Bad news for our resident atheists

Sturgill Simpson introduced me to the " Turtles all the way down " theory and I am going to go with it this year...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWx6csgGkg4

2seaoat wrote:To say that free will cannot exist in a brain dead individual is not debated.   To say that I do not have free will is debated.  To say that my computer absent a processor is unable to communicate on this forum is not debated, but with a working keyboard and processor I am able to participate on this forum.  To say that the words I write are confined to the processor and keyboard and the connection to the internet is silly.  My words are written independent of the hardware of the computer, or the hardware of my brain, where both can be deficient and eliminate free will in its entirety, but in doing the same the concept of free will stands unblemished, and where there is no diminished capacity it controls.

What you define as "you" is really just that which emerges from your brain function. "You" changes with your brain chemistry. Natural processes can explain that almost from start to finish with no need for a mystical "free will" or some sort of supreme intelligence from another world that is merely manipulating this human machine body. That isn't how it works.

As I said before, there are experiments in neuroscience that have shown that human behavior can be predicted simply by looking at your brain function in an fMRI. We can tell a person what decision they will make before they even realize they have made it. Why? Because that "decision" is entirely dependent upon physical processes in the brain, not upon mystical forces known as "free will". Everything from your mood, character, beliefs, decisions etc...are all derived from natural processes in the brain that have evolved over billions of years.

Boards you sound like you think the Twinkie defense is valid.....

"Twinkie defense" is a derisive label for an improbable legal defense. It is not a recognized legal defense in jurisprudence, but a catchall term coined by reporters during their coverage of the trial of defendant Dan White for the murders of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk and mayor George Moscone. White's defense was that he suffered diminished capacity as a result of his depression. His change in diet from healthy food to Twinkies and other sugary food was said to be a symptom of depression. Contrary to common belief, White's attorneys did not argue that the Twinkies were the cause of White's actions, but that their consumption was symptomatic of his underlying depression. White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.


So if we are what we eat you must be a Budweiser ?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Boards you sound like you think the Twinkie defense is valid.....

"Twinkie defense" is a derisive label for an improbable legal defense. It is not a recognized legal defense in jurisprudence, but a catchall term coined by reporters during their coverage of the trial of defendant Dan White for the murders of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk and mayor George Moscone. White's defense was that he suffered diminished capacity as a result of his depression. His change in diet from healthy food to Twinkies and other sugary food was said to be a symptom of depression. Contrary to common belief, White's attorneys did not argue that the Twinkies were the cause of White's actions, but that their consumption was symptomatic of his underlying depression. White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.


So if we are what we eat you must be a Budweiser ?

This is often used as an argument against a deterministic universe.

"But if we don't have free will, doesn't that mean we aren't responsible for any of our actions?"

Well, yes it does. But that doesn't mean people get free reign to do whatever they want. If someone suffers from some sort of brain issue that causes them to be unstable and murder people, they need to be segregated from the rest of society.

An absence of free will does not mean that all moral structure is thrown out.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yeah beer can overrule free will. Huh ?

Only for lightweights.

Without God there would be no morality.

Are you a christian, KarlRove?

What does the christian god say about homosexuality?

What does science say?

If anything, the bible hinders morals by propagating an ignorant view of the world.  

Religion will eventually wind down, and humanity will be much better off once it is gone. It may have served an evolutionary purpose at one point, but that purpose has long since ran its course.

What you define as "you" is really just that which emerges from your brain function.

That statement is as true as what is posted on this forum is really just that which emerges from my computer. No one denies the engineering and assets of a computer, what is not explained is my free will to type within the physical reality of the computer my words which are arranged freely without chemical or physical limitation. So yes.....this you....has free will. Would not God have the same physical reality? Would a knight of the round table comprehend the physical reality of a radio wave, yet do you deny that the non detection of the same does not eliminate its existence? So is the mere non detection of God sufficient to prove your hypothesis? So all those great theoretical physicist who could hypothesize the existence of a neutrino, but could never verify the same any less faithful than a person who believes in God?

Morality is doing right no matter what you are told
Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

H L Mencken

2seaoat wrote:What you define as "you" is really just that which emerges from your brain function.

