My challenge to atheists and theists.

[BlueLancer]

 

although we also don't have solid proof of a good many other things we take as fact, free will for example.

 

 

 

Great comparison actually. The free will of humans actually can't be 100% proven, given the possibility that is highly probable we have free will. But no matter how absurd thoughts we make up, some 'entity' might have planned it already before we did it. It's a possibility, but that's a discussion for another thread...

 

 

 

KalÃÆââ¬Å¾ÃâÃ

[insane]

@BlueLancer - The Kalam argument is what I base(d) most of my posts on this thread - I just do/did a bad job of verbalizing my thoughts ;P

 

 

 

If you are looking for potential answers to your questions regarding the argument, alot of the links within the article will give you answers.

 

(Browsing article links on wikipedia is one of my favourite things to do when bored :P)

 

 

 

Also, a question for you - if God does NOT exist, and all that exists is matter, wouldn't it logically follow that free will does NOT exist either; since all material things follow cause and effect, and everything, including thought and action is purely material?

[thedepressedsquirrel]

Also, a question for you - if God does NOT exist, and all that exists is matter, wouldn't it logically follow that free will does NOT exist either; since all material things follow cause and effect, and everything, including thought and action is purely material?

 

 

 

I don't understand what free will has to do with matter. Maybe you can explain more/link me to a wikipedia page about it. However, I do think that it is god who does not allow free will, since he knows what we will do in our lives before we are even born.

[insane]

Also, a question for you - if God does NOT exist, and all that exists is matter, wouldn't it logically follow that free will does NOT exist either; since all material things follow cause and effect, and everything, including thought and action is purely material?

 

 

 

I don't understand what free will has to do with matter. Maybe you can explain more/link me to a wikipedia page about it.

 

 

 

Here's a syllogism to help explain it;

 

 

 

P1. The Universe is purely material (from your POV)

 

P2. All material things follow cause and effect (aka. Determinism)

 

C. All things in the universe (including humans) follow cause and effect, and are completely determined by other material things. Free will is non-existent.

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do think that it is god who does not allow free will, since he knows what we will do in our lives before we are even born.

 

 

 

Knowing != Causing. If a fortune teller tells your future, does the fortune teller cause your future or just know it?

[thedepressedsquirrel]

Here's a syllogism to help explain it;

 

 

 

P1. The Universe is purely material (from your POV)

 

P2. All material things follow cause and effect (aka. Determinism)

 

C. All things in the universe (including humans) follow cause and effect, and are completely determined by other material things. Free will is non-existent.

 

 

 

However an illusion of free will is experienced due to the generation of infinite behaviour from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters.

 

 

 

I think that means although we don't have complete freedom over our lives, the material "cause" does not limit us to one effect. It defines a set of effects that we can choose from, which sounds pretty sensible to me even if it means we don't have free will.

 

 

 

Knowing != Causing. If a fortune teller tells your future, does the fortune teller cause your future or just know it?

 

 

 

But god created us and punishes us for what we do, so he is different from a fortune teller.

[logic-is-overrated]

Stuff

I'm just curious so please don't feel like I'm attacking you or anything. And this can pretty much go out to anybody who believes in a particular god. Once you come to the conclusion that God exists - Why do you choose your god? Why your religion? Why can't God exist without having a religion?

[pianofrieak2]

Stuff

I'm just curious so please don't feel like I'm attacking you or anything. And this can pretty much go out to anybody who believes in a particular god. Once you come to the conclusion that God exists - Why do you choose your god? Why your religion? Why can't God exist without having a religion?

 

 

 

If God existed, then it would probably make sense that He wants the world to know about Him. That's why so many competing religions claim to have His truth.

 

 

 

As a Christian, I can see different aspects of the Truth in all religions.

 

 

 

I think a large portion of it comes from which view you grew up as. But since no one advocates blind faith (hopefully), your research should have a powerful reason for which religion you choose. :)

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Because it requires time and energy that would not have existed beforehand?

 

 

 

@BlueLancer - The Kalam argument is what I base(d) most of my posts on this thread - I just do/did a bad job of verbalizing my thoughts ;P

 

 

 

If you are looking for potential answers to your questions regarding the argument, alot of the links within the article will give you answers.

