|
Post by vertigo on Jan 1, 2006 18:50:54 GMT -5
The problem here is expressing ideas in a coherent way. I am going out on a limb here, what I say might be totally misunderstood. Consider this a kind gesture.
Supposedly (from God's view) we might consider existence as consisting of the natural world or natural existents and supernatural existents. God would be one of the supernatural existents. Now us humans have no capability of sensing the supernatural. We can necessarily only sense what is natural. We therefore can only have knowledge of the natural. If God were to make a mountain appear, we could not sense that. We could only sense that the mountain appeared.
There would be no way for us to rationally deduce that it had a supernatural cause. No sense of ours could sense that. The right conclusion would be that we don't yet know what causes it. If electrons sometimes go left and sometimes go right, the proper, correct answer is that we don't know yet.
We can only sense natural effects and guess at the causes, however a theory is good if it is useful. If quantum theory proves useful in that it predicts natural effects which we can measure and predicts them correctly, it doesn't matter that it posits virtual particles, etc. It is a useful theory. Having said this, and this is very very important, this is not to say that virtual particles exist because that claim is untenable. Evidence is necessarily natural so there can be no evidence for a supernatural claim. Therefore, technically speaking (from our viewpoint) that claim is false by reason of being meaningless or irrelevant. If it cannot be true, it is false. Logically speaking, true and false are a dichotomy.
So sometimes theories are in part supernatural, like quantum mechanics, but we use them because they are useful to predict natural effects. This is the crux. Positing that virtual particles exist is untenable but in the theory of quantum mechanics they are useful.
Now, let's get to the theory of God. That theory is very much not useful. Religion is about the afterlife. It is very much not useful for life. A claim to an afterlife is untenable because it is supernatural. A theory of God, if it proved useful, would be okay, but it isn't. It is anti-life because it puts the afterlife before life.
There are some that defend religion on the basis of there being some positive effects of religion. In other words, they are painting religion as a useful theory. However, it is not useful because it posits an afterlife and it undermines knowledge. It is destructive and dangerous and must be eradicated.
Getting back, any claim that the world is nondeterministic is untenable, but some scientific theories do assume that our world is probabilistic. I hope this makes sense. But now the confusion happens and since I haven't studied philosophy the waters are murky. From our individual viewpoints, we only see effects. Logically we understand we can only sense the natural, but at the same time we experience free will. We experience choice. It is wrong to say that that is an illusion because we use those faculties to learn about illusions.
So understand, from this angle we might certainly claim that determinism is false because we experience free will. Free will is axiomatic. It is not knowledge based on sensory evidence, it is axiomatic knowledge. So the proper way to organise our knowledge would be to start with the axioms and then build knowledge from our senses inasfar as it doesn't contradict the axioms.
However, since we have the capability of seeing things from other viewpoints, we might speak of the world as being deterministic with reference to the fact that what we term 'the world' only really means the 'the world we sense'. However, it is ultimately irrelevant because we experience free will.
If this makes any sense, good. You (Eugen) claim the world is deterministic. I am saying it might be so from God's view but from our view our free will contradicts it. Science can only predict natural effects but useful theories might contain supernatural elements. The job of science is to predict, not to explain. We must necessarily rejects supernatural explanations (apart from the axioms), however free will is axiomatic.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jan 1, 2006 18:57:56 GMT -5
I know I don't use the right words here. It is hard to speak coherently about this subject which is why I don't care to do it too often. In fact, I am considering not doing it again. Life is too short.
