Religion with science

Tigeree · 2008-10-12 18:32:47

balanced u say? Maybe but some believe more than others.....

G_Einstein · 2008-10-13 08:22:56

I said before why God let human decide.
Take an example:
Would you prefer for example that God creates you personality in wich you could deny God,and then Hell is promiised to you?????Or would you prefere to have the opportunity to decied wich way you're going to go???

Take example,dogs,there are also creatures like us,but they do not have the same things like us.
God gave us the brain and mind to think,to make the differences between the bad and the good,wich dogs do not have(for them it's the same thing,bad or good,because they do not have the ability to make differences),and to make your own choice.

It doesn;t mean that if God knows the future,that you have to go just one way that He "prepared " for you.
Example

Persone A has the choice to go on Ax,Bx or Cx way,and to every way he's gonna have a challenge,a for Ax,b for Bx or c for Cx.
God knows that you will go for example on Bx way and you're "chllenge" will bee b.
It's like you have in front of you an invisible line that shows you the way that you're gonna decide.
But it just that,you don't know wich way are you gonna choose,and God knows wich way.
Do you understand now???

Ricky · 2008-10-13 09:23:58

Do you understand now???

G_Einstein, I have time and time again tried to explain this to you, and so far you are ignoring everything. Just because you think one way does not mean you are right and others are wrong. You are not a teacher here. And neither am I or anyone else. This is a forum where people can come together to share ideas. It's not a question of understanding, it is that some of us (including myself) think that you are very wrong. It also has become evident that you don't understand how to argue or support your point very well. Maybe if you pay attention to what others here are saying, you will learn a thing or two, just like I have learned many things from the various members that pass through this forum. But above all, please, stop preaching.

Would you prefer for example that God creates you personality in wich you could deny God,and then Hell is promiised to you?????Or would you prefere to have the opportunity to decied wich way you're going to go???

If you listened at all to what is being discuss, the point being argued is that God in fact does not give a choice since the future is predetermined, even if he makes it seem like there is a choice.

Take example,dogs,there are also creatures like us,but they do not have the same things like us.
God gave us the brain and mind to think,to make the differences between the bad and the good,wich dogs do not have(for them it's the same thing,bad or good,because they do not have the ability to make differences),and to make your own choice.

Anyone who owns a dog can tell you that they feel emotions just like humans do. They make choices and feel guilty because they know what they did is wrong. If I come home and my dog has come in the trash, you can take one look at his face and he knows what he did was wrong. When we are outside and he is off leash and I call him, you can see him ponder for a second whether or not to come, and then he chooses. Sometimes he chooses to come, other times to ignore me.

mathsyperson · 2008-10-13 09:43:23

Let's say there's no God and that a big explosion somehow wipes out everyone and everything in the world except you and an interesting book.

You haven't read this book before, but it looks jolly interesting so you decide to investigate.
Turns out that it is a fascinating novel!
It's very compelling, and you don't put it down until you finish it completely.

Then you think about what to do next. Turns out pretty much the only interesting thing to do is to read that book, so you do that again.

There's no God and everyone's dead, so no one knew what was going to happen in the book until you finished it. But on the reread, naturally you know all of the plot.

So,

Did you somehow steal the free will of the characters?

Ricky · 2008-10-13 10:21:05

Did you somehow steal the free will of the characters?

The characters didn't have freewill to begin with. I'm not really sure why you think they do.

mathsyperson · 2008-10-13 10:48:28

Hmm, that was a bad example. Even though no one knows what the destiny is, it's still already written down.

OK, so now instead of a book, you have some beetles and recording equipment.
The beetles run around crawling in holes and doing beetley things, and you record them doing it.
Nobody knew what they would do the first time, but on watching the video back you would naturally know every action that took place.

Free will stealing?

