If I have the Respect of every Creature, I have the respect of Evolution?

[Bungle_Bear]

I tried explaining my "reasoning", but you won't accept it, so...?

Order, design, whatever, everything being determined and pre-determined by an intelligence, which is what the "evidence" is telling us, etc, or at the very least that "determinism" is true, etc, IMO, there having to be intelligence behind it, that made and/or designed it, set it all in motion, knows/knew it all fully, from the very beginning to it's very ending, etc, etc, etc, but you won't accept it, and even say it's "invalid", etc, so I don't know what else to say, etc...

Anyhow,

God Bless!

We already had this discussion. There is no evidence of intelligence behind everything. Your biased a priori conclusion is not evidence, it is simply wishful thinking.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I see determinism as true and I'm definitely not alone in that belief/view either, not even alone in it by many non-believers, etc...

OK... at this point I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you. It would be kinder to stop here.

 

[Neogaia777]

So, do you believe in free will? If you do, how do you reconcile it with determinism - are you a compatibilist?

If not, how do you reconcile the absence of free will with Christian belief?

Any kind of free will is only based on a not knowing, etc, for anyone, etc...

And I don't understand the last question, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

OK... at this point I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you. It would be kinder to stop here.

Why...?

Am I not speaking the truth...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

We already had this discussion. There is no evidence of intelligence behind everything. Your biased a priori conclusion is not evidence, it is simply wishful thinking.

Not it's based on a deterministic view of "everything", and the, or this world, and all of us, and this universe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Not it's based on a deterministic view of "everything", and the, or this world, and all of us, and this universe, etc...

God Bless!

It remains unevidenced.

 

[Neogaia777]

It remains unevidenced.

Many think it's pretty evident, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Many think it's pretty evident, etc...

God Bless!

Evident =/= evidenced. If you have evidence, please present it. You failed to do so last time I engaged you, so I expect you'll come up blank again.

 

[Neogaia777]

Evident =/= evidenced. If you have evidence, please present it. You failed to do so last time I engaged you, so I expect you'll come up blank again.

Your fully capable of doing a simple google search, so, do it...

Evidence for and/or against determinism, etc...

And "decide for yourself", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Your fully capable of doing a simple google search, so, do it...

Evidence for and/or against determinism, etc...

And "decide for yourself", etc...

God Bless!

I think you will find that most of the people "against it" are people pushing so hard for their own will, or own "free will", etc...

But, anyway, decide for yourself, K...

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think you will find that most of the people "against it" are people pushing so hard for their own will, or own "free will", etc...

But, anyway, decide for yourself, K...

God Bless!

I asked you to present your evidence. Asking me to find it myself indicates you either have nothing or you do not understand it and cannot put it in your own words.

 

[Neogaia777]

I asked you to present your evidence. Asking me to find it myself indicates you either have nothing or you do not understand it and cannot put it in your own words.

All I'm going to be doing is giving you a bunch of links, now, you really want me to do that, or not...?

And I tried putting it my own words, but I can give you a bunch of links that say it much better than I can, now, you really want to do that, or not...?

You can't just google, "evidence for determinism", cause that's all I'm going to be doing, then choosing my favorites and linking them here for you...

Anyway, don't be lazy, or expect me to do it all for you, etc, if you really want to know just google it, OK...?

I learned about this a while back, and like I said, would just be giving you cherry picked links, so...? And I didn't save the information n my computer either, etc, cause I saw no need as long as I have google, etc...

And that is easily something your fully capable of doing yourself, and you could also look up the ones "against" as well, etc, and I wouldn't be choosing them for you, etc...

You need to look it/them up yourself and it's not that hard either, and then just decide for yourself, is all I am saying, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

All I'm going to be doing is giving you a bunch of links, now, you really want me to do that, or not...?

And I tried putting it my own words, but I can give you a bunch of links that say it much better than I can, now, you really want to do that, or not...?

You can't just google, "evidence for determinism", cause that's all I'm going to be doing, then choosing my favorites and linking them here for you...

Anyway, don't be lazy, or expect me to do it all for you, etc, if you really want to know just google it, OK...?

I learned about this a while back, and like I said, would just be giving you cherry picked links, so...? And I didn't save the information n my computer either, etc, cause I saw no need as long as I have google, etc...

And that is easily something your fully capable of doing yourself, and you could also look up the ones "against" as well, etc, and I wouldn't be choosing them for you, etc...

You need to look it/them up yourself and it's not that hard either, and then just decide for yourself, is all I am saying, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

The point is, there is no evidence, even in determinism, for your God. That's the part I'm asking you to present. Now, are you prepared to present anything? Or do we just accept you have nothing more than wishful thinking?

 

[Neogaia777]

I believe determinism to be much more broader, and as having much more farther or further reaching implications than just the philosophical definition, etc... In the "second definition" below...

Definition of determinism

1 philosophy
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see WILL entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
b : a belief in predestination

2 : the quality or state of (a thing, or everything) being determined (or all predetermined) (always by things before that) (and those before that) (and those before that), etc, etc, etc...

The second definition is how it applies to science beyond just that of philosophy, etc...

