|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 27, 2010 5:47:12 GMT -5
I think in a large part, it depends on how willing we are to deal with the consequences. It seems to me many "freedoms" come with a need to accept responsibility. exactly. the ONLY reason that anyone tries to claim absence of free will is to avoid having to accept responsibility for their actions. they are simply trying to blame everyone and everything else for their choices |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 10:19:11 GMT -5
I think in a large part, it depends on how willing we are to deal with the consequences. It seems to me many "freedoms" come with a need to accept responsibility. exactly. the ONLY reason that anyone tries to claim absence of free will is to avoid having to accept responsibility for their actions. they are simply trying to blame everyone and everything else for their choices Jim, with all respect that is a gross caricature and distortion of even the fatalist position, still more so the hard determinist and especially the soft determinist one in which I broadly believe. Let's briefly recap the difficulty with the notion that the will is 'free.' Does the human will stand uniquely outside the laws of causality and causation that govern every other aspect of the universe? If a person acts in a certain way, WHY did they do so? Was there act 'free' in the sense of being random? Or was it governed by motives? If it was governed by motives, it was not a free action. Spin it how you will, dear chap, the ONLY way a human action CAN be truly free is if - and ONLY if - it is random. |
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Oct 27, 2010 10:57:06 GMT -5
Let's briefly recap the difficulty with the notion that the will is 'free.' Does the human will stand uniquely outside the laws of causality and causation that govern every other aspect of the universe? Really? What was the cause of the Big Bang, and if you can discover a cause for that, then what caused the cause of that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 12:36:17 GMT -5
What was the cause of the Big Bang, and if you can discover a cause for that, then what caused the cause of that? Quantum physics moots infinite recursion. In any given volume of space, there is a quantum. There is always something there, and has always been there. There is no ultimate "cause" of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Oct 27, 2010 14:07:06 GMT -5
What was the cause of the Big Bang, and if you can discover a cause for that, then what caused the cause of that? Quantum physics moots infinite recursion. In any given volume of space, there is a quantum. There is always something there, and has always been there. There is no ultimate "cause" of anything. That is an hypothesis of course; in fact it is an hypothesis that is untestable in principle, and hence is non-scientific with as much validity as the God hypothesis |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 27, 2010 15:19:08 GMT -5
Quantum physics moots infinite recursion. In any given volume of space, there is a quantum. There is always something there, and has always been there. There is no ultimate "cause" of anything. That is an hypothesis of course; in fact it is an hypothesis that is untestable in principle, and hence is non-scientific with as much validity as the God hypothesis The god hypothesis? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 15:31:15 GMT -5
That is an hypothesis of course; in fact it is an hypothesis that is untestable in principle, and hence is non-scientific with as much validity as the God hypothesis The god hypothesis is based on fear. Cosmology is based on facts. |
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Oct 28, 2010 2:36:13 GMT -5
That is an hypothesis of course; in fact it is an hypothesis that is untestable in principle, and hence is non-scientific with as much validity as the God hypothesis The god hypothesis is based on fear. Cosmology is based on facts. Not necessarily. The God hypothesis has the same status as the Big Bang hypothesis. Observation and logic combined to produce an hypothesis. It just happens that both the God hypothesis and the BB hypothesis share the same fate of being untestable in principle, and therefore both lack scientific credibility |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 28, 2010 2:49:09 GMT -5
The god hypothesis is based on fear. Cosmology is based on facts. Not necessarily. The God hypothesis has the same status as the Big Bang hypothesis. Observation and logic combined to produce an hypothesis. It just happens that both the God hypothesis and the BB hypothesis share the same fate of being untestable in principle, and therefore both lack scientific credibility The big bang hypothesis is based on gathered data and observations, to which we are continually adding. This god lurks in your head and there is not the slightest scintilla of evidence to support it, unless you have some that you would like to share with us.... Pumpkinette once threatened to prove god exists, she then fell of the edge of the earth and was never heard of again  |
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Oct 28, 2010 2:58:23 GMT -5
Not necessarily. The God hypothesis has the same status as the Big Bang hypothesis. Observation and logic combined to produce an hypothesis. It just happens that both the God hypothesis and the BB hypothesis share the same fate of being untestable in principle, and therefore both lack scientific credibility The big bang hypothesis is based on gathered data and observations, to which we are continually adding. This god lurks in your head and there is not the slightest scintilla of evidence to support it, unless you have some that you would like to share with us.... Pumpkinette once threatened to prove god exists, she then fell of the edge of the earth and was never heard of again You seem to be under the misapprehension than an hypothesis requires evidence. Not so An hypothesis can be formulated based purely on observation, or, if we are to take Einstein's thought experiments seriously (we would be very silly not to do so) sheer intellectual energy. Do try to remeber that Einstein's relativity was created without any evidencewhatsoever! As far as the BB is concerned there are signposts indicating that possibility, but there is absolutely no way of proving that the existence of something can be created from nothing as the BB hypothesis would have us believe If you need more guidance on hypotheses then please do not feel shy to ask. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 28, 2010 3:09:27 GMT -5