Ricky · 2008-10-13 11:33:52

Well, the problem mathsyperson is that I'm not sold they have free will to begin with. I'm not sold that we have free will either. Our brain functions on chemical and electrical interactions. These are determined by the input they receive and the current state they are in. As I don't believe in a soul, that's all there is to our thinking. So in short, whether I want to take a shower or a bath is predetermined by the input I receive from the world around me, along with the current state I am in. Of course, taking quantum physics into the picture, we would say that it is indeed random, but still not under my control as freewill would have me believe. I think what I think because of chemicals, and nothing more.

Now, it is an incredibly complex system, and this creates the illusion of choice. Much like a water particle going over a waterfall looks to be random. It's not. It's included by forces such as air molecules bombarding it at different velocities, similarly with water molecules, electric potentials between the molecules, the other smaller forces, and of course gravity (which can vary ever so slightly depending on the density of earth beneath and around it). All of these factors combined make the water look like it is falling randomly. In a similar way, all of the reactions that take place in my brain as well as observing different chaotic events, all build up into a hugely complex system and makes it look like I could chose very many paths. However, if you are to believe we are a sack of chemicals and nothing more, then this sack of chemicals makes the choice by purely physical and chemical means. To call this freewill, we would have to say that Hydrogen chose to move in with Oxygen to form water.

To directly answer the point I believe you are getting at, if participants in a system (any system) must end up in a certain state, then I would definitely conclude that they had no freewill. Freewill implies that you could end up in any one of the possible states. By definition of the system (particularly, that the participants must end up in a certain state), this can not happen.

Edit: To answer more directly your original point about the beetles (without going off into a quasi-tangent of the existence of freewill), let us assume that they do indeed have freewill. I'm still somewhat confused about your example. You have to remember that playing back a recording of beetles certainly aren't beetles. Your mind may interpret them to be of the class Insecta, but you have to remember that you are indeed looking at images. What you see is nothing more than the product of electrons bombarding phosphorous. And of course, I would conclude the both the electrons and phosphorous that produce the image indeed have no freewill.

But perhaps that is not being quite fair. Let's imagine an advanced scientific instrument which could magically (that is, it does not use *any force*, not just any known force) move around particles, and it could do so in such a way to produce beetles and all their subsequent movements afterward. Indeed, we are no longer looking at images, we are looking at things which exactly resemble the beetles we saw before, atom by atom. Again, I would have to conclude no freewill. They must do what the machine forces them to do, and can do no more or less. And currently, I would stick by this position if we were to assume that the original beetles had freewill. Because they can't end in any different state, to me, negates any concept of them having freewill.

All_Is_Number · 2008-10-13 18:25:46

mathsyperson wrote:

Hmm, that was a bad example. Even though no one knows what the destiny is, it's still already written down.
OK, so now instead of a book, you have some beetles and recording equipment.
The beetles run around crawling in holes and doing beetley things, and you record them doing it.
Nobody knew what they would do the first time, but on watching the video back you would naturally know every action that took place.
Free will stealing?

Wouldn't the video images be representative of the beetles' past? I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the existence of freewill based on the ability to know the past.

G_Einstein · 2008-10-13 22:18:06

Ricky,

without offends or any other bad pretention,you are misunderstanding and misinterpreting what I'm saying.
I am not a teacher!!!!I am not trying to teach someone about something!!!
We are just "sharing" ideas.
You negate everything I say.I do not know if you are doing that ,that you do not believe,or you do not know how to answer with daily examples!!!
And also I am not P-R-E-A-C-H-I-N-G.
If what I'm doing is preaching,it means that you also preache,because I'm expressing my opinion and you are expressing yours.

So, what are you saying is that we do not have freewill.

So,who is telling or pushing you(for example) to talk with me or to talk with X,Y persone???
Who is pushing you to eat(even if hungry is a "requirment proces" when the body needs food).
If you want you clould eat!!Yf you don't,you could die!!!So it's up to you to chose!!

Or who pushed you to join (for example) this forum????
Who is pushing you to reply mies and others comments???/
Are you chemical elements and your electrical interactions saying you to do this or not?????
Of course not!!!!!!!!Thats absurde!!!

