Creation Vs. Evolution = Free will Vs. determinism

A thought experiment: move your finger, ok now move another finger. Which finger did you move? Right pinkie, left index? How did you decide which to move? Did God tell you, did QM determine which you moved? Stimulus, thought, action; it doesn't get much simpler than that. I mean thought in the broadest sense, that point between stimulus and action. We are self-deterministic, but we do carry enough baggage to make even the most cynical doubt that.

As I said, Omniscience is a frozen bowl of jello; static, unchanging. To go further, to be imminent and transcendent means to be here and there inclusively. And to be omnipresent is to be at all places at all times not withstanding. And yes, time is a human construct, created by us to ensure that everything doesn't happen at once.If God is as you say, it has, is and will happen, hence a frozen bowl of jello, no free will, no will at all. We will trundle on our appointed paths, play our part, all unknowing.
But we who live in this bowl of jello have found that we can move in unexpected ways, and God is happy for that.

But you are just playing devil's advocate. Let's consider this bizarre belief very seriously, which goes against what we say in our daily lives, goes against what we say in science. You present no legitamacy to entertain the belief. Slanting findings towards such a belief of pre-determinsim leads to misconceptions about choices, or in general about things going one way or another."the best of our ability to resolve" is not a scientific finding, it is an emotive statement that you done your best. When science says there are several possible outcomes, then it is denying that there is a single outcome. Now science may be wrong about there being several outcomes, but that is what it says. Science simply goes against the belief in pre-determinism.I did not directly relate indeterminism to belief in God, I related it directly to belief in nothing, or zero. For things to go one way or another, the outcome must not be predetermined, and since material always predetermines outcomes, choices must come from no material or nothing. And I believe this is the current standard in science. Informally scientists may talk as though the rock decided to go left in stead of right, but formally the decision is not owned by the rock, but by nothing.Of course there is a lot of evidence from personal experience that things going one way or another is somehow more meaningful then nothing. That is the crossover from science to all kinds of personal beliefs, including belief in God yes. God having something to do with choices, something to do with a final judgement and so on. Science doesn't matter, credibility is what it's about. Just as darwinism gives credibility to some beliefs..., to recognize things going one way or another would give credibility to other kinds of beliefs.The useless mantra of atheist evolutionists that it is all a matter of blind physical forces is left meaningless when considering the significance of things going one way or another. Considering that it can't be physical, because something physical would predetermine the outcome.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No, it is simply a statement that we don't know everything. The fact that modern science has not yet found a specific cause for a specific phenomenon is no proof that there is no cause for such a phenomenon, and it is the sheerest arrogance to think that it does. The whole point is not that we have done our best but that we have done our best with our current set of tools. You might wish to give up there and say 'nothing did it' but that isn't the scientific response. This is true, but you have never shown it to be the case that things can go one way or another, no-one has. The fact that most of us feel it to be the case is irrelevant, the human mind throws up all sorts of strange paradoxes and worrying phenomena when we start to study our own thought processes. Just because we believe that we have free will does not mean that we do have free will. This is still rubbish, no scientist would say any such thing informally or not, saying 'The rock bounced to the right' is not the same as saying 'The rock chose to bounce to the right'. Show me one graduate level mechanics course which is based upon nothing rather than upon say Newton's deterministic laws of motion. You have never given any evidence apart from the authority of a friend of yours that it would generally be accepted that anything makes a decision about how the rock will move rather than it simply moving in accordance with its physical properties and the physical forces applied to it. Well to prove that this is true all you need to do is give me an example of something on a macro scale going both ways at once. Show me an experiment where in an [b]exactly[b] identical set up a totally different result was achieved. This might be problematical however as to get [b]exactly[b] the same conditions is virtually impossible. You simply cannot account for all the variables which might conceivably have an effect on the outcome, even the ones within our current ability to resolve. You can of course control for enough of the variables and use statistics to get information from multiple sessions allowing you to still draw meaningful conclusions about your experiment, ideally, but you need to do these because the experimental set up is not, and cannot be, exactly identical.I suggest on the macro scale as arguably the wave like behaviour of things in quantum mechanics can arguably lead to photons, for example, acting as if they do two different things at the same time, again this is an interpretational question and one which has already been touched on so I thought it might be usefull to limit this question to large scale phenomena such as your rock dropping.Is there any evidence, apart from a consensus of feeling (and you accuse me of being emotive), that things can actually go one way or another? As yet you have not demonstrated this to be the case.TTFN,WK

