18-01-2003 18:32									#121
	Get a bigger avatar today!

As morality is a constraint on "free will": I don't see the problem here.

Morality is a set of social standards imposed on us by both evolution and conditioning. Where does the Great Sky Pixie come into this?

	18-01-2003 19:13									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by lightblue I can choose to sit behind my computer all day, or I can choose to go outside for a run. In what form does this not entail free will?

Why should it be free-will? Why shouldn't it just be an illusion of free-will? Are you really sure that you made this post because you wanted to? Could it not just be the natural consequence of physical interactions in your brain exactly as the laws of physics dictate, giving the illusion of free-will?

I'm sorry, but 'I think, therefore I am' is just hopelessly niave.

quote: I do not believe in a Puppetmaster in the Sky who decides my life's path, therefore everything I do is and must be by my own volition. So being an atheist automatically leads to knowing that you have free will in my book.

You have got it back to front. If there were a 'puppetmaster' as you so quaintly put it, his existence would be an existence proof for sentience. If there is one being in the universe who has free-will then one admits the possibility and it is no longer a leap to seuggest that we have it too.

OK, let's examine your scenarios:

quote: 1/ You believe in a God, and do not believe in free will as everything is predetermined by said God eventhough you still consciously make decisions on what to do every day.

This is highly illogical. There would be no point in God making us if he didn't give us sentience.

quote: 2/ You do not believe in a God, and believe that which seems like free will, is actually free will.

Whether this is illogical depends on your reasoning. If you use science as a motivation as to disbelieving God, then it is illogical, because [b]science has no room for free-will.[b]

quote: Which one seems the more logical to you? I can throw in Occam again, but I realise (just as you do) that discussing these things on forums isn't going to convince someone of the other way.

I would not subscribe to either of these views (as you know perfectly well). If you want to throw Occam's razor into the mix, then you should believe the simplest explanation based on empirical facts. Since free-will is inconsistent with all our physical theories the natural conclusion would be: 'There is no God, and there is no free-will'.

quote: The fact that we're alive for a start? A doorknob can't make decisions, we can.

What makes you think that? Are you not making an assumption here? (Occam says )

	18-01-2003 19:34									#123
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Why should it be free-will? Why shouldn't it just be an illusion of free-will? Are you really sure that you made this post because you wanted to? Could it not just be the natural consequence of physical interactions in your brain exactly as the laws of physics dictate, giving the illusion of free-will? I'm sorry, but 'I think, therefore I am' is just hopelessly niave.

Hmm, interesting dilemma. I would see that as different people make different decisions when presented with the same circumstances, the physical interactions in your brain constitute your personality, and as such will determine which decision you will make. So yes, you're right in that chemical changes will affect which decisions we make, however I'd see this as free will in that it is not an outside influence that determines this coice, but rather an inside influence, which seeing as it is a part of you, consitutes yourself. Therefore, eventhough chemicals might make the ultimate decision, seeing as they are part of you, you make the decision. I do not accept the existence of a soul, I fully agree that we're a bag of chemicals, who just happen to be self aware, because of a certain mixture of these chemicals.

I suppose if you use your definition of free will, then yes, a scientist would not believe in free will. However, if you look at it from the POV that the particular mix of chemicals (and whatever else goes on a lower level with quantum states etc) in your brain make you the person you are, then if the natural physical interaction of these chemicals make the decisions for you, you could stipulate that you made this decision.

As for morality, this follows from this argument. It is a part of our genetic (and memetic, though that concept leads to more hassle) makeup, and as such is a part of our personalities, and as such you still make the decisions.

In short I probably agree with you, though we differ on what free will actually entails

	18-01-2003 19:44									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh The biggest contradiction: Atheists who believe they have free-will

I don't see how that follows. An atheist can't prove that he has free-will any more than a theist can prove that God exists, so why is only the atheist the stupid one?

For that matter, both the atheist and the theist cannot prove that either one even exists -- is "atheists who believe that they exist" therefore a contradiction as well?

