Age and God; A correlation?

[Freethinker]

Theism is non-rational, but I wouldn't call it irrational.

A is A: the Law of Identity. For any proposition something either IS A or IS NOT A. As such either something IS "rational" or it IS NOT "rational" (IRrational). NON and IR (and "A") are the same thing as they indicate that something is NOT "A" (rational). Any attempt to differentiate between them is non- or ir-relevant.

[Biochemist]

These ideals or concepts did not come from "nothing". They are easily deduced to evolutionary traits that help propogate species survival (aside from free-will, which is all together another can o' worms).

Creativity (by defintion) is generation of new ideas/content/art/product de novo. It would fall in the same bucket as free will (by definition). I noted you side-stepped the issue by labeling it a "can o' worms". The existence of free will is one of the strongest, reproducibly testable proof cases for a Creator (assuming that you believe the universe is deterministic).

 

Why is that example a "can o' worms" instead of a valid opposing argument?

[Biochemist]

A is A: the Law of Identity. For any proposition something either IS A or IS NOT A. As such either something IS "rational" or it IS NOT "rational" (IRrational). NON and IR (and "A") are the same thing as they indicate that something is NOT "A" (rational). Any attempt to differentiate between them is non- or ir-relevant.

You have this tendency to redefine words for your own purposes, and it is tiresome, because it inordinately extends any defense. You have done if before with "atheist" and "agnostic" and as a consequence, lost meaning in both words.

 

Words (as you recognize) have connotation a denotation. In American english, in particular, connotation is as least as important as denotation. People in normal usage use "irrational" to infer that a behavior is either unwarranted, unreasonable or even a little nutty. You will notice that when I said "nutty", you were probably not thinking about walnuts. The usage of "not rational" carries less of that emotional load. My preference for frozen yogurt over ice cream, or the color lavender over periwinkle could be characterised as a preference that is not rational, because it cannot be explained. I don't think that anyone would be complying with normal usage if they characterized a preference for lavender as irrational.

 

Your use of symbolic math proofs to equate ir- and non- seems a little irrational.

[Fishteacher73]

Well as opposed to starting a similar discussion as one that already exists in a nother thread, I left it out. By my reasoning we exist in a deterministic universe and free-will is not a valid argument for a creator. Perhaps creativity is a poor word choice because nothing can only come from nothing; novelty perhaps would be a more apt term for innovative thought.

 

There have been experiments that have shown magnetic fields will have an significant effect on "random" choices made by individuals.

To quote wiki on the subject of free-will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

It has also become possible to study the living brain and researchers can now watch the decision-making "machinery" at work. A seminal experiment in this field was conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s, wherein he asked subjects to choose a random moment to flick their wrist while he watched the associated activity in their brains. Libet found that the brain activity leading up to the subject flicking their wrist began approximately one-third of a second before the subject consciously decided to move, suggesting that the decision was actually first being made on a subconscious level and only afterward being translated into a "conscious decision", and that the subject's belief that it occured randomly was only due to their perception.

 

A related experiment performed later by Dr. Alvaro Pascual-Leone involved asking subjects to choose at random which of their hands to move. He found that by stimulating different hemispheres of the brain using magnetic fields it was possible to strongly influence which hand the subject picked. Normally right-handed people would choose to move their right hand 60% of the time, for example, but when the right hemisphere was stimulated they would instead choose their left hand 80% of the time (recall that the right hemisphere of the brain is responsible for the left side of the body, and the left hemisphere for the right). Despite the external influence on their decision-making, the subjects continued to report that they believed their choice of hand had been made freely. Libet himself (e.g. Libet, 2003: 'Can Conscious Experience affect brain Activity? ', Journal of Consciousness Studies 10, nr. 12, pp 24 - 28), however, does not interpret his experiment as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will — he points out that although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains a right to veto that action in the last few milliseconds.

