tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post7497336572578837661..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: My God is an awesome God a whiny little bitchUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger225125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85581534314664559972011-03-01T00:38:31.264-06:002011-03-01T00:38:31.264-06:00If you wrote a world simulation software would you...If you wrote a world simulation software would you be more interested in seeing every person inside the simulation always saying good things about you and doing the same things like a drone ? Or would you be interested in seeing what they are capable of doing, what they invent/create ? <br /><br />Religion was invented so our ancestors could explain natural phenomena and then unexplainable things. Over time it evolved and it became a tool for ATTENTION HUNGRY PROPHETS to manipulate other people. <br /><br />Now they know better and still choose to be blind.<br /><br />If muslims are right then half of the population is going to hell and vice versa. What if Samoans are right ? then 95% of the world population is going to hell I guess. <br /><br />But, religion will vanish at least we'll have to make it disappear.Fiazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17251005938396762050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34137261036254073362011-02-23T00:36:13.067-06:002011-02-23T00:36:13.067-06:00Afterthought_btw said...
"This is one of...Afterthought_btw said...<br /><br /> "This is one of the reasons I've always found polytheism more likely than monotheism."<br /><br />That's like saying it's more likely that there's 10 supermen rather than one. It doesn't make any sense.Chris Ducathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128246977293448346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64101110570701473032011-01-25T02:53:09.408-06:002011-01-25T02:53:09.408-06:00Martin, you smartass, you are the king of Atheist ...Martin, you smartass, you are the king of Atheist invective!!!Peter Thomas Collhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03587828004196011700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84848686968184326852010-11-18T21:06:45.054-06:002010-11-18T21:06:45.054-06:00Ugh...Jerry
you say your god doesn't support ...Ugh...Jerry<br /><br />you say your god doesn't support stupidity. I say your god couldn't spot stupidity if it looked like a porn star and sat on his face, assuming your version of christianity is right.guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637507869456959787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65201765955095547582010-11-17T02:31:49.825-06:002010-11-17T02:31:49.825-06:00And he runs wars like they were some sort of video...And he runs wars like they were some sort of video game. Screw it, I'm not gonna waste my valuable time for such an insecure imbecile, even if he was real. IF he doesn't like it, fuck him. I don't need to appeal to a dictator or warlord!cyberdaemonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15485235554164454871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81308124541855850862010-11-17T02:29:26.748-06:002010-11-17T02:29:26.748-06:00Fairy tale is a fairy tale, no matter how you tran...Fairy tale is a fairy tale, no matter how you translate it. Hes view of a God was incredibly identical to some of the worst dictators in human history - mentally unstable, capable to carry out one of the biggest genocides (they always got million justifications jumping out of sleeve for that), hes limited but thinks he has all the answer and he demands people to worship him or else he becomes mentally unstable and blows up the earth!cyberdaemonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15485235554164454871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17793841926704746462010-11-15T17:33:51.927-06:002010-11-15T17:33:51.927-06:00I guess I will take one last spin at the ad hoc ma...I guess I will take one last spin at the ad hoc machine and call it quits.<br /><br />You can start from almost any position and use little qualifiers to shore it up against objections. Even if you have created a perfectly consistent version of the bible, if you have no real world evidence for it, it does not matter. Why bother with complicated arguments about splitting souls, injecting embryos, and an imperfect god that has to hide all the evidence of his existence because he gets mad when people reject it?<br /><br />A god that is willing everything and controlling everything, including everyone's perception, is equally as valid. "God put the fossils there to test us" is a logically consistent argument within that framework. If there is a contradiction with science it is easy to just exclaim "god can break the rules and in that case he did". (I know these are not your arguments Jerry, I am demonstrating that a logically consistent framework is not necessarily true.)<br /><br />When you get too far away from physical, repeatable evidence, almost anything can be stated and logically consistent if you work hard enough at it. If your theory cannot be tested by some kind of observable test though, it is basically meaningless.<br /><br />I am amazed that some people here have been willing to indulge you enough to read the hundreds of lines you have written. If you are going to stay outside the realm of testable evidence, it means about as much as a fantasy novel. I am not just talking about the existence of Adam here, I am talking souls, free will, and the very existence of any creative intelligence at all.