God and Free Will.

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
Now that would certainly be a more logically consistent god and has an infinitely higher chance of being correct than the extremely flawed xian deity, it still begs the question, where did that god come from? Do complex intelligent beings just spring into existence themselves? Or do they have to follow some sort of natural law like a Darwinian mode of increasing complexity? Starts to get harder and harder to justify the existence of a god. I went through a similar stage as you are in right now on my way to becoming a true skeptic of anything like a complex intelligent creator that owes it's existence to nothing.
Yes, but the same holds true for us. Do we (as intelligent beings able to create and reason) owe are existance to nothing?

We can't say we aren't created but yet exist at the same time can we.

Samantics? Maybe, but I exist and I didn't create myself. The same could hold true for GOD.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Yes, but the same holds true for us. Do we (as intelligent beings able to create and reason) owe are existance to nothing?

We can't say we aren't created but yet exist at the same time, can we?

Samantics? Maybe, but I exist and I didn't create myself. The same could hold true for GOD.
You're right but we know how you were created. Your parents created you and their parents created them and we can trace that all of the way back to at least single cell organisms. That aspect of life is no longer a mystery. Why do you think many xians have such a problem with Darwinian evolution? It's because of this very realization. They believe that understanding how complexity can arise from the very simple doesn't leave much room left for a deity. So many random events must have occurred for us to even be here. A god that wanted us to be the end-result of his creation would have to be an interfering one, not a deistic, hands-off one.
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
You're right but we know how you were created. Your parents created you and their parents created them and we can trace that all of the way back to at least single cell organisms. That aspect of life is no longer a mystery. Why do you think many xians have such a problem with Darwinian evolution? It's because of this very realization. They believe that understanding how complexity can arise from the very simple doesn't leave much room left for a deity. So many random events must have occurred for us to even be here. A god that wanted us to be the end-result of his creation would have to be an interfering one, not a deistic, hands-off one.
We understand the mechanics of earthly creation, as in reproduction. But we don't understand how it actually happens all we know is it does and we take educated quesses. We don't understand cellular intelligence. We don't understand how the hell a cell, which it controlled by the DNA of that organism has, has it's own seperate DNA within it. We don't know that Darwinian theories are true, it has big holes in it, we just believe it is the most reasonable answer. Not to mention the whole epigenetics theories popping up. At some level faith plays a role on both sides.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
We understand the mechanics of earthly creation, as in reproduction. But we don't understand how it actually happens all we know is it does and we take educated quesses. We don't understand cellular intelligence. We don't understand how the hell a cell, which it controlled by the DNA of that organism has, has it's own seperate DNA within it. We don't know that Darwinian theories are true, it has big holes in it, we just believe it is the most reasonable answer. Not to mention the whole epigenetics theories popping up. At some level faith plays a role on both sides.
Darwinian evolution is true at the most basic level and that is that complexity must arise gradually and in small increments over large spans of time. The only holes in the theory are minor and are a matter of details which do not threaten the basic concept. Epigenetics merely adds more detail to inheritance. It doesn't falsify or make natural selection untrue.

Faith plays no role in conclusions obtained using inductive reasoning.
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
Darwinian evolution is true at the most basic level and that is that complexity must arise gradually and in small increments over large spans of time. The only holes in the theory are minor and are a matter of details which do not threaten the basic concept. Epigenetics merely adds more detail to inheritance. It doesn't falsify or make natural selection untrue.

Faith plays no role in conclusions obtained using inductive reasoning.
I was never implying that it does.

But we can only formulate ideas with the data we have
We have such a small amount of knowledge, that to conclude anything as truth is dishonest.

You can call it what ever you want faith is just a word and doesn't suggest anything mystic.

Epigenetic doesn't just add to inheritance it also add another level of complexity like the mind, intent and will; things lower animals will not benefit from.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I was never implying that it does.

But we can only formulate ideas with the data we have
We have such a small amount of knowledge, that to conclude anything as truth is dishonest.
You seriously want to go in that direction? You seemed like such a reasonable person.:)
Sure, nothing can be known as truth, I could be a brain in a vat not actually experiencing the world as I thought I was. However, if we conclude that there is some shared reality, then we can use observation and rational methodology to determine the nature of this world. Not having all of the answers doesn't mean that we don't know any. The fact is that the results we get from science are self-confirming. Every time we use the knowledge gained from science, either in another observation or use in technology, and it actually works, then we have another piece of data that confirms our models are at least mostly correct. You say we have a small amount of knowledge but we confirm that knowledge billions of times over. Every new piece of evidence that supports it and every new piece of data that doesn't falsify it only adds to the strength of the knowledge.
You can call it what ever you want faith is just a word and doesn't suggest anything mystic.
Faith is just a word but it has certain meanings and implications. That's what words do. If you say that "both sides" require faith, you are equivocating on the word and using two different definitions. The knowledge gained from science is not faith-based but that is the implication that you create when you casually throw these types of words around.
Epigenetic doesn't just add to inheritance it also add another level of complexity like the mind, intent and will; things lower animals will not benefit from.
You will have to explain this line of reasoning and offer some support.
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
I was specifically speaking to the metaphysical, and suggesting that some of biology has to be treated as such, at least at this point.