I think you are topping arrogance by suggesting that *everything* is knowable, and knowable in advance no less.Scientists do have to talk sometimes in terms of things like rocks going one way or another, and conveniently this is said to be the decision of the rock. Conveniently biologists talk about creatures "inventing" wings, and other traits. This is simply shorthand for saying there were several possible outcomes for what happened to it, and the one outcome was realised. Saying the rock bounced to the right, and saying there were several possible outcomes and the rock bounced to the right are different descriptions. It would be invalid or incomplete just to say it bounced to the right, when science indicates it could have bounced to the left also.The acceptance of things going one way or another is not emotional, it is a statement of fact supported by science. It is what is beyond nothing to which the emotions apply, the belief that there is more to choices then nothing, that belief is emotional and not in scientific
evidence.It's true that evolutionists recognize things going one way or another sometimes, but they conflate this principle with cause and effect usually. Conflating randomness, chance and the like, with the laws of nature, physical cause and effect. They usually also distinguish people going one way or another, as different from rocks and the rest going one way or another. This is not a scientific finding, both with people and rocks the choice is from nothing, according to science. The way evolutionists look at these things generally, can simply be explained in terms of promoting atheism / materialism.I simply don't know what you're talking about, science says things can go one way or another all the time. Many times science calculates several outcomes and assigns probabilities to each. It seems interpretational problems occur when you posit the unwarranted belief that everything is predetermined.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well then please show me where I 'suggest' this? Oh, wait, you can't because I didn't except through your pateneted 'Syamsu-vision' goggles which turn perfectly normal statements into outrageous strawmen. Again Syamsu, you wholly misrepresent my position. I'd call it a lie but last time I did that you went into a semeantic spiral of negation to show that your statment was worded in such a way that all you were doing was presenting your 'opinion' of what I said and therefore it didn't neccessarily have to actually reflect what I said.What I suugest is that there is a lot more information availabe about a phenomenon which is relevant to its outcome than we can determine. We may never be able to determine enough information to show that the phenomenon is deterministic, that doesn't mean that it is or it isn't. You just give up at this point and claim that 'noting did it'. Show me!! This is absoloute tripe Syamsu, once again it is clear that your only familiarity with science is in how to spell it. More BS. You aren't even trying to put forward an argument now, you are just building up an army of strawmen. Show me the science that says that in exactly the same conditions the rock could have bounced to the left instead. You can't because it doesn't exist. Show me the science. (Oooh, Jerry Maguire flashbacks). The idea of choice is based almost solely upon what we experience in our heads. Well this is simply nonsense. Ditto, but in my case its because you are talking nonsense and in your case its because you don't understand the first thing about science. BS, show me the science. Certainly, and these probabilities are based upon past experiences with systems and are designed to take into account the many variable factors which cannot be controlled for, as I mentioned previously. Interpretational problems occur with any unwarranted belief, predetermination would be one, but so would some sort of ex nihilo creation event.The truth of the matter is that we just don't know one way or another, but your mind set seems incapable of coping with uncrtainties, you have to have an answer even if it is a non-answer like 'nothing did it'.TTFN,WK

Wounded King:
"The fact that modern science has not yet found a specific cause for a specific phenomenon is no proof that there is no cause for such a phenomenon, and it is the sheerest arrogance to think that it does."Clearly this suggests that everything is knowable, and to think that everything is not knowable is somehow arrogant. It suggests it by the words "not yet found a specific cause". When something is observed to be uncertain, to go one way or another, then that proves there is an event without cause, a choice, something new. Now of course the observation may be mistaken, but the proofs still follow from the observation, just like proofs follow from cause and effect observations / calculations. I can just as well say it is the sheerest arrogance that you hold out a cause and effect for things falling to earth, when we might later find that this cause and effect is actually based on an uncertainty.And this is actually what science says, that it is all an uncertainty, right down to the continued existence of the universe. Particles unpredictally jump in and out of existence all the time, so that the universe just exists on average.According to common culture, once you get to recognizing some things that are unknowable, then you can begin to talk about having some humility