Printable View
Would you like to ravel out all the things that your line of argumentation indicates had to lead up to this inevitable post of yours? I contend that your post was not inevitable and that you freely chose your thoughts, your opinions, and your words.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
We all act and live our predestinated lives as if we had free will.
i wasnt saying that we have no choice. what i was saying was that the line between "choice" and "not choice" is a slippery one. a little off point, but i'll get back on i a bit: i presume you find man as an animal to be one that is understandable--you must, since you attribute him with the power of choice and knowing what was chosen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
but how can we distinguish neccessary events from chance ones? how can we know what is our goal and what are the means to it? how can this become calculable? in order for us to know this, man must be understandable. yet, we are not understandable (look at psychology and physiology today, we have only skimmed the surface of man). so all that is understandable is our "idea" of man, man himself is not. so, to get back on point, your "idea" of man has made choices. but your "idea" and actual man are as seperate as a mile on a map is from a mile driven on the road.
so did i make the choice to write this? well, so many things happened to put me in this computer chair that its really tough to say. of course, as you've gathered, what i consider to be "me" is the entire universe (i think you'd say i'm in hell because of this) so in a sense, i did make a choice. but not "i" as we normally consider it as simply something that lies soley within a bag of skin.
I really hope you don't believe that's true. Predestination...:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
sounds like the book timequake by kurt vonnegut. read it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
Man is not an "animal" - he is very different from animals and possesses capabilities and faculties that clearly differentiate him from the animal kingdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
How does any of this relate to our discussion of freewill?Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Somebody/thing made a conscious choice to assemble the words contained in your post: was it you or someone/thing else?Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
man is an animal, but an animal that evolved unique characteristics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
the foundation of the free will argument is whether or not the subject of the subject-object dichotomy exist.
i am still waiting for a non-anthropomorphic idea from you.
No. Evolution is a fairy tale.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Sorry - I'm a bit dim on the philosophy so I'll say something stupid here: freewill is about whether or not we choose freely the course of our life.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
I don't think I necessarily disagreed with this.
From dictionary.com:
Sounds like a person to me. But wait:Quote:
an·i·mal /ˈænəməl/
–noun
1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
Billyjack is using definition number one, Redzeppelin is using definition number two. Hope that clears that up.Quote:
2. any such living thing other than a human being.
I believe that would be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
1) *edit*Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
2) yes, that is what free will is. but the idea of free will exist in a foundation that dichotomizes subject and object. this foundation says the two are seperate rather than unified. in order to solve the free will debate, or at least shed some new light on it, we need to come at it from new angles. this is what i am attempting to do.
3) you have said you agree with watts' statement saying:
"All ideas about the world, whether they be religious, philosophical, or scientific, are translations of the physical world and of worlds beyond the physical into the terms and shapes of the human mind. There is no such thing as a nonanthropomorphic idea"
well then you would be accepting that any concept or meaning we have of god/eternity/the beyond/morals/ect..., is a product of the human mind (brain and central nervous system). i agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
I'm sorry - I can't keep going round and round with you - I've lost track of what we were originally discussing. Yes, Watt's is probably right. There - can we move on to something else now?
Even if there is an element of faith behind each theory...evolution is still less of a fairy tale. There is nothing physical backing up adam and eve besides a few pages in an ancient book of myths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Here:Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Sir Frederick Hoyle, a Bristish astonomer, has said that the occurrence of a single-cell organism from random couplings of chemicals is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard. There's your fairy tale, my good man. (I assume - let me know if my gender is wrong and I'll edit accordingly.)
Is everyone an expert witness when it comes to biology? Why should an appeal to the authority of a famed astronomer have any bearing on the notion of the origin of life?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
And where did anyone ever say that complete organisms just popped up out of random chemical combinations?
Because the possibility of an event occuring can be mathematically calculated. Astronomers know how to calculate just like biologists do. No biological training is necessary to use a computer and a calculator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
The theory of evolution posits that the first single-celled organism came out of a "primordial soup" on the oceans of the ancient earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
For the last freakin' time: that's an abiogenesis hypothesis, not the theory of evolution. Furthermore, nobody thinks complete cells just popped up out of the primordial soup. Most hypotheses suggest that cells evolved from certain self-replicating molecules which were formed in the primordial ocean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
some guy that had nothing better to do, that's who
Excuse my inaccuracy, please. Despite my imprecise terminology, the point stands: scientists who believe in evolution/abiogenesis suggest that life sponatneously appeared in the primordial ocean - whether in single-cell form, replicating molecules - whatever. Either way, the mathematical odds are against such a formation. We can argue fossil records, transitional forms, yadda yadda yadda - but the math points to impossible odds - odds that time doesn't change.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Well, time does, in fact, change the odds, as time leads to greter understanding of the conditions of early earth. One can calculate the odds of an event with greater precision if one has more precise information about that event. Note, however, that while biologists do treat common descent as fact, they do not, if they are good biologists, treat the currently accepted hypotheses of abiogenesis as one. For the purposes of biological evolution, it doesn't really matter if the common ancestor came from primordial DNA-like molecules, God, martians, the infinite improbability drive or whatever.
