Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

JESUS CHRIST!! what a wall o'text!!Follow

#152 May 15 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Didn't Epicurus trounce the idea of your god already?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#153 May 15 2011 at 9:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
I am more inclined to see god as a force of nature.
Eighteen years of forced bible studies, I'm inclined to see God as an alcoholic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#154 May 15 2011 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
I am more inclined to see god as a force of nature.
Eighteen years of forced bible studies, I'm inclined to see God as an alcoholic.
Crappy memory, violent mood swings, awful parent. I can see the comparison.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#155 May 15 2011 at 1:14 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Didn't Epicurus trounce the idea of your god already?


For that record; Epicurus never argued against the existence of what He and his culture referred to as "Gods"
He simply understood that those particular notions of "gods" are preposterous and thus saw that any god must logically keep out of our lives.. He was almost a humanist.. maybe the first humanist? If anything he was a very successful agnostic. Indeed, the scope of his work did not really try to touch on the actual creations of the systems which he is trying to describe..
but obviously you are referring to this:
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" as has the same argument been presented in this thread multiple time..
to reiterate and expound:

1) Yes God already knows how things are going to turn out
1a) God's "plan" or creation event plus what is happening "now" would all be the same moment to God.

2) How things are going to turn out is "entities" that love God will exist in the perfect bliss that everyone says should exist without evil. It will happen.

3) To not Love God is evil. It is pretty simple. That is all. If you do not Love God then your thoughts, deeds, and fate will be pretty fruitless; the most you can hope for is that your offspring come to Love God.
3a) Evil is not necessarily malevolence; at least not in this context.. In the context of Good and Evil, the only thing that makes those two things relevant is the choice between the two.
3b)Trees do not choose between Good and Evil, not do tectonic plates or gamma rays as far as I am aware..when a cat is throwing it's injured prey in the air playing with it it is not evil.. it is impulse.. Good and Evil are indeed in the eye of the beholder.. however the actual measure for what is good and evil was given to us by that which beholds us. Therefore this Good and Evil does not exist from us but it exist for us.
3c)Without this "knowledge of good and evil" we would be no different than anything else in the universe but we are accountable. That is where the salvation comes in.

4) Every energy state and pattern that exist that is not "right with God" that is to say either cannot choose nor will not choose to acknowledge the creator cannot exist in an eternal bliss amongst the Creator because it has chosen to relate itself to the created things which will be unable to exist in the eternal spirit that is the perfected universe but only exist in the finite flesh. It cannot be both.
4a)Why will not God just make it both? That is why the key is forgiveness; you cannot get there through works but faith alone.. God will forgive you and enable you to the eternal.
4b)Why will not God just forgive everyone and finally abolish all evil? He does. One may be forgiven and not be aware of it and hence you yourself render it fruitless.
4c)Why will not God just make you aware of him? Well to do that he would have to dominate your identity entirely and negate that which makes you a free agent and to do that would destroy you. This is where the faith comes in as all of the evil in the world tells you that there is no God.
"can't afford to be neutral on a mooooving traaiin!"

So in the context of the "big picture" putting the creation of free agents into play that by definition of "free agent" will be separate from God and hence "evil" is ALL for the sake of offering those free-agents the chance for eternal infinite existence AS individual free agents.. Then you see evil as less a malevolent act and more the underlying denominator in the entire "science project" as it has been described in this thread.

I'm sure this solves all of your misgivings with God and you are now ready to cry out to Him and ask for the strength to turn towards the life of the Spirit.

:D



____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#156 May 15 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
3) To not Love God is evil. It is pretty simple. That is all. If you do not Love God then your thoughts, deeds, and fate will be pretty fruitless; the most you can hope for is that your offspring come to Love God
This idea is immoral and dangerous. The cultish adherence to this "either with us or against us" principle has been the cause of more death and suffering than any other.
#157 May 15 2011 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Quote:
I'm sure this solves all of your misgivings with God and you are now ready to cry out to Him and ask for the strength to turn towards the life of the Spirit.
No thanks.

