God, Free Will & Contingency

Does God exist? Is Allah God? Creation vs. evolution.
Is Religion needed? Logic vs. faith. Morality and ethics.
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by skynightblaze »

BBG wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:
Muhammad Bin lyin wrote:Anyway, just my two cents. I know you're better than me and above any conversation with me, so I do not expect any reply, nor would I even prefer one.

Bye. :lol:
Well he still hasnt used his trump card! Beware of him . The last argument could be but the book(quran) says it that we have free will :lol: . Game over you would be trapped! :lol:
The Cat is not a muslim.
I used to think like that but I am not sure now . I ,MBL and The Cat had discussion/debate in the following thread

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6206&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He seems to genuinely believe that quran is true.Have a look at this thread and you will know why we both are laughing at the CAT.It all started from here. I dont have any grudge or personal enmity with him but we would just like to laugh on him for his belief in the quran inspite of being a non muslim.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Tue May 25, 2010 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »


Fathom,

First we need to agree upon our disagreement before I respond to your post above.
Do you agree in our disagreement as I listed below?

AbdulRahman wrote:Fathom,
Fathom wrote:If everything must follow the so-called strict "laws of nature" as you claim, how then does the human animal pervert those laws with his creative abilities?
We can alter the natural state of things with genetic engineering and the like, defying the laws of nature with our own creativity.
OK, fair enough. Let's agree to disagree on the following. Once we agree on the following disagreement then we can debate further on these.

Fathom thinks human and animal breaks the laws of nature.
Fathom thinks genetic enginering violates the laws of nature, human creativity defy the laws of nature.
Fathom also thinks there is no such thing as truth.
Fathom wrote:When will you understand that there is no such thing as the truth?
Wehreas:
Abdul thinks neither, human nor animal, nor any entity in the entire universe breaks the laws of nature.
Abdul thinks, manupulation of genetics codes is not the violation of laws of nature. But changing the ratio of circumference to diameter in uniform gravity, or value of e, or 2+2 = 4, or Universal gravitational constant, or speed of light, or mass of electron, or plank constant, or similar charges repell each other are violation of laws of nature.
[Genetic codes and human brain are built on top of the above fundamental laws of nature.]
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Tue May 25, 2010 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
BBG
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:35 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by BBG »

skynightblaze wrote:
BBG wrote:
The Cat is not a muslim.
I used to think like that but I am not sure now . I ,MBL and The Cat had discussion/debate in the following thread

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6206&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He seems to genuinely believe that quran is true.Have a look at this thread and you will know why we both are laughing at the CAT.It all started from here. I dont have any grudge or personal enmity with him but we would just like to laugh on him for his belief in the quran inspite of being a non muslim.

I see! didn't know about that discussion.

But i have always found his comments and arguments interesting.
Last edited by BBG on Tue May 25, 2010 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
BBG
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:35 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by BBG »

The Cat wrote: Free Will as emergence is spontaneous, an original phenomena stemming out from many convergent facts. Such emergences range from the Big Bang up to hurricanes, and going throughout evolution. They are creatives and perpetually reshaping the old patterns. So the laws of Nature constantly must adapt themselves: they are not so much presiding as adjusting to the constant interactions created by Free Will, as manifest in evolution! Nature is in a constant state of re-creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Emergent structures are patterns not created by a single event or rule. Nothing commands the system to form a pattern. Instead, the interaction of each part with its immediate surroundings causes a complex chain of processes leading to some order. One might conclude that emergent structures are more than the sum of their parts because the emergent order will not arise if the various parts are simply coexisting; the interaction of these parts is central. Emergent structures can be found in many natural phenomena, from the physical to the biological domain.

The HUP wiggle room has been disproved (as well as the EPR locality theory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg ... _principle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Cat, i have read your link about Emergence and i get an impression that you are arguing for soft determinism. But since emergent structures emerge from interactions between various types of determinisms as you described earlier, although one may think there is free will as one can choose between various contrary determinisms, i feel it is not.