	18-01-2003 19:57									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh science has no room for free-will.

Why not? Could you elaborate?

	18-01-2003 20:26									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Zero-Tau quote: science has no room for free-will. Why not? Could you elaborate?

The theory goes as this.

1) Free will is defined by the ability to choose.

2) All fundamental scientific theories are defined by pre-determination or by chance.

3) You cannot, by definition, make a choice when eveything is random or pre-determined.

	18-01-2003 21:06									#127
	Got spare money?

I think it would be more correct to argue that science has no use for free-will as a concept.

Arguments about free-will tend to get bogged down in definitions about what the "self" is, and about what the will is supposedly "free" of (or not).

Atheists can either agree or disagree on whether we have something that can be called "free will". What we generally agree on is that our "choices" are determined by factors such as what we had for breakfast etc, plus possibly a "random chance / quantum weirdness" component.

	19-01-2003 00:20									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"An atheist can't prove that he has free-will any more than a theist can prove that God exists, so why is only the atheist the stupid one?"

Assuming both points are true Loinburger, what about Pascal's wager?

If the Christian is mistaken in his belief in God, he is still worm food, no different from the correct Atheist.

If the Christian is right, then the Christian is saved, while the Atheist is not.

Either way, the Christian will be no worse off then the atheist. Even assuming that religion belief and practice provide no physical benefits.

Jack-

"The child would not exist without their act of creation, and the mother's sacrifices in choosing to undergo pregnancy. The child owes its life to the parents."

True, but this does not confer the right to arbitrarily kill.
I guess a better way of putting it is do parents own their children? They are responsible for maintaining the health and welfare of the child, but they cannot claim ownership.

"the issue is whether the person deserves to die or not."

What criteria do you use? Does the unborn child meet the same criteria as Osama bin Laden?

"Great Sky Pixie"

This is actually not bad. It highlights the foolishness of Christians in the eyes of the worldly.

"In essence, the woman is the god of the fetus."

Boris-

Do you really believe this? The mother is also made in the image of God, the same as the unborn child. They are both creations of one Creator.

	19-01-2003 00:42									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 Assuming both points are true Loinburger, what about Pascal's wager?

Please don't use that again in any arguement. It is one of the absolute worst reasons to believe in God.

	19-01-2003 00:44									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 If the Christian is right, then the Christian is saved, while the Atheist is not.

If the Christian is wrong, and the Muslim (or Wiccan or Satanist etc.) is right, then the Christian is in the same post-humous boat as the Atheist.

If God will send the Atheist to Hell as punishment for making use of his God-given reasoning abilities, then that God is not worthy of respect, much less worship.

If God rewards people for being intellectually dishonest ("I believe in God because that way I'm covering my bets" is a statement that does not denote belief at all, except perhaps a belief in God's inability to recognize our inner thoughts and motives), then that God is not worthy of respect, much less worship.

quote: Either way, the Christian will be no worse off then the atheist. Even assuming that religion belief and practice provide no physical benefits.

If the Christian is intellectually honest in his beliefs, and if the Atheist is intellectually honest in his beliefs, then yes, the Christian is no worse off than the Atheist, but by the same token, the Atheist is no worse off than the Christian.

Beliefs are not something that can be changed on a whim. I can say "I believe in God" until I'm blue in the face, I can even go through the motions that externally denote religious belief (I could, say, profess to be a Christian, and go to church every Sunday, and take communion, etc.), but I still wouldn't (still couldn't) truly believe in God.

	19-01-2003 00:52									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I am:

A Green Republican!

A Reporter who doesn't like people reading his articles!

	19-01-2003 01:15									#132
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Dinodoc-

"Assuming the first two points are true.
An atheist can't prove that he has free-will any more than a theist can prove that God exists, "

Christianity does not work unless one can show that God exists with reasonable certainty.