And is the definition that matters here, etc...

"Causal determinism" is more what I mean here, for that see this link (below), etc...

Many scientists, many physicists, are coming to more and more of an increased belief in it/this, etc, Einstein did, etc...

Determinism - Wikipedia

I'll, "give you" the parts that matter to me, OK...?

Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of determinism mentioned below.

Other debates often concern the scope of determined systems, with some (many now) maintaining that the entire universe is a single determinate system and others identifying other more limited determinate systems (or multiverse). Numerous historical debates involve many philosophical positions and varieties of determinism. They include debates concerning determinism and free will, technically denoted as compatibilistic (allowing the two to coexist) and incompatibilistic (denying their coexistence is a possibility). Determinism should not be confused with self-determination of human actions by reasons, motives, and desires. Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible.

The ones I "bolded" are what many scientists who know anything about this at all are increasingly coming to conclude, due to their own observations, in things like physics, etc...

Many "physicists" are beginning to see it as the only real true truth and only real possibility, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

The point is, there is no evidence, even in determinism, for your God. That's the part I'm asking you to present. Now, are you prepared to present anything? Or do we just accept you have nothing more than wishful thinking?

But there is, because determinism means the there should be a one who determined it, or caused it from the very beginning, etc...

Since it is all dependent on "cause and effect", and things caused by things prior to/it them, etc, and those things, by things prior to that, etc, going all the way back, etc, what was the "original cause" if all is "cause and effect" going all the way back to the beginning, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I just did a search for "determinism in physics" and pulled up some very interesting results, etc...

Try it, etc...

Might want to search "causal determinism" as well, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But there is, because determinism means the there should be a one who determined it, or caused it from the very beginning, etc...

Since it is all dependent on "cause and effect", and things caused by things prior to/it them, etc, and those things, by things prior to that, etc, going all the way back, etc, what was the "original cause" if all is "cause and effect" going all the way back to the beginning, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

The fact you cannot understand that a cause does not have to be intelligent is all we need to know. Your arguments are based on a simple, unsupportable, a priori belief that the only explanation is intelligence. You have no evidence, just an assertion.

 

[pitabread]

Explain to me how intelligence could not be required, or involved, etc...? or how something, that has apparent order, etc, could come from nothing or complete disorder, etc...?

Here is my recommendation: take some time to read up on the following subjects, Chaos Theory, Complexity Theory, Emergent Properties, and Quantum Mechanics.

These subjects cover topics such as how order can appear out of chaos, self-organization, the emergence of properties in systems not independently found in constituent parts, and so on. While these topics can be heady, they can provide some conceptual understanding as to how things we observe in our universe can form. I will admit a lot of this material can see counter-intuitive. I remember when first reading about events that violate basic causality; trying to wrap one's head around these concepts is not easy! But I think it's worth it.

And you confusing the issues as well, intelligence is intelligence, and order is order, etc, etc, etc..

If you plan to make arguments using these terms, you should take some time to explicitly figure out what you mean by them. Simply defining a term with itself is not conducive to a productive discussion or debate.

 

[Neogaia777]

The fact you cannot understand that a cause does not have to be intelligent is all we need to know. Your arguments are based on a simple, unsupportable, a priori belief that the only explanation is intelligence. You have no evidence, just an assertion.

The intelligence in it all is seen by what proceeds forth from or after the original cause, etc...

The fact that there has to be an original cause shows the it/He is there, and what comes after it/Him/that shows the intelligence in it all...

The fact that it goes according to mathematically predictable patters, that we can know and predict with math, etc, and it is just not all random chaos, etc...

That it has lots of order to it, etc, suggests some kind of intelligent design, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Here is my recommendation: take some time to read up on the following subjects, Chaos Theory, Complexity Theory, Emergent Properties, and Quantum Mechanics.

These subjects cover topics such as how order can appear out of chaos, self-organization, the emergence of properties in systems not independently found in constituent parts, and so on. While these topics can be heady, they can provide some conceptual understanding as to how things we observe in our universe can form. I will admit a lot of this material can see counter-intuitive. I remember when first reading about events that violate basic causality; trying to wrap one's head around these concepts is not easy! But I think it's worth it.



If you plan to make arguments using these terms, you should take some time to explicitly figure out what you mean by them. Simply defining a term with itself is not conducive to a productive discussion or debate.

I appreciate that, I really do, but then there is still the old argument that "something does not ever come from nothing ever" also, etc...

And I have heard of those things, but might look into them some more, thanks,

And I just did look into them some more now, and remember them now, and....

I don't subscribe to chaos theory though, not necessarily anyway, what man see's as chaos, I see as order and is by design, etc, same with complexity theory as well, what man see's as way too complex, (to have order and design, etc) I think God see's as really very simple really, and as being by His order and design, etc...

Where man see's way too much chaos and overwhelming complexity, I see order and determinism and design, etc...

And same with emergent properties as well, all by design, etc, all due to causal determinism from the beginning, etc...

And as far as quantum mechanics or physics is concerned, at almost any level of physics on any level, most can still very much see causal determinism very much at work in any kind of physics on any level, etc...

God Bless!