If there’s no free will, why bother with this debate? If it all comes down to what triggers some reward/feel-good routine in an individual’s operating system, what’s the point? Doesn’t this view mean that trying to convert the religious to atheism is like trying to convince forlife women are the way to go?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If there’s no free will, why bother with this debate? If it all comes down to what triggers some reward/feel-good routine in an individual’s operating system, what’s the point? Doesn’t this view mean that trying to convert the religious to atheism is like trying to convince forlife women are the way to go?
Exactly.
I find it very fascinating that those that argue so vociferously against free will are in fact exercising it to its fullest right before our eyes. Ironical, huh?[/quote]
Maybe it’s in our orientations (like a sexual orientation, eh, eh?) to feel a sense of truth and satisfaction with either a religious, agnostic, or atheistic view. Those that convert either way at some point were only in denial, closeted, running contrary to their natural programming. But one bio-chem satisfication we seem to have in common, is our willingness to participate in great big religious/atheist debate threads.
Not a shot at you forlife. You’re not exactly trying to keep it on the downlow, so I thought I’d use you as an illustration.
[quote]pat wrote:
We can know certain things by simply coming to a conclusion.[/quote]
So concluding that something is true makes it true?
Why does it have to desire to create something? I don’t think the clouds desire to create rain, yet somehow they manage to do so.
I never suggested giving up. I did suggest that it makes zero sense to jump to a conclusion that theory A is true, and theories B-Z are wrong, without supporting evidence to back it up. You admit yourself that there is no proof for your god, so why not simply admit that we don’t know and choose to withhold judgment until we do?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and has pretty solid empirical support.
Including the universe? Then why invoke the idea of a god when you admit it is possible that, outside of time, matter and energy exist forever? Is light not infinite by your definition?
What evidence do you have for this?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If there’s no free will, why bother with this debate? If it all comes down to what triggers some reward/feel-good routine in an individual’s operating system, what’s the point? Doesn’t this view mean that trying to convert the religious to atheism is like trying to convince forlife women are the way to go? [/quote]
I don’t think we really know if free will exists or not. There’s no way to prove it either way.
Regardless, even without free will, people still respond to environmental stimuli, of which the messages on this board are a part. If it’s in my programming to preach agnosticism, it may be in someone else’s programming to disagree, or to be persuaded as I eventually was.
It also reduces the value of human life (specifically, others’ lives) to that of a non-spiritual animal. And reduces all animals to the level of organic computers. With the human animal only having an illusion of free will.
Morality isn’t about good our evil, but about what risk one is willing to take on. Live by the sword, die by the sword? Or, live under those willing to live by the sword, die by the sword? I will not kill you, because I don’t want someone killing me. Not because murder is “evil.” It’s simply inconveniant for us, so make a deal with our neighbors. It’s a risk assesment, on a sliding scale, (that I suppose is hardwired in their nature?) for each person. A murderer is simply a risk taking predator. No more evil than the four legged, finned, or winged variety.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If there’s no free will, why bother with this debate? If it all comes down to what triggers some reward/feel-good routine in an individual’s operating system, what’s the point? Doesn’t this view mean that trying to convert the religious to atheism is like trying to convince forlife women are the way to go?
I don’t think we really know if free will exists or not. There’s no way to prove it either way.
[/quote]
Than we must be atheistic about it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If there’s no free will, why bother with this debate? If it all comes down to what triggers some reward/feel-good routine in an individual’s operating system, what’s the point? Doesn’t this view mean that trying to convert the religious to atheism is like trying to convince forlife women are the way to go?
I don’t think we really know if free will exists or not. There’s no way to prove it either way.
Regardless, even without free will, people still respond to environmental stimuli, of which the messages on this board are a part. If it’s in my programming to preach agnosticism, it may be in someone else’s programming to disagree, or to be persuaded as I eventually was.[/quote]
Persuaded, would imply free will, no? You were hardwired for agnosticism all along. You were simply a closet agnostic.