"Beliefs are not something that can be changed on a whim. I can say "I believe in God" until I'm blue in the face, I can even go through the motions that externally denote religious belief (I could, say, profess to be a Christian, and go to church every Sunday, and take communion, etc.), but I still wouldn't (still couldn't) truly believe in God."

exactly, Loinburger

So let's stop wagering.

Why is Christianity right, but the others are wrong? Why should we believe Christians over all the other truth claims?

	19-01-2003 01:49									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 "In essence, the woman is the god of the fetus." Boris- Do you really believe this? The mother is also made in the image of God, the same as the unborn child. They are both creations of one Creator.

In a universe where we assume God does not exist, then absolutely I believe this. As far as the fetus is concerned, the mother is a de facto "god" to it in such a universe. The fetus exists entirely inside the mother, it is totally dependent on the mother for everything.

In such a universe, the mother is the "creator," and by your logic under which a God can massacre his creations, so can a mother terminate the existence of the fetus. In fact, it's probably more moral for a woman to have an abortion than it is for a God to murder his living people, as the living people are at least sentient, conscious beings.

	19-01-2003 01:51									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Where does the father enter that analogy?

	19-01-2003 02:01									#135
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 Why is Christianity right, but the others are wrong? Why should we believe Christians over all the other truth claims?

Heck if I know. Maybe because one billion Christians can't be wrong?

	19-01-2003 02:04									#136
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

SD, I mentioned "the parents" in a previous post, but have been trying to be simplistic by just referring to the mother. For the sake of this particular argument, it doesn't make a difference if you add the father to the equation, since as long as the creators of a fetus consent to its destruction, it is fine to destroy it, under obiwan's logic.

	19-01-2003 02:11									#137
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lightblue Hmm, interesting dilemma. I would see that as different people make different decisions when presented with the same circumstances, the physical interactions in your brain constitute your personality, and as such will determine which decision you will make. So yes, you're right in that chemical changes will affect which decisions we make, however I'd see this as free will in that it is not an outside influence that determines this coice, but rather an inside influence, which seeing as it is a part of you, consitutes yourself. Therefore, eventhough chemicals might make the ultimate decision, seeing as they are part of you, you make the decision. I do not accept the existence of a soul, I fully agree that we're a bag of chemicals, who just happen to be self aware, because of a certain mixture of these chemicals. I suppose if you use your definition of free will, then yes, a scientist would not believe in free will. However, if you look at it from the POV that the particular mix of chemicals (and whatever else goes on a lower level with quantum states etc) in your brain make you the person you are, then if the natural physical interaction of these chemicals make the decisions for you, you could stipulate that you made this decision. As for morality, this follows from this argument. It is a part of our genetic (and memetic, though that concept leads to more hassle) makeup, and as such is a part of our personalities, and as such you still make the decisions. In short I probably agree with you, though we differ on what free will actually entails

good post

	19-01-2003 02:13									#138
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Please don't use that again in any arguement. It is one of the absolute worst reasons to believe in God.

what is Pascal's wager? sounds interesting...

	19-01-2003 02:20									#139
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: If the Christian is wrong, and the Muslim (or Wiccan or Satanist etc.) is right, then the Christian is in the same post-humous boat as the Atheist. If God will send the Atheist to Hell as punishment for making use of his God-given reasoning abilities, then that God is not worthy of respect, much less worship. If God rewards people for being intellectually dishonest ("I believe in God because that way I'm covering my bets" is a statement that does not denote belief at all, except perhaps a belief in God's inability to recognize our inner thoughts and motives), then that God is not worthy of respect, much less worship.

Well said

	19-01-2003 02:23									#140
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman what is Pascal's wager? sounds interesting...

Basically, that it is smarter to believe in God than to not believe in him. After all, it says, if the believer is wrong, then his fate will be no different than an atheist. But if the believer is right, then he gets to go to heaven and such while the atheist burns in Hell.

It's a stupid thought, however, as it neglects to point out which exact belief in God should be followed (since many are contradictory, and picking the wrong one would still land the believer in Hell), and it makes belief in God a cynical tool for self-preservation.