|
|
eugen43
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 12
|
Post by eugen43 on Jan 1, 2006 21:09:36 GMT -5
I can't argue in terms of what god can and can not do or what is natural and supernatural because I do not believe in these things. My thoughts are quite simple. God was invented to explain nature. He later became a great political tool because men realized they could control a lot of people with just a few priests. Just like today. We have not figured out all the laws of physics (nature) but with the laws that we do have we know from observation that the universe follows the rules without exception. Action reaction. That's how it works at all levels from the big bang till now. If I think these rules are carried out exactly throughout the universe why would I think that things would be different on this piddly little planet. We are not the only things down here what think so let me say it this way, I will not believe that the minds of animals are the only things in the universe that do not follow the rules of nature. This is a very difficult thing to accept, that our thoughts are just chemical/electrical reactions which occur because of stimuli and the result is a precise action and not a random event. Then I see that everything must be predetermined, and I can think of me as just one small part of a universe set in motion. I can comprehend that. Now I can get on with the rest of my predetermined life to see how it ends.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jan 3, 2006 17:35:58 GMT -5
Hello Eugene, you say if we could step outside time we would see what the future is there is no such thing as time. We created time as a measuring stick. We cannot step outside of time as it doesn't exist. That is where your argument is flawed. time only measures how long it takes an object to do something. Time used to be based on how long it took the sun across the sky. Time in your watch is based on a piece of quartz. Clocks do not measure time. but for the sake of argument if time did exist you do not know if it's been a single line or if it branches out like a tree. Maybe the things we do determine if time branches or not. Who's to say that time only traveles one direction one-way. So if you stepped outside of time like this you would see a spider web of infinite possibilities branching off in all directions. That still leaves you with your theory of cogs in a wheel and allows for freewill. And who knows if you stepped outside of this time you would see yourself as a bum on the street and in another branch see yourself as the president of the United States.
|
|
eugen43
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 12
|
Post by eugen43 on Jan 3, 2006 19:35:32 GMT -5
Hi necroshine, I just want to tell you that time is a very real thing and it is part of what makes everything. Before i explain what I just said i would like to try to explain how you can experiment and prove time is a real thing yourself. I could give a lot of imaginary scenarios to describe time but then you would be required to believe the scenario, so lets do an experiment. First thing is take a chilled mug and fill it to the top with beer so that there is approximately one half in of foam. Don't drink it, instead hold it at arms length so that the top of the mug is level. Now slowly start spinning around. You will observe that at first a little foam will fly off and as you spin faster beer will start to spill out even though the top of the mug is level and if you spin real fast all the walls of your girl friends living room will be dripping with beer. At this point you may have lost half a mug of beer but sacrifices sometimes must be made in the name of science. Observe is your mug half full or half empty? The real question is why did the beer fly out of the mug? It was caused by acceleration. What is acceleration? Acceleration is a change in velocity with respect to ( you guess it) time. The second part of the experiment begins on the way to the hospital after your girl friend beats you within an inch of your life. Ask the ambulance driver if you could sit up front. Roll the window down and extend your hand. Notice that when the driver is only going 30 MPH (44 ft/sec) that the force of the air is week compared to when he is going 90 MPH (132 ft/sec). The air has two choices it can go through your hand or it can go around your hand. In order for the air to move out of the way it has to accelerate. Depending on how fast it must accelerate determines the force felt on your hand. You are now at the hospital and this concludes the experiments. I think you would agree that things change depending on time. At the beginning of the experiment you had a girl friend. It is time to do an imaginary experiment. You are Eric Dporf a famous European astronaut and you are drifting in space in a very nice space suit except that you are reminded that you had cabbage and beans for supper. You also notice that your buddies have covered your visor with black tape and you can not see out. You ask yourself "Am I spinning?" I leave you to answer that question, but before I do I just want to mention that temperature /heat is a function of time and also i know that there is a lot of people who could explain time better and I invite them to add their comments. it's Eugen
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jan 4, 2006 6:07:22 GMT -5
Eugene, if you think time is real please pick up a few books from Stephen Hawking And a few other good scientists. They use time as a measuring stick they also use imaginary time to help them with their calculations. Would you say imaginary time was for real? the only force that acted upon the beer is velocity yes velocity does increase over time but time isn't real it's just a measuring stick if time was real and we could measure time we would have something that did so. As I stated before, clocks do not measure time they either measure the tension of the spring unwinding, or they measure how fast a rock vibrates, or it measures how fast a star spins in space. But clocks do not measure time it self. you cannot step outside of time. Now I'm not saying that time isn't something we don't use. And I'm not saying the notion of it doesn't exist but if you start talking about stepping outside of time that's when the discussion stops because that's something you just cannot do. and as far your experiment goes with the ambulance, wind only has one choice but to go round your hand it cannot go through. The electromagnetic force in your body insures that the wind cannot go through your body. And I would agree with you that change is dependent upon time as we measure it. Change is not dependent upon time only our ability to measure how much something has changed is dependent upon time. And as far as the astronaut in space, everything is spinning yes everything spins nothing stands still. The sun spens on its axis the Earth spens on its axis and also spins around the sun. While the sun spens around the galaxy, while the Galaxy spins around the galactic cluster. It is reckoned that something cannot stand still everything has to be in motion. one other thing, temperature and heat is not a function of time it is a function of how fast atoms move and vibrate. As temperature rises and the molecules in the air vibrate faster, that creates the sensation of heat. hope I have explain myself a little better. If you still have some comments i would love to hear them and please do some research in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jan 4, 2006 7:15:54 GMT -5
Time is as real as music. And necroshine, his name is Eugen. Get it right.