I believe in Evolution. It speaks nothing to existence of a (g)God or the lack thereof.


Epigenetic has to do with external stimuli and internal stimuli they both have trigger effect.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I was specifically speaking to the metaphysical, and suggesting that some of biology has to be treated as such, at least at this point.
Than you should be more clear, and now possibly more detailed because biology does not recognize anything metaphysical. The supernatural and things unprovable are not in the realm of science to investigate. If you are to claim that there is something beyond which we can observe, then I remain skeptical and wait for you to provide a good reason I should accept this premise.


I believe in Evolution. It speaks nothing to existence of a (g)God or the lack thereof.
I never claimed it had anything to do with god. It does eliminate the necessity of god for one of the great mysteries of life. Another gap down the drain. I think the fundies have a right to be concerned and that's why they attack evolution with such vigor. They rightly believe that without Darwin, we would still have a hard time letting go of the concept of a creator. Darwin made it possible to be a heathen, ahem, atheist.
Epigenetic has to do with external stimuli and internal stimuli they both have trigger effect.
I didn't ask you for a definition, I'm well familiar with epigenetics. I asked you to clarify and expound upon the statement,
Epigenetic doesn't just add to inheritance it also add another level of complexity like the mind, intent and will; things lower animals will not benefit from.
I have no idea what that means wrt epigenetics.
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
Than you should be more clear, and now possibly more detailed because biology does not recognize anything metaphysical. The supernatural and things unprovable are not in the realm of science to investigate. If you are to claim that there is something beyond which we can observe, then I remain skeptical and wait for you to provide a good reason I should accept this premise.


I never claimed it had anything to do with god. It does eliminate the necessity of god for one of the great mysteries of life. Another gap down the drain. I think the fundies have a right to be concerned and that's why they attack evolution with such vigor. They rightly believe that without Darwin, we would still have a hard time letting go of the concept of a creator. Darwin made it possible to be a heathen, ahem, atheist.

I didn't ask you for a definition, I'm well familiar with epigenetics. I asked you to clarify and expound upon the statement,
I have no idea what that means wrt epigenetics.
Am I sensing a tone of condescension?
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Am I sensing a tone of condescension?
More of a tone of confusion. You talk about metaphysics and biology, epigenetics and the mind. I'm not making the connections. Also you are starting to appear hesitant to elaborate and that makes me ask more questions.
 

Bauks

Well-Known Member
Just looking at the title Made my Head hurt thinking about days past in philosophy class ....As of now there is no proof a god even exists so the whole question falls void due to a faulty premise. And as Such It Is not worth Thinking about :hump:
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Just looking at the title Made my Head hurt thinking about days past in philosophy class ....As of now there is no proof a god even exists so the whole question falls void due to a faulty premise. And as Such It Is not worth Thinking about :hump:


I always liked the way Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy approached God.
 

Bauks

Well-Known Member
I always liked the way Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy approached God.
Funny you say that I just swooped a hardcover copy Of "And Another Thing" By Eoin Colfer
HHGTTG: Part Six of Three

Life the Univers And Everything Is My Peronal all time favorite read :)
 

Snow Crash

Well-Known Member
There is no "free-choice" as we would like it.

We are made of molecules, which are made of smaller atoms, and all these parts that make us up - from the synapses to the plasma - all of this is governed by physical laws. As such, we are subject to the entirety of our learned existence, our genetic makeup/dispositions, and cause-effect. These laws determine what will happen at all places, in all times, regardless.

In addition, space-time exists in a manner outside of our perception of the flow of time. As such, the future and the present and the past are equally "existing." If we could observe the universe extrospectively we would see space-time as a unified "dimension" of existence. We could see that the future is very much a "place" just like how Delaware is a "place." This simple understanding of the nature of Time demonstrates that there is destiny to life, where what will happen has (in essence) already happened, as much as it is happening.

Then you may say that in quantum physics there is some uncertainty. To that I would reply that the uncertainty stems only from our misunderstanding and results from our observation of the system interfering, causing a new causal relationship between "self" and existence. I would say that we are all composed of energy. That, like two tornadoes spinning closer and closer together we are all made of "the wind." When apart we appear to be two distinctly, separate, energies but as we come closer together the interwoven relationship becomes clear. Then the energy merges and the "oneness" of existence is apparent.

Think of yourself as a Tornado, a spinning torrent of wild (near unpredictable) energy. Everything around you, the couch, the internet, your mom... everything is a whirling torrent of energy on a multi-dimensional level that we are all, everyone of us connected to and subject of. The universe is as much a "God" as we could hope for, with the Laws being His fingers forcing destiny along.

