philosophy about god

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


I would say wrong on both counts (perfection in one situation is not perfection in another), but it is sufficient to show that the second claim is purely subjective. How is it that the laws of nature don't "need" any change?

The universe is defined by the laws of nature. Change one in even the smallest way, and the universe may cease to exist.

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd like to propose here that we all agree to stop using the word "law" to describe physical and chemical relalationships. Instead I think we should use the word "property". Newton's "law" of gravity is a formula describing gravity as a property of matter. If we all stop using the word "law" and use the word "property" we won't get bogged down in debates that are essentially semantic in nature.

[yavoon]

theology is where science is not.

luckily for theology then that it is still given some room to operate.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned


The universe is defined by the laws of nature. Change one in even the smallest way, and the universe may cease to exist.

The universe isn't defined by the laws of nature, the universe OPERATES by the laws of nature. If they are such that they allow change to themselves, then there is no conflict.

[Ben Kenobi]

If we all stop using the word "law" and use the word "property" we won't get bogged down in debates that are essentially semantic in nature.

Just use theory. Newton's theory of gravitation. That would be my preference.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Getting to that, young skywalker.

If you can chop something into little pieces that can be precisely defined, or if you can predict how everything works, you have no free will whatsover. All that you do would then be the result of your genes, or factors outside of your own control.

Yay! Finally, I can gut your argument and stomp it to the ground :evilgring:

Determinism is COMPLETELY in line with free will. If you think otherwise, free will does not exist. First, I need to point out one thing: the universe is either deterministic... or random (or more precisely, probabalistic). Either it obeys rules or it does not. In the case that it is probabilistic, free will obviously does not exist - everything is fundamentally random, though the probabilities of various things occuring may be different. Thus, if you refuse to accept that free will exists in a deterministic universe, you must accept that free will does not exist at all.

Secondly, just because I made my decision according to certain deterministic rules, that does NOT mean that I didn't make the decision. I freely made that decision - I wasn't "constrained" or anything - I merely made it according to certain rules. Are you saying someone else made the decision?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'd like to propose here that we all agree to stop using the word "law" to describe physical and chemical relalationships. Instead I think we should use the word "property". Newton's "law" of gravity is a formula describing gravity as a property of matter. If we all stop using the word "law" and use the word "property" we won't get bogged down in debates that are essentially semantic in nature.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A property is an attribute of something. For example, mass is an property. However, gravity is a law, because it is a rule describing the behavior of objects, and it just happens that the property "mass" factors into its calculations. Gravity is not inherent to an object but rather to the universe.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by skywalker


Actually, this isn't quite true. A property is an attribute of something. For example, mass is an property. However, gravity is a law, because it is a rule describing the behavior of objects, and it just happens that the property "mass" factors into its calculations. Gravity is not inherent to an object but rather to the universe.

gravity is a property of mass. tho in general I think ur being inanely semantic.

[Kuciwalker]

Mass doesn't have properties... it itself is a property. I repeat: gravity is a rule, inherent to the universe, (partially) describing the motion of particles. It happens to factor the masses of the involved parties into its calculations.

[Kuciwalker]

tho in general I think ur being inanely semantic.

Dr Strangelove started it

[yavoon]

Originally posted by skywalker
Mass doesn't have properties... it itself is a property. I repeat: gravity is a rule, inherent to the universe, (partially) describing the motion of particles. It happens to factor the masses of the involved parties into its calculations.

all but yawningly inane. I have a hard time bothering to even reply.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by skywalker

tho in general I think ur being inanely semantic.

Dr Strangelove started it

=DD

[Ben Kenobi]

First, I need to point out one thing: the universe is either deterministic... or random (or more precisely, probabalistic).

Why? What assumptions does this bely? That the material world is all that exists? Could not a better argument say that the universe is neither probabilistic, nor deterministic, but rather something else entirely?

If you say that the universe is entirely deterministic, then how do you explain quantum fuzziness, that does not follow a rigid set of rules, as does gravitation.

If you say that the universe in entirely probabilistic, how do you explain the ability of gravitational theories to make predictions about planetary motion?

Thus, if you refuse to accept that free will exists in a deterministic universe, you must accept that free will does not exist at all.

Not if I bypass your argument.

Secondly, just because I made my decision according to certain deterministic rules, that does NOT mean that I didn't make the decision. I freely made that decision - I wasn't "constrained" or anything

If the rules do not constrain you, but merely provide a guide, than those rules are not deterministic.

[Aeson]

Are you saying someone else made the decision?

The argument against free will in a deterministic system is not that you don't make choices. Obviously we all make choices. The argument is that 'choice' boils down to a single possible outcome in a deterministic system, not the commonly held definition of choice between possibilities. There is only one possibility (or rather eventuality) in a deterministic system. While you can still call the functionality that leads to that eventuality choice, it is something different than choice viewed in a system that allows for divergent outcomes.

In a deterministic system, you can consider other choices (if so determined), but can only choose the predetermined option. There is no diverging from the path. Whoever or whatever (if anything) set you on that path made the 'choice' (in the common sense noted previously) as to where you would end up, you just follow the path by operating the way you were designed to operate.

If this is your definition of free will, then everything in a deterministic system has free will. A computer has free-will, because it makes choices based on how it is programed and designed. In a more abstract sense, a rock has free will because it follows the path set before it just as anything else does.

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


The universe isn't defined by the laws of nature, the universe OPERATES by the laws of nature. If they are such that they allow change to themselves, then there is no conflict.

Skywalker, I don't understand this. But to the extent I do understand what you say, do not agree.