The big bang hypothesis is based on gathered data and observations, to which we are continually adding. This god lurks in your head and there is not the slightest scintilla of evidence to support it, unless you have some that you would like to share with us.... Pumpkinette once threatened to prove god exists, she then fell of the edge of the earth and was never heard of again You seem to be under the misapprehension than an hypothesis requires evidence. Not so An hypothesis can be formulated based purely on observation, or, if we are to take Einstein's thought experiments seriously (we would be very silly not to do so) sheer intellectual energy. Do try to remeber that Einstein's relativity was created without any evidencewhatsoever! As far as the BB is concerned there are signposts indicating that possibility, but there is absolutely no way of proving that the existence of something can be created from nothing as the BB hypothesis would have us believe If you need more guidance on hypotheses then please do not feel shy to ask. Nice try joe, was that reply stashed under your cassock? An hypothesis that has evidence and observations behind it is far more credible than your imagined supreme being. The idea of bending light was revived in Einstein's 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light". In 1919, after the war had ended, scientific expeditions were sent to Sobral in South America and Principe in West Africa to make observations of the solar eclipse. (Was the specific location of Principe chosen for its name, as a subliminal tribute to Newton’s Principia?) The reported results were angular deflections of 1.98 ± 0.16 and 1.61 ± 0.40 seconds of arc, respectively, which was taken as clear confirmation of general relativity's prediction of 1.75 seconds of arc. Now as regards your god, all we have is your (dubious) word for it. |
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Oct 28, 2010 3:38:41 GMT -5
You seem to be under the misapprehension than an hypothesis requires evidence. Not so An hypothesis can be formulated based purely on observation, or, if we are to take Einstein's thought experiments seriously (we would be very silly not to do so) sheer intellectual energy. Do try to remeber that Einstein's relativity was created without any evidencewhatsoever! As far as the BB is concerned there are signposts indicating that possibility, but there is absolutely no way of proving that the existence of something can be created from nothing as the BB hypothesis would have us believe If you need more guidance on hypotheses then please do not feel shy to ask. Nice try joe, was that reply stashed under your cassock? An hypothesis that has evidence and observations behind it is far more credible than your imagined supreme being. The idea of bending light was revived in Einstein's 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light". In 1919, after the war had ended, scientific expeditions were sent to Sobral in South America and Principe in West Africa to make observations of the solar eclipse. (Was the specific location of Principe chosen for its name, as a subliminal tribute to Newton’s Principia?) The reported results were angular deflections of 1.98 ± 0.16 and 1.61 ± 0.40 seconds of arc, respectively, which was taken as clear confirmation of general relativity's prediction of 1.75 seconds of arc. Now as regards your god, all we have is your (dubious) word for it. But Einstein formulated his relativity hypotheses without any evidence. Of that there is no doubt Similarly the BB hypthesis of something being created out of nothing is formulated without any evidence that this can be so. Similarly God us hypthesised without any evidence All hypotheses you see Quite simple In fact I have never 'given my word' about the existenc of God. I have simply stated that it is an hypothesis. Why people get so excited by all this I do not know Do you know that some scientists maintain that an electron exists in two places at once and spin cw and acw simultaneously. They explain the fact that this has never been observed by stating that observation ruins the 2 places/ acw-cw spin properties! Watch those scientists - some are lunatics! |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 28, 2010 3:59:23 GMT -5
Nice try joe, was that reply stashed under your cassock? An hypothesis that has evidence and observations behind it is far more credible than your imagined supreme being. The idea of bending light was revived in Einstein's 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light". In 1919, after the war had ended, scientific expeditions were sent to Sobral in South America and Principe in West Africa to make observations of the solar eclipse. (Was the specific location of Principe chosen for its name, as a subliminal tribute to Newton’s Principia?) The reported results were angular deflections of 1.98 ± 0.16 and 1.61 ± 0.40 seconds of arc, respectively, which was taken as clear confirmation of general relativity's prediction of 1.75 seconds of arc. Now as regards your god, all we have is your (dubious) word for it. But Einstein formulated his relativity hypotheses without any evidence. Of that there is no doubt Similarly the BB hypthesis of something being created out of nothing is formulated without any evidence that this can be so. Similarly God us hypthesised without any evidence All hypotheses you see Quite simple In fact I have never 'given my word' about the existenc of God. I have simply stated that it is an hypothesis. Why people get so excited by all this I do not know Do you know that some scientists maintain that an electron exists in two places at once and spin cw and acw simultaneously. They explain the fact that this has never been observed by stating that observation ruins the 2 places/ acw-cw spin properties! Watch those scientists - some are lunatics! Joe part of the HD method is making predictions which are then tested as in the example I quoted. And you're offering me advice!!! |
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Oct 28, 2010 4:11:59 GMT -5
But Einstein formulated his relativity hypotheses without any evidence. Of that there is no doubt Similarly the BB hypthesis of something being created out of nothing is formulated without any evidence that this can be so. Similarly God us hypthesised without any evidence All hypotheses you see Quite simple In fact I have never 'given my word' about the existenc of God. I have simply stated that it is an hypothesis. Why people get so excited by all this I do not know Do you know that some scientists maintain that an electron exists in two places at once and spin cw and acw simultaneously. They explain the fact that this has never been observed by stating that observation ruins the 2 places/ acw-cw spin properties! Watch those scientists - some are lunatics! Joe part of the HD method is making predictions which are then tested as in the example I quoted. And you're offering me advice!!! Moreover, at no charge! What a Christian gesture! Bloody atheists would charge. y'know. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 28, 2010 4:13:01 GMT -5
Joe part of the HD method is making predictions which are then tested as in the example I quoted. And you're offering me advice!!! Moreover, at no charge! What a Christian gesture! Bloody atheists would charge. y'know. Ah, the theory of the good samaritan |
|
Alpha 