<br /><br />Keep playing make believe if you like. Wild and baseless bandages to the consistency of the bible are not going to convince many people here to stop criticizing it though.John K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11579041716600940838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21032996172210003962010-11-15T16:34:19.285-06:002010-11-15T16:34:19.285-06:00My ASSUMPTION, however, is that no one (including ...<b>My ASSUMPTION, however, is that no one (including me) is going to abandon the law of inertia. In that case we’ll have to assume that this free will (this force) is not a property of ordinary matter.</b><br /><br />No one's abandoning the law of inertia, except when we did, ninety-five years ago, when Einstein published his papers on General Relativity, which demonstrated that Newton's laws only apply within certain reference frames. Sure, we still use Newton's laws, but we recognize them for the flawed approximations that they are. We also recognize exactly what they mean, unlike you.<br /><br /><b>Neurologically, I have no problem with the criminal’s brain sending signals to his hands causing him to stab someone, but if free will is said to ultimately cause all this, it must be understood as a force that activates those neural processes in the brain. Duh.</b><br /><br />Great. Then you've defined "free will" to mean "electricity." That's your "new force" that's "not in any of the textbooks." Color me unimpressed.<br /><br /><b>Right, I need to “clarify” that if the criminal’s inert body is set in motion, its inertial mass overcome, a substance or force must be involved. Until I “clear such up such things”, my claim makes no sense.</b><br /><br />Dunning-Kruger in full effect here. No, until you understand that no part of a human body is "inert," that the law of inertia does not preclude one part of the body from moving another (since the human body is not behaving as a single object in the instances you describe), and that the forces involved are the <i>well-known</i> mechanical forces of contraction and relaxation, the chemical reactions that change protein shapes, and the electrical impulses that set those reactions in motion, <i>never requiring</i> at any point an unknown force or some outside force that moves the whole body from without, then your claim <i>makes no sense</i>. Further, your attempt to redefine nearly every key word that your argument hinges on, your inability to understand <i>what a force is</i> in any meaningful scientific sense of the word, your ignorance of any scientific knowledge from the last <i>century</i>, and the basic fallacies that riddle your whole set of premises, only contribute to the incoherence of your overall argument.<br /><br /><b>Lovely. Your complete state of denial has plunged you into total lunacy. I can’t make any progress here. You can have the last word.</b><br /><br />And the last word is "projection." And me without my Mr. Pibb and Red Vines.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87895016654727978742010-11-15T16:23:29.961-06:002010-11-15T16:23:29.961-06:00The law of inertia, then, was an error (Even in my...<b>The law of inertia, then, was an error (Even in my first essay, as I recall, I mentioned this route).</b><br /><br />Yes, I recall being on this side of the circle, where I explained that the law of inertia does not say what you think it says.<br /><br />Let me put it another way: the body, of a criminal or a saint, is not a single thing. It is, in actuality, a rough conglomeration of many different organs, made of different tissues, made of different cells, made of different molecules, all working somewhat independently at different tasks, but more or less coming together. Some of these organs and tissues do their work without conscious prodding; others require some conscious stimulus, coming in the form of electrical impulses from the brain. Nowhere, in any of this, is there anything that could reasonably be called "inert" unless the person has recently been inhaling helium. What causes parts of the body to move are <i>stimuli</i> from other parts of the body. An electrical impulse from the brain can cause a muscle to contract or relax (contraction and relaxation result from the near-simultaneous chemical contraction of particular proteins in muscle fibers, stimulated by the electrical signal). The law of inertia is not violated in any part of this; the electrochemical stimulus causes a series of chemical reactions to occur in the proteins of the muscle fibers, which causes the fibers to shorten, which moves the muscle. The force to drive the motion comes from the chemical reaction inside the cells.<br /><br />Basically, what you fail to realize here is that parts of a system can exert forces on other parts of a system, causing them to move. On some level, I think you understand this, since you seem to think the soul is a part--a supernatural part, but a part nonetheless--of the human body. But when it comes to one part (the brain) causing another part (a muscle) to move, you treat this as if it's some grand, shocking mystery that defies all known physics and requires the existence of some supernatural free will. <br /><br />By the same logic, since a part (the engine) of a car exerts a force on a different part (the axle) of a car, causing the car to move, we should suppose that it also has free will. It seems like the only reason your philosophy <i>doesn't</i> impart free will to the car is that when the car hits a pedestrian, <i>we don't put the car in jail</i>. <br /><br />And that's in a <i>car</i>, where a lot more parts could reasonably be called "inert matter" than in the human body. If a car can propel itself without necessitating free will or supernatural forces, without violating the law of inertia, then why can't a human body?Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38953783709868951882010-11-15T16:22:56.017-06:002010-11-15T16:22:56.017-06:00As this force isn’t named in the science textbooks...<b>As this force isn’t named in the science textbooks, I would call it new.</b><br /><br />I would ask that you actually read what I have written. Alternately, you could answer the many questions I put to you regarding the nature of this "force" that doesn't conform to any meaningful scientific definition of the word "force." I would further ask why such a "force" is necessary to explain <i>well-understood phenomena</i> about what causes a body to move.<br /><br /><b>What generates this free will (this force)?</b><br /><br />Seems like it's generated directly from your rectum.<br /><br /><b>You could argue that ordinary matter has this capability. Logically, that’s acceptable. This would mean that the criminal’s body, instead of being inert, self-propels by free will.</b><br /><br />Add "inert" to the list of words you've redefined to mean something other than what they actually mean.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60072771942245444532010-11-15T16:19:22.735-06:002010-11-15T16:19:22.735-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88146760445515135252010-11-15T16:17:57.857-06:002010-11-15T16:17:57.857-06:00As this force isn’t named in the science textbooks...<b>As this force isn’t named in the science textbooks, I would call it new.</b><br /><br />I would ask that you actually read what I have written. Alternately, you could answer the many questions I put to you regarding the nature of this "force" that doesn't conform to any meaningful scientific definition of the word "force." I would further ask why such a "force" is necessary to explain <i>well-understood phenomena</i> about what causes a body to move.<br /><br /><b>What generates this free will (this force)?</b><br /><br />Seems like it's generated directly from your rectum.<br /><br /><b>You could argue that ordinary matter has this capability. Logically, that’s acceptable. This would mean that the criminal’s body, instead of being inert, self-propels by free will.</b><br /><br />Add "inert" to the list of words you've redefined to mean something other than what they actually mean.<br /><br /><b>The law of inertia, then, was an error (Even in my first essay, as I recall, I mentioned this route).</b><br /><br />Yes, I recall being on this side of the circle, where I explained that the law of inertia does not say what you think it says.<br /><br />Let me put it another way: the body, of a criminal or a saint, is not a single thing. It is, in actuality, a rough conglomeration of many different organs, made of different tissues, made of different cells, made of different molecules, all working somewhat independently at different tasks, but more or less coming together. Some of these organs and tissues do their work without conscious prodding; others require some conscious stimulus, coming in the form of electrical impulses from the brain. Nowhere, in any of this, is there anything that could reasonably be called "inert" unless the person has recently been inhaling helium. What causes parts of the body to move are <i>stimuli</i> from other parts of the body. An electrical impulse from the brain can cause a muscle to contract or relax (contraction and relaxation result from the near-simultaneous chemical contraction of particular proteins in muscle fibers, stimulated by the electrical signal). The law of inertia is not violated in any part of this; the electrochemical stimulus causes a series of chemical reactions to occur in the proteins of the muscle fibers, which causes the fibers to shorten, which moves the muscle. The force to drive the motion comes from the chemical reaction inside the cells.<br /><br />Basically, what you fail to realize here is that parts of a system can exert forces on other parts of a system, causing them to move. On some level, I think you understand this, since you seem to think the soul is a part--a supernatural part, but a part nonetheless--of the human body. But when it comes to one part (the brain) causing another part (a muscle) to move, you treat this as if it's some grand, shocking mystery that defies all known physics and requires the existence of some supernatural free will. <br /><br />By the same logic, since a part (the engine) of a car exerts a force on a different part (the axle) of a car, causing the car to move, we should suppose that it also has free will. It seems like the only reason your philosophy <i>doesn't</i> impart free will to the car is that when the car hits a pedestrian, <i>we don't put the car in jail</i>. <br /><br />And that's in a <i>car</i>, where a lot more parts could reasonably be called "inert matter" than in the human body. If a car can propel itself without necessitating free will or supernatural forces, without violating the law of inertia, then why can't a human body?Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27447316026089079402010-11-15T16:16:27.925-06:002010-11-15T16:16:27.925-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13867515413302075432010-11-15T16:15:25.959-06:002010-11-15T16:15:25.959-06:00As this force isn’t named in the science textbooks...<b>As this force isn’t named in the science textbooks, I would call it new.</b><br /><br />I would ask that you actually read what I have written. Alternately, you could answer the many questions I put to you regarding the nature of this "force" that doesn't conform to any meaningful scientific definition of the word "force." I would further ask why such a "force" is necessary to explain <i>well-understood phenomena</i> about what causes a body to move.<br /><br /><b>What generates this free will (this force)?</b><br /><br />Seems like it's generated directly from your rectum.<br /><br /><b>You could argue that ordinary matter has this capability. Logically, that’s acceptable. This would mean that the criminal’s body, instead of being inert, self-propels by free will.</b><br /><br />Add "inert" to the list of words you've redefined to mean something other than what they actually mean.<br /><br /><b>The law of inertia, then, was an error (Even in my first essay, as I recall, I mentioned this route).</b><br /><br />Yes, I recall being on this side of the circle, where I explained that the law of inertia does not say what you think it says.<br /><br />Let me put it another way: the body, of a criminal or a saint, is not a single thing. It is, in actuality, a rough conglomeration of many different organs, made of different tissues, made of different cells, made of different molecules, all working somewhat independently at different tasks, but more or less coming together. Some of these organs and tissues do their work without conscious prodding; others require some conscious stimulus, coming in the form of electrical impulses from the brain. Nowhere, in any of this, is there anything that could reasonably be called "inert" unless the person has recently been inhaling helium. What causes parts of the body to move are <i>stimuli</i> from other parts of the body. An electrical impulse from the brain can cause a muscle to contract or relax (contraction and relaxation result from the near-simultaneous chemical contraction of particular proteins in muscle fibers, stimulated by the electrical signal). The law of inertia is not violated in any part of this; the electrochemical stimulus causes a series of chemical reactions to occur in the proteins of the muscle fibers, which causes the fibers to shorten, which moves the muscle. The force to drive the motion comes from the chemical reaction inside the cells.<br /><br />Basically, what you fail to realize here is that parts of a system can exert forces on other parts of a system, causing them to move. On some level, I think you understand this, since you seem to think the soul is a part--a supernatural part, but a part nonetheless--of the human body. But when it comes to one part (the brain) causing another part (a muscle) to move, you treat this as if it's some grand, shocking mystery that defies all known physics and requires the existence of some supernatural free will. <br /><br />By the same logic, since a part (the engine) of a car exerts a force on a different part (the axle) of a car, causing the car to move, we should suppose that it also has free will. It seems like the only reason your philosophy <i>doesn't</i> impart free will to the car is that when the car hits a pedestrian, <i>we don't put the car in jail</i>. <br /><br />And that's in a <i>car</i>, where a lot more parts could reasonably be called "inert matter" than in the human body. If a car can propel itself without necessitating free will or supernatural forces, without violating the law of inertia, then why can't a human body?Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3382399416755552042010-11-15T16:13:56.166-06:002010-11-15T16:13:56.166-06:00Nope. I’m just clarifying the definition of libert...<b>Nope. I’m just clarifying the definition of libertarianism.</b><br />Another term that you appear to have redefined for your own purposes. I'm beginning to think you've invented your own language, Jerry.<br /><b>Philosophical concepts are not efficient causes that move matter. If we’re going to say that free will caused the criminal’s body to misbehave, then this “free will” must be, as a crucial part of its definition, a substance or force.</b><br />I enjoy the subtle goalpost-shifting you've done here; a post or two ago, and "free will" meant "a force that moves matter," and now it means "something which caused the criminal's body to misbehave." You've made "free will" from a proximal cause into an ultimate one. And kudos to you, that makes your concept of free will far more coherent. I agree! If free will exists, then it is the decision-making part of the consciousness, an ultimate cause of conscious motion.<br /><br />And depending on what kinds of "substance" or "force" you might be talking about, I may even agree with you there, too. I certainly think (because cognitive neuroscientists think) that "free will," if it exists as a non-illusory phenomenon, arises from the substance of the brain, the particular arrangement of neurons interacting with particular chemicals and electrical states. "Consciousness" and "free will" might not be "tangible," but then, neither is "sight," which is another complex phenomenon that arises from biological and physical conditions.