What are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jan 5, 2006 6:13:27 GMT -5
What ever eugen is talking about an astronaut with a blindfold on is he spinning? That is what he asked. So I answered that everything is spinning. Nothing is standing still. Now if I missed the point of his question he can state the question a different way.
As far as time not being real, I know we use it everyday and all that. I’m just saying that it is something that is not tangible. Clocks don’t measure time. You can not step outside of time. So when he is arguing about no freewill because if you did step outside and seen something in the future you have no choice but to do that. I don’t think that is correct. And I tried to explain why I thought it was not correct. Don’t talk about time like you can side step it, or talk like you can get outside it. No one knows the true nature of time. No one knows if you can go back in time but we know its not ruled out completely.
|
|
|
Post by Unbeliever on May 24, 2006 20:41:13 GMT -5
If God is omniscient, then God cannot have "free will" any more than humans can, since he already knows, and has known forever, everything he will ever do and not do, and he cannot change what he already knows he will do and not do. Even if he changes his mind about an act he was contemplating, he must already have known that he would change his mind, and is therefore powerless to do otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Jun 1, 2006 22:12:18 GMT -5
just because you know what you are going to do doesn't mean you no longer have a choice in what you do.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jun 2, 2006 5:44:03 GMT -5
just because you know what you are going to do doesn't mean you no longer have a choice in what you do. I don’t follow. Take for example the people that were in ww2. they knew what they had to do. As long as you agree with what it is you have to do you no longer have a choice you just have to do it. Choice is out the window, when you have made up your mind to do something. If someone was going to go to war, and you knew it was the correct line of action you do the thing you feel is correct. What is the point going against your first decision, Getting to the battle field and chickening out? Now the difference is when the war is over and the people come home they are free to make different choices about what they want to do in life. But on the other hand god has made his mind up about everything he is going to do. So now all he has to do is go through the actions. But now that he is inside the act he has no choice in what to do, the choices have already been made. For god to change his mind after he has started is to say that he doesn’t know everything and something unforeseen has happened. God is supposed to know all from the beginning of time till the end and beyond. Isn’t that correct, and if not how?
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Jun 3, 2006 22:29:55 GMT -5
I guess what I am trying to say that just because he know what he is going to do doesn't mean that he is powerless to change. He can change his mind. It doesn't mean that he will, it just mean that he still has the power. Just like the man on the battle feild he has the power to change his mind if he wants to.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jun 4, 2006 5:20:33 GMT -5
Ok gureeillasaint, lets say that god can change his mind. Sure its not that big of a feat. I do it everyday, I’m sure god would be capable of it also. But what is the point of him to do so? Like I said when I change my mind its because I don’t know what it is I’m going to do. I don’t know the future and I have to make choices on the go. God on the other hand has all the answers, so when he decides to do something he will only have one choice to make. Everything else would be the wrong course of action. So why would god start to do something wrong and then change what he is doing to do something different? That would suggest he doesn’t know all, Now wouldn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Jun 6, 2006 11:22:42 GMT -5
I don't know why God would change his mind.
Maybe he is going to do something unless you ask him not to.(maybe he wants you to ask him to change his mind) If he believes it would be OK then he will no do what He told you he was going to.
Also there maybe more than one solution to a problem so if he changed his mind it wouldn't be like he was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jun 7, 2006 6:14:48 GMT -5
Ahhahah you don’t really believe that do you? Do you think god is so fickle that he wants you to make up his mind?
But that doesn’t explain why blood sacrifices was ok and now its not. If jesus is the way then he should had always been the way. Like this the jews would not have to go to hell. because we all know the jews are going o hell because they do not believe in jesus. And he is the only way into heaven. Isn’t that correct?
|
|