Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

There is, I suppose, the very faint possibility that AB thinks that pre-determined means determined since life began ... ... his ideas are blinkered enough for that perhaps?

AB: Unless one of the more knowledgeable people here can put me right, the pre- bit of pre-determined refers to the split second pre-determined of the functioning human consciousness.

The materialist scenario of a closed, physically deterministic universe is that every event will be determined by previous physical events, and there is nothing which can interact or interfere with this sequence of physical cause and effect.  Everything will be pre determined from the instant of the Big Bang.

So the only way for any form of control or manipulation to occur would be for the source of that control to emanate from outside the closed, physically deterministic universe.  This is where God's will and human will kick in to provide a means of consciously controlled interaction with this universe.

[wigginhall]

The materialist scenario of a closed, physically deterministic universe is that every event will be determined by previous physical events, and there is nothing which can interact or interfere with this sequence of physical cause and effect.  Everything will be pre determined from the instant of the Big Bang.

So the only way for any form of control or manipulation to occur would be for the source of that control to emanate from outside the closed, physically deterministic universe.  This is where God's will and human will kick in to provide a means of consciously controlled interaction with this universe.

You make plenty of false assertions.  For example, of course things interact with particular sequences of cause and effect.   The obvious  example is weather - it's well  known, for example, that changes in climate have an effect on the evolution of species.

Also, determinism of this kind has been challenged, for example  by the uncertainty principle; this has a lot of relevance, for example, to black holes, which destroy information.   This seems to lead to unpredictability, and black holes may well be not a marginal thing but something intrinsic  to the universe.     

[Gordon]

The materialist scenario of a closed, physically deterministic universe is that every event will be determined by previous physical events, and there is nothing which can interact or interfere with this sequence of physical cause and effect.  Everything will be pre determined from the instant of the Big Bang.

This is no more that a caricature of determinism, Alan: as Wiggs notes there is uncertainty, and I suppose an example is the role mutations play as evolution rolls on.

So the only way for any form of control or manipulation to occur would be for the source of that control to emanate from outside the closed, physically deterministic universe.  This is where God's will and human will kick in to provide a means of consciously controlled interaction with this universe.

This is just more personal incredulity as part of your attempts to manufacture a gap that suits your particular outlook (free will, souls etc), and into which your god can be inserted.

[Sebastian Toe]

  This is where God's will and human will kick in to provide a means of consciously controlled interaction with this universe.

Is your version of free will a good thing?
Would existance without it be better or worse?

[wigginhall]

Quite a strange argument, really. 

1.  The universe is a closed system.
2.  Nothing is controlling it from the inside.
3.  But I think something is controlling it, because I can control stuff, like my thoughts.
4.  Therefore, something is controlling the universe. 
5.  This is God. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite a strange argument, really. 

1.  The universe is a closed system.

But it seems to be running down like an open system.

[wigginhall]

But it seems to be running down like an open system.

Take it up with AB; it's his argument.

[torridon]

The materialist scenario of a closed, physically deterministic universe is that every event will be determined by previous physical events, and there is nothing which can interact or interfere with this sequence of physical cause and effect.  Everything will be pre determined from the instant of the Big Bang.

We can't really know that as we cannot rule out true randomness. We have to live  without knowing whether the universe is fully deterministic or not; something might look random, however we could never prove it.  Randomness of course is an enemy of will, so any indeterminism does nothing to aid a case for willpower as a fundamental force of nature.

Shit happens, so they say

So the only way for any form of control or manipulation to occur would be for the source of that control to emanate from outside the closed, physically deterministic universe.  This is where God's will and human will kick in to provide a means of consciously controlled interaction with this universe.

All you are claiming, is that we feel in control, therefore we are supernatural.  This is the sort of unevidenced irrational naive thinking you might expect from a ten year old still immersed in a storybook world, it is not worthy of an educated adult.  An alpha male chimpanzee exerts control over his group so do we scratch our heads in astonishment and conclude that the alpha male must therefore be supernatural ?  All this demonstrates is a readiness to abandon reason and enquiry in the face of the merest intellectual challenge and regress back to magic thinking, and magic thinking in the end solves nothing it merely hides issues you cannot fathom. 'God's will' and 'human will' merely provide a magic cover, they do not further or deepen any understanding, this much is evident from your failure to provide any rationale for how will could operate in this context despite repeated requests from numerous posters over several years now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The human being may not be supernatural although there is no reason why the natural is not perturbed by the supernatural. In fact self perturbation of the natural requires a supernatural character since everything we see happen is derived.
Also supernatural is nature popping out of nothing in the first place....we know quantum particles seem to but as this is often touted as an accountancy procedure nothing has actually been derived from well er, nothing, being infinite (what else is?).

[floo]

The human being may not be supernatural although there is no reason why the natural is not perturbed by the supernatural. In fact self perturbation of the natural requires a supernatural character since everything we see happen is derived.
Also supernatural is nature popping out of nothing in the first place....we know quantum particles seem to but as this is often touted as an accountancy procedure nothing has actually been derived from well er, nothing, being infinite (what else is?).

'Supernatural' is a convenient term for things which science has not yet managed to explain. I reckon wonders of modern technology would seem pretty supernatural to people living even 100 years ago.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Supernatural' is a convenient term for things which science has not yet managed to explain. I reckon wonders of modern technology would seem pretty supernatural to people living even 100 years ago.

