Smart Kid

[rcronk]

It's an appeal to the supernatural as soon as you invoke the concept of divine intervention to explain observed phenomena.

Hmm - I don't think you got my analogy of the cup moving without "divine intervention" as you are calling it. I'm not hiding from the details and arguing from ignorance any more than an evolutionist is hiding from the details of the parts of his theory he can't explain. I'm still seeking the truth and will not stop until I find it all.

If there is a God, (which is possible) then it's perfectly valid to consider that He exists and that He has a part in reality. The practice of avoiding any mention of God would keep you from finding the truth, if in fact God exists. It's a fallacy to say that "because we have been able to explain X, Y, and Z without needing to include God, God must never enter into the equation."

It doesn't affect me, exactly, but it does reveal that I have no choice in the matter, and never did. I'm not saying that predetermination somehow removes free will that was there before; I'm saying that determinism simply reveals the fact that it never existed in the first place. If I truly had free will, then it would be impossible to predict my actions. Conversely, if you can predict my actions with 100% accuracy, then I am, by definition, an automaton and not a free agent.

I get what you're saying but it doesn't make sense to me. Your choice is not effected by my knowledge in any way whatsoever. Free will is the ability to do what you want to do without anyone forcing you to do what they want - nothing more. If someone knows what you're going to do because they are smart, it has absolutely no bearing on the choice you make and whether you are doing what you want to do.

An automaton in this context by Merriam Webster's definition is "a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions." [emphasis mine] I am a software engineer and so I know about predetermined sets of instructions and how a computer is forced to follow my predetermined set of instructions without any free will of its own.

Again, if I'm smart and know what you're going to do, that doesn't mean that you are following a set of instructions with no choice to deviate, you are acting independently of my knowledge. You are not an automaton. I could cease to exist and it wouldn't all of a sudden give your free will back - you wouldn't even know that I had died - except that I would stop posting here. We operate independently from each other.

Neither. I'm saying that, in a universe where free will existed, you wouldn't be able to predict the actions of another being, no matter how smart you were. Some degree of unpredictability is an absolute prerequisite of free will.

What are the sources of your assertions? Who said that you cannot predict the actions of someone who has free will? I predict my kids' actions and I thereby violate your law - my prediction doesn't affect their free will. Who said that some degree of unpredictability is a prerequisite of free will?

Consider the opposite: how can you possibly claim a being is capable of making choices it is absolutely impossible for him to choose opposite the way you expect?

Interesting question but that scenario reflects God's intelligence, not a person's free will. Again, free will is the ability to do what one wants to do without any outside compulsion or force. It has nothing to do with someone else's smartness or ability to predict what you'll do. I'm not taking my children's free will from them when I know they'll run out onto the ice and fall down. My prediction has absolutely nothing to do with my child's free will or their ability to choose to run out onto the ice.

Maybe this is just a matter of mismatching definitions. Thanks for the debate - I like it.

 

[jimlintott]

The whole description I gave is a theory about the reality of our situation and I'm here partly to falsify my theory and partly to learn more about other theories as I have explained above.

The problem with your "theory" is that it mentions the thing you are defining or theorizing about. Without knowing what god is (and trust me, I don't) your "theory" makes no sense. It's similar to me saying "the theory of evolution is that things evolve".

Your "theory" doesn't begin to address my question of "define god".

 

[toddjh]

I get what you're saying but it doesn't make sense to me. Your choice is not effected by my knowledge in any way whatsoever.

What choice? If my actions are predetermined, then there is one and only one possible outcome. "Choice" is a strange word to use to describe that situation.

If someone knows what you're going to do because they are smart, it has absolutely no bearing on the choice you make and whether you are doing what you want to do.

If your actions can be predicted with 100% certainty, then you don't have a choice, period. You have only one option. The fact that you think you "chose" that option is completely irrelevant. There is no choice because there is no other possible outcome.

An automaton in this context by Merriam Webster's definition is "a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions."

Yes. According to you, God can predict the future, and so the entire course of your life is predetermined. You have absolutely no ability to change it. You have no choice but to "follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations" -- that which God has predicted/designed.

Again, if I'm smart and know what you're going to do, that doesn't mean that you are following a set of instructions with no choice to deviate, you are acting independently of my knowledge.