Based on what you're saying,why a dead body doesn't rescucitate????
Chimical elemts are stell there!!!!Hairs continue to grow!?!?!?!?!!?!?
Dead bodies do not have soul!!!!Living creatures have it!!!!!!
(Not soul as you maybe thinking,like ghosts or something like that,because ghosts do not exist,there is not scientifical proof that they exist,and Islam negates the existing of ghosts,because simply the do not exist!!!)

Is it up to hydrogen,oxygen,... to make a decision???!?!!?!?!?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
It's up to you to choose.
But I respect what you are saying,I respect you and your believth and all the other members.
This "debate" has took a wrong way,because I just wanted to share ideas abotu "science and religion" and not to go "deep" in these two "concepts".

Ricky · 2008-10-13 22:49:05

I am not a teacher!!!!I am not trying to teach someone about something!!!

This is not true when you say, "Do you understand now?" as you did in a previous post. I'm not an idiot, G_Einstein.

So,who is telling or pushing you(for example) to talk with me or to talk with X,Y persone???
Who is pushing you to eat(even if hungry is a "requirment proces" when the body needs food).
If you want you clould eat!!Yf you don't,you could die!!!So it's up to you to chose!!
Or who pushed you to join (for example) this forum????
Who is pushing you to reply mies and others comments???/

I addressed this in my previous post to mathsyperson. Of course, your next line demonstrates fairly clearly that you know and understand this:

Are you chemical elements and your electrical interactions saying you to do this or not?????
Of course not!!!!!!!!Thats absurde!!!

Why is this absurd? New fields of science are building up around the brain being the center of thinking. Or do you believe our thinking takes place somewhere else in the body?

Based on what you're saying,why a dead body doesn't rescucitate???? Chimical elemts are stell there!!!!

Once the electrochemistry of the brain shuts down, all brain function is lost and we have no way to restore it. The brain is a complex organ and requires a difficult network of electrical impulses to function. Just because the chemicals are there does not mean the brain is functional.

Hairs continue to grow!?!?!?!?!!?!?

No, it doesn't. That's a popular myth due to the fact that when skin decays, more hair is shown (getting closer to the root). It causes the appearance of hair growth while in actuality none occurs.

Dead bodies do not have soul!!!!Living creatures have it!!!!!!

I've already addressed that I do not believe in a soul. But if you want to believe your have a soul because you are special (all evidence pointing to the contrary), then that is your choice.

This "debate" has took a wrong way,because I just wanted to share ideas abotu "science and religion"

You wanted to share your beliefs and post proofs about them to try to convince others without having them questioned or criticized. And you have the audacity to tell me you aren't preaching? Ha!

G_Einstein · 2008-10-13 23:49:21

Again you are misunterpreting my words!!!
I didn't said that you are an idiot.Contrary,you are very intelligent.You knows a lot of things that I maybe don't.
When I said "do you understand" now,I wasn't teaching or preaching,I just explained to you,what for me is clear.I wrote the proof that for me are true(not just for me,but also for scientist).
I know thatyou said you don't believ in soul,that's you choice.
The brain "commands" the entire body,but what you've got inside it,is not just chemical elements,but yo have also you mind,wich issss a chemical proces,but it's not true that chemical elements decide what o do or not,because if it's so,maybe n chemical elemnts say to do X action,m Y action .......... and there is no agree between them,so they can not decide for you.It is you that decides.
Could you please answer me the question that I made for you in my last post about "freewill"???
I want to know you "opinion"(or you "answers") about them.

Again,I repsect yo and all the other member,I respect you opniniond and want I want to say,is that you will never see a word that offrends someone by me.I do not like to offends people.I respect people.

Again I'm not preaching,I just want to share my ideas about this topic.
I posted those proofs because when you sai for something that is right,you have to tell "why" and you also are psoting "your proofs",and I respect them,but I don't agree with them,because with those proof,your underestimating the human virtutes and abilities and ,and for my opinion,also denying God.

