They're Marching Against God - Your .02
#424
Registered User
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy
[B]
If everyone picked good you would and could successfully argue that there is no choice of free will, as there is only one choice that can be made.
[B]
If everyone picked good you would and could successfully argue that there is no choice of free will, as there is only one choice that can be made.
#425
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]
Jon, what I'm saying is that he could have created a world where only one person did something wrong, and that would have demonstrated free will.
[B]
Jon, what I'm saying is that he could have created a world where only one person did something wrong, and that would have demonstrated free will.
#426
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by chroot
What can you know for CERTAIN? . . . A thing cannot both have a particular characteristic and not have it at the same time in the same way.
What can you know for CERTAIN? . . . A thing cannot both have a particular characteristic and not have it at the same time in the same way.
Originally posted by chroot
No, I believe Nature is self-consistent.
No, I believe Nature is self-consistent.
Nature couldn't care less about your beliefs. It is either consistent or not consistent irrespective of what you believe.
Originally posted by chroot
If Nature is not self-consistent, science really has absolutely no point.
If Nature is not self-consistent, science really has absolutely no point.
Originally posted by chroot
If not, all bets are off, and there can be no more rational thought.
If not, all bets are off, and there can be no more rational thought.
Originally posted by chroot
We all have faith in something, scientist and clergy alike
We all have faith in something, scientist and clergy alike
Originally posted by chroot
It's not faith -- it's a belief.
It's not faith -- it's a belief.
Originally posted by chroot
In a visceral sense, I mean that the object of my faith (scientific understanding) may be disproved.
In a visceral sense, I mean that the object of my faith (scientific understanding) may be disproved.
Originally posted by chroot
And if it's proved that Nature really is inconsistent, I'll stop believing it.
And if it's proved that Nature really is inconsistent, I'll stop believing it.
Originally posted by chroot
How is my faith better than yours? My faith can be disproved.
How is my faith better than yours? My faith can be disproved.
Originally posted by chroot
And if it's proved that Nature really is inconsistent, I'll stop believing it.
And if it's proved that Nature really is inconsistent, I'll stop believing it.
Originally posted by chroot
If Nature is not self-consistent, science really has absolutely no point.
If Nature is not self-consistent, science really has absolutely no point.
It sounds as though the question of the consistency of Nature must be answered by something beyond science; I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that it is fact.
Perhaps S2Kguy or woodyandy or JonasM might want to weigh in here to ponder that simple question: Can Nature allow a contradiction, or is there some fundamental property of Nature which makes contradiction impossible?
#427
[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
[B]
On 7-23 at 11:58 am, you state that consistency in Nature is a fact; that we know it for certain.
At 2:01 pm that same day you back off just a bit; you no longer claim that consistency in nature is a fact, merely your belief.
Nature couldn't care less about your beliefs.
[B]
On 7-23 at 11:58 am, you state that consistency in Nature is a fact; that we know it for certain.
At 2:01 pm that same day you back off just a bit; you no longer claim that consistency in nature is a fact, merely your belief.
Nature couldn't care less about your beliefs.
#428
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
magician,
None of those posts were a magnum opus in which I had gathered every thought I've ever had or ever will have, and laid them out exactly as necessary to answer every question that ever has been asked or ever will be asked. Similarly, I have not had every thought I will ever have about everything, and naturally I will say something differently on Tuesday than I will on Monday. Is this really so surprising?
This is an online bulletin board, not a philosophy text. If you'd like me to go back and find every point where you clarified something by changing word choice, or decided to change phrasing to avoid being mistaken, I'm sure I'd find just as many examples. Personally, I don't really care to go through all of your posts and find the examples, though. I am disappointed that you take this tack with me, especially considering the weak nature of the examples given, and the condescending attitude shown in your post.
JonBoy, you act as if magician has accomplished some kind of triumph of good over evil -- why is that?
How did I "back off a bit?" 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. I happen to believe in that fact.
Whining? Maturity? What exactly are you trying to say?
You're right, I was trying to make a distinction -- so why do you include this in your post? You don't have "faith" in science -- you have a belief. Faiths cannot disproved, but beliefs may be. It's a word choice issue. Since JonBoy in particular is in love with the concept that belief in the axioms of science is equivalent to faith in religion (which is preposterous to all of us, I believe), I have to choose words carefully to avoid setting off his Faith-o-Meter.
Stated.
As I said, I hesitate to call it faith -- and it may be disproved by disproving its object. Even though it's not "deep enough" for you, the third of the "three certainties," as popularized by Ayn Rand, is enough for me to believe the Universe is self-consistent.
Now, "Is this accurate?" has the tone of a loaded question delivered to a witness by a lawyer. At risk of being attacked by you immediately upon answering, I will only say that the proof must be closed. The third certainty is closed.
I've already answered this. Of course it's beyond science -- science depends upon it like math depends upon logic. You know this, so why pose it as a question for me? For the third and final time, it doesn't take empirical proof (since there can't be any), only a closed-form philosophical argument to convince me of something this basic.
Go ahead, pounce.
- Warren
None of those posts were a magnum opus in which I had gathered every thought I've ever had or ever will have, and laid them out exactly as necessary to answer every question that ever has been asked or ever will be asked. Similarly, I have not had every thought I will ever have about everything, and naturally I will say something differently on Tuesday than I will on Monday. Is this really so surprising?
This is an online bulletin board, not a philosophy text. If you'd like me to go back and find every point where you clarified something by changing word choice, or decided to change phrasing to avoid being mistaken, I'm sure I'd find just as many examples. Personally, I don't really care to go through all of your posts and find the examples, though. I am disappointed that you take this tack with me, especially considering the weak nature of the examples given, and the condescending attitude shown in your post.
JonBoy, you act as if magician has accomplished some kind of triumph of good over evil -- why is that?
On 7-23 at 11:58 am, you state that consistency in Nature is a fact; that we know it for certain.
Accepting without whining a conclusion you find unpalatable is a sign of maturity.
You're trying to make a distinction here, but your earlier statement casts a bit of doubt on the sincerity of, or at least the basis for, that distinction.
It certainly seems that you're using faith in science and belief in science (specifically, the consistency of nature) interchangeably.
How, exactly, can your faith be disproved? Similarly, how, exactly, can the consistency of Nature be disproved? I don't want to speak for you, but it seems from the body of your posts that the means to disprove the consistency of Nature would have to be scientific for you to accept them. Is this accurate?
Now, "Is this accurate?" has the tone of a loaded question delivered to a witness by a lawyer. At risk of being attacked by you immediately upon answering, I will only say that the proof must be closed. The third certainty is closed.
It sounds as though the question of the consistency of Nature must be answered by something beyond science; I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that it is fact.
Go ahead, pounce.
- Warren
#429
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: yarmouthport
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey I got an idea.....let's put on a show in the old barn! We'll all make our own costumes and do The Last Supper on stage. He who blinks first is smited by the rest. At last. Closure.
The survivors then wrestle it out whether they had free will or it was destined to happen due to the neurons indigenous to their craniums.
And the winner is:
The survivors then wrestle it out whether they had free will or it was destined to happen due to the neurons indigenous to their craniums.
And the winner is:
#430
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]
I've already answered this.
[B]
I've already answered this.