OT Yes, God does speak to me (and others)

[Monster]

I have a question Monster.

If there is free will, that doesn't bode well for the existence of God, but if there is no free will, it leads us to a belief in God?

If I have that right, I do think that is rather odd. I have seen the opposite argument a number of times.

IF Scientists somehow found that the brain (or genes) actually has predetermined codes inside of it that lead them into a certain situation (without fail), then yes...that is nearly absolute proof of A GOD. That does not mean that YOUR god is the truth. It could be any of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout history. It could also be a god that has never inspired man to start a religion or write a book in his/her/its name.

However, I would have serious doubts about this, because if this was true, science would eventually find a way to unlock these genes and give us a way to look into the future. I forget the exact verse, but I believe God said something about nobody will know the future, but God.

 

[redandguilty]

IF Scientists somehow found that the brain (or genes) actually has predetermined codes inside of it that lead them into a certain situation (without fail), then yes...that is nearly absolute proof of A GOD.

I wouldn't see that as proof of God's existence. The determinist viewpoint sounds physically like what you describe, but is usually a God-free view of existence.

 

[Monster]

Just google neuroscience and free will at look at anything from the past decade. (edit: ok, I found a pop sci article pointing in the other direction when I googled, but most of it points to no free will. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-free-will)

It's a difficult topic to discuss because it's challenging to convey exactly what you mean and understand exactly what other people mean, but I have never read a description of free will that's compatible with a world that exclusively follows some set of laws of physics (discovered and not yet discovered) that doesn't sound like a rewording of the idea that free will is an illusion.

We don't know all the mechanisms of the brain, but what I'm talking about isn't a theory to cover the gaps in our knowledge. Whatever the mechanisms of consciousness are, there is an arrow of causality. There are 2 entities, your brain and your mind. Your brain is the organ in your skull. Your mind is the one thing you are most certain actually exists; the "I" in "I think therefore I am." You perceive that your mind freely makes decisions and your body acts on that decision. So what drives what? One theory is that the brain is an electrochemical mechanism that obeys the laws of physics (discovered and undiscovered) and through the remarkable complexity of this machine, consciousness arises and with it, the perception that we make choices. This is not free will. Your decisions are driven by the state of the atoms in your skull and the inputs and outputs of your eyes and ears and such. With a perfect knowledge of all of physics and the positions and states of all matter and energy, your decisions could theoretically be predicted. Alternately, if we have free will, our will, that is, our mind is free to make decisions and somehow those decisions impact our brains to make our decisions happen.

If the brain is a mechanism, free will is an illusion. A remarkable illusion. It changes everything about how we perceive our existence and if it is any illusion, there can be no evolutionary benefit to it. I find that to be pretty difficult to digest. Alternately, if the mind drives the brain, if it isn't a slave to the laws of nature, then it's supernatural.

Look GBiA! now THIS is an example of a good response. Well worded, well thought out, still flawed, though. Most of what you said goes back to the question, "Why am I alive?", meaning that if you know the reason we are all alive and how we are alive and exactly where life comes from and is created, you'll know the answers to your question. As far as I know, nobody has ever figured out these answers for a certainty, which is why religion exists. It's a crutch for people that don't understand the world and want to know more about it, so they turn to "magic".

In Greek Mythology, a volcano would erupt and the people believed it was a titan trying to break free of Tartarus. It sounds insane now, but to them, there was absolutely no other explanation. When science proved that the Earth actually orbited the sun, the church went crazy. The bible told them that it was the other way around and that was something they couldn't allow. Slowly, but surely, science proves things in the bible to be untrue. Still not sure why regular people like you (that actually use their brain) can not see this. Why do I bring this up? Well, just because we don't understand something, that doesn't mean we should run to the old explanation of "A god did it". It seems to be a theme among Christians. They don't understand the big bang theory or evolution, so it must not be true. And the only other explanation they've ever heard is GOD. I guess that's human nature.

I'm struggling to understand why you think the brain is super natural, though. I'd like to think i'm fairly knowledgeable, but I just don't see it.

Don't have much time to reply, so I'll come back later and respond to anything I missed. Need to get my son from school!!!!

 

[Monster]

I wouldn't see that as proof of God's existence. The determinist viewpoint sounds physically like what you describe, but is usually a God-free view of existence.

I did say "nearly".

 

[redandguilty]

I did say "nearly".

I'm saying it's not at all proof. There's a very viable alternative.

 

[redandguilty]

Look GBiA! now THIS is an example of a good response. Well worded, well thought out, still flawed, though. Most of what you said goes back to the question, "Why am I alive?", meaning that if you know the reason we are all alive and how we are alive and exactly where life comes from and is created, you'll know the answers to your question. As far as I know, nobody has ever figured out these answers for a certainty, which is why religion exists. It's a crutch for people that don't understand the world and want to know more about it, so they turn to "magic".

