|
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. |
On March 07 2012 06:38 Lord_J wrote: It seems to me that precise extent of determinism inherent in our perceived choices is really quite aside from the point when it comes to religious claims about evil being a consequence of free will. Whether, indeed, we are only ever capable of a single course of action is an open question, and an interesting avenue for scientific inquiry, but it requires no great insight to observe that there are many courses of action we cannot choose. For example, no matter how strongly I might will it, I cannot go back in time and prevent my annoying neighbor from ever being born. Indeed, the number of courses of action that result in what one might describe as "evil" of which we are capable seems to me to be a very small fraction of all such courses of action that are imaginable.
It begs the question, then, why a benevolent creator would not have chosen a different design--one in which even fewer evil course of action were within our capabilities, or, indeed, none at all. For example, if human biology were designed to be less fragile, our opportunities to harm and kill each other could certainly be reduced, or perhaps even eliminated, without otherwise affecting our ability to exercise free will, to whatever extent it does, as a factual matter, exist. And this is to say nothing of "evils" which are largely unrelated to human decision-making processes. Thus, free will fails to adequately explain evil even if we assume that it exists in the way that apologists would have us imagine that it does, and so, at least for the purposes of that debate, speculation about free will versus determinism strikes me as wholly unnecessary.
However, your argument about humans being less fragile is simple theorycrafting. If it became harder to kill hurt or harm another human being, then people would simply come up with more damaging things to accomplish this end. There is no point at which people could be made indestructible enough to eliminate the potential to harm or kill. If we are all made out of the same materials, then we can still hurt each other because when two opposing things made of the same material collide, they both suffer damage. However, one also has to consider how practical it would be for people to be made out of other materials. And for the theological argument one also has to address what the notion of being created in the "image of God" means.
|
On March 07 2012 06:25 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 05:15 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 05:01 Artisian wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Physics make's any particularly bold claims on the mind-body issue.
There's still so little we know about brain states, and even less that we understand, that I don't think free-will can be shown false (or true) through current physics. I'm fairly certain the technically correct decision is to suspend judgement and use whatever belief is most functional until it matters. Yes, there is so little we know about the brain. The fact that people repeat such things, with what appears to me some satisfaction, is very telling. People like ignorance in science as a prop for their beliefs. Here is what we DO know about the brain. Surgeries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Injuries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Drugs affecting it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Changes in the environment a person grew up in have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Genes have been shown to influence behavior and personality. The point I am making is that people are their brains. Affecting the brain, affects the mind. This is undeniable. In the face of this undeniable fact, people start leaping to absurd conclusions. For example, suggesting that the brain influences behavior but does not determine it. What do you think influence means? It means plays a hand in determining it. Once we accept this, then we can reject the notion of "free" will. Obviously it is not free if it is determined to any degree. What other leaps in logic can we make to deny the inevitable? Quantum mechanics? Unexplained behavior? Jumps into Epistemology to deny logic and reason itself? Feelings? This is all that has been presented in favor of the notion of free will. We could provide literally thousands of examples in the literature of science which suggested that the state of the brain determines behavior and decisions. What evidence is there to the contrary? Not one shred has been presented here. Do decisions control the chemicals in your brain? No, of course not. Decisions aren't laws of nature. The chemicals in your brain determine your decisions. Pure and simple. People are not just their brains. Influence means to give input, but input can be rejected or can error. Essentially your argument is that humanity is a really complex computer program, but the thing about really complex computer programs, is that they have tons of errors and glitches. Input 1 will not always give Output 1. Three people with similar genetics, backgrounds, and environments can become 3 completely different people. Why? Because all of these inputs are simply predispositions (tendency to choose one option or set of options). The person may be slightly more likely to choose an option, yet the person may choose otherwise. A person with all of the genetic factors and environmental factors for addiction can become something other than an addict. Why? Free will is the answer to why.
if people aren't "just" their brains, what else are they? if an arm has to be amputated, it gets basically thrown into the trashcan, if someone would theoretically be left with his whole body amputated and the brain being kept alive mechanically, and it eventually dies, what do you think would happen? its getting a proper burrial, eventhough its definitively NOT the body.