Okay, so...can you choose to deviate, then?

I could cease to exist and it wouldn't all of a sudden give your free will back

Again, I'm not saying the act of prediction somehow takes away the free will you previously had. I'm saying the fact that it's even possible to predict your actions shows that you never had free will to start with.

What are the sources of your assertions? Who said that you cannot predict the actions of someone who has free will?

Any alternative leads to logical contradictions, or semantic gymnastics, such as your assertion above that a person somehow has a "choice" even though there is only one path available to him and he is powerless to choose otherwise.

Again, free will is the ability to do what one wants to do without any outside compulsion or force.

Yes. And a predetermined future is just such an outside compulsion.

 

[rcronk]

toddjh - I understand what you're saying, and it sounds ok in the abstract. But if you try applying that theory to my kids in an experiment, I think the theory falls apart.

If I predict what they'll do, then you are saying that my knowledge has caused them to loose the ability to do what they want? Keep it in the realm of this one specific example. Maybe we can avoid arguing past each other by keeping focused on this one experiment. Explain how their free will has been eliminated because I'm smart enough to know what they'll do. How exactly does it force them to do what I'm smart enough to know that they'll do?

jimlintott - Ok - I get what you're saying. So I described what I believe is our relationship with God in my original reply to you. To define what God is more specifically, I believe that God is a man like me who has gone through sufficient refinement to become perfect in every way, all powerful, all knowing, and that he begot us as his spirit children like our earthly parents begot us physically. And He, like our earthly parents, works with us to try to get us to become happy independent parents some day who will then have children, etc. Is that a good enough definition? It's not the mainstream theist definition but it's how I define him. Did I miss anything?

 

[toddjh]

If I predict what they'll do, then you are saying that my knowledge has caused them to loose the ability to do what they want?

First, I'm skeptical that you can predict the behavior of your children with perfect accuracy. No one can do that. But I'll accept that for the sake of argument.

In which case, no, I'm not saying your knowledge has caused them to lose the ability to do what they want. In fact, I specifically said that was not the case, twice. What I said is that, if they truly have free will, then you simply won't be able to predict their actions with absolute certainty, period. If you can predict their actions, then by definition they don't have free will. They're robots. Hugely complicated, amazingly detailed, awesomely elegant robots, but robots nonetheless.

So, your turn. What makes you think your kids aren't robots? After all, if you can predict what they'll do with perfect accuracy, it sounds like you've already figured out their "programming."

Keep it in the realm of this one specific example. Maybe we can avoid arguing past each other by keeping focused on this one experiment. Explain how their free will has been eliminated because I'm smart enough to know what they'll do. How exactly does it force them to do what I'm smart enough to know that they'll do?

For the fourth time, I'm not saying that the act of prediction forces them to do anything. I'm saying that prediction would be impossible in the first place if they had free will. Therefore, the fact that you can predict their actions simply shows that they don't.

 

[rcronk]

Ok - I get it now. I'll restate to make sure I get what you're saying. You're saying that my ability to predict their behavior has no effect on them with respect to their free will (like what I have been saying) you're just saying that prediction would be impossible in the first place if they had free will. Ok so we agree on everything except the assertion that prediction would be impossible. And so if I were able to predict their actions, they by definition would not have free will - therefore, since we know that they do have free will, I must not be able to predict their actions.

Assertion: It is impossible to predict the actions of someone who has free will.

Please explain the basis for that assertion. My experience is that it's actually quite easy to predict my kids' actions most of the time - and they definitely have free will all of the time and do what they want to do all of the time. And I'm just some dude - definitely not a perfect, all knowing, unbiased being. Your assertion does not match my experience. Please show me evidence that supports your assertion.

 

[rcronk]

After thinking about it yet again, I think I've got it. You're saying that if God could predict every action I took, then he would have to know, using a computer analogy, every line of my code and how I would react to every situation that came my way and therefore I would be just like a computer following a program, is that correct?

 

[toddjh]

After thinking about it yet again, I think I've got it. You're saying that if God could predict every action I took, then he would have to know, using a computer analogy, every line of my code and how I would react to every situation that came my way and therefore I would be just like a computer following a program, is that correct?

