Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lung


In that case, i don't want to gamble on the coin and i walk away. VOILA!! Instant free will

Did you leave your brain behind when you did this? Is it now the brain of Jack the Bodiless?

The coin toss in question is occuring in the brain. The brain's coin tosses are considerable however. Even if they only occur at 10 or twenty times a second there are rather a lot of them going on at any time. There are about 100 billion neurons and each one has lots and lots dendrites.

I think you left a fortune in pennies behind.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
3. There is a God, and we individually have souls. The presence of our souls in the universe, allows us to influence the the workings of our brain (possibly via the collapse of wavefunctions in our brain) via interaction through God. It is therefore our souls who determine who we are. Obviously the brain is also critical, in that the possible eigenfunctions chosable are dictated by physics. Remove the brain (or part of it) and we cease to function as one would expect.

This is just the point, though. Given that the Christian god is omniscient, how can humans have freewill? The existence of the Christian god - or any omniscient being for that matter - precludes freewill.

[Urban Ranger]

Rogan

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not science itself, no. However, the environment that science operates in does. As I posited before, science presupposes naturalism, which makes it fundamentally incompatible with religion - or any form of religion and beliefs that presupposes supernaturalism.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is just the point, though. Given that the Christian god is omniscient, how can humans have freewill? The existence of the Christian god - or any omniscient being for that matter - precludes freewill.

God being omniscient does not imply that we are. We are still free to make mistakes independently of God. Indeed, I would go further and say that we all do know how to behave - so we really don't need God's omniscience anyway, but we choose to reject God because we have free-will.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not science itself, no. However, the environment that science operates in does. As I posited before, science presupposes naturalism, which makes it fundamentally incompatible with religion - or any form of religion and beliefs that presupposes supernaturalism.

Actually I agree with the stement but probably do not quite see it the same way. Science makes an assumption that all phenomena in the universe can be explained by physical laws in the sense that we are used to. Therefore, science is from the outset unable to model supernaturalism or religion. Indeed, that is why it is called the supernatural - because it cannot be described by science in its traditional sense.

However, as we already discussed, I do not believe that free-will can be accommodated within a traditional scientific approach. That could of course be because we have no free-will, but if we reject that then there is something more than our traditional science. In other words, if we have free-will, then the assumption that science (as we know it) can describe the universe in its entirety is wrong.

Now, it may be that one day some bright spark will have some radical idea which changes the whole idea of science and allows these kind of phenomena to be modelled - in which case science might then be able to describe the idea of a God.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not science itself, no. However, the environment that science operates in does. As I posited before, science presupposes naturalism, which makes it fundamentally incompatible with religion - or any form of religion and beliefs that presupposes supernaturalism.

I think a better way to put it is that science assumes that the Universe is comprehensible. To assume the opposite is to give up on understanding, which happened in Dark Age Europe.

This however does not preclude religion. It does however relegate it to things not yet understood or inherently outside of human ken.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
God being omniscient does not imply that we are. We are still free to make mistakes independently of God. Indeed, I would go further and say that we all do know how to behave - so we really don't need God's omniscience anyway, but we choose to reject God because we have free-will.

We don't have Free Will in that case however.

IF god is omniscient
AND god created us
THEN god knows all that we may do based on how he created us and the universe before we are born much less actually do anything.


I don't see any room for Free Will in that. All the decisions are made at the moment of creation. Unless god chose not to exericise omniscience, which would be indistinguishable from not being omniscient, regarding both humans and the universe. It would also require that god blot out all of gods memories prior to creation that relate to creation since god would know the outcome of creation even before creating.

Omniscience is pretty darned all encompassing.

Now, it may be that one day some bright spark will have some radical idea which changes the whole idea of science and allows these kind of phenomena to be modelled - in which case science might then be able to describe the idea of a God.

Exceedingly bright. How would one go about testing the supernatural and how do you distinguish it from the natural if it can be tested? Its last part that seems intractable. If it can be tested its part of natural phenoma unless the Bright Spark itself is not natural.

[Rogan Josh]

First of all, let me point out that one cannot really expect to understand how the 'supernatural' works since one cnnot by definition describe it in conventional terms which we are used to.

