Fate, Random chance, or Synchronicity?

[Maniac]

Drogue:

Ah, so you want the "illusion of freedom for all"?

About your argument for removing laws, I must say I completely disagree with it on the basis there is no "natural condition" IMO. That seems to me like a completely arbitrary defined concept.

[Drogue]

But did he just make man capable of decision making in his will. Could he not have made you exactly how you are so that you would think like that? You are you, and he has made you what you are, therefore has he not already decided how you would act in every situation? With God, determinism becomes easier to believe in, but I believe even with a God (with me being an Atheist) there is still determinism, it is just impossible for us to ever know the future, despite it already having been mapped out.

[SlowwHand]

No, Drogue. He recognizes and desires people's diversity, to a point.

[Drogue]

Maniac: That is not the reason to remove laws. I believe in determinism, thus I believe in a natural condition. However I also believe that in an outside force (the state) imposing laws, we can change what someone chooses to something that is better for society. Thus I do not believe in removing all, or indeed many laws, however I think increasing the number of coices that a person could take means that society improves, as people work better and are happier if they have more choice, for the most part. The natural condition is a seperate part mostly, I just cannot explain it well at all.

I would not call it an illusion of freedom, I would call it an increase in posible options, though given a set of conditions, a particular option will be chosen by a particular person.

I think society has a hard job. While I do not believe people are responsible for who they are as it is out of their control, and thus are not responsible for their actions. However, the wish not to punish people for things they have no control over must be weighed up against the cost of that action to society. Therefore, presuming that a person will choose a particular option in a particular situation, it is up to the government to set laws which mean that that particular option is also what is best for society.

[Whaleboy]

The existence of a god is a tricky one, many or most rational people today would say that he does not, but many religious types seemingly point to the complexity and yet the order of the universe appearing to be the product of intelligent design.

All I can say there is that this universe is merely an implimentation of a certain number of variables, heisenbergs theory states that there are other universes out there, assuming that the big bang was an actual event. What one requires is the notion that our own universe is merely 4-dimensional, there is a 5d void between the other universes (this is all supported by superstring and p-brane theories), and those universes have a separate set of 4-d realms, each of which are defined by different paramaters to ours, for example, the gravitational constant and the speed of light will be different.

As such, we can only exist in our universe, thus, because we exist, we exist in this universe. In that sense, an atomic physist is an atoms way of knowing about atoms.

[SlowwHand]

It depends on one's opinio of "rational", elijah.

[Drogue]

Very much so. We had an interesting discussion on the ACDG a while ago. Playing the uber logical and rational Cybernetic Conciousness (Cyborg's) who are unable to choose fundamentalism as our government, but being that we know that GooglieGod exists, it is rational to believe in him. Whether or not you believe there is enough evidence to support the theory of a God or not is one matter, and the rationality of you [dis]belief depends upon the strength of that. It is a very human emotion, the need to believe in something, and becaused we have evolved it as an emotion, the chances are that it was rational for us at one point in our evolution. Therefore, to dismiss belief as irrational would be going too far. Indeed, I believe either Rousseau or Voltaire once said that belief in God was the only logical action. This was because God has not been proven not to exist, and thus whatever worldly pleasures you can have on Earth not believing, is nothing compared to the possibility, however small, of infinite return when you die. Any probability of infinite reward gives an expectation of infinity, and thus to maximise your expecation, you should believe in God. However that was presuming that a belief in God is the only way to get into Heaven. Personally, I believe that if there is a God, he is powerful enough that he does would judge on how a person lived, rather than their belief. I do not think a God suffers from an ego, much as my (relatively limited) knowledge of Greek Mythology tells me otherwise.

[Whaleboy]

It depends on one's opinio of "rational", elijah

Of course, in this context, your views are equally valid as mine, and also they are based on different assumptions, like you say, the definition of rational. I speak more in the familial, scientific sense, but of course in order to justify a different position, people can use a different interpretation and assumption, and that is fine.

Dont you just love relativism? Makes you feel all nice and cosy inside!

[Whaleboy]

I believe that if there is a god, its a case of the two goldfish...

Ben: There is no god
Will: Who changes the water?

An uber-human or uber-being could be a god, but certainly not in the semitic tradition of infinite and omnipotent being imo.

[Whaleboy]

Rousseau or Voltaire

One of Descartes meditations IIRC, though they may have said also.

[Whaleboy]

Its a relativist thing, and Sloww hit the nail on the head. The rationality of the atheist is different to the rationality of the religious person. Both views are, and will always be equally valid. Whether they are correct or not is a different matter, but since god cannot be proved or disproved at this stage, the juries out, of course, I still keep an open mind, but I have my own opinions about it too.

[Drogue]

Exactly Ben. However if it is proved either way, the views cease to be equally valid IMHO.

[geeslaka]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet


STOP! YOU'RE FRYING MY BRAIN!

A better way to fry your brain is to go to libsdl.org/games.php, download 54321, and play peg jumper or tile slider in four dimensions. Once your brain is sufficiently fried, re-read some of the more confusing posts and see if they still burn.

[Whaleboy]

Because the wildcard of one choosing to go along with the proof either way, or indeed the wildcard of the "proof" itself, is placing the two positions in a non-neutral context, in which one is more valid than another. Out of context, and at this stage, as we have not found a proof thus it is neutral with no wildcards, both positions are equally valid.

[Drogue]

We do have wildcards. The Turin Shroud, and various other evidence both for and against. Therefore, sicne they have wildcards, they arer not equally valid.