Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes, exactly. I don't think it must be binary at all. Like anything else, things are rarely that clear-cut.

Pretending to have a sophisticated understanding, while in reality not having any...... understanding whatsoever...... about free will.

The only functional concept of free will where there are alternative courses of action available, requires that the identity of what makes the decision turn out the way it does, is categorically regarded as a matter of opinion, not fact.

That is because the freedom in forming an opinion about what it is that chooses, maintains the freedom in the concept of free will.

If it is regarded as a matter of fact, then you automatically get cause and effect logic of being forced, where the decision can only turn out in accordance with what the agency of the decision in fact consists of. The freedom in the concept is then lost, the concept dysfunctions.

Mathematical solutions to the free will issue, require that objects are regarded to consist of the laws of nature. As laws unto themselves they then have a future of potentials which they relate to with anticipation, and that way objects, such as the human body, can have freedom. So then we get an object at time = 0, the current time, which has potentials which exist at time +1 in respect to the object. Then one of the potentials is added to the object, which is what a decision is. At every decision new potentials are generated.

Something like that, but the main thing of interest is only to establish that subjectivity, opinion, is valid. Forming an opinion is the only way one can say something about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Anybody would see evolutionists such as Mestemia here, do nothing else accept to smear creationists with innuendo.

I have seriously attempted to debate with you. IF your not interested in that then I can't stop you. But ot debate we need to have the evidences and arguments laid out. If you have already laid it out then tell me the post number.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have seriously attempted to debate with you. IF your not interested in that then I can't stop you. But ot debate we need to have the evidences and arguments laid out. If you have already laid it out then tell me the post number.

The post prior to your post for example 681. It lays out argumentation, yet you prefer to ask for argumentation rather then engage the argumentation right in front of you.

I never pull such stuff, it's standard behaviour for evolutionists, no kidding. There are no evolutionists who take care that their emotions are in order for discussion, to ensure they are honest. Honesty, fairness etc. it requires a basis of emotion. That you are ready to investigate what you may not like to hear, that you temper your enthusiasm not to dictate what you like to be true, etc. Evolutionists don't pay any mind to their emotions whatsoever.... They assert that if you just follow the scientific method, you will just automagically arrive at the facts. Ofcourse evolutionists arrive at the facts that they like to hear, while completely ignore the facts they don't like to hear.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The post prior to your post for example 681. It lays out argumentation, yet you prefer to ask for argumentation rather then engage the argumentation right in front of you.

I never pull such stuff, it's standard behaviour for evolutionists, no kidding. There are no evolutionists who take care that their emotions are in order for discussion, to ensure they are honest. Honesty, fairness etc. it requires a basis of emotion. That you are ready to investigate what you may not like to hear, that you temper your enthusiasm not to dictate what you like to be true, etc. Evolutionists don't pay any mind to their emotions whatsoever.... They assert that if you just follow the scientific method, you will just automagically arrive at the facts. Ofcourse evolutionists arrive at the facts that they like to hear, while completely ignore the facts they don't like to hear.

It is true that if you follow evidence and reason then that leads you to the facts. What you want to be true is of very little consequence. I don't know of anyone that "wants" evolution to be true but it is. On the contrary there are a large number of people that don't want evolution to be true. Those people with an emotional attachment against evolution tend to find ways to usurp it.

But the concept of free will is a tricky one but there is evidence for it. One such answer is Quantum uncertainty.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The post prior to your post for example 681. It lays out argumentation, yet you prefer to ask for argumentation rather then engage the argumentation right in front of you.

I never pull such stuff, it's standard behaviour for evolutionists, no kidding. There are no evolutionists who take care that their emotions are in order for discussion, to ensure they are honest. Honesty, fairness etc. it requires a basis of emotion. That you are ready to investigate what you may not like to hear, that you temper your enthusiasm not to dictate what you like to be true, etc. Evolutionists don't pay any mind to their emotions whatsoever.... They assert that if you just follow the scientific method, you will just automagically arrive at the facts. Ofcourse evolutionists arrive at the facts that they like to hear, while completely ignore the facts they don't like to hear.

Um, I'd bet you'd have a hard time even finding one single person on this planet who doesn't pay any mind to their emotions whatsoever, never mind a whole group of people.

The rest of the things you have to say about "evolutionists" are bizarre, especially given that a whole lot of religious-minded people accept the TOE.

Honestly, I'm not even sure I know exactly what it is you are trying to say in this thread.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Um, I'd bet you'd have a hard time even finding one single person on this planet who doesn't pay any mind to their emotions whatsoever, never mind a whole group of people.

