614
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 29:
Line 29: + +
Talk:Arguments for the existence of God (view source)
Revision as of 16:34, September 25, 2007
, 16:34, September 25, 2007→Freewill
: That being said, I think you're right, and arguments about a "naturalistic free will" should be there ... I'll take a stab at it ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: That being said, I think you're right, and arguments about a "naturalistic free will" should be there ... I'll take a stab at it ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::I think ''my'' key word in all this would be "attempt". Science doesn't explain free will but there is much scientific conjecture that attempts to - Quantum Mind being but one. What they are doing, of course, is applying the scientific method to consciousness/mind/free will/etc. As the supernatural is outside the realm of science, the ''only'' method for investigation they have is the scientific one in the natural universe. Stepping out of that constraint brings science full circle when it used to be called natural philosophy! This means that science can't give us an answer on how (or even if) we have free will - at least not yet - just that the existence of free will doesn't prove the existence of God. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::I think ''my'' key word in all this would be "attempt". Science doesn't explain free will but there is much scientific conjecture that attempts to - Quantum Mind being but one. What they are doing, of course, is applying the scientific method to consciousness/mind/free will/etc. As the supernatural is outside the realm of science, the ''only'' method for investigation they have is the scientific one in the natural universe. Stepping out of that constraint brings science full circle when it used to be called natural philosophy! This means that science can't give us an answer on how (or even if) we have free will - at least not yet - just that the existence of free will doesn't prove the existence of God. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::: I agree with you for the most part ... with one caveat: Your use of the phrase "scientific conjecture." You say science must stay within the constraint of the "natural universe." But I think there's another constraint on science we must take into account -- experiment:)! IMO, the "scientific conjecture" you mention above is an oxymoron. There is science, and there is conjecture, but there's no such thing as a scientific conjecture. A conjecture becomes science when we find a way to test the conjecture, and it passes the test -- and then it's not conjecture anymore -- it's [[falsifiable]] science. Before you can test a proposition, though, it remains only conjecture. Perhaps what you mean is ''materialistic'' conjecture ... meaning conjectures based solely on materialistic causes?
::: I say all this because I think it's important to recognize when "scientists" are out of the realm of science and in the realm of conjecture and philosophy ... where the credibility of "science" doesn't apply, because the rigors of experiment cannot be used and one guess is just as "unscientific" as the next one ... and anytime a scientist (or anyone else for that matter) tells you something he can't experimentally test, he's not acting like a scientist ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)