Yes, exactly. The next step in this debate (believe me, I've been through it plenty of times) is for you to invoke the soul, claiming that the fact that you're conscious and self-aware exempts you from automaton status. Am I right?

If so, I'd counter by saying that of course you'd say that, you're programmed to!

Just kidding. Well, sort of. But the fact remains that, if God can know the future, then it's impossible for anything you do to surprise him. He knows, even before he creates you, whether or not you're going to believe in him, for example. What gratification, therefore, can he receive from watching you live out the predetermined path -- the "program," if you will -- that he has set up for you?

No, the only way for free will to make any sense in that context is if it were possible to surprise God. And the only way to surprise God would be if he couldn't predict your actions. And, since this is God we're talking about, the only way to do that would be if you were completely and inherently unpredictable.

 

[jimlintott]

jimlintott - Ok - I get what you're saying. So I described what I believe is our relationship with God in my original reply to you. To define what God is more specifically, I believe that God is a man like me who has gone through sufficient refinement to become perfect in every way, all powerful, all knowing, and that he begot us as his spirit children like our earthly parents begot us physically. And He, like our earthly parents, works with us to try to get us to become happy independent parents some day who will then have children, etc. Is that a good enough definition? It's not the mainstream theist definition but it's how I define him. Did I miss anything?

Yes - habitat. Where does this thing live?

 

[rcronk]

You failed to predict my response. You must not be God.

I'm glad I finally got what you're saying. It takes me a while, but I usually get it if the other party is patient enough, so I thank you for your patience.

There are some assertions and assumptions about our analogy that I want to identify and so I'm going to take some time to identify those things to see if there's anything either of us have missed. It seems this predetermination debate has gone on for millennia so we may not reconcile it here, but we'll see.

The bookends of logic on your argument are that "since people have free will, God can't exist." And the detail between the two is what we've been discussing.

I personally, through my own experiences, believe that God exists and that I have free will, so must resolve the discrepancy or change a belief. Simple enough. Either you or I or both of us have made a mistake somewhere in our assertions and assumptions or God doesn't exist or we don't have free will. Does that sound about right?

Thanks again for the debate and I'll post back soon.

 

[rcronk]

According to a man named Abraham, God told him that He lives near a star named Kolob. He's apparently got a throne there too. He's made of perfected and immortal flesh and bone in the same form as human flesh and bone and can sit down on that throne just like a person can, according to Abraham. I haven't seen God nor have I seen His throne or Kolob, so all I have to work with is Abraham's (and other's) testimonies. I have tried some of Abraham's (and other prophets') experiments and I have gotten the same results as they predicted so they seem like reliable sources so far.

 

[toddjh]

The bookends of logic on your argument are that "since people have free will, God can't exist." And the detail between the two is what we've been discussing.

Well, not exactly. I don't make any claims about whether free will exists, or whether God exists. Like jimlintott, I don't even have a coherent idea of what God is. All I'm doing out is pointing out what seems to me like a logical conclusion: "If free will exists, then the future can't be predicted with certainty." Or, conversely, "If the future is predictable, then free will does not exist."

Either you or I or both of us have made a mistake somewhere in our assertions and assumptions or God doesn't exist or we don't have free will. Does that sound about right?

Sure, sounds right to me.

 

[jimlintott]

According to a man named Abraham, God told him that He lives near a star named Kolob. He's apparently got a throne there too. He's made of perfected and immortal flesh and bone in the same form as human flesh and bone and can sit down on that throne just like a person can, according to Abraham. I haven't seen God nor have I seen His throne or Kolob, so all I have to work with is Abraham's (and other's) testimonies. I have tried some of Abraham's (and other prophets') experiments and I have gotten the same results as they predicted so they seem like reliable sources so far.

Tonight when it gets dark, look up into the sky. If it's a cloudless night you'll see stars. Lots of them. More than you could count in your lifetime. Saying someone lives near a star is like Sylvia Browne saying the body will be found near water. We live near a star!

What does "near a star" mean anyway?

Sorry, but Abraham's "testimony" seems like an anecdote, which is not evidence. What I need is some evidence to support the testimony. Sorry that's the way my atheist brain works.

