Features

kellychaos · #51

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjalne

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

Something with a will? The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.

But see, it's not random. If we take evolution as an example, the actual changes of traits might be random, at least as random as they can be when based on preexisting DNA structure. But the survival of these new traits is anything BUT random. This new trait has to answer to a preexisting environment, and if it doesn't make the cut, it goes away.

PJLANE,

This seems to the argument of all that do not posses an adequate sense of proportion, probability and infinite numeracy.

Indeed, doesn't the fact that there are billions of VISIBLE stars out there suggest to you, Preechr, that the odds that there is life outside our own is much greater than the alternative ... or is it just a fireworks display put on by God for our enjoyment?

Of course, you're going to respond that even given the same elemental distribution as Earth as well as other peripheral factors, odds are that life such as ours would be equally improbable. In the interest of time conservation, I would argue that, while it is true that life exactly like ours is improbable, life relatively similiar to ours is not.

Preechr · #52

Kellychaos--

I guess so, if you're coming from the point of view that organisms such as one would find on our planet are pretty easy to develop and support. The argument could go either way. Additionally, using the same logic that makes so many so sure that other life MUST be hiding somewhere out there in that vast expanse, we could easily assume that were that true, we'll never know. The distances involved in interstellar communication just don't work with the time we have allowed to us.

This is more a discussion of fantasy than fact. The truth is, just like I was trying to say before, for all intents and purposes any number of fantastic ideas might as well be the truth of the matter. We are alone in the universe, or not. Either way, the possible existence of aliens should have no bearing whatsoever on your daily life until you see one.

My main point before was that most of us seem to prefer one fantasy over the other in this regard, that extra-terrestrial life does exist. I suggest that we do this for psychological reasons of our own.

Rather than serving as a fireworks show, as you suggested, maybe we could see the stars as the mechanism for delivering to us all the science that has sprung forth from just the simple observation of the universe. I'm sure one of the science guys here could provide us with an impressive list of technological advances we've garnered from our studies of space. Space is a tool, and one that's proven to be extremely valuable to us for hundreds of years.

An example of a similar phenomenon of obvious discoverability can be seen in the studies of the Pacific Rim and it's window into plate tetonics or in the late population expansions into the Peloponnesian Island chains and the wealth of insight this has given us into how societies evolve. It didn't have to be that way. The skeleton and guts of everything we know is completely and almost easily discoverable. Would you say a trail of crumbs leading to a book containing everything you ever wanted to know was just a natural and random occurence that most likely evolved Darwinianly?

Not me.

Preechr · #53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosenstern

I'm willing to say that preechr is one of the better sort of religious people. There may be no arguing with some some his views, but that's all well and good as long as he stays away from real science. He's no Pat Robertson, and that makes him decent in my book.

All in all, thanks.

That being said, I'm not at all religious. At one point, I was headed for seminary, but changed tracks and was pretty much agnostic or deistic for a while. Any spirituality I may enjoy right now is a jumble of many things I've learned over the years that have proven to me that there is logic and reason behind all we can see or experience. In some way, as CaptainBubba just said, everything makes perfect sense, even if we are not currently able to figure out how that is so. Truth is Beauty. Beauty, Truth.

I think theology and religion are important, as they are the history of mankind's attempts to figure out the truths behind what is immediately visible, from many different angles. I prefer to look at what the various religions got right, rather than trying to find reasons to disregard them all systematically by focusing on where they each went astray. I don't look to anyone or any group to sort out what is right for me.

I like science as much as I like spirituality. Being a libertarian, however, you won't ever have to worry about me forcing any beliefs I may or may not have on anyone...

So, no, I'm no Pat Robertson. No two people are cut from the same cloth. The main reason I'm talking about personal stuff here at all is to hopefully impress upon you guys that just because someone talks about "God" or expresses some sort of belief doesn't mean they're a member of the Hard-Core Conservative Christian Right-Wing Wrestling Party that wants to impose Jesus flavored Shari'a on everybody...

Preechr · #54

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Importance is a human notion. It is a term we use to describe things which we must divert attention to for us to further ourselves. In the context you use it it could only make sense if one assumes there is a more powerful version of a human who is responsible for our creation which only raises the same questions we have in regards to that entity. The results are the same.

I see your point here, but I'd have been happier if you'd have said something more like importance is a self-centered notion. After all, anything alive is primarily existing under the assumption that it is more important than anything else.

That wasn't really what my usage of the word was attempting to project, however. With the capabilities that we, above any other known organism, have available to us, we are the most dangerous creature in nature. THAT makes us important in that we, moreso than any other living thing, have the power to fundamentally change or even destroy everything we see.

