But What If You're Wrong ...

[Logicman]

Romans 1 addresses Jews prior to and concurrent with Jesus. Nothing to do with accepting or rejecting Christ.

First, understand that the New Testament / Bible depicts Jesus as God. With that understanding consider Romans 1:18 on:

Romans 1:18 - The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...

So, according to the Bible, people are without excuse when it comes to God / Jesus and his creation. They can thus proceed at their own risk regarding their salvation.

 

[iangb]

There's a principle involved directed towards certain folks who continue to mock Christians and Christianity. The principle was given by none other than Jesus Christ.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." - Matthew 7:6

I think 'turn the other cheek' trumps that.

Love speaks the truth also, and the truth is that without Christ and his salvation, people are lost (John 3:36, etc.).

You did not speak that. You said "I don't care".

 

[Logicman]

I think 'turn the other cheek' trumps that.
You did not speak that. You said "I don't care".

See my previous comments.

 

[rhinefire]

Detroit makes the car, the car does not make Detroit.

 

[Quag]

Detroit makes the car, the car does not make Detroit.

They still make cars in Detroit? I thought all they did there now was shoot post apocalyptic movies.

 

[Radical]

While admittedly we're more complicated than a billiard ball, we're still a reaction. We're subject to an action and though there are more variables shaping our reaction (to a reaction, to a reaction, to a reaction....) we can't bring anything new to the interaction.

We're ultimately just like the billiard ball only we believe that we're choosing to roll the direction we're bounced in by the other balls, because we "choose to."

How do you deal with a billiard ball that knows it's being coerced by other billiard balls? My same claim that our reaction is strange is equally substantiated by the fact that we understand the very principles that govern us. Do we not gain a kind of freedom in that knowledge?

 

[iangb]

Your statement is what's irrelevant!

You should back-track and read why I responded that way to Roguenuke's post.
You remind me of Occam's razor. You've both butted in, and arguing about nothing really. :lol: READ what I was responding to!

*sigh*

Tosca, if you would actually backtrack yourself, you would find that you weren't responding to Roguenuke at all, you were responding to Critter7r, which puts my post into the appropriate context. Try to keep up.

See my previous comments.

Et tu?

 

[Unrepresented]

How do you deal with a billiard ball that knows it's being coerced by other billiard balls? My same claim that our reaction is strange is equally substantiated by the fact that we understand the very principles that govern us. Do we not gain a kind of freedom in that knowledge?

We understand some of the principles, but we're incapable of knowing how to calculate them all.

It's similar to knowing that we'll all die someday. That knowledge has done nothing to prevent it from happening.

 

[tosca1]

*sigh*

Tosca, if you would actually backtrack yourself, you would find that you weren't responding to Roguenuke at all, you were responding to Critter7r, which puts my post into the appropriate context. Try to keep up.
Et tu?

:roll:

I already agreed with you when I said, Yes....science should be judged on how correct it is.
Therefore, there was no longer any argument between you and I on that issue!


The debate about ranks and credentials started with Roguenuke here:

Originally Posted by tosca1

Yes....science should be judged on how correct it is.
Of course, the authority of the person stating it, counts. Anyone can claim to be a physicist but they aren't all of the same calibre!


What more, a high-rank scientist with credentials under his belt has more to lose if he is proven to be non-credible. He's got his reputation on the line!

Originally Posted by roguenuke
No actually the information a scientist brings to an issue is what's important, not his/her "rank" (btw scientists don't have established ranks). Their position should bring only more expectations of their work, not failure to verify their work, assumptions that they are right simply because they have been right before.

tosca1
They do have established ranks. Nobel winners, for one! Why do you think they're always described as nobel sientists if that prestigious award doesn't set them apart from others?

Obviously, there are scientists who had gained quite a reputation that they're described as "high-ranked" or top in their fields.

Not all scientists are reputable.

There are those who indulge in "pseudo-science," and there are those who deliberately corrupt science!
And I suppose there are also those who are certifiable!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...473-but-if-youre-wrong-21.html#post1064719040



Keep reading.....Roguenuke and I continued with that debate!

Then you popped up pages later - post #295 - and responded to my post to Roguenuke!

Originally Posted by tosca1

Yes....science should be judged on how correct it is.
Of course, the authority of the person stating it, counts. Anyone can claim to be a physicist but they aren't all of the same calibre!