That statement is as true as what is posted on this forum is really just that which emerges from my computer.  No one denies the engineering and assets of a computer, what is not explained is my free will to type within the physical reality of the computer my words which are arranged freely without chemical or physical limitation.  So yes.....this you....has free will.  Would not God have the same physical reality?  Would a knight of the round table comprehend the physical reality of a radio wave, yet do you deny that the non detection of the same does not eliminate its existence?  So is the mere non detection of God sufficient to prove your hypothesis?  So all those great theoretical physicist who could hypothesize the existence of a neutrino, but could never verify the same any less faithful than a person who believes in God?

Here again, extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.  If the best you have for something as extraordinary as a supernatural, all-knowing, all-powerful god that supposedly created all of the universe is "Well, you can't disprove it!"...I'd say that doesn't meet the "extraordinary evidence" benchmark.  Not even close.

Because, again, you can't disprove the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, santa claus, etc., etc.

In regard to the free will part, a better analogy would be for your actual computer processor itself.  It processes information, but it has no control over what information flows through it.  Physical processes are at play.  It receives input and produces output.  You are absolutely no different aside from the fact that you are considerably more complex.  With each passing day, breakthroughs in neuroscience make this more and more evident.  

Mountains of data have piled up over the last several decades - not only in neuroscience but in other fields as well - that all point to a deterministic universe.  

Regarding the knight at the round table.  Sure, he didn't understand radio waves.  He was ignorant to all of that.  Even more the reason not to subscribe to any theories about the universe that emerge from his era, or from the eras that came before him. We should consider ourselves fortunate that reason and information overcame religion, otherwise I suspect our standard of living today wouldn't be all that much better than Mr. Knight's.

Matthew six has guided my life since I was in the 9th grade. It recognizes that I do not need the knight or his peers to interpret god, but that God has a direct line with each of us. I have not physically found a cord or wire connected to my body, nor have I discovered the frequency which allows the same.......it is undetectable. The Easter Bunny, and Santa are man made fantasy to entertain children, and you argue that religion is the same. That is the simplistic approach to the same because most of the hypocrites speak the loudest to proclaim their utter ignorance which most rational people observe and with scorn dismiss the belief in God, if for nothing more than the simplicity and superstition displayed by so many. However, faith is not that simple nor is it defined by those who claim they speak for God. No man of God has ever shown me the wire or frequency.....yet with certainty they explain they control the same, and only through them can man access god.....but Matthew six clearly does not say this. The undetectable and the ignorant have no bearing on my faith, none whatsoever.

So when we limit a computer to the known software and hardware, we then limit the possibility of undetected virus, or other unknown capabilities which we do not understand today. Faith in God is not the same as the Easter Bunny or Santa. It is the belief in the connection not yet discovered, or defined, and that higher level concept cannot be shackled by the superstition and limitations of the knights of the round table or their peers who edited the King James version of the bible, rather faith is the belief that the connection exists, and I have no problem if you believe that your computer cannot be hacked and that the hardware and software limitiations are finite......they have proven not to be.

2seaoat wrote:I am a christian.  Why would I be concerned with someone who chooses not to believe in god.  It is their personal belief system.  It is none of my business.

Amen!  Hopefully the non- believers will leave it alone.

2seaoat wrote:Matthew six has guided my life since I was in the 9th grade.  It recognizes that I do not need the knight or his peers to interpret god, but that God has a direct line with each of us.  I have not physically found a cord or wire connected to my body, nor have I discovered the frequency which allows the same.......it is undetectable.  The Easter Bunny, and Santa are man made fantasy to entertain children, and you argue that religion is the same.  That is the simplistic approach to the same because most of the hypocrites speak the loudest to proclaim their utter ignorance which most rational people observe and with scorn dismiss the belief in God, if for nothing more than the simplicity and superstition displayed by so many.  However, faith is not that simple nor is it defined by those who claim they speak for God.  No man of God has ever shown me the wire or frequency.....yet with certainty they explain they control the same, and only through them can man access god.....but Matthew six clearly does not say this.   The undetectable and the ignorant have no bearing on my faith, none whatsoever.

So when we limit a computer to the known software and hardware, we then limit the possibility of undetected virus, or other unknown capabilities which we do not understand today.   Faith in God is not the same as the Easter Bunny or Santa.  It is the belief in the connection not yet discovered, or defined, and that higher level concept cannot be shackled by the superstition and limitations of the knights of the round table or their peers who edited the King James version of the bible, rather faith is the belief that the connection exists, and I have no problem if you believe that your computer cannot be hacked and that the hardware and software limitiations are finite......they have proven not to be.