In nature, things just do not exist for no reason. Even though we do not understand what a certain thing's reason is, we now know that it would not exist if it served no purpose. That is the importance we share with all things, right? Above that, nature has demonstrated the ability to bend a being's function to it's own reason or interest, as in the giant tortoises of Galapagos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Again I'm sorry If I sounded insulting. Its simply that your argument seems more of one arguing in the existence of a god and not for or against determinism or free will.

To me, the discussion here presupposes some sort of motivational force or purpose to existence. If you believe all existence is due solely to random chance, why would you be discussing determinism vs. free will?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

By all means there could be a god given determinism. In fact god would have to be deterministic as well. Your definition of free will would in fact, in a stunning move of irony, fit into determinism. All things are autonomous.

To explain why this is so take the following example. I create a computer program. I am its creator and god. I give it the "choice" between x = 1 and x=2. where given condition 1 x = 1 and given condition 2 x = 2. Although the program has two options it will choose only one and can choose only one. It is autonomous. Adding in complexity merely complicates the program but does not make it magically or unexplainable. Just complex.

Merely not fully grasping every element of the enormously complex program of existance doesnt mean it transcends logic. Merely that it transcends our ability to fully know it.

To better illustrate where I'm coming from, and to back up my assertion that one can have spiritual beliefs without necessarily being a religious zealot, please check out the link following...

Quote:

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

CaptainBubba · #55

Importance, destruction, capabilities, dangerousness, and purpose, are all things which hold no water in this conversation. Every one of them is a human construct and is abstract in thought, and holds absolutely no meaning in the context of this conversation. You seem unable to distinguish that which is relevant and which is not.

Again. Even infinite complexity can still be deterministic. Tortoises on Galapagos and the fact that humans are capable of much only means we are complex. This has nothing to do with determinism. I hope you can sort of see that if you think deeply about it for a second. Seperate your spiritual beliefs from your thought process for a moment and evaluate what we are actually discussing. In essence this argument is about the nature of time and existence. Read my previous statements about the program and about rewinding time and consider that no matter how complex humans are, they will inevitably follow the same autonomous path, and even if they dont that merely dictates random probabaility, which I dont believe is what most define free will as. Free will is much like the terms you use to argue its existence in that it makes sense only in a purely abstract human conotation.

The free will/determinism argument only has to do with purpose if you ignore determinism and perpetuate a convoluted system of belief which defies logical thought(see above). Determinism says that everything is autonomous. Nothing more or less. It is not a message of doom or despair and so I continue life as I would before coming to the realization of its truth.

Feelings do not consitute anything in scientific debates. Sorry, but you wont win many arguments with people by saying that you just know or just feel that something is there.

Sethomas · #56

I dunno, I got this picture in an email that had the smoke rising from the Twin Towers during 9/11, and if you looked at it right (there were arrows pointing) you could sort of see the devil's face in it. I don't know if that's real or what it means we should believe, but it just got me thinking that life means so much that there's no way it could all be random.

CaptainBubba · #57

NO FUCKING WAY!! OMG LINK IT.

If this is true then I might have to reconsider my stubborn ways and accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

Preechr · #58

Well, I agree that we are talking about two separate things here. Maybe the main problem is that you feel that your point of view is the more valid, or that mine is in no way on point, and maybe I feel the same way.

Maybe you really are just so much smarter than I am that I'll just never grasp the subtle distinctions that invalidate everything I've tried to say in "defense" of my original assertion that:

Free will is only the human ability to defy the will of God.

Free will means we get to screw things up.

I honestly did not mean to interject that remark into such a targeted discussion as you say you were having. Maybe, not possessing the mental whatchmacallit required to process the sophisticated intellectualism I was unwittingly witnessing on the first page and a half of this thread, I just read the title and thought, "Hey, I have something flippant to add here!" and did just that.

It was fun to air all that out, even though it seems all I accomplished was to annoy you.

Sorry bout that.

CaptainBubba · #59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

Free will is only the human ability to defy the will of God.

Free will means we get to screw things up.

If this is what you are aguing then yes, we are talking about two completely different things. Sorry.

Preechr · #60

I read back through the discussion, and it seems I pissed you off by mentioning God.

If I ever get a religion, I promise not to try to convert you.

I'll make the government do it.

Sethomas · #61

Free will does not exist. Conscious will exists as the illusion of control.

Free will is cogent from a theological perspective, but not of a scientific one.

kellychaos · #62

Would a being that wishes to suppress us really give us the mental capacity to think outside the box? Wouldn't it be better for such a being to factor in a safety valve (of sorts) to make us think that we know what the hell might be going on in the broad sense while still keeping us in "the cave" (Re: Plato and Godel)?

Sethomas · #63

I knew that, given some amount of time, Kelly would bring up Plato's cave. It's just the quintessential sophomorism.

kellychaos · #64

And aside from attacks to my person, you bring what to this argument? En guarde!

