Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A Plea for Understanding

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Shuny, you said: Your assumptions of the nature of science, evolution, and biologically determined, do not fit the view of science at all. We are not mechanistic machines, the nature of the human brain just does not fit that concept.
    Correct, I disagree with your descriptions, as not reflecting science. Science does not describe human or for that matter all forms of life as mechanistic machines.


    That my claim does not "fit" the view of science - but obviously science does not have a view on this subject (your own link points to this). Some scientists think we have free will others don't. And in materialism, if biologically does not determine our thought process, then what does? Where does freedom come in?
    Yes, of course, there is disagreement concerning the nature of human 'Free Will' among scientists. The research is actually very very new and recent. Because we are dealing with the complexity of human behavior any research at present could only possibly deal with a limited aspect of human will and behavior as my source described.

    IF our behavior and will is biologically determined, as science describes, from the perspective of science, our brains are not simply mechanistic in nature. For humans and actually some other higher mammals, the decision making process naturally have some freedom or flexibility in 'choices,' as a part of the evolving intelligence.

    This why I describe it as, "We have a 'Will,' but it is not necessarily Free."
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-28-2014, 08:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    seer

    I did object to the generalization about science, particularly using Dawkins as an authority on Free Will. Yes, Sam Harris does propose that humans do not have free will based on some ongoing research. But, he still does not represent all scientist concerning Free Will. The following provides a different view that the question of Free Will is not resolved.

    Shuny, you said: Your assumptions of the nature of science, evolution, and biologically determined, do not fit the view of science at all. We are not mechanistic machines, the nature of the human brain just does not fit that concept.

    That my claim does not "fit" the view of science - but obviously science does not have a view on this subject (your own link points to this). Some scientists think we have free will others don't. And in materialism, if biologically does not determine our thought process, then what does? Where does freedom come in?
    Last edited by seer; 01-28-2014, 06:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    seer

    I did object to the generalization about science, particularly using Dawkins as an authority on Free Will. Yes, Sam Harris does propose that humans do not have free will based on some ongoing research. But, he still does not represent all scientist concerning Free Will. The following provides a different view that the question of Free Will is not resolved.

    Originally posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
    Some thinkers like neuroscientist and philosopher Adina Roskies think these studies can still only show, unsurprisingly, that physical factors in the brain are involved before decision making. In contrast, Haggard believes that "We feel we choose, but we don't".[8] Researcher John-Dylan Haynes adds "How can I call a will 'mine' if I don't even know when it occurred and what it has decided to do?".[8] Philosophers Walter Glannon and Alfred Mele think some scientists are getting the science right, but misrepresenting modern philosophers. This is mainly because "free will" can mean many things: It is unclear what someone means when they say "free will does not exist". Mele and Glannon say that the available research is more evidence against any dualistic notions of free will - but that is an "easy target for neuroscientists to knock down".[8] Mele says that most discussions of free will are now had in materialistic terms. In these cases, "free will" means something more like "not coerced" or that "the person could have done otherwise at the last moment". The existence of these types of free will is debatable. Mele agrees, however, that science will continue to reveal critical details about what goes on in the brain during decision making.[8]

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Well Shuny, you made a broad statement about science. I mean you do know that scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris do not believe we have free will - correct?
    I did not make a broad statement about science. I said the opinion of Richard Dawkins did not represent science. You have brought another scientist into the mix. At least Sam Harris is more qualified, and yes he believes humans do not have free will.

    We can start here with a dialogue about Free Will, but Dawkins is not competent other then to express his opinion on the subject. more to follow . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnnyP
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    I'm still confused by what you mean by "heavenly realm."
    There are concepts especially in Judaism that for some things on Earth like the Mishkan/Tabernacle/Temple, there is a Heavenly counterpart. And also, that Heaven isn't somewhere in the clouds, but right here with us. Something like dimensions existing together in the same "space" only we are generally unable to perceive it from our Earth dimension.

    The following image is an example of the Heavenly Garden existing in the same location on Earth as east of Eden, only in another dimension that we can't perceive. If you can imagine the "Heavenly Dimension" being like an "overlay" to the "Earth Dimension" not up in the clouds but existing along with it. In other words, explorers aren't going to find the Garden of Eden, Tree of Life, or anything like that here on Earth, it's in a Heavenly dimension. Note that I'm not saying this is where the Garden actually is, this is only an example to illustrate the general idea (click to make larger):

    gardendimensions.jpg

    Originally posted by whag View Post
    Also, I'm trying to find where you get that Satan was Adam's helper. What was he tasked to help him with?
    Where creatures of Genesis 2 have similar qualities to cherubim of Ezekiel (though perhaps not exactly the same), and Satan is a cherub and a beast of the field intended to be a helper to Adam:

    Ezekiel 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle. Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle (ox), and to the fowl of the air (eagle), and to every beast of the field (lion); but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made...Revelation 20:2 ...that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan...
    Since the Serpent was focused on the Tree of Knowledge, it is only my speculation that his job was to help Adam and Eve stay away from it, but did the opposite. In general I view cherubim as tasked to help humans with various spiritual matters and in worshiping God. Conversely, Satan and his angels (demons) are focused on foiling humans spiritually.

