I am an atheist thread 4

[NaturalEnquirer]

Is there some reason that I should posit a ‘creator’? If so, what is it?

I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on:

1. Argument from reason.
2. Free will. Do you believe we have free will? Or are you just a preprogrammed automaton? I’ve been trying for some time, and I can’t come up with any materialistic explanation for free will. Not only that, but it seems that this is not just a gap in our knowledge, it is a fundamental full stop. Even if we discovered some new particle, freewillyons, being beamed into our brains from another dimension, that just expands the causal system. Unless there’s some supernatural source of free will, free will can’t exist.
   Apparently this is a more popular opinion than I thought. A survey at Richard Dawkins blog showed the majority don’t believe in free will. Weird. That seems about as reasonable as not believing in my left arm.
3. Origin of the universe. I’m pretty sure you just shrugged this one off before, but I could be wrong. So, do you agree with the Big Bang theory, which pretty much eliminates an eternal universe?

Peace.

 

[_A]

Why is it that when you paint yourself into a corner you feel compelled to change the basis of the argument? Either Jesus existed or he did not exist. History says that he did while you remain a skeptic. Upon being pinned down on this you decide not to concede, but instead shift the argument as to whether I can prove that Jesus was God.

Lots of guys named Jesus might have existed. Little evidence is required to back up that kind of claim.
That one of them was a god who worked bigger miracles than Kreskin is a claim which requires more evidence.
How much more?
Well, how big are the claims being made of this god of yours?

Furthermore, in the first thread we presented arguments to show that Jesus was in fact who He proclaimed himself to be. You simply blew them off because they do not conform to your “unbelief” and because those facts cannot be put under today’s “microscope” of science.

The fact that these ‘facts’ of yours can not be observed by any reliable, repeatable means is very telling.
Of course the microscope of science can not see your god - not only does he not exist, but if he does, he hides from all skeptics.

I can at least understand that, but I cannot understand why you cannot simply admit that Jesus really lived in Palestine.

As I said, several likely did.

Ok heres a couple questions. This one is for A: what is your belief then on creation of the big bang, no actually theory since no one knows. Your answer could prove you have an open mind.

I don’t believe.
The big bang is a theory which I don’t even mathematically understand.

and A we have spoken about the Flood before and I showed you the article which had evidence. Even though the Bible description of the Flood and the one being described in the article are not similar to a T does not mean you should not consider the possibility.

The flood (notice that you used a capital there lol) story in the bible is false. It makes specific claims which are ridiculous and impossible. If you want to suggest that the persons writing the story were taking artistic license, OK, why not look at the rest of the bible that way, too?
There was no great flood.

I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on:

1. Argument from reason.
2. Free will. Do you believe we have free will? Or are you just a preprogrammed automaton? I’ve been trying for some time, and I can’t come up with any materialistic explanation for free will. Not only that, but it seems that this is not just a gap in our knowledge, it is a fundamental full stop. Even if we discovered some new particle, freewillyons, being beamed into our brains from another dimension, that just expands the causal system. Unless there’s some supernatural source of free will, free will can’t exist.
   Apparently this is a more popular opinion than I thought. A survey at Richard Dawkins blog showed the majority don’t believe in free will. Weird. That seems about as reasonable as not believing in my left arm.

I try to stay off the philosophy forums. They require more scholarship than I am in possession of.

1. Origin of the universe. I’m pretty sure you just shrugged this one off before, but I could be wrong. So, do you agree with the Big Bang theory, which pretty much eliminates an eternal universe?

Peace.

I don’t believe in the big bang theory. I don’t believe in biblical creation either. If I had to bet, I would bet that the bang theory is closer than the genesis theory. There is more evidence to support it.

 

[Jonathan82]

The flood (notice that you used a capital there lol) story in the bible is false. It makes specific claims which are ridiculous and impossible. If you want to suggest that the persons writing the story were taking artistic license, OK, why not look at the rest of the bible that way, too?
There was no great flood.

So is A has become a new spell check software that corrects you and then laughs at you at the same time? I’m not gonna get into the flood again because I posted it in a past post already. All it asks for is an open mind for the possibility of the Bible speaking of the same thing as every other culture that spoke about it happening around the same time. Plato spoke of it around the same time, he even said thats what made Atlantis go under. The Bible also refers to a great Civilization that went under and so did others AROUND THE SAME TIME. so that means its not fact BUT it means its open to possibility.

