|
"Free will is the consequence of a Divine creation" (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jon_Snow |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i'm loving this new game of unfalsifiable goalpost moving. |
It's hard to ignore the pattern of behavior. Just answer this one question, I dare anyone to disprove this idiotic idea I have, on and on... |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jon_Snow
It's hard to ignore the pattern of behavior. Just answer this one question, I dare anyone to disprove this idiotic idea I have, on and on... |
I've posted other questions as well, to which I haven't received an answer yet. |
|
|
| ivofivo |
These anti-religious fools watch too much House MD. You all keep saying don't make science out of religion, however, is it not the same "science" that states the properties of cause and effect? "Something simply can not be created out of nothing."
outta here. |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
This is the oldest and most tedious debate on the Internet and this passage you've quoted goes right back to the wretched start. |
it is, and the jury is still out. My bet is, free-will is only a transposition of the self in the manifold of bent spacetime, where outcomes are countable but prone to probabilistic distributions. Can we predict the future? we can study the probabilities of birthdays in a room, so it's finite and def. doable. Yet even the future is prone to the reality of this bending of spacetime.
Is life a perfect knowledge game? well, actuarians believe it is. They rely on stochastic analysis of various degrees. In the sea of statistics the trend is king, and leads me to think that, unlike poker: life is like a game of chess -- god indeed does not play dice. |
|
|
| Woony |
| To me, the problem seems to be that there are two angles, the purely philosophical and the scientific one and just like with say, theory of mind, the two always end up carelessly getting thrown in the mixer in non-academic debates (not to say that academics aren't guilty of that sometimes, too), resulting in a confused mess of philosophical concepts, 'hard' scientific facts and pseudoscience. |
|
|
| Lews |
Oh look, Philosophy 101. I'll just say that the current scientific evidence seems to hint toward no free will, while personally I'm convinced the philosophical evidence completely shows there is no free will.
Also, what the do happy auras have to do with Free Will? |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Also, what the do happy auras have to do with Free Will? |
Happy auras have something to do with free wifi though :D |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Also, what the do happy auras have to do with Free Will? |
Change topic when losing argument, pop an iboga and it's all about the aura. |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Also, what the do happy auras have to do with Free Will? |
That wasn't why I asked about "happy auras."
As for a possible correlation between science and creation, I like what the physicist Gerald Schroeder states,
"Schroeder attempts to reconcile a six day creation as described in Genesis with the scientific evidence that the world is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's general relativity.[7]
Namely, that from the perspective of the point of origin of the Big Bang, according to Einstein's equations of the 'stretching factor', time dilates by a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000,000, meaning one trillion days on earth would appear to pass as one day from that point, due to the stretching of space. When applied to the estimated age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, from the perspective of the point of origin, the universe today would appear to have just begun its sixth day of existence, or if the universe is 15 billion years old from the perspective of earth, it would appear to have just completed its sixth day.[8] Antony Flew, an academic philosopher who promoted atheism for most of his adult life indicated that the arguments of Gerald Schroeder had influenced his decision to become a deist."
Not sure whether or not I agree with it, but it's definitely some food for thought, nonetheless. |
|
|
| Sphere City |
| does anybody else not read what he posts? :haha: |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
Not sure whether or not I agree with it, but it's definitely some food for thought, nonetheless. |
You want some food for thought? How about the fact that no serious Christian took Genesis literally until the 19th century? There are two god damned Creation stories back to back. It's not supposed to be taken literally. |
|
|
| JEO |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
Not sure whether or not I agree with it, but it's definitely some food for thought, nonetheless. |
I'm recommending you a book. You should get it, and read it.
Here: Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion
It's got very little to do with the subject of this thread, but I think you could benefit from broadening your views a bit. |
|
|
|
|