everything influences the brain and therefor the person (as stated before). if someone, like you said, has all the genetic factors and environmental factors for addiction, he WILL become an addict. if he does not become one, either surrounding (friends, availability of drugs, general perception of drug-abuse in the social surrounding, personal feelings etc) or genetic factors are not given.
as for your first example, yeah, those 3 would develope differently. and they'd be more likely to take one option over the other. in very, very, very few cases, they might take the one thats unlikely, but thats not free will but actual chance (see also: heisenberg). in most cases, they'll take the one that some theoretical person with perception of background and knowledge as well as genetic information would predict. such a person doesn't exist, obviously, and its far too complicated to actually predict something like that, but in theory its possible.
somebody asked before if, seeing that I don't believe in free will, a murderer would be guilty or should be punished, here's my opinion on that: as for guilty, I don't think so. if he should be punished, yes, certainly. you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes.
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On March 07 2012 06:50 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 06:38 Lord_J wrote: It seems to me that precise extent of determinism inherent in our perceived choices is really quite aside from the point when it comes to religious claims about evil being a consequence of free will. Whether, indeed, we are only ever capable of a single course of action is an open question, and an interesting avenue for scientific inquiry, but it requires no great insight to observe that there are many courses of action we cannot choose. For example, no matter how strongly I might will it, I cannot go back in time and prevent my annoying neighbor from ever being born. Indeed, the number of courses of action that result in what one might describe as "evil" of which we are capable seems to me to be a very small fraction of all such courses of action that are imaginable.
It begs the question, then, why a benevolent creator would not have chosen a different design--one in which even fewer evil course of action were within our capabilities, or, indeed, none at all. For example, if human biology were designed to be less fragile, our opportunities to harm and kill each other could certainly be reduced, or perhaps even eliminated, without otherwise affecting our ability to exercise free will, to whatever extent it does, as a factual matter, exist. And this is to say nothing of "evils" which are largely unrelated to human decision-making processes. Thus, free will fails to adequately explain evil even if we assume that it exists in the way that apologists would have us imagine that it does, and so, at least for the purposes of that debate, speculation about free will versus determinism strikes me as wholly unnecessary. However, your argument about humans being less fragile is simple theorycrafting. If it became harder to kill hurt or harm another human being, then people would simply come up with more damaging things to accomplish this end. There is no point at which people could be made indestructible enough to eliminate the potential to harm or kill. If we are all made out of the same materials, then we can still hurt each other because when two opposing things made of the same material collide, they both suffer damage. However, one also has to consider how practical it would be for people to be made out of other materials. And for the theological argument one also has to address what the notion of being created in the "image of God" means.
I am sorry, but that's an extremely narrow and simplistic view. Even assuming, as you boldly declare, that there is no point at which people could be made indestructible enough to eliminate the potential to harm or kill, it's silly to think that human vulnerability couldn't at least be reduced below what it presently is. Your argument about "materials," besides being just plain wrong (e.g., water does not suffer "damage" when it "collides with" water), is aside from the point, since that is hardly the only way to make human beings more resilient to physical harm. Simply improving the immune system, for instance, and thereby reducing the danger of infection after physical injury could result in a reduction in the evils we inflict on each other (not to mention many other evils that aren't the result of anyone's conscious choice).
Indeed, there are innumerable ways in which we could be better able to avoid, mitigate, or at least recover from whatever harm, if any, does inevitably affect us. And, it bears re-emphasis out, that the idea of making humans less fragile is itself just one example of the innumerable ways in which our ability to carry out evil could be reduced. To suggest that they're all somehow impractical or ultimately unavailing is an awfully flaccid defense for an allegedly omnipotent being. Similarly, if you wish to speculate that God made us fragile out of a desire to create us in his own image, then it seems to me that you don't have a very high opinion of your God. And even if that were the case, it only begs the question whether God's decision to make us in his own image, despite knowing that it would increase the amount of evil in the world, is consistent with claims of his goodness and/or benevolence.