Warning: the capitals used in this thread are there to point out the obvious, the possibility of possibilities.

I don’t believe in the big bang theory. I don’t believe in biblical creation either. If I had to bet, I would bet that the bang theory is closer than the genesis theory. There is more evidence to support it.

Ok very good but you don’t believe in it so what do you believe or think it might be? what are your thoughts? I personally believe in the idea of intelligence behind it.

 

[_A]

Ok very good but you don’t believe in it so what do you believe or think it might be? what are your thoughts? I personally believe in the idea of intelligence behind it.

Yes, but you also believe in Atlantis, believing with little evidence does not speak well for you. how do you decide to believe something? How do you decide not to believe?

 

[1234]

Are you for real? Try reading the complete works of Josephus. He was a Jewish historian of the era and he says Jesus existed.

Are you now going to tell me that there is no evidence for the Holocaust under Hitler and that I have to prove that too?

Please refrain from wasting people’s time with this kind of thing.

Actually, there are good arguments that the Jesus we know from the gospels did not exist. These arguments are on atheist threads (of course) and I haven’t pursued these arguments, but they refer to the commonness of Jesus’ name, the abundance of itinerant ministers wandering around Judea, the large number of people being crucified, and the lack of corroboration of objective events defining Jesus’ life–the census of Caesar Augustus, for example. I have not studied these arguments and am not going to flog them. The scholars of The Jesus Seminar, anathema to Catholics, as they felt that there was little basis for most of the gospels, felt that the character we know as Jesus probably existed, and I accept their word for it.

I am just saying that the assumption that Jesus, qua Jesus, existed is not a foregone conclusion.

 

[1234]

Ok heres a couple questions. This one is for A: what is your belief then on creation of the big bang, no actually theory since no one knows. Your answer could prove you have an open mind.

This one is for 1234: What does yes with ought the air mean? I never asked if there was air did I? I asked do you think that the Universe just created itself one day? I believe your answer was yes which means you make no effort to imagine the possibilities. After all try to think a little deeper than a simple yes. I am not very credulous I have an open mind and I don’t disregard all human accounts I see everything as information, then I analyze it then I try to put the pieces together when there is enough information. I will admit I don’t believe 100% percent what people are taught in church but I don’t throw it away and disregard it because that would be a waste of information I could use later on.

and A we have spoken about the Flood before and I showed you the article which had evidence. Even though the Bible description of the Flood and the one being described in the article are not similar to a T does not mean you should not consider the possibility.

Sorry, Jon about the credulous part. This is an angry sub-forum and the anger seeps thru to my fingers!

The remark was made, (paraphrase),*" Do you think that the universe was created out of thin air?" * I answered, “Yes, without the air.”…as no air existed before the universe was created. "Out of thin air" is an expression and I was making a joke on the word air.

I think that discussions re the origin of the universe have little to do with atheism or religious belief. One can say, God created it, and I will counter, OK, so who created god?–ad infinitem. And it’s a long way from the origin of the universe arguments to current religious belief in the RCC or anyone else. For my sake, it doesn’t matter. If anything, one could use ‘origins’ arguments to support deism, the god-wound-up-the-clock-and-retired to the Bahamas argument, or dualism, the equal-but-opposites good and evil arguments.

Most people don’t base their religious belief on ‘origins’ arguments, anyway, as they are not very compelling in daily life. Non-believers don’t find that belief in gods helps them in their daily life. Non-believers don’t require a fear of hell to avoid sin. There are good, logical, epicurean arguments to avoid sin and lead a good, generous, kind, loving life.

Religion cannot answer the really big questions for most people, not the origin of the universe, but why does evil happen and why is the human race so rotten? The free will and original sin arguments, etc. don’t cut it for the non-religious crowd.

Sorry to go on so long. This is an angry and verbose thread!

But…there might have been an Atlantis, (there is at Epcot!) but I haven’t seen the evidence.

 

[Jonathan82]

Yes, but you also believe in Atlantis, believing with little evidence does not speak well for you. how do you decide to believe something? How do you decide not to believe?

