Scientism, Skepticism and the Philosophy of Science

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.[/quote]

The first one may be an illogical construct, but it is not an assertion, it is a logical argument-that if human action is predetermined that scientific conclusions are predetermined even if they are wrong.

The second, as I said before is conjecture open for debate, but its also not really an assertion. The assertion part is that humans have free will. The arguement is that free would make humans different that deterministic particles. [/quote]

Which in and of itself would imply there is some magical “force” or spiritual particles distinct from every other known type of matter. Doesn’t it seem much more plausible that we are in fact materially determined, as is everything, but that the near infinite complexity keeps us from ever predicting anything ourselves? [/quote]

Well there are three models I’ve come across.

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that this is not just a limitation on beings that try ot measure the universe, but a limitation on the universe itself. The universe behaves probabalistically and the reason why it does one thing instead of another of equal probability DOES not exist-is not a topic for science.

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

A third is that we are limited (as the prior one says) but its not just factors below our measurement capacity, but that the universe really has infinite complexity (fractal nature) and so any time we round off a value to any decimal point we lose predictive information.

I have found it to be a real paradox that Quantum theory says we can not predict the future because the universe has a limit to detail or is quantized, while Chaos theory says that we can’t predict the future because the universe has infinite detail.[/quote]

I don’t believe any of those models is a rejoinder to my point though. All three models only state, in a nutshell, that there is a limit to what can be measured for a variety of reasons (inherent randomness, infinite complexity, equipment limitations, etc.). None of them implies a magical property or spiritual force or difference in mankind or even that there is a free will. Under all of those scenarios we could, and are most likely as I see it, materially determined but that determination is simply inherently unpredictable/unknowable. My point is simply unpredictability is not free will as many religious people (and many non-religious to be fair) view it. Seeing things as not materially determined implies there is some magical/spiritual force which seems like a bit of a rational jump to me.[/quote]

As I’ve said several times before, I believe in free will. That is my starting assumption. If you don’t then ignore. If humans have an ability to exert free will on nature, then science can never be complete. If one believes in free will then one believes in SOMETHING that can not be explained by science and logic.

I guess what I am working through is that SUPERNATURAL or God or Supreme being or whatever is equivalent to “whatever can not be tested by science” or whatever is outside of the circumscription of science, so discounting it with the argument that it can never be tested is a tautology. Something unprovable is unproveable. I believe that if you believe in free will, you believe in the unproveable, because free will can only occur in a non-deterministic universe (it is contained in the definition of free will that there are more than one path ie non-determinstic) and in a non-deterministic universe there will always be something inaccessible by one of the mechanisms I mentioned. [/quote]

exactly an unfounded assertion of a construct.

I don’t grant this premise or any of the stated and unstated premises.

This has been all hashed out in the FSM models.

182

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.[/quote]

The first one may be an illogical construct, but it is not an assertion, it is a logical argument-that if human action is predetermined that scientific conclusions are predetermined even if they are wrong.

The second, as I said before is conjecture open for debate, but its also not really an assertion. The assertion part is that humans have free will. The arguement is that free would make humans different that deterministic particles. [/quote]

Which in and of itself would imply there is some magical “force” or spiritual particles distinct from every other known type of matter. Doesn’t it seem much more plausible that we are in fact materially determined, as is everything, but that the near infinite complexity keeps us from ever predicting anything ourselves? [/quote]

Well there are three models I’ve come across.

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that this is not just a limitation on beings that try ot measure the universe, but a limitation on the universe itself. The universe behaves probabalistically and the reason why it does one thing instead of another of equal probability DOES not exist-is not a topic for science.

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

A third is that we are limited (as the prior one says) but its not just factors below our measurement capacity, but that the universe really has infinite complexity (fractal nature) and so any time we round off a value to any decimal point we lose predictive information.

