Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[roflcopter101]

Mark 8:36. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

"It's [your soul] like your appendix. You'll never even miss it." -The Devil from Bedazzled.

When my son was a teenager he knew everything. Now he is 37, married and has five children. The oldest is the top student in her school. He has woken up to the fact that when you are no longer a teen there is a lot to learn. I hope you find out the same.

Is there anything really wrong with becoming rich and happy? Anyways, the point still stands. Purpose and meaning in life does not have to be predetermined.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sin is lawlessness!

Was this supposed to address anything in my post? Because it doesn't seem to. And as a nonbeliever, I reject the idea of sin anyway...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What are you going to do with Jesus? Crazy,liar or God?

The actual quotation is liar, lunatic or lord. The alliteration helps.

Anyway, you're missing what's probably the most logical answer... legend. Like the fact that a King Arthur actually existed, but of course he didn't have a magic sword...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I guess you will have to wait until you die to find out your wrong.

Lol. Any argument with a Christian always ends with the Christian retreating to the "Oh yeah? Well, you'll get yours buddy!" position. Bad arguing skills.

And you know that every other religion will say the same thing to you...

 

[b&wpac4]

And you know that every other religion will say the same thing to you...

Not mine

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Not mine

Oh yeah? Well, you'll get yours in the end, buddy!

 

[b&wpac4]

Oh yeah? Well, you'll get yours in the end, buddy!

LOL it is the sign of terrible arguing skill as well as a bit of a revenge complex.

 

[allhart]

Your argument (such that it is) relies upon two assumptions: that free will actually exists, and that there is this 'cause and effect'. Care to justify either of these? That is, can you demonstrate that free will actually exists? As far as I can tell, your argument requires that it does. Unless you can demonstrate the existence of free will, then your argument is worthless.


The word is 'crux', and, despite my best efforts, I simply cannot decipher your English. For instance, you said:

"The difference between Free will and matter (atom combination in the periodic table) The making of a new structure. Rearranging of parts. Doesn't give you self awareness, free will and consciousness? Will you recognize this ? Will you be honest and differentiate between matter and self?"

Did you mean: "Matter cannot give rise to free will"? Because, y'know, it's a lot shorter, and a lot easier to comprehend.

And don't think I didn't notice the loaded question ("Will you be honest and..."). So, what, if I don't cede defeat and convert to your worldview, I must be dishonest? It couldn't possibly be that I'm simply unconvinced by your argument, right?

Quit deflecting the argument and making it about my writing! You can't see that chemical reactions has cause and effect. Which Effectively has a final cause, but you yourself are simply more than matter and effectively change your mind all the time. O.k. look at a monopoly game. If we have a game and you tell me that when it's my turn I can do whatever I want, but just let me know when I'm done. I can watch foot ball. Make a sandwich whatever Even put houses on the board whatever. You put houses on the board and tell me your done. I wipe the board clean and make me lunch. If I did this a couple of times what the point and purpose or goal. If I'm not going to play the game! Your mind didn't come from nothing. If you don't understand the laws in cause and effect, plainly laws of nature! Whats the point!

 

[allhart]

In the scripture God said that by the wisdom of this world the world does not know Him, also I believe TRUE science operates on facts and not theories or assumptions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Quit deflecting the argument and making it about my writing!

Parts of my post were about your writing, but only because I had no idea what you were saying. I can't tackle the argument if I can't understand what you're saying, now, can I?

You can't see that chemical reactions has cause and effect. Which Effectively has a final cause, but you yourself are simply more than matter and effectively change your mind all the time.

Which presumes that there exists some immaterial 'mind' which can be changed, or 'free will' that exists separate from chemical reactions.
I don't pretend to understand what conciousness is or how it works, but that hardly means I have to invoke God as an explanation. I'm happy with "I don't know".

O.k. look at a monopoly game. If we have a game and you tell me that when it's my turn I can do whatever I want, but just let me know when I'm done. I can watch foot ball. Make a sandwich whatever Even put houses on the board whatever. You put houses on the board and tell me your done. I wipe the board clean and make me lunch. If I did this a couple of times what the point and purpose or goal. If I'm not going to play the game! Your mind didn't come from nothing. If you don't understand the laws in cause and effect, plainly laws of nature! Whats the point!

I'm not sure I understand the analogy. Are you saying that, because there appears to be rules governing the universe, that there must be a point to it? That rules require a purpose?

In the scripture God said that by the wisdom of this world the world does not know Him, also I believe TRUE science operates on facts and not theories or assumptions.

True science doesn't operate on theories?

Are you serious?

 

[allhart]

Parts of my post were about your writing, but only because I had no idea what you were saying. I can't tackle the argument if I can't understand what you're saying, now, can I?


Which presumes that there exists some immaterial 'mind' which can be changed, or 'free will' that exists separate from chemical reactions.
I don't pretend to understand what conciousness is or how it works, but that hardly means I have to invoke God as an explanation. I'm happy with "I don't know".