 

(Browsing article links on wikipedia is one of my favourite things to do when bored :P)

 

 

 

Also, a question for you - if God does NOT exist, and all that exists is matter, wouldn't it logically follow that free will does NOT exist either; since all material things follow cause and effect, and everything, including thought and action is purely material?

 

 

 

No offence but have you even read my post that you replied to or do you just skim it? The problem with the cosmological argument is that has invalid premises. Not all material things follow cause --> effect. All sub-atomic particles are clearly affected by quantum mechanics. (Actually everything is affected by quantum mechanics, however due to our size (compared to atoms) we do not see these effects during everyday living.)

 

 

 

One rule they follow is that they are not cause --> effect; they are probabilities of being at a point in space or with a certain momentum. Sub-atomic particles violate classical mechanics of cause --> effect. By using abductive reasoning, it would fit our current theories that the universe is able to ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâappear out of nothing as long as it pays back what it took within a sufficient amount of timeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ (to put it very simply). When the universe needs to ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâpay backÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ would have to depend on cosmological constants. If the world was only cause and effect then free will wouldn't exist, however as shown above, such premise is false.

 

 

 

Speculation:

 

We know that the universe is unstable, maybe this is related to the above idea in some way; one method of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâpaying backÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ might be the universeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s endless expansion (instability). As t increases, its volume also increases, and therefore the average energy of the universe approaches 0. Thus paying back the energy it borrowed in appearing out of nothing.

[insane]

No offence but have you even read my post that you replied to or do you just skim it?

 

 

 

Okay, so thought paterns are merely probabilities? You're still left with a probable list of actions, not a free choice. I don't know where you're going with this, it seems quantum physics plays with terms like "cause" for the purpose of proving a point.

 

 

 

Bear in mind I don't think anyone here aside from you has a university backing in quantum physics (closest I have is chem, heh.); at least no one has quoted you and made a half-decent reply or implied they have an understanding of what you're saying (myself included). You may be right in what you say, but bear in mind you're one of the only ones here that has a clear understanding of what you're saying.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

From my limited understanding about quantum physics, Insane:

 

 

 

As of yet, we have no good model to accurately depict the motion and position of subatomic particles. I beleive at the moment we have theorized that it is actually impossible to make a good model, due to the nature of the movement of these particles.

 

All we have now is ideas of probability. What that particle is probable to do, where it's probable to be. That means that it can violate this, because it's only a probability. It's possible that if you poke your finger at a peice of wood constantly for your entire life, there will be one instant where the subatomic particles are so perfectly misaligned that you can stick your finger straight through the wood. It's just highly improbable.

 

 

 

What does this have to with free will and cause -> effect?

 

I think what Death_By_Pod is trying to get at is basically to disprove your core premise, that everything follows a cause -> effect relationship. I don't think he was trying to say that illusions of free will originate from the inherent unpredictable nature of subatomic particles.

[insane]

From my limited understanding about quantum physics, Insane:

 

 

 

As of yet, we have no good model to accurately depict the motion and position of subatomic particles. I beleive at the moment we have theorized that it is actually impossible to make a good model, due to the nature of the movement of these particles.

 

All we have now is ideas of probability. What that particle is probable to do, where it's probable to be. That means that it can violate this, because it's only a probability. It's possible that if you poke your finger at a peice of wood constantly for your entire life, there will be one instant where the subatomic particles are so perfectly misaligned that you can stick your finger straight through the wood. It's just highly improbable.

 

 

 

What does this have to with free will and cause -> effect?

 

I think what Death_By_Pod is trying to get at is basically to disprove your core premise, that everything follows a cause -> effect relationship. I don't think he was trying to say that illusions of free will originate from the inherent unpredictable nature of subatomic particles.

 

 

 

Thanks, that makes more sense now. This evolves from the Heisenberg principle?

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Thanks, that makes more sense now. This evolves from the Heisenberg principle?

 

 

 

In what way? He certainly laid groundwork for future research, but I don't think all our theories on improbability are suppositions from his work.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Thanks, that makes more sense now. This evolves from the Heisenberg principle?

