Several questions

[Pope_Noah_I]

Long story short, I’m a troubled theist who has come face to face with some of the bigger, philosophical complexities of faith, and I have a lot of very intelligent, atheist friends. Some of their objections have shaken me to the core, and, I’ll admit it, I’m scared of where the truth might lead me. I have been told by my priest that doubts are normal, but, I can’t help but feel as though I’d be lying to myself and to God if I didn’t pursue the truth, wherever it leads me. So, please, I beg you, help me combat the onslaught of atheism in my life. I apologize if I’m packing too much into 1 post, but, its kind of urgent and I couldn’t really find any topics that sufficiently dealth with the topics I’m wondering about.

1. I often wondered what would happen if we put Christian monks who arerelatively skilled in prayer under mental examination. Well, it turns out that we have and there is nothing special going on. All that happened was increased activity in the frontal lobe, decreased awareness in the orientation-sector of the brain. The same thing happened with Buddhist monks. There was no mental difference in the cognitive effects of Buddhist and Christian meditation. What bugs me is this; if all spiritual experience can be explained away scientifically and psychologically, where does the soul fit in? If human consciousness can be explained in purely material terms, where, I ask you, does God come into play?
2. Going along with the first point, if the human mind is nothing more than a random cluster of chemical reactions and neural tissue, is there free will? My friends have all denied the existence of free will based on the fact that we are compelled by the synapses occurring in our brain to act as we do. We really have no choice in the matter, and we are merely under the illusion of control. Many philosophers seem to agree with this. My friends claim to have the backing of science on this point. Are they wrong? If so, on what scientific and philosophical grounds can I refute their argument?
3. I’ve been hearing alot about quantum theory and how it eliminates the neccessity of God for a functioning universe. For those of you who know this kind of stuff, is this true? Has quantum theory shoved God out of the picture?
4. A good refutation of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” would be appreciated, though, not as neccessary or urgent as the other points.

Thank you in advance to all of you who respond.

 

[hatsoff]

What bugs me is this; if all spiritual experience can be explained away scientifically and psychologically, where does the soul fit in? If human consciousness can be explained in purely material terms, where, I ask you, does God come into play?

Speaking as an atheist myself, I must point out that these are really two separate issues. I agree that there does not appear to be anything non-material to our minds, but that doesn’t mean there is no soul. It just means the soul is material. Paul tells us that Jesus “will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body” (Php 3:21). In 1Co 15, he elaborates:

51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

So, what does it matter to God if our minds are physical or not? Regardless, we will be changed into immortals when the time is right, according to Paul.

if the human mind is nothing more than a random cluster of chemical reactions and neural tissue, is there free will?

The controversy over free will arises, in my opinion, when people misunderstand how it could possibly work. We all have experiences of making choices, so, if that’s not free will, then what is? Some have tried to define a concept called libertarian free will, but its coherency remains controversial. I’m guessing that your atheist friends only deny the libertarian form. I for one am a compatibilist—that is to say, I hold that (non-libertarian) free will is perfectly compatible with determinism.

By the way, most of the philosophers I’ve encountered have been compatibilists.

I’ve been hearing alot about quantum theory and how it eliminates the neccessity of God for a functioning universe. For those of you who know this kind of stuff, is this true? Has quantum theory shoved God out of the picture?

If God is somehow logically necessary, then quantum mechanics isn’t some magic free pass to deny that. So, is God necessary? As an atheist, of course my answer would be “no.” But quantum mechanics has nothing to do with it.

A good refutation of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” would be appreciated, though, not as neccessary or urgent as the other points.

If you have good reasons for believing in Jesus Christ, then it is not necessary to prove that Russell had reasons, too. Your own reasons are quite enough.

 

[Crumpy]

Faith is faith, and science is science. Faith assures us of things that science is incapable of knowing.

In particular, science cannot prove that anything is good or evil, and we seem to be aware of people fascinated with science who are also fascinated with evil, rather than good. Evil is more interesting than good, to them.

When we encounter people who have no faith, we have reason to be all the more thankful for our faith.

When we confront those who have no faith, we are intellectually and spiritually in the arena with the lions, like the early Christian martyrs.

When I am surrounded or overwhelmed by atheist argument, I do have that hollow fealing because I cannot adequately give that reason for my faith that would be of benefit to these misguided people. My joy is saddened that these people do not believe, do not accept, do not want to be saved, as we know it.