If we were to have a soul, and from the soul springs choice, there could be an argument made. To say that a dog is hungry, so it eats. An ape has an itch, so he scratches it. That we, human beings, were created different than the other creatures and as such have been gifted the ability to hunger strike, or ignore an itch. This is an issue though, because we cannot say for certain if the dog does eat every time it is hungry or if the ape does scratch every time it itches. We cannot know the mind of beings not ourselves so of course "we" would say we are the ones with a soul and with free-choice. We are the only ones we can know about. Yet dolphins mate for enjoyment and dogs are keenly sensitive to emotion, and these are the pursuits of pleasure and emotion that I think, we think, choice comes from.

We could then say that all creatures, rocks, trees, everything has a spirit, an essence, a "-ness" about it. A pebble-ness. A Red-ness. But at that point we see things which have no choice, or mobility for that matter, and it becomes clear that the soul isn't all it takes. This makes the human soul different than say, a tree soul.

This brings us back to God, but lost in the ability to try and measure or describe what exactly would lead to free choice. The faith argument isn't really an argument at all, because a person simply has faith that "it's like this." So, I must conclude then that despite existing in a causal universe we, for whatever reason, have a completely unverifiable faith that says we get to choose.

But haven't you heard the saying "God has a plan." It is how we justify still born babies, and 3 year-olds with brain tumors. The never ending horrors of our planet written off as the Will of God, part of his great and divine cosmic plan.

And what kind of God would he be if we were in charge of "His" universe. That is a fallacy right there. It would seem that God constructed this great causal universe, with Space-Time being what it is, and then said, "Okay, everything that will happen has in essence already happened. Have fun trying to make choices in that system!"

Pretty much however you carve it, with a god, with a soul, in a physical universe... Life is deterministic.

Where I find solace is in a line from one of the Matrix movies (interestingly very philosophical films):
...you didn't come here to make the choice.
You've already made it.
You're here to try to understand *why* you made it...
So that's it. We have already made our choices, just as much as they weren't really choices but "what we will do." The whole meaning to life, in my very humble opinion, is to understand the "why" and the context surrounding our decisions.

To put it another way... A decision is like a painting. The choice itself, is the physical painting, it is the apple on the canvas. What we can do, what our true purpose is, is to look at that red apple and see that it is a juicy, vibrant, piece of sustenance. To relate it to our lives, the smell of apple pie cooking in your grandmother's oven, the story of Adam and Eve and original sin.

From the outside, the painting is just the painting in much the same way an cigar is sometimes just a cigar, or a choice is just a choice. The important things, the REALLY good shit, is beneath the surface of the choice. It is in the experience. I cannot choose my experience, but I know that "I" am something, I have a self, and that I can do little more than observe and comprehend, to relate. Beyond that I find a certain Zen when accepting the will of causality, seeing the humor, beauty, and "-ness" of everything around us rather than feeling that endless "wanting."

Buddha was on to something. Remove desire and find inner peace.
 

HuffPuppy

Member
Snow, I am sincerely impressed by your ability to poetically describe physics concepts, however, as an armchair quantum enthusiast myself I must argue with some of your points. However, it would do nothing but muddle this thread. Is there a quantum theory/physics thread anywhere on RIU that would be a better place to discuss? If not, lets make one.

For those that aren't as nerdy... I will simply say that science certainly does not have all the answers. Ironically, scientists are usually the first ones to admit that point. However, atheists love to refer to science as the end-all be-all. There is actually a fracture in the scientific community of those that believe the "facts" point to a basic natural order in the universe and those that believe more and more that the "facts" suggest that nothing but an external and possibly incomprehensible force must be in play. Recently many scientists are recalling their stance on the Big Bang, stating that research and observations show that it could not have happened as they theorized. Regardless... as a Christian, and also a mortal with mortal limitations, I must accept that I cannot possibly understand God. And once again, I have absolute faith in man's blind pride and self righteousness. Are we truly so full of ourselves that we believe we can unravel the mysteries of the universe and God? I say no, but I say we keep trying.
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
Snow, I am sincerely impressed by your ability to poetically describe physics concepts, however, as an armchair quantum enthusiast myself I must argue with some of your points. However, it would do nothing but muddle this thread. Is there a quantum theory/physics thread anywhere on RIU that would be a better place to discuss? If not, lets make one.

For those that aren't as nerdy... I will simply say that science certainly does not have all the answers. Ironically, scientists are usually the first ones to admit that point. However, atheists love to refer to science as the end-all be-all. There is actually a fracture in the scientific community of those that believe the "facts" point to a basic natural order in the universe and those that believe more and more that the "facts" suggest that nothing but an external and possibly incomprehensible force must be in play. Recently many scientists are recalling their stance on the Big Bang, stating that research and observations show that it could not have happened as they theorized. Regardless... as a Christian, and also a mortal with mortal limitations, I must accept that I cannot possibly understand God. And once again, I have absolute faith in man's blind pride and self righteousness. Are we truly so full of ourselves that we believe we can unravel the mysteries of the universe and God? I say no, but I say we keep trying.
Very well siad, If only I was so articulate.
 
Top