If you really want to insist that human beings and the universe they inhabit are designed to permit the absolute minimum amount of evil consistent with free will, then I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss. Such a conversation would inevitably degenerate into an uninteresting game of whack-a-mole, wherein I keep pointing out counter-examples to your way of thinking and you keep coming up with new ways to rationalize them instead of considering the possibility that you might have been wrong, and I don't intend to spend my time playing that game.
|
So what exactly is free will?
|
On March 06 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 22:48 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 22:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:08 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 20:24 sigma_x wrote:On March 06 2012 18:11 somatic wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will. "If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?" As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested. "Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? " If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible. Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned. If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it. ***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will". The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all. Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen. Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism. "Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen." I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved. If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen. As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense. Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will. Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now. Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden. Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy. You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier. The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist. Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general. One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you. In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read. You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament. To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor. And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
|
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will? I would say it is the idea that human behavior is somehow immune to causality, and yet is not arbitrary.
In other words it is nonsensical and cannot even be comprehended or properly defined, because it does not exist anywhere in the known universe. It is a notion which shuts down the brain when we try to comprehend it, because the brain cannot conceive an alternative to either determination or randomness. Instead the mind goes into nonsense land, where superstition, metaphysics, and doublethink reside.
|
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Sam Harris is releasing an ebook on Free Will tomorrow. http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-free-willTo preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will. I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case. As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles. Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free. The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross. Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
So I see two possibilities:
You know nothing about science, talking out your ass, and you're just trolling.
OR
You know more about chemistry and physics than I do and perhaps the rest of the known world.
Either way, I'd still like you to explain your point further, since you've just created allegations against religion.
|
On March 07 2012 09:20 somatic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:48 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 22:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:08 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 20:24 sigma_x wrote:On March 06 2012 18:11 somatic wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will. "If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?" As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested. "Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? " If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible. Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned. If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it. ***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will". The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all. Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen. Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism. "Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen." I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved. If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen. As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense. Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will. Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now. Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden. Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy. You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier. The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist. Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general. One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you. In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read. You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament. To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor. And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science? Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely. The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins). Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion. The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up. Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat. (Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail. Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible. When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms. And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days. and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 07 2012 09:28 furerkip wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Sam Harris is releasing an ebook on Free Will tomorrow. http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-free-willTo preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will. I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case. As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles. Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free. The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross. Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. So I see two possibilities: You know nothing about science, talking out your ass, and you're just trolling. OR You know more about chemistry and physics than I do and perhaps the rest of the known world. He almost certainly knows more science than you do, seeing how you have not reached this conclusion yourself.
Either way, I'd still like you to explain your point further, since you've just created allegations against religion. This thread is already 27+ pages long. He has explained his point further already, as have many others, if you go back and read it.
|
We're all puppets, just with the small ability to tug the strings here and there imo
|
No one actually has 'free will'. You want to float in mid air RIGHT this instant, you reckon you can do it?? You certainly not free to do it on your own 'will'. The extent of your 'free will' to act is determined by your environment (ie: laws of physics n shit as OP as mentioned). Yes you can lift your leg up whenever you want, but you certainly can't teleport to the nearest mcdonalds for a cheeseburger if your hungry.
However, there is a degree of freedom in action. One can choose to be some suicide bomber, one can choose to study harder. Your environment around you gives you certain choices to act upon on your own 'free will', that is all.
|
On March 07 2012 09:20 somatic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:48 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 22:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:08 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 20:24 sigma_x wrote:On March 06 2012 18:11 somatic wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will. "If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?" As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested. "Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? " If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible. Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned. If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it. ***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will". The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all. Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen. Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism. "Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen." I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved. If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen. As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense. Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will. Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now. Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden. Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy. You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier. The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist. Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general. One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you. In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read. You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament. To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor. And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science? Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely. The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins). Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion. The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up. Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat. (Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail. Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible. When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms. And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days. and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
What about Leviticus 11:20-23.