We should have the the highest compassion for such people, and all non-believers. In fact, it’s demanded of us, to love our neighbors, to see the divine dignity in each of these creatures.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Long story short, I’m a troubled theist who has come face to face with some of the bigger, philosophical complexities of faith, and I have a lot of very intelligent, atheist friends. Some of their objections have shaken me to the core, and, I’ll admit it, I’m scared of where the truth might lead me. I have been told by my priest that doubts are normal, but, I can’t help but feel as though I’d be lying to myself and to God if I didn’t pursue the truth, wherever it leads me. So, please, I beg you, help me combat the onslaught of atheism in my life. I apologize if I’m packing too much into 1 post, but, its kind of urgent and I couldn’t really find any topics that sufficiently dealth with the topics I’m wondering about.

if they were your friends, they would respect your beliefs on that level alone. wouldnt they? if they are your friends then have them come here where we can take the pressure of you and put it right back on them. i think you will find that they dont really have arguments as strong as they sound when put under a microscope. dont let peer pressure do your thinking for you.

1. I often wondered what would happen if we put Christian monks who arerelatively skilled in prayer under mental examination. Well, it turns out that we have and there is nothing special going on. All that happened was increased activity in the frontal lobe, decreased awareness in the orientation-sector of the brain. The same thing happened with Buddhist monks. There was no mental difference in the cognitive effects of Buddhist and Christian meditation. What bugs me is this; if all spiritual experience can be explained away scientifically and psychologically, where does the soul fit in? If human consciousness can be explained in purely material terms, where, I ask you, does God come into play?

conciousness cant be explained in purely physical terms. you couldnt program a robot, no matter how sophisticated, to be concious or to have free will, because it would always be choosing from some limited set of options. you cant program an “I”. you can only program it to appear as if it is concious, not for it to actually be concious.

1. Going along with the first point, if the human mind is nothing more than a random cluster of chemical reactions and neural tissue, is there free will? My friends have all denied the existence of free will based on the fact that we are compelled by the synapses occurring in our brain to act as we do. We really have no choice in the matter, and we are merely under the illusion of control. Many philosophers seem to agree with this. My friends claim to have the backing of science on this point. Are they wrong? If so, on what scientific and philosophical grounds can I refute their argument?

science says nothing about free will. it never can, actually. we can exclude physical causation of free will.

free will is incompatible with both possible states of the universe. if the universe is deterministic, and every state is determined by the previous state, then you have no choice. if the universe is indeterministic, and random things happen for no reason, then your free will decisions arent your choice either. so there is no way for free will to be caused physically. this leaves you with the idea that free will may not exist.

the problem of course, is that people make trillions of free will decisions per hour, everyday, for all of known human history, and these decisions always work out. funny that.

so if we dont have free will, how is it that all these decisions we make, just happen? trillions of times per hour, all around the world. and fo rno reason at all?

you are officially allowed to laugh at them when they say such ridiculous things.

1. I’ve been hearing alot about quantum theory and how it eliminates the neccessity of God for a functioning universe. For those of you who know this kind of stuff, is this true? Has quantum theory shoved God out of the picture?

not at all, thats from folks who dont know any better. in order for there to be quantum fluctuations, one must first have a universe. not the otherway around.

1. A good refutation of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” would be appreciated, though, not as neccessary or urgent as the other points.

Thank you in advance to all of you who respond.

thats a long essay. im happy to refute whatever particulars you need though.

this is the right place to come Noah, this is just a real short over view and not an in depth analysis, but we can do those and give you the tools to respond to these people, who are not really your friends if they are interfereing in your relationship with G-d.

we have PhD’s. grad students, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, metaphysicians, and ethicists available. a complete tool set and people willing to help you learn them.

G-d is your friend, and so are we. so dont be afraid, we got this.

 

[ricmat]

1. I often wondered what would happen if we put Christian monks who arerelatively skilled in prayer under mental examination. Well, it turns out that we have and there is nothing special going on. All that happened was increased activity in the frontal lobe, decreased awareness in the orientation-sector of the brain. The same thing happened with Buddhist monks. There was no mental difference in the cognitive effects of Buddhist and Christian meditation. What bugs me is this; if all spiritual experience can be explained away scientifically and psychologically, where does the soul fit in? If human consciousness can be explained in purely material terms, where, I ask you, does God come into play?

So how do you know that nothing happened? Science can’t detect everything. We know that beauty exists, but can it be measured by science? Science couldn’t detect squat 200 years ago. Why would they claim to be able to detect everything now? Those clowns claim that dark matter and dark energy exist - but…drum roll please…nobody has ever detected any.