Science methodology remains the same i.e. it is methodological materialism at base. It can only therefore be brought to bear on what is not what isn't. It therefore cannot analyse the nothing from which everything may have sprung or the infinity in which an infinite universe must reside.

[floo]

Science methodology remains the same i.e. it is methodological materialism at base. It can only therefore be brought to bear on what is not what isn't. It therefore cannot analyse the nothing from which everything may have sprung or the infinity in which an infinite universe must reside.

Ok so if something cannot come from nothing, who or what created the god in which you believe. 'It was always there', is not a credible answer.

[Shaker]

Science methodology remains the same i.e. it is methodological materialism at base. It can only therefore be brought to bear on what is not what isn't.

Yet distinguishing between what is and what isn't itself requires a methodology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet distinguishing between what is and what isn't itself requires a methodology.

or a circular argument eh,eh,eh

[bluehillside Retd.]

iar Boy,

Science methodology remains the same i.e. it is methodological materialism at base. It can only therefore be brought to bear on what is not what isn't. It therefore cannot analyse the nothing from which everything may have sprung or the infinity in which an infinite universe must reside.

Sven: "I don't have a robust explanation for thunder, therefore Thor".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ok so if something cannot come from nothing, who or what created the god in which you believe. 'It was always there', is not a credible answer.

I'm not saying something cannot come from nothing. All i'm saying is that science cannot deal with this because it cannot analyse the nothing from which something would have to come. Science can therefore never tell us whether or not this happened....and if it did happen and it is not susceptible to science it is, by definition, supernatural.

[floo]

I'm not saying something cannot come from nothing. All i'm saying is that science cannot deal with this because it cannot analyse the nothing from which something would have to come. Science can therefore never tell us whether or not this happened....and if it did happen and it is not susceptible to science it is, by definition, supernatural.

You can't say that for sure, one day science might discover exactly how everything came about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can't say that for sure, one day science might discover exactly how everything came about.

Not unless the methodology changes. So yes I can say it for sure.
Nothing leaves no evidence. Infinity cannot be analysed in material terms since you can never have all the evidence or stand outside it to analyse it.

[floo]

Not unless the methodology changes. So yes I can say it for sure.
Nothing leaves no evidence. Infinity cannot be analysed in material terms since you can never have all the evidence or stand outside it to analyse it.

Of course you can't say for sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course you can't say for sure.

Do you dispute that  a) nothing leaves zero evidence
                              b) You cannot analyse infinity because you can never stand outside it to analyse it or detect it?

[floo]

Do you dispute that  a) nothing leaves zero evidence
                              b) You cannot analyse infinity because you can never stand outside it to analyse it or detect it?

What we cannot do today might be possible in the future, however unlikely that seems now. When Jesus was strutting his stuff, if someone had suggested that one day humans would land on the moon they would have been thought to be crazy!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What we cannot do today might be possible in the future, however unlikely that seems now. When Jesus was strutting his stuff, if someone had suggested that one day humans would land on the moon they would have been thought to be crazy!

But Floo some things are impossible...... square circles, cake and eat it etc. and Nothing leaving evidence and the ability to stand outside of the infinite are in that bracket.

These things will be forever be closed to science i'm afraid unless science changes it's fundemental methodology.

Sorry........... but there it absolutely is.

You may have noticed the lack of ''The Refuters'' leaping to your defence.

[wigginhall]

Square circles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles

[bluehillside Retd.]

Liar Boy,

But Floo some things are impossible...... square circles, cake and eat it etc. and Nothing leaving evidence and the ability to stand outside of the infinite are in that bracket.

These things will be forever be closed to science i'm afraid unless science changes it's fundemental methodology.

Sorry........... but there it absolutely is.

You may have noticed the lack of ''The Refuters'' leaping to your defence.

Floo doesn't need defending.

1. You continue to misunderstand the nature of science, which proceeds only on the assumption of naturalism. If you want to posit a non-natural, you need to demonstrate it at all rather than repeat the commonplace that a method that assumes the material would have nothing to say about the non-material. 

2. "Science" (ie, theoretical physics) already has competing hypotheses about this (quantum borrowing for example) that do not require explanations for the "nothing".

3. You have no means to establish that "eternity", "infinity" etc are real phenomena rather than just useful theoretical devices.

4. You're attempting yet another argument from personal incredulity fallacy - "I can't see how science could explain X, therefore (insert name of god of choice here) did it". A "don't know" tells you nothing at all about the case for whatever superstition you happen to favour to fill the explanatory gap.

5. The problem isn't whether or not science could ever explain everything, but rather that even if it could there'd be no way to be sure that it had explained everything - a philosophical rather than a scientific problem.       

[floo]

But Floo some things are impossible...... square circles, cake and eat it etc. and Nothing leaving evidence and the ability to stand outside of the infinite are in that bracket.

These things will be forever be closed to science i'm afraid unless science changes it's fundemental methodology.

Sorry........... but there it absolutely is.

You may have noticed the lack of ''The Refuters'' leaping to your defence.

You keep saying that but you can't know it for a fact. As human knowledge increases we could make discoveries, which aren't possible at this moment in time.