free will then doesn't it?
"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig
And you were right about being unable to "dumb" it down anymore. You really want to argue that if the conditions for combustion are present, then those conditions are repeated, it will not yield identical results? Right.....I guess combustion isn't a physical process then. Considering what you've said, it must have free will then doesn't it?
"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig
And I'm probably wasting my time here, but, since why doesn't evolution need God? And if you don't mind, just list one, JUST ONE, organism that has been observed evolving from say, Kingdom Plantae to Kingdom Animalia. Don't worry, I'll wait.
"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig
EVEN IF IF IF IF IF IF WHAT PART OF IF DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Even if I agreed with you, but the reality is that you still DONT accept that reality is BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH. Law and random.
But even IF IF IF IF you stupidly think we are saying the same thing, which we are not, you still have a gap bigger than the Grand Canyon you are trying to falsely fill with your pet deity.
You are still doing the same thing
We agree=my pet deity exists
We agree=Allah exists
We agree=Vishnu exists
We agree=Jesus exists
We agree=Yahweh exists
We agree= George Washington farted a Lamborghini out of his ass.
"I dont know" does make god real. The SCIENTIFIC evidence at this point is that a god is NOT required.
The universe and evolution are NOT the product of cognition, they are a product of non thinking PROCESSES.
God/s/deities/super natural are MERELY THE PRODUCTS OF HUMAN IMAGINATION.
This is not hard for you to understand, the only thing stopping you are your emotions and ego.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The only Gap I see here bigger than the grand canyon is in your head.
I think you have a God problem, you should go to your Psychiatrist. You see him everywhere.
lol
YOU ARE A THEIST SO OF COURSE I AM GOING TO KNOW where you end up. You have ended up at the position that a god exists.
Now lets separate issues here.
1. Your right to believe or utter whatever the fuck you want is NOT the issue.
2.The issue is your ability to DEMONSTRATE the credibility of your position. SINCE you have "theist" under your avatar, unless Brian made a mistake, and I have yet to see him miss label someone's position, then YOU DO believe in a god.
Trying to argue "cause" and pretend that you are not arguing a god is intellectually dishonest.
"I am not trying to argue a god=pay no attention to my position"
You are trying to falsely and childishly throw ad homins at me because you dont want to, or refuse to focus on why you hold the label "theist".
You are trying to work BACKWARDS through science by twisting it. Then when you think you can you go "AH HA GOT CHA"
My refusal to allow you to pull a bait and switch is what is pissing you off.
You are the guy at the Vagas Table on the street corner trying to get me to pick the ball under the cup when I already know it is slight of hand and that there wont be any ball under any cup.
What you should do FOR YOURSELF, is understand that you have inflicted yourself with a needless delusion.
When you try to argue cause, you are using it as a distraction to avoid having to defend your own pet deity claim.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I've been wanting to say this for a while now, but you need to take a deep breath.
I can see you while your typing these replies... your face is red, veins popping out of your temples and your teeth are grinding.
Try to relax a little before you have a stroke.
This is one of those topics that I've never gotten a reasonable answer for. The typical Judeo/Christian conception of god is Omnimax, or infinite in all of his attributes. If this is the case then free will can't possibly exist because god being omniscient automatically negates our ability to choose differently than he already knows we will choose. Further, if god is all knowing, then he knew Lucifer would rebel which means that not only did Lucifer lack free will, but the origin of sin must be with god.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3nF69AHKcw&feature=g-vrec&context=G260e2d5RVAAAAAAAABg
1. The question is not if God has free will or not. Is if WE have it.
2. WLC is crazy
3. I think Michio Kaku said it best: "Hey get use to it! Einstein was wrong!"
4. There is no such thing as 2 exact universes up to the quantum levels, they would develop differently, quantum states are as random as random can be!
5. If you are right we should give human rights to machines who pass the Turing test
Then tell us what your current views are regarding that concept. Surely you have some opinion ? "God" admittedly has many definitions but only you can clarify what it means to you.
It doesn't matter how I define God, for what is important is how the person that attributes the badges defines it. It is easier for me to speak of my beliefs without using the word God because I find it Very subjective.
I currently think that
... there is another kind of "dimension" that somehow created this one. The realm of the First Cause. Another reason why I believe this beyond the ones I present here is the direct consequence of my beliefs on conscience.
This realm is not completely separated from the one we live, that is why for reasons arguably unknown, some preternatural phenomenons are able to communicate with our own through unknown methods.