1. Going along with the first point, if the human mind is nothing more than a random cluster of chemical reactions and neural tissue, is there free will? My friends have all denied the existence of free will based on the fact that we are compelled by the synapses occurring in our brain to act as we do. We really have no choice in the matter, and we are merely under the illusion of control. Many philosophers seem to agree with this. My friends claim to have the backing of science on this point. Are they wrong? If so, on what scientific and philosophical grounds can I refute their argument?

So your friends were forced by their lack of free will to inform you that free will does not exist?

1. I’ve been hearing alot about quantum theory and how it eliminates the neccessity of God for a functioning universe. For those of you who know this kind of stuff, is this true? Has quantum theory shoved God out of the picture?

Let me give you a really useful insight here - although it will not impress your atheist friends. Science doesn’t know nearly as much as it thinks it does. And I say that as an engineer who used science for many years to actually make stuff work.

And I don’t care who your friends are, or how much science they know…there are people who know more science than they do who believe in God. The best “atheist” scientists (the ones who are objective) admit that it is impossible to disprove God.

Don’t lose hope. God is God. Science is not God. Science is a sometimes useful but often grossly incorrect map of physical-only reality.

I can’t stick around to argue…but what you are experiencing is temptation, probably because you were on, or moving towards the right path and “someone” wants you off that path.

Read Wisdom 13, and then feel sorry for your friends. And also remember Lk 6:22-23, and rejoice (for yourself).

BTW - if we don’t have free will, if the universe was programmed to result in e.g. you posting first and me typing this response…then who was the programmer?

 

[mfj]

I say science is awesome!
I also say “hatsoff” is an awesome person. His perception is on the mark and he could have pounced on this thread.

Science will continue to discover things and may some day prove evolution and dark matter. But that don’t take away from Gd.

It would also seem like people are only physical beings, if you look at folk who have had brain damage. What you are not taking into account is the plain fact that we are physical beings and as such we are captive to those physical abilities. Science and medicine have been able to explain alot and fix a lot. The big bang may have happened the way they theorize.

The thing is we are also spiritual and as of today science doesn’t have a tool that detects that. There maybe a way some day. Science can only find out how Gd created things and the laws that keep it all running.

You need to keep seeking the truth but don’t get all your info from one source.
If you fill a trash can with trash, what do you have?
There are no questions that you can ask that people before you haven’t already asked.

Centuries of seekers’ findings are at your fingertips.

One last thing;
Atheists have doubts too! They have to wonder “what if I’m wrong”

 

[mfj]

Oh yeah,
No one said that Budists can’t talk to or be in spirit with Gd.

 

[Think_About_It]

It’s a healthy bit to ponder, free will. If you believe in it, you have to wonder at what point you acquired it. When you were a baby you would sleep, cry, and eat whenever the inclination occured. There was assuredly no free will in it. As you got older, the repertoire of possible things you could do expanded (you could play with a toy, run back and forth through the hallway) - all things you did because you learned that some events are more enjoyable than others, or at least more acceptable. What we do is based on the interaction between what we learn and how our biology reacts to that. That a potential number of things could happen, which we perceive either during or later to be choice, is not evidence of free will. Whatever the option it is you go with (out of a multitude of options), it will be decided based on what you’ve learned (environement) via your capacity to learn it (biology). You might think of a mentally challenged person - absolutely no free will to speak of; they act completetly on whim, like the child. You are on that same continuum. Just because our mental capacities are advanced doesn’t mean we don’t act exactly according to nature - it’s just hard for us to see it sometimes because human behaviour is so variable. Nevertheless, we are physical matter set in motion, like every other living thing.

 

[tonyrey]

You might think of a mentally challenged person - absolutely no free will to speak of; they act completely on whim, like the child. You are on that same continuum. Just because our mental capacities are advanced doesn’t mean we don’t act exactly according to nature - it’s just hard for us to see it sometimes because human behaviour is so variable. Nevertheless, we are physical matter set in motion, like every other living thing.

1. If all our conclusions were caused by physical processes we would have no guarantee any of them are correct.
2. Our conclusions would be far more likely to be wrong because there are** innumerable ** incorrect conclusions but only **one **correct conclusion.
3. The success of science demonstrates that** most** of our conclusions are in fact correct.
4. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that **all **our thoughts are caused by physical processes.