about knowledge. But you seem to fail to recognize anything unknowable by your belief in predeterminism. How you can turn this around and say that the arrogance is in not holding open the possibility that you can know everything, is really quite a big trick. My guess is you feel confident to say it because of several evolutionists having said similar outrageous things before.Well at some point maybe I have to find some specific reference to science talking about things going one way or another, but I think I can just give a general reference to talk about probability in science. I don't understand why this wouldn't suffice. Science says it can go one way or another when it assigns probalities to outcomes.That it arrived at this through observations of similar events, well uh... that seems the right way to do science, through observation. Observe it going left one time, observe it going right the other time, it's an uncertainty. Why don't you support this practice as being true to fact, which is a fundamental part in most every science discipline?As before, the unseen uncontrolled causes that supposedly make the event turn out different each time, sounds a lot like the materialism of the gaps belief. Fill in all those gaps of uncertainty with material causes. Why not just presume your god of material is not there...., that zero is there, that would be the parsimonious, scientific, thing to do.There are some numbers on atheists in science and biology, stating there are more atheists in biology then in other sciences, maybe I should look up those. You make it out as though it is so ridiculous to argue that some science, such as evolutionism, is prejudiced towards atheism. There is plenty of evidence to indicate it, for those who are willing to consider the question at all. I have no doubt that if evolution scientists would speak with genuine scientific interest about events where the likelyhood of organisms or kinds of organisms coming to be is set, then that would facillitate credibility of belief in God very much, eventhough in the science it would essentially all be traced back to nothing and not to God.The anti religion evolutionist Dawkins said that (from memory in the blind watchmaker)"chance is the enemy of science". The altogether more religion friendly Gould said (from memory, in an interview) that the main thing in science is to find the line between uncertainty and certainty. The difference in attitude towards religion corresponds with their difference in attitude towards things going one way or another, and I believe this is no coincedence.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Clearly it does nothing of the kind. I don't say that it is possible for science to ever know everything, but it is likely that it will learn a great many more things in the future, some of which may give deterministic roots to what we consider non-deterministic phenomena. But proofs derived from mistaken observations are likely to be mistaken. All you are doing is agreeing with me that we really don't know, and then claiming that as some sort of victory. I think a specific reference backing up some of your outrageous claims would be better, a good text book reference about rocks choosing to leap to the left or the right perhaps? You might be able to simply give a reference to probabilities in science if you showed the faintest inkling of understanding about what those probabilities actually represented. But it doesn't say that this is because the laws of nature are fundamentally uncertain, I already addressed why specific probabilities are assigned to certain outcomes. You can parrot my words back at m but you clearly haven't understood the point. The reason you need the repetitions is to acount for the many variables, which may affect the outcome, that you can't control. It seems lame of you to claim that I don't support the common practices in science simply because I don't neccessarily ascribe to your belief that the assignment of probabilities is somehow revealing fundamental randomness in the universe rather than specific limitations on our ability to measure aspects of that universe. Good argument, except that it clearly isn't the case. As I pointed out before, we can in some cases, the weather is a goood example, identify what the causes are but not analyse in such a way as to allow us to predict a specific outcome, look at chaos theory as I suggested before. Minute changes in initial conditions can lead to large scale differences in outcome, this may give the appearance that identical experiments give different results, but the truth of the matter is that the experiments weren't identical.Start backing up something you say or stop talking, because without some support for your argument you simply aren't saying anything. Once again, show me the science that supports your position! I keep asking and you keep dodging. Is it the HUP? Is it chaos theory? Clearly not as you avoid my points on this topic. At the moment all it seems to be is a vague statement that science assigns probabilities to things, which is no argument at all. If you are thinking of the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics then you need to show some reason for believing this scales up to probabilistic effects in the macro realm, and there is then the further question, already raised, of whether even these are truly probabilistic.TTFN,WK