In Greek Mythology, a volcano would erupt and the people believed it was a titan trying to break free of Tartarus. It sounds insane now, but to them, there was absolutely no other explanation. When science proved that the Earth actually orbited the sun, the church went crazy. The bible told them that it was the other way around and that was something they couldn't allow. Slowly, but surely, science proves things in the bible to be untrue. Still not sure why regular people like you (that actually use their brain) can not see this. Why do I bring this up? Well, just because we don't understand something, that doesn't mean we should run to the old explanation of "A god did it". It seems to be a theme among Christians. They don't understand the big bang theory or evolution, so it must not be true. And the only other explanation they've ever heard is GOD. I guess that's human nature.

I'm struggling to understand why you think the brain is super natural, though. I'd like to think i'm fairly knowledgeable, but I just don't see it.

Don't have much time to reply, so I'll come back later and respond to anything I missed. Need to get my son from school!!!!

There are clearly some hurdles in language. I need to start using the word naturalism. I sometimes use the word determinism when I should say naturalism because I think it's more clear what I'm getting at, but it isn't necessarily. I think I'll be able to express myself better if I compare naturalism and theism in the light of determinism and indeterminism.

Naturalism is just the -ism where you don't believe in anything supernatural. Law of physics govern everything. We don't know all the laws of physics yet, but everything obeys the same laws all the time with no supernatural interventions.

Theism, belief in a god.

Determinism, the idea that there is no element of chance in the world. If 2 scenarios are exactly the same, they will produce the exact same results.

Indeterminism, the idea that there are elements of chance and things that cannot be predicted even with perfect knowledge.

It used to be that scientists thought the world was deterministic. Then, quantum physics changed that and Einstein famously said "God does not play dice." which was a comment about his refusal to accept an indeterminant view of the world. I personally don't think this is over yet and that in the absence of any thing supernatural we will someday have a "theory of everything" and a deterministic view of the universe again. I suspect the apparent probabilistic behavior of stuff at quantum scales is driven by measurement limitations and not the actual nature of the universe. It's not that there's some probability for a particle to go through 1 slit or another, that particle is composed of some kind of string theory like strings and so it really does exist as a in a more distributed form...we just can't measure it.

Naturalists have had no problem maintain their disbelief in free will as the majority view on physics shifted from determinism to indeterminism. Pre-quantum physics, naturalists thought the atom within brain followed the deterministic paths dictated by physics and so there was no room for a free will to operate. Once the inderterminant view took hold, they thought that if the interactions of the atoms in our brains are influenced by random quantum fluctuations, we still are not free to influence those fluctuations in any way so we still cannot be said to exercise free will.

Some people just define free will to mean the ability to act on impulses that originate in the brain. They deny the whole brain/mind problem. That's called monism.

I reject all of that. Not the logic of it, that's fine, but if all of that is true, then consciousness and the perception of free will aren't necessary. We're on the edge of building computers that produce self emergent intelligence, which is to say they can make "good" decisions that were not programmed into them. Nobody would claim these computers are conscious. If you really understand how all the phenomenal complexity of life can come to be through evolution, you should be able to grasp the idea that a mind could evolve that takes all the inputs of our eyes, ears, noses and such, and produces the output of our brain without the consciousness and perception of free will we perceive. In fact, if the perception of free will is an illusion as the naturalists claim (they call it the "dilemma of determinism") then how is it supposed to have evolved? How can something that is not real provide an evolutionary benefit?

Theists have determinists and indeterminists too (I think). Indeterminists would be people like me (I think that makes me a metaphysical libertarian). People that believe free will exists and our conscious selves somehow impact our brain mechanisms. I think some other religions believe God controls everything and we don't have free will and that while the world appears indeterminant to modern science, it is fully determined by God.

 

[mhughes0021]

Look GBiA! now THIS is an example of a good response. Well worded, well thought out, still flawed, though. Most of what you said goes back to the question, "Why am I alive?", meaning that if you know the reason we are all alive and how we are alive and exactly where life comes from and is created, you'll know the answers to your question. As far as I know, nobody has ever figured out these answers for a certainty, which is why religion exists. It's a crutch for people that don't understand the world and want to know more about it, so they turn to "magic".

In Greek Mythology, a volcano would erupt and the people believed it was a titan trying to break free of Tartarus. It sounds insane now, but to them, there was absolutely no other explanation. When science proved that the Earth actually orbited the sun, the church went crazy. The bible told them that it was the other way around and that was something they couldn't allow. Slowly, but surely, science proves things in the bible to be untrue. Still not sure why regular people like you (that actually use their brain) can not see this. Why do I bring this up? Well, just because we don't understand something, that doesn't mean we should run to the old explanation of "A god did it". It seems to be a theme among Christians. They don't understand the big bang theory or evolution, so it must not be true. And the only other explanation they've ever heard is GOD. I guess that's human nature.

I'm struggling to understand why you think the brain is super natural, though. I'd like to think i'm fairly knowledgeable, but I just don't see it.

Don't have much time to reply, so I'll come back later and respond to anything I missed. Need to get my son from school!!!!

Odd that the bible is the word of god yet he didn't know the earth orbited the sun. God is a moron.

 

[Thumb]

Odd that the bible is the word of god yet he didn't know the earth orbited the sun. God is a moron.