 

[tonyrey]

You might think of a mentally challenged person - absolutely no free will to speak of; they act completely on whim, like the child. You are on that same continuum. Just because our mental capacities are advanced doesn’t mean we don’t act exactly according to nature - it’s just hard for us to see it sometimes because human behaviour is so variable. Nevertheless, we are physical matter set in motion, like every other living thing.

1. If all our conclusions were caused by physical processes they would be far more likely to be incorrect because there are** innumerable ** incorrect conclusions but only **one **correct conclusion.
2. The success of science demonstrates that** most** of our conclusions are in fact correct.
3. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that **all **our conclusions are caused by physical processes.

 

[Think_About_It]

1. If all our conclusions were caused by physical processes they would be far more likely to be incorrect because there are** innumerable ** incorrect conclusions but only **one **correct conclusion.

Not really sure what you’re trying to say here. It sounds like you’re arguing against randomness. I’m not saying things happen by chance, I’m saying they happen within a certain probability. I’m not certain what you mean by one correct conclusion either; to what are you referring?

1. The success of science demonstrates that** most** of our conclusions are in fact correct.

I’m not sure about how this has to do with free will.

1. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that **all **our conclusions are caused by physical processes.

It’s only unlikely if events (or conclusions as you’ve oddly termed them) happened at chance value - if the world was random. That is the opposite of what I’m arguing. The world is, in fact, so ordered, that we can no better escape it’s physical laws than plants can (the physical order of things - the physical laws - affecting both our body and mind in ways that are out of our control)

 

[Thing]

It’s a healthy bit to ponder, free will. If you believe in it, you have to wonder at what point you acquired it. When you were a baby you would sleep, cry, and eat whenever the inclination occured. There was assuredly no free will in it. As you got older, the repertoire of possible things you could do expanded (you could play with a toy, run back and forth through the hallway) - all things you did because you learned that some events are more enjoyable than others, or at least more acceptable. What we do is based on the interaction between what we learn and how our biology reacts to that. That a potential number of things could happen, which we perceive either during or later to be choice, is not evidence of free will. Whatever the option it is you go with (out of a multitude of options), it will be decided based on what you’ve learned (environement) via your capacity to learn it (biology). You might think of a mentally challenged person - absolutely no free will to speak of; they act completetly on whim, like the child. You are on that same continuum. Just because our mental capacities are advanced doesn’t mean we don’t act exactly according to nature - it’s just hard for us to see it sometimes because human behaviour is so variable. Nevertheless, we are physical matter set in motion, like every other living thing.

Does’nt freewill mean you are free to chose between two contradictory paths. Nature and nurture take a back seat when I can freely say I will choose to disregard nature and nurture and do what I don’t want to do or conversely chose not to do what I want to do.
A dog, on the other hand, can never chose freely to eat your steak or not. You may train the dog to obey but if you are not there the dog will obey its instinct only.

 

[Think_About_It]

Does’nt freewill mean you are free to chose between two contradictory paths. Nature and nurture take a back seat when I can freely say I will choose to disregard nature and nurture and do what I don’t want to do or conversely chose not to do what I want to do.
A dog, on the other hand, can never chose freely to eat your steak or not. You may train the dog to obey but if you are not there the dog will obey its instinct only.

What’s contradictory about any path? There is nothing set in stone saying you must behave in such and such a way. You might say “I’ll choose not to eat when I want to.” And I’d say that something caused you to go against what you want or think you should do. Maybe you didn’t eat to prove that you could preform a contradictory act (in a feeble attempt to prove free will); but there would be nothing contradictory about it. You were doing what also is in your nature: going against the grain for some other reason.

You say that a dog will only not eat your steak because of instinct. What’s so different about social conditioning? I’m not going to eat your steak either, because it would be pretty rude of me (I don’t have instincts, but I do have learned behaviour). Maybe if we were cavemen though, Id clonk you over the head with a rock and eat it haha. In the latter case, my act would have been caused by my hunger and impulsivity. In the former cause, I would have restrained myself because social conditioning has trained me as such. But I didnt ask for the body that didn`t ask to be conditioned to act in certain ways either.

 

[Thing]

What’s contradictory about any path? There is nothing set in stone saying you must behave in such and such a way. You might say “I’ll choose not to eat when I want to.” And I’d say that something caused you to go against what you want or think you should do. Maybe you didn’t eat to prove that you could preform a contradictory act (in a feeble attempt to prove free will); but there would be nothing contradictory about it. You were doing what also is in your nature: going against the grain for some other reason.