When science says this is an effect of what went before, then you simply accept. When science says this is an uncertainty of outcomes, then you go into your theory about how it might not be uncertain after all. As before, we might learn some things about apparently deterministic phenomena actually being indeterminate. You slant it always towards the deterministic, it is prejudicial.That science can be mistaken, or is limited, does not mean we don't have knowledge. As far as we know there are indeterminate things, it is what science says, it is what common culture says.Well uh.. the chance of having a boy or girl baby is, taking all factors into account, random to a 50/50 chance. Now you apparently want to say that it isn't random, because slight position changes make for largescale effects. But then how come things end up in a position that results in a 50/50 boy/girl division? You are merely tracing back randomness to it's root cause, apparently it has something to do with positioning, it does not in any way deny randomness as far as I can tell.You have not backed up that everything is cause and effect, and I have not backed up that everything is indeterminate. You can't accuse me of not giving references, where you can't provide any for the opposing position. According to normal observation things turn out one way or another. And normal observation suffices for cause and effect, just as it does for option and oucome.The logic that results is that determinations (choices), make the causes, from which the effects follow. Determinations are therefore more fundamental then cause and effect. Much of what we see is predetermined at the start of the universe. What we see are effects that follow from causes set at the start of the universe.That is the thing in the end you would still have to explain this final one cause to which apparently everything is following from as an effect. So you are merely regressing the problem back to the start of the universe, not resolving anything, by your denial of things turning out one way or another here and now.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But as far as we know covers a whole lot of ground Syamsu. That given it is true, but common culture and science probably have radically different views on what things are indeterminate. Your conception of the trajectory of a rock being indeterminate is clearly a folk conception with no actual scientific reason behind it. It may be indeterminable in many conditions but this does not make it indeterminate. This is one of the reasons why I keep asking you what the actual scientific basis for your belief in indeterminacy is, at the moment all it seems to be is the existence of probabilities in science. This is just piffle. Unless you think that every single instance of conception is an exactly reproduced experiment then all you are doing is once again trying to argue that the very existence of probabilities as a way of studying something means things are fundamentally indeterminate. As far as 'positioning' goes the point is that miniscule variations in the initial conditions of a system can lead to very large scale differences in outcomes, once again it is part of Chaos theory, you could always look it up rather than vaguely dismissing it with a metaphorical wave of your hand. Quite what you mean by 'deny randomness is obscure, it certainly doesn't suggest there is no such thing as randomness but it does show that many phenomena which appear random at first glance are actually deterministic, with the differences being based on subtle changes in the initial condtions of the systems. No Syamsu, things almost always turn out one way. I fear a list of things which could be shown to turn out one way or another would be pretty much limited to indeterminate quantum states, but if you have some macro scale examples then please go ahead and give them, as I have already asked you to several times. And this in some way surprises you? Are you really so unaware of the philosophical debates surrounding causation that you wouldn't expect an argument about it to eventually turn to the issue of a 'first cause'? But all this does is push back the focus of the statement that 'we don't know' which I have been making all along.This is anouther strawman however, I have notbeen putting forward a hardline determinist position, all I am saying is that at the present time we can't tell whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or not.If I recall correctly you still have to give us an example of the sort of statement that would actually pass the challenge you proposed on the revious thread. You discounted all the ones put to you, but as yet you don't seem to have come up with your own to show us how it should be done.TTFN,WK

But you have been putting forward hardline determinism because you don't really say "don't know", you say determinacy you know, indeterminacy you don't know. And you have been rather forceful that other people should view it like you.The philosophical debates aren't a finished science product so to speak. They are eplorative questioning which might make some changes in the system of knowledge later on, they might not. The finished product of science, as it is, says that things can go one way or another all the time.Things turning out one way or another, does not neccesarily mean that there are things with a dualistic character, such as a wave-particle character. As before, logically the choice comes from nothing, or zero. Since we can observe the wave-particle it can't be nothing, it is something. So I don't see the logical progression from some matter being dualistic in nature, to it owning events going one way or another. I see it as yet another misguided attempt at materialism, a twisted monism, or a throwback to mathetmatics excluding the zero.So very slight position changes can make for largescale effects, and you recognize some very small quantum states as turning out one way or another. Well that must be it then, from nothing, to some quantum states, to largescale effects.It's very annoying that you're arguing with