See also the Free Will theorem (2006) based on Kochen-Specker Theorem and Bell's. Since according to them, Free Will is also the determining factor among particles then it's the one thing ordering the laws of Nature, simply reacting or adapting to emergences, or evolution. The Big bang itself being such an emergence, out of the particle's Free Will. Same is found throughout the evolution process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen-Specker_theorem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (excerpt)
The theorem proves that there is a contradiction between two basic assumptions of hidden variable theories intended to reproduce the results of quantum mechanics: that all hidden variables corresponding to quantum mechanical observables have definite values at any given time, and that the values of those variables are intrinsic and independent of the device used to measure them. The contradiction is generated by the fact that quantum mechanical observables need not be commutative, making it impossible to embed the algebra of these observables in a commutative algebra, by assumption representing the classical structure of the hidden variables theory.

The Kochen-Specker proof demonstrates the impossibility of Einstein's assumption, made in the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper (EPR theory of locality), that quantum mechanical observables represent `elements of physical reality'. More generally does the theorem exclude hidden variable theories requiring elements of physical reality to be noncontextual (i.e. independent of the measurement arrangement). (....) Considerably simpler proofs than the Kochen-Specker one were given later, amongst others, by Mermin and by Peres.
The Free Will Theorem
http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/theorem.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (excerpts)
A theorem recently propounded (2006) by Princeton mathematicians John Conway (who invented the famous Game of Life) and Simon Kochen (mentioned above) supports a powerful challenge to the scientific credentials of determinism, by showing that two cornerstones of contemporary science, namely acceptance of the scientific method as a reliable way of finding out about the world, and relativity theory’s exclusion of faster-than-light transmission of information, together conflict with determinism, in both its versions. Belief in determinism may thus come to be seen as notably unscientific. (...)

The bottom line is that, if determinism and the SPIN and FIN axioms are all maintained, there would have to be directions such that, if measurements were made for those directions by experimenter A and experimenter B, the TWIN axiom would be contradicted. The only way that both determinism and all three axioms can be maintained together would be to postulate that the experimenters are somehow prevented from measuring for these directions: that is, as Conway and Kochen put it, that the experimenters do not have free will to measure for these directions. (...)

Since the causal antecedents of the experimenters (or of whatever it is that determines which measurements are made) may be effectively independent of the causal antecedents of the particles being measured, such a limitation on what measurements can be made would require not merely determinism but a thoroughgoing conspiracy of nature. As Conway and Kochen point out, this in turn would undermine the scientific method, because it would mean that scientists cannot have access to random samples but rather are sometimes prevented by a conspiracy of nature from making measurements that if made would refute a hypothesis being tested.
We're afraid of this vertiginous perpetual creation surrounding us all so we invent all kinds of determinisms to 'keep us back on track', yet they only cause more authoritarian disarrays and coercions. Maybe, just like the Egyptian Khepri, we should learn to become creation ourself... as the mystics were telling us from immemorial times. We don't and stick to our fabricated determinisms because basically we are frighten of freedom. Politically thus, only a liberal democracy renders the orderly freedom expressed by Nature, through the evolution stressed by constant emergences.
I have read the above and the links given by you, and i feel it is a very complex subject to which there are no easy answers.

So i will be reading how the debate between the rest of you proceeds further. it is an interesting subject and debate here so far has been very interesting too. Hope to learn much more from you all!
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by skynightblaze »

BBG wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:
BBG wrote:
The Cat is not a muslim.
I used to think like that but I am not sure now . I ,MBL and The Cat had discussion/debate in the following thread

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6206&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He seems to genuinely believe that quran is true.Have a look at this thread and you will know why we both are laughing at the CAT.It all started from here. I dont have any grudge or personal enmity with him but we would just like to laugh on him for his belief in the quran inspite of being a non muslim.

I see! didn't know about that discussion.

But i have always found his comments and arguments interesting.
I have no problem with his other arguments but the arguments concerning quran and the hadith seem faulty to me.He uses an academic approach to understand islam which is completely wrong. To understand quran one must understand muhammad. Quran is a collection of ramblings of a mad man with very little depth .I think he was wrong but you may think otherwise.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by charleslemartel »

AbdulRahman wrote:One can't exclude anything from the future possibilities.
Our entire scientific knowledge could be proven to be wrong and naive 200 years from now. We might develop a completely new set of laws of physics that could explain things even better. Yup, anything is possible. Including you finding out that Abdul Rahman is the real god who created you and your forefathers. The only reason you can't understand this is because you are using wrong kind of logic/science. But one day, after you die you will find out Abdul Rahman is the God.

