Ye Religion Thread

[QuakeDuke]

free will - by definition - to me means the ability of making a choice completely independent of everything and everyone (which includes god's omniscience). your choice, and your choice only - and it cannot be predicted. we apparently have different opinions on free will.
edit*
i understand that it's not god's omniscience that somehow restricts people from making their own choices. i have no problem with this. it's that free will, by the way i view it, implies a certain "unknowability" about what the future may bring. i start with free will, and go from there. you start from god, and go from there. hence the difference in perspective.

it appears to be -
QD: compatible
free will ----------> free to make choices
god ----------> does not interfere, simply knows.

DHG: incompatible
free will ----------> all outcomes are possible (unpredictable)
god ----------> only certain outcomes are possible (since everything is already known)http://

The whole question of free will has occupied some of the greatest thinkers of all time. I made the assumption (perhaps wrongly) since this is a religious thread (and the question posed to me and answered by me was from a theological perspective) we would approach the concept of free will from a theological perspective. My bad.

I suppose we could decide whether we were approaching free will from a philosophical,  moral, or scientific perspective and these all break down into sub categories (deterministic, causality, etc, etc. which break down into sub categories which break down into... you get the idea.
   
Based on your diagram and what you are saying, you are assuming I am starting from god and basing my views on free will from that starting point. I was enamored with the concept of free will long before  I became a Christian. I suppose you could (if it were necessary to do so) classify me as subscribing to compatibilism. I don't see a conflict between science and religion or that they must exist exclusive of each other. Apparently, many of the greatest thinkers of history did not see a conflict either. Two books by Daniel Dennet (google him to find out more about him) are fairly good reading - Freedom Evolves & Breaking the Spell: Religions as a Natural Phenomenon.

I will admit to a more theological view of things than most but then, I wouldn't be much of a minister if  I didn't now, would I? I like the cosmological argument (first put forth by Plato and Aristotle I believe) stated by Thomas Aquinas:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

This argument is, of course, speculating the existence of god from that which is observable of the universe. If the universe requires an explanation, an active creation of the universe by some(thing/one) outside of the universe must be that explanation. I am not aware of anything (which isn't saying anything - I don't know much, much less everything) of any current scientific conflict here. In fact, I recently came across and "update" of this argument which takes into account another controversial subject - the big bang theory. It states:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

A quantum physics standpoint of scientifically defining free will can be found here http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0604079. By the way, http://arxiv.org/ is one of my favorite sites. I would recommend it anyone for serious consideration.

Like someone else has said, I'm enjoying this thread immensely and as someone else said, I've had a chuckle or to as well.  Thanks! Too Much!

QD

[DaHanG]

I will admit to a more theological view of things than most but then, I wouldn't be much of a minister if  I didn't now, would I? I like the cosmological argument (first put forth by Plato and Aristotle I believe) stated by Thomas Aquinas:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

This argument is, of course, speculating the existence of god from that which is observable of the universe. If the universe requires an explanation, an active creation of the universe by some(thing/one) outside of the universe must be that explanation. I am not aware of anything (which isn't saying anything - I don't know much, much less everything) of any current scientific conflict here. In fact, I recently came across and "update" of this argument which takes into account another controversial subject - the big bang theory. It states:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

what aquinas is implying is a consciously guided cause, rather than just a cause. there's also a difference between finite beings and matter itself. scientifially, it is accepted that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. when something dies, that being ceases to exist, but matter simply takes a different form; it doesn't disappear. you're on shaky grounds scientifically if you claim that there was indeed pure, authentic "nothingness" at one point.

these excerpts leave open the possibility of one god per universe, with trillions of universes, and one ultimate god who created all the lesser gods. surely he would be opposed to this idea, but there's no way he could refute it (especially since he argues empirically, and for that matter never aknowledged the possibility of a multi-verse). hume challenges the idea of "cause" in a pretty strong fashion, and really raises our consiousness to simple proofs like these (in which there are equally convincing ones on the opposite side). believe me, i'm probably no less amazed than anyone that there is in fact something rather than nothing. or that i'm even conscious of anything. the fact that i believe nature and simple beginnings are alone responsible only adds to my excited bewilderment.

on an interesting note, many of these fathers of theology (indeed gifted thinkers) were actually quite twisted in their philosophy when it came to subjects that mattered more (what we can see). aquinas, for example, said:
"I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death." i'll take bertrund russel's moral philosophy over thomas aquinas's any day.