    Originally posted by whag View Post
    I'm glad you agree with natural scientific epistemology, which has found that predation, disease, and natural disasters have occurred since life formed. When Jesus was creating, did he know he was creating, did he intend to create a system where animals ate each other and humans were in the way of hurricanes?
    I don't believe Jesus was omniscient until after the incarnation so in that sense he didn't program all things to happen, but until then was given some foreknowledge by the Father so I think he knew in a general way life would suffer sometimes, much the way us parents know that children we bring into the world may suffer sometimes. Knowing this, many of us still choose to bring children into the world with hopes that the experience of living and the good times will ultimately make all the suffering worth it.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
    Some sources say first predation can be traced to over 500 million years ago, viruses since the first cells 3.4 billion years ago. I go with scientific findings in other words. Can you define calamity further?

    So as for Genesis 1, my position that the Son was the non-omniscient creator, but he was given foreknowledge to see that his commands given on certain days would bring forth life as intended, even if the actual process took millions or billions of years to complete. And that each day of creation commands were given aren't consecutive, also perhaps millions or billions of years apart.

    Further again, creations of Genesis 2 being in a heavenly realm not on earth don't need to coincide with or even have the same nature as life on earth. For example, fruits of the Garden may be some kind of spiritual substance or actual energy, rather than literal apples or figs.
    I'm still confused by what you mean by "heavenly realm." Also, I'm trying to find where you get that Satan was Adam's helper. What was he tasked to help him with?

    I'm glad you agree with natural scientific epistemology, which has found that predation, disease, and natural disasters have occurred since life formed. When Jesus was creating, did he know he was creating, did he intend to create a system where animals ate each other and humans were in the way of hurricanes?
    Last edited by whag; 01-27-2014, 04:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnnyP
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    I hope you have a little more respect for your ancestor by now.
    It's not said whether Adam had interest or didn't, point is God put Adam out of the Garden so he wouldn't be immortal.

    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    I hope you have a little more respect for your ancestor by now.
    My very distant ancestors may be apes not Adam. But my ancestors fell in their own ways as I do, I don't disrespect any of them since none were utterly evil as far as I know. Well one of them may have been King Penda of Mercia, sometimes said to be the last pagan King of England who persecuted Christians, he may not have been a nice guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
    He was immortal as long as allowed access to the Tree of Life.
    Adam never shows the slightest interest in the tree of life. The tree of life is a very minor detail in the story and serves only to explain why men are mortal creatures. I hope you have a little more respect for your ancestor by now.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    No problem, but you to need to take responsible for those you cite including Tassman.
    Well Shuny, you made a broad statement about science. I mean you do know that scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris do not believe we have free will - correct?

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnnyP
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    Adam was never immortal –
    “then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
    He was preventing from becoming immortal –
    “Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever - ”
    He was immortal as long as allowed access to the Tree of Life.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    That is funny because Tassman, in another thread, posted a link to Stephen Hawking who says that science pretty much shows that free will is an illusion:

    http://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumb...e-grand-design
    However the theory of "free won't" allows for free will:

    “Free will is an illusion,” Harris writes. “Our wills are simply not of our own making.”

    ...

    True enough. But if we define free will as the power to do otherwise, the choice to veto one impulse over another is free won't. Free won't is veto power over innumerable neural impulses tempting us to act in one way, such that our decision to act in another way is a real choice. -Scientific American

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Well you might want to take that up with Tass.
    No problem, but you to need to take responsible for those you cite including Tassman.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Not funny at all, citing one scientist does not equal the conclusion of science. Besides Hawking is a theoretical physicist, he can of course express his opinion, but he is not remotely involved with the academics of the fields involved in this or the research involved. He is better off describing dark matter and energy.
    Well you might want to take that up with Tass.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    That is funny because Tassman, in another thread, posted a link to Stephen Hawking who says that science pretty much shows that free will is an illusion:

    http://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumb...e-grand-design
    Not funny at all, citing one scientist does not equal the conclusion of science. Besides Hawking is a theoretical physicist, he can of course express his opinion, but he is not remotely involved with the academics of the fields involved in this or the research involved. He is better off describing dark matter and energy.

    What is funny, is you are willing to quote Hawking's opinion in a field that he has no academic qualifications, but avoid quoting him within his field of theoretical physics and cosmology concerning infinity and the cosmos. Mighty fine cherry picking to suit your arguments.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-27-2014, 10:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Your assumptions of the nature of science, evolution, and biologically determined, do not fit the view of science at all. We are not mechanistic machines, the nature of the human brain just does not fit that concept. We did not drop out of the sky as ready made watches, computers or 747s. We evolved as complex intelligent problem solving omnivores.

    That is funny because Tassman, in another thread, posted a link to Stephen Hawking who says that science pretty much shows that free will is an illusion:

    http://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumb...e-grand-design

    Stephen Hawking on Free Will - The Grand Design

    Scientific determinism: Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past.

    Since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well. Many, however, while accepting that scientific determinism governs physical processes, would make an exception for human behaviour because they believe we have free will.

    Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behaviour automatic and within the realm of scientific law?

    Although we feel that we can chose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws… It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.
    Last edited by seer; 01-27-2014, 08:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Whag, I want to flesh out this idea of freedom of thought a bit more. You are an evolutionist correct? You don't believe in a God or an immaterial soul - right? How can free thought exist in your world view? Are we not then biologically determined in how we respond to stimuli and think or come to our conclusions? Where is the freedom in that?
    Your assumptions of the nature of science, evolution, and biologically determined, do not fit the view of science at all. We are not mechanistic machines, the nature of the human brain just does not fit that concept. We did not drop out of the sky as ready made watches, computers or 747s. We evolved as complex intelligent problem solving omnivores.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-27-2014, 07:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
39 responses
230 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
305 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X