Fallacies in Christianity

[manhunter098]

Well if god were an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being, it really wouldnt be any trouble at all to control what we think.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

It doesn't even need a higher power unless you consider "nature" a higher power. Your perception of free will can just be an illusion manifested by your brain. Physics above QM is basically deterministic, so unless you want to argue that the statistical nature of QM is what gives us "free will," it seems to me we're forced to conclude that since our brain operates on these physical laws, that our brain and therefore our actions are deterministic.

 

[mc4]

Here is the "Godidit" argument again.
Also, according to some people, "miracles" happen whenever a baby is born, and God did it. Science can explain the birthing process quite thoroughly. This goes to show how quickly people will jump to the conclusion that anything can be a miracle. 2 or 3 people escaping an earthquake and babies being born are both not miracles. They can be explained in natural ways. No need to throw a god in there, yet. Wait for something totally unexplicable(such as someone shooting fireballs from nowhere but their actual fingers) until you deem it a miracle or a work of god. Accidents have been known to happen.


You misinterpreted what I said. I saiduniverses, and not "dimensions".
But if we were "fine tuned" as you say, then evolution would have happened anyways, because you're saying that without it, we couldn't adapt, but we do have it, so I'm inferring that you are saying it allows adaptation? That is the idea behind evolution.... Anyways, THIS is life as we know it, here in this universe. It could have just happened through unguided accident, and things would have arranged themselves over time. Why stick God everywhere where you do not have an answer for things?


But oxygen would have hindered polymerization, so lots of oxygen would have been a bad thing. It would have poisoned the early life on earth. How would the amino acids have died off, though? Tell me, and I will listen. Also, how would it(low oxygen levels) not allow for conversion from amino acids to other structures such as RNA or proteins?



But does having a majority of something being true make everything else in it(God, miracles) true, anyways? No, things that are false are false, and things that are true are true, in their respective manner.

For the first statement, um i never said anything like a baby being born is a miracle or people escaping earthquakes being a miracle. You are right they can be natural processes. As to what a miracle could be today i've never personally felt like i've seen a "miracle" so i wouldn't be able to tell you what one looks like. I do believe that God helps and aids those who believe in him but i think that there is more discreetness in any methods he might use. I've heard man stories of prisoners (for their faith) or families with no food and mysterious things happening. One family had just finished their last bit of food and the mother couldn't find a job although she spent hours a day looking. The next she found fruit and vegetables on her lawn, enough to last for a long time. It turns out that it fell off of a truck delivering them. Was it just coincidence maybe, or it could have been God acting in a discreet way who can truly know (i would personally say the latter).

for the second i don't think i misinterpreted i just may have used dimensions interchangeably with alternate universes. However you did state that there is a theory of infinite other universes and i did address that. The point was we don't know what is in those universes so for evolution purposes it can't be argue that our universe randomly got it right with the forces fundamental for life because there could be life in the other universes (if they exist) aswell. And no evolution wouldn't have happened anyway (if you believe "God did it") I was saying that for your idea of evolution to even happen you need "fine tuning". Either way, with creation or with evolution you'd need "fine tuning". the idea of fine tuning suggests a creator. So when i mention "finetuning" that shows how unlikely it is that things came about on their own, and that it was chance that got it right with the four forces.

Well first of all if their were alot of oxygen then they would have very quickly died off. Oxygen is very reactive and it combines with everything. It combines with iron and makes rust, or even with hydrogen for water. If the atmosphere had alot of oxygen it would quickly combine with the amino acids and dismantle them (or any other organic molecules.) So now is the second possibility a reducing atmosphere (one with little oxygen). Ultraviolet radiation (which is now blocked by our ozone) would have destroyed an hydrogen based molecules and an atmosphere that would have had to contain a large amount of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (supposing the atmosphere was indeed reducing and lack oxygen) wouldn't have been a suitable environment for synthesis of amino acids and other organic molecules.