 

The concluding statements seem to be a bit of personal conjecture and not really evident in the results. It seems that Dr. Alvaro Pascual-Leone is trying to keep the concept of free-will eventhough his experiments start to show that there is not such a thing.

[Biochemist]

Well as opposed to starting a similar discussion as one that already exists in a nother thread, I left it out. By my reasoning we exist in a deterministic universe and free-will is not a valid argument for a creator.

I know we have gone through this before. As I recall, you were in the camp that held that free will is really an illusion. I think that view is internally consistent with a non-theistic point of view.

Perhaps creativity is a poor word choice because nothing can only come from nothing; novelty perhaps would be a more apt term for innovative thought.

"Novelty" is a great word choice, since it implies uniqueness, not development de novo. Good differentiator.

There have been experiments that have shown magnetic fields will have an significant effect on "random" choices made by individuals....

I don't think that anyone denies that decisions can be influenced. The issue is whether thery are all determined precisely. I don't think we want to reopen this discussion here, but I am happy to if you are interested.

[Fishteacher73]

I do find it interesting, but in an effort to stay on thread, I'll respond in the free-will thread to discuss it more if interested.

[Fishteacher73]

Novelty/creativity as I stated I feel comes from a causal point. The path taken may be new, but it stems from many other prior actions. Even if one steps up the frame of reference from physics/chemistry causality to a social causality, it still exists. Its the old "standing on the shoulders of giants" ideal. Just as a pearl growns from an insignifcant speck of sand ideas grow from the seeds of others. The intial seed was genetic instinct and it has snowballed from that point. Failure may be the outcome as well.

[Biochemist]

Novelty/creativity as I stated I feel comes from a causal point.

I am OK with this. I was making a raw semantic point, only because many philosphers have used "creativity" explicitly to refer to actions of humans that are uncaused (in the same sense as free will). I am only discussing semantics, not disagreeing with your point.

[Freethinker]

The existence of free will is one of the strongest, reproducibly testable proof cases for a Creator

1) please PROVE that Free Will exists. (Oh why do I bother asking a Christian for PROOF?)

 

2) If Free Will does exist, it rules out the possibility of an Omnipotent being/ Creator, ala the Christian superstition.

[Freethinker]

You have this tendency to redefine words for your own purposes, and it is tiresome, because it inordinately extends any defense. You have done if before with "atheist" and "agnostic" and as a consequence, lost meaning in both words.

irrational - : not rational: ...: not governed by or according to reason (WWWebster)

 

As *I* said something either IS A or IS NOT A. As such either something IS "rational" or it IS NOT "rational" (IRrational). NON and IR (and "A") are the same thing as they indicate that something is NOT "A" (rational). Any attempt to differentiate between them is non- or ir-relevant.

 

Your batting 1000, er error wise.

[Fishteacher73]

I don't think that anyone would be complying with normal usage if they characterized a preference for lavender as irrational.

 

I do not know anout that....have you ever had a wife try to paint a room lavender? :o

[Biochemist]

1) please PROVE that Free Will exists....

 

2) If Free Will does exist, it rules out the possibility of an Omnipotent being/ Creator

FrT- This is a standard philosophy discussion

 

1) It is easy to establish a test environment where a human reproducibly makes a decision, that he/she perceives as independent of external causality. Entering posts on this site would count as a free willl decision.

2) If we assume (for the sake of this argument) that the universe is deterministic, this leaves two possibilties:

2a) Free will is deterministic, and the the apparent subjective free will experience is an illusion, or

2b) Free will is not deterministic, and the apparent free will experience truly is uncaused. In this context, one would invoke a Creator that would have exempted free will from the determinism of the universe.

 

For those that think 2a strains credulity, 2b is more rational. But either 2a or 2b are internally consistent.

[Fishteacher73]

I think we need to move to a free-will thread if we want to continue this line.

[Freethinker]

FrT- This is a standard philosophy discussion

I asked you to prove that free will exists. Can you? Or will this just be another thread where you ramble on about other tings?