It says insects have four legs. I find that quite hard to justify scientifically, and can disprove it quite easily. Is that not an inconsistency in the bible?
|
So far I haven't read many good arguments for either side. The free will ones though are definitely way worse, trying to prove with anecdotal evidence or trivial examples as "logic" that free will exists is dumb. Most if not all of them have failed to explain why free will exists, instead justifying their decision making because of free will, which is obviously circular reasoning.
While the anti-free-will arguments have completely swung the other way without providing good examples explaining how it goes against commonly accepted examples of free will at work. Maybe the science is there, how does it relate to us? All I see is some loosely connected examples of quantum physics and neuroscience. Obviously people aren't going to understand that, and rebut with a petty example that would somewhat resemble something you see in a girl blog.
The only good example of non free will I've seen is the split brain example. Where people have had surgery to cure diseases like epilepsy, resulting in a disconnect between the right and left brain. What then occurs is that you have no free will over one side of the body, as if another soul is living inside your body.
However it still behaves cohesively nevertheless, you still feel in control of it because you can walk, work and live out your daily life. Then for some reason every now and then, your some parts of your body will have its own ideas, e.g you want to put on a green shirt, but your hand reaches out and picks the purple one.
There are also cases of outer body experiences where people have lost control of their bodies, but their behaviour is still completely normal and they for about 10 mins or maybe checking out food at a machine, even though the person had no control over his body. What's even more scary is that this happens to a lot of pilots, due to their working environment.
Is it so hard to believe that our brain might have more influence over our decision making than we think?
On March 06 2012 22:10 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 21:59 Oshuy wrote:What is debunked is that even if quantum fluctuations are fundamentally stochastic, i.e., completely random and unpredictable, it still does not imply that free will exists. I do not see why anyone would try to demonstrate that free will exists, that in itself would be absurd. The use of the quantum fluctuations is to point out that based on the same initial state, alternatives to the final outcome exist. A single experiment that is not determined is enough to leave room for choice. That gap is all that is required to allow for any decision making process we can imagine, including free will. The main point here being that we have no scientific way to collect enough data to prove/disprove it. (would appear as a bias in the randomness of quantum events linked to specific decisions, which we cannot measure yet) I agree it is absurd, I agree it is a bypass of the laws of the universe by something undefined which would have that "will". Point is, there is no scientific way to rule it out other than Ockham's razor. There is no gap. The gap is already filled by fundamental randomness. If humans can fill that gap with their will, then it is no longer fundamentally random, contradicting quantum mechanics, which brings be back to the point in the OP: the existence of free will is inconsistent with what we currently know about the universe. It's pretty much a fact that the universe is random. Quantum mechanics says so, and quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history. The universe is random, but that doesn't imply free will exists.
I don't think this is true. While it is considered the pinnacle of physics and many of the most famous scientists have striven to work on this all their life, I think it is also one of the most misunderstood sciences just like neuroscience, simply because of its technicality.
|
On March 07 2012 09:20 somatic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:48 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 22:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:08 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 20:24 sigma_x wrote:On March 06 2012 18:11 somatic wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will. "If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?" As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested. "Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? " If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible. Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned. If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it. ***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will". The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all. Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen. Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism. "Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen." I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved. If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen. As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense. Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will. Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now. Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden. Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy. You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier. The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist. Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general. One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you. In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read. You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament. To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor. And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science? Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely. The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins). Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion. The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up. Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat. (Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail. Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible. When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms. And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days. and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
How exactly does the Old Testament give us an idea of God's standards? Every single Christian I know cherry pick from the Old Testament. What kind of standards and morals can God teach when his followers can't even come up with a concensus on which standards to follow?
Some events in the Bible and some figures in the Bible can be proven by archeological evidence and historical writings, but the more fantastical events that happened, like Moses parting the sea, and the Great Flood, are hard to substantiate. To the people of the time, a drought causing a section of a large river to recede or a flash flood wiping out a village could be seen as supernatural in origin. They tell their family in another village, their family passes the story along, mixing the details up or inventing new ones to make their story better received, and in the end, it's written down in the Bible as supposedly historical fact. Look up the tale of King Arthur and his knights.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion." What about the phrase right after it? "...Though not beheld".