Ok maybe I don’t believe in Atlantis but I do have an open mind towards it since its mentioned a lot and there have been what looks like an under water city near the Bermuda Triangle. A lot of research goes into it and they do come up with things connecting to it I will find an article or something and post it.

 

[Jonathan82]

Sorry, Jon about the credulous part. This is an angry sub-forum and the anger seeps thru to my fingers!

No prob I can understand what you mean. My message in this forum is simply to not disregard anyone because everyone has their personal story why it is they believe or not believe in something, my goal is to find out why. Its the best way to learn something.

The remark was made, (paraphrase),*" Do you think that the universe was created out of thin air?" * I answered, “Yes, without the air.”…as no air existed before the universe was created. "Out of thin air" is an expression and I was making a joke on the word air.

Yea I hate to admit I didn’t catch that in time haha.

I think that discussions re the origin of the universe have little to do with atheism or religious belief. One can say, God created it, and I will counter, OK, so who created god?–ad infinitem. And it’s a long way from the origin of the universe arguments to current religious belief in the RCC or anyone else. For my sake, it doesn’t matter. If anything, one could use ‘origins’ arguments to support deism, the god-wound-up-the-clock-and-retired to the Bahamas argument, or dualism, the equal-but-opposites good and evil arguments.

True I only asked about that out of curiosity not to prove anything. I just find that interesting. But since this is an Atheist Thread in a Catholic Forum then I could see you were probably expecting me to say something about God.

Religion cannot answer the really big questions for most people, not the origin of the universe, but why does evil happen and why is the human race so rotten? The free will and original sin arguments, etc. don’t cut it for the non-religious crowd.

Well that is a good question. I was thinking about it not long ago after I realized War has been around forever basically. I wonder sometimes if I was in the same position as most of these rotten people in power if I would do the same thing as them, after all we are all human and very similar (even though I hate war and am against it with a passion unless I was defending myself). I believe the question isn’t what makes us commit such horrible things, but instead what prevents us from doing such things. I think it comes down to necessity.

Sorry to go on so long. This is an angry and verbose thread!

tell me about it… to me it is a pointless thread if the goal is to convince one side, but I prefer the middle ground since its pointless to prove or disprove something you cant, But we can keep an open mind. I’m annoying myself by repeating that word more than I would like haha.

But…there might have been an Atlantis, (there is at Epcot!) but I haven’t seen the evidence.

I have and I don’t like It I prefer the Magic Kingdom.

 

[Pax]

Actually, there are good arguments that the Jesus we know from the gospels did not exist. These arguments are on atheist threads (of course) and I haven’t pursued these arguments, but they refer to the commonness of Jesus’ name, the abundance of itinerant ministers wandering around Judea, the large number of people being crucified, and the lack of corroboration of objective events defining Jesus’ life–the census of Caesar Augustus, for example. I have not studied these arguments and am not going to flog them. The scholars of The Jesus Seminar, anathema to Catholics, as they felt that there was little basis for most of the gospels, felt that the character we know as Jesus probably existed, and I accept their word for it.

I am just saying that the assumption that Jesus, qua Jesus, existed is not a foregone conclusion.

Pardon me for being so flippant but the folks from the Jesus Seminar are flakes at best. Do you really believe that Jesus of Nazareth as proclaimed by Christians and secular history did not exist?

This kind of idiotic so called “scholarly history” is simply absurd. The people that makes such preposterous claims are on the same level as the folks that claim such things as:

–the United States never landed men on the moon, and that it was all faked.

–that the holocaust never happened.

–that Castro’s Cuba is a marvelous communist success story.

–and that the United States blew up the Twin Towers.

Does anyone take any of this nonsense seriously? Does anyone with any common sense and education really believe that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist? Does anyone really believe that all of the immediate disciples and followers of Jesus simply invented him, and that Christianity has survived and prospered for over 2,000 years without Jesus ever existing?

I simply don’t understand the hostility against accepting the simple and obvious truth that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died in Palestine, and that He has subsequently had millions of followers that call themselves Christians. This does not require that a person accept the tenets of Christianity or that the religion is valid. What’s the problem?

 

[Armor_of_God]

Your god is invisible because things that don’t exist do not register on the visible spectrum of light.

I think some scientists might disagree with your definition of “nonexistence”.

If your god really does exist in the eucharist, why don’t you go win that Randi prize? Is it because every test that can be done fails to see it?