Good grief, Seaoat. You believe in something man wrote which is your choice but don't say it's not a superstition. You have no evidence God exists except in your mind which is your deeply held beliefs you were taught.

I was taught ignorance as a child in formal bible school. It was upon my own reading as a Freshman in high school I found the logical nexus between ignorance and true faith. It is simply a logical certainty that there are things which we cannot detect. I do not have to prove anything, because I know nothing about the wire or frequency, yet it is faith in the same that I continue life's journey searching for that connection yet unfound. I have no regrets about the strength of that faith, and as many an able person in my graduate studies who would sit down and explain that what I believed was mere superstition, to the last one they never left that discussion certain of the none existence of the same. So feel free to believe that you have no connection with God, and that the concept of God is simply a tool for people in power to manipulate ignorant subservient people throughout history. That is a logical position. However, it no more explains by faith in the yet undiscovered connection, than it does in prove the absolute denial of the same. As long as you are happy in your beliefs, I am happy for you. I make no apology for my faith.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Science goes wherever the evidence leads, whether that outcome is desired or not.

Being it the case that there is zero evidence for the christian god (or thousands of other gods that none of you believe in), there is no rational reason to believe in god.    

That said, KarlRove clearly isn't a rational person, so there is no rational argument that I can make to change his mind.

And how would you know which God or Gods everyone around here believes in?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

I guess I don't, and that is of no consequence seeing as how none of them exist.

Which means that you believe science holds the answers to all your need to know. In which case you're a good Darwinist...

That explains why you support the current presidents foreign policies of killing thousands at a whim.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

No and no.  

You should really consider learning how to effectively read at some point in your life, lest you end up a guy living in Iowa who talks to himself on political forums.

I do read effectively and you've already stated that you don't believe in God(s), and now you're saying that science doesn't hold any answers for your either... much less Darwinism.....

*****CHUCKLE*****

...Please do correct me if I've made a mistake in deciphering your answers...

*****CHUCKLE*****

...Because it sounds to me like you're a person who's lost their way...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnqbBgYZmI

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:It's ok boards.... One day you will see the light.... Hopefully not the hot one.

Doubtful.

You subscribe to a myth that is merely one of thousands.  All of them can't be right.  In fact, they are all very likely wrong as there is absolutely no evidence in support of any of them.  In fact, most - yours included - have been shown by science to be factually ignorant of the world around us.  And this makes sense when you consider what we knew at the time the books of the bible were written.  

But beyond all of that, how lucky were you to have been born in the US and indoctrinated in the precise religion - among thousands - that happens to be the right one?  It's miraculous, isn't it?

But then for a man who now says that science doesn't hold the answer either, see your response to your prior posts, it seems you're not the one to be criticizing other peoples beliefs.

Do you know why a raven is like a writing desk?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipSZYgFVJvI

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Free will:
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

The argument is certainly valid that chemistry and wiring have input in the power of acting, and that constitutes a constraint, but in the end we still retain the ability to act at our discretion.  I choose to act in a faithful way.  I think in general that religion may be hardwired to some extent in people....the need to find comfort in something greater, but in the end my discretion remains.

The laws of physics apply everywhere, even in the brain.  There is no room for some sort of seemingly random force called "free will" that we simply have no explanation for, just as there is no room for a "rain god" or a "sun god".   We know how the rain and sun work and they are by way of natural processes.  

We can use fMRIs to study people and predict their decisions seconds before they even realize they have made them.  

Just as has been the case with god, the more and more we know about the brain, the less and less there is that is left to be attributed to "free will".  God is no longer needed to explain the rising and setting sun, changes in seasonal weather, etc...  Likewise, free will is needed less and less to explain decision making and brain function.  

Someone could experience some sort of trauma that affects a part of their brain that is thought to be associated with empathy.  As a result, they will feel less empathy.  This isn't a change in free will.  This is a natural process that can be explained by science.  There is no room for morality or personal free will there.  We know how that works.  Consciousness emerges from the brain and is entirely dependent upon various brain states, each of which were determined by the previous state, and the previous state, and the previous state....

So now you're saying that science does hold your answers... You really should make up you mind..... That is if you know your mind...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41KMByxE6lo

boards of FL wrote:...What does science say?...