As for the prophecies in the Bible, vague words don't mean anything. You're telling us that you believe in soothsayers as well? I would love for you to list the prophecies made in the Bible and give us a word by word translation on how they relate to something that happened after. As for 4000 years of historical "fact" that the Bible seems to espouse, why don't you take a look through the history books by the various historians throughout the ages and compare them to the Bible? If you want to be scientific, you have to be thorough, and above all else you have to be questioning and interpreting every sentence in the Bible, because for every 1 historical "fact" you might find in the Bible, I can pick up the book and give you 10 inconsistencies.
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22)
The "circle" that's translated here can also mean an arch, which is what this line is alluding to. The arch of the heavens. + Show Spoiler +The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet.
As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water.
If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years.
|
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will? The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
|
On March 06 2012 22:10 paralleluniverse wrote: Quantum mechanics says so, and quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history. He was extending the success of quantum electrodynamics to all of quantum mechanics. QED gets accuracy of 1 part in 10^10. Measurements can get much higher accuracies, LIGO measures distance to 1 part in 10^21. But I guess they are excluding the theory of interference because it would mute their hyperbole.
|
On March 07 2012 09:56 Deadeight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 09:20 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:48 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 22:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:08 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 20:24 sigma_x wrote:On March 06 2012 18:11 somatic wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will. "If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?" As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested. "Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? " If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible. Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned. If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it. ***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will". The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all. Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen. Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism. "Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen." I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved. If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen. As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense. Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will. Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now. Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden. Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy. You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier. The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist. Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general. One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you. In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read. You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament. To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor. And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science? Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely. The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins). Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion. The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up. Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat. (Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail. Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible. When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms. And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days. and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity. What about Leviticus 11:20-23. It says insects have four legs. I find that quite hard to justify scientifically, and can disprove it quite easily. Is that not an inconsistency in the bible?
so leviticus 11:21 reads: "Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth."
I read it as saying insects have four legs that are used to crawl (or "go upon") additionally they have 2 other legs used for leaping therefore having six in total. The inconsistency is in your interpretation, not the scriptures itself. When one interpretation does not add up we should consider another explanation that does in order for the entire body to be coherent and hence after many hours of contemplating on the scriptures there should be only one correct way to interpret the scriptures so that it all adds up within itself.
|
On March 07 2012 10:44 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 09:20 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:48 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 22:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:08 somatic wrote:On March 06 2012 20:24 sigma_x wrote:On March 06 2012 18:11 somatic wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will. "If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?" As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested. "Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? " If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible. Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned. If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it. ***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will". The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all. Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen. Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism. "Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen." I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved. If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen. As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense. Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will. Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now. Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden. Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy. You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier. The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist. Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general. One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you. In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read. You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament. To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor. And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science? Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely. The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins). Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion. The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up. Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat. (Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail. Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible. When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms. And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days. and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity. How exactly does the Old Testament give us an idea of God's standards? Every single Christian I know cherry pick from the Old Testament. What kind of standards and morals can God teach when his followers can't even come up with a concensus on which standards to follow? Some events in the Bible and some figures in the Bible can be proven by archeological evidence and historical writings, but the more fantastical events that happened, like Moses parting the sea, and the Great Flood, are hard to substantiate. To the people of the time, a drought causing a section of a large river to recede or a flash flood wiping out a village could be seen as supernatural in origin. They tell their family in another village, their family passes the story along, mixing the details up or inventing new ones to make their story better received, and in the end, it's written down in the Bible as supposedly historical fact. Look up the tale of King Arthur and his knights. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion." What about the phrase right after it? "...Though not beheld". As for the prophecies in the Bible, vague words don't mean anything. You're telling us that you believe in soothsayers as well? I would love for you to list the prophecies made in the Bible and give us a word by word translation on how they relate to something that happened after. As for 4000 years of historical "fact" that the Bible seems to espouse, why don't you take a look through the history books by the various historians throughout the ages and compare them to the Bible? If you want to be scientific, you have to be thorough, and above all else you have to be questioning and interpreting every sentence in the Bible, because for every 1 historical "fact" you might find in the Bible, I can pick up the book and give you 10 inconsistencies. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22) The "circle" that's translated here can also mean an arch, which is what this line is alluding to. The arch of the heavens. + Show Spoiler +The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet. As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water. If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years.