You are correct things that are false are false things that are true are true. However everything can't be proven as "false" or "true". As far as a majority of true things, well it seems that in any case people will run with the majority doesn't it? Even if you don't believe in God people will believe in a supposed "majority" of evidence to "prove" evolution but overlooking things that haven't been "proven" true. I mean has anyone ever seen a single cell organism change into a more complex multi cell organism. Or is it just accepted because people believe they have mountains of evidence based from fossils (and whatever else)?

 

[AltF4]

It doesn't even need a higher power unless you consider "nature" a higher power. Your perception of free will can just be an illusion manifested by your brain. Physics above QM is basically deterministic, so unless you want to argue that the statistical nature of QM is what gives us "free will," it seems to me we're forced to conclude that since our brain operates on these physical laws, that our brain and therefore our actions are deterministic.

Yea, and even then QM is highly deterministic, too. Sure particles are represented according to a probability distribution cloud, but this distribution behaves and interacts deterministically according to QM laws.

Things are still well ordered and deterministic according to laws, it's just a different kind than Laplace'ian determinism. QM still has no place for Free Will, it would violate causality. There to this day is no consistent explanation for Free Will, let alone one that can be supported empirically.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hmmm...this is too much for me. I'm not as intelligent as you guys are. QM?

Just one thing I wanted to say is that the last sentence in my last post on determinism is what makes the whole paragraph. Why would God control a human being to think that he doesn't exist? It makes no sense. If you argue that maybe God is supposed to make that person fall, then you are arguing against the very nature of God. However, as to the other forms of determinism I have nothing. If nature controls us somehow...yea I really don't see how to argue against that. Also, free will an illusion being made by my brain? Well, it's still MY brain making that illusion, so I still think my choices are made by me(X factor) without me being controlled by Y factor.

 

[Zero Beat]

QM = Quantum Mechanics. QM's just the abbreviation.

It basically theorizes about physical systems that are subject to the uncertainty principle.(mechanics of atoms, molecules, ect)

Also studies how Alt4Warrior disproved E=MC^2 and was able to come up with his own formula: A=FW^4.

Uncertainty principle: formulated by Heisenberg, that the accurate measurement of one of two related, observable quantities, as position and momentum or energy and time, produces uncertainties in the measurement of the other, such that the product of the uncertainties of both quantities is equal to or greater than h/2π, where h equals Planck's constant.

 

[arrowhead]

Just one thing I wanted to say is that the last sentence in my last post on determinism is what makes the whole paragraph. Why would God control a human being to think that he doesn't exist? It makes no sense.

you're right. it makes no sense whatsoever. so why should you still believe in it?

Also, free will an illusion being made by my brain? Well, it's still MY brain making that illusion, so I still think my choices are made by me(X factor) without me being controlled by Y factor.

you believing that you have free will does not mean you have free will

 

[DuskMarthWater]

I am aware of that sir. But really, why would you think that way? Why would want to think that you don't have any control over your whole life? Why come here and live if you aren't given the right to decide what you will do with your life? Don't you want to be able to make your own decisions? Whether it's an illusion or not, I feel as if I am making my own choice, and I will continue to believe that. I refute the idea of determinism, but I do acknowledge the theory is there. I just don't support it.

Anyways, enough about determinism. Continue your religious debates kind sirs.

QM = Quantum Mechanics. QM's just the abbreviation.

It basically theorizes about physical systems that are subject to the uncertainty principle.(mechanics of atoms, molecules, ect)

Also studies how Alt4Warrior disproved E=MC^2 and was able to come up with his own formula: A=FW^4.

Huh. Cool beans yo. I'm still in high school, so...yea. I don't know what the uncertainty principle is in exactness(lol), but I could take an educated guess.

And lol at Alt4.

 

[arrowhead]

.....

you'll believe in something just because it makes you FEEL better? how utterly hopeless.

determinism has everything to do with the existence of (some) gods.

 

[AltF4]

QM == Quantum Mechanics, for the record.


First, don't say "I'm not as intelligent as you guys are". Don't put yourself down. Just try your best to analyze and think everything through. And if there's something that doesn't make complete sense, ask for clarification. It's the Debate Hall, all we (I) ask for is intellectual honesty. Not everyone is going to know theoretical physics!