Even the dark mater and energy could be a "shadow" of this other realm. I don't know.
People that have died sometimes can communicate and influence the affairs of this world.
What I think happens when we die is kind of a rebirth... Now imagine the movie Matrix. Neo lives in this dream fuzzy world, but since this world is the only world he knows he has no other frame of reference. So he thinks that he is living in the highest possible state of "Conscious awareness" that the fuzzy world is as Real as Real can be.
Only when he takes the pill and sees his "true form" and "true world" completely alien to him and impossible to describe, using only "fuzzy world" science and semantics he is able to experience and discover other "states of awareness" and being.
So I believe we are living in this fuzzy world. The other world is a heightened world where we experience a different kind of existence, which is "more real" than this one. It is like you stop being in General Relativity world and start existing in Quantum world.
Hey! maybe this guy is right and consciousness IS "the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules". I completely agree with him when he says that "that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness".
I have a dualistic view of the human existence. Meaning that I think conscience has un undeterministic quality and has free will. Not predictable by a mathematical formula.
Pim Van Lommel presents the "TV model" to explain the possible relationship of conscience with the brain. He published a pioneering study on Lancet medical magazine. White paper study on a reputed scientific magazine.
Believing in all of this it doesn't mean that there is a Diety that is a "preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers"
It only means that I beleive that there is more to human nature than what meets the eye.
Now. I'll refrain from proving anything here because if I could do that in "bullet proof" style I would not be here.
Hi Opie,
When you say Chrisitans , you mean uneducated modern whimpy Christians.
When the Reformation took place to bring true Christianity back into our society, they fought against Roman Catholicism. The Roman Cult were those that believed in free will. The Protestants were NOT of free will.
At that time, to believe in free will meant that you were a Roman Catholic. They were of the free will of palagism.
The book that represented Protestant thinking was, "Bondage of the will" by luther", the Roman side was Freedom of the Will by Erasmus. Luther wrote bondage of the will as a rebuttal to Erasmus's work.
Then the radical reformers kept palagism. Then Jacobus Arminius who was trained in Geneva placed free will back into play via protestant circles.
The Free-Willies then formed a clan called the arminians in 1610 and wrote the 5 "tulips' of arminism called the remonstrace. in 1618 they meant for a huge debate by the dutch reformers and lost in a massive way.
Like atheists, instead of adhering to the logical analysis of truth, they became emotional and fought in all their days to make arminism the claim of the majority forgeting the history of Roman Catholicism and the reformation.
Then George Finney was half Roman, half whatever and put the altar back up front and started doing altar calls and in came free will. During this time, cults started freaking out so Christians were stunned and free will took place.
So now, the majority of Christians adhere to the Roman Catholic doctrine of free will but instead of being palagist they call themselves semi palagist which results in original sin via the effect.
Not to mention that the origins of free will are via the stoics and Greek Pagans.
To use Free Will as an argument is false for the issues of theodicy. God causes evil (Amos 3:6) but is not the agent of that evil. You have no free will but are bound by either your own desires, or by the righteiousness of God.
A simple brief history but historically speaking, free will belongs to the ROman Catholics and the stoics, not Biblical Chrisitanity. Those who adhere to this thinking are simply weak in their thinking and have not studied Greek and Hebrew like I.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Really? Next time you can't get a reasonable answer for something like this, message me. The answer is SIMPLE. Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Constraint is the element factor or a subsystem that works as a bottleneck. It restricts an entity, project, or system (such as a manufacturing or decision making process) from achieving its potential (or higher level of output) with reference to its goal. How would God's knowledge of what I am going to pick CONSTRAIN me in any way from making my choice? If you were to stumble upon an E-Mail sent by your girlfriend, to her friend saying she can't wait to marry you, would that in anyway stop her from being able to make the choice to accept when you get on one knee? Obviously not.
"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig
Yea, modern Christians are whimps, who the fuck wants that when you can have the Dark Ages, Witch Hunts and Inquisition. That was soooooo peachy for dissent.
Dude, you are a fucking idiot! If everything is all about " I am right and you are wrong" then do what Stalin did. Do what Iran does, just kill people who challenge you. I wouldn't advise that because you'd rightfully get put in prison.
Otherwise I am damned fucking glad all labels in the west of all claims water their shit down to "nanny nanny boo boo" laws, where we can bitch but no one has the right to kill.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Would it be safe to say that your view then lacks a mystical aspect and is therefore more likely to be tested by scientific means ?