I have found it to be a real paradox that Quantum theory says we can not predict the future because the universe has a limit to detail or is quantized, while Chaos theory says that we can’t predict the future because the universe has infinite detail.[/quote]

I don’t believe any of those models is a rejoinder to my point though. All three models only state, in a nutshell, that there is a limit to what can be measured for a variety of reasons (inherent randomness, infinite complexity, equipment limitations, etc.). None of them implies a magical property or spiritual force or difference in mankind or even that there is a free will. Under all of those scenarios we could, and are most likely as I see it, materially determined but that determination is simply inherently unpredictable/unknowable. My point is simply unpredictability is not free will as many religious people (and many non-religious to be fair) view it. Seeing things as not materially determined implies there is some magical/spiritual force which seems like a bit of a rational jump to me.[/quote]

As I’ve said several times before, I believe in free will. That is my starting assumption. If you don’t then ignore. If humans have an ability to exert free will on nature, then science can never be complete. If one believes in free will then one believes in SOMETHING that can not be explained by science and logic.

I guess what I am working through is that SUPERNATURAL or God or Supreme being or whatever is equivalent to “whatever can not be tested by science” or whatever is outside of the circumscription of science, so discounting it with the argument that it can never be tested is a tautology. Something unprovable is unproveable. I believe that if you believe in free will, you believe in the unproveable, because free will can only occur in a non-deterministic universe (it is contained in the definition of free will that there are more than one path ie non-determinstic) and in a non-deterministic universe there will always be something inaccessible by one of the mechanisms I mentioned. [/quote]

exactly an unfounded assertion of a construct.

I don’t grant this premise or any of the stated and unstated premises.

This has been all hashed out in the FSM models.
[/quote]

What are the FSM models? The multiple simulataneous reality models by any chance? I’ve mentioned on past pages that they would be an alternative.

We make unfounded assertions in science though as has been discussed. There’s nothing wrong with starting with unfounded assertions. The logical construct is contingent upon their truth, that’s all.

Of course one could argue that free will is very founded. Every time I try to move, it seems to happen, unless there is a something physically explainable that prevents it. If we don’t have free will the concept of an experiment becomes radically altered. I don’t chose to form a hypothesis, to perform a test or to accept or reject the hypothesis?

183

[quote]ephrem wrote:1. You are still not answering the question T. …[/quote]The answer is, in your arena of self sufficient autonomous (sinful) logic and reason there is not cannot ever be an answer. That is the very nature of spiritual death. The answer cannot be found on your side of the spiritual grave. How many times have I told you that I can live quite happily with your denunciation of that as a copout. I understand. I really do.

[quote]ephrem wrote:2. You follow a specific kind of Christianity. It’s not Catholicism, is it? Baptists? Episcopalian? But no one is saved unless they’re saved by the standards you believe are the only standards good enough. Is that true? >>>[/quote]I would probably be labeled as a reformed pentecostal as weird as that will sound to anybody familiar with what that means. People are saved or lost based on their faithful relationship with the risen Christ of God or not. Not whether they belong to any certain church. How many times do I have to say that this Saturday morning there will be a prayer walk involving literally tens of thousands of Christians from several hundred local churches representing the full spectrum of protestant denominations. Wide variation on many beliefs EXCEPT the very core message that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. We all believe in the rock bottom core doctrines together. So no, there are people I call brethren who I profoundly disagree with in many areas. Did ya get that? I’m askin. Need more? =][quote]ephrem wrote:3. And again: i’m not denying him. I’m denying the religion that poisons this planet and the minds and hearts of it’s followers. God of Abraham be damned if this really is what he wants, but i don’t think that’s the case. [/quote]You are denying Him. You are not at liberty and neither am I to define for yourself who God is and or what attitude you will take toward Him. HE tells YOU. Ya know bein God n all. I’m holdin out hope that the true miracle of resurrection will be given to you an you WILL then see. I promise you. (That you’ll see if raised , not that you’ll be raised. That’s not mine to promise)

184

[quote] (That you’ll see if raised , not that you’ll be raised. That’s not mine to promise)
[/quote]

Aren’t all to be raised, Oh yea, those who have DONE good to the resurrection of live and those who have DONE evil to the resurrection of d*mnation.

185

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote] (That you’ll see if raised , not that you’ll be raised. That’s not mine to promise)
[/quote]

Aren’t all to be raised, Oh yea, those who have DONE good to the resurrection of live and those who have DONE evil to the resurrection of d*mnation.[/quote]I’ve already been raised. Born again in Jesus’s words. I can’t promise that for anybody else in particular. I CAN promise what will happen if they are. And in the final resurrection what they have DONE will have been determined by whether they were raised from death to new life in Christ during their mortal probation here. Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV [quote]8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.[/quote] All of Him, praise His unsearchable mercy, grace and loving kindness.