Second, here's a challenge for you: Define Free Will. Describe what it means to have Free Will as specifically as possible. Not just "I have the ability to choose", which just begs the question. (You are just substituting the word 'choose' for 'Free Will' in this case) You will find that it is impossible to do.


EDIT: oh, wow. Lots of replies before mine.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Arrowhead...if that's what I implied in my post, I apologize. That is not what I meant. I have my own very strong reasons for denying that determinism controls the way I think, but I just don't feel it necessary to post them. I also wanted to see how you would react to that post.
And I'm not sure if determinism is how my God, the Christian God, plays his cards. I really doubt it. In fact I know he doesn't, but I'm Mormon so I believe in things that all other Christians either refuse or just don't know about. Our take on the world is probably a little different than most people's. For example, we believe that in the pre-existence, we(everyone on the earth today and everyone who ever has lived) chose to come here ourselves to prove our worthiness to God. He's obviously not going to make us return to him if we must prove ourselves first. And no, we do not condemn people for thinking however they wish.

Also, thanks AltF4. Really. I'm always negative about myself, even in the tiniest of aspects. There are several things that probably will not make sense in this hall to me, which is probably why I don't involve myself in a lot of the topics, because I simply cannot compete in terms of knowledge. I probably don't have as much time devoted to studying such matter as you all though.

As for your challenge...I get the feeling it will be an impossible challenge.

 

[arrowhead]

Arrowhead...if that's what I implied in my post, I apologize.

way to make me feel like the bad guy ha

why do you reject universal determinism?

 

[Zero Beat]

.....

you'll believe in something just because it makes you FEEL better? how utterly hopeless.

determinism has everything to do with the existence of (some) gods.

I don't think it's fair to say that to him. Lots of people understand that the bible(and god) is bs, but choose to talk to their "guardian angels" and see it as a coping mechanism.

Nothing wrong with that as long as they don't impose imaginary things as reality.

For the record, I don't practice any of that, since I profess atheism.

 

[AltF4]

As for your challenge...I get the feeling it will be an impossible challenge.

It is.

why do you reject universal determinism?

Well, determinism is false. At least Laplace'ian determinism sure is. That was one of the most obvious results from Quantum mechanics.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

way to make me feel like the bad guy ha

why do you reject universal determinism?

My bad.

Universal determinism? Hmmm...well, you might have to give me some time to answer that. I think I already did in my last post though. I really do not think I know everything there is to know about it yet either, as that Wikipedia link is chalk-full of information. I can answer your question though. My religious beliefs give me reason to believe that God will not make our minds up for us, because he can't do that. We must prove ourselves to him, prove that we are willing to listen to his commandments, etc. while we are on this Earth. Obviously we will make mistakes, but we can be forgiven. And the dead people who didn't get to hear about all this? That's a whole other story, but we don't condemn anyone. *getting off-topic* Anwyays, if I believe that, then there's no way I can believe that he would force us to do the right thing, even if we did not realize he was forcing the ideas upon our minds. In fact, that's another thing we believe. In heaven when the world was being created(which took who knows how long), Satan and Jesus both wished to create it and support the plan which would bring us to Earth to be tested. However, what determinism suggests is exactly what Satan wished. He wished for everyone to return by forcing them to do the right thing in every situation. There's more to the story, obviously, but the moral is I can't support determinism because that is the idea that Satan himself proposed. This all goes along with IF you believe in God in the first place, of course. Not that the idea is truly an evil thing(like I said, there's more to the story), but I know that it was rejected by God and replaced with the idea of having agency. Anyways, because of this I do not support any form of determinism. It is all the same idea, only warped to fit the viewpoints of selective people. Helpful? Confusing?

Wow...this response was a LOT longer than Alt's, heh! Alt's explains it better to an atheist.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Sorry about that. My computer just duplicated my post.

 

[AltF4]

Well, Erich, certainly you have to expect me to probe further in your belief since you've gone so far to describe them.

