Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arguments for the existence of God"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
::: Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of ''random'' events implies that people have ''free will.'' If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not ''free'' -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no ''choice.'' For me to freely ''choose'' something, there must be something ''more'' than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a ''soul'' ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and ''chooses'' things ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT) | ::: Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of ''random'' events implies that people have ''free will.'' If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not ''free'' -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no ''choice.'' For me to freely ''choose'' something, there must be something ''more'' than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a ''soul'' ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and ''chooses'' things ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
::::This is a controversial topic. However, there are plenty of examples where science attempts to explain how quantum events are used by the brain or consciousness to make choices. This is different to simple randomness. As you say, randomness doesn't imply free will - it simply implies ignorance of measuring techniques or unpredictability. But ideas such as the Quantum Mind, while not a fully formed theory, is an example of how science attempts to classify free will as a natural phenomenon without the need for the supernatural or God. Some theologians have also postulated that natural free will must exist because God would design a natural universe with the capacity for free will - His Creation is, after all, perfect. While naturalistic free will might not be correct, it should be added to your otherwise excellent list of objections. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT) | ::::This is a controversial topic. However, there are plenty of examples where science attempts to explain how quantum events are used by the brain or consciousness to make choices. This is different to simple randomness. As you say, randomness doesn't imply free will - it simply implies ignorance of measuring techniques or unpredictability. But ideas such as the Quantum Mind, while not a fully formed theory, is an example of how science attempts to classify free will as a natural phenomenon without the need for the supernatural or God. Some theologians have also postulated that natural free will must exist because God would design a natural universe with the capacity for free will - His Creation is, after all, perfect. While naturalistic free will might not be correct, it should be added to your otherwise excellent list of objections. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | : Very interesting stuff -- thanks for bringing it to the fore. I read a little about Quantum Mind, and I can see how they attempt to use quantum thought to explain ''consciousness'', but I still can't see how they use it to explain ''free will''. I found an interesting article on it here ... http://www.cneuroscience.org/Topics/Will/Quantum_Free_Will.htm ... the authors had a similar reaction to mine: | ||
| + | ::"These theoretical physicists show a profound misunderstanding of what free will is. The human will is not a random action, dependent upon quantum uncertainty or a toss of a player's dice. It is the free choice of the human will, as it is determined by the intellect. It is a not a human will determined by the material causality of an instinctual nature. Rather, it is free (whence the term 'free' will) from material causality, and it finds its efficient causality in intellectual self-determination." | ||
| + | : 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) | ||
Revision as of 14:04, September 25, 2007
Doesn't the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 1980s miniseries, not the Disneyfied movie) say that once God is proven to exist, He won't? ;)--Autofire 22:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you, but I'm not sure that would qualify as an argument ;-) Learn together 22:22, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't think Douglas Adams style theology will fly very far on this site. DanH 22:31, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
- I don't expect it to. I was trying to make a funny. Apparently, I failed. :(--Autofire 22:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
42. DanH 22:33, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
- Ah, yes. Except the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is actually 54...
"Six by nine?"
"Forty-two?!"
"I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe..." --Autofire 22:36, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
Freewill
The "God exists because there is freewill" argument can be challenged by quantum mechanics. While it is not necessary, even impossible, to describe fully in an article such as this, it should be pointed out that quantum mechanics, due to the uncertainty principal, allows for freewill without God. Ajkgordon 13:24, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
- I don't know how the uncertainty principle allows for free will. It allows for randomness, which is certainly different from determinism, but how does randomness imply that beings can make free, deliberate choices? Ungtss 19:35, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
- It's up for debate in physics. Before quantum mechanics, physicists claimed that it would be possible, in principal, if you knew all the parameters of every particle in the universe and had enough processing power, to calculate and predict the future - therefore no free will. However, since the advent of quantum mechanics, we now know that we can't know all the parameters of even one particle let alone all of them. Now, of course, our ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that these particles don't have a determined future. But most physicists now believe that the probability in quantum mechanics means that the universe is not deterministic even in principal and so the door remains open for free will as a fundamental aspect of the universe. But as I said, it's still debated. Ajkgordon 14:33, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of random events implies that people have free will. If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not free -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no choice. For me to freely choose something, there must be something more than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a soul ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and chooses things ... Ungtss 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- This is a controversial topic. However, there are plenty of examples where science attempts to explain how quantum events are used by the brain or consciousness to make choices. This is different to simple randomness. As you say, randomness doesn't imply free will - it simply implies ignorance of measuring techniques or unpredictability. But ideas such as the Quantum Mind, while not a fully formed theory, is an example of how science attempts to classify free will as a natural phenomenon without the need for the supernatural or God. Some theologians have also postulated that natural free will must exist because God would design a natural universe with the capacity for free will - His Creation is, after all, perfect. While naturalistic free will might not be correct, it should be added to your otherwise excellent list of objections. Ajkgordon 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of random events implies that people have free will. If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not free -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no choice. For me to freely choose something, there must be something more than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a soul ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and chooses things ... Ungtss 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- It's up for debate in physics. Before quantum mechanics, physicists claimed that it would be possible, in principal, if you knew all the parameters of every particle in the universe and had enough processing power, to calculate and predict the future - therefore no free will. However, since the advent of quantum mechanics, we now know that we can't know all the parameters of even one particle let alone all of them. Now, of course, our ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that these particles don't have a determined future. But most physicists now believe that the probability in quantum mechanics means that the universe is not deterministic even in principal and so the door remains open for free will as a fundamental aspect of the universe. But as I said, it's still debated. Ajkgordon 14:33, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- Very interesting stuff -- thanks for bringing it to the fore. I read a little about Quantum Mind, and I can see how they attempt to use quantum thought to explain consciousness, but I still can't see how they use it to explain free will. I found an interesting article on it here ... http://www.cneuroscience.org/Topics/Will/Quantum_Free_Will.htm ... the authors had a similar reaction to mine:
- "These theoretical physicists show a profound misunderstanding of what free will is. The human will is not a random action, dependent upon quantum uncertainty or a toss of a player's dice. It is the free choice of the human will, as it is determined by the intellect. It is a not a human will determined by the material causality of an instinctual nature. Rather, it is free (whence the term 'free' will) from material causality, and it finds its efficient causality in intellectual self-determination."
- 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 ... Ungtss 10:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)