186

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The answer is, in your arena of self sufficient autonomous (sinful) logic and reason there is not cannot ever be an answer. That is the very nature of spiritual death. The answer cannot be found on your side of the spiritual grave. How many times have I told you that I can live quite happily with your denunciation of that as a copout. I understand. I really do.

I would probably be labeled as a reformed pentecostal as weird as that will sound to anybody familiar with what that means. People are saved or lost based on their faithful relationship with the risen Christ of God or not. Not whether they belong to any certain church. How many times do I have to say that this Saturday morning there will be a prayer walk involving literally tens of thousands of Christians from several hundred local churches representing the full spectrum of protestant denominations. Wide variation on many beliefs EXCEPT the very core message that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. We all believe in the rock bottom core doctrines together. So no, there are people I call brethren who I profoundly disagree with in many areas. Did ya get that? I’m askin. Need more? =]

You are denying Him. You are not at liberty and neither am I to define for yourself who God is and or what attitude you will take toward Him. HE tells YOU. Ya know bein God n all. I’m holdin out hope that the true miracle of resurrection will be given to you an you WILL then see. I promise you. (That you’ll see if raised , not that you’ll be raised. That’s not mine to promise) [/quote]

I’m denying you and your ideas of how someone is ressurected as the only just way to find god, or to be saved. You are defining him and you’re not even aware of it.

I’m saying it doesn’t matter how, just as long as. This isn’t limiting or defining, it’s acknowledging that the plan is unknown and whatever the plan is, because it’s god’s plan it must be good.

You say otherwise, but every time you rant like this you presume to know god’s will. Many believers do this: they use their holy books, claim ownership of it’s knowledge through revelation, to deny all those who do not believe as they do acces to god and heaven.

But ofcourse because they do not believe, even after been given the chance to see the light by you, it’s their own fault.

A prayer walk, eh? What will y’all be praying for?

187

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote] (That you’ll see if raised , not that you’ll be raised. That’s not mine to promise)
[/quote]

Aren’t all to be raised, Oh yea, those who have DONE good to the resurrection of live and those who have DONE evil to the resurrection of d*mnation.[/quote]I’ve already been raised. Born again in Jesus’s words. I can’t promise that for anybody else in particular. I CAN promise what will happen if they are. And in the final resurrection what they have DONE will have been determined by whether they were raised from death to new life in Christ during their mortal probation here. Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV [quote]8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.[/quote] All of Him, praise His unsearchable mercy, grace and loving kindness.
[/quote]

Is it enough to have done good, but not believe like you?

If it’s not enough for god, how can he be “unsearchable mercy, grace and loving kindness”?

Do you realise that you sound exactly like a devout muslim?

188

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Do you realise that you sound exactly like a devout muslim?
[/quote]

Exactly.

189

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:1. You are still not answering the question T. …[/quote]The answer is, in your arena of self sufficient autonomous (sinful) logic and reason there is not cannot ever be an answer. That is the very nature of spiritual death. The answer cannot be found on your side of the spiritual grave. How many times have I told you that I can live quite happily with your denunciation of that as a copout. I understand. I really do.

[quote]ephrem wrote:2. You follow a specific kind of Christianity. It’s not Catholicism, is it? Baptists? Episcopalian? But no one is saved unless they’re saved by the standards you believe are the only standards good enough. Is that true? >>>[/quote]I would probably be labeled as a reformed pentecostal as weird as that will sound to anybody familiar with what that means. People are saved or lost based on their faithful relationship with the risen Christ of God or not. Not whether they belong to any certain church. How many times do I have to say that this Saturday morning there will be a prayer walk involving literally tens of thousands of Christians from several hundred local churches representing the full spectrum of protestant denominations. Wide variation on many beliefs EXCEPT the very core message that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. We all believe in the rock bottom core doctrines together. So no, there are people I call brethren who I profoundly disagree with in many areas. Did ya get that? I’m askin. Need more? =][quote]ephrem wrote:3. And again: i’m not denying him. I’m denying the religion that poisons this planet and the minds and hearts of it’s followers. God of Abraham be damned if this really is what he wants, but i don’t think that’s the case. [/quote]You are denying Him. You are not at liberty and neither am I to define for yourself who God is and or what attitude you will take toward Him. HE tells YOU. Ya know bein God n all. I’m holdin out hope that the true miracle of resurrection will be given to you an you WILL then see. I promise you. (That you’ll see if raised , not that you’ll be raised. That’s not mine to promise)
[/quote]

Prayer walk? Sounds like one of those evil rituals your participating in, I thought you were against rituals…

I find it interesting that you ashamed to tell him the faith you practice? Why are you scared to admit your a strict, Westminster Calvinist Presbyterian?