Using future knowledge, "Anything goes"

Obviously, the logical conclusion is that whenever two intelligent entities (Cahrles and Abdul) debate/communicate, it must be done according to all the knowledge human knows as of today.
If we want to just fantasies, or explore all kind of possibilities, weirdoes then we do not have to abide by this constrain.
So far the advancement of science has shown us one thing: knowledge is power. If one knows about something and has access to it, it is possible to manipulate,and have some control over, it without violating any of the fundamental laws.

We never knew that the natural laws allowed us the freedom to fly, to genetically modify living organisms and so on.

Knowledge also allows greater degrees of freedom.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote:Let's agree to disagree on the following. Once we agree on the following disagreement then we can debate further on these.

Fathom thinks human and animal breaks the laws of nature.
More accurately, the human animal breaks and/or alters the laws of nature via employing his creative abilities.
AbdulRahman wrote:Fathom thinks genetic enginering violates the laws of nature, human creativity defy the laws of nature.
More accurately, genetic engineering can alter the natural state of things.
AbdulRahman wrote:Fathom also thinks there is no such thing as truth.
What is truth? It is supposed to be an indisputable fact, yet everything is disputable depending upon the perspective of the critics. Does 1 + 1 always equal 2? My example of the hunter and the lions disputes that because of perception. As far as that hunter is concerned, he sees 3 X the lion, and not 2.
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

AbdulRahman wrote:To the rational people like Cahrles:
Charles wrote:
Abdul wrote:4. I will add, even if one, by meditation, fully integrates his/her conscious and subconscious mind the question of Free Will stays. Still there is no free will because no part of our subconscious or conscious mind is independent of laws of nature. There still going to be cause and effect in our brain. And we do not control the part that is not based on cause and effect as in HUP.
Who could have thought that one day humans would be able to tame electricity? Who could have imagined that humans would someday be able to defy gravity and fly in the air? Who could have thought that humans would one day be able to extend their sight and hearing so much that they would be able to see and hear someone speaking on the other side of the globe?
One can't exclude anything from the future possibilities.
Even if one could have perfect knowledge of all of the factors? You just contradicted yourself, mister all knowing cross eyes :lol: . According to determinism, with complete and perfect knowledge, there is only one possible outcome which could be correctly predicted with certainty and all others are excluded. You have a hard time with philosophy, which is what determinism really is, don't you. It is a philosophical question that might use science or might not. Don't worry, it's actually a very difficult subject for many, even those who can easily grasp science.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by yeezevee »

It is a philosophical question that might use science or might not. Don't worry, it's actually a very difficult subject for many, even those who can easily grasp science.
There is a fundamental difference between a just Philosopher and those with the background of basic science. Social/political Philosophers generally do not reach agreement for a solution of a problem. They go on arguing until their death who is right and who is wrong after that their follower do the same thing. It is a never ending chit-chat which some times will lead to political fights. These guys normally do not resolve the issues on which they differ.

Where as in the case of scientists they do reach an agreement at least with-in the circle of those who are regarded as competent to judge a given field at a given time. one of the fundamental premises of a scientist is "Never consider anything absolute and always give some room to improve. Usually scientist always allow to question the concepts including their own.
Last edited by yeezevee on Wed May 26, 2010 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

skynightblaze wrote:
BBG wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: The Cat is not a muslim.
I used to think like that but I am not sure now . I ,MBL and The Cat had discussion/debate in the following thread
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6206&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He seems to genuinely believe that quran is true.Have a look at this thread and you will know why we both are laughing at the CAT.It all started from here. I dont have any grudge or personal enmity with him but we would just like to laugh on him for his belief in the quran inspite of being a non muslim.
I see! didn't know about that discussion.
But i have always found his comments and arguments interesting.
I have no problem with his other arguments but the arguments concerning quran and the hadith seem faulty to me.He uses an academic approach to understand islam which is completely wrong. To understand quran one must understand muhammad. Quran is a collection of ramblings of a mad man with very little depth .I think he was wrong but you may think otherwise.

skynightblaze,

Please do not bring up other topic here. Please start a new thread for Quran or any other topic.
Leave this thread strictly for Free Will/No Free Will, please.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Tue May 25, 2010 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom,
Fathom wrote:
Let us go back in time to a cave man. This cave man is a hunter of lions. He has always hunted mature adult lions for his tribe. He knows everything about hunting lions. Then, one day he was standing outside his cave, and he seen a lion running towards him. The lion is the same size as every lion he has ever seen. His mind sees 1 lion.