1) It is easy to establish a test environment where a human reproducibly makes a decision, that he/she perceives as independent of external causality. Entering posts on this site would count as a free willl decision.

PERCEPTION of actions "independent of external causality" does not mean that they actually ARE "independent of external causality". And unless we are willing to outright reject the concept of causality, it is impossible to show ANY action that can not have multiple causations.

 

All your claimed test would show is the testors ability to construct a test which hides the causality from the subject. Nothing about it would provide support for Free Will

2a) Free will is deterministic

makes no sense

[infamous]

FrT- This is a standard philosophy discussion

 

1) It is easy to establish a test environment where a human reproducibly makes a decision, that he/she perceives as independent of external causality. Entering posts on this site would count as a free willl decision.

2) If we assume (for the sake of this argument) that the universe is deterministic, this leaves two possibilties:

2a) Free will is deterministic, and the the apparent subjective free will experience is an illusion, or

2b) Free will is not deterministic, and the apparent free will experience truly is uncaused. In this context, one would invoke a Creator that would have exempted free will from the determinism of the universe.

 

For those that think 2a strains credulity, 2b is more rational. But either 2a or 2b are internally consistent.

I'll agree with (2a) as a definition for the state of reality in this universe. If you will follow the ideas which I've posted in the thread "Defining randomness", I believe many people could come to this conclusion. I think that determinism has a solid scientific foundation, the only exception being quantum fluctuations. And even these events may prove to be deterministic with further study. One word about free will here, many Christains believe in a free will. There is however another point of view that is defined as predestination, predominantly tought by Paul the apostle. This view point sees our place in the universe as deterministic and objects to the concept of free will.

[Biochemist]

I'll agree with (2a) as a definition for the state of reality in this universe. If you will follow the ideas which I've posted in the thread "Defining randomness", I believe many people could come to this conclusion. I think that determinism has a solid scientific foundation, the only exception being quantum fluctuations. And even these events may prove to be deterministic with further study.

I understand and agree with both points, including the potential for quantum fluctiations. I am (frankly) not schooled enough (and perhaps not smart enough) to understand the mathematics required for the Feynman multiple-history calculations, so I don't have lot of confidence that my gut feel that "quantum fluctionation may be found deterministic" holds water.

One word about free will here, many Christains believe in a free will. There is however another point of view that is defined as predestination, predominantly tought by Paul the apostle. This view point sees our place in the universe as deterministic and objects to the concept of free will.

I understand this as well. Calvinists could fit into 2a along with atheists. But to be in 2b, I think you pretty much have to be a theist of some sort.

[bumab]

I asked you to prove that free will exists. Can you? Or will this just be another thread where you ramble on about other tings?

 

Hostility... wow, FT- seriously. One civil post would be nice.

 

One cannot prove things. One can only find evidence for things and observe things. Do we have evidence for free will? Sure. Do we have evidence causality can be circumvented? No? Do we have a conundrum? Of course.

 

All your claimed test would show is the testors ability to construct a test which hides the causality from the subject. Nothing about it would provide support for Free Will

 

A good point, despite the acrid tone... How would one go about testing free will in a completely controlled setting? I don't think one can.

 

Of course- have you thought about the implications for YOU if free will does not exist? Getting all riled up... pointless. No one changes their mind because of an argument from either side. Actually, no one really argues. They are just precipitated events from some preceeding events. Why talk? Because we are forced to.

 

How does one find evidence of anything? We have to weigh the results of some experiment, and make a critical decision about the validity of the results. But DECISIONS do not and cannot exist if there is no free will.

 

For example, your obviously superior intellect. How do you know you are right? You've reached some decision about that? Not really, if your determinism is correct. You've not reached a decision at all, your brain is simply in a "I'm perfectly right" state of mind, as it were. No decision was made, the cascade of stimuli merely caused you to have that opinion. If it's just impluses in your brain, couldn't those impluses tell you anything? After all, if the pre-conditions for self-assurance were set up, does it really matter if you are right or not?