I'm not sure I understand the analogy. Are you saying that, because there appears to be rules governing the universe, that there must be a point to it? That rules require a purpose?


True science doesn't operate on theories?

Are you serious?

I believe Science to simply be a method of deduction. It is of course limited to the laws of nature. Well being happy with "I don't know" Makes for the chain in your link Unknown. In which make the four fundamentals un-build-able. You have no origin, so no meaning to all things, bio or matter!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I believe Science to simply be a method of deduction. It is of course limited to the laws of nature.

Of course. But what are the limits of the laws? What constitutes 'nature'? Science steadily marches onwards, explaining this and that as it goes. We may not know the origin of the universe now, but that doesn't mean we never will.

Well being happy with "I don't know" Makes for the chain in your link Unknown.

In which make the four fundamentals un-build-able.

"Chain in my link"? "Four fundamentals"? What on Earth are you talking about?

You have no origin, so no meaning to all things, bio or matter!

So? No one said we have an explanation for absolutely everything.

 

[allhart]

Of course. But what are the limits of the laws? What constitutes 'nature'? Science steadily marches onwards, explaining this and that as it goes. We may not know the origin of the universe now, but that doesn't mean we never will.




"Chain in my link"? "Four fundamentals"? What on Earth are you talking about?


So? No one said we have an explanation for absolutely everything.

Look you have laws of reality and that we have to live by. You can say you fly,but if you jump off the empire state building laws of gravity still apply! You die! Cause and effect!

 

[DeathMagus]

I believe Science to simply be a method of deduction.

You have it completely backwards. Science is necessarily a method of induction, not deduction.

 

[allhart]

You have it completely backwards. Science is necessarily a method of induction, not deduction.

That is assumption!

 

[lordbt]

Your argument (such that it is) relies upon two assumptions: that free will actually exists, and that there is this 'cause and effect'. Care to justify either of these? That is, can you demonstrate that free will actually exists? As far as I can tell, your argument requires that it does. Unless you can demonstrate the existence of free will, then your argument is worthless.

Free will is the human ability to determine a course of action based upon the independent judgement of ones own mind. Or as The American Heritage Dictionary defines it: "free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by necessity." The evidence of the existence of such choices are everywhere. My choosing to reply to your post is one such example. Perhaps there is someone behind you with a gun compelling you to do things that you would not do in absence of that threat, but if not, your choices are your own and flow from a will that is your own.

The whole of society is based upon the notion that man possesses a will of his own. It is the foundation of our understanding of human nature itself. It is why we discuss things like ethics and morality. Such topics would be pointless if man lacked the freedom of will. If man lacks a will of his own, then he is not a moral being. He is not capable of virtue or vice. If that is your perspective, I dont see why you wouldnt advocate the closing of our prison system. Since the people there are not there by acts of their own will.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Look you have laws of reality and that we have to live by. You can say you fly,but if you jump of the empire state building laws of gravity still apply! You die!

Indeed, and science attempts to answer why things fall to Earth without fail. Our current (and best) explanation is that spacetime warps around mass, effectively applying a force to objects.

But what's your point? What does that have to do with the origin of the universe (which is, after all, what this thread is about)?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is assumption!

Actually, it's fact. Since we humans are the ones that decide what science is and is not, we can say with absolute certainty that it is, indeed, inductive.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Free will is the human ability to determine a course of action based upon the independent judgement of ones own mind. Or as The American Heritage Dictionary defines it: "free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by necessity."

I know what free will means, I just happen not to believe it exists.

The evidence of the existence of such choices are everywhere. My choosing to reply to your post is one such example. Perhaps there is someone behind you with a gun compelling you to do things that you would not do in absence of that threat, but if not, your choices are your own and flow from a will that is your own.

The fact that my body does things isn't evidence of free will. It's just evidence that my brain recieves and processes external data, and behaves appropriately. The same is done with rudimentary AIs, but they don't have free will.

The whole of society is based upon the notion that man possesses a will of his own. It is the foundation of our understanding of human nature itself. It is why we discuss things like ethics and morality. Such topics would be pointless if man lacked the freedom of will. If man lacks a will of his own, then he is not a moral being. He is not capable of virtue or vice.

Agreed. Our legal systems not only presume the existence of free will and moral agency, but they would be pointless without it.

If that is your perspective, I dont see why you wouldnt advocate the closing of our prison system. Since the people there are not there by acts of their own will.

There are two courses of action. Either I act as if free will doesn't exist, or I act as if it does.
If free will just so happens not to exist, then my 'choice' is an illusion, and I have no say in what I actually do.
If free will does exist, then I do have a say in what I do.
So I may as well act as if free will exists, on the off-chance that it does actually exist.
If it doesn't, well, I had no choice in the matter. If it does, then I've guessed right.

More fundamentally, our entire species has evolved its concept of morality on the notion of unpredictability and risk, trust and assumption. The concept of free will is fundamental to our society, but that doesn't mean it's real.

 

[allhart]

Actually, it's fact. Since we humans are the ones that decide what science is and is not, we can say with absolute certainty that it is, indeed, inductive.