Number one, I’m not in it for money. Number two, I don’t need to prove it to anyone.

Your god is invisible. You don’t like me saying it, but it is true.

I would hardly call you a credible source on what constitutes the Christian Catholic God. You are absolutely free to reject the Faith. But if you are going to do that, you need to reject it accurately and in it’s entirety. The center point of Catholic faith is that Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist.

If your god were not invisible, people would not need faith to accept the notion.

People need faith to believe that Christ is present - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - in the visible Eucharistic host. It is one of the main tenets people struggle with regarding Catholicism. This is one reason why there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations.

Why are you arguing so hard that your god is not invisible?

I actually didn’t think I was arguing very hard…you should see me when I really am!
I don’t understand why you think I would take any other stance, given that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is the heart of the Catholic Faith.

Does giving him real, quantifiable attributes create some kind of conflict for you?

Please explain?

 

[_A]

Ok maybe I don’t believe in Atlantis but I do have an open mind towards it…

No need to post it, I guess the thing is that so many here consider belief and faith the same thing.
I avoid belief because it interferes with learning.

Pardon me for being so flippant but the folks from the Jesus Seminar are flakes at best. Do you really believe that Jesus of Nazareth as proclaimed by Christians and secular history did not exist?

Do you mean a guy named Jesus, or the christian god born of a virgin who made miracles like Kreskin?
Those are two different questions. I would not find it hard to accept that a man named Jesus existed, but when you try to tell me he REALLY walked on liquid water and he REALLY rose from the dead you lose me. These things are, and have been impossible as long as my experience and research can see.

This kind of idiotic so called “scholarly history” is simply absurd.

Then why are so many history scholars respected by their professional peers?

The people that makes such preposterous claims are on the same level as the folks that claim such things as:

–the United States never landed men on the moon, and that it was all faked.

–that the holocaust never happened.

–that Castro’s Cuba is a marvelous communist success story.

–and that the United States blew up the Twin Towers.

Nope, they aren’t. The ones who doubt that a man named Jesus made the dead rise and the bread and fish multiply are still respected by their peers. In fact, I can’t think of one historian who believes in that magic who is still respected by historians outside of a church.
And the church raised up the creation museum lol.

Does anyone take any of this nonsense seriously? Does anyone with any common sense and education really believe that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist?

Is the question that he existed as a regular guy with something to teach, or a miracle worker who was a god?

I simply don’t understand the hostility against accepting the simple and obvious truth that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died in Palestine, and that He has subsequently had millions of followers that call themselves Christians. This does not require that a person accept the tenets of Christianity or that the religion is valid. What’s the problem?

I don’t know the history of the church, but I do know that there is no writings about him until decades after his death. There were no miracles. There may have been a Jesus.

I think some scientists might disagree with your definition of “nonexistence”.

Where did I use the word ‘nonexistence’? Are you not putting words in my mouth because you have a hard time answering the ones that are really coming from there?
I said that your god is an invisible man in the sky. You took issue with me calling her ‘man’, until I pointed out that the bible does, now you are taking issue with his being invisible. Go ahead, prove that your god is visible, or accept that you worship an invisible man in the sky.

Number one, I’m not in it for money. Number two, I don’t need to prove it to anyone.

Your church always needs money, you don’t have to be greedy, you could give it all to them. Number two, if you can’t prove it (you can’t) then this is a nice thing to say to distract from the fact that you have no proof.

I would hardly call you a credible source on what constitutes the Christian Catholic God. You are absolutely free to reject the Faith. But if you are going to do that, you need to reject it accurately and in it’s entirety. The center point of Catholic faith is that Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Then let’s see if he is visible there. If he is not, then he is invisible. It’s really quite simple.

People need faith to believe that Christ is present - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - in the visible Eucharistic host.

Right, so your god is invisible without ‘faith’, which is also conveniently unavailable for scientific observation.
If we asked a hundred parishoners to describe (in secret) the god they saw in the eucharist, would they all describe the same thing? Would one say ‘black pants’ while another said ‘blue pants’? If so, that would suggest an hallucination, and not a visible god.

It is one of the main tenets people struggle with regarding Catholicism. This is one reason why there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations.

You mean because people hallucinate in subtly different ways?