Originally posted by Ethelred
We don't have Free Will in that case however.

IF god is omniscient
AND god created us
THEN god knows all that we may do based on how he created us and the universe before we are born much less actually do anything.

I don't see any room for Free Will in that. All the decisions are made at the moment of creation. Unless god chose not to exericise omniscience, which would be indistinguishable from not being omniscient, regarding both humans and the universe. It would also require that god blot out all of gods memories prior to creation that relate to creation since god would know the outcome of creation even before creating.

Omniscience is pretty darned all encompassing.

All of the above is true if God is bounded by causality. Presumably though and omnipotent being would not be. He would then know what our decisions would be without actually forcing them to be that way - they would still be our decisions and therefore we would still have free will.

Of course, the definition of 'onmipotent' is not terribly clear - is God still omnipotent even if he gives us the power to make decisions? Clearly, if we have the power to make our decisions He does not, and therefore he is not all-powerful. But that is a sort of non-omnipotence enforced by God's will, so to apeak, so I am not sure it counts.

Exceedingly bright. How would one go about testing the supernatural and how do you distinguish it from the natural if it can be tested? Its last part that seems intractable. If it can be tested its part of natural phenoma unless the Bright Spark itself is not natural.

I agree. I cannot imagine this ever happening, but who knows....?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
First of all, let me point out that one cannot really expect to understand how the 'supernatural' works since one cnnot by definition describe it in conventional terms which we are used to.

Yes that was part of my point about it being a bad idea to assume that the Universe has a siginificant supernatural aspect. There is no way to deal with it so you might as well assume the opposite. At least as long as the assumption continues to bear fruit.

All of the above is true if God is bounded by causality. Presumably though and omnipotent being would not be. He would then know what our decisions would be without actually forcing them to be that way - they would still be our decisions and therefore we would still have free will.

I think it is true either way. God might not be bound by causality but we are. Therefor however god creates the universe and any inteligent inhabitants are bound by the acts of that god as long as everything is fixed at creation. You could call them our decisions if you want but the decisions would still have been made at the moment of creation. Any small change in the creation would result in different decisions. Thus our decisions become bound by creation whatever went into it as long as the creator knows what will happen before we are even born.

We are not onimpotent. We are bound by causality. The only question is; are we bound from the moment of creation, however the universe came into being, or do we have actual options. If god make the choice to create the universe such that we must choose option A instead of option B than it is god that has made the choice not us. If however god sets up the universe so even god cannot know what will happen then we have freedom of action apart from the will of the creator.

Then there is this aspect of it. Why would a god bother creating a universe where it knows the results allready? Seems kind of boring and futile.

Of course, the definition of 'onmipotent' is not terribly clear - is God still omnipotent even if he gives us the power to make decisions? Clearly, if we have the power to make our decisions He does not, and therefore he is not all-powerful. But that is a sort of non-omnipotence enforced by God's will, so to apeak, so I am not sure it counts.

A god can be omnipotent and choose not to exercise the power. Just as I could choose not to reply to you even though I can do so.

I agree. I cannot imagine this ever happening, but who knows....?

Well then we have reached THE LIMITS OF THE IMAGINATION. Not to be confused with The Twighlight Zone or The Outer Limits. Then again Heinlein Incorporated Magic.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes that was part of my point about it being a bad idea to assume that the Universe has a siginificant supernatural aspect. There is no way to deal with it so you might as well assume the opposite. At least as long as the assumption continues to bear fruit.

Oh absolutely! this is exactly what I am doing every day, as a christian who is also a scientist. As a scientist I can only use the physical laws which we (think we) understand in my calculations. Since any 'God effect' is unpredictable and arbitrary I cannot (and should not) include it. However, you should be careful to include the possibility of God where the effects are not arbitrary, such as in every day dealings with outher people and the understanding and preservation of our own morality.

We are not onimpotent. We are bound by causality. The only question is; are we bound from the moment of creation, however the universe came into being, or do we have actual options. If god make the choice to create the universe such that we must choose option A instead of option B than it is god that has made the choice not us. If however god sets up the universe so even god cannot know what will happen then we have freedom of action apart from the will of the creator.

