Determinism vs Freewill

[Gregory A]

If God were real then we should have the capability of freewill. But then if by chance we do have free will that's still not saying that a god is real. But what it does still say instead is that if there is no free-will then there can be no god. Nothing in favor of theism among those scenarios that I can see. And it does look like atheism can exist regardless of the which of the above outcomes is valid. But then can't co-exist with theism if God is real. Which leaves us something to work with I suppose. That is atheism's position, its validity you could say, is under challenge. Because for God to be real atheism must represent an invalid position in relation to theism.

 

[Muhammed]

 

[Muhammed]

I would like to think that we could choose free will, but reality says we live in a deterministic universe. I just don't like to think about it too much. I'm more into peace of mind.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Seems like it's been determined that the universe is only around fifteen or so billion years old making it a microcosmic bubble containing infinity therefore God must exist because of this miracle he created.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[White 6]

If God were real then we should have the capability of freewill. But then if by chance we do have free will that's still not saying that a god is real. But what it does still say instead is that if there is no free-will then there can be no god. Nothing in favor of theism among those scenarios that I can see. And it does look like atheism can exist regardless of the which of the above outcomes is valid. But then can't co-exist with theism if God is real. Which leaves us something to work with I suppose. That is atheism's position, its validity you could say, is under challenge. Because for God to be real atheism must represent an invalid position in relation to theism.

That fails the logic test, whether one believes in God or not. If God did not exist, it still does not mean we would have evolved in a hive mind scenario, directed without freewill involved. So it fails to be an indicator either way.
So the real question you want to discuss is not free will, but the existence of a supreme being that set everything in motion and still watching for it's divine amusement what the funny humans are doing on this rock?
Sounds to me, your position mocks, both God and man, regardless of the existence of a supreme being.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Gregory A]

That fails the logic test, whether one believes in God or not. If God did not exist, it still does not mean we would have evolved in a hive mind scenario, directed without freewill involved. So it fails to be an indicator either way.
So the real question you want to discuss is not free will, but the existence of a supreme being that set everything in motion and still watching for it's divine amusement what the funny humans are doing on this rock?
Sounds to me, your position mocks, both God and man, regardless of the existence of a supreme being.

My word skills are not the best but I'm still not sure how you come up with what it is you're saying.

"If God did not exist, it still does not mean we would have evolved in a hive mind scenario, directed without freewill involved"

In a Natural world, it still does not mean we would have evolved in a hive mind scenario, directed without freewill involved.

You don't think so??? Arrogance does not win arguments, agreed?

My point was that the weak link in this would appear to be atheism. And it would be where to start an investigation if there is such a place. How for example can we simply challenge theism, determinism or free will on their own.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If God were real then we should have the capability of freewill. But then if by chance we do have free will that's still not saying that a god is real. But what it does still say instead is that if there is no free-will then there can be no god. Nothing in favor of theism among those scenarios that I can see. And it does look like atheism can exist regardless of the which of the above outcomes is valid. But then can't co-exist with theism if God is real. Which leaves us something to work with I suppose. That is atheism's position, its validity you could say, is under challenge. Because for God to be real atheism must represent an invalid position in relation to theism.

If there is a creator of everything, then they created what we have. Whether they created it with freewill or not is neither here nor there. It's possible to create a world with freewill and without freewill too.

 

[White 6]

My word skills are not the best but I'm still not sure how you come up with what it is you're saying.

"If God did not exist, it still does not mean we would have evolved in a hive mind scenario, directed without freewill involved"

In a Natural world, it still does not mean we would have evolved in a hive mind scenario, directed without freewill involved.

You don't think so??? Arrogance does not win arguments, agreed?

My point was that the weak link in this would appear to be atheism. And it would be where to start an investigation if there is such a place. How for example can we simply challenge theism, determinism or free will on their own.

Your word skills are fine, certainly compared to mine, as pointed out repeatedly by Pol chic and Rock Torrey.

Hive mind, such as bees is the prime example of non-self determination of the rank and file individuals, another being ants. These examples are relatively rare in nature, no matter how nature came about.

Meant no arrogance. I simply evaluate as I was trained to do, and state my assessments.

 

[Gregory A]

Sure that's how it does look and many people are easily led. But what you do need to consider is that although we are considered intelligent creatures, our intelligence predominates in relation to other creatures only, that is we are not predominantly intelligent creatures ourselves. And it may be that by the processes of logic we can express a degree of freewill. Our otherwise programed lifestyles necessary for survival.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sure that's how it does look and many people are easily led. But what you do need to consider is that although we are considered intelligent creatures, our intelligence predominates in relation to other creatures only, that is we are not predominantly intelligent creatures ourselves. And it may be that by the processes of logic we can express a degree of freewill. Our otherwise programed lifestyles necessary for survival.

I determined the cartoon to be funny and fitting is all. You and I have yet to

 

[Gregory A]

If there is a creator of everything, then they created what we have. Whether they created it with freewill or not is neither here nor there. It's possible to create a world with freewill and without freewill too.

