peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Does anyone want me to continue? I am not here to win a contest of how many posts I have given. I know you all are having fun with this but I hope it's not at my expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Why can't you understand that the word God is in keeping with natural law, not supernatural? Why are you trying to take this out of context when I stated many times that God only means the laws of our nature?I don't believe in God or determinism. I also can't change my mind about it according to the determinists because I can't choose what to believe without freewill. That being the case you'll just have to keep the info flowing to see if you can find that causal event that changes my thinking. So far you haven't found it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I don't believe in God or determinism. I also can't change my mind about it according to the determinists because I can't choose what to believe without freewill. That being the case you'll just have to keep the info flowing to see if you can find that causal event that changes my thinking. So far you haven't found it. Clay, you don't understand anything I have written obviously. I have said over and over again that I am not defining determinism as causing a person to act a certain way. That is not my definition at all. Did you read any of my posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 My head is spinning!!! I find it very hard to believe so much time and effort has gone into this theory..I am AMAZED!! A rebuttal is almost impossible do to the overwhelming amount of literature alone.....I thought I had trouble understanding space/time(and still don't), this is just toooo muchhh......I find in this body of work alot of processes already known and a continuing amount of lack of understanding human nature, which although, we are part of the universe, our (mental) perception alone differs immensely than calculated physics(this is a broad statement)...Hold on I'm thinking..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Why can't you understand that the word God is in keeping with natural law, not supernatural? Why are you trying to take this out of context when I stated many times that God only means the laws of our nature?Well, PG, most of the folks here speak English, and you do keep redefining words. For most folks, God (particularly capitalized) means a supernatural diety. If we were taking about natural law, most of us will saw something like "natural law". That way those nasty theists (like myself) can say things like "there is no evidence that natural law is any more credible a solution than God" and the sentence would actually make sense. It is VERY difficult to read your text if you keep redefining words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Mumbo jumbo? Until you truly understand this discovery...I have no idea what you mean by "discovery". This appears to be a philosophical opinion, not a discovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 No one has answered me. I am not sure if I should continue. I don't want to impose my thoughts on anybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 If you wish, keep it coming, we are processing it.. I know I said Occam's Razor is old stuff, but this is where I would like to see it used!!!!! :circle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Clay, you don't understand anything I have written obviously. I have said over and over again that I am not defining determinism as causing a person to act a certain way. That is not my definition at all. Did you read any of my posts?Yes, I've read your posts, all 126 of them so far. Basically you've said that I can choose but I can only choose what satisfies me. IMO, that is a contradiction. For now I choose to believe in freewill. Now, are you calling my choice to believe in freewill the only choice I can make since it is the one that satisfies me? If so, you will then realize that I can't change my mind to agree with you because that would dissatisfy me. That being the case I don't see how you could hope to change my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I have no idea what you mean by "discovery". This appears to be a philosophical opinion, not a discovery. Biochemist, you might think of a discovery as something that deals with something other than human nature. But this is a discovery. It is new thought, and it is undeniable. Therefore, it is a discovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Does anyone want me to continue? I am not here to win a contest of how many posts I have given. I know you all are having fun with this but I hope it's not at my expense.Well, it is a little bit, but we are pretty good humored here. You are backlogged a couple of hundered questions. You can certainly press on if you like, but I think we have established that no one understands your previous posts (someone tell me if I am wrong), and adding more just might not clarify much given our discontinuities in terminiology. Would you rather proceed, or back up and answer questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Yes, I've read your posts, all 126 of them so far. Basically you've said that I can choose but I can only choose what satisfies me. IMO, that is a contradiction. For now I choose to believe in freewill. Now, are you calling my choice to believe in freewill the only choice I can make since it is the one that satisfies me? If so, you will then realize that I can't change my mind to agree with you because that would dissatisfy me. That being the case I don't see how you could hope to change my mind. No, you can change your mind any time you want. I can see where you are confused. If you believe something and then change your mind because you get new information, you can choose the new information. I change my mind all the time with updated information. Everyone does, otherwise we would remain stagnant because we wouldn't be able to learn and grow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Well, it is a little bit, but we are pretty good humored here. You are backlogged a couple of hundered questions. You can certainly press on if you like, but I think we have established that no one understands your previous posts (someone tell me if I am wrong), and adding more just might not clarify much given our discontinuities in terminiology. Would you rather proceed, or back up and answer questions? You seem to be a nice group even when you are joking which I appreciate A LOT! I know when someone is truly being mean spirited and I don't get that feeling in here. Not yet, at least. Maybe it will change as I keep posting and posting and posting. See, I can have fun too. :circle: I think I answered most of the questions. If anyone has any before I continue, speak up or forever hold your peace. ahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Does anyone want me to continue? I am not here to win a contest of how many posts I have given. I know you all are having fun with this but I hope it's not at my expense.Continue if you dare...We will, sort of, have fun at your expense until the idea you speak of shows validity. I have seen validity in science, I have seen validity in religion, but so far, the don't hurt someone first and you will not be hurt idea(I know, not quite), is a little redundant...I have not seen the lack of freewill disputed as of yet? I understand your hypothesis, but in nature is a tough nut to crack... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 No, you can change your mind any time you want. I can see where you are confused. If you believe something and then change your mind because you get new information, you can choose the new information. I change my mind all the time with updated information. Everyone does, otherwise we would remain stagnant because we wouldn't be able to learn and grow.But I haven't seen any new information that changes what I am satisfied with, I am satisfied with freewill. See, I can't change my mind because you said I can only choose what satisfies me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody, is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him? This isn't a trick question, so don't look so puzzled. If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?" "No, it is not possible. I agree." "Consequently, if you can't be blamed for doing what is right, then it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something judged wrong, is that right?" "I agree with this." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacegirl Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 "These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are interested to know why you could do such a thing which, as was just stated, compels you for satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse, to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action; otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong you would not have to do these things, right?" "You are right again." "Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no one is going to question your conduct in any way because you know that they must excuse what you do since man's will is not free, is it possible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have done, when you also know that no one is blaming you? "Why are you smiling?" "You're the greatest, with your mathematical reasoning, but I agree that it is not possible." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.