<br /><br />So where, exactly, is the need to invoke the supernatural?<br /><br /><b>(Sigh) I don’t have to “establish” a methodological assumption.</b><br /><br />Oh, I see. You can just assume things without cause or justification. Then you're not doing science, and you're only barely doing philosophy. At best, you're engaging in a much less satisfying sort of masturbation.<br /><br />See, in any field <i>worth a damn</i>, you do indeed have to justify your methodological assumptions. Otherwise, any conclusions you derive from your methods are utterly worthless.<br /><br /><b>The assumption was that free will (punishably) causes a criminal’s body to misbehave. I reminded you a thousand times that you don’t have to buy that assumption. But those who buy it need to be candid that this assumption defines free will as a force.</b><br /><br />Again, no, it doesn't, not for any meaningful sense of the word "force."<br /><br />But now I have to wonder: who on Earth would be <i>stupid</i> enough to accept that kind of unfounded, unjustified assumption? Particularly when the assumption is foundational to the arguer's claims that a soul exists, and that he is right about its properties?Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2865121806248289012010-11-15T14:37:15.966-06:002010-11-15T14:37:15.966-06:00Sweet cheesewheel of holiness... another last comm...Sweet cheesewheel of holiness... another last comment. This might only be a small misunderstanding and a very small point, but the laws of physics do not dictate the behaviour of matter. The behaviour of matter dictates the laws of physics. Laws are descriptive devices made by humans to help us understand the behaviours of matter. I feel quite confidently that I can say that there are particles out there that behave in ways which no law covers. Laws are what we have consistently seen to be the case and they only apply in certain circumstances. It is a law that objects will fall downward toward the earth when dropped on the earth, but an apple dropped on the moon is not in breach of this law when it falls toward the moon. This is an incredibly simplistic example. The point is that laws are not universal, your belief that they cannot be suspended is missing the vital fact that they do not extend to all situations, speeds or scales.<br />Lets work with gravity. An object, when released from your grip, will always fall toward the nearest significant centre of mass, correct? Incorrect. There are five points, "Lagrangian points," relative to any two significantly massive objects where a third object with a relatively insignificant mass (perhaps a teapot :P) could be placed and remain, relative to the first two objects, stationary. Is this a suspension of the law of gravity? Not at all, it's just a more complicated situation where normal assumptions do not apply.<br /><br />Before I finally call it a night, I'd like to make a note of something I've noticed. As I scroll down this thread, I find that a number of the points I've raised have been raised by others. Now, I'm not one who believes that the number of people who subscribe to a particular view have an effect the truth of the view, but I will say that if all of us are independently coming up with the same objections to your points, it might be worth considering that your arguments are flawed, or you are simply failing to communicate them accurately.Spoondogglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661366806187319654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73001675039219596702010-11-15T14:34:34.570-06:002010-11-15T14:34:34.570-06:00Ok, one last comment. Jerry, you suppose that ther...Ok, one last comment. Jerry, you suppose that there are only two ways for free will to exist.<br />1, that the laws of physics are suspended in the body when we are making free choices.<br />2, that your soul-"theory" is correct.<br />What about possibility 3?<br />3, that the laws of physics are in no way an obstacle to free will and only your misunderstanding of them lead you to believe otherwise.<br />Please understand that the universe is not nearly as simplistic or regimented as a cursory reading of physical theories can lead you to believe.<br />Or possibility 4?<br />4, that all of reality as we see it is a simulation. Our bodies and brains are exactly as they are if there is no soul, but the brain is essentially the end part of a "player-console interface," similar to the plug on an xbox controller. We, as avatars to extradimensional gamers, have no free will of our own, but only when inhabited by a gamer do we behave in ways other than those determined by our programming.<br />Or possibility 5?<br />5, hmm... screw it. "Other."<br /><br />By the way, I don't believe you've actually mentioned how this soul of yours is impervious to natural laws. I accept that it is possible - gravity, for instance, only applies to things that actually have mass - but just stating that "it just is" wouldn't be convincing... perhaps I skipped over the part where you detailed this without realising though.