Suddenly, he sees another lion also running towards him, twice the size as the first lion. It is the largest lion he has ever seen; twice the size of any lion he has ever seen. In his mind he remembers seeing 2 lions in the past, but he has never seen anything like this before. In the past, he would stand and face two lions, but never 3 or more. But at this moment, although there are only 2 lions, he computes that there are 3 because one of them is twice the size as a normal lion.

In the mind of that cave man, 1 + 1 = 3 because one of the lions is twice as large as normal. He sees 3 X the lion, instead of 2 X.

My point? Stringent mathematics can only show you part of the whole picture, but not all of it. There are other ways of understanding what we see.
Fathom,
When you want to defend your illogical idea of Free Will then you should ask people with scientific background to come up with an analogy/question instead of the one you wrote above.
Here it is:
If with one eye a person can see one mile down the road then with 2 eyes how far he/she can see?
See the difference ?
A scientifically trained person will always outsmart a theologian. Theologians do not use their brain as much as scientists do.
Point is we, the scientists and philosopher, consider Everything under the sun, abstract, non-abstract, seen, unseen, illusion, reality, what you, theologian can or can't think. We even debate among ourselves and try to disprove each other.
Here are the lists of your foolish arguments that you couldn't back it up and probably now realize some of your logical mistakes.

In connection to my 15-ball pool game you wrote:
1
. Since no one can actually demonstrate the big-bang therefore, chain of cause and effect is not valid.
Then you wrote:
2.
Since computers are not self-aware therefore, they do not have Free Will but human beings are self-aware therefore, human has Free Will.
3.
Then you tried to take the default position for Free Will and did not do the symmetrical thought experiment to realize that default position could go to the opposite view point as well.
Then in response to my comment "Rules" [Laws of nature] negate "Free Will":
4.
If that were true, the prisons would be empty.
Then you wrote:
5.
human and animal breaks the laws of nature.
another stupid idea,
6.
genetic engineering violates the laws of nature
yet another
7.
human creativity defy the laws of nature.
you are not aware of the fact that none of the above defy laws of nature.
and mother of all stupidity...
8.
there is no such thing as truth.
You should have thought that I am then going to ask you "Is the existence of Free Will a truth?"
Are you ashamed of your own stupidity yet?

Reason, logic, science rules...
Fathom, when are you going to learn to reason, think before you say or type something?
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Wed May 26, 2010 1:10 am, edited 4 times in total.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Mohammad Bin Lying,
Abdul wrote:One can't exclude anything from the future possibilities.
Scroll up and read the whole thing, please.
I wrote to Charles, that since nothing can be excluded from the future knowledge it is senseless to conclude something on the basis of what we do not know. In the future, you might be able to see that I am your Papa. I created you, I am god.
See, in such a case, anything goes.
Any stupid statement can be justified by saying in the future we will find it to be true.

I said, therefore, we should always conclude on the basis of what we know as of today.

Why you folks are so dumb?
It is because of your theistic mind.
Islam or Christianity has damage a part of your neural network.
I can help you to repair it.
Please use your brain instead of your heart.
MBL wrote:According to determinism, with complete and perfect knowledge, there is only one possible outcome which could be correctly predicted with certainty and all others are excluded.
False.
We do not need to know all the laws of nature in perfection to conclude that as long as there are strict laws of nature in place there can't be anything free. No Free Will. We are aware of the fact that we do not know everything. But this conclusion of No Free Will is on the basis of what we know so far.
MBL wrote:It is a philosophical question that might use science or might not.
FAlse again.
Not "might" but always use reason and science.
We scientists always use reason, logic, math and science to solve all problems. Philosophy that doesn't comply reason/science is a fairy tale.
MBL wrote:Don't worry, it's actually a very difficult subject for many, even those who can easily grasp science.
It may be difficult for you to understand because you are using your faith.
You got a theistic mind. Part of your brain is damaged by Islamic teaching when you were very young.
Conclusion of No Free Will is very simple when one uses undamaged brain.
Use your brain more often and use your heart less.

There is no shortage of morons.
Look for one and I find 10 around me.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Charles,

You have not answer this question. Please answer it.