Agnosticism, to me anyways, is by far the least likely truth. Granted, I have my mind made up (some will call it my natural orientation, I guess) on the side of religious faith. However, in my view there either is a creator (and afterlife), or there isn’t. If there is a creator/afterlife, than I believe there would be some kind of deposit of revelation in human hisotry. “I’m your creator(s) and here is what pleases and displeases me. Now you know how to make it my party upon your deaths.” So, absent belief in one of the claims to divine revelation found in a religious faith, one should be atheist.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It also reduces the value of human life (specifically, others’ lives) to that of a non-spiritual animal. And reduces all animals to the level of organic computers. With the human animal only having an illusion of free will.[/quote]
That’s the double-edged sword of truth. You don’t get to make something true simply by virtue of wanting it to be so.
All of us make moral choices based on a cost/benefit assessment of sorts. Some do the right thing because they believe their “god” will reward them for doing so, or punish them for not doing so. Others do the right thing because they inherently value that thing, aside from extrinsic rewards and punishment.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Than we must be atheistic about it. [/quote]
Atheists believe there are no god(s).
Agnostics believe there could be god(s), but choose to withhold judgment until reliable evidence can be provided for or against the existence of said god(s).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Persuaded, would imply free will, no? You were hardwired for agnosticism all along. You were simply a closet agnostic.[/quote]
Not at all. A dog can be persuaded to salivate at the sound of a bell through a system of well timed rewards, without needing to invoke the idea of free will.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Agnosticism, to me anyways, is by far the least likely truth.[/quote]
Agnosticism isn’t a truth. It is a decision to withhold judgment, until you actually know what is true and what is not.
Agreed. But since we don’t know if there is a creator (and afterlife), the most honest approach is to admit we don’t know rather than jumping to one conclusion or the other.
Except that the religious claim divine revelation of that sort, which actually proves the existence of a god, would defy the point of faith since it would be knowledge instead. Makes no sense to me, but I hear it all the time.
[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Creating gods to suit your own purpose is one thing. Discovering via the exercise of pure reason as Aristotle did, is a whole other. The cosmological argument was not an exercise in creating a god to suit a need.
Aristotle also reasoned that the universe was made up of five elements, that the Earth was the centre point of this universe and that the five elements had a natural place and tended towards it (explaining why bubbles of air rise in water, flames rise in the air and stones sink in water.)
He was wrong about those things not because he was stupid but because he didn’t have all of the information. We now have far more information available and can see that the cosmological argument is fallactious.
Considering the best minds for centuries have been unable to refute it, please enlighten me to the refutation. I’ll submit your name for the Nobel Prize, hence there after.[/quote]
Well for a start there is the statement that a casual chain cannot be of infinite length. Firstly, why not? And who says it is a chain, why not a loop?
Then there is the point that nothing finite and contingent can cause itself which is kind of missing the point again. The assumption is that the universe is the whole, but most likely it is not the whole but a part. Also, finite contingent things happen into being all the time in quantuum events.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
…Poquito hombre doesn’t really work by the way it means a small bit of man, which might be what you are into but doesn’t really do it for me…
Has nothing to do with what I’m into but “small bit of man” sounds about right, no?
;-)[/quote]
touche!
[quote]pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
You got me there, I can’t know for sure. But if you know of something that wasn’t the result of something else you likely found God.
Why? Do you know every possible thing that’s uncaused and have verified that it was God?
There are a lot of events in quantum mechanics who violate causality; events for which you can’t tell which is the cause and which is the effect.
No they don’t. Just because the effects are not necessarily predictable does not mean it violates causality in any way. People knowing how things work is not necessary for causal relationships.
Through empirical tests we can know that you shoot a single electron at something, somewhere, the resultant effect will be weird.
[/quote]
It’s a fuckload more complicated than that, do a bit of reading on quantum tunneling, spin pairing or other areas and you will see.