I'm sure my denial of your god will solve all of your misunderstandings with why personal ideas as to why I'm not religious in any way and I'll assume you are now ready to stop trying to convince me otherwise.

Been there, done that. Don't care what your beliefs are, don't waste your time trying to convert me.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#158 May 15 2011 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
3) To not Love God is evil. It is pretty simple. That is all. If you do not Love God then your thoughts, deeds, and fate will be pretty fruitless; the most you can hope for is that your offspring come to Love God
This idea is immoral and dangerous. The cultish adherence to this "either with us or against us" principle has been the cause of more death and suffering than any other.


You're not following the logic of it (or I'm not but I think it's you). If God is the epitome and true definition of Goodness and Righteousness then anything that is against it is against Goodness and Righteousness.
It is not ideas like this that cause the suffering; it it the evil which is inherent in human beings that causes death and suffering. Now if atheists are right and there is no God; then I would agree with you that a statement like that is pretty sh*tty.


bsphil wrote:
Quote:
I'm sure this solves all of your misgivings with God and you are now ready to cry out to Him and ask for the strength to turn towards the life of the Spirit.
No thanks.

I'm sure my denial of your god will solve all of your misunderstandings with why personal ideas as to why I'm not religious in any way and I'll assume you are now ready to stop trying to convince me otherwise.

Been there, done that. Don't care what your beliefs are, don't waste your time trying to convert me.



Don't worry I'm not going to start sending anyone PMs. Your denial of "my" God doesn't change anything to me. But religion is just an ego trip that people share as far as I can see. A personal relationship with your creator is not a religion. I am also not of the belief that a person can come to a complete intellectual understanding of God at all. However I also know that all people have a spiritual side along with their body and mind and sometimes it is the intellectual side that impedes spiritual development and some balancing needs to occur.. in the same way that the body must be treated well for the mind to function properly.. You get the idea..
But I'm not wasting my time trying to convert you in my eyes.. I enjoy this stuff. It you want to come and question it or rate me down because it causes some discomfort in yourself.. go for it.. but you should probably ask why you have such hostility toward this particular subject.. as I'm sure you don't go into other random threads that you feel other people shouldn't be posting just to tell them so.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#159 May 15 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:


I'm sure this solves all of your misgivings with God and you are now ready to cry out to Him and ask for the strength to turn towards the life of the Spirit.

:D



Oh! So you are trolling after all. You got me, what can I say?!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#160 May 15 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
where the hell have you been anyways, Kelvy? Seminary school?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#161 May 15 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
3) To not Love God is evil. It is pretty simple. That is all. If you do not Love God then your thoughts, deeds, and fate will be pretty fruitless; the most you can hope for is that your offspring come to Love God
This idea is immoral and dangerous. The cultish adherence to this "either with us or against us" principle has been the cause of more death and suffering than any other.


You're not following the logic of it (or I'm not but I think it's you). If God is the epitome and true definition of Goodness and Righteousness then anything that is against it is against Goodness and Righteousness.
It is not ideas like this that cause the suffering; it it the evil which is inherent in human beings that causes death and suffering. Now if atheists are right and there is no God; then I would agree with you that a statement like that is pretty sh*tty.
Well, considering the whole "urge to be ruled" thing is immoral in itself and you've yet to show that there is such a being as God, I'll stick with the notion that the statement is pretty sh*tty for the time being.

For the record, if there is a God, I still would not follow his teachings. Any person who claims to own me, expresses bipolarity that puts mine to shame, convicts me in my sleep for crimes I've only dreamt or thought of, and proposes the masochistic mix of fear and love as goodness with no chance for appeal is not a person worthy of being worshipped. I'll state it now, and I'll state it often: There are no perfect, unquestionable entities, and anyone claiming to have special knowledge not obtainable by me should be treated with extreme skepticism.
#162 May 15 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
Debalic wrote:
where the hell have you been anyways, Kelvy? Seminary school?


