Age and God; A correlation?

[Biochemist]

...And I would submit that the agnostic tenet is by far much more honest with it's decision making than the atheistic point of view. The agnostic can admit that he simply does'nt know while the atheist insists that there is no God. Sounds to me like the agnostic is more inclined to think freely, if you know what I mean.

I agree, but this might get an animated response from Freethinker.

[infamous]

I agree, but this might get an animated response from Freethinker.

 

No doubt in my mind, I believe he's crouched down in the bushes just waiting for the opportunity to pounce.

[lindagarrette]

Absolutely Biochemist; And I would submit that the agnostic tenet is by far much more honest with it's decision making than the atheistic point of view. The agnostic can admit that he simply does'nt know while the atheist insists that there is no God. Sounds to me like the agnostic is more inclined to think freely, if you know what I mean.

An athiest is someone who does not believe in the supernatural. An agnostic is someone who does not know whether to believe or not.

[infamous]

An athiest is someone who does not believe in the supernatural. An agnostic is someone who does not know whether to believe or not.

 

I believe that this statement only reinforces what I said, if not please elaborate Linda. Webster's defines Atheism as: " the belief that there is no God".

[Fishteacher73]

The agnostic can admit that he simply does'nt know while the atheist insists that there is no God. Emphasis added..

 

 

Webster's defines Atheism as: " the belief that there is no God". Emphasis added..

 

It seems that even Websters wants to imply that theist (and therefore etymologically atheists) are linked to the formal God of the major religions. It seems to not include the nebulous watchmaker type god of deism. This seems to be the one hanging point that agnostics claim that prevents their full "conversion" :o to atheism. (This position is also known as weak atheism).

[infamous]

It's still a contradiction. You can't be "constrained" if you have no control to begin with. Simply because religious dogma has less of a bearing on your thoughts doesn't mean you are any more "free" with those thoughts.

 

I would ask for a definition of freethinker that DOES NOT presuppose free will.

 

Good point bumab; I would like to ask for that definition from Freethinker also. How do we mix determinism with free thinking?

[Freethinker]

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

Intellectualy integrity would be nice occasionally also. You know, when someone makes a claim and is asked to support it? That they actually do so or admit they can not? Is that too much to ask at a site that claims to be science based?

 

It would be so nice to actually have this type discussion here. Instead we get any number of arbitrary ramblings pretending to be assertions. When asked to provide ANY vlaid support, the request is ignored or at best given personal reasons as to why the person blindly accepts what ever it was.

 

Then I am seen as the bad guy for actually trying to get an answer of any value as support for the claim. Hostile, angry, unwilling to blindly accept arbitrary claims, they all seem to be considered the same thing.

One cannot prove things.

Then let's all admit that there is not a single thing in our scientific database of knowledge that is valid.

One can only find evidence for things and observe things. Do we have evidence for free will? Sure.

See what I mean? I have asked numerous times for PROOF of Free Will. Replies never provide any. Just more claims that it does exist and can be proven so. Not they attempts are made to prove it, jus that it can, somehow, by someone, somewhere... just not here, by anyone posting.

 

And if I ask once more for the proof you CLAIM over and over to have, then I am being difficult?

How would one go about testing free will in a completely controlled setting? I don't think one can.

Exzactly. And that is PROOF of a lack of Free Will. One falsafiability for Free Will is the ability to produce a completely arbitrary concept that has never been produced before. Not some variation on existing ones. Not some new packaging to existing ideas. If we truly had Free Will, we would not be limited to KNOWN concepts. We would not be locked into rearranging existent concepts. Yet everything we "know" was developed out of previous models and concepts. Just new combinations and applications of previous concepts and ideas.

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.

Yes OK, and?

DECISIONS do not and cannot exist if there is no free will.

Why not? A computer "decides" what results to return for given input. Human "decisions" result from the ultimate culmination of all knowledge to that point. A purely mathematical result. That we "perceive" it to be otherwise does not make it so.

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?

Agreed. A person reaches a "decision" and that decision will be assigned a given level of assurity based on a number of things. This does not provide support for the concept of Free Will. It supports a mechanistic determinism.

[Freethinker]

the idea of the existence of a god, something very unspecific, is not something I'd be willing to rule out given the current evidence. If asked to make a choice one way or the other, I'll say that there's probably not one, but I can't say that with 100% confidence because I truly don't know. ... I'm an atheist. I don't have any beliefs regarding a general "god" idea. However, I think making a positive affirmation that no god of any kind exists is premature.

As strongly (aggresively?) as I come across against a god concept, I agree that it is impossible to prove and therefore know that somethng which might be considered to be a god might exist. Just like Santa Claus. Perhaps there is some guy living at the North Pole which has not been found yet? Hides everytime anything comes along that might otherwise detect him. But we have some very specific defintions of Santa Claus. And we KNOW that it is impossible for an entity to fill all of the requirements of that defintion. We also know that claims made for his actions can easily be shown to not have happened.

 

Same with GOD. The most accurate answer I can give to "Is there a god?" is that I have never been exposed to a defintion of a god that could possibily exist and as such, until a feasable defintion is presented, with a reasonable level of valid support, I have no reason to accept that one exists.