 

[Atlas]

rcronk,

I'll take a run at this from both sides of your issues... Your description of God and abiogenesis. I ain't the brightest guy so take this for what it's worth. Your God description sounds like you prefer reincarnation. Like God is into teaching spirits with various bodies; spirit, amoeba, mackerel, sparrow, squirrel, pig, and human, and then perhaps great spirit. Of course, it could be that the spirits that were with God from creation are already great spirits and become entire species... like one of the spirits is the squirrel spirit and becomes all the squirrels with each individual squirrel being like a single skin cell that is in its turn sluffed off and replaced imbuing the great squirrel spirit with new squirrel experiences that enrich all the other squirrels. Same for the sparrow, the pig, and the human. I think that's cool, at least there is no hell (nor any individual reward which makes more sense that the Abrahamic weirdness).

On this life thing... look at it first from atomic bonding. toddjh was alluding to this and I think some others. Atoms naturally bond. Take it all the way back to hydrogen ions if you must, the universe makes complex atoms in the heart of the stars and the supernovas. You can think hydrogen ions are intelligent or that there is something in the universe more intelligent than hydrogen and you that forced rules of bonding on ions or you can believe in dumb natural processes.

Suns and planets undergo bonding and accretion. Atoms bond with attractive atoms. Gold bonds with gold, Sodium with Chlorine, Hydrogen with Oxygen and mostly the results are bizarrely different from the constituent atoms. Nonliving crystals grow. Water changes state and forms huge freaking icebergs. These things may not be predictable from constituent atomic matter and the environmental variables of space and planets but over time we master the ice cube maker and think we're intelligent.

Anyway, none of the ways matter behaves should surprise us more than any other, it's magic stuff of electromagnetic attraction that's otherwise almost entirely empty space. Somewhere along the line matter's innate attractiveness and bonding characteristics produced a molecule that self replicates in a way other bits of matter could not. But that's been what it's been doing naturally from the beginning.

You probably believe in microevolution. You're fighting the idea that species can change into other species but certainly part of it is because God offers additional comfort that natural selection cannot. There's nothing wrong with that, we all have to sleep at night. But if you stop and think about the universe at large coming together and forming all the matter there is from hydrogen ions it's clear it's amazing enough that life isn't really all that great a stretch. Intelligence is a pretty bizarre side product of life but it's not all it's cracked up to be. Making nuclear weapons of such magnitude that all life could be snuffed out can't be what we mean by intelligent. Intelligence should aid survival - some of us can't even get a date.

 

[rcronk]

Tonight when it gets dark, look up into the sky. If it's a cloudless night you'll see stars. Lots of them. More than you could count in your lifetime. Saying someone lives near a star is like Sylvia Browne saying the body will be found near water. We live near a star!

What does "near a star" mean anyway?

Sorry, but Abraham's "testimony" seems like an anecdote, which is not evidence. What I need is some evidence to support the testimony. Sorry that's the way my atheist brain works.

Hmm - I've never really considered knowing God's exact location as something that's extremely important to know. As I see it, the purpose of this life is to learn right from wrong and reconcile myself to God knowing and trusting Him because of His attributes rather than His exact location at any given time. I have many testimonies of His attributes and I also have several experiments and results that are documented and I have tried those experiments and have gotten the same results and the byproduct of those experiments is that I have become a more patient, kind, happy, generous person than I was before each experiment. All of this brings me happiness and allows me to be a better contributor to society. I've lived life as an atheist and it didn't bring me the same fruits at all. In fact, it was the loneliest, saddest, emptiest time of my life - and my atheism was at the core of it all. All I have is my experience and based on that, I'll continue on the path I'm in. I am actually willing to try the experiments that God has revealed and they bore fruit. In fact, I didn't even have to completely understand God or creationism in order to try these experiments! And I'm an engineer!

 

[DanishDynamite]

According to a man named Abraham, God told him that He lives near a star named Kolob. He's apparently got a throne there too. He's made of perfected and immortal flesh and bone in the same form as human flesh and bone and can sit down on that throne just like a person can, according to Abraham. I haven't seen God nor have I seen His throne or Kolob, so all I have to work with is Abraham's (and other's) testimonies.

Have you seen this Abraham fellow? Whether you have or not, why would you feel this fellow's ramblings would be of more importance than other's ramblings?