an authority that is not backed up by anything substantial. Would you like to see society for one day consistently acting according to the belief that things can't go one way or another? Would you like science to operate under that assumption for a day rigorously? You are just pursuing a philosphical question for which there is no authoritive basis in observation or experience, but acting as if everybody is somehow compelled to seriously consider it. People are more compelled to follow common observation, and experience, then they are compelled to seriously consider all explaining philosphical beliefs that every speck of dust is in a place as was set at the start of the universe, with no possible alternatives.No I wouldn't care to give an example of things going one way or another now myself. I think I have convincingly showed that generally evolutionists are ignorant of, and set against the idea, that was my point.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In as much as they shouldn't jump to a conclusion which fits their prconcieved notions, then yes I would say that other people should view it like me. Wrong, the current state of science observes things going one way sometimes and another way at other times under what are taken to be the same set of conditions, these are not however exactly the same set of conditions, for your position to be valid you must show that they will go different ways in exactly the same conditions.So you aren't looking to the HUP or quantum mechanics for your indeterminacy, so all you are left with is your tired old appeal to probabilities which I have already addressed. And here we see the effect caused by someone with no concept of anything in science assuming that he knows all the answers. You do realise that you have said nothing here I hope and not just as part of that last sentence. If you think that naming three distinct things the tying together of which is one of the hardest problems facing modern science, is in some way answering anything, then you are sadly mistake. As I pointed out, if you want to use quantum wierdness as your point, although you just said you didn't, then you still have to show that the probabilistic nature of QM comes through to the macro scale. Just claiming that it does accomplishes nothing. I can give you a substantial rebuttal with some references if you ever actually gave me a specific position I could address. As it is you just make vague unsubstantiated statements and refuse to address any of my questions regarding the specifics of your claims. No, I don't think that fatalism is a good attitude, but this is supremely irrelevant to the debate. Once again you appeal to emotion in preference to reason. The simple fact that you and I feel something to be the case is not evidence that it is the case. Of course I live my life as if I have choices, but I have enough intellectual honesty to admit that I may be mistaken and merely following the dictates of deterministic chemical reactions in my brain. Admitting even the possibility that you may be mistaken appears to be anathema to you. All you have shown is that your idea of what constitutes 'creation' is as idosyncratic as all your other ideas. As I have pointed out both the religious and the non-religious, the materialist and the spiritulist have adherents to both determinism and indeterminism. You haven't made your point at all if that was what it was supposed to be. All you have shown, once again, is that you persist in projecting your own pre-concieved notions onto those studying evolution in an attempt to demonise them for not following your own, rather unique, approaches to things.TTFN,WKP.S. Once again you appear to be heading towards a summation of the debate declaring your own victory without having actually addressed any of my points or provided the slightest scraps of evidence to support your position.This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-09-2004 06:47 AM

You are merely quarelling with my arguments as far as I can tell. Sure you can contest parts of it but I would be surprised if you would say any different in another context. After all, in daily life and in science, you talk as though things can go one way or another.People just have equal standards of evdidence for cause and effect observations as they do for possibilities/probabilities and outcomes observations, that's not prejudice. You are the one with the heavy preconceived notion towards cause and effect solely. I'm sure many people do entertain the belief sometimes that everything is predetermined from one point on. But it's not a working belief, because it's unworkable.You gave me the pieces of the argument, I just tied them together. Very small position changes have largescale effects you said. Some small quantum states might go one way or another you said. Well there you go, the small quantum caused a small change in position, which had a largescale effect. I just don't see how until we find something like that, we should all give much credibility to the belief that every speck of dust is in a place as was set at the start of the universe without an alternative, while at the same time speak as if things can go one way or another. That seems to be wrong on so many levels.And we will never likely find something like that, it seems just another materialist cause and effect notion in disguise of a dualistic character. We will find nothing as the basis of determinations, we will reinvent the zero.I don't see it as an emotive argument that applying your belief rigorously would make science come to a grinding halt. I think it means something that applying your belief would destroy science."Creatio ex nihilo" is not my ideosyncratic belief, it is common currency in