You say that a dog will only not eat your steak because of instinct. What’s so different about social conditioning? I’m not going to eat your steak either, because it would be pretty rude of me (I don’t have instincts, but I do have learned behaviour). Maybe if we were cavemen though, Id clonk you over the head with a rock and eat it haha. In the latter case, my act would have been caused by my hunger and impulsivity. In the former cause, I would have restrained myself because social conditioning has trained me as such. But I didnt ask for the body that didn`t ask to be conditioned to act in certain ways either.

Two contradictory paths are just two opposite paths. I could eat your steak or I might not eat your steak. These are opposite paths and I am free to chose to do one or the other.
I am also free to decide to ignore any social norms, to not allow them to influence my decision and simply flip a coin, eat your steak or not eat your steak. I can do random things, I can do things without knowing what I am going to do. I can chose to follow a random path or not or to introduce more randomness to the path.
The cow cannot eat the steak the dog cannot resist the steak. I am freer than the dog or the cow; I am so free I can allow randomness to determine the path or I can deliberately engineer a path or two opposite paths.

 

[yppop]

1. I’ve been hearing alot about quantum theory and how it eliminates the neccessity of God for a functioning universe. For those of you who know this kind of stuff, is this true? Has quantum theory shoved God out of the picture?

Hi Pope

A comment on quantum mechanics. Please click on this link:

nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml.pdf

Ah yes quantum mechanics created the world! And here is the blue print that explains all. In this beautifully elegant Lagrangian (the words usually used by physcicists to describe this) is contained all the particles and forces including the Higgs particle, which we are not sure actually exists, but was put in to maintain the symmetry. Of course, the symmetry is right there staring at you and if you can’t find it you must be one of those stupid theists. Oh, I forgot to mention the one little item that was left out, a minor thing called gravity. To put that in one must resort to string theory, the complexity of which makes this Lagrangian look as simple as 1+1=1.9999999999999. (sorry mathematicians). A wooden nickel for the first atheist who can find the neutrino.
Have fun!
Yppop

 

[Think_About_It]

Two contradictory paths are just two opposite paths. I could eat your steak or I might not eat your steak. These are opposite paths and I am free to chose to do one or the other.

It makes for a weak case when you use the word “free” to prove that your actions are “free.” You’re, in effect, trying to proove free will merely by stating that you have it.

I am also free to decide to ignore any social norms, to not allow them to influence my decision and simply flip a coin, eat your steak or not eat your steak.

There are no opposite events; there are just events. If you oppose one social norm, you would just be preforming an alternative (even if it wasn’t the norm). Violating norms doesn’t indicate free will. Violating norms is very much a part of human nature and well instilled in us by both biology (what makes us up) and environment (what taught us how to act). If you ate my steak, there would be a reason for it - something that caused you to do it (maybe you wanted to prove to me that you could violate my expectations) or you could not (you adhered to your usual social graces). Whatever choice you made, it would be because of something else (whatever you were thinking at the time, whatever you neurological make up prompted you to do) - you are not in control of your neurological make-up and you didn’t choose to learn the things that you now think.

I can do random things, I can do things without knowing what I am going to do. I can chose to follow a random path or not or to introduce more randomness to the path.

What would be random about it? Whatever you were going to do originally would be based on what’s in your brain (not your own creation) which assesses the environment (in which you never asked to be placed), thereby interacting with your personal experiences (which are the product of biology and environment). If you choose to change up the path, there would be a reason for that too. Nothing is random. Your very endevour to act randomly is caused by your wanting to proove that you can. Maybe, I caused you to act randomly, for example.

The cow cannot eat the steak the dog cannot resist the steak. I am freer than the dog or the cow;

You act according to what’s in your brain and based on environment cues (both of which are out of your control). You’re not freer than a dog, your behaviour is just more variable. There is a greater range of events, but you’ll still be doing what people do: acting cordially, or not, because of something that prompted you to act that way.

I am so free I can allow randomness to determine the path or I can deliberately engineer a path or two opposite paths.

Your very creation of those two opposing paths will be caused by something. Nothing is excempt from the physical laws of nature. You are part of nature. Your brain cells will do what they were always bound to do, even if the range of possibilites seem endless.

 

[Thing]

It makes for a weak case when you use the word “free” to prove that your actions are “free.” You’re, in effect, trying to proove free will merely by stating that you have it.

