waitasec
Veteran Member
right, so what's the issue here?
why?
you mean, in faith it proves divinity...
how do you know?
why object to the notion of exploration...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do Atheists believe in free-will?
- Thread starter SPLogan
- Start date
how do you know?
why object to the notion of exploration...
Sum1sGruj
Active Member
Because it's the pure and simple truth. I know because that's what it is. Something didn't come from nothing.
Rather, it takes faith to think otherwise. A false faith.
waitasec
Veteran Member
Sum1sGruj
Active Member
This all presents a good example of the audacity of science. People are so blindly reliant on it that they think it's going to be able to explain, even in a trillion years, that existence came from nothing
If you actually believe that, then that's your own undoing.
waitasec
Veteran Member
This all presents a good example of the audacity of science. People are so blindly reliant on it that they think it's going to explain, even in a trillion years, that existence came from nothing
If you actually believe that, then that's your own undoing.
so your objection is about what? to stifle human's innate sense of curiosity?
waitasec
Veteran Member
Sum1sGruj
Active Member
Objection? It is human curiosity that objects a cold, hard truth.
waitasec
Veteran Member
how so?
waitasec
Veteran Member
so what you are saying is, it is the humans desire to know or learn that objects a cold hard truth?
that is not logical?
Sum1sGruj
Active Member
Let's be curious about the universe, study it, find no divinity construct, and say that such things don't exist when in fact divinity has to exist simply because reality is existent.
Saying this all came from nothing is a denial complex. Think about it.
waitasec
Veteran Member
no one is saying that...
waitasec
Veteran Member
i think because divinity is based on faith and if for some reason we were to discover something that would be contrary to what faith holds on to, it presents a dilemma faith would have to answer to...
however if one were to explore without bias (the scientific method) and search out for the cold hard truth there is no dilemma...because a stance or a bias hasn't been presented to be challenged in the 1st place.
sum, if you have truth, good for you...but to object or have the opinion that exploration will uncover a truth that irreconcilable with faith is a form of doubt...
sort of like when you see teenagers who struggle with an insecurity you overcame, you have the knowledge that they will eventually get it...are you insecure in the fact that they are seeking it out for themselves?
however if one were to explore without bias (the scientific method) and search out for the cold hard truth there is no dilemma...because a stance or a bias hasn't been presented to be challenged in the 1st place.
sum, if you have truth, good for you...but to object or have the opinion that exploration will uncover a truth that irreconcilable with faith is a form of doubt...
sort of like when you see teenagers who struggle with an insecurity you overcame, you have the knowledge that they will eventually get it...are you insecure in the fact that they are seeking it out for themselves?
Last edited:
Orias
Left Hand Path
Well you see, all perception is faith based.
Otherwise we wouldn't have perception to observe "faith". Everyone is bias to an extent, even the scientific method puts itself into a "scientific" bias.
Of course though, many people are able to over come this, Albert Einstein being a perfect example
waitasec
Veteran Member
Well you see, all perception is faith based.
Otherwise we wouldn't have perception to observe "faith". Everyone is bias to an extent, even the scientific method puts itself into a "scientific" bias.
Of course though, many people are able to over come this, Albert Einstein being a perfect example
but of course darlink..
i'm more of the biased opinion that being open minded about things is far better than not being open minded...
and to bring this back to the subject of this thread...
"we have no choice but to have the free will" ~christopher hitchens
Orias
Left Hand Path
but of course darlink..
i'm more of the biased opinion that being open minded about things is far better than not being open minded...
and to bring this back to the subject of this thread...
"we have no choice but to have the free will" ~christopher hitchens
I completely agree, and that actually reminds me of a Latin proverb.
Time homine unius libri-Fear the man of one book.
Funny...everyone possess a certain bias that allows them to overcome other biases.
Nature seems to have a funny way of solving its own paradoxes.
Thats a good quote by the way, "we have no choice but to have the free will". If I myself were more direct with the "belief in free will" I would totally use that, but I myself have come to the conclusion that we can only desire free will, and not truly possess it
Funny guy.
waitasec
Veteran Member
we can only desire free will, and not truly possess it
i likey that.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
That's not what determinism means (at least not Causal Determinism, which is what most people think of when using the term).
It is still YOU making the choices, except that they are predetermined by your genes, the sum of your experiences and the sum of conscious and unconscious signals at your disposal at the time of making the decision.
This means that decision-making is a much more unconscious process than we usually have been led to believe and it also means that it is in THEORY possible to accurately predict each and every decision you every make in each and every situation.
In PRACTICE this is impossible, if for no other reason, then because of the sheer amount of data that would have to be taken into account.
But it is important to note that determinism does not suggest some kind of puppet-master pulling your strings. It is still you making the decisions albeit in a manner that is predetermined by the conditions mentioned above.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Presupposes the non-existence of a Laplace Daemon for consciousness. For any system which is rationally intelligible and some actor exists outside the system, then that system can be controlled.
I'm not going so far as to say that causal determinism mandates loss of free will. I am satisfied knowing that my actions generally satisfy the desires and intentions I have at the time of the event. However, it does bare mentioning that proclaiming your "will free" when your "will" is reduced to computational factors in an individualized and/or isolated existence looks rather droll and uninspired. I much prefer a quantum consciousness (or at least consciousness partially derived from quantum processes) where our intelligence is entangled with much of the world around us. No you still can't create a thought out of nothingness, but I'm not sure I want to be able to in any case.
MTF