<br />You're also still using the word theory in the scientific sense without evidential backing. Perhaps you think you're using it in the colloquial sense, perhaps you mean it in that way, but your usage suggests the scientific meaning, this is misleading.Spoondogglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661366806187319654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87224381106373295802010-11-15T14:32:33.791-06:002010-11-15T14:32:33.791-06:00Oh, oh, oh! When does oxygen not act like oxygen? ...Oh, oh, oh! When does oxygen not act like oxygen? OOOOH ME, ME MISS, MEEEE!! When it forms bonds with two hydrogens - then it acts like water. Do I get a sticker?<br />Of course, a lone oxygen atom will always behave like an oxygen atom. It's just that there are a number of activities that fall under the umbrella of "oxygen-like activites" which have varying chances of being acted by an individual oxygen atom at any one moment.<br /><br />I actually am planning on leaving this alone soon, but I can't help but quote you here.<br />"False analogy. There are no "cars" at the quantum level, what you term here the level of the nanoscale."<br />Key word: <b>ANALOGY!</b> Seriously man. The point, I assume, was the behaviour of quantum-scale entities and how they are different to macro-scale behaviours, not the existence of tiny cars.<br /><br />The problem you're really having here is that you're engaging in purely philosophical discussions and claiming that the conclusions effect reality, then getting annoyed with us because we actually care about what is real.<br />Don't get me wrong, philosophy is great, but it's useless as a means of determining reality unless there's evidential support for it all the way.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm off to play fallout - lets see if I can get a better informed debate going with a deathclaw.<br />(That's an ad hominem btw. Feel free to use it to claim victory over me.)<br />Have fun with him guys.Spoondogglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661366806187319654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53047132268320930642010-11-15T14:30:26.130-06:002010-11-15T14:30:26.130-06:00In response to your ball falling through space, pe...In response to your ball falling through space, perhaps the thing that cause it to come to a rapid halt was the source of gravity that it was falling toward rather than a second reality? If you think this is nit-picking, name something massive (by which I mean "with mass" rather than "fscking HUGE!") in our solar system that is not falling toward something else. I am limiting it to our solar system simply because it's easier to check our backyard than the entire universe - feel free to go beyond if you feel there is something out there.<br /><br />And to your question "which world world view is more credible? One that is patently self-contradictory, or one that is NOT self-contradictory?" in relation to the supposed atheist claims (clearly you are defining atheists as rationalists, thank you but this is not true in all cases) "that the world as described in the science textbooks is more credible and SENSIBLE than a dualistic worldview that, in addition to ordinary matter, also postulates the existence of a second kind of substance."<br />The answer is clearly that the one which is not self-contradictory of course. However, your assertion that the text book worldview is self contradictory because of the existence of free will fails on two points.<br />Firstly, the existence of free will is not actually proven.<br />Secondly, that free will cannot exist in the text book worldview is merely your assertion - one which has not yet been shown to reflect reality.Spoondogglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661366806187319654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52773684142858930242010-11-15T14:27:55.028-06:002010-11-15T14:27:55.028-06:00I'm tempted to leave it there and let everyone...I'm tempted to leave it there and let everyone else continue to bat you around between them, but I have to mention something. In your courtroom analogy you declare that we have no justification for pronouncing punishments on criminals if they are acting deterministically. You are missing the fact that if <b>their</b> actions are deterministic, then so are ours, and our punishment of criminals are also deterministic so justificiation is essentially thrown out the window anyway as we are little more than robots acting out our set programs.<br /><br />You also, rather amusingly, say that you can understand our rejection of your soul-"theory" (which has zero evidencial backing) if we are "staunch determinists" (which is to say that we are deepling entrenched in accepting another unproven idea.)<br /><br />I am not a determinist (I do not accept that our actions are deterministically driven) but I am also not a free-willist (I do not accept that our actions are driven by our own free will in defiance of determinism) but surely this is some kind of crazy contradiction?? I MUST subscribe to one view, otherwise I'm just floating through space without direction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br />Nope, I just haven't yet seen enough evidence on either side to sway my opinion either way. Sure, I <i>feel</i> like I have free will... but since I only do what I will to do, what if my will is determined?