HAHA! The school of the Holy Spirit. :P


LeWoVo wrote:
Any person who claims to own me, expresses bipolarity that puts mine to shame, convicts me in my sleep for crimes I've only dreamt or thought of, and proposes the masochistic mix of fear and love as goodness with no chance for appeal is not a person worthy of being worshipped.


Then look at it like positive and negative.. positive is toward the source and negative is away from the source.. We are negative and God is positive.
The very fact that we CAN be against God is what makes us Beings
but then comes the time to realize what we were created for.. that is to actually be positive Beings rather than negative.... because the negative is NOT actually necessary for Eternal God and Positive Beings to Exist. We are all negative.. that is why the forgiveness is needed. It's not about being ruled.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#163 May 15 2011 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
LeWoVo wrote:
Any person who claims to own me, expresses bipolarity that puts mine to shame, convicts me in my sleep for crimes I've only dreamt or thought of, and proposes the masochistic mix of fear and love as goodness with no chance for appeal is not a person worthy of being worshipped.


Then look at it like positive and negative.. positive is toward the source and negative is away from the source.. We are negative and God is positive.
The very fact that we CAN be against God is what makes us Beings
but then comes the time to realize what we were created for.. that is to actually be positive Beings rather than negative.... because the negative is NOT actually necessary for Eternal God and Positive Beings to Exist. We are all negative.. that is why the forgiveness is needed. It's not about being ruled.
Unless you feel, as I do, that many of his teachings are immoral. The cult of scapegoating human sacrifice does not impress me, nor is it moral. You've yet to explain to me why we have free will (which is not free will if at one end is punishment... we've been over this) and if God exists in the first place. Without these, following the tyrant without questioning is certainly the ultimate immorality.
#164 May 15 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
You've yet to explain to me why we have free will (which is not free will if at one end is punishment... we've been over this) and if God exists in the first place. Without these, following the tyrant without questioning is certainly the ultimate immorality.


Free Will is kind of a misnomer.. it's what we call FreeWill is just the way that we exist as unique Beings.. apart from animals, vegetables, and minerals..(which don't know Good/Evil)
I can understand the view that good and evil are relative ...But they are more importantly an arbitrary description of our mere ability to be Sentient. Generic terms that describe what makes us different from anything else in the cosmos: The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I would say that if the Both did not exist then we could not exist.




Edited, May 15th 2011 10:28pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#165 May 15 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
You've yet to explain to me why we have free will (which is not free will if at one end is punishment... we've been over this) and if God exists in the first place. Without these, following the tyrant without questioning is certainly the ultimate immorality.


Free Will is kind of a misnomer.. it's what we call FreeWill is just the way that we exist as unique Beings.. apart from animals, vegetables, and minerals..(which don't know Good/Evil)
I can understand the view that good and evil are relative ...But they are more importantly an arbitrary description of our mere ability to be Sentient. Generic terms that describe what makes us different from anything else in the cosmos: The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I would say that if the Both did not exist then we could not exist.




Edited, May 15th 2011 10:28pm by Kelvyquayo
Good and Evil don't have to exist. We're evolved creatures, I don't think there's any disputing that at this point... consider this:

Concepts can be explained as a series of building blocks, both practical and imagined. In this instance, practical concepts are defined as ideas which can be observed or experienced in the real world. Imagined concepts are defined as practical concepts which have been modified into ideas which can not be observed or experienced in the real world. Both categories of concepts can be combined, reversed, and extended to create new concepts. While very early concepts were necessarily practical concepts, it would not take long before imagined concepts could take form. As each concept is experienced or modified, a new building block is added to the mind’s arsenal. Following this evolutionary model, it's not necessary at all for "Good" and "Evil" to be absolute ideals, only abstractions from actions. You're making a huge leap by building your entire argument on an assumption that isn't necessarily true. Furthermore, what makes us different from the other animals which exhibit moral behavior?
#166 May 15 2011 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
You've yet to explain to me why we have free will (which is not free will if at one end is punishment... we've been over this) and if God exists in the first place. Without these, following the tyrant without questioning is certainly the ultimate immorality.