You claim to believe in Free Will, yet are unable to define what it is? Certainly if you are so adamant about your belief (as you appear to be) then you must at least know what it is that you're talking about, yes? So describe to me what Free Will is, then!

Similar questions to the above to help you get started:

-Do rocks have Free Will?
-Does bacteria have Free Will?
-Plants?
-Small animals like insects?
-Dogs and cats?
-Humans?

If you answer no to the first, and yes to the last, where does the line get drawn, and what causes that distinction?

 

[arrowhead]

Nothing wrong with that as long as they don't impose imaginary things as reality.

that's EXACTLY what religion does

Well, determinism is false. At least Laplace'ian determinism sure is. That was one of the most obvious results from Quantum mechanics.

ackasjk would it be correct if i reworded it "everything is deterministic"?


erich, you're rejecting what alt said because you say god exists, but there is no evidence pointing to the existence of any god. it's equivalent to me saying i don't believe dogs exist anymore because aliens that kill dogs and then imitate them exist

Spoiler

If you answer no to the first, and yes to the last, where does the line get drawn, and what causes that distinction?

god didit

 

[RDK]

Well, Erich, certainly you have to expect me to probe further in your belief since you've gone so far to describe them.

You claim to believe in Free Will, yet are unable to define what it is? Certainly if you are so adamant about your belief (as you appear to be) then you must at least know what it is that you're talking about, yes? So describe to me what Free Will is, then!

Similar questions to the above to help you get started:

-Do rocks have Free Will?
-Does bacteria have Free Will?
-Plants?
-Small animals like insects?
-Dogs and cats?
-Humans?

If you answer no to the first, and yes to the last, where does the line get drawn, and what causes that distinction?

One thing I liked about Thomas Edward Thorpe's History of Chemistry was when he explained that on a completely fundamental level, there's really no difference between the organic and inorganic components of matter.

This is not to say that value cannot be attributed, because value is a matter of personal preference if anything.

"There is no absolute distinction to be drawn between the chemistry of the inorganic and organic worlds. ...There can be no reasonable doubt that the chemical processes of organic life are essentially similar to those of the laboratory."

A fine example is our very bodies; we're 75% water. The only key to organic life is just exactly how you mix our fundamental elements.

 

[Zero Beat]

that's EXACTLY what religion does

I know that, which is why I worded it that way. The problem I have is with people who automatically hate on those who just use it for coping with events in which they have no power over, but are hurting them nonetheless.

I do agree with you though, which I believe I included in my earlier post. If they try to forcefully depict religion as reality, murder them with :

Science, Philosophy, History, and the Bible itself.

One thing I liked about Thomas Edward Thorpe's History of Chemistry was when he explained that on a completely fundamental level, there's really no difference between the organic and inorganic components of matter.

Yeah, I like that rationalization too. And it does make sense.

 

[Hive]

I want to ask this to you guys who are atheist please, and I will try to word this the best i can :D
I will listen to the best of my abilities, I would really like to hear your views on this ^^ because I think it is a relevant question, and one that comes up quite often in philosophy of religion classes and such ^^
(also RDK... no hard feelings, but please don't answer this...your last answers to me have been, well, unhelpful.... )
The question I want to ask is how morals are meaningfully represented in your belief system....?
Even if you disagree with me please hear me out and respond in a calm matter...afterall I'm not trying to make an accusation I just want to hear your opinions on it, also I actually have nothing against atheism as a belief system if believed with tolerance and morality...
afterall this is a debate hall and differences in belief are bound to happen ^^ I just would really like to hear your views on these things

This question seems to confuse people... its actually fairly hard to word what I am trying to say, but I'll try to explain...
What I don't want from this is an answer along the lines of how its possible to believe in being good to people... I am well aware that primates, as well as other creatures CAN learn to be cooperative. I also am well aware that humans will always strive to be good to each other and find reasons to do so....
And finally I'm aware of how the human brain processes sympathy and such...
but these are not what I am asking... I'm not debating that humans can be good to each other regardless of any belief system... what I'm trying to ask if being good or being bad actually has a relevant impact on someone's meaning in life? The idea is that if a person who kills, say, 500 people, and dies happily at age 60, and if there is someone who tried to fit your definition of "good" his whole life and dies happily at age 60, if they were both just as meaningful to themselves, how can saying that being good or being bad actually mattered? I'm trying to establish a concrete reason that good and bad actually matter you see?
I'll ask you to refrain from using these arguments either unless you can address why my perspective of them is wrong (which is cool, if you can... I'm not hear just to hear myself talk lol):

-Being good makes you happier- i hear this a lot ... anyways the problems I see with it are these, and if you disagree on any of the points please tell me why?
good and bad would be completely subjective to the person, then right?.... and therefore how could you say something is good or bad (I'll address common beliefs in a sec) if it fits a person's definition of happiness? hmm.. that's still a bit vague, let me try to explain...
I'm not saying most people won't be good because it makes them happier (in fact most will)... what I am trying to addresss is how do you address someone who doesn't fit this mold:
for example: if a person decides its good to kill homosexuals, and he feels happy for it, for whatever reason.... yes, YOU can say that it was a horrid thing to do, and in fact it is...
but in your belief system according to the above point, if that person felt good doing it then wouldn't he still be pursuing a meaningful action according to himself? If this is true how can we differentiate which actions are good or bad, since any has the capacity to be such (since any action can feel good to a person)?[
also, can simply wanting something make it true?

-the other point people bring up is that society as a whole decides which actions are good or bad....
from which i still see these issues coming up... which are very similar to the ones above...
Yes, societies as a whole will most of the time be more good than bad, I'm not trying to argue this, my issues though come up when they don't have the same views of what is good or bad, or in situations where what a society wants really can't effect the person in question.... the point is that good and bad are still subjective to the society and still have the capacity for any action to be good or bad... so good and bad still wouldn't mean anything in a meaningful sense...
again correct me if I'm wrong with these points...
if the collective goals of people determine what is good or what is bad because they have the ability to punish people...
How about if a society as a whole legally and the majority says something is right that you think is bad?
The point here as that many times society's view of what's right is different from yours/what it is today...
for example: in the 1700s slavery was accepted, legal, and the majority of people agreed with it. If society determined good or bad then, slavery would actually be a good thing. Afterall in that sense, slaves who tried to escape were punished, etc..., and the majority of people thought that was ok...
Of course slavery is wrong... but I'm trying to figure out how in your belief system you would be able to argue against the collective view of society then... and importantly how would being good or bad in this system effect how meaningful you are? Also if an individual CAN neglect the views of society as a whole how would this just stop anyone from doing this, and making their own ideas about morals? (for which it goes to the above paragraph)
(stuff like this comes up a lot, homosexuality in some states, war, etc... for which societies as a whole don't give us the answers we would like...)
The other concern I have is this: say a person commits a crime against what society thinks is wrong... however he is effectively removed from that society or that society can't punish him, or society doesn't know about it...
the idea is then, if a crime is committed and a person isn't punished even in the slightest, maybe he was even rewarded for it, then how would that person be any less meaningful? (aka would being good or bad in this case have any relevance?) maybe no one even knows he committed it but himself and he feels happy for it, how can you say this effects how meaningful he is compared to another person?
Does getting away with something make it ok? I'm not saying that most of the time people won't get caught, etc... what I am trying to address is what if a person isn't, then is it suddenly ok because society can't address it? This all goes back to my initial question....

anyways I hope that helped clarify, I really DO want to heare your takes on these please :D
and please think out your responses before answering ^^ ty for listening

 

[Crimson King]

Why the colors?

Why?

 

[RDK]

Seeing Darxmarth's posts made me realize how freaking annoying color posts are.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

Well, that was a lot of reading, but I think I got most of it.

...I'm not sure where to begin. My first thought would be that most of the morals I received are because most of us live in a primarily religious society. The morals exist around us. Even though I think nothing will happen to me if I kill a number of people and then die, I think it is wrong.

I'm going to mention my father. He is an atheist. However, he probably "sins" significantly less than some Christians do. Why? He has morals, and he follows them diligently.

My philosophy as an atheist is that happiness is the most important thing in the world. My entire life is to be devoted to finding happiness in some form. Now, while I hold my happiness to the utmost importance, I also think it is important to help my fellow man be happy as well (probably because this results in me being more happy).

Why aren't I completely selfish? Why aren't all humans? I would assume it is part of our genetic makeup. Why do other animals stay in packs? For the same reason. But what does this have to do with morality? I'd assume it is obvious that someone mean to other members of their species could get kicked out of the pack, making survival much more difficult for them.

So my will to be "nice" to others and have "morals" is part of a base primal instinct that all humans (and other animals) might have. Murderers, for example, might be lacking this, or are just not right in the head. Or, murdering makes them happy. If I knew killing people made me happy, I would do so. I'm not going to try, though, because if I did so, I would go to jail, and then I would be less happy. See?

In conclusion, my life is about being happy, and having morals helps me to be happy.

 

[Deleted member]

It's really disappointing that so many people still find it necessary to associate religious views, doctrines, moralities and ethics, free will, and happiness (the guy above) to the idea that there could be a higher power.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

erich, you're rejecting what alt said because you say god exists, but there is no evidence pointing to the existence of any god. it's equivalent to me saying i don't believe dogs exist anymore because aliens that kill dogs and then imitate them exist

Explain. I don't follow you.

As for explaining what my definition of free will is...I'll have to do that tomorrow. It probably won't be all that interesting to read, but I will define what it means to me, nevertheless. Of course, if free will and free agency are two completely different things, then I'll have to think a bit longer on this. They sound pretty related though.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

It's really disappointing that so many people still find it necessary to associate religious views, doctrines, moralities and ethics, free will, and happiness (the guy above) to the idea that there could be a higher power.

Who, me? Or Hive?

 

[arrowhead]

you say free will exists because god exists, but there's nothing to suggest the existence of a god

 

[DuskMarthWater]

I know that. But I also said somewhere in my post that my explanation is only believable IF you believe in a God in the first place. I also said that Alt4 explained it in more scientific terms, or the terms of an atheist's perspective. I believe that what Alt said is true as well, but I also do not question my own definition. I said somewhere in here that religion and science are too very different fields, and that each appeals to a separate entity in the body(the brain and to the heart), but that those two entities can both send very different messages and both of them can be true messages. If something can be proved by fact, why not prove it with fact? But...nevermind. I was about to quote Batman. Wrong place, wrong time, hehe! Anyways...

 

[arrowhead]

no offense, but if you're going use god as your reason to disbelieve in this universe being deterministic, nobody's going to take you seriously.

I said somewhere in here that religion and science are too very different fields, and that each appeals to a separate entity in the body(the brain and to the heart), but that those two entities can both send very different messages and both of them can be true messages.

science and religion cannot be claiming two different things and both be right. either something is true or it isn't.

the heart is not reliable at all when searching for truth. peoples' gut feelings are wrong all the time.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

AltF4,
I forgot to be clear about QM and determinism. Yes things like Schrodinger's eqn and whatnot are definitely deterministic. The statistical nature seems to be due to bringing the microscopic up to the macroscopic level with a "measurement."

Hive,
I would say that my moral basis (and probably most atheists') is the notion of individual rights. In its simplest form, everyone has the right to seek their own happiness so long as it doesn't violate others' individual rights, others' own pursuits of happiness. Conversely, nobody else has the right to tell them what to do if it doesn't affect them. It's really a glorified Golden Rule, you might say, and if you ask me, that elegant rule is more successful as a guideline to morals than almost any complicated set of moral codes passed on in religion. I do think there is no such thing as a truly unselfish action, so "good," to me, is whatever makes me happy.

In the example of someone who derives pleasure from killing homosexuals, that act is wrong (even though you could still say it was "good" in the eyes of the killer) because it violates that person's individual rights. Individual rights also protects us from the tyranny of the majority. If the majority believe something like being a homosexual is "wrong", it doesn't matter because someone being gay violates nobody's rights, so society and government should have no right to make laws about it. When you think of it that way, it's pretty silly to have laws against homosexual acts (which are technically still illegal in some states, as are sex toy shops or simply owning a sex toy), because what right could possibly be being violated by being a homosexual?

 

[Amide]

Seeing Darxmarth's posts made me realize how freaking annoying color posts are.

I actually thought you posting in read was kinda cool. Your location is now messed up too. The pink and sky blue was as annoying as hell though.

 

[AltF4]

Arrowhead:

You keep speaking of determinism. Why? You DO know that determinism was demonstrated false a hundred years ago with the development of Quantum mechanics, yes? Or perhaps you just need to be more specific in your terminology? Are you familiar with Laplace'ian determinism? Is that what you're referring to?


Hive:

Morals are subjective. It is entirely up to the individual to determine what it "right" and "wrong". They are abstract notions that we place on our actions in a given context. Murder is not morally "wrong" to everyone. This is obvious, because some people are murderers.

So I can only explain how I, myself, base my judgments. I can't speak for anyone else. It tends to be a mixture of many moral philosophies. Sometimes it takes the form of "what would work if everyone did it", sometimes on the basis of human rights, sometimes "what would I like to have done to me?", etc...

Using a god as a basis of morals isn't really an answer at all, it's a cop-out. All you're saying is "Here is a list of stuff that is objectively good and stuff that is objectively bad. It is so because god says so." Now you don't have to think about the hard questions, you don't have to consider alternatives. You're just taking the easy way out and claiming ignorance. Your solution isn't a solution at all!

What about when an action fits into both "good" and "bad" categories? What about context? What about short term evil for long term good?

None of these problems are addressed in an objective view of morality.

 

[arrowhead]

Arrowhead:You keep speaking of determinism. Why? You DO know that determinism was demonstrated false a hundred years ago with the development of Quantum mechanics, yes? Or perhaps you just need to be more specific in your terminology? Are you familiar with Laplace'ian determinism? Is that what you're referring to?

isn't QM still somewhat deterministic? why don't you explain it to me if i'm off.

yeah, laplace'ian determinism is basically classical theory. where if you know the velocity and position of everything in the universe you can predict the future with 100% accuracy

 

[AltF4]

Yes, and Laplace'ian determinism is false. Very false. This is well known.

QM describes the world differently. Particles don't HAVE positions nor velocities. Because there's no such thing as particles, only probability distribution clouds. These clouds interact and behave according to the laws of QM, so there's a kind of determinism going on. But not the kind that Laplace envisioned.

You cannot predict the future with perfect certainty. Laplace thought you could.

Maybe you can think of it like this:

Imagine pouring sand onto a flat surface like a table. You try to drop each grain of sand on the same exact spot, but there will be some random error. Sometimes a grain will fall to the left, sometimes to the right, but never too far. In mathematical terms, the sand will have a Gaussian distribution, and form a bell curve. You will notice that the sand will start to mound in a kind of "cone" shape.

Even if you did this a million times, you'd still see a cone every time. That sounds rather deterministic, for sure. But each particle (grain of sand) itself is dropped randomly. The macroscopic behavior of the random events is not so random.

Technically speaking, there is a chance of the sand randomly dropping into the shape of the Mona Lisa. But this is exceedingly rare. In reality, you only ever see cones. And the manner these cones interact and form larger cones and other structures is also well defined, and rather deterministic.

 

[arrowhead]

oh no, i understand that laplace'ian determinism is false.

but mona lisa will not show up if you're only given a small amount of space for the sand to land and a large amount of sand.

about the double slit experiment with electrons, when an electron hits the screen after passing the double slits, a spot shows up on the screen where it hits. in a perfect apparatus, would the spot describe the probability cloud of the electron where it is darkest where the electron is most likely to have hit? but you still don't know exactly where the electron hits even though you know it hit?

also, say you were to repeat the experiment forever. what would the end result look like? in other words, how wide would each light and dark bar be?

so what would be the correct way of saying the universe is still deterministic, or is it just not since the position of each grain of sand is unpredictable even though the end pattern will be the same?