Survival of the fittest. So if you're going to use science to prove a point, my earlier statement about your glorious blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace must be correct and that must be why you support him as he murders thousands of innocents in his quest for peace...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WCEbKM_SE

Vikingwoman wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Matthew six has guided my life since I was in the 9th grade.  It recognizes that I do not need the knight or his peers to interpret god, but that God has a direct line with each of us.  I have not physically found a cord or wire connected to my body, nor have I discovered the frequency which allows the same.......it is undetectable.  The Easter Bunny, and Santa are man made fantasy to entertain children, and you argue that religion is the same.  That is the simplistic approach to the same because most of the hypocrites speak the loudest to proclaim their utter ignorance which most rational people observe and with scorn dismiss the belief in God, if for nothing more than the simplicity and superstition displayed by so many.  However, faith is not that simple nor is it defined by those who claim they speak for God.  No man of God has ever shown me the wire or frequency.....yet with certainty they explain they control the same, and only through them can man access god.....but Matthew six clearly does not say this.   The undetectable and the ignorant have no bearing on my faith, none whatsoever.

So when we limit a computer to the known software and hardware, we then limit the possibility of undetected virus, or other unknown capabilities which we do not understand today.   Faith in God is not the same as the Easter Bunny or Santa.  It is the belief in the connection not yet discovered, or defined, and that higher level concept cannot be shackled by the superstition and limitations of the knights of the round table or their peers who edited the King James version of the bible, rather faith is the belief that the connection exists, and I have no problem if you believe that your computer cannot be hacked and that the hardware and software limitiations are finite......they have proven not to be.

Good grief, Seaoat. You believe in something man wrote which is your choice but don't say it's not a superstition. You have no evidence God exists except in your mind which is your deeply held beliefs you were taught.

You think that science itself wasn't thought up and wrote by man/woman to explain something that may or may not exist?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

2seaoat wrote:I was taught ignorance as a child in formal bible school.  It was upon my own reading as a Freshman in high school I found the logical nexus between ignorance and true faith.   It is simply a logical certainty that there are things which we cannot detect.  I do not have to prove anything, because I know nothing about the wire or frequency, yet it is faith in the same that I continue life's journey searching for that connection yet unfound.   I have no regrets about the strength of that faith, and as many an able person in my graduate studies who would sit down and explain that what I believed was mere superstition, to the last one they never left that discussion certain of the none existence of the same.  So feel free to believe that you have no connection with God, and that the concept of God is simply a tool for people in power to manipulate ignorant subservient people throughout history.  That is a logical position.  However, it no more explains by faith in the yet undiscovered connection, than it does in prove the absolute denial of the same.  As long as you are happy in your beliefs, I am happy for you.  I make no apology for my faith.

What do you know. We might actually agree upon something.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eJi8PqB_Mk

polecat wrote:Morality is doing right no matter what you are told
Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

H L Mencken

------------
As a frank admirer of German philosopher Nietzsche, he was a detractor of religion in general, populism and representative democracy, which he believed was a system in which inferior men dominated their superiors.

Why don't you quote someone with AMERICAN values and not communistic one values?

I have to say that my faith is rooted in actual events. Mainly at times that I thought I couldn't cope I asked for strength to handle what came my way, and I can't even begin to explain how that help came to me. No one can...for some things in this life, there is no scientific explanation, or at least, none which can satisfy the unbeliever. In every leaf, every tree, every creature, is the evidence of an eternal, all-knowing God. Mother Earth is only a tiny part of an incredible universe. We are but tiny ants on the surface of one planet in one galaxy. We are human, but within our nature is a spiritual being...one that has the capacity to teach us things we have to know to advance ourselves and our children and grandchildren. Science is only the study of the universe. Science can't define the undefinable.

Pacedog needs to accept that science will never seek to prove God's existence, because there is no credible hard evidence suggesting such existence. There never has been nor never will be. The absence of evidence cannot be used as evidence -- yet that premise is the basis of virtually every pseudo-scientific claim that God once existed, or still does. First a question is presented that cannot currently be answered, and then the claim is made that that inability to answer proves creationism or intelligent design.

Belief in a god entity is just that and nothing more: belief.

Belief in the tooth fairy is just that and nothing more: belief.

As for my own view of the subject, I don't believe in a God entity because the entire concept is simply too bizarre to swallow.

Reality.

The evidence that God exists lies all around all one has to do is experience it.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAkSIwaUaNc

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erL15K5eRnI