I actually didn’t think I was arguing very hard…you should see me when I really am!

OK, read this next bit carefully. I think it kind of underlines our difference (which might be less than you think)

I don’t understand why you think I would take any other stance, given that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is the heart of the Catholic Faith.

Would his presence be less if he were invisible? I did not say that your god doesn’t exist (though I believe that he doesn’t). I said that he was not visible. If you can’t show him to anyone with eyes, (or a camera), then you might as well just admit that he is invisible.

Please explain?

If you accept certain characteristics applied to your god, perhaps that takes something away from him, I don’t know…If it was agreed that he lived in a red box in the Louvre, and all red boxes were removed from the Louvre, then your god could not exist as described. I think this is why the current description does not lend itself to skeptical inquiry.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I try to stay off the philosophy forums. They require more scholarship than I am in possession of.

I guess that’s a fair answer. I don’t understand why you think philosophy is easier than theology, which you are happy to expound upon. But fine.

I submit that materialism, which is the position you have been defending, if not by name, is completely incompatible with free will. If you believe you have free will, you can’t be a materialist. That means there’s a supernatural agency out there.

This doesn’t have to be deep philosophy. It’s really just this simple: If our brains are nothing but a complex system of physical law, the outputs of that system (your actions) must be explicable in terms of physical law. Which does not and **can not **include a “free will” clause.

But as usual, you’re not willing to engage any topic of conversation that you can’t handle with an offhanded quip. Just file this unanswered point away: No supernatural, no free will. Maybe in a few years it’ll register.

God bless!

 

[phooney]

Wasn’t that covered when we discussed emergence?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Wasn’t that covered when we discussed emergence?

Nope. I think we said that emergence could account for unpredictability and the appearance of free will, but not actual free will. As I recall, you said it was an interesting point that you would look into later.

 

[phooney]

I think you’re correct in your recollection

 

[1234]

I guess that’s a fair answer. I don’t understand why you think philosophy is easier than theology, which you are happy to expound upon. But fine.

I submit that materialism, which is the position you have been defending, if not by name, is completely incompatible with free will. If you believe you have free will, you can’t be a materialist. That means there’s a supernatural agency out there.

This doesn’t have to be deep philosophy. It’s really just this simple: If our brains are nothing but a complex system of physical law, the outputs of that system (your actions) must be explicable in terms of physical law. Which does not and **can not **include a “free will” clause.

But as usual, you’re not willing to engage any topic of conversation that you can’t handle with an offhanded quip. Just file this unanswered point away: No supernatural, no free will. Maybe in a few years it’ll register.

God bless!

…er…genetics is on its way to discovering genes which actually control psychological behavior. For better or worse, in the next century we are going to design babies with certain combinations of genes which will partially determine their characters. However, there will remain the all-important influence of ‘nurture’ (as in ‘nature’ vs.‘nuture’.)

The brain is a physical and chemical structure, no more. What people do with it is their own decision. I believe in free will; I don’t believe in the supernatural. But one’s free will is largely determined by both one’s genetic makeup and the all-important influence of ‘nurture’.

For ex, I don’t have any addictions. I have been exposed to drugs, cigarettes and alcohol, but it never took. This is not because of my wonderfulness; it’s probably due to my genes. I know a lot of people like this–fortunately I am related to them. I know a lot of others who are addicts and who can, only with great effort, overcome their addictions. They can–they have free will, of a sort, but they have to overcome their chemistry. Some never do.

We are products of our biochemical makeup, but the effect of behavior and ‘nuture’ are so complex that the result can vary immensely, even in identical twins, who are clones.

We are only at the beginning of discovery regarding the biochemical and genetic origins of human nature and its influence on ‘free will’.

You don’t have to invoke the supernatural in all of this.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Sweet. So it remains an unanswered point.

I’m reading more about emergence. It’s interesting, but it strikes me as more of a useful abstraction than a physical truth.