Free Will is kind of a misnomer.. it's what we call FreeWill is just the way that we exist as unique Beings.. apart from animals, vegetables, and minerals..(which don't know Good/Evil)
I can understand the view that good and evil are relative ...But they are more importantly an arbitrary description of our mere ability to be Sentient. Generic terms that describe what makes us different from anything else in the cosmos: The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I would say that if the Both did not exist then we could not exist.




Edited, May 15th 2011 10:28pm by Kelvyquayo
Good and Evil don't have to exist. We're evolved creatures, I don't think there's any disputing that at this point... consider this:

Concepts can be explained as a series of building blocks, both practical and imagined. In this instance, practical concepts are defined as ideas which can be observed or experienced in the real world. Imagined concepts are defined as practical concepts which have been modified into ideas which can not be observed or experienced in the real world. Both categories of concepts can be combined, reversed, and extended to create new concepts. While very early concepts were necessarily practical concepts, it would not take long before imagined concepts could take form. As each concept is experienced or modified, a new building block is added to the mind’s arsenal. Following this evolutionary model, it's not necessary at all for "Good" and "Evil" to be absolute ideals, only abstractions from actions. You're making a huge leap by building your entire argument on an assumption that isn't necessarily true. Furthermore, what makes us different from the other animals which exhibit moral behavior?


We are like animals if you don't look at the big picture of being created by God for any purpose. What you may call Evil.. I call Free, free from Gods perfection; and once our nature is Free from God is to turn away from God. For fellowship in eternal bliss. It isn't only humans I think, actually.. but who can really know that? Either way the only way that we could be individual spirits is to experience this imperfect state separate from God and God's will.



____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#167 May 15 2011 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
You are aware of how circular your argument is, right?
#168 May 15 2011 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
You are aware of how circular your argument is, right?
Do you think it would matter to him if he did realise it?

"I believe what I believe because I believe it." It's all the justification most people need for supernatural beliefs.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#169 May 15 2011 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
Quote:
You are aware of how circular your argument is, right?


no not really. I am not trying to argue and prove to you that God exists or not (at this point) but that it is possible that God is good and yet there is evil in the world. If you think I am trying to prove to you that God exists in all of this.. you're wrong. Your arguments are not really valid either as God is defined in this context as central creator not an arbitrary force.
and You ask Why we have Free Will?
The question is flawed. We ARE Free Will.

Edited, May 15th 2011 11:21pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#170 May 15 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Quote:
You are aware of how circular your argument is, right?


no not really. I am not trying to argue and prove to you that God exists or not (at this point) but that it is possible that God is good and yet there is evil in the world. If you think I am trying to prove to you that God exists in all of this.. you're wrong. Your arguments are not really valid either as God is defined in this context as central creator not an arbitrary force.
and You ask Why we have Free Will?
The question is flawed. We ARE Free Will.

Edited, May 15th 2011 11:21pm by Kelvyquayo
You say free will is what makes us us, and yet you say we are free will. We are what makes ourselves us? Nope. Not circular.
#171 May 15 2011 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
Quote:
You say free will is what makes us us, and yet you say we are free will. We are what makes ourselves us? Nope. Not circular.



I wrote:
it's what we call FreeWill is just the way that we exist as unique Beings..


The WAY we exist , if you want to start getting pedantic, is not what is responsible for the fact that we exist. What makes us who and what we are is a great many things. I say "We are Free Will" as us having what we call "free will" defines us.. that is not to say that other things go not define us.
I'll just assume you haven't been following along with the discussion and have missed some key points rather than just picking pieces out of context just to try to look right.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#172 May 15 2011 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Having free will defines us, correct?