If god had a good PR guy, they would have just said he was misquoted about 4000 years ago.

But because they let it go this long, they would just look like idiots trying to work a retraction/revision in now.

I give him credit for not just saying "do over" like that time with Noah.

 

[mhughes0021]

If god had a good PR guy, they would have just said he was misquoted about 4000 years ago.

But because they let it go this long, they would just look like idiots trying to work a retraction/revision in now.

I give him credit for not just saying "do over" like that time with Noah.

Soooo to tie in the thread title....god does speak to people....but no one really can understand what hes saying lol.

 

[KAWDUP]

Odd that the bible is the word of god yet he didn't know the earth orbited the sun. God is a moron.

. . . or not.

It was still written down by men - or didn't they teach you that in bible school?

 

[KAWDUP]

I did say "nearly".

"Nearly" absolute? Meaning that if there was just a bit more fact in the theory, it would be absolute truth?

Tough concept. If I get the chance, I will post links of some of the common theory's on determinism. Most of them are god-less.

The theist determinist does certainly exist as Red points out, so maybe that is what you meant.

Maybe you are thinking of the belief that God would exist due to the complexity of the design it would take to create a set of genes that could do that?

 

[redandguilty]

Maybe you are thinking of the belief that God would exist due to the complexity of the design it would take to create a set of genes that could do that?

Regarding "Intelligent Design", I can't remember who said it first, but I agree with the statement that it's bad science and bad theology. That being said, there are things in the natural world such as the complexity of an organism when viewed at the scale of DNA and proteins that can trigger the kind of sense of awe that can reinforce or change a person's views on the nature of existence. I suspect it probably lights up the same part of the brain the lights up when people have religious experience. To have that feeling and then go on to talk about how it reinforced your belief that there is an intelligent designer behind it all is fine. But it's not the only reaction you could have to that sense of awe and it certainly doesn't make for good science or solid philosophy and I think it's wrong to use as a way to mix the two as part of a formal k-12 science curriculum.

 

[KAWDUP]

Regarding "Intelligent Design", I can't remember who said it first, but I agree with the statement that it's bad science and bad theology. That being said, there are things in the natural world such as the complexity of an organism when viewed at the scale of DNA and proteins that can trigger the kind of sense of awe that can reinforce or change a person's views on the nature of existence. I suspect it probably lights up the same part of the brain the lights up when people have religious experience. To have that feeling and then go on to talk about how it reinforced your belief that there is an intelligent designer behind it all is fine. But it's not the only reaction you could have to that sense of awe and it certainly doesn't make for good science or solid philosophy and I think it's wrong to use as a way to mix the two as part of a formal k-12 science curriculum.

Agreed, I was trying to wrap my head around the statement that proof of no free will, would serve as "nearly absolute" proof that God exists.

Intelligent Design wouldn't be my first choice, but if that is what is needed to prove to yourself that God exists, who am I to throw water on it?

 

[redandguilty]

Agreed, I was trying to wrap my head around the statement that proof of no free will, would serve as "nearly absolute" proof that God exists.

Intelligent Design wouldn't be my first choice, but if that is what is needed to prove to yourself that God exists, who am I to throw water on it?

You can throw water on it. The whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing doesn't apply to philosophical debates. That's why I think more fundamentalist types can dislike Catholics more than atheists. Saying things I think are wrong are fine for someone that takes the other side. But if someone on my side says things that I think are wrong, that could hurt me. I don't want to get lumped in with all their wrongness just because we're on the same side.

 

[KAWDUP]

That's why I think more fundamentalist types can dislike Catholics more than atheists.

This is very true, but as far as your position being hurt by others wrong thinking, just because they believe in God as the commonality, only hurts if you don't love discussing the subject. :*)

 

[mhughes0021]

. . . or not.

It was still written down by men - or didn't they teach you that in bible school?

correct and they either wrote it down wrong which means they misunderstood....or god is an idiot. what didnt you understand?

 

[Thumb]

correct and they either wrote it down wrong which means they misunderstood....or god is an idiot. what didnt you understand?

Well wait a minute....this opens a whole new can o' worms.

What else were the men who wrote down the word of god wrong about?

Funny how it's always a double standard. When it suits them it's the word of god, when it doesn't it's because men wrote/translated/ etc.

 

[mhughes0021]

Well wait a minute....this opens a whole new can o' worms.

What else were the men who wrote down the word of god wrong about?

Funny how it's always a double standard. When it suits them it's the word of god, when it doesn't it's because men wrote/translated/ etc.

exactly! lol

my guess is since there are about 60 different religions claiming 60 different things on this planet alone.....they got everything wrong and its not really the word of god....at all. Just a guess.

 

[KAWDUP]

If God is an idiot, I would hate to be you in any kind of comparison.

 

[KAWDUP]

Who is them? I'm sure you're quoting me somewhere for that ignorance right?
If you want a serious discussion about this, I'd be glad to answer, but it is obvious you just want to show your contempt and ignorance for the subject. Enjoy your obvious bliss.