We have to be careful with the word 'causality' here, since I think you are thinking of it differently from me. Essentially, I meant that God must be outside time. Thereby, his knowledge of which actions we will take would not in any way predetermine them.

Think of it this way: imagine you could time travel into the future and secretly observe the birth of your grandson. You overhear your son naming him Simon (for example) and then travel back home. You then know that your son will call his son 'Simon' but you have not taken the decision away from your son - it is still your son's choice to call him 'Simon' - not yours. Of course, God does not need to time travel as such since he is not constrained by time - an omnipotent being is presumably at everytime at once, so to speak, but the idea is the same.

Then there is this aspect of it. Why would a god bother creating a universe where it knows the results allready? Seems kind of boring and futile.

Well, I don't understand how people can play Civ III when they can play Civ II or EU2. Civ III also seems kind of boring and futile.

[Boris Godunov]

GUYS--guys...BO-RING. Get back to making the Creationists look like fools, I was enjoying that.

[-=Vagrant=-]

If there are any "Bible is the Truth"- YECreationists here, could you please explain how koalas, wombats and those jumping kangaroos made it back to Australia? According to one YEC they crossed an ice bridge made by the after-Flood ice age. Any other ideas?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
If there are any "Bible is the Truth"- YECreationists here, could you please explain how koalas, wombats and those jumping kangaroos made it back to Australia? According to one YEC they crossed an ice bridge made by the after-Flood ice age. Any other ideas?

Or explain how such animals--endemic to Australia--made it to the Middle East, and how Noah fed the koalas, given they eat exclusively eucalyptus leaves, and those trees are nowhere to be found even remotely close the Middle East. Where did Noah get their food?

To that end, where did he get the meat for all the carnivores to eat? Lions, tigers, bears, wolves, cougars, leopards, hyenas, bobcats, etc.? These animals not only require meat, they eat only freshly killed meat. If there were only 2 (or 7, according to some) of each form of grazing animal (prey), they would have all been eaten in less than a month.

And just how did 8 people dispose of the amount of fecal matter generated by what had to have been at least 15,000 animal species (more likely much, much higher)?

Or how did a boat 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 75 feet high house all the world's animals?

Or how did it stay together, given any all-wooden ship over 200 feet in length will have massive difficulties with structural soundness and leakage?

The questions go on and on...it's a fairy tale, totally ludicrous.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


...how such animals--endemic to Australia--made it to the Middle East, and how Noah fed the koalas, given they eat exclusively eucalyptus leaves, and those trees are nowhere to be found even remotely close the Middle East. Where did Noah get their food?

All true believers know that 1) all the continents were together pre-Flood. (Pangaia) 2)all the animals didn't need to eat anything. God himself protected and fed them with His divine spirit.

And just how did 8 people dispose of the amount of fecal matter generated by what had to have been at least 15,000 animal species (more likely much, much higher)?

Those animals didn't eat because of God, so therefore they didn't produce any "droppings".

Or how did a boat 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 75 feet high house all the world's animals?

All true believers start talking about "kinds" and stuff. Don't understand it myself.

Or how did it stay together, given any all-wooden ship over 200 feet in length will have massive difficulties with structural soundness and leakage?

You see, the wood was super though and God did it, and...blahblah.

The questions go on and on...it's a fairy tale, totally ludicrous.

But it SAYS so in the Bible!

[Boris Godunov]

LOL, nice and succinct paraphrasing of Creationist rationale. Well done.

My opinion is that if an Omnipotent Creater made the universe and all of the complex laws that that govern physics, nature, etc. and the minute structure of life, why would he then go about rampantly violating His very own rules that he had obviously worked so hard to create? Why not make the laws of science and nature such that the events of the Flood could be explained sans divine miracles? The sheer number of miracles God would have to have wrought to make the Flood story true is ridiculous and would indicate massively poor planning and inefficiency on the part of an Omnipotent Being. If he knew everything, he would have known at the beginning of time the need for the Flood and therefore done some preparation so he didn't constantly have to contort the rules of the universe to suit this particular whim.

God should have worked smarter, not harder.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

God should have worked smarter, not harder.

Maybe He is the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert? http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...ndex.html#boss