If so, we have free will. Why do we have free will? How do we have it? You have stil not answered this, and claiming that it makes us us is not a way of circumventing the problem presented with it.
#173 May 15 2011 at 9:38 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
So, um... New research that seems to indicate that free will isn't exactly all that 'free' doesn't put a dampener on your argument, right?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#174 May 15 2011 at 9:40 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
Having free will defines us, correct?

If so, we have free will. Why do we have free will? How do we have it? You have stil not answered this, and claiming that it makes us us is not a way of circumventing the problem presented with it.
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, we have free will because the boss insists on it.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#175 May 15 2011 at 9:42 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Nilatai wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Having free will defines us, correct?

If so, we have free will. Why do we have free will? How do we have it? You have stil not answered this, and claiming that it makes us us is not a way of circumventing the problem presented with it.
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, we have free will because the boss insists on it.
The "New research" is nothing conclusive, though Daniel Dennette has a rather nice lecture about special determinism on YouTube. Also, I used the Hitchens quote earlier.
#176 May 15 2011 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
******
43,175 posts
Nilatai wrote:
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, we have free will because the boss insists on it.
The stabbings will continue until morale improves.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#177 May 15 2011 at 10:24 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Having free will defines us, correct?

If so, we have free will. Why do we have free will? How do we have it? You have stil not answered this, and claiming that it makes us us is not a way of circumventing the problem presented with it.
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, we have free will because the boss insists on it.
The "New research" is nothing conclusive, though Daniel Dennette has a rather nice lecture about special determinism on YouTube. Also, I used the Hitchens quote earlier.
I did think someone else had already said it. :3

You're right of course, nothing conclusive. Certainly interesting, though.

Edited, May 16th 2011 12:25am by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#178 May 16 2011 at 4:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,832 posts
I forgot how annoying I was back when I first became a Born Again Christian.

While reading a book by a christian we pick up at a religious bookstore, my ex and I read an on the Book of Romans, I realized how Fascist Paul was and finally decided that any God that people told me didn't approve of Life Drawing and the beauty of the human form, told women to obey the men place over them in their family and church, and just trying to control how one lives, wasn't for me.

First I rejected the idea that God could exist. Then due to my spiritual nature, I became Pagan.

Now I'm an an Agnostic Pagan, who sometimes prays to the Goddess and other times will rant at God, but not sure either exist and never expect an answer.

Also why Faeries may exist, I don't believe in Unicorns existed ever on this planet. Multiply Universes does not rule out the existence of anything we can think of though.
____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#179 May 16 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
You know that Kelvy isn't making sense when Elne's posts read as slightly more coherent.

Edited, May 16th 2011 9:28am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#180 May 16 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Nilatai wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Having free will defines us, correct?

If so, we have free will. Why do we have free will? How do we have it? You have stil not answered this, and claiming that it makes us us is not a way of circumventing the problem presented with it.
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, we have free will because the boss insists on it.
The "New research" is nothing conclusive, though Daniel Dennette has a rather nice lecture about special determinism on YouTube. Also, I used the Hitchens quote earlier.
I did think someone else had already said it. :3

You're right of course, nothing conclusive. Certainly interesting, though.

Edited, May 16th 2011 12:25am by Nilatai


What is this research, and why is it even necessary? People who think quantum uncertainty, if it's even actual randomness, precludes the viability of determinism make me want to stab my eyes out. "We can't predict how this particle will behave, therefor, people must have free will!"
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#181 May 16 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Kachi wrote:
What is this research, and why is it even necessary? People who think quantum uncertainty, if it's even actual randomness, precludes the viability of determinism make me want to stab my eyes out. "We can't predict how this particle will behave, therefore, people must have free will!"
I was actually suggesting we don't really have free will, in any proper sense of what it's supposed to mean.