What more, a high-rank scientist with credentials under his belt has more to lose if he is proven to be non-credible. He's got his reputation on the line!

iangb


False. Scientific evidence exists independently of the person providing it. While science has it's celebrities, that doesn't diminish the credibility of scientists who aren't in the limelight.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/225473-but-if-youre-wrong-30.html

:lamo

 

[Radical]

We understand some of the principles, but we're incapable of knowing how to calculate them all.

It's similar to knowing that we'll all die someday. That knowledge has done nothing to prevent it from happening.

Knowledge of death often gives the motivation for an obese person to diet and exercise.

 

[Unrepresented]

Knowledge of death often gives the motivation for an obese person to diet and exercise.

Yes, and the illusion of free will gives us the drive to attempt to lead our lives favorably.

 

[Quag]

Knowledge of death often gives the motivation for an obese person to diet and exercise.

Often is not always and it can at best only delay not prevent death

 

[Radical]

Yes, and the illusion of free will gives us the drive to attempt to lead our lives favorably.

Often is not always and it can at best only delay not prevent death

My question is what stimulus does the knowledge produce, and would it be right to call it an internal will? So someone has the knowledge that obesity is not healthy. They can act upon such knowledge or ignore it. This choice is predetermined. But, the stimulus is entirely internal to the subject. They have created their own stimulus, entirely different from external stimuli. I want to glorify this (maybe too much so) and claim this is the kind of thing I mean by "free will".

 

[Unrepresented]

My question is what stimulus does the knowledge produce, and would it be right to call it an internal will? So someone has the knowledge that obesity is not healthy. They can act upon such knowledge or ignore it. This choice is predetermined. But, the stimulus is entirely internal to the subject. They have created their own stimulus, entirely different from external stimuli. I want to glorify this (maybe too much so) and claim this is the kind of thing I mean by "free will".

Again, nothing is created or destroyed, it's all simply a continuation of established energy and matter. The continuation isn't any more novel than the near infinite other reactions that occur through the processes which we observe.

 

[iangb]

:roll:

I already agreed with you when I said, Yes....science should be judged on how correct it is.
Therefore, there was no longer any argument between you and I on that issue!


The debate about ranks and credentials started with Roguenuke here:






http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...473-but-if-youre-wrong-21.html#post1064719040



Keep reading.....Roguenuke and I continued with that debate!

Then you popped up pages later - post #295 - and responded to my post to Roguenuke!




http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/225473-but-if-youre-wrong-30.html

:lamo

At no point did I get involved in that discussion, at no point did you imply in any of your posts to me that you were talking about roguenuke's argument, at no point in any of the posts to me did you mention or quote roguenuke at all.

Lets try a new idea - you reply, in posts to me, to what I write, rather than assuming I'm adopting someone else's argument and replying to that? It's what I've been doing all along.

 

[Quag]

My question is what stimulus does the knowledge produce, and would it be right to call it an internal will? So someone has the knowledge that obesity is not healthy. They can act upon such knowledge or ignore it. This choice is predetermined. But, the stimulus is entirely internal to the subject. They have created their own stimulus, entirely different from external stimuli. I want to glorify this (maybe too much so) and claim this is the kind of thing I mean by "free will".

If there is an omnipotent/omniscient creator then ALL stimuli come from them.

 

[Radical]

If there is an omnipotent/omniscient creator then ALL stimuli come from them.

That's called occasionalism, and I think it's crap =p

Again, nothing is created or destroyed, it's all simply a continuation of established energy and matter. The continuation isn't any more novel than the near infinite other reactions that occur through the processes which we observe.

So anti-climactic! No, the continuation of established energy and matter is nothing new, but the structures they form are more than what you describe. Energy and matter constantly arise in new organizations, requiring new understandings. A star is different than an atom, even though they are made of the same stuff. The human mind and a billiard ball is different, even though they are made of the same stuff.

 

[Unrepresented]

That's called occasionalism, and I think it's crap =p



So anti-climactic! No, the continuation of established energy and matter is nothing new, but the structures they form are more than what you describe. Energy and matter constantly arise in new organizations, requiring new understandings. A star is different than an atom, even though they are made of the same stuff. The human mind and a billiard ball is different, even though they are made of the same stuff.

Those actions are different only to our subjective view. You're weighting the processes that occur based on an anthropic viewpoint.

Why isn't a chloroplast creating freewill? Why isn't fusion creating freewill? Why does it conveniently occur only with the process most associated with the creature discussing it?

 

[Radical]

Those actions are different only to our subjective view. You're weighting the processes that occur based on an anthropic viewpoint.

Why isn't a chloroplast creating freewill? Why isn't fusion creating freewill? Why does it conveniently occur only with the process most associated with the creature discussing it?