 

We can play the "let's make up defintions of things and call them gods" game. Then pretending this gives a valid reason to hold a god belief to at least some level. But it IS a game. It is NOT intellectually honest.

[infamous]

As strongly (aggresively?) as I come across against a god concept, I agree that it is impossible to prove and therefore know that somethng which might be considered to be a god might exist. Just like Santa Claus. Perhaps there is some guy living at the North Pole which has not been found yet? Hides everytime anything comes along that might otherwise detect him. But we have some very specific defintions of Santa Claus. And we KNOW that it is impossible for an entity to fill all of the requirements of that defintion. We also know that claims made for his actions can easily be shown to not have happened.

 

Same with GOD. The most accurate answer I can give to "Is there a god?" is that I have never been exposed to a defintion of a god that could possibily exist and as such, until a feasable defintion is presented, with a reasonable level of valid support, I have no reason to accept that one exists.

 

We can play the "let's make up defintions of things and call them gods" game. Then pretending this gives a valid reason to hold a god belief to at least some level. But it IS a game. It is NOT intellectually honest.

Fair enough Freethinker; I don't believe in Santa Claus either, and if I had not my own personal experiences with God, I would also be an atheist. Or at least an agnostic. I'll respect your position with regard to the question about the existence of God, and I vow never to argue this point with you again. If however you are curious about my real life experience, I will be happy to tell you all about it. I have no proof, unless you would eccept my word as evidence. I realize that I'm not what you could call a trusted friend, but ask yourself this question. If you had a trusted friend and they came to you with a story that they swore was true, would you believe them. Even so, I may not be your trusted friend, but I would stil like to be your friend. I realize that you have probably heard it all at this forum, but I do respect your intellect. This may sound like I'm just blowing smoke, but truly, I am looking forward to learning by sharing ideas with you. I promise not to mention the word God, unless you bring it up.

[bumab]

Then let's all admit that there is not a single thing in our scientific database of knowledge that is valid.

 

Didn't say that. I said you couldn't "prove" anything. You simply make assertations based on the evidence.

 

See what I mean? I have asked numerous times for PROOF of Free Will. Replies never provide any. Just more claims that it does exist and can be proven so. Not they attempts are made to prove it, jus that it can, somehow, by someone, somewhere... just not here, by anyone posting.

 

Emphasis added. Come now, let's not make stuff up. I NEVER asserted free will could be PROVEN, and I don't know of anyone else that has either.

 

And if I ask once more for the proof you CLAIM over and over to have, then I am being difficult?

 

Again, never claimed proof.

 

Exzactly. And that is PROOF of a lack of Free Will.

 

Sorry, but that's rediculous. The absence of "A" has not and never will equate with the proof of "NOT A." Don't misue your own logic.

 

If we truly had Free Will, we would not be limited to KNOWN concepts. We would not be locked into rearranging existent concepts. Yet everything we "know" was developed out of previous models and concepts. Just new combinations and applications of previous concepts and ideas.

 

Agreed. If we could find something completely origional, that would be proof of freewill. Despite what you say, the jury is still out on that.

 

Why not? A computer "decides" what results to return for given input. Human "decisions" result from the ultimate culmination of all knowledge to that point. A purely mathematical result. That we "perceive" it to be otherwise does not make it so.

 

Semantics, perhaps. A computer returns information based on a set of criteria given to it. Decisions imply weighing the evidence and coming to a conclusion irrespective of input, but rather a "decision making process." Perhaps we were talking about the same thing there.

 

???

 

Just a sarcastic comment.

 

Agreed. A person reaches a "decision" and that decision will be assigned a given level of assurity based on a number of things. This does not provide support for the concept of Free Will. It supports a mechanistic determinism.

 

Correct, it does support that. If it is shown to be false, then that's a blow to materialistic determinism. So, I will ask my question again.

 

Can you provide support for your decision making processes or beliefs that does not presuppose free will? Should be simple for you, since you're sure it doesn't exist.

[lindagarrette]

 

Can you provide support for your decision making processes or beliefs that does not presuppose free will? Should be simple for you, since you're sure it doesn't exist.

Bumb, your request is absurd. Why should anyone be supposed to prove that something doesn't exist? I can't prove, to use the trite example, that there are no pink unicorns. If it's your contention that there are, then you need to find one and show me. If you contend that free will exists, then you need to show at least one example? My proof is that there are no examples.

[Biochemist]

When asked to provide ANY vlaid support, the request is ignored or at best given personal reasons.....

Hmmm. I have posted responses directly to you at least twice and have received no responses

Then I am seen as the bad guy for actually trying to get an answer of any value as support for the claim.

I believe several posts have suggested that you appear hostile. It might be useful for you to take that at face value.

Then let's all admit that there is not a single thing in our scientific database of knowledge that is valid.

I am not sure what your point here is, but this is a legitimate question, epistemologically. If you are a determinist (and I think you are) and we have no free will (which I think you assert) then the notion that we can correctly perceive and process fact-based information is a non-sequitur. Is that what you were suggesting?

