Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 301 (282692)
01-30-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by nwr
01-30-2006 6:28 PM


Re: Free will and ToE
IMO we have free will. IMO, a physicalist account of cognition is possible, at least in principle.
If all you have is a brain, you have no self capable of willing an act. Everything you do is caused physically. If it's caused physically it wasn't "your" decision. The body is just going through automatic reactions to stimuli, like water running down hill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 01-30-2006 6:28 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 01-30-2006 8:18 PM robinrohan has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 32 of 301 (282703)
01-30-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 6:33 PM


Re: Free will and ToE
Let's flesh that out in the form of a syllogism.
premises:
1(a): all you have is a brain;
1(b): (unstated premise)
conclusion:
1: you have no self capable of willing an act.
I would like to know what is the unstated assumption of 1(b). For sure, conclusion 1 does not follow from premise 1(a) alone.
premises:
2(a): it's caused physically;
2(b): (unstated premise)
conclusion:
2: it wasn't "your" decision.
I would also like to know unstated premise 2(b), for conclusion 2 does not follow from 2(a) alone.
The body is just going through automatic reactions to stimuli, like water running down hill.
That seems badly wrong.
Even an ordinary clock is not adequately describe as "automatic reactions to stimuli". The clock isn't receiving any stimuli, yet it still makes actions. You are ignoring the fact that a clock and a person both have stored internal energy, and are using that internal energy to generate actions that are not explainable in terms of external stimuli impinging on the system (clock or person).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:33 PM robinrohan has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 33 of 301 (282706)
01-30-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
01-30-2006 5:38 PM


Hi, Faith. Sorry I couldn't return to the discussion sooner. At some future point I'd like to continue discussing brain/mind issues, but for now I'd like to go with the flow in this 2nd part thread.
The issue at hand IS that it logically follows from the ToE that either there is no God or God is evil because He created a world full of death and destruction, which you have just affirmed by your example of the fossil record -- which is regarded as major evidence for the ToE after all.
Those are not the only two possibilities. Another possibility is a Creator who is not omnipotent--a God who can create the universe but not dictate every detail of its unfolding. An omniscient God might see that the game is worth the candle but be unable to prevent the burns along the way.
Is it bad form to link to my own messages? Oh well. Here's what I said to mike the wiz on the subject earlier today.
Indeed, many early religions distinguished between the creating god/gods and the "operating" gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 5:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:42 PM Omnivorous has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 301 (282708)
01-30-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Omnivorous
01-30-2006 8:35 PM


atheism / any God but Biblical God
Hi, Faith. Sorry I couldn't return to the discussion sooner. At some future point I'd like to continue discussing brain/mind issues, but for now I'd like to go with the flow in this 2nd part thread.
The issue at hand IS that it logically follows from the ToE that either there is no God or God is evil because He created a world full of death and destruction, which you have just affirmed by your example of the fossil record -- which is regarded as major evidence for the ToE after all.
Those are not the only two possibilities. Another possibility is a Creator who is not omnipotent--a God who can create the universe but not dictate every detail of its unfolding. An omniscient God might see that the game is worth the candle but be unable to prevent the burns along the way.
OK, I'll accept that. It's just a matter of modifying the OP list again. So what logically follows from the ToE is 1) No God 2) An evil God, or 3) a weak or unconcerned God. Or maybe it should be summed up:
Either no God or any God but the omniscient omnipotent God of Love of the Bible.
Is it bad form to link to my own messages?
Probably, but I do it. If you've knocked yourself out getting something said, why not make sure everyone sees it?
Oh well. Here's what I said to mike the wiz on the subject earlier today.
Indeed, many early religions distinguished between the creating god/gods and the "operating" gods.
Again, either NO God or any God except the Biblical God. How about that?
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 10:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 8:35 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 8:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 48 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 10:15 PM Faith has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 35 of 301 (282709)
01-30-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
01-30-2006 3:54 PM


yes yes. but see. when you make an opening post, you are the one replied to. those are quoted from the person you linked to. hence i quote them in response to you, the primary poster. and, it's all the more appropriate since that person was also replying to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:54 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 36 of 301 (282711)
01-30-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
01-30-2006 8:42 PM


No Christian need reject the TOE.
Still waiting for a response to Message 7.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:42 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 301 (282713)
01-30-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by macaroniandcheese
01-30-2006 8:48 PM