I am proudly Roman Catholic and I am not ashamed.

190

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.[/quote]

The first one may be an illogical construct, but it is not an assertion, it is a logical argument-that if human action is predetermined that scientific conclusions are predetermined even if they are wrong.

The second, as I said before is conjecture open for debate, but its also not really an assertion. The assertion part is that humans have free will. The arguement is that free would make humans different that deterministic particles. [/quote]

Which in and of itself would imply there is some magical “force” or spiritual particles distinct from every other known type of matter. Doesn’t it seem much more plausible that we are in fact materially determined, as is everything, but that the near infinite complexity keeps us from ever predicting anything ourselves? [/quote]

Well there are three models I’ve come across.

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that this is not just a limitation on beings that try ot measure the universe, but a limitation on the universe itself. The universe behaves probabalistically and the reason why it does one thing instead of another of equal probability DOES not exist-is not a topic for science.

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

A third is that we are limited (as the prior one says) but its not just factors below our measurement capacity, but that the universe really has infinite complexity (fractal nature) and so any time we round off a value to any decimal point we lose predictive information.

I have found it to be a real paradox that Quantum theory says we can not predict the future because the universe has a limit to detail or is quantized, while Chaos theory says that we can’t predict the future because the universe has infinite detail.[/quote]

I don’t believe any of those models is a rejoinder to my point though. All three models only state, in a nutshell, that there is a limit to what can be measured for a variety of reasons (inherent randomness, infinite complexity, equipment limitations, etc.). None of them implies a magical property or spiritual force or difference in mankind or even that there is a free will. Under all of those scenarios we could, and are most likely as I see it, materially determined but that determination is simply inherently unpredictable/unknowable. My point is simply unpredictability is not free will as many religious people (and many non-religious to be fair) view it. Seeing things as not materially determined implies there is some magical/spiritual force which seems like a bit of a rational jump to me.[/quote]

As I’ve said several times before, I believe in free will. That is my starting assumption. If you don’t then ignore. If humans have an ability to exert free will on nature, then science can never be complete. If one believes in free will then one believes in SOMETHING that can not be explained by science and logic.

I guess what I am working through is that SUPERNATURAL or God or Supreme being or whatever is equivalent to “whatever can not be tested by science” or whatever is outside of the circumscription of science, so discounting it with the argument that it can never be tested is a tautology. Something unprovable is unproveable. I believe that if you believe in free will, you believe in the unproveable, because free will can only occur in a non-deterministic universe (it is contained in the definition of free will that there are more than one path ie non-determinstic) and in a non-deterministic universe there will always be something inaccessible by one of the mechanisms I mentioned. [/quote]

Fair enough I suppose. This is often referred to (derisively by atheists) as the “God of the Gaps” model. Basically any time science can’t explain something it is attributed to God. The issue as I see it is that we increasingly find ways of further and deeper analysis which exposes these areas. The fact this has been done time after time seems to indicate the rational default should be that God is not behind it since it has been shown he is not the only explanation after all for many things. Imagine what God was deemed responsible for 700 years ago as compared to now. We have very rational explanations for things like tides, etc. that do not need God. Who is to say what will be discovered later on? But that is my interpretation.

My other question, do you think ONLY humans have free will? I suppose you could say humans have it, but it seems like it would also imply that other animals do as well. Again assuming we are not talking magic particles. There is not really anything to debate if you think there are as there is no possible evidence that can refute these magic particles.

191

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.

People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]

Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]

If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]

Why are you answering my question with a question? Where did determinism come from, what is it’s original input value?

The answer is that the law would exists even if there were no boson-higgs, or what ever is the operator of gravity actually is. The law and objects are 2 things not 1.[/quote]

Aristotle taught by asking, and he learned by asking. It’s a good approach to truth.

So you believe the law would still exist, even if the universe didn’t exist? If so, please explain how it would exist.

192

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.