Given the fact that your logical mind is recognizing that all the evidence AND logic are against Free Will but something in you telling you not to give up on Free Will yet.
Where this thought, idea, wish, desire, urge is originating from? On what basis?
How it is any different from the Faith in God, Allah, Jesus, or Bhagvan?


Please keep function of limbic system, subconscious and conscious mind (frontal lobe) in mind. Also remember, early evolution has developed some readymade short cut in the brain (limbic system) for the survival purpose that are not necessarily true in all circumstances. I assume, you are also aware of the fact that many of our body function, and part of the brain works without our permission or knowledge.

Charles wrote:Knowledge also allows greater degrees of freedom.
Isn't that an illusion?
Chain of freedom has to be free all the way, from one end to another.
Your thinking of knowledge gave us freedom is analogous to measuring the strength of a chain by its strongest link. As you know it is the weakest link that will determine the strength of the chain and so is the case with Free Will.

Remember, Mr. Smith inside the Matrix movie thinks and feel he got the freedom but that is just a software program.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Wed May 26, 2010 1:14 am, edited 3 times in total.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

The Cat,
[color=#FF0000] [b]The Cat[/b][/color] wrote:Free Will is a spontaneous act. When jumping into water to save someone, you don't think: You jump and/or call for help. You ACT.
Free Will escapes time process...
"You don't think"?
Or one is unaware of the fact that his/her brain computed in subconscious level and even in the lover than subconscious level (limbic system) and decided to jump and save a life.
Subconscious mind is found to be 800 times faster than conscious mind. Limbic system some time is even faster.

Your above statement is really a moronic statement.
One doesn't not to deny the fact and the importance of Love, emotion, compassion, forgiveness, passion etc. These are present in human psyche and are useful for human flurishment. But that doesn't mean we should lose the sight of reason, logic, rationality, and science to understand these. Everything must be explained using reason, logic, science or just say, we can't explain that yet.

Look what you wrote becasue you lost the sight of reason.
[color=#FF0000] [b]The Cat[/b][/color] wrote:Free Will is a spontaneous act. When jumping into water to save someone, you don't think: You jump and/or call for help. You ACT.
Free Will escapes time process...
In the future please think with your brain not with your heart.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Wed May 26, 2010 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

AbdulRahman wrote:Mohammad Bin Lying,
Abdul wrote:One can't exclude anything from the future possibilities.
Scroll up and read the whole thing, please.
I wrote to Charles, that since nothing can be excluded from the future knowledge it is senseless to conclude something on the basis of what we do not know. In the future, you might be able to see that I am your Papa. I created you, I am god.
See, in such a case, anything goes.
Any stupid statement can be justified by saying in the future we will find it to be true.

I said, therefore, we should always conclude on the basis of what we know as of today.

Why you folks are so dumb?
It is because of your theistic mind.
Islam or Christianity has damage a part of your neural network.
I can help you to repair it.
Please use your brain instead of your heart.
MBL wrote:According to determinism, with complete and perfect knowledge, there is only one possible outcome which could be correctly predicted with certainty and all others are excluded.
False.
We do not need to know all the laws of nature in perfection to conclude that as long as there are strict laws of nature in place there can't be anything free. No Free Will. We are aware of the fact that we do not know everything. But this conclusion of No Free Will is on the basis of what we know so far.
You stupid, cross eyed moron. Again, you...just....don't....get....it. Can you understand that if, with perfect knowledge of all factors of any given moment, that determinism would say that we can, with 100% certainty, predict the reaction to the stimulus?? Can you understand that? Can you? Can you??
AbdulRahman wrote:
MBL wrote:It is a philosophical question that might use science or might not.
FAlse again.
The question of free will has been around far longer than anything that you would consider to be science. What is the matter with you?? Why didn't you think about that, know it all??
AbdulRahman wrote: Not "might" but always use reason and science.
We scientists always use reason, logic, math and science to solve all problems. Philosophy that doesn't comply reason/science is a fairy tale.
Oh for sh!t's sake, you really are that dense aren't you. You really have no idea what I'm talking about, don't you. :crazy: What does philosophy use??? Reason, right??? Right??? Right??? Where did math come from?? From reason, right?? right?? What do philosophers use?? Reason, right? right?? Where did math come from?? Philosophers, right?? Right?? Could science exist without reason and math??? So what does science owe it's existence to?? Philosophy. Philosophy created the "reasoning" mind. See if you can get in touch with that mind. :lol:
AbdulRahman wrote:
MBL wrote:Don't worry, it's actually a very difficult subject for many, even those who can easily grasp science.
It may be difficult for you to understand because you are using your faith.
Who said one effin word about faith?? One effin word!!! Let's go, answer that and see that you cannot and see how twisted and distorted your perception of what is being said to you is. Congratulations mister machine. You're an electric basket case.