<br />Ultimately, I don't really care either way. If I have free will, wooo! But I still can't make myself invisible and walk into the women's showers at the gym so my freedom has limits imposed. If I am just a robot with delusions of grandeur, well I still <i>feel</i> free, so how does it really hurt me?Spoondogglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661366806187319654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80691255306612716452010-11-15T14:26:34.489-06:002010-11-15T14:26:34.489-06:00Jerry, please do not misunderstand this comment (I...Jerry, please do not misunderstand this comment (I wish I didn't feel that I had to write that.) I am not the sort of person who demands that people pay attention to him and I do not take offense to being ignored.<br />However... for a few days we discussed pointless shit, myself having a giggle and you apparently taking it dreadfully seriously. In my last comment to you, I directly addressed and contradicted your assumption that we are simply deducing the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons, noting that we measure the things, even giving examples.<br />I suppose it is necessary here to note that it is only things that we cannot directly measure that we must deduce the existence of - dark matter for instance. Where we have measured the attributes of a particle, all we are doing is applying a label to it.<br />You have since totally ignored me, not even a "nuh-uh!" out of you, you're also continuing to assert that we are merely deducing the existence of electrons, despite our measurements of them... why is this, pray tell?<br />I know you are not the only one to have thrown accusations of dishonesty around in this thread, but I think you might be the most guilty of it.Spoondogglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661366806187319654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84718191927407934902010-11-15T07:43:22.571-06:002010-11-15T07:43:22.571-06:00I feel like I've been having an argument with ...I feel like I've been having an argument with myself.<br /><br />Back when I was a theist about 10-12 years ago, I was pondering this very topic, actually, although admittedly far far less sophisticated than Jerry's.<br /><br />I was thinking about it at the time, and it went almost literally something like this:<br /><br />"<i>Math and science show that spacetime, either in the future or past are basically determined. Yet, somehow, we still have free will despite that. The only way that could be resolved is by a god. Hey, I just proved God! Nice.</i>"<br /><br />I was so proud of myself. Looking back, I see how inane it was. I understand now that I was ignoring other possibilities, was woefully ignorant of the facts at hand, wasn't utilizing critical thinking, and was simply trying to reaffirm my beliefs.<br /><br />And that's Jerry's position in a nutshell.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64133542859292278992010-11-15T07:27:00.144-06:002010-11-15T07:27:00.144-06:00@Tom Fost
“You are equivocating a philosophical c...@Tom Fost<br /><br />“You are equivocating a philosophical concept with a physical one….Your "definition" of libertarian freedom has no basis in science, has nothing to do with any scientific concept, and is not a "force" in any meaningful sense of the word--specifically the sense that you're trying to use it in. The key component of your argument, that such a definition requires that free will be "a force that can move matter," is flatly contradicted by basic biological and neurological knowledge. Moreover, you cannot derive reality from definitions. Saying "I define X to be Y, therefore X must exist" is circular reasoning.<br /><br />Nope. I’m just clarifying the definition of libertarianism. Philosophical concepts are not efficient causes that move matter. If we’re going to say that free will caused the criminal’s body to misbehave, then this “free will” must be, as a crucial part of its definition, a substance or force. <br /><br />“Once again: regardless of what you think "reprehensible" or "libertarian" freedom is, regardless of how many people you think believe in it (argumentum ad populum) you must first demonstrate that it exists in reality….”<br /><br />(Sigh) I don’t have to “establish” a methodological assumption. The assumption was that free will (punishably) causes a criminal’s body to misbehave. I reminded you a thousand times that you don’t have to buy that assumption. But those who buy it need to be candid that this assumption defines free will as a force.<br /><br />“The existence of some kind of free will does not, as you repeatedly assert, require the existence of some kind of new physical/scientific force.”<br /><br />As this force isn’t named in the science textbooks, I would call it new. What generates this free will (this force)? You could argue that ordinary matter has this capability. Logically, that’s acceptable. This would mean that the criminal’s body, instead of being inert, self-propels by free will. The law of inertia, then, was an error (Even in my first essay, as I recall, I mentioned this route). My ASSUMPTION, however, is that no one (including me) is going to abandon the law of inertia. In that case we’ll have to assume that this free will (this force) is not a property of ordinary matter. <br /><br />“At most, from any point of view that includes a basic understanding of neuroscience, it requires an ability to organize particular electrical states in the brain (which relies on known forces, like electromagnetism). The "moving matter" is accomplished by electrical impulses causing contraction of proteins. If you want to continue to justify this idea that free will necessitates a physical force, then you must demonstrate with evidence that there is something wrong with the basic neuroscience and biology of motion.”