People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]

Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]

If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]

Why are you answering my question with a question? Where did determinism come from, what is it’s original input value?

The answer is that the law would exists even if there were no boson-higgs, or what ever is the operator of gravity actually is. The law and objects are 2 things not 1.[/quote]

Aristotle taught by asking, and he learned by asking. It’s a good approach to truth.

So you believe the law would still exist, even if the universe didn’t exist? If so, please explain how it would exist. [/quote]

Laws are metaphysical entities, they are not bound by the material universe. If said physical thing did not exist, we would likely be unaware that such a law exists, but that doesn’t mean it does not.
If you made you were to make a flying brick, the way it would be have and the laws that bind it already exist even though the object does not.

193

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

unsupported assertions.[/quote]

The first one may be an illogical construct, but it is not an assertion, it is a logical argument-that if human action is predetermined that scientific conclusions are predetermined even if they are wrong.

The second, as I said before is conjecture open for debate, but its also not really an assertion. The assertion part is that humans have free will. The arguement is that free would make humans different that deterministic particles. [/quote]

Which in and of itself would imply there is some magical “force” or spiritual particles distinct from every other known type of matter. Doesn’t it seem much more plausible that we are in fact materially determined, as is everything, but that the near infinite complexity keeps us from ever predicting anything ourselves? [/quote]

Well there are three models I’ve come across.

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that this is not just a limitation on beings that try ot measure the universe, but a limitation on the universe itself. The universe behaves probabalistically and the reason why it does one thing instead of another of equal probability DOES not exist-is not a topic for science.

Another is that there is a reason but basically it is inaccessible-basically the idea that you can not measure something smaller than an “atom” with a ruler composed of atoms. You can not measure something smaller than the planck scale because that is the shortest wavelength of “information”.

A third is that we are limited (as the prior one says) but its not just factors below our measurement capacity, but that the universe really has infinite complexity (fractal nature) and so any time we round off a value to any decimal point we lose predictive information.

I have found it to be a real paradox that Quantum theory says we can not predict the future because the universe has a limit to detail or is quantized, while Chaos theory says that we can’t predict the future because the universe has infinite detail.[/quote]

I don’t believe any of those models is a rejoinder to my point though. All three models only state, in a nutshell, that there is a limit to what can be measured for a variety of reasons (inherent randomness, infinite complexity, equipment limitations, etc.). None of them implies a magical property or spiritual force or difference in mankind or even that there is a free will. Under all of those scenarios we could, and are most likely as I see it, materially determined but that determination is simply inherently unpredictable/unknowable. My point is simply unpredictability is not free will as many religious people (and many non-religious to be fair) view it. Seeing things as not materially determined implies there is some magical/spiritual force which seems like a bit of a rational jump to me.[/quote]

As I’ve said several times before, I believe in free will. That is my starting assumption. If you don’t then ignore. If humans have an ability to exert free will on nature, then science can never be complete. If one believes in free will then one believes in SOMETHING that can not be explained by science and logic.

I guess what I am working through is that SUPERNATURAL or God or Supreme being or whatever is equivalent to “whatever can not be tested by science” or whatever is outside of the circumscription of science, so discounting it with the argument that it can never be tested is a tautology. Something unprovable is unproveable. I believe that if you believe in free will, you believe in the unproveable, because free will can only occur in a non-deterministic universe (it is contained in the definition of free will that there are more than one path ie non-determinstic) and in a non-deterministic universe there will always be something inaccessible by one of the mechanisms I mentioned. [/quote]

Fair enough I suppose. This is often referred to (derisively by atheists) as the “God of the Gaps” model. Basically any time science can’t explain something it is attributed to God. The issue as I see it is that we increasingly find ways of further and deeper analysis which exposes these areas. The fact this has been done time after time seems to indicate the rational default should be that God is not behind it since it has been shown he is not the only explanation after all for many things. Imagine what God was deemed responsible for 700 years ago as compared to now. We have very rational explanations for things like tides, etc. that do not need God. Who is to say what will be discovered later on? But that is my interpretation.