intellectual circles as far as I know. I don't believe that the predeterminist religionists are of a similar nature as the predeterminist scientists. The revelatory religious claim is attached to much emotion and meaning from which it isn't supposed to be separate. A cold non emotive scientific claim with the pretense of factual observation that every speck of dust is in a place set at the start of the universe is of an entirely different order. Besides, I don't see that claim among creationists.So you want to deny now that evolutionists don't know much about things going one way or another, and are set against the idea? You are simply quarelling as far as I can tell. I already pointed you to evolutionist Gould, who seemed to be more knowledgable on this point. He once said that if time were wound back then evolution would have turned out dramatically differently. He also supported the idea of the randomness of the environment, although he contrasted that with the non-randomness of natural selection, in stead of including the randomness into natural selection. Also Dawkins once theorized about the chance of human beings coming to be, given the initial conditions of the universe. But on the other hand there is much evidence of evolutionists being unusually predeterminist. As before that has to do with almost cancelling out intelligence by definition in the formulation of natural selection, by distinguishing it from artificial "intelligent" breeding. Also in the creation vs evolution debate I have not seen any recognition of creation as a valid principle to describe something, by any evolutionist. And my experience with questioning evolutionists about it, shows that they have little knowledge of it, eventhough Dawkins and Gould have sometimes talked about determinations making different sorts of creatures to exist, and tracing back the origin of human beings to the start of the universe. Things like that are peripheral as far as I can tell.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Thats a great argument Syamsu, you have so little scientific grounding for your position that you end up taking up the scrag ends of the general areas of real science I have offered to you as a starting point for an actual discussion and just throwing the words together. You also seem to have overlooked the fact that quantum wierdness is due in large part to the fact that particles appear to go both ways at once rather than choosing. Yes it is, but not in your formulation of it applying to choices. Well I can't do much else until you actually give me something substantive to rebutt, at the moment all you are presenting is the same vague unscientific waffle you started with and a few scraps of science based upon what I said tacked on. At last!! An actual piece of attributable scientific opinion!! This may well even be true, and if we could do it and it was true then we would finally have some evidence supporting a non-determinist universe, but the same is true of any experiment as I have pointed out to you several times. If you could rewind the universe to perform the exact same experiment in the exact same condition and the results were different then your case would have very strong support. Unfortunately either of these experiments is totally impossible to the best of my knowledge. This doesn't resolve the question however, it just gives us SJ Gould's take on it, and shows that there are indeterminist proponents of evolution. Well how about some examples Syamsu, this is another claim you have yet to substantiate, in fact you yourself have just given two counter examples. If anything this seems to argue against your position. There is no distinction between natural and artificial selection other than human interference to bring in a specifically directed selective pressure with a predetermined outcome in mind. If anything you are arguing for evolutionists as indeterminists again, and showing their rejection of teleological formulations. Please give an example where this would be appropriate. A little phrase about pots and kettles comes to mind with regards to debating on topics of which one has little knowledge. I doubt most creationists would recognise your conception of creation either.TTFN,WK

You take the philosphical debates about everything being predetermined as real science, I take the daily practice of science as the real science. The grounding of my argument in science is adequate enough, while your argument carries no significant authority from science. Your argument is prejudicial, ideological, in it's prejudice towards cause and effect. No doubt this kind of attitude contributes to the crazy predeterminist ideologies stemming for science, that ruled much of the 20th century. We might also have crazy indeterminate ideology stemming from science. People who insist that cause and effect is not proven with some force. It is clearly prejudicial, as pointed out numerous times before.I hardly think there are original thoughts left on the subjects of "free will" and "creatio ex nihilo". My idea of it is just from common language, what people say when they describe something being created. Do you now wish to deny that tracing back the likelyhood of the appearance of something, is not a meaningful procedure to come to know about it's origin? You are quarrelling with my argument, but you do the same in everyday life. But this kind of thing does not have big scientific interest. Dawkins may mention it in passing, but there is no study in biology to trace the likelyhoods of the main kinds back to their origin. Eventhough everybody knows it is a valid principle of investigation, origin is simply equated with appearance in evolution theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu