free wil and science are completely differnet topics. How could science create free will?
You can't prove something like that. What the heck. If you could, then everyone would know about it, and there would be no intelligent christians or anyone else that believed in free will.
Your mind realy can't fathom why you choose what you choose. humans aren't built to understand soem concepts, including infinity and free will. And science cannot prove anything that is not under or about science. Human life and living isn't a science that you can put parameters on and hem in. You can't put a mind under a microscope and see where thoughts originate. You don't know where an impulse starts and where they conflict, or where instinct or any emotion comes from. So don't use science to try and prove something science cannot possibly understand.
humans are too complex to be objects of science or logic. In science if you look at animals, if a stronger animal attacks a weaker animal, the weaker aninmal always submits or runs if it sees it is weaker. But what causes bravery and love and courage? not science. RThose are human. science can't explain those things, and neither can it explain free will.
This is what I said after altf4warrior said that science proved free will nonexistant, which is what he made a thread about. I have th thread open right now, and these are some of the things he said:
"Free will has a couple of problems when trying to reconcile with physics. The most major issue with having choice is that it violates a very fundamental principle of science: Causality. To quote the matrix: “You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect.”"
- causality doesn't violate free will. To use your billiard analogy, what if a person grabs the stick, or takes away one of the balls or the cue ball? Also, the matrix isn't a reliable source to quote as a scientific reference.
"Events in the present cause things to happen in the future. Things that are happening in present were caused by events in the past. Every cause has an effect, and every effect was made by a cause. It is a basic, fundamental, essential assumption that must be made for anything to make sense. All of human history can be summarized by the gradual realization that things in the world happen according to physical laws, and not by whim or superstition. It is impossible to stress just how important causality is in science. Without it, there is no reason for anything that happens. Any scientific theory that comes about that contradicts causality is assumed to be false. In fact a typical method of disproving a theory is to show that it violates causality."
-You are already assuming that free will doesn't exist when you make your decisions. How about in a chess match, if your opponent moves somewhere, you can move several different ways. If you have been trained to play chess, you can see the good and logical ideas. But you can choose to do something foolish, like attack with your king. what if people don't always react? What if we could react in more than one way? We would have free will. But you assume that we don't haev free will in this argument, and you say that every cause only has one definite effect. But that isn't something you can prove by assuming youare right tand then proving it. And that is a poor summary of human history, because why has faith grown? And why are more people going to church? Are all those people foolish?
"Put another way, go down the evolutionary list and ask yourself: “Does this have free choice?” Humans, dogs, rats, flies, ants, grass, bacteria? From a biological standpoint, we are not in any relevant way different from these other organisms that we assume to not have free will."
-Yes, we are. We have a written language, more complex brain, and a belief in God, right and wrong, which non of those other things have. Biologically, we also walk on our feet and have opposeable thumbs. But look psychologically, and that is where free will is from.
That's all I have to say about that..
... how did you ever get into the debate hall.
For the sake of my sanity, I'm not going to begin to enumerate your nearly countless misconception about science, logic, and the nature of knowledge. I only hope that your excuse is you're too young to know better. A fully grown adult with that amount of ignorance is a dangerous thing.
Is that rude? or is it just me? Are personal attacks ok, and if they aren't, why is he allowed to say things like this?
Only in the debate hall you have to do more than state your opinions. You have to support them with evidence. You, however, have done nothing but state as fact whatever you happen to erroneously believe.
Um, what about my thing with animals and courage which is true? And your billiard analogy? You stated that free will was like a billiards game with out any proof.
another quote by altf4warrior in his free will topic:
" How this affects the topic of free will is that Quantum Mechanics destroys the previous possibility of determinism. It was thought before Quantum Theory that if you were to know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at one point in time, you could predict the future from that point forward. We now know that this is false. "
You are assuming that quantum mechanics id right, specifically the theory called the Copenhagen interpretation, where there are functions in space that if you observe them they will change into infintiely many and different futures.
Where's the proof there? You just stated someone else's theory on something you cannot see or guess, and that few people are smart enough to really understand.
That is my argument. I chose my post on free will because it was my most recent one, and that is why I'm being attacked by altf4warrior. Here's the thread where I quote him from so you can reference:
http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=108893&highlight=free
