Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arguments for the existence of God"

Revision as of 12:43, September 28, 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)

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)

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. 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 ... Ungtss 12:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, begging your pardon. I actually meant scientific hypothesis rather than conjecture. My bad. Ajkgordon 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Fun conversation! Thanks for the interesting info on Quantum mind ... Ungtss 12:48, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. I much prefer conversations like this with, ah, theists, than the "you'll burn in hell" ones I get sometimes. Ideology leaves little for discussion. Your intelligent approach - obviously better informed than mine - is refreshing. Ajkgordon 14:57, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Flattered! Seems like when everybody's more interested in learning than in defending themselves, there's very little for anybody to argue about and everybody comes away with more than they arrived with:). Ungtss 17:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Indeed again! Personally I find the last two arguments - free will and consciousness - rather weak. Arguments maybe but certainly not proofs in any meaningful sense. If used to debate with atheists, they can easily be refuted. It makes the case weaker except when there is no debate, i.e. among theists. My edit would be simply to delete those two sections as they detract from the whole article, but that might be controversial. Ajkgordon 08:43, 28 September 2007 (EDT)