The rest of the things you have to say about "evolutionists" are bizarre, especially given that a whole lot of religious-minded people accept the TOE.

Honestly, I'm not even sure I know exactly what it is you are trying to say in this thread.

...you are not honest, because an honest person would put effort into understanding it. Put effort into understanding a position counter to his own. What you do is simply point out things that suit you. For instance you point out that there are a whole lot religious minded evolutionists. But in truth there is gigantic opposition to evolution theory amongst religious.

All blatantly selfserving slop. You don't pay mind to your emotions in argumentation. I on the other hand actually understand numerous ideas about free will and subjectivity that many different atheists have put forward.

- redefine free will to make it use a logic of sorting out the optimal result
- make a 2 stage process of random options, and then sorting out the optimal result
- make the agency of a decision a matter of opinion, untill after the decision has been made
- make what the agency of a decision is into a matter of fantasy
- make it so that only the one doing the choosing knows as fact what the agency of a decision is
- define it so that all that exists must be a matter of fact
etc. etc.

Any open and reasonable assessment would fairly quickly lead to accepting the inevitable conclusion that the traditional concept of free will, formulated as like the spirit chooses, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, is the right concept of free will, and the basis of subjectivity. It functions practically, the idea to make it a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, conserves the freedom in the concept of free will. But there are 0 reasonable or honest evolutionists.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Any open and reasonable assessment would fairly quickly lead to accepting the inevitable conclusion that the traditional concept of free will, formulated as like the spirit chooses, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, is the right concept of free will, and the basis of subjectivity. It functions practically, the idea to make it a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, conserves the freedom in the concept of free will. But there are 0 reasonable or honest evolutionists.

What is the assessment that leads you to believe that you require a soul to have free will?

And to the bold, What if I said there are no honest or reasonable Muslims?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is the assessment that leads you to believe that you require a soul to have free will?

And to the bold, What if I said there are no honest or reasonable Muslims?

I already explained it twice in the page in front of you, yet you keep on requesting where the argumentation is. How are you in any conceivable way honest?

Only a free way of reaching a conclusion about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does is valid, because only a free way of identifying it preserves the freedom in the concept of free will. If we make it a fact, then we get the logic that the decision can only turn out in accordance with what the agency of the decision in fact consists of. It means the decision can not turn out any other way anymore, the freedom in the concept is lost, it is error.

The concept of the soul qualifies, because it is explicitly stated that the existence of the soul is a matter of faith and revelation, which is a form of opinion. An opinion is arrived at by choosing the conclusion, therefore no fact about the agency of the decision is established, therefore the logic of force between agency and the result of the decision is avoided, therefore alternative courses of action can be taken in any decision.

If the existence of the soul would be asserted as fact, as some people have done, saying it weighs 21 grams, then ofcourse it all becomes invalid, then decisions can only turn out in accordance with this 21 grams aspect, and the freedom in the concept is gone.

 

[McBell]

Anybody would see evolutionists such as Mestemia here, do nothing else accept to smear creationists with innuendo.

You have not demonstrated any of your claims with anything but more bold empty claims.
Then you use a blatant diversion tactic to avoid answering a direct question.
Then you have the gall to accuse the asker of dishonesty.
Then when called out on it, you sadly attempt to play the martyr.

I would call you a bold faced liar if it were not against the rules.

 

[McBell]

Pretending to have a sophisticated understanding, while in reality not having any...... understanding whatsoever...... about free will.

Kettle, meet pot.


I deleted the rest of your post because it was nothing but bull **** dressed up in fancy word salad.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I already explained it twice in the page in front of you, yet you keep on requesting where the argumentation is. How are you in any conceivable way honest?

Only a free way of reaching a conclusion about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does is valid, because only a free way of identifying it preserves the freedom in the concept of free will. If we make it a fact, then we get the logic that the decision can only turn out in accordance with what the agency of the decision in fact consists of. It means the decision can not turn out any other way anymore, the freedom in the concept is lost, it is error.

The concept of the soul qualifies, because it is explicitly stated that the existence of the soul is a matter of faith and revelation, which is a form of opinion. An opinion is arrived at by choosing the conclusion, therefore no fact about the agency of the decision is established, therefore the logic of force between agency and the result of the decision is avoided, therefore alternative courses of action can be taken in any decision.

If the existence of the soul would be asserted as fact, as some people have done, saying it weighs 21 grams, then ofcourse it all becomes invalid, then decisions can only turn out in accordance with this 21 grams aspect, and the freedom in the concept is gone.