I have asked numerous times for PROOF of Free Will.

...and I have posted a reply at least twice, perhaps three times. It is a broadly published, standard proof.

One falsafiability for Free Will is the ability to produce a completely arbitrary concept that has never been produced before. Not some variation on existing ones. Not some new packaging to existing ideas. If we truly had Free Will, we would not be limited to KNOWN concepts.

There are many rational folks that think (note I said think, not believe) that the experiential evidence for free will is compelling. The development of any body of science (biochemistry, physicis) over hundreds of years seems to create quite a large new body of thought. Further, we can certainly reproducibly exercise our apparent decision making, and not demonstrate any evidence of contol. Also, those folks exposed to the arts who believe (with some justification) that they create beauty de novo also question the common sense of those who contend free will is absent.

 

Perhaps most significantly, lack of free will directly controverts the scientific method, since there would not be any valid epistemological basis for knowledge accrual, just cause-and effect.

Human "decisions" result from the ultimate culmination of all knowledge to that point. A purely mathematical result. That we "perceive" it to be otherwise does not make it so.

...And this is not knowledge, it is cause-and-effect. It is hard to maintain the position that free will is absent, and yet maintain that the scientific method is valid. If our perceptions of our own free will are inaccurate, then our perceptions of any observations within the scientific method are equally inaccurate.

[lindagarrette]

 

Perhaps most significantly, lack of free will directly controverts the scientific method, since there would not be any valid epistemological basis for knowledge accrual, just cause-and effect. ...And this is not knowledge, it is cause-and-effect. It is hard to maintain the position that free will is absent, and yet maintain that the scientific method is valid. If our perceptions of our own free will are inaccurate, then our perceptions of any observations within the scientific method are equally inaccurate.

It's clear you don't understand the scientific method.

[bumab]

Bumb, your request is absurd. Why should anyone be supposed to prove that something doesn't exist?

 

Perhaps I was not clear. FT responded to several statements with the usual confidence, and when asked why he felt so confident, naturally responded something like I have weighed the evidence, and made the decision that you are wrong.

 

Fair enough.

 

I stated that the very act of weighing evidence and making decsions requires free will, because a decision implies there are alternatives (i.e. i decided to do A, not :o. If there are no alternatives (no free will), then there is no decision.

 

So, going back to the responses I've gotten from many- you, FT, and others- I asked for a restatement of your beliefs (i.e. God doesn't exist) which does not presuppose free will in the way I just described.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure if it's possible, but I feel compelled to say I'm not looking for a victory (or whatever) in this debate, I am really just attempting to understand the implications of a deterministic universe, and be consistent. To be internally consistent, it should be possible to make statements about the world, and back them up, without presupposing something that does not exist, right? So, I'm asking for statements about the world which do just that- make no presuppositions that free will exists. Exploring the extreme ends of a particular worldview is the quickest way to discover any flaws in that view, if any. So, why not put the scientific determinism to the test, right?

 

So- I'm not asserting free will exists, and I apologize that you thought that...

If you contend that free will exists, then you need to show at least one example? My proof is that there are no examples

 

I'm asking for someone who does NOT think free will exists to be internally consistent. If you can, great! I'm not asking for proof of anything. As I said before, you can't prove things scientifically (goes both ways :o)

 

Oh- and this request has nothing to do with religion (at this point, the God doesn't exist statement is merely a vehicle for my question). Purely a philisophical question based on determinism. I'll post to your reply in the free will thread, maybe.

[Biochemist]

It's clear you don't understand the scientific method.

What? I didn't see a counterargument to my position.

[lindagarrette]

What? I didn't see a counterargument to my position.

You asked for a test of determinism using the scientific method. How about this: What time of day is the sun expected to "rise" tomorrow? Now, if it doesn't happen, you have a valid null hypothesis, which disproves the theory of determinism.

[Biochemist]

You asked for a test of determinism using the scientific method. How about this: What time of day is the sun expected to "rise" tomorrow? Now, if it doesn't happen, you have a valid null hypothesis, which disproves the theory of determinism.

I am a little confused.

 

1) I thought in our discussion, we were assuming a deterministic universe, and were asking whether free will existed. Many folks in the determinism camp believe that free will does not exist. I thought you were taking that position. I was not asking for a test of determinism.

2) Determinism and predictability are only tangentially related. Only a subset of deterministic events can be predicted, due to obfuscation by chaotic behavior.

3) Free will appears to exist on a subjective evidenciary basis. We can run experiements with humans subjects and ask them to make decisions, and those decisions will appear uncaused.

4) We can certainly hypothesize that there is a cause for the decisions (and that the cause is obfuscated by chaotic behavior, as in point 2 above) but it would seem that burden of proof would be on proving that free will does not exist, given the subjective evidence that it does.

5) Lastly, my main point was that if our subjective perceptions about free will are an illusion, it would be easy to suggest that all of our perceptions are illusions. That raises the question of whether the scientific method is valid if our perceptions are illusions.

 

I first read about this conundrum through Francis Schaeffer. I do not know whether he originated it.

 

I will start a new thread on this.