But I think it does matter - because the presupposition of science is Naturalism - and Naturalism denies the existence of God (or any other supernatural power); as such, sooner or later, science must persue evolution of life on earth backwards until it finds a proper answer. Once you pull God out of the loop in terms of the 6-day creation and say He could have used evolution (though the Bible gives no clear indication that He did), we now wonder why He's necessary for the explanation at all (except that the current explanation of life-from-chemicals-and-random-chance requires me to accept numbers far beyond belief).Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Why this means that evolution is dependant on abiogenesis is, I confess, quite over my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
And the mathematical odds of modern species popping up instantly at the behest of a Big Magic Guy are so much better? Thanks for showing us true scientific objectivity where it counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Free will, science, belief, unbelief. I believe my free will consistently has gotten me into much mischief and is probably the reason God is protrayed as a Father who watches over his wayward children. Good to know he cares. Science--a great believer in it as a testimony to a VERY precise Creator and the marvelous results of his operations. Belief--I have a bit but that darn free will interferes with my effectiveness. Unbelief--very much so.
Bottom line for me--Faith, Faith, Faith by the grace of God. I could but won't even bother trying to refute the Bible. I have discovered over many years that God is not all concerned with my opinion of Him but that I should be very concerned with His of me.
With respect to an unanswerable debate--been watching this site for awhile and decided to chime in with the same old song.
I'll ignore your sarcasm (since it does nothing for your argument); I did not indicate my position was the better or more believable: I indicated one of the difficulties of the "God didn't do it" option. Please read posts carefully before you attempt to critique their logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
First, your term "Big Magic Guy" shows that you know little, if anything about the true nature of God.
Second, if God is who He claims to be (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present) then it's quite reasonable that He could do such a thing. Design implies a designer; nature is far too complex to have come about randomly. While we're at it, why don't you tell me the "mathematical odds" against the existence of God, OK?
The "objectivity" of science is up for debate.
This just plain bugs me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Science is meant to produce and refine a testable model of reality through empirical inquiry. The process itself is open to all and is constantly getting us closer to an accurate view of the way our universe works. Okay, not everything it has produced is to our liking, but there is much we owe to science that we should be proud of: we understand the nature of heredity, we can appreciate the vastness of history, we know we are part of an intricate biosphere.
Science is reviled as the destroyer of illusions. No matter what we see every day in the sky, we know the Sun is the center of our solar system. Thus, we also know that what we believe and feel is nothing in the face of objective scientific inquiry. Science should be a humbling experience: knowledge is constantly progressing, and many of today's certainties will be tomorrow's obsolete information. The orderly world of Newtonian physics gave way to Einstein's universe of uncertainty, just as the model of our solar system progressed from geocentrism to heliocentrism.
The progress in our collective knowledge is not made through personal contemplation but by empirical evidential inquiry. We can't learn by starting with our beliefs and trying to find evidence to support them. The real submission and humility is in staring at our beliefs about the universe objectively and wanting to make them better through honest inquiry.
That's the only way we learn.
magic--Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.
isnt the above definition of magic an accurate portrayal of the qualities the christian god would neccessarily possess in order to do what he is said to have done?...
"big magic guy" isnt that weird of a take on the matter.
Did you tell me all this because you think I don't already know it? I'm well aware of the value of science (heck, it's what allows me to be here posting in cyberspace) - I get all the stuff you wrote. I think science is essential to living life here on earth - we gain great things from its continual probing and exploring. What I'm suggesting (and seems to rankle an number of people here) is that you be realistic and fair and admit the shortcomings of science; some things it can assert with definitive authority and I totally acknowledge that; however, other things it can only speculate on and offer a reasonably educated guess on. It is when people will not admit to that, that I become concerned. I'll freely admit that I cannot prove God to you; I'm asking you to admit that science cannot - in and of itself - provide all answers. It never has, and it never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
I never asserted that science has all the answers. In fact, I declared quite openly that scientific truth is only ever tentative, the best answer we have until more information comes in. I only objected to the claim you made that scientific objectivity was open to debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
In reality, the strength of science is that new information and continuing research changes and refines scientific knowledge. Sooner or later, the better theory replaces the obsolete one. If the evidence is there, scientific truth changes for good. Does science still support the concept of a flat Earth? Does science still assert that fermentation and putrefaction are the product of spontaneous generation? These may have been heated debates once upon a time, but now the case is closed.