AbdulRahman wrote:
You got a theistic mind.
And you are out of your mind. You cannot even reason properly, nor follow a conversation nor understand what people say to you. Regardless of God, no God, you cannot reason properly and it's been very obvious all throughout this thread, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if I wasn't the only person that thought this, but the only one willing to come out and say it. :crazy:
AbdulRahman wrote: Part of your brain is damaged by Islamic teaching when you were very young.
Conclusion of No Free Will is very simple when one uses undamaged brain.
Use your brain more often and use your heart less.

There is no shortage of morons.
Look for one and I find 10 around me.
And the saddest part is that you are actually so sure of yourself.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

AbdulRahman wrote: Everything must be explained using reason, logic, science or just say, we can't explain that yet.
:lol: Isn't that what some people say when talking about an afterlife or even the existence of God?? :D Forget about whether you or I are right for a moment, and just stare at the flawed thinking methodology you use where you do not understand when you do the same thing that you don't like others doing, when it's convenient for you. You need to get your arms around that "consistency" thingee when it comes to formulating your ideas.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote:Fathom,
Fathom wrote:
Let us go back in time to a cave man. This cave man is a hunter of lions. He has always hunted mature adult lions for his tribe. He knows everything about hunting lions. Then, one day he was standing outside his cave, and he seen a lion running towards him. The lion is the same size as every lion he has ever seen. His mind sees 1 lion.

Suddenly, he sees another lion also running towards him, twice the size as the first lion. It is the largest lion he has ever seen; twice the size of any lion he has ever seen. In his mind he remembers seeing 2 lions in the past, but he has never seen anything like this before. In the past, he would stand and face two lions, but never 3 or more. But at this moment, although there are only 2 lions, he computes that there are 3 because one of them is twice the size as a normal lion.

In the mind of that cave man, 1 + 1 = 3 because one of the lions is twice as large as normal. He sees 3 X the lion, instead of 2 X.

My point? Stringent mathematics can only show you part of the whole picture, but not all of it. There are other ways of understanding what we see.
Fathom,
When you want to defend your illogical idea of Free Will then you should ask people with scientific background to come up with an analogy/question instead of the one you wrote above.
Here it is:
If with one eye a person can see one mile down the road then with 2 eyes how far he/she can see?

See the difference?
Your question is ridiculous, and it does not counter my analogy in any way whatsoever. Obviously you have not employed the ability to understand the perspective, for if you did you would know how to answer to it. Clearly, I must provide the answer for you.

Mathematically 1 + 1 = 2. This is supposedly true in mathematics.
In my analogy, 1 + 1 = 3. This is supposedly true according to the perspective of the hunter.

Therefore, how can both be true? Can you answer that question?
AbdulRahman wrote: A scientifically trained person will always outsmart a theologian. Theologians do not use their brain as much as scientists do.
Point is we, the scientists and philosopher, consider Everything under the sun, abstract, non-abstract, seen, unseen, illusion, reality, what you, theologian can or can't think.
If that was true, how then did you utterly fail to understand my analogy?
Here are the lists of your foolish arguments that you couldn't back it up and probably now realize some of your logical mistakes.

In connection to my 15-ball pool game you wrote:
1
. Since no one can actually demonstrate the big-bang therefore, chain of cause and effect is not valid.
Then you wrote:
I wrote no such argument as you've listed above. My argument was "Since no one can demonstrate the origin of existence, "determinism" can not be validated." Determinism absolutely requires an origin to be true, and so far no origin has been proven. All you have is theory.

You have demonstrated an inability to dispute this very simple fact.
AbdulRahman wrote:
Since computers are not self-aware therefore, they do not have Free Will but human beings are self-aware therefore, human has Free Will.
You have not disputed this whatsoever, but only keep quoting it without actually disputing it. You might be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but ...