It's too hard to follow. Setting it up like that looks like you are debating the quotes and that the quotes are mine because I'm the one you are responding to. If you are agreeing with them against me, that has to be made clear, and it would help if you identified the person being quoted. AND I have no idea what the quotes were responding TO in what I might have said, so quoting that -- what I had said --- is also necessary.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 08:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 8:48 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 8:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 01-30-2006 8:57 PM Faith has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 38 of 301 (282714)
01-30-2006 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
01-30-2006 8:54 PM


yeah generally that's what reading is for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:54 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by AdminNWR, posted 01-30-2006 9:25 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 39 of 301 (282715)
01-30-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
01-30-2006 8:54 PM


Missed Opportunity
Ah, well. I figured it was a bad idea jumping into the other thread so close to its figurative and literal end. Hopefully we can pick up the conversation where it left off in some other venue. My reply to you would be severely off-topic here, IMO.
Someone pass the popcorn, as I'm back to spectator mode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:58 PM Quetzal has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 301 (282716)
01-30-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Quetzal
01-30-2006 8:57 PM


Re: Missed Opportunity
Seemed to me to be on topic there, so why not here, but I admit I've already forgotten the post, so I guess I can take your word for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 01-30-2006 8:57 PM Quetzal has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 301 (282718)
01-30-2006 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
01-30-2006 2:10 PM


Re: At least one point was pretty conclusively falsified...
There's no point, jar. It's been dealt with on this thread already, and reformulated:
Atheism and Any God But the Biblical God are compatible with the ToE
some versions of God of which I've been collecting in Message 1. I suppose your version would just be another one of those, so if you want to add it to the collection, that's up to you. Or if you'd like to argue that my new formulation is wrong, that's OK too. But we've settled it that atheism is definitely a logical inference from the ToE, and any God (an evil one, a weak or uninvolved one, lesser gods etc) -- any God but an omnipotent, omniscient good God of Love, the Biblical God, also appears to be compatible.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 10:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 2:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 9:23 PM Faith has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 301 (282719)
01-30-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
01-30-2006 9:15 PM


Re: At least one point was pretty conclusively falsified...
But we've settled it that atheism is definitely a logical inference from the ToE, and any God but the Biblical God also appear to be compatible. Just not the Biblical God.
There's no point, jar. It's been dealt with on this thread already, and reformulated:
Atheism and Any God But the Biblical God are compatible with the ToE
No, that's what you've asserted. You have offerend nothing supportive.
I and many other Christians, many, many, many, many Christians see no conflict at all between the TOE and Christianity.
I can provide proof that it is possible to accept both the TOE and the Christian Biblical GOD. I am a Christian that also accepts the TOE; therefore your asertion HAS been refuted.
If you like I can provide aditional proof.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 9:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 9:29 PM jar has replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 301 (282721)
01-30-2006 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by macaroniandcheese
01-30-2006 8:55 PM


yeah generally that's what reading is for.
Perhaps it was not so intended, but that comes across as a bit of an insult.
You have been asked in the past to control your tendency to post one-liner smart-alec remarks.
When responding to a post in a different thread, the best option IMO, is to use the Gen Reply button for your reply, and to include a link to the message to which you are responding.
It's a bit late now to use Gen Reply, but it is not too late to go back, edit Message 6, and add the appropriate link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 8:55 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 301 (282722)
01-30-2006 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
01-30-2006 9:23 PM


Re: At least one point was pretty conclusively falsified...
It's been proved jar. A good God is not compatible with the ToE because it treats death and suffering as natural. A good God would not have made a universe full of pain, and the Biblical God didn't, So the God of the Bible is not compatible with the ToE. That's no mere assertion, that's supportive reasoning. It's been proved. There's nothing more to say.
Others have pointed out that a God who can't run his own universe is also compatible with the ToE, as are lesser godlets etc. OK, those are also not the God of the Bible.
Sorry, it's been thoroughly proved.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 09:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 9:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 9:37 PM Faith has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 301 (282723)
01-30-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
01-30-2006 9:29 PM


Re: At least one point was pretty conclusively falsified...
No, people so far have only made assertions. No proof has been offered by anyone except me so far.
I have said that I believe in the Biblical GOD and also accept the TOE. Therefore your assertion is refuted.
I'm sorry Faith, but that is the way reality works. You have asserted something is impossible. I provided evidence that it is possible.
You have been refuted. Doesn't matter what you believe, your assertion is as daid as YEC.
Two plus two does not equal five no matter what you believe.
If you wish I will be happy to provide additional proofs.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 9:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 9:39 PM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024