 

[RDK]

oh no, i understand that laplace'ian determinism is false.

but mona lisa will not show up if you're only given a small amount of space for the sand to land and a large amount of sand.

about the double slit experiment with electrons, when an electron hits the screen after passing the double slits, a spot shows up on the screen where it hits. in a perfect apparatus, would the spot describe the probability cloud of the electron where it is darkest where the electron is most likely to have hit? but you still don't know exactly where the electron hits even though you know it hit?

also, say you were to repeat the experiment forever. what would the end result look like? in other words, how wide would each light and dark bar be?

so what would be the correct way of saying the universe is still deterministic, or is it just not since the position of each grain of sand is unpredictable even though the end pattern will be the same?

This has a lot to do with Chaos Theory, which I've taken a few classes on, although Alt might be able to explain it better than I.

Using this post as a reminder, as I don't have the free time right now to sit and type of a WoT.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

no offense, but if you're going use god as your reason to disbelieve in this universe being deterministic, nobody's going to take you seriously.


science and religion cannot be claiming two different things and both be right. either something is true or it isn't.

the heart is not reliable at all when searching for truth. peoples' gut feelings are wrong all the time.

I know that if I use God as a reason people won't take me seriously. It's because most of the people in here are atheists. That was a rather obvious statement Arrowhead. And of course the heart isn't "reliable" in finding truth. Like I just stated, things that appeal to the heart are things unexplained and things of emotion. It doesn't have to do with logic, unless you're looking for religious truth. Did you even read my post?

I do not agree with you on your second stanza though. I think that both can be correct. Either something is true or it isn't? Why can't more than one thing be correct? I support the field of science, I just don't support the views that most scientists have on life.

And on free will Alt, I think I explained it. It is the ability to make choices, and obviously to be intelligent enough to make them. A rock can't make a choice, and I don't think that bugs are intelligent enough to make choices, nor do I think they have a moral center. I think that humans making choices is a direct result of them developing a conscience and a sense of morality, or demonstrating the lack thereof. I also know that there are a lot of definitions of determinism, so shouldn't there then be a lot of definitions of free will?

And whatever else you guys are talking about I don't have a clue.

 

[pockyD]

And on free will Alt, I think I explained it. It is the ability to make choices, and obviously to be intelligent enough to make them. A rock can't make a choice, and I don't think that bugs are intelligent enough to make choices, nor do I think they have a moral center. I think that humans making choices is a direct result of them developing a conscience and a sense of morality, or demonstrating the lack thereof. I also know that there are a lot of definitions of determinism, so shouldn't there then be a lot of definitions of free will?

Are you asserting that bugs don't have "free will" (but humans do)?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I know that if I use God as a reason people won't take me seriously. It's because most of the people in here are atheists. That was a rather obvious statement Arrowhead. And of course the heart isn't "reliable" in finding truth. Like I just stated, things that appeal to the heart are things unexplained and things of emotion. It doesn't have to do with logic, unless you're looking for religious truth. Did you even read my post?

I understand using "heart" as regards emotion, because humans need heuristics when we are forced with immediate decisions that can't be resolved with scientific experiment such as in interpersonal relationships. But why do we need to "believe" in something unexplained? You yourself say that the heart is unreliable, indeed, our heuristics are subject to all kinds of cognitive bias, so why should we use it to lead us to conclusions about the natural world?

I do not agree with you on your second stanza though. I think that both can be correct. Either something is true or it isn't? Why can't more than one thing be correct? I support the field of science, I just don't support the views that most scientists have on life.

Well either the two things contradict one another or they do not. If they contradict each other, then they can't both be true at once. If they don't contradict one another, we just redefine the set of both of them as "one true thing." So it seems to be a logical necessity.