You will not fool me at any time.
AbdulRahman wrote:3.
Then you tried to take the default position for Free Will and did not do the symmetrical thought experiment to realize that default position could go to the opposite view point as well.
I take the default position for Free Will for the simple fact that it is the only position that can be demonstrated evidentially. The only way to provide evidence for Determinism is to prove an origin, and currently that is not possible.

Can you conclusively prove that Determinism had an origin? No? Then what are you arguing about?


Then in response to my comment "Rules" [Laws of nature] negate "Free Will":
4.
If that were true, the prisons would be empty.
5.
human and animal breaks the laws of nature.
another stupid idea,
6.
genetic engineering violates the laws of nature
yet another
7.
human creativity defy the laws of nature.
you are not aware of the fact that none of the above defy laws of nature.
and mother of all stupidity...
8.
there is no such thing as truth.
You should have thought that I am then going to ask you "Is the existence of Free Will a truth?"
Are you ashamed of your own stupidity yet?
Aside from your barrage of insults, have you actually disputed any of the above? No?

Then what do you think you've said besides absolutely nothing? Once again, you may be able to fool some of the people (not many mind you,) but you are not fooling me.

Do you actually have any real argument at all, or should we just consider you a waste of time for the sake of cheap entertainment?
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Muhammad bin Lyin,
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote: Everything must be explained using reason, logic, and science or just say, we can't explain that yet.
Isn't that what some people say when talking about an afterlife or even the existence of God??
That's why I do not believe either in after life or on Free Will.

You really have no idea what I'm talking about, don't you.
I do not understand schizophrenic person's talk either.

You have given up on Allah. Now move to the next level and give up on Free Will delusion. Grow and evolve.
The question of free will has been around far longer than anything that you would consider to be science.
That doesn't make it true.
with perfect knowledge of all factors of any given moment, that determinism would say that we can, with 100% certainty, predict the reaction to the stimulus??
Neither we have perfect knowledge nor can we predict anything with 100% certainty.
All we can say is that there is overwhelming evidence and logic that we do not have Free Will. For children mind likes yours and others this illusion is comforting.
Reason based conclusion that there is no Free Will is much stronger than empirical one. The logic is: since everything in the brain follows strict laws of nature therefore, “Free Will” cannot exist.
A reasonable mind doesn't need anything else to understand that Free Will cannot exist.
I know, it is very painful for you even to think of "No Free Will".
It hurts your feeling just like Muslims mind explodes with pain when you make cartoon of Mohammad.
Muslim and you both got faith, just on different things.
Until you come out of the closet, think, understand and then clearly say, “using all the current evidence and logic it shows Free Will cannot and doesn’t exist” you will be in constant battle between maintaining your mental comfort zone (CD) at the expense of truth. Cover up, using deceptive tactic like politicians do, your using unnecessary terms like, “lose yourself”, “selfish-act” wouldn’t solve the problem.
You have to understand and say it: “Free Will cannot and doesn’t exist.”

Oh, BTW, I forgot to tell you earlier that Muslims and Christians hired me to spank your but with my logic.
You are going down in your own eyes. Because, I am exposing your own illogic to you. I am sending you through the hell of Cognitive Dissonance.

I am not denying the fact and the importance of Love, emotion, compassion, forgiveness, passion etc. These are present in human psyche and are useful. But that doesn't mean we should lose the sight of reason, logic, rationality, and science to understand these.

Again, summary,:: since everything in the brain follows strict laws of nature, cause and effect, therefore, Free Will cannot exist.

The more you think on this the more you will be humiliated in your own mind. Muslims are laughing at you, now.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Wed May 26, 2010 8:32 am, edited 4 times in total.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom,
Fathom wrote:
Abdul wrote:If with one eye a person can see one mile down the road then with 2 eyes how far he/she can see?
Your question is ridiculous, and it does not counter my analogy in any way whatsoever.
Of course, it doesn’t contradict your analogy of lion. I gave you a better analogy on your behalf. I wrote that from your side, seemingly on your favour. Your analogy of lions and my analogy of one/two eyes convey the message. Only mine is concise and sharper.

I said, we scientist can defend your side better than you can. Please scroll up and reads my post again.