My other question, do you think ONLY humans have free will? I suppose you could say humans have it, but it seems like it would also imply that other animals do as well. Again assuming we are not talking magic particles. There is not really anything to debate if you think there are as there is no possible evidence that can refute these magic particles.[/quote]

  1. Its not God of the gaps in terms of believing that there are gaps in scientific models of things like NATURAL HISTORY that can not be resolved. I point this out because that term is usually used to describe the “God” of anti evolutionists. I think that the God of the gaps tends to describe a God who has to violate the laws of physics to get humans out of nature.

I think that this creates a model where God does not have to violate any laws of physics to influence the path of nature, because there are trillions of equivalent paths that the universe could take. He may steer it or give us the free will to steer it.

In this sense I don’t believe in the God of the Gaps, just the God of the one gap-quantum non-determinism.

  1. I don’t know what else has free will. I would guess that the higher level of consciousness, the greater the ability to have free will.
194

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.

People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]

Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]

If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]

Why are you answering my question with a question? Where did determinism come from, what is it’s original input value?

The answer is that the law would exists even if there were no boson-higgs, or what ever is the operator of gravity actually is. The law and objects are 2 things not 1.[/quote]

Aristotle taught by asking, and he learned by asking. It’s a good approach to truth.

So you believe the law would still exist, even if the universe didn’t exist? If so, please explain how it would exist. [/quote]

thoughts:
If laws exist outside of the universe, and science is the study of the universe, then those laws would be a thing that is outside of science, ie a non-scientific reality a-la supernatural whatever it may be.

Theists might say the laws exist in the mind of God.

Did Einstein say he studied science to understand the mind of God?

“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.”

NOW the scientist in me want to say that laws do not describe a system, they describe how we will observe a system. Laws describe observers not the stated objects of the laws. So laws are not real unless there is a mind that is not bounded by the universe.

195

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.

People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]

Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]

If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]

Why are you answering my question with a question? Where did determinism come from, what is it’s original input value?

The answer is that the law would exists even if there were no boson-higgs, or what ever is the operator of gravity actually is. The law and objects are 2 things not 1.[/quote]

Aristotle taught by asking, and he learned by asking. It’s a good approach to truth.

So you believe the law would still exist, even if the universe didn’t exist? If so, please explain how it would exist. [/quote]

Laws are metaphysical entities, they are not bound by the material universe. If said physical thing did not exist, we would likely be unaware that such a law exists, but that doesn’t mean it does not.
If you made you were to make a flying brick, the way it would be have and the laws that bind it already exist even though the object does not.[/quote]

Assuming that is true, are metaphysical entities contingent?

196

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.

People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]

Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]

If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]

Why are you answering my question with a question? Where did determinism come from, what is it’s original input value?

The answer is that the law would exists even if there were no boson-higgs, or what ever is the operator of gravity actually is. The law and objects are 2 things not 1.[/quote]

Aristotle taught by asking, and he learned by asking. It’s a good approach to truth.

So you believe the law would still exist, even if the universe didn’t exist? If so, please explain how it would exist. [/quote]

thoughts:
If laws exist outside of the universe, and science is the study of the universe, then those laws would be a thing that is outside of science, ie a non-scientific reality a-la supernatural whatever it may be.

Theists might say the laws exist in the mind of God.

Did Einstein say he studied science to understand the mind of God?

“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.”

NOW the scientist in me want to say that laws do not describe a system, they describe how we will observe a system. Laws describe observers not the stated objects of the laws. So laws are not real unless there is a mind that is not bounded by the universe.[/quote]

Are you arguing that laws must be perceived in order to exist? Will gravity still cause an apple to fall from the tree if nobody is there to observe it?

197

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:1. You are still not answering the question T. …[/quote]The answer is, in your arena of self sufficient autonomous (sinful) logic and reason there is not cannot ever be an answer. That is the very nature of spiritual death. The answer cannot be found on your side of the spiritual grave. How many times have I told you that I can live quite happily with your denunciation of that as a copout. I understand. I really do.