	19-01-2003 02:24									#141
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Morality is a set of social standards imposed on us by both evolution and conditioning.

How does this make sense? IMO, in a state of nature the man who has no compunction at all about killing another man for his home or his wife would be more likely to survive. So by your logic evolution would give us few if any morals. You admitted yourself that morals are a supression of ourt natural instinct, so then how can you say it comes from evolution?

	19-01-2003 02:26									#142
	Tired of ads?

One of my favorite contridictions in my life happened while I was over at a friend's house. My friend is a taoist/Christian, and we were having some stupid kind of Science vs. Religion arguement.

We were sitting in his kitchen, and I had just made myself a sandwhich, and he was about to heat something up. I made some remark, and he finally just said in an angey voice, "What has science ever done for us!?" ... while saying this he had running water going, we were under the flourescent lights of his kitchen, and he was typing in the length of time for the microwave to heat his food...

After erupting in laughter, we went back to playing Halo on his X-box and watched a couple of DVDs on his big screen television...

Kman

Last edited by Kramerman on 19-01-2003 at 02:34

	19-01-2003 02:28									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: You admitted yourself that morals are a supression of ourt natural instinct, so then how can you say it comes from evolution?

uh ooooh... sounds like we got a contridiction

	19-01-2003 02:31									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 IMO, in a state of nature the man who has no compunction at all about killing another man for his home or his wife would be more likely to survive.

Were this the case, then I would expect morality to have died out long ago. The fact that it has not died out provides solid evidence that morality is apparently beneficial in some way.

	19-01-2003 02:37									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Darius, you're omitting the "conditioning" part of morals. Evolution has given us basic instincts--survival, reproduction, entertainment, etc. Societal conditioning has transformed those into morals. By living together and working together to satisfy one's own basic needs better, it becomes obvious that the basic needs of all in the society need to be protected for that society to function properly. So morals were developed to protect society. Over time, they have grown more complex. Now, morals were also adopted in some societies based on the selfish desires of individuals/groups that had risen to power. Such morals were often imposed under the guise of religious dogma. So in a modern secular society, such morals can be discarded if they no longer serve a rational purpose in that society.

	19-01-2003 02:43									#146
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

That's correct, but that's not evolution in the way Jack seemed to mean. Morality was a phenomenon created by necessity as humanids bound together in tribal society, not evolution by random mutation over millions of years. There's a difference.

	19-01-2003 02:45									#147
	Got spare money?

You can't separate evolution from it, however, as evolution gives rise to instincts, and instincts gave rise to morals.

	19-01-2003 03:24									#148
	Re: Re: People's Contradictory Beliefs? Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov How's this for contradictory: A "pro-life" person who staunchly supports the death penalty. Or any "Christian" who supports the death penalty, for that matter. I doubt Christ would approve of it.

There are numerous references in the Bible to the justification of capital punishment (i.e. an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc.).

Pro-Life people in general are contradictory. They support the "right to life", but apparantly don't believe in the "right to a good life" because they don't support universal health care or public education (for the most part). And many are staunch anti-gun-control people, too. So apparantly they don't care about murder .

Bodds, there's something called a Social Democracy. Too many damn right wingers start to believe this whole "anti-Commie"/Reagan-like propaganda. Even the so called "communisms" weren't even communism. Socialism is even closer to America capitalism. It's just that we Socialists believe that education and health care are human rights issues and should be not-for-profit.

	19-01-2003 04:13									#149
	Suffering from ads?

Socialists believe in government run programs.

The whole thing is, all you rebel wannabes don't even know :

A) What you want to be, because
B) You don't know the definitions of what you think you aspire to become.

	19-01-2003 04:26									#150
	Support Apolyton

quote: It's just that we Socialists believe that education and health care are human rights issues and should be not-for-profit.

And we believe that since they are for profit, competition would breed innovation. Tho, governemnt controls are a must to keep it stable. That is why a little bit of socialism, and a little bit of capitalism work so well...