PS ABout the dogs,I didn't say that the no have emotion or something like this,because I have a dog,and he know when he's wrong or not,but the can not make always the difference between something good and bad.

Ricky · 2008-10-14 10:27:44

I didn't said that you are an idiot.

I didn't say you did. But your posts up till this last one or two carried a condescending tone "I am right, you are wrong, and you disagree just because you don't understand." That you have changed your tone gives evidence to the fact that the tone was your intent. It could be a language barrier, but right now, I don't believe it.

Nonetheless, you have changed your tone, and I thank you for that.

but it's not true that chemical elements decide what o do or not,because if it's so,maybe n chemical elemnts say to do X action,m Y action .......... and there is no agree between them,so they can not decide for you.It is you that decides.

The only advice I can give you is to go study how the brain works. From the above, it is clear that you don't. And that's ok, everyone is ignorant on an infinite amount of things. What is wrong is to argue about a position when you know that you are ignorant about it. In other words, don't try to argue about how the brain works until you understand what is currently known about how the brain works.

And just to clarify, I'm no neuroscientist. I only have a rather introductory level of knowledge, but to argue the point above, that's all that is really needed.

Could you please answer me the question that I made for you in my last post about "freewill"???
I want to know you "opinion"(or you "answers") about them.

I believe I have addressed every point that you made or asked. Please, if I skipped over something, clarify exactly what question.

PS ABout the dogs,I didn't say that the no have emotion or something like this,because I have a dog,and he know when he's wrong or not,but the can not make always the difference between something good and bad.

Perhaps you missed my argument. The emotion that I mostly touched on was guilt, which shows knowledge of right and wrong. Good deeds and bad deed. Bringing me my newspaper and destroying my newspaper.

To state that dogs don't have the same morality as humans is rather straightforward and obvious. To state that dogs don't have morality, on the other hand, is wrong (depending on your definition of morality). They have a very primitive morality, indeed, but morality nonetheless. They understand when they have done wrong after being taught.

MathsIsFun · 2008-10-14 11:04:53

Ricky wrote:

To state that dogs don't have the same morality as humans is rather straightforward and obvious. To state that dogs don't have morality, on the other hand, is wrong (depending on your definition of morality). They have a very primitive morality, indeed, but morality nonetheless. They understand when they have done wrong after being taught.

Not to get too off-topic, but it is interesting to think what the world would be like if dogs had evolved to be where humans are, instead of us.

Individual combat would probably be allowed (with well-defined rules) and wars unlikely (as I have read that wolf pack fights are decided by the alpha males duelling).

G_Einstein · 2008-10-24 10:12:28

Sorry I had a problem with my computer and I couldn't reply.
Ricky,I'm not sure that I understood the thing about "tone of speaking".

careless25 · 2008-10-24 10:23:12

G_einstein
Ricky means that the way u worded ur sentences, it felt like u were saying that u are right and he is wrong but in the latest post ur tone changed to something that sounds like you are okay with what u believe and what he believes and that u r just explaining ur thoughts(beliefs).

Last edited by careless25 (2008-10-24 10:23:41)

G_Einstein · 2008-10-24 10:29:12

I'm quite sure that I have said at the beginning that I respcet everyone here and their opinions,and that I am just expressing my opninion about different things.

careless25 · 2008-10-24 10:36:30

Yes, we all understand that but there is a proper way to talk/write in which people dont get offended. The "tone of speaking" matters even if u respect everyone.

G_Einstein · 2008-10-24 10:41:42

I don't think that I have offended someone.If I have,I am sorry,but I am sure that I didn't offend anyone.I think that "my writting " isn't a problem.If someone missinterpreted what I have said,that is something else.

careless25 · 2008-10-24 10:53:07

i didn't mean that you meant to offend but yes the way that you have written your explanations do offend people. You may have not meant it at all but there is a certain way you should write that gives the reader a feeling that it is just what you believe and are not pointing fingers at someone.