Sethomas · #65

Well, if God told the primeval Hebrews that they had no free will, how do you think their culture would have evolved? How do you tell them, "If you kill your neighbor, you go to hell. Oh, and you're not really in control of killing your neighbor."

ziggytrix · #66

What an absurd question, Seth!

kahljorn · #67

"Free will is only the human ability to defy the will of God."

What is the will of God again?

"Free will means we get to screw things up. "

Yes, because you know how big of an effect your daily choice in lunch snackery has on the universe

"if God told the primeval Hebrews that they had no free will, how do you think their culture would have evolved?"

I would suppose the same thing that happened in america where we have freedom and justice for all.. and "equality"

Preechr · #68

At the risk of being called irrelevant once again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

What is the will of God again?

Whatever it is. IF there is a creator, then there is a will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Yes, because you know how big of an effect your daily choice in lunch snackery has on the universe

Mm-Hmm... While I doubt it, it is possible. Maybe, one day I decide to eat someone that turns out to be important? Maybe I snack up that butterfly that was supposed to flap it's wings and begin the apocalypse.

Wait a minute! Maybe it's my choice to hold this discussion among i-mockers that has rendered my points of view irrelevant! :/

Thanks, kelly, for at least reading what's been said.

For the rest of you, please remember that someone once told you that math is but one tool you have at your disposal. You have a nice claw hammer there, but I'd recommend something more appropriate for changing your oil or bathing your dog. I know that one of the privledges of knowing stuff is being able to berate those that don't know that stuff... or at least aren't as interested as you in wearing such knowledge as some sort of badge... but you might want to think a little more about how being a smartass can make you at least appear to be a dumbass.

After three pages, it's pretty obvious this discussion is going nowhere. It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that a discussion of this type is one of ethical and even (OMG!) metaphysical concerns moreso than one of science or math. As scientifically oriented and theologically ignorant individuals, I'm sure you believe your part in this discussion would be to stop it altogether, since you might well believe science to for some reason be at odds with metaphysics or any sort of God-talk.

Whatever. Hope your horizons expand someday.

kellychaos · #69

The science/math versus metaphysical wars have been going on for ages. Darwinism marked a huge fulcrum but, lately, I've seen a lot of apocalyptic talk in pop culture. Recent escalation of natural disasters have only fueled this fire. Interesting?

kellychaos · #70

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sethomas

Well, if God told the primeval Hebrews that they had no free will, how do you think their culture would have evolved? How do you tell them, "If you kill your neighbor, you go to hell. Oh, and you're not really in control of killing your neighbor."

Wouldn't God eventually get tired of palying a chess game alone or would it just be an exercise in ego? And why would he have the need to fullfill such humanistic psychological needs? A tad anthropomorphic?

Accepting the premise, did they need to be told by an all-powerful being that they had free will? Wouldn't he simply infuse them with the innate sense that they had free will, wind them up and let them go without giving them the least notion that there was anything more outside the matrix of the sensory abilities that were known to them? Hense, they would think that they had control while having none.

Preechr · #71

Even in the Matrix, there was a need satisfied by the battery people for the God figure. There is a need that we satisfy, else there would be no need for us. Everything exists on that basis, right?

It's not just an innate sense... Everything we can see and/or experience tells the same story, no matter how much more new technology allows us to deepen that experience.

And, personally, I see no need for those "wars." Science and Math tell us how something happens, and metaphysics guesses at why something happens. Ethics helps us to decide. My beef with Captain Bubba (and not to single him out, but he's the one that said value is a human invention) is that he's expecting only one sort of thinking to provide him with all he needs to live, and that sort of thinking just happens to be the one he's most fond of, or maybe the one he knows the most about.. I hope he doesn't view his nutrition this way.

ziggytrix · #72

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

After three pages, it's pretty obvious this discussion is going nowhere. It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that a discussion of this type is one of ethical and even (OMG!) metaphysical concerns moreso than one of science or math. As scientifically oriented and theologically ignorant individuals, I'm sure you believe your part in this discussion would be to stop it altogether, since you might well believe science to for some reason be at odds with metaphysics or any sort of God-talk.

Or, and stay with me here, maybe this discussion has been done and done and done, and this time through some of your "adversaries" are taking the flippant route. You are, after all, in the message board attached to a HUMOR site, not a religious site,, so do keep that in mind at all times.

At any rate, the problem with your definition of free will is it assumes that the existence of God is requisite to the argument, when, in my estimation, there can be atheistic arguments for and against the philosophy of determinism.

That said, I think the great majority of discussion in this thread is mental masturbation. Alas the difference between staying power and tedious monotany is subjective. So do what you gotta do, I won't hold it against you.