You cant judge God based on what someone who claims to be His follower says.E.g. If i say im an expert at SC2 but cant tell you how to hold off a 4gate as terran, than do i really know how to play SC2? or is it just SC2 that is broken and 4 gates cannot be held off? - this is the cause of much grief when new strategies come out that seem imba, people just like to take the easy road and QQ and say its not possible but someone will come along and show them how to hold it off and all will be forgotten.
I did briefly address this issue before. In saying “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). I do not claim myself to know or act in complete harmony with the bible, heck i masturbated about 10 times in the last two days. I'm just trying to defend it with what i do know.
Yes some bible events can be substantiated and some not. But why would you focus on what we do not know about the bible in an attempt to understand it, its not going to lead anywhere constructive to hypothesize about what happened at the parting of the red sea, just look to somewhere where you can find answers.
As for the Isaiah quote I have a source that says it can be translated as a sphere. So this argument will now deteriorate into my scholar is better than your scholar but ultimately will lead no where.
As for the prophecies i mentioned, i was interested in the ones that had already come true not ones made willy-nilly by any old "sooth sayer" and hence gave me evident demonstration of things hoped for though not yet beheld. As in by fulfilling prophecies in the past He has provided evident demonstration that the promises He made regarding the future will be beheld.
And as for a deeper description of the prophecies i mentioned well that is beyond the scope of this thread and my knowledge to be honest, i have work to do in looking at more details into those to convince myself and that is the onus that is on me and everyone else. Every one will be accountable for their own actions.
I am questioning every sentence written in the thing, takes time. But i can say that for every 1 thing i find as fact the 10 that you claim to be inconsistencies will be, in my limited experience (which is probably more experience than yours in regards to the bible? maybe not) , due to your own misinformation or lack of information. Remember a short time ago i was just like you, had the same views on the bible as everyone else, that it was just a load of shit but as i asked questions about it i got reasonable answers and my misinformation was corrected and lack of information began to become less, and hence the process began.
"As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water. " ??? "(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
"If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years."
what do you think iv been doing for the last 3 years? I have been meeting up with people who devote their lives to this stuff, who study it every single day. every single sentence gets scrutinized, i have witnessed this process. the amount of knowledge these guys have on the scriptures is incredible.
|
I'm so confused. In my experience free will is in opposition to fate, and if I was going to put religion on one side or the other, I would put religion on the side of fate. but here you are saying that there is no free will that it all comes down to physics and that means no god. Before I got to that last paragraph I thought you were setting up an argument for intelligent design, which is what it sounded like.
Using logical arguments to try and disprove religion makes my heart sink, because religion is a matter of belief. Which basically means that despite logical evidence otherwise you continue to believe. It's just apart of who you are. maybe it's the way physics made you perhaps. but when I see these logical arguments which (i'm not saying are wrong) it just irks me, because its basically saying here is a reason why god doens't exist and if you continue believing then you are stupid. When it's not about whether or not the mythical creature actually exist but bringing something into your life that you believe you are lacking, whether it be guidance, moral compass, or just hope. yeah religion also makes wars and bigots but you win some you lose some.
so all of that aside, I find the discussion of whether or not there is actually free will to be fascinating, and a much better point of discussion, if you keep it away from all that here's why it disproves religion.
|
OP's argument seems to be that some religions use free will to explain the existence of evil. Then, if hard determinism is taken at face value, free will doesn't exist. Then assuming evil exists, and free will can't be used to explain it, the religion is wrong.
One problem with that; if hard determinism is taken at face value, evil doesn't exist. (and doesn't need to be explained) Being unable to explain the physics of a non-physical concept like evil is a logical certainty.
Assuming evil and hard determinism is like saying 1=2.
|
|
|
|