I’ll go back to my computer metaphor. Ultimately, the entire system is just an array of a few billion bits flipping back and forth.
(Yes, I know this is an arbitrary stopping point. I’m a computer guy, not an electrical guy, so I’m going to pretend the bits aren’t just convenient abstractions. So sue me. )
Having said that, I almost never actually think about the system in terms of bits. I occasionally think of it in terms of bytes – collections of 8 bits, for the non-techies in the audience. Bytes have very different behavior from bits, and they’re easier to work with.
But more often, I think in terms of data structures – collections of bytes. The behavior of structures (C++ classes in my case, for those keeping score at home) are infinitely varied. Some structures store data. Some write events to the console. Some send messages to other structures.
More often still, I think in terms of applications. You guessed it, they’re collections of structures.
That’s where I usually stop, since that’s my day to day job. But there are other people who think in higher levels of abstraction still. Systems, and then networks, and then internetworks, and then… I don’t know. Angels?

The point of that rambling (other than taking a break from looking at data structures) is that even though the behavior at a given level is completely different from the behavior at the lower level, it is always explicable in terms of the lower level. It’s just a question of how painful it is to deal with the lower level. So, while the computer systems display lots of fascinating emergent properties, none of them violate the bottom-most rules of bit-flipping.

It seems to me that the same thing is true in physical emergence. Yes, a molecule’s behavior is different from that of its constituent atoms. And the properties of a protein are qualitatively different from those of its component molecules. And so on and so on. But aren’t these just convenient levels of abstraction? If we were able to handle the amount of simultaneous information, wouldn’t we be able to predict a protein’s behavior from the molecules’ behavior?

Some philosophers say no. I don’t buy it (yet), but like I said, I’m still reading.

God bless!

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Sweet. So it remains an unanswered point.

I trust it’s obvious that I claimed that my point was unanswered before I saw 1234’s response. I wasn’t deliberately ignoring it.

The brain is a physical and chemical structure, no more. What people do with it is their own decision.

I don’t understand. How do people make that decision? If the brain is a physical and chemical structure, as you claim, then people don’t make decisions. The brain progresses from one state to another, via ordinary physical laws.

 

[_A]

I guess that’s a fair answer. I don’t understand why you think philosophy is easier than theology, which you are happy to expound upon. But fine.

Theology has so many areas which are clearly nonsense, even the untrained eye can find inconsistencies in the most elaborate of religions.

I submit that materialism, which is the position you have been defending, if not by name, is completely incompatible with free will. If you believe you have free will, you can’t be a materialist. That means there’s a supernatural agency out there.

This doesn’t have to be deep philosophy. It’s really just this simple: If our brains are nothing but a complex system of physical law, the outputs of that system (your actions) must be explicable in terms of physical law. Which does not and **can not **include a “free will” clause.

But as usual, you’re not willing to engage any topic of conversation that you can’t handle with an offhanded quip. Just file this unanswered point away: No supernatural, no free will. Maybe in a few years it’ll register.

God bless!

I’ll go back to my computer metaphor. Ultimately, the entire system is just an array of a few billion bits flipping back and forth.
(Yes, I know this is an arbitrary stopping point. I’m a computer guy, not an electrical guy, so I’m going to pretend the bits aren’t just convenient abstractions. So sue me. )
Having said that, I almost never actually think about the system in terms of bits. I occasionally think of it in terms of bytes – collections of 8 bits, for the non-techies in the audience. Bytes have very different behavior from bits, and they’re easier to work with.
But more often, I think in terms of data structures – collections of bytes. The behavior of structures (C++ classes in my case, for those keeping score at home) are infinitely varied. Some structures store data. Some write events to the console. Some send messages to other structures.
More often still, I think in terms of applications. You guessed it, they’re collections of structures.
That’s where I usually stop, since that’s my day to day job. But there are other people who think in higher levels of abstraction still. Systems, and then networks, and then internetworks, and then… I don’t know. Angels?

The point of that rambling (other than taking a break from looking at data structures) is that even though the behavior at a given level is completely different from the behavior at the lower level, it is always explicable in terms of the lower level. It’s just a question of how painful it is to deal with the lower level. So, while the computer systems display lots of fascinating emergent properties, none of them violate the bottom-most rules of bit-flipping.

It seems to me that the same thing is true in physical emergence. Yes, a molecule’s behavior is different from that of its constituent atoms. And the properties of a protein are qualitatively different from those of its component molecules. And so on and so on. But aren’t these just convenient levels of abstraction? If we were able to handle the amount of simultaneous information, wouldn’t we be able to predict a protein’s behavior from the molecules’ behavior?