You would have to define mystical for me... but if you mean that my belief is preternatural instead of supernatural, yes. Natural being defined as everything that exists.
Considering science as:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion
and acknowledge that there are limits to experimentation and that certain knowledge can only be obtain by indirect experimentation without direct confirmation, yes.
If it is all of this then it is safe to say that I lack a mystical and impossible to prove or disprove belief.
Apperently I have a deeply platonic philosophy
This coming from the guy who called me "militant" because I picked on Buddha.
"I' don't agree with you" or "you got it wrong" or "you are full of shit" is not militant. It just means you don't like my word choice.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Thank you Teralek for such a detailed response in post #31. I am most assuredly too uneducated and scientifically illiterate to comprehend most of it but I will attempt a more thorough reading.
I simplify it for you:
I believe in an Intelligent First Cause and that conscience survives physical death.
Interesting. Do you believe that this Intelligent First Cause behaves in a "traditional" god-like role ? Is it paternalistic or behaves as a judge over these disembodied minds ? Is that too much into the realm of speculation ? You have piqued my interest.
No. the only thing I infer from it is that it is sentient. The rest is a complete mystery for me. I've read many theories but I'm not convinced of any.
The only one that seems to have the more strong points to it is that this "Sentience" is the collective of all consciences in the whole Universe. I took this from NDE reports and some talks in quantum mechanics I've watched.
I took more things from NDEs that I could also infer to the "Sentience" - Love. It seems extremely important, and it's probably associated with this "Sentience".
If I can say one thing for sure, from NDE research, is that there is no paternalism, judging, or damnation whatsoever.
Hey Brian,
First off your entire post was the logical fallacy of false dicotomy.
and second, since we have a normative for our epistemology which is spot on perfect, then obviously I can demonstrate how these modern christians that ooz the venom of the teeth of liberalism and atheism via that normative.
However you can't do that, you have to go through life guessing. Thus the slogans do not judge and tolerance was invented since igorance is bliss unless a Christian joins the party, it is then the hypocrisy is loud and the emotions are high.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
There is a difference between "that's a close one" and "never coming back"
Medically speaking in reality there can be a window where vital signs cannot be detected and you can "jolt" the body to a monitoring function. But ONCE YOU ARE DEAD YOU ARE DEAD!
What has never happened in any human in history is when you go beyond the window and take the smashed car and try to drive it.
There is NO such thing as NDE. There is merely stress and chemicals affecting the memories and biological state of the visual and memory cortex. The stress of that moment will cause the filing(memories)cabinet to dump out. If someone can do something before the window is closed, it merely amounts to putting the papers back.
This event is nothing more than our brain's filing cabinets dumping out and mixing with our conscious or subconscious.
What has never happened or will happen, is that when the body is DEAD, you come back.
I have myself "Seen" my dead grandmother at the foot of my bed. I have seen my dead father at the foot of my bead. The reality isn't that their "spirits" were real. The reality was that it was merely my dream state"stress" mixing with my visual cortex.
"Oh shit" moments in life are merely a sudden jolt to the brain which farts because it is scared shitless. Much like you trip while holding a tray off food for the President(any). You don't want to fuck up, and you think about all the people who would know if you did If you survive, it isn't because of magic, it is because circumstances or doctors got to you before you died.
No one will ever have a NDE experience if they have their head blown off by a shotgun or decapitated by a guillotine. NDEs are merely bran farts because of stress.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
We've had discussion before, so I'm ignoring any answer. Specially to someone who comes from the Third reich... Just to say this will always be denied even if we keep extending ressurrection techniques.
The paradoxical facts about the subjective NDE experience will always be denied by skeptics.
The only thing that can convince skeptics is the "measure" of a "disembodied" sou or if Sam Parnia research currently developing proves something like this indirectly.
Why would that be a joke? Perhaps I have studied claims of evolution. Perhaps you have never approached it with the same skepticism you do God. If you had, you would know that was a very valid question. Since evolution doesn't need God like dipshit belligerently claimed, a request for someone to provide just ONE example of evolution at that classification level should be a piece of cake? So why would you say that will never happen? If you believe Darwinian evolution it is very plausible. Since animals where here about 150 million years before the first land plants, it would follow that most probably they were some of the resources natural selection utilized. And since animals are heterotrophic and unable fix their own carbon and depend on organic carbon for growth, why wouldn't natural selection choose the superior genes that plants have making them autotrophic, which allows them to fix their own carbon making their own food? Seems like survival of the fittest would go that route instead of letting them die from not getting the necessary food. And why, if all animals and fungii, along with some bacteria, depend on plants for their necessary food source, where they doing about food for 150 million years? So, if you support evolution, I think you would agree that some animals did evolve into the plant kingdom. If ever natural selection were needed, this is it. So then, why doesn't it still happen today? Why is there anything today besides plants? Better yet, since you think humans evolved all the way from the classification Domain, JUST TELL ME ANYTHING HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED EVOLVING INTO JUST THE NEXT CLASSIFICATION, KINGDOM.
"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig
FOR THE LAST TIME, do not try to slur me by using the false tactic of calling me a bigot.
Here is what you are doing.
Me "Slow down, you are going to run that red light"
You, "I can go as fast as I want"
"Dude SLOW DOWN"
You, "You are anti car"
Me "No I am saying you are going too fast"
You "YOU HATE ME"
Bigots wouldn't let you on their website. Saying your argument's suck is merely being blunt. I do not hate YOU I hate the concepts of gods ANY GOD past or present and not just yours.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PERSON AND WHAT COMES OUT OF THEIR MOUTH.
I hate any claim where the person refuses or doesn't want to back it up. THAT IS WHAT WE DO HERE.
I would EQUALLY hate it if you truly believed the earth was flat and went around selling it.
YOU are merely being insecure and projecting your insecurity on me because you don't like your claims being knocked arround. That is your baggage, not mine, but that does not make me a bigot.
NOW if you truly want me to hate YOU the individual, keep falsely calling me a bigot.
I have never met you in person, and you don't know a damned thing about me or my personal life or who is in my family or who I work with. You simply don't like your claims being challenged. I am only judging your claims, not you,YOU are the one being judgmental about me, rather than focusing on your own arguments.
Now grow up. If we were bigots we wouldn't let you post here. If we were bigots we would say things like "arrest Christians" or "outlaw religion" , which we DONT. The ability to question social norms is not BIGOTRY, it is what keeps humanity progressing forward.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason that than to that of blindfolded fear" THOMAS JEFFERSON
You fear us because it challenges your claims. THAT IS YOUR BAGGAGE, not mine. You have nothing to fear from us. We wont barbecue your kittens or rape your women. "Bullshit" is simply a blunt way of saying "that doesn't make sense".
There ARE atheists here who don't like my tactics anymore than you do, but again that does not make me a bigot otherwise if you are going to project that bullshit slur on me, then all the atheists here who agree with you you'd have to accuse them of supporting bigotry as well, OTHERWISE chalk it up to "I don't like the boxing ring"
There is a section here called "kill them with kindness", where I don't go that much because that is a library, and for people who like the library, that is fine. When I do go there, I behave by the rules in that forum. But since you are not in the library, it is unreasonable for you to make demands about a website you did not write the rules to. BUT NONE of what I do or say here is bigoted.
"My car runs on pixie dust"
"No it doesn't"
" You hate me"
NO, so stop projecting your insecurities on me.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Please rewrite this in English, I don't speak retard. "...where they doing about food..." is one example of your writing which makes no sense to me. I'm not asking for perfection, just some semblance of the language I speak... I will happily teach you once you have asked a correct question. One point I think I may have picked out is your "animals before plants" idea... If that is the point you were making, sorry you have been misinformed. There were many single celled animal LIKE organisms. They consumed other organisms. That is very likely how eukaryotic cells came to exist... One theory could be that an early algae "ate" an early cyanobacteria. But no plant has ever, or ever will, evolve into an animal, and science has never made that claim. Still, please rewrite your question I don't understand whatever language it is you are using.
Teralek, I agree very much with what you wrote and I admire your fitting choice of description. As you say, preternatural is the word, not supernatural. This aspect of reality is not mystical or supernatural in itself, but it is probably the origin of many traditions of mysticism and supernatural belief.
Brian, please read and listen to dr. Lommel's research. He doesn't think NDE is a brain fart and you should see his reasons why. Your ability to look at the research and go where the evidence leads you is a measure of rationality. In this sense, I'm not sure if Michael Shermer himself is rational, as he argues directly against the results of study. The point is not whether or not we may really return from the dead, but whether or not is the brain working when the NDE takes place. We know it doesn't, and yet there may be NDE.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
1. you missed the sarcasm
2. i don't believe in god
3. einstein might have gotten it wrong
4. statistically, yes there are two exact universes up to the quantum level
5. i think technology will never reach the point were we even need to consider giving rights to a machine. biological replicants maybe.