Ricky · 2008-10-24 13:20:06

G_Einstein wrote:

I'm quite sure that I have said at the beginning that I respcet everyone here and their opinions,and that I am just expressing my opninion about different things.

Just for example, I of course don't mean any of the following:

I respect all of your opinions. But you're all ignorant stupid fools who wouldn't know the right answer if it bit you in the butt.

Could I really now claim that I actually respect your opinions? Absolutely not. This is what you were doing before in the thread. Of course, the above is hyperbole to make the point clear.

G_Einstein · 2008-10-24 19:57:27

I am sorry Ricky,but I haven't been doing that.
I know that you didn't meant the exaample but at the end you said that I have been doing that on the thread.SImply I didn't.
When someone say to you or to someone else,also including me "you are not understandig" doesn't mean,you a fool,stupid ....but its just that I,you,he/she...are not capting the point of view,the esence of what someone of us is writting(telling).
I told since the beginning that I just want to explain things that I have wrote,that I don't mean to offend someone(iven if I didn't) and I never say and never wrote something wich could sound like """I won,you lost.....".
I'm not of those kinds of people who do that.

Last edited by G_Einstein (2008-10-24 20:00:26)

Zach · 2008-11-21 19:29:23

God is Dead and it's called the Qur'an.

shyclaw · 2015-03-25 02:46:40

Maybe we should leave religion out of this. So we don't fight and stuff.

math9maniac · 2015-04-04 10:02:42

Religion, is somewhat linkef to Science. As a Christian, I'll use an example from the Bible. For instance, scientists believed or asserted some time back that the earth was flat. The Bible, though not a Science textbook, had stated that the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22). Scientists and researchers found this out just somewhere in the 20th century. Also it was believed (and may still be believed) that the 'corners' of the Earth are supported by some carriers. Again the Bible had declared that the earth hangs on nothing (Job 26:7).

Science I suppose takes you closer to religion. Even today, some scientists doubt the evolution theory and are starting to believe in creation.

David · 2015-04-04 10:47:25

I do not believe in evolution. I do not understand how something this complex came into existence, where did our DNA came from? But if God created us, who created God? I come around this all the time, it is about time people think out of the box, they will get the answers soon enough.

Math Is Fun Forum

#51 2008-10-12 18:32:47

Re: Religion with science

#52 2008-10-13 08:22:56

Re: Religion with science

#53 2008-10-13 09:23:58

Re: Religion with science

#54 2008-10-13 09:43:23

Re: Religion with science

#55 2008-10-13 10:21:05

Re: Religion with science

#56 2008-10-13 10:48:28

Re: Religion with science

#57 2008-10-13 11:33:52

Re: Religion with science

#58 2008-10-13 18:25:46

Re: Religion with science

#59 2008-10-13 22:18:06

Re: Religion with science

#60 2008-10-13 22:49:05

Re: Religion with science

#61 2008-10-13 23:49:21

Re: Religion with science

#62 2008-10-14 10:27:44

Re: Religion with science

#63 2008-10-14 11:04:53

Re: Religion with science

#64 2008-10-24 10:12:28

Re: Religion with science

#65 2008-10-24 10:23:12

Re: Religion with science

#66 2008-10-24 10:29:12

Re: Religion with science

#67 2008-10-24 10:36:30

Re: Religion with science

#68 2008-10-24 10:41:42

Re: Religion with science

#69 2008-10-24 10:53:07

Re: Religion with science

#70 2008-10-24 13:20:06

Re: Religion with science

#71 2008-10-24 19:57:27

Re: Religion with science

#72 2008-11-21 19:29:23

Re: Religion with science

#73 2015-03-25 02:46:40

Re: Religion with science

#74 2015-04-04 10:02:42

Re: Religion with science

#75 2015-04-04 10:47:25

Re: Religion with science

Board footer