[quote]ephrem wrote:2. You follow a specific kind of Christianity. It’s not Catholicism, is it? Baptists? Episcopalian? But no one is saved unless they’re saved by the standards you believe are the only standards good enough. Is that true? >>>[/quote]I would probably be labeled as a reformed pentecostal as weird as that will sound to anybody familiar with what that means. People are saved or lost based on their faithful relationship with the risen Christ of God or not. Not whether they belong to any certain church. How many times do I have to say that this Saturday morning there will be a prayer walk involving literally tens of thousands of Christians from several hundred local churches representing the full spectrum of protestant denominations. Wide variation on many beliefs EXCEPT the very core message that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. We all believe in the rock bottom core doctrines together. So no, there are people I call brethren who I profoundly disagree with in many areas. Did ya get that? I’m askin. Need more? =][quote]ephrem wrote:3. And again: i’m not denying him. I’m denying the religion that poisons this planet and the minds and hearts of it’s followers. God of Abraham be damned if this really is what he wants, but i don’t think that’s the case. [/quote]You are denying Him. You are not at liberty and neither am I to define for yourself who God is and or what attitude you will take toward Him. HE tells YOU. Ya know bein God n all. I’m holdin out hope that the true miracle of resurrection will be given to you an you WILL then see. I promise you. (That you’ll see if raised , not that you’ll be raised. That’s not mine to promise)
[/quote]

You have to admit, then, that you have no place discussing your religion with other because you are depending on your(sinful) logic in the first place to even arrive at the conclusion that it was right. What you’re saying is that considering evidence and going with what you think best is sinful. How then, can you possibly argue whether or not you are right? What is the point of you even talking to people on here?

198

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.

People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]

Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]

If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]

Why are you answering my question with a question? Where did determinism come from, what is it’s original input value?

The answer is that the law would exists even if there were no boson-higgs, or what ever is the operator of gravity actually is. The law and objects are 2 things not 1.[/quote]

Aristotle taught by asking, and he learned by asking. It’s a good approach to truth.

So you believe the law would still exist, even if the universe didn’t exist? If so, please explain how it would exist. [/quote]

thoughts:
If laws exist outside of the universe, and science is the study of the universe, then those laws would be a thing that is outside of science, ie a non-scientific reality a-la supernatural whatever it may be.

Theists might say the laws exist in the mind of God.

Did Einstein say he studied science to understand the mind of God?

“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.”

NOW the scientist in me want to say that laws do not describe a system, they describe how we will observe a system. Laws describe observers not the stated objects of the laws. So laws are not real unless there is a mind that is not bounded by the universe.[/quote]

Are you arguing that laws must be perceived in order to exist? Will gravity still cause an apple to fall from the tree if nobody is there to observe it?[/quote]

If we are within the effect of the action then it will affect us, so I do not mean necessarily scientific observations, but rather “being affected by”.

So possibly yes. The universe would be defined only as that which is within our light cone?

I remember thinking once that light may be the fastest thing because anything faster would have have passed the point of ever being observed, or affecting us.

199

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Is it enough to have done good, but not believe like you? >>>[/quote]If it were, the Son of God was incarnate in human flesh, gained sustenance at a mother’s breast, lived a sinless perfectly lawful life and then willfully embraced the penalty for our capital crimes, but rising again after our sentence was carried out, defeating our death so He could call us brother, bride and son. All for nothing because Ephrem’s been good enough. Just leave Jesus out of it, be “good” and hope for the best. I wish people would just do that instead of trying to tie the living Christ to their self righteous humanism. [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< If it’s not enough for god, how can he be “unsearchable mercy, grace and loving kindness”? >>>[/quote]Once He showed me what sin was and what it deserves, which is really just another way of saying that He showed me who and what HE was, I understood. The fact that He saves ANYBODY and especially in the manner that He does and what it cost put me on my face at His feet. That’s how. [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Do you realise that you sound exactly like a devout muslim? >>>[/quote]I got a good rolling chortle outta this one. Find some muslims and bring them here. Let THEM tell you how much I sound like them LOL!!! Lord have mercy LOL!!!

200

Yes, i know: because a mythical couple made from dust and a rib were set-up by their lord to sin and expelled from eden, that lord then had to send a piece of himself to save us from himself by letting himself get killed by his creation.

And if you believe this, then you’ll get a pass into heaven. Yeah. No.

According to you T, he doesn’t save everybody. His love is conditional. Yeah. No.

You don’t have muslims in your neighbourhood? I was refering to the expressions you use when talking about the most divine. Your exaltations if you will. Those are practically the same.

So here you are: you express yourself in a similar vein, with the same fervor, sincerety and a drive to convert as devout muslims do. They think they’ll go to heaven, and you think you’ll go to heaven.

I think you’re both wrong ofcourse, but you know this.

I’m getting bored already T.

Let’s call it a day?