I don't suppose you subscribe to New Scientist?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#182 May 16 2011 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Kachi wrote:
What is this research, and why is it even necessary? People who think quantum uncertainty, if it's even actual randomness, precludes the viability of determinism make me want to stab my eyes out. "We can't predict how this particle will behave, therefore, people must have free will!"
I was actually suggesting we don't really have free will, in any proper sense of what it's supposed to mean.

I don't suppose you subscribe to New Scientist?


Oh, I wasn't actually addressing that rant towards you. It was just an afterthought about the state of the scientific community.

But no, I don't subscribe to it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#183 May 17 2011 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Kachi wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kachi wrote:
What is this research, and why is it even necessary? People who think quantum uncertainty, if it's even actual randomness, precludes the viability of determinism make me want to stab my eyes out. "We can't predict how this particle will behave, therefore, people must have free will!"
I was actually suggesting we don't really have free will, in any proper sense of what it's supposed to mean.

I don't suppose you subscribe to New Scientist?


Oh, I wasn't actually addressing that rant towards you. It was just an afterthought about the state of the scientific community.

But no, I don't subscribe to it.
M'kay. I won't bother linking the article then, you won't be able to read it.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#184 May 17 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kachi wrote:
What is this research, and why is it even necessary? People who think quantum uncertainty, if it's even actual randomness, precludes the viability of determinism make me want to stab my eyes out. "We can't predict how this particle will behave, therefore, people must have free will!"
I was actually suggesting we don't really have free will, in any proper sense of what it's supposed to mean.

I don't suppose you subscribe to New Scientist?


Oh, I wasn't actually addressing that rant towards you. It was just an afterthought about the state of the scientific community.

But no, I don't subscribe to it.
M'kay. I won't bother linking the article then, you won't be able to read it.


Can you give me a brief summary of the findings?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#185 May 17 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Kachi wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kachi wrote:
What is this research, and why is it even necessary? People who think quantum uncertainty, if it's even actual randomness, precludes the viability of determinism make me want to stab my eyes out. "We can't predict how this particle will behave, therefore, people must have free will!"
I was actually suggesting we don't really have free will, in any proper sense of what it's supposed to mean.

I don't suppose you subscribe to New Scientist?


Oh, I wasn't actually addressing that rant towards you. It was just an afterthought about the state of the scientific community.

But no, I don't subscribe to it.
M'kay. I won't bother linking the article then, you won't be able to read it.


Can you give me a brief summary of the findings?
Quote:
This is the big one. The notion that we have free will - the ability to exercise conscious control over our actions and decisions - is deeply embedded in human experience. But the more we learn about the physical universe and the human brain, the less plausible it becomes (New Scientist, 16 April, p 32).

One argument goes as follows: the universe, including the bits of it that make up your brain, is entirely deterministic. The state it is in right now determines the state it will be a millisecond, a month or a million years from now. Therefore free will cannot exist.

Neuroscience has also chipped in. Around 30 years ago psychologist Benjamin Libet discovered that if you ask people to make voluntary movements, their brains initiate the movement before they become consciously aware of any intention to move. Other experiments have since been performed along similar lines, leading many neuroscientists to conclude that free will is an illusion.

But it feels so real. We all have a sense of agency - the conviction that even though we did one thing, we could have done another, and that at any given moment we have free choice of any number of actions. Yet it seems that this is an elaborate illusion created by your brain. The conclusion is inescapable. We really are deluded.