 

 

 

Yeah, it is based on HeisenbergÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s uncertainty principle. I tried keeping it simple but I'll try again, keeping to examples that you can easily visualise. To roll a ball up and over a hill you need to give it enough energy to get over otherwise it will not make it to the top of the hill and just roll back down.

 

Now instead of rolling a ball up a hill you are rolling electrons up a hill, much like a ball if you give it enough energy it will go over the hill. If an electron is near the top of a hill, but doesn't enough energy to go over the hill there is a probability that it will borrow energy to go over the hill; the further away from the top of the hill the less probable it will borrow energy.

 

 

 

As an example radioactivity (atoms which are unstable and break into two piece) follows this process. The parts that make up an atom are never still, they always have a random motion (thermal motions). If these random motions, move in such a way that the atom is 'near the top of the hill' then there is a chance the atom will decay and break into two pieces. Since the motions that cause radioactive decay are random we don't know when an atom will decay. This real life example clearly shows why cause and effect can't completely describe nature.

 

 

 

All material things are made up from atoms (and atoms are made up of smaller things like protons and electrons) and as a result have this unpredictability about them. Although the individual changes that occur due an atomÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s unpredictability are small, they all add up. Unless you want me to go into any more detail, I will just state that the randomness in nature indirectly allows free thought and uniqueness in how each person thinks. Like electrons borrowing energy to roll over a hill, the universe might also be borrowing energy to roll over a hill (the hill being the big bang); IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying this is how the big bang started but only a reasonable explanation to how the big bang can come from ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃânothingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. I hope this clears it up a little, any further questions?

[insane]

No that's great :) When you use chemical terms instead of physical, it all clears up :P

 

 

 

Actually one question - when you say "borrowing energy", what do you mean? Is there something it is borrowing energy from?

[issy2]

While I remain an agnostic athiest, I would have full faith in 'God' if I were shown solid, concrete, unquestionable proof. Nice post, Blue!

[pianofrieak2]

While I remain an agnostic athiest, I would have full faith in 'God' if I were shown solid, concrete, unquestionable proof. Nice post, Blue!

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure we've already talked about this so just read the previous pages. You can't prove without a doubt that God does NOT exist, so are we just stuck?

 

 

 

Perhaps. But then again, you wouldn't believe if a man rose from the dead (according to Jesus Himself).

[logic-is-overrated]

You can't prove without a doubt that God does NOT exist, so are we just stuck?

But we can try to prove whether or not things in the Bible (or other holy books) actually happened. Of course we can't prove the supernatural elements of the books but we can examine the natural elements in which those stories occur. It might be impossible to actually disprove any of the stories since they can always be explained away with the explanation of miracle on top of miracle; but a lot of the times it is possible to reach a relatively accurate conclusion on how probable the actual occurence of those events is. And to me, arguing probablity or arguing possibility seems to be the biggest difference between believer and non-believers.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Actually one question - when you say "borrowing energy", what do you mean? Is there something it is borrowing energy from?

 

 

 

Yeah I should have pointed it out; this is where the analogy between particles moving up hills and actual quantum mechanic fails. In practice it doesn't actually borrow energy; it's just how the mathematics works out. If you remember in maths about sine and cosine waves you know that they are periodic (they follow the same pattern) and they don't have any ends, the wave repeats the same pattern forever. Quantum mechanics uses similar waves to describe where a particle is located, so the best thing you can do is decrease the height of the wave by placing a hill in front of the wave but you can't stop the wave from existing on the otherside of the hill.

[jackattack]

there is no proof that god exists and if there was you couldnt have faith.and dont listen to priests. they say that babies who die go to hell.if your a good person no matter what religion you go to heaven.

[BlueLancer]

there is no proof that god exists and if there was you couldnt have faith.and dont listen to priests. they say that babies who die go to hell.if your a good person no matter what religion you go to heaven.

 

 

 

How can you be so sure there is "heaven"? Unless you're talking about the place-thingy where you can fly with an aeroplane...

 

 

 

babies who die go to hell

 

 

 

That sounds pretty harsh. :?: Haven't read about that view, any links?