I have tried some of Abraham's (and other prophets') experiments and I have gotten the same results as they predicted so they seem like reliable sources so far.

Which experiments might this be? Could you elaborate? Thanks.

 

[BillyJoe]

"since people have free will, God can't exist."

If people have free will, an omniscient God can't exist

I personally...believe that God exists and that I have free will, so must resolve the discrepancy or change a belief.

If your God is not omniscient, you would not need to change your belief.
Personally, I do not believe god exists, omniscient or otherwise, and I do not believe free will exists either.

 

[Mashuna]

I’m glad you brought up the point of intelligent design producing some jury rigged items. My belief is that God respects our right to choose (as opposed to a lot of people I know) and designed things in such a way that people aren’t compelled to believe/trust in Him because He’s the only possible explanation. I think He’d rather we all choose to believe and trust in Him or not. If He designed things in such a way that people could come up with other theories, then we’d all be on a level playing field and be able to choose of our own free will. That’s my theory anyway.

If I may jump in and pick up on this paragraph. It seems as though your theory for Intelligent Design is that although there are imperfect designs, such as you'd expect if you had a random system (or system with random elements) such as natural selection due to mutation and/or environmental change, this is not a problem. God deliberately put these imperfections in because otherwise it would be too easy to belive in him. He'd prefer it if we believed in him despite the evidence, for some unpecified deistic reason.

This is my reading of the paragraph, and I may well have misinterpreted your intention. Could you clarify if this is what you meant, or give me your corrected version? Thanks.

 

[Morrigan]

Reproduction is an attribute of living things - it's not what causes something to be living. I'm looking for the atheist explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living - what makes something move around of its own free will, etc. rather than just attributes. Again thanks to all of you for your patience and answers.

Haven't you ever taken an intro to biology class? There are no absolute definitions, but the distinctive, specific characteristics of living organisms are generally defined as follows:
- organisation: being composed of one or more cell
- metabolism: consuming energy by converting food, nutrients, water, etc. to the cells, and excreting the "garbage"
- growth
- response to stimuli. can be completely instinctive or automatic, like a plant or a bug responding to light
- reproduction, sexual or asexual; production of new cellular organisms.

There might be more, those are the five I remember. And they aren't perfect, because some living species, such as mules, are sterile. And it's unclear if a virus can be considered a living being or not. Still, they are solid guidelines to determine whether or not something, like a group of molecule, is living or not.

I'd like to see those first living/semi-living RNA and how they originally formed and how they became living. I'd like to see some experiments to see how it started and how it continued and how it could have done this without human intervention. Until then, it's just a theory, like theism.

You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution, a common creationist mistake. Evolution isn't concerned with how life came about, but rather how new species occurred. And please don't say "it's just a theory, like theism" - this really highlights your misunderstanding of what the scientific method is.

As for faith, I would say it is based on evidence but not absolute proof. When we have absolute proof, we have knowledge instead of faith.

That's not how science works.
Faith requires NO evidence. And there can never be any absolute proof in science. A scientific theory is the best model for explaining the available evidence. And it has to be falsifiable. For example, finding rabbit fossils in the precambrian fossil stratum would falsify the theory of evolution. A celestial body such as a planet or moon with a perfectly square orbit would falsify gravity.
There is nothing that could falsify the existence of a god, or anything faith-related.

The same is true for evolution. We see animals that are similar and we see adaptation and natural selection and so based on this partial evidence, we have faith that evolution is how it all came about without firsthand proof (by observing it happen ourselves).

Untrue. Evolution has been observed in laboratory.

 

[Apathia]

According to a man named Abraham, God told him that He lives near a star named Kolob. He's apparently got a throne there too. He's made of perfected and immortal flesh and bone in the same form as human flesh and bone and can sit down on that throne just like a person can, according to Abraham. I haven't seen God nor have I seen His throne or Kolob, so all I have to work with is Abraham's (and other's) testimonies. I have tried some of Abraham's (and other prophets') experiments and I have gotten the same results as they predicted so they seem like reliable sources so far.

Hi rcronk,

What's your source for this? There's nothing in the Bible story about Abraham and God that says this.

Now pardon me for asking a rude question. Does God have a penis. He has a tush, according to what you say above, but does he have this particular detail? If so, what's it for?