There are no opposite events; there are just events. If you oppose one social norm, you would just be preforming an alternative (even if it wasn’t the norm). Violating norms doesn’t indicate free will. Violating norms is very much a part of human nature and well instilled in us by both biology (what makes us up) and environment (what taught us how to act). If you ate my steak, there would be a reason for it - something that caused you to do it (maybe you wanted to prove to me that you could violate my expectations) or you could not (you adhered to your usual social graces). Whatever choice you made, it would be because of something else (whatever you were thinking at the time, whatever you neurological make up prompted you to do) - you are not in control of your neurological make-up and you didn’t choose to learn the things that you now think.

What would be random about it? Whatever you were going to do originally would be based on what’s in your brain (not your own creation) which assesses the environment (in which you never asked to be placed), thereby interacting with your personal experiences (which are the product of biology and environment). If you choose to change up the path, there would be a reason for that too. Nothing is random. Your very endevour to act randomly is caused by your wanting to proove that you can. Maybe, I caused you to act randomly, for example.

You act according to what’s in your brain and based on environment cues (both of which are out of your control). You’re not freer than a dog, your behaviour is just more variable. There is a greater range of events, but you’ll still be doing what people do: acting cordially, or not, because of something that prompted you to act that way.

Your very creation of those two opposing paths will be caused by something. Nothing is excempt from the physical laws of nature. You are part of nature. Your brain cells will do what they were always bound to do, even if the range of possibilites seem endless.

So is your argument that the universe is a sort of closed system where every possible path is … well, possible, because the physics of the universe allows for that.
So, If I turn left or if I turn right, ultimately, it is the universe that decides which direction I turn.
A. The universe is either a sentient thing, not only allowing for a left and right turn, but also going so far as to direct my path the way it has chosen for me.
B. The universe is not a sentient thing; and it cannot direct my path. My path is chosen by my own whims, designs or acts of randomness.

 

[Think_About_It]

So is your argument that the universe is a sort of closed system where every possible path is … well, possible, because the physics of the universe allows for that.
So, If I turn left or if I turn right, ultimately, it is the universe that decides which direction I turn.
A. The universe is either a sentient thing, not only allowing for a left and right turn, but also going so far as to direct my path the way it has chosen for me.
B. The universe is not a sentient thing; and it cannot direct my path. My path is chosen by my own whims, designs or acts of randomness.

Hmm. I would say the universe is not a sentient thing (If i’m interpreting your use of the word sentience correctly), and acts of apperent free will are illusory; in the same way you didn’t control the conglomerate of atoms that would one day turn into you, you also were not the primary arbiter of your turning left or right. If the universe started all over again at the big bang, things would play out exactly the same (granted the bang happened the same way). You would do nothing random to derail the history that was bound from the beginning of time in even the slightest way.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

and acts of apperent free will are illusory; in the same way you didn’t control the conglomerate of atoms that would one day turn into you, you also were not the primary arbiter of your turning left or right. If the universe started all over again at the big bang, things would play out exactly the same (granted the bang happened the same way). You would do nothing random to derail the history that was bound from the beginning of time in even the slightest way.

if free will is an illusion that would strongly imply some design to the scheme.

as we know, in a closed system, if you know the state of the system at the beginning, you can predict with absolute certainty the state of the system at any point along the trajectory of its existence.

what does this mean?

it means that all the trillions of free will decisions made every hour by humanity, and have been made throughout recorded human history, must havebee planned at the start of the system we call the universe. if free will is simply an illusion.

it is as strong a proof of a designed universe as one can get.

now if you say the universe is indeterminstic and random, then i would find it even more amazing that the illusion of free will exists. because then it would have to be happening, for no reason at all. it just happens to turn out that way at every free will decision. which is laughable.

the most parsimonious explanation is that we simply do have unrestricted free will.

 

[Think_About_It]

if free will is an illusion that would strongly imply some design to the scheme.

as we know, in a closed system, if you know the state of the system at the beginning, you can predict with absolute certainty the state of the system at any point along the trajectory of its existence.

Who can predict?

what does this mean?

it means that all the trillions of free will decisions made every hour by humanity, and have been made throughout recorded human history, must havebee planned at the start of the system we call the universe. if free will is simply an illusion.

it is as strong a proof of a designed universe as one can get.

How do you figure? Seems to be some serious leaps here. Explain yourself carefully.

now if you say the universe is indeterminstic and random, then i would find it even more amazing that the illusion of free will exists. because then it would have to be happening, for no reason at all. it just happens to turn out that way at every free will decision. which is laughable.

No, I’m certainly not saying that.