Ultimately, it all boils down to evidence. Whenever I hear someone denigrating science as "not objective" or "propaganda" or "a religion in itself," I suspect that someone is concerned that science won't reinforce his prejudices.
Good; your first two sentences indicate we agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Depends on what you mean by the word "evidence."Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Of the three terms you listed, the first is not a denegration but a qualification. Science is not completely objective because it is studied and conducted by people who have different philosophies and world-views. Some of us will admit to the truth that our perceptions very much color our interpretation of the facts; others of us like to pretend that we are totally objective. We're not. Science functions from the premise of naturalism - so therefore it is not totally objective in its conclusions; the evolutionary scientist and the intelligent design scientist can look at the same "evidence" and come up with two different and equally reasonable conclusions, due to their two contradictory suppositions from within which they interpret the meaning of the facts they find. Science can only be as objective as those practicing it - and human beings have extreme difficulty being objective.
That's what the process of independent confirmation is for. If your conclusions are coloured by personal prejudice, you will get caught for it. Either you will not get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, or somebody else will perform experiments that show your findings to be fallicious. It isn't just one person or group of people deciding what constitutes evidence and what doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
But only one of those conclusions gets published in a peer-reviewed journal. Why? Because the ID scientist can't back up his assumption that complexity implies design, because he can't compare objects that are known to be designed to objects that are known to be undesigned because he doesn't believe that the latter exists. Also, he can't make testable predictions, can't perform experiments to test his hypothesis, and can't seem to remember the arguments he lost fiteen years ago. He is, in short, a poor scientist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
But joe, I'm speaking from more than just a "personal" position (meaning the individual's personal "filters"); I'm speaking of a collective suppositional stance, and I'm going to be very bummed when you tell me that you don't acknowledge what I'm about to say (and have said here before ): I think it is possible for people to begin from a certain standpoint - a foundational belief system - and that that foundation largely decides what will and will not be considered as cogent evidence; as such, it has been fairly evident that - from the Enlightenment on - Naturalism has been the basis of scientific inquiry. Therefore, that means that any discussion of a spiritual component to the world, or the existence of a Divine Being is automatically ruled out, based on the presuppositions of Naturalism. So - if all scientists are publishing upon the same foundation, then it won't be seen as a "coloring filter." Total objectivity would require science to adjure Naturalism and embrace ALL explanatory possiblities.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. I watched the documentary, and something's wrong with it. It seems like he's jumping to conclusions without real proof. He's definitely reading between the lines of the Bible. He's missing something major. I found it interesting, but I'm not swayed.
Now, my dad works in the field of evolutionary science. I quote him here when I say that ID scientists don't exist - at least within the peripheral of modern fundamentalist ID belief. There are those within the field that are agnostic, and, furthermore, those that believe the God created the process of evolution - and, furthermore, those who do have leanings toward a creator are almost exclusively proponents of evolution (very few and far between are the scientists who differ from a model of evolution - and even then, most of these have been shown to have seriously flawed methods).Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Well if there was a God who created the universe, He would be as much a part of the natural world black holes, quantum uncertainty and other dimensions, and naturalism would therefore be able to uncover evidence of him, and maybe it will. There's no inherent reason why the hypothesis of a divine being should not produce testable predictions like any other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
No - that is flat-out wrong; God is beyond that which He creates - He exists above, beyond and outside nature - because the creator is not a part of the created (that's pantheism). Nature - in the cohesion and intricacy of its design - gives testimony to His hand and presence, but He Himself cannot be "located" via our observational methods unless He chooses to manifest Himself in such a way. "Testable predictions" are very dependent upon 1) the nature of your measuring devices, and 2) the nature of that which you are measuring. Your statements reveal quite clearly your suppositional basis: it's naturalism all the way with you; I don't fault you for that, but understand that - from the Christian POV, your assertion that God can be "tested" like any other hypothesis is nothing short of absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Fine. There's no reason why that should statement should not lead to something concrete for which evidence can actually be given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Yes. After careful consideration, the term 'supernatural' has no useful meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
a quick butt in-- redzeppellins underlying principles seem to be based in the esoteric world, the beyond. cup o joes seemed to be based in the understandable, known, exoteric world.
okay, as you were .
You ignored the part of my post that indicated that the "creator" is not the same as the "created."Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Yes - to someone who subscribes to the philosophical position of Naturalism, the word has no meaning (which does not mean that it is meaningless; just that people who choose to believe that Naturalism is the foundation of reality have decided that the word has no meaning).Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Because He is a supernatural being.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
No, see, I think it is meaningless, even if deities and ghosts and suchlike do exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I'll rephrase: why should the hypothesis that God created the universe not yield anything testable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red