Free will is the kind of thing that only is discussed by the things that have it. A star is organized matter/energy and it does XYZ. The brain is organized matter/energy and it does ABC. The star doesn't have free will because it's not organized in a way to have it. I claim the human brain is organized in such a way that allows a kind of internal analysis. Matter was predetermined to form in that specific way. It is even predetermined in what decisions it makes. But they are decisions nonetheless. That's part of the organization. You can certainly reduce a "decision" to the particle physics involved, but that would remove our sight of the whole picture.

 

[Unrepresented]

Free will is the kind of thing that only is discussed by the things that have it. A star is organized matter/energy and it does XYZ. The brain is organized matter/energy and it does ABC. The star doesn't have free will because it's not organized in a way to have it. I claim the human brain is organized in such a way that allows a kind of internal analysis. Matter was predetermined to form in that specific way. It is even predetermined in what decisions it makes. But they are decisions nonetheless. That's part of the organization. You can certainly reduce a "decision" to the particle physics involved, but that would remove our sight of the whole picture.

You're arguing that free will has evolved? Is it on a spectrum or is it an absolute?

 

[Quag]

That's called occasionalism, and I think it's crap =p

Since there is no omniscient/omnipotent creator I would also argue that it is crap, not because the theory is untrue but the premise is.

 

[Radical]

You're arguing that free will has evolved? Is it on a spectrum or is it an absolute?

Absolute. The internal analysis is either sufficient or insufficient.

Since there is no omniscient/omnipotent creator I would also argue that it is crap, not because the theory is untrue but the premise is.

That's a bullet you can't logically dodge. We have no reason to believe that the universe has existed forever. We have no reason to believe that something can come from nothing. We have no reason to believe that any physical thing exists innately. We have no reason to assert atheism. Your assertion is, by definition, unreasonable.

We do have reason to believe that the universe began. We do have reason to believe in cause and effect. We must logically claim that all physical things have been caused by some non-physical thing. We must dismiss atheism.

Or we can deny an antecedent like you did above. We could deny logic. That's an antecedent.

 

[Quag]

Absolute. The internal analysis is either sufficient or insufficient.



That's a bullet you can't logically dodge. We have no reason to believe that the universe has existed forever. We have no reason to believe that something can come from nothing. We have no reason to believe that any physical thing exists innately. We have no reason to assert atheism. Your assertion is, by definition, unreasonable.

We do have reason to believe that the universe began. We do have reason to believe in cause and effect. We must logically claim that all physical things have been caused by some non-physical thing. We must dismiss atheism.

We have NO reason to believe or disbelieve any of the above.
However even if the Universe has a creator there is no reason to believe the creator is omniscient and omnipotent.

Or we can deny an antecedent like you did above. We could deny logic. That's an antecedent.

No denial of logic (even by your misuse of the term), I never said there was no creator. I said there is no omniscient/omnipotent creator. Now that is my personal belief that has as much weight on the issue as any other.

 

[pinqy]

Absolute. The internal analysis is either sufficient or insufficient.



That's a bullet you can't logically dodge. We have no reason to believe that the universe has existed forever.

In its current form and state. The matter and energy could have.

We have no reason to believe that something can come from nothing.

Right, but it is religions that teach that.

We have no reason to believe that any physical thing exists innately.

Not sure what you mean by that.

We do have reason to believe that the universe began.

If you mean it was' t always in its current state, yes. If you mean came from nothing, you've already rejected that.

We do have reason to believe in cause and effect. We must logically claim that all physical things have been caused by some non-physical thing.

How? We have agreed that the universe di&n't come from nothing, so where did it come from and how could a non-physical being have caused it? For that matter, what is a non-physical being, how can we test its existence and where did it come from?

Populating such a being generates more questions than answers.

We must dismiss atheism.

only if the non-physical thing is a god.

Basically your logical(?) Conclusion is that because the universe must have had a beginning and could not have come from nothing, then a hypothetical non-physical being (whose properties we can't describe) must have made it, by unknown process, from nothing.

I think your logic has some flaws.

 

[Radical]

...Basically your logical(?) Conclusion is that because the universe must have had a beginning and could not have come from nothing, then a hypothetical non-physical being (whose properties we can't describe) must have made it, by unknown process, from nothing.

I think your logic has some flaws.

That's not my conclusion. My conclusion is that because we have no evidence that the physical universe is self-sustaining, we must conclude something outside the physical universe is the source of existence. To conclude that the physical universe exists under it's own power is, by definition, unreasonable because we have no reasons to accept that.

This is an argument of contingency, not a cosmological.