Sure, but without granting us freewill that creator is named Big Bang. Without free will we don't have much of an argument let's face it. My problem is I look at these things without faith having been raised without religion, but instead a form of Naturalism was the norm in my upbringing.

 

[Gregory A]

Your word skills are fine, certainly compared to mine, as pointed out repeatedly by Pol chic and Rock Torrey.

Hive mind, such as bees is the prime example of non-self determination of the rank and file individuals, another being ants. These examples are relatively rare in nature, no matter how nature came about.

Meant no arrogance. I simply evaluate as I was trained to do, and state my assessments.

'Hive mind' was not the problem as we do live in 'hives' (we just call them cities) where there are workers and in my country a Queen. So we cant be so sure that these things can't come about Naturally.

 

[Grumblenuts]

My problem is I look at these things without faith having been raised without religion, but instead a form of Naturalism was the norm in my upbringing.

Same here. With religionists all around. A massive, old church almost within spitting distance. Yet we disagree regarding the implications of the Big Bang. Determine anything from that?

 

[White 6]

'Hive mind' was not the problem as we do live in 'hives' (we just call them cities) where there are workers and in my country a Queen. So we cant be so sure that these things can't come about Naturally.

Cities are not hives, nor ruled by a hive mind. They are more like rats nests of individual rats seeking to make little rats and get as much food and rat bed material ass possible without being attacked by the other rats.

 

[JoeMoma]

Here are some axioms about God that I was taught at church as a young child.

1. God is all omnipotent/all-powerful
2. God is all knowing of the past, present, and future.
3. God is the creator. Nothing exists except from God's creation.

If all three of these axioms are true, then freewill of anyone other than God is just an illusion. This is because before God created, he knew the outcome of his creation (Axiom #2). Being omnipotent, he had the power to adjust his creation to achieve different outcomes (Axiom #1). If all 3 axioms are true, then from God's perspective nothing is random, he knows all and is in control of all from the beginning to the end (if there is an end). Any free will decision that an individual makes was predetermined by God at the onset of creation (or before).

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure, but without granting us freewill that creator is named Big Bang. Without free will we don't have much of an argument let's face it. My problem is I look at these things without faith having been raised without religion, but instead a form of Naturalism was the norm in my upbringing.

Well, we don't know if there was a big bang. We don't know what a big bang might mean.

 

[Gregory A]

Here are some axioms about God that I was taught at church as a young child.

1. God is all omnipotent/all-powerful
2. God is all knowing of the past, present, and future.
3. God is the creator. Nothing exists except from God's creation.

If all three of these axioms are true, then freewill of anyone other than God is just an illusion. This is because before God created, he knew the outcome of his creation (Axiom #2). Being omnipotent, he had the power to adjust his creation to achieve different outcomes (Axiom #1). If all 3 axioms are true, then from God's perspective nothing is random, he knows all and is in control of all from the beginning to the end (if there is an end). Any free will decision that an individual makes was predetermined by God at the onset of creation (or before).

Doesn't it make sense that anyone putting forward objections to anything in particular and that thing being something real or right can only be doing what they do out of ignorance. I mean I'm not saying you are wrong here but that instead you don't really understand that thing your argument is pivoting on which is the concept of time. The left-to-right motion of time is just a convention. My understanding is that time exists, but Time does not exist. The measure that's used to record the passing of time is synchronized to the rotation of the earth, but there is nothing chronological involved with that measurement.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Doesn't it make sense that anyone putting forward objections to anything in particular and that thing being something real or right can only be doing what they do out of ignorance. I mean I'm not saying you are wrong here but that instead you don't really understand that thing your argument is pivoting on which is the concept of time. The left-to-right motion of time is just a convention. My understanding is that time exists, but Time does not exist. The measure that's used to record the passing of time is synchronized to the rotation of the earth, but there is nothing chronological involved with that measurement.

Time is calibrated to atomic clocks. In the United States, the first atomic clocks were built by NIST in the 1950s from which measurement standards are developed. In 1967, cesium began to be used in the atomic clocks.

Planets need not apply

My understanding is that time exists, but Time does not exist.

time is our primary measure of distance or space. How big is the Milky Way galaxy? Our answer: x light years or parsecs. Little else would make practical sense. Yes, ultimately it is just imposing our select periodic structures upon nature. But other animals do that kind of thing too.

 

[JoeMoma]

Doesn't it make sense that anyone putting forward objections to anything in particular and that thing being something real or right can only be doing what they do out of ignorance. I mean I'm not saying you are wrong here but that instead you don't really understand that thing your argument is pivoting on which is the concept of time. The left-to-right motion of time is just a convention. My understanding is that time exists, but Time does not exist. The measure that's used to record the passing of time is synchronized to the rotation of the earth, but there is nothing chronological involved with that measurement.

No, the above quote does not make sense......too vague for one thing. Objections to anything in particular?