Print

[MonroeMonkey]

Sorry I left you out to dry Xerxes, I got caught up in some things last night.

I have seen that video before and I think it's really neat. Still I believe that we do have free will but it is limited.  Just because you can predict what someone is going to do before they do it doesn't mean they didn't make the choice to do it.  All it shows is that the choice is made up to 10 seconds prior to when we actually make the choice.  Now if you can show choices being made say, a year before they are made, then I would say that there is no free will, IF the person who's choice is predicted makes a different choice when they are given the knowledge that their choice has been predictied.

H'm... The choice, as a concept, is made through the agent, but the agent is subject to the factors coming together to bring forth that choice.


Say there was a man that got a thrill out of beating his dog. Why does he like to beat his dog? If he really examined, he may say, "I get a thrill out of it." But why does he get a thrill out it?

And if the atoms of your body rearranged to be exact to the atoms in his body, then you'd be him, with the same strange desire to beat your dog, and you would beat the dog. When asked why, you'd say you don't know. Where's the freedom in that?

[Baggins]

Did you read any of my posts? Einstein, Planck, and every other scientist and philosopher has believed that science DOES play a role in our understanding of the Universe and how we shape our spiritual thinking. Science comes from the Latin for "Knowledge."

It appears you just wanna spew some nonsense on this thread.

I been known to spew many things from time to time, but nonsense isn't among them...What I said is not nonsense in any way shape or form, but a logical statement regarding the nonassociation of religion to science.  Knowledge does indeed shape our understanding of the universe, yet as far as faith goes a lack of knowledge doesn't hinder the believer...In other words faith is not based on facts but beliefs.  Not just beliefs, but PERSONAL beliefs.  While knowledge is a common understanding of the way things work. 

[MonroeMonkey]

I been known to spew many things from time to time, but nonsense isn't among them...What I said is not nonsense in any way shape or form, but a logical statement regarding the nonassociation of religion to science.  Knowledge does indeed shape our understanding of the universe, yet as far as faith goes a lack of knowledge doesn't hinder the believer...In other words faith is not based on facts but beliefs.  Not just beliefs, but PERSONAL beliefs.  While knowledge is a common understanding of the way things work.

Name me ONE well known scientist or philosopher that didn't believe science played a role in our formulation of spiritual views. Even books today about faith are being written by scientists and philosophers, such as Richard Dawkins (scientist), Sam Harris (scientist), Ken Miller (scientist), Francis Collins (scientist), Daniel Dennett (philosopher), etc., etc., etc. And, note, that Collins and Miller are *Christians* who are encouraging Christians to abandon matters of faith that oppose modern science.

And, if you had read my original post, you'd realize Einstein's special relativity brings up questions about creation, free will, etc., etc. The father of quantum mechanics, Max Planck, believed such sciences added to the support of their being a Mind or Consciousness in nature.

And really, any faith or religion that doesn't take Science into account is void of reason. Period.

[Baggins]

You know, what truly is nonsense is the reoccurring theme of religion vs. science...Keep them separate, and keep them safe!

Again, I say understanding of the universe(the knowledge of scientific research and study) and spiritual thinking(faith in ones religious beliefs) are two separate chapters...I don't think that's too hard to understand, and far from nonsense.

[Baggins]

Religion is not based in any way by reason...

[MonroeMonkey]

You know, what truly is nonsense is the reoccurring theme of religion vs. science...Keep them separate, and keep them safe!

Again, I say understanding of the universe(the knowledge of scientific research and study) and spiritual thinking(faith in ones religious beliefs) are two separate chapters...I don't think that's too hard to understand, and far from nonsense.

Religion without Science would still be thinking witches were casting spells on people and that kids that convulse on the ground have a demon inside them. (Mark 9).

Again, name me one well known scientist or philosopher that would agree with you. Name me one well known Christian apologist that would agree with you. In this case, such an appeal to majority and authority will reveal your view is probably not reasonable; plus, you've added no reasonable support for your claims.

This idea that there is a divide between science and spiritual ideas is absurd. If one believed epilepsy was a demon, due to faith and religion, but science showed it was a brain abnormality which could be treated with medication, that one would drop such ignorant beliefs if he were reasonable.




Anyways, I hope this can go back to the original subject matter. Forsythia brought up freewill in relation to Einstein's relativity, which was a good point.

[Baggins]

Einstein's special relativity brings up questions about creation, free will, etc., etc.

HOGWASH!   It brings up questions of particle physics and quantum mechanics...I'll grant you it does concern creation, but free will has nothing to do with it. 

[Baggins]

I admit I jumped in mid topic and just replied to the one post without reading the whole thread, but my opinion is still sound and Stephen Hawkins thinks so to...I'll go back and read the rest and let you know what I think.  I've been gone far too long and have a lot of catching up to do...

 

[Baggins]

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary to explain it's workings"  *Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989
 

[MonroeMonkey]

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary to explain it's workings"  *Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989

I admit I jumped in mid topic and just replied to the one post without reading the whole thread, but my opinion is still sound and Stephen Hawkins thinks so to...I'll go back and read the rest and let you know what I think.  I've been gone far too long and have a lot of catching up to do...

Sorry to bust your bubble, but Hawking has changed his mind.

Here's Hawkings saying that Science shows there is no time for a God to have been.


Stephen Hawking There is no God. There is no Fate.

HOGWASH!   It brings up questions of particle physics and quantum mechanics...I'll grant you it does concern creation, but free will has nothing to do with it. 

Einstein seemed to think it had a lot to do with freewill, as many do. If the *future* already exists and all things are *relative* and *co-dependent* it has everything to do with freewill.

[Baggins]

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws.    *Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41

[MonroeMonkey]

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws.    *Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41

Again, as posted above, Hawking has changed his mind about a god. The narrator is speaking for him, and then Hawking speaks with his synth voice.

[Baggins]

No bubble burst here...sorry to disappoint you...LOL   Geeez, he changed his mind, would that be free will in action...?

What year was that video made...?

[Baggins]

I still think in the scope that time is linear, not all encompassed(the past, present, and future happen as they play out, not all at once!)...

[MonroeMonkey]

That video is from 2010.

Here's the full episode. He mentions how Einstein's Relativity adds support to his conclusion of there being no god.

CURIOSITY: Did God Create The Universe? | S01E01



Come to think of it though... Stephen Jay Gould, well known paleontologist (1941-2002) may agree with you in part. His views on this matter are strongly opposed by many scientists, philosophers, etc., as they are logically incoherent.



Here's some evidence that science plays a role on many scientists thinking of the god question.

This is a study done among the National Academy of Sciences.







60 to 70% of the world believes in a god, whereas only about 8% of NAS scientists do, which indicates science plays a big role in scientists view of god, spirituality, and the afterlife.



Anyways, this thread was not to put God Vs. Science. It was about one's spiritual views in relation to Einstein's views of time.