I am honest because your argument isn't actually an argument. Its a claim.

However there is a fundamental problem with your "free will" claim. How do we know that free will works the way that you propose it does? We know that we can alter and control what choices people will make with simple tests. However the "choice" of doing one or the other however is still a power that we have as sentient beings. I could choose to write my sentence one way. Or another or I could get up and not post this thread at all. There is some interesting science down this road but I don't think we should get into that in this thread.

But free will exists in that we have the ability to choose. Some have argued that we may be robots but I don't personally believe that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

My argumentation is solid. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and only evolutionists say otherwise.

 

[Midnight Rain]

My argumentation is solid. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and only evolutionists say otherwise.

What is your argument that freedom is real? I believe it to be real but I am interested in hearing your argument for it. And just because evolutionists say one thing (which they don't by the way) why would that be a reason against it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I am honest because your argument isn't actually an argument. Its a claim.

However there is a fundamental problem with your "free will" claim. How do we know that free will works the way that you propose it does? We know that we can alter and control what choices people will make with simple tests. However the "choice" of doing one or the other however is still a power that we have as sentient beings. I could choose to write my sentence one way. Or another or I could get up and not post this thread at all. There is some interesting science down this road but I don't think we should get into that in this thread.

But free will exists in that we have the ability to choose. Some have argued that we may be robots but I don't personally believe that.

Totally non responsive to the argumentation that what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does must be regarded as a matter of opinion. That is dishonest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is your argument that freedom is real? I believe it to be real but I am interested in hearing your argument for it. And just because evolutionists say one thing (which they don't by the way) why would that be a reason against it?

No you are not interested because I write truckloads of argumentation and then you dismiss it offhand without engaging it. you are really no different from Mestemia exclaiming bull****, or Sapiens exclaiming wordsalad in response. What you say is vacuous.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Totally non responsive to the argumentation that what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does must be regarded as a matter of opinion. That is dishonest.

You keep saying that. I think what you mean by "dishonest" is "you are questioning me and I can't back it up". The idea of uncertainty and our responses to that uncertainty that drives free will. Will is not devoid of environmental factors its just to what degree is it controlled by them.

 

[Midnight Rain]

No you are not interested because I write truckloads of argumentation and then you dismiss it offhand without engaging it. you are really no different from Mestemia exclaiming bull****, or Sapiens exclaiming wordsalad in response. What you say is vacuous.

No. You post a lot of words that don't mean anything and expect us not to question them. That is the root of your argument.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You keep saying that. I think what you mean by "dishonest" is "you are questioning me and I can't back it up". The idea of uncertainty and our responses to that uncertainty that drives free will. Will is not devoid of environmental factors its just to what degree is it controlled by them.

Is ridiculous. You demonstrably do not address at all what I explained 3 times is the key to a functional concept of free will. Then you keep on requesting more argumentation, and make accusations that I don't address your requests. You are delusional that you are in any reasonable way honest.

You simply HATE it that what the agency of a decision is, is categorically a matter of opinion. And your hate for it is what drives all of what you say. It is prejudice from beginning to end, cloacked in pretenses of abiding by the scientific method and skepticism.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No. You post a lot of words that don't mean anything and expect us not to question them. That is the root of your argument.

A lot of words that don't mean anything, well then you might just as well have said "wordsalad" just like Sapiens and be done with it.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Is ridiculous. You demonstrably do not address at all what I explained 3 times is the key to a functional concept of free will. Then you keep on requesting more argumentation, and make accusations that I don't address your requests. You are delusional that you are in any reasonable way honest.

You simply HATE it that what the agency of a decision is, is categorically a matter of opinion. And your hate for it is what drives all of what you say. It is prejudice from beginning to end, cloacked in pretenses of abiding by the scientific method and skepticism.

I don't hate it. I don't understand it and neither do you that much is obvious. This is actually an important scientific debate right now between experts on if we have free will or not. The idea of opinion isn't fact and no function of our brain will probably ever be perfect truth.

You have explained several times and I understand your explanation. However what I don't understand is why you propose it as an argument when it does not actually prove your point. It is a claim and an interesting idea but it is not supported by evidence and is YOUR opinion on the matter.

A lot of words that don't mean anything, well then you might just as well have said "wordsalad" just like Sapiens and be done with it.

I could have and he still is right. I agree with him on that. What I said was different about myself and them is that I wasn't insulting you. However I understand their sentiments after going back and forth and enduring a gratuitous amount of ad hominem from you.