<br /><br />Neurologically, I have no problem with the criminal’s brain sending signals to his hands causing him to stab someone, but if free will is said to ultimately cause all this, it must be understood as a force that activates those neural processes in the brain. Duh.<br /><br /> “I notice that you failed to address any of the substantive questions in my last round of posts, namely the nature of the force you're proposing the equivocation and word-redefinition you're continually engaging in, and the basic misunderstanding you have about how science works. Instead, you continue to smugly deflect and pretend that your incoherent argument does not rely on profound ignorance and critical fallacies. Again, I recommend that you clear such things up before you attempt to speak definitively on any subject related to reality.”<br /><br />Right, I need to “clarify” that if the criminal’s inert body is set in motion, its inertial mass overcome, a substance or force must be involved. Until I “clear such up such things”, my claim makes no sense. Lovely. Your complete state of denial has plunged you into total lunacy. I can’t make any progress here. You can have the last word. <br /><br />Goodbye.Jerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09448190825695795470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51237944343717164792010-11-15T07:16:30.494-06:002010-11-15T07:16:30.494-06:00Arguing the existence of god is where theists like...Arguing the existence of god is where theists like Jerry fall into a nice little trap they set for themselves of thinking that they somehow have actual evidence for their position. They think they have good reason to believe their own myths, without considering that there is almost always an explanation for things that doesn't require a god.<br /><br />Aside from the fact that there has yet to be justifiable reason to believe in Jerry's version of god, I will just add a little bit about his theodicy:<br /><br />I think that Jerry has been given a thorough examination of the theodicy he has presented here, enough so that he could probably go back to the drawing board and re-work it so that he removes the final "good" part from the equation. Right now he doesn't realize it, but we have done him an enormous favor by pointing out how piss-poor the logic of his god construct really is. He came in here claiming that his construct was logically sound, but obviously hasn't fully considered the ramifications of keeping the "good" part attached to the god construct. It is obvious from his rebuttal to my last post that he hasn't really been willing to let that part go. (especially evident in his response to me saying his god is selfish: "No he isn't selfish, you are selfish". Really? That form of argument wasn't even viable to fifth graders.)<br /><br />Right now he is too much in love with his own construct to be willing to see it has just as many flaws as the christian's ideas that "get it wrong". I would like to think that Jerry is smart enough to figure that out, but right now his unfounded pride in his theodicy is standing in the way of his ability to actually examine whether his premises/conclusions are valid or not. I know, I have been there myself. It is funny, because Jerry's Theodicy has many things in common with Mormonism, which is the religion I was a part of for 30+ years before I finally was willing to consider whether or not I had good reasons to believe in the first place. His reasoning is just as bad as theirs.Foothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442923645990733370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28313460221437984362010-11-15T06:28:30.877-06:002010-11-15T06:28:30.877-06:00It's not special pleading to point out that ph...It's not special pleading to point out that physics is different on the quantum scale. Scale affects physics quite a bit. <br /><br />I can build a 3" high house out of paper, and it'll stand. <br />If I scale it up to 30' high, it'll collapse. <br />If I scale it up to 300 lightyears high, we facing the possibility, not only of it collapsing, but collapsing into a singularity.<br />If I scale it down on the order of a few angstroms, not only won't it be paper anymore, but it's likely to fly apart, or bond in some different fashion, depending on the atoms chosen.<br /><br />The physics is different on different scales.<br /><br />Quantum Physics is a describing <b>approximation</b> of how things work on that level.<br />Newtonian Physics is a describing <b>approximation</b> of how things work on that level.<br />Relativity is a describing <b>approximation</b> of how things work on that scale.<br /><br />It'd be great to have one set of physics that describes all three scales, but we haven't gotten there yet.<br /><br />That's why we shift gears when we start talking about the quantum level.<br /><br />The human body is perfectly capable of moving itself. It has muscles and biofuel to do so. The only part that free will even enters the equation is the decision-making process - the higher conscious that manifests from the brain, and operates on non-deterministic physics. The decision maker makes a request of the body to do something, and it can either comply, or not.<br /><br />There is no force (other than gravity) necessarily being enacted on the body. It's driving itself.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.com