That's the article I was referring to. Well, a summary of it. The article was basically discussing how our brains and thought processes are flawed. Basically the old "how do we know we can trust what we're thinking" spiel.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#186 May 17 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
The New Scientist isn't what I'd call a reputable scientific publication.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#187 May 17 2011 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Kavekk wrote:
The New Scientist isn't what I'd call a reputable scientific publication.
Do you mean what that says? Or do you just mean "it's not a peer reviewed journal"?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#188 May 17 2011 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
The New Scientist isn't what I'd call a reputable scientific publication.
Do you mean what that says? Or do you just mean "it's not a peer reviewed journal"?
It does tend to draw far more conclusions from data than are actually there at times. Besides, determinism doesn't exactly rule out free will. Check out Dennett's lecture here.
#189 May 17 2011 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
The New Scientist isn't what I'd call a reputable scientific publication.
Do you mean what that says? Or do you just mean "it's not a peer reviewed journal"?
It does tend to draw far more conclusions from data than are actually there at times. Besides, determinism doesn't exactly rule out free will. Check out Dennett's lecture here.
Thanks, I've wanted to watch that since you brought it up the other day.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#190 May 17 2011 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
The New Scientist isn't what I'd call a reputable scientific publication.
Do you mean what that says? Or do you just mean "it's not a peer reviewed journal"?


The former.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#191 May 17 2011 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
The New Scientist isn't what I'd call a reputable scientific publication.
Do you mean what that says? Or do you just mean "it's not a peer reviewed journal"?


The former.
I see. What makes you say so, just curious.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#192 May 17 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,679 posts
The Argument from Free Will

1. Having free will means having the freedom to choose our actions, rather than their being determined by some prior cause.

2. If we don't have free will, then we are not agents, for then we are not really acting, but rather we're being acted upon. (That's why we don't punish people for involuntary actions—such as a teller who hands money to a bank robber at gunpoint, or a driver who injures a pedestrian after a defective tire blows out.)

3. To be a moral agent means to be held morally responsible for what one does.

4. If we can't be held morally responsible for anything we do then the very idea of morality is meaningless.

5. Morality is not meaningless.

6. We have free will (from 2- 5).

7. We, as moral agents, are not subject to the laws of nature, in particular, the neural events in a genetically and environmentally determined brain (from 1 and 6).

8. Only a being who is apart from the laws of nature and partakes of the moral sphere could explain our being moral agents (from 7).

9. Only God is a being who is apart from the laws of nature and partakes of the moral sphere.

10. Only God can explain our moral agency (from 8 & 9).

11. God exists.

FLAW 1: This argument, in order to lead to God, must ignore the paradoxical Fork of Free Will. Either my actions are predictable (from my genes, my upbringing, my brain state, my current situation, and so on), or they are not. If they are predictable, then there is no reason to deny that they are caused, and we would not have free will. So they must be unpredictable, in other words, random. But if our behavior is random, then in what sense can it be attributable to us at all? If it really is a random event when I give the infirm man my seat in the subway, then in what sense is it me to whom this good deed should be attributed? If the action isn't caused by my psychological states, which are themselves caused by other states, then in one way is it really my action? And what good would it do to insist on moral responsibility, if our choices are random, and cannot be predicted from prior events (such as growing up in a society that holds people responsible)? This leads us back to the conclusion that we, as moral agents must be parts of the natural world-- the very negation of 7.

FLAW 2: Premise 10 is an example of the Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Pseudo-Explain Another. It expresses, rather than dispels, the confusion we feel when faced with the Fork of Free Will. The paradox has not been clarified in the least by introducing God into the analysis.


Let's talk about boobs instead.

____________________________
"anything added to the game is technically content, even if it was only a giant, steaming pile of turds for us to climb for a paltry achievement." - Drusas

#193 May 17 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
RAWDEAL wrote:
Let's talk about boobs instead.


You're a boob.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#194 May 17 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
Nilatai wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Having free will defines us, correct?

If so, we have free will. Why do we have free will? How do we have it? You have stil not answered this, and claiming that it makes us us is not a way of circumventing the problem presented with it.
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, we have free will because the boss insists on it.
The "New research" is nothing conclusive, though Daniel Dennette has a rather nice lecture about special determinism on YouTube. Also, I used the Hitchens quote earlier.
I did think someone else had already said it. :3

You're right of course, nothing conclusive. Certainly interesting, though.