[Daemia]

I can't believe this thread was even created.   

Religion is such a touchy topic, one that I wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole. 

[Whirlingdervish]

 

I was amazed you even posted this!
You tend to keep a good distance from the inflamatory dialogue that we love so much around here...


edit: OH SHIT! I JUST HIT 1000 POSTS! CARPAL TUNNEL MEMBER! KIIIIYYYIA!
 (thats right, that was a karate chop

[[BTF]adam]

Bitch you ain't shit till you reach opulent.

 

[Daemia]

lol whiriling, thats because I know better than to get involved in TS arguments.   

congrats on your 1000    

[reaper]

You are somehow able to determine what God can or can't do better than someone else?

that's close to the point i was making.

[DaHanG]

i do not think god is likely because of scientific evidence, i've always said i think the extreme improbability of this universe could be used as an argument to support religion.  for this improbability not to exist one or more of the following would have to take place:
there would have to be prior big bangs (big bang theory would change)
a multi-verse would exists (most likely undetectable) - some say science points us in this direction
scientific laws would have to change

i don't think multiple big bangs would change this improbability, at least from what i was reading.  so from the hypothesis that there is one big bang, you have life forming from extreme chance.  what would make this chance in our favor,  i say a god who had the intent to create life.  not that i believe that there was only one big bang, i think what's really going on is beyond our comprehension, just had a few thoughts

i suspect ours is not the only big bang. like quadz said, either the universe will collapse back in on itself into another singularity   or endure a heat death by entropy. one finite universe does not make sense from the theistic perspective in my opinion. even from the atheistic perspective, it doesn't quite make sense. i must aknowledge that if there is any good reason to believe in god, it is the idea that our universe appears to be finely tuned with proper laws and constants that make life possible. no critical thinker could be positively impressed by the argument from intelligent design or creationism in biology. it's also self-evidently clear that the argument from revelation or scripture falls short miserably.

there is still one HUGE problem when explaining away improbabilities by invoking god. "However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747." - Richard Dawkins. i think it's only fair to, at the very least, admit we're lucky to have life, whether there's a god or not.

[reaper]

no critical thinker could be positively impressed by the argument from intelligent design or creationism in biology.

are you sure, the man most directly responsible for mapping the human genome believes in god; i'm pretty sure he understands critical thinking.

[DaHanG]

no critical thinker could be positively impressed by the argument from intelligent design or creationism in biology.

are you sure, the man most directly responsible for mapping the human genome believes in god; i'm pretty sure he understands critical thinking.  people form the concept of god based on their experiences, they don't relate such an idea soley from physics equations.

you only further prove my point - biology itself is not a reason to believe in god. personal experiences are something that prove absolutely nothing. having a strong inner conviction that god exists is not a good reason to believe it. David Koresh had a strong inner conviction that he was the final prophet, clearly he had good reason to believe he was the final prophet then, right? one personal experience leading to the belief that muhammad was the last prophet should not be inconsistent with another's personal experience of something entirely different if these experiences have true (universal) validity.

[QuakeDuke]

personal experiences are something that prove absolutely nothing.

Are you sure you want to stay with this statement?

QD

[DaHanG]

positive.

[QuakeDuke]

positive.

Forgive me, but I need to make absolutely sure here. You are saying that personal experiences prove nothing?

QD

[DaHanG]

i have a feeling i'm exciting you, so yes. a personal experience proves nothing.

[reaper]

you only further prove my point - biology itself is not a reason to believe in god. personal experiences are something that prove absolutely nothing. having a strong inner conviction that god exists is not a good reason to believe it. David Koresh had a strong inner conviction that he was the final prophet, clearly he had good reason to believe he was the final prophet then, right? one personal experience leading to the belief that muhammad was the last prophet should not be inconsistent with another's personal experience of something entirely different if these experiences have validity.

Bill Clinton would say "define prove", but i'm trying to defend getting my dick sucked. having a strong inner conviction that god exists, is not a good reason for you to believe it.  what is true, and is not true is unknown now, so what's good reason to believe is debatable.  inconsistent beliefs isn't going to change my belief, or give me any reason not to believe it.