Fathom wrote:I wrote no such argument as you've listed above. My argument was "Since no one can demonstrate the origin of existence, "determinism" cannot be validated." Determinism absolutely requires an origin to be true, and so far no origin has been proven. All you have is theory.
You missed the point.
To be able to predict the future one indeed needs the
1) initial condition (big-bang) AND
2) all the rules (laws of nature) AND
3) computing capacity.

But to understand that the future is a function of those 3 items above one doesn't need to know any of those 3.

I was showing you the consequence of “cause and effect”. My 15 ball pool game analogy was about “cause and effect”. Whatever happens in your brain, a thought pops up that you call decision, choice, and free will, are the result of previous causes. These causes are brain’s electrochemical action/reaction, and bodily internal and external stimuli, none of which is free. It is not free of time eitehr as MBL and The Cat seems to imply.
Universe doesn’t have to be deterministic for Free Will NOT to exist.

The logic is: since everything in the brain follows strict laws of nature therefore, “Free Will” cannot exist.

A reasonable mind doesn't need anything else to understand that Free Will cannot exist.
I know, it is very painful for you even to think of "No Free Will".
It hurts your feeling just like Muslims mind explodes with pain when you make cartoon of Mohammad.
Muslim and you both got faith, just on different things.

You need to understand that:
Helicopter taking off vertically up doesn’t defy gravity.
Superconductor close to absolute zero floats above the magnet doesn’t break the laws of nature.
Genetic manipulation doesn’t violate laws of physics.
Human creativity doesn’t break the laws of nature but merely uses it.
Entity can be self-aware but still be helpless to do or even think. Self-awareness doesn’t mean you have free Will.

Oh, BTW, I forgot to tell you earlier that Muslims and Christians hired me to spank your butt with my logic.
You are going down in your own eyes. Because, I am exposing your own illogic to you. I am sending you through the hell of Cognitive Dissonance.

Again, summary,:: since everything in the brain follows strict laws of nature, cause and effect, therefore, Free Will cannot exist.

The more you think on this the more you will be humiliated in your own mind. Muslims are laughing at you, now.What religioin are you going to try next?
Religion of "Free Will" and deceptive double talk?

Yup, prolonged study of theology and prolonged company of theologians before sound scientific training does damage human brain to its most fundamental level. Good news is that this damage is not always irreversible.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Wed May 26, 2010 9:45 am, edited 5 times in total.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

To YeeZeVee and All the people of Faith on (God or Free Will)
yeezevee wrote:
It is a philosophical question that might use science or might not. Don't worry, it's actually a very difficult subject for many, even those who can easily grasp science.
There is a fundamental difference between a just Philosopher and those with the background of basic science. Social/political Philosophers generally do not reach agreement for a solution of a problem. They go on arguing until their death who is right and who is wrong after that their follower do the same thing. It is a never ending chit-chat which sometimes will lead to political fights. These guys normally do not resolve the issues on which they differ.

Where as in the case of scientists[/philosopher] they do reach an agreement at least with-in the circle of those who are regarded as competent to judge a given field at a given time. one of the fundamental premises of a scientist is "Never consider anything absolute and always give some room to improve. Usually scientist always allow to question the concepts including their own.
Finally, an honest, and reasonable comment from YeeZeVee. Thanks for that.
Philosohy without reason and science are fairy tale. I flush that in my toilet.

I agree with your above comment except the part where you said "it [question of Free Will] is a very difficult subject".

It is difficult for those only whose neural network have not been reconfigured fully in synch with laws of nature, reason, logic, and science, the truth. People do have subconscious level faith on things. Until rigorously challenged those Faith doesn’t surface.

Only you (individual himself) can question and realize, identify the faith in your own brain.

Faith is, any belief that is not reasonable.

I am not denying the fact and the importance of Love, emotion, empathy, forgiveness, passion etc. These are present in human psyche and are useful. But that doesn't mean we should lose the sight of reason, logic, rationality, and science to understand these.

Question of free will is very profound. It has far reaching implications. Implications reach:
God, Crime and punishment, Man’s Laws, Love, man, machine, animal rights, deterrent vs. punishment or revenge, restitution vs. retribution, who to blame, what percentage Muslims should be punish or rrestituted etc.
YeeZeVee, come on, what are you so afraid of, from the truth.
Does the truth of "No Free Will" scare you?

Muslims and Christians who hired me to spank the butt of illogical/faithful minds at FFI are laughing at you folks now.
Post Reply