Sorry so interrupt your exercise in futility of trying to prove the unprovable.. I just want to add that even if the only free will that we were given was to choose between Coke or Pepsi and every other aspect of our existence was controlled.. It would still be Free will to choose Coke or Pepsi. It would have no bearing on God's will whatsoever.
A fish in a fishbowl can go where EVER she wants! But it can only be in the fish bowl.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#195 May 17 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Or flopping around on the floor.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#196 May 17 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
******
43,175 posts
I'm not sorry to interrupt.
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#197 May 17 2011 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Sorry so interrupt your exercise in futility of trying to prove the unprovable.
I thought that was what you were doing with the first post?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#198 May 17 2011 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
ElneClare wrote:
Now I'm an an Agnostic Pagan, who sometimes prays to the Goddess and other times will rant at God, but not sure either exist and never expect an answer.



From one Baltimoran to another; I tried to be as annoying as possible :P
I was taught about God when I was little and my Grandfather was a born-again and my olest memories were my mom and aunts making the 'crazy' gesture when he would start ranting about The Lord.. But I never thought about it must growing up except in the back of my head..

I did become Pagan first though.. Druid from 14 onward and I have "seen sh*t that would turn you WHITE!" :P Even in all of that , though, I believed in One God but just figured He was off "doing his thing" and we had free reign.. but I did not understand was Jesus was.. I figured the point of existence was to try to become as Jesus and be able to walk on water and raise the dead and fly..lol I just figured it may take a few lifetimes and eventually we would get there..
Now I simply no longer believe that we will get there like that in our existences without God's help.










Edited, May 17th 2011 8:26pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#199 May 17 2011 at 6:21 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Sorry so interrupt your exercise in futility of trying to prove the unprovable.
I thought that was what you were doing with the first post?


No, there I was actually trolling.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#200 May 17 2011 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
@Nilatai; Didn't you say there were some new findings (or was that someone else)? I'm intimately familiar with determinism, but I was wondering what "new" findings there could be.

Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
The New Scientist isn't what I'd call a reputable scientific publication.
Do you mean what that says? Or do you just mean "it's not a peer reviewed journal"?


The former.
I see. What makes you say so, just curious.


Not being familiar with it myself, I know there was at least an article on the book What Darwin Got Wrong, which as near as I can tell is a complete piece of crap. It seems like the kind of publication that is made primarily to be interesting (or let's say "thought-provoking") rather than strictly reliable as a source of information.

____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#201 May 17 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
RAWDEAL wrote:
So they must be unpredictable, in other words, random. But if our behavior is random, then in what sense can it be attributable to us at all?


While I'm not going to debate whether or not your 11 stepped failed college thesis paper contained elements of flaws.. I will say that your tangent in your description of the flaws I think perhaps would inform you that you should take a good hard look at the logic that you are using to deny your creator.
You are talking about "random" as if it is the fifth element. Random only exist relatively. You actually stated before that that nothing can be random because you say: "(from my genes, my upbringing, my brain state, my current situation, and so on" well why stop there? Then the determining causes for your actions would go back even farther to the beginning of Time. If this particular piece of space dust hadn't have collided with that that certain energy field then you'd have different colored eyes and you would have worn the blue shirt in stead of the red shirt...
Random is relative. The root of randomness is ignorance. Random is an attribute that we ascribe to something because we do not understand what is causing it. What is really random? You see a leaf blowing around in the wind.. it seems random? or is there a complex pattern of wind and motion that we don't calculate? Is this the same as the integer spins of particles for go one way or another? Are they predictable?
No they aren't.

RAWDEAL wrote:
The paradox has not been clarified in the least by introducing God into the analysis.


I'll see that and raise you a:
The paradox has not been clarified in the least by removing God for the analysis.
In fact it make it make no sense.

Edited, May 17th 2011 8:53pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT
Aethien, ElneClare, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (59)