Some philosophers say no. I don’t buy it (yet), but like I said, I’m still reading.

God bless!

I think if your computers were designed as you say, they would only ever work flawlessly - which they don’t. When systems get more complex, they get less predictable. The biological systems you are describing (the brain) is quite complex, quite unpredictable. When you get enough variations (from slightly different environments, for example) you can get two perfectly good ‘brains’ seeing things quite differently.
When I say that I think that I have free will, you must remember that I also don’t believe in ‘I’. I don’t know how to explain it very well, but here we go…
Your body is a few trillion (I approximate) tiny cellular robots. None of them know or care about you and your activities.
If I killed off one of those robots, would that change ‘you’? No? How about 2? If I go on long enough, your conciousness eventually would change, but how? If your brain were removed, but your body kept alive on life-support, would ‘you’ be there at all? If only a part of your brain were removed, would ‘you’ be there?
It gets really tough to say where ‘I’ am, since I could lose arms, legs, eyes, hearing, and some of my organs, and I would still scream ‘I AM!’ How much brain could be removed before you would consider a human being just warm meat and not a person any more?
Free will is, to me, just the fact that I make choices based on my personal preferences. I cannot choose to breathe water (or walk on it in it’s liquid form), but within the limits of biology and my environment, I have the ability to make choices and can demonstrate it.
That is the best I can do for now, how do you think that is incompatible with my position?

I don’t understand. How do people make that decision? If the brain is a physical and chemical structure, as you claim, then people don’t make decisions. The brain progresses from one state to another, via ordinary physical laws.

Ordinary physical laws produce unexpected and astounding beauty. No god required. I used to lose myself in fractal images, never running into the same shape twice, and that is just a tiny little formula.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I think if your computers were designed as you say, they would only ever work flawlessly - which they don’t. When systems get more complex, they get less predictable.

Ummm… I assure you that they are designed like I said. But it doesn’t follow that they would work flawlessly, because like you said, the system gets complex. But nonetheless, the upper levels are still built on lower levels of abstraction.

It gets really tough to say where ‘I’ am, since I could lose arms, legs, eyes, hearing, and some of my organs, and I would still scream ‘I AM!’ How much brain could be removed before you would consider a human being just warm meat and not a person any more?

That is an interesting question, for which I have no answer at all. But it’s a side note, so I’ll leave it aside for now if that’s OK.

[Free will is, to me, just the fact that I make choices based on my personal preferences. I cannot choose to breathe water (or walk on it in it’s liquid form), but within the limits of biology and my environment, I have the ability to make choices and can demonstrate it.

Obviously free will is constrained by physical reality. That’s neither here nor there. So I’ll stick with “I make choices based on my personal preferences.” That’s cool, strikes me as a fantastic working definition. And it lines up pretty well with 1234’s definition: “What people do with it is their own decision.” I think we’re all talking about the same thing here.

Let’s try an analogy: the Energizer Bunny. It’s a fairly simple mechanism. Batteries supply power, wheels turn, bunny marches. Little environmental influences (irregularities in the floor, say) may cause it to turn slightly left or slightly right, but ultimately, I think we agree that the Bunny has no free will, right? Even if the left/right turn is unpredictable before the fact?

Furthermore, even if we slap a little randomizer into the Bunny, so that the left/right direction is less dependent on the environment, it still doesn’t have free will, right? We’ve just created a more convincing illusion of freedom, but ultimately the direction of the bunny is still just a product of physical (name removed by moderator)uts. No choice, just machinery.

It seems to me that if we are nothing more than very complex physical systems, we cannot have any more free will than the Bunny. Yes, your actions will be influenced by genetic factors, and environmental factors, and your memories, and a million other factors. But if we’re just machines, then how are we making decisions? What is the exercise of the will on the system?

Maybe this will clarify. By saying that you make choices, you’re saying that “you” (whatever that means) are acting on the system as an independent agent. You’re steering your brain, in a sense. But that makes no sense if “you” is just a part of your brain. If “you” are just a construct of your brain, which is merely a physical system, then “you” is equivalent to the bunny’s randomizer – just a more convincing illusion of freedom.

Man, I almost lost this whole post by foolishly pushing “backspace” instead of “delete”. I think if that would have happened, I would lose my free will and be completely determined to throw my computer out the window.

God bless.
[/quote]