Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't hate it. I don't understand it and neither do you that much is obvious.

It is already insult to dismiss without argument, no matter that you don't call it wordsalad.

If you don't understand it, which is impossible because the rules in the concept are simpler than the rules of tic tac toe, then you can simply ask a specific question about what specifically you don't understand. That is how honest people behave.

What we see in this topic is how social darwinism operates. Just throw a lot of pretense of the scientific method at it, a lot of pretense of being skeptical and all, meanwhile you just follow your prejudices.

What this concept of free will does is to validate subjectivity. It is the basic logic of all subjective statements. What is liked and disliked, these statement use creationist logic, that the agency of a decision is a matter of opinion. When you say to "like something", it means you have the opinion there is love in your heart for something, with which love you choose the word "like".

 

[Desert Snake]

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.


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.

Nah. I think you are trying to make the best assumption without enough facts/theories, and also utilizing confirmation bias in the process.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It is already insult to dismiss without argument, no matter that you don't call it wordsalad.

If you don't understand it, which is impossible because the rules in the concept are simpler than the rules of tic tac toe, then you can simply ask a specific question about what specifically you don't understand. That is how honest people behave.

What we see in this topic is how social darwinism operates. Just throw a lot of pretense of the scientific method at it, a lot of pretense of being skeptical and all, meanwhile you just follow your prejudices.

What this concept of free will does is to validate subjectivity. It is the basic logic of all subjective statements. What is liked and disliked, these statement use creationist logic, that the agency of a decision is a matter of opinion. When you say to "like something", it means you have the opinion there is love in your heart for something, with which love you choose the word "like".

I have already asked you the simplest of questions on it.

HOW DO YOU KNOW that you have free will? What is that based on?

Nah. I think you are trying to make the best assumption without enough facts/theories, and also utilizing confirmation bias in the process.

Was this addressed to me or him?

 

[Parsimony]

But there are 0 reasonable or honest evolutionists.

There are Muslim evolutionists. Are they dishonest too?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have already asked you the simplest of questions on it.

HOW DO YOU KNOW that you have free will? What is that based on?

That is still dismissing my argumentation about what the key is to a functional concept of free will. You address that huh, address what you hate, obviously.

 

[Desert Snake]

Was this addressed to me or him?

To you. You gave me the 'equation' ie 1+1, I just answered it, really.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There are Muslim evolutionists. Are they dishonest too?

There is no religion without subjectivity, and subjectivity works by free will. I can't imagine any muslim not looking towards the decisions of God in creation and final judgement, I don't see how lacking that they are muslim.

 

[Parsimony]

There is no religion without subjectivity, and subjectivity works by free will. I can't imagine any muslim not looking towards the decisions of God in creation and final judgement, I don't see how lacking that they are muslim.

They do exist. Some right here on this very discussion board. Maybe you'd like to have a talk with them: Islam: Can one be a Muslim and accept evolution | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Midnight Rain]

That is still dismissing my argumentation about what the key is to a functional concept of free will. You address that huh, address what you hate, obviously.

Why do you think I "hate" it? What would cause me to venture into that emotion?

I am not dismissing your argument. I simply want to know what the basis of your argument is. You have not been clear on it.

To you. You gave me the 'equation' ie 1+1, I just answered it, really.

Care to go into more detail because you are making about as much sense in context as mohammad nur syamasu.

 

[Desert Snake]

Care to go into more detail because you are making about as much sense in context as mohammad nur syamasu.

I don't know how much detail you want me go into, I merely presented what seemed like an obvious and common answer to the argument you were presenting. If you present an argument that is based on theory rather than being 'against' a theory, it would have more credibility.

 

[SkepticThinker]

...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.

We've never met and we've barely discussed much of anything on this board as of yet, so I don't know where you get off telling me what kind of person I am. I can't even tell how you've addressed what I said at all in this post. I mean, you're obviously a super genius or something, capable of understanding that which nobody else can understand. But you've failed to address what I posted to you.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I don't know how much detail you want me go into, I merely presented what seemed like an obvious and common answer to the argument you were presenting. If you present an argument that is based on theory rather than being 'against' a theory, it would have more credibility.

I honestly don't even know what part of my post you were even responding to. The fact that his idea of soul based free will isn't supported by evidence or the fact that uncertainty principles may determine much of what we call "free will". I don't recall proposing any theory in the post you quoted.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you think I "hate" it? What would cause me to venture into that emotion?

I am not dismissing your argument. I simply want to know what the basis of your argument is. You have not been clear on it.

You hate it because you want (scientific) certitude about what is good, evil beautiful and loving, the original sin.

And you avoid addressing it for 20 posts or so now already. In fact no evolutionist on this forum has addressed it, while I have consistently repeated that this is the key in my argument about the concept of free will.

The spirit chooses, and... it is a matter of opinion that the spirit exists. You all hate to acknowledge a fundamental category of matters of opinion, you all hate subjectivity, expressing your emotions. But as explained many times, this is what makes the concept of free will function.

Open and reasonable debate, friendly debate as is advertised on this forum, proceeds very much differently from the horrendous slop of prejudices that all evolutionists on the forum engage in. I have an argument how free will works, how subjectivity is validated, then you address the argumentation, that is what you are supposed to do. But no evolutionist ever addresses argumentation, they all dismiss, complain, assert their authority, assert my lack of authority, they throw the kitchensink and then some, but never ever, do they address the argumentation.

 

[Desert Snake]

I honestly don't even know what part of my post you were even responding to. The fact that his idea of soul based free will isn't supported by evidence or the fact that uncertainty principles may determine much of what we call "free will". I don't recall proposing any theory in the post you quoted.

I don't know what 'soul based freewill' is supposed to mean. I just put on a black shirt, that was freewill, I could have chosen another color. That is what we observe, choices. The concept of 'no freewill' is a theory, nothing more. Therefore, up to you to prove it.

 

[Midnight Rain]

You hate it because you want (scientific) certitude about what is good, evil beautiful and loving, the original sin.

I don't believe in objective good, evil ect. They are concepts. I don't desire to have apodictic certitude arrived at by science for things I don't believe to exist objectively.

And you avoid addressing it for 20 posts or so now already. In fact no evolutionist on this forum has addressed it, while I have consistently repeated that this is the key in my argument about the concept of free will.

You have provided this over and over again. However it doesn't make any difference unless you are able to give me a reason to believe that your view of free will is actually correct.

The spirit chooses, and... it is a matter of opinion that the spirit exists. You all hate to acknowledge a fundamental category of matters of opinion, you all hate subjectivity, expressing your emotions. But as explained many times, this is what makes the concept of free will function.

So it is your opinion that spirit exists? Or are you re-defining "soul" with sentience? Because to me sentience is what allows the free will to function. Specifically my belief on free will comes from potential vs realized situations where we have the cognitive ability to apply reality how we see fit. Now if my own thoughts are pre-determined then I suppose that is the end game but it isn't simply gravity pulls me one way and thus it be. I have the potential to do an infinite number of different choices. I have that ability to fulfill any of them at will. That is free will by my definition.

Open and reasonable debate, friendly debate as is advertised on this forum, proceeds very much differently from the horrendous slop of prejudices that all evolutionists on the forum engage in. I have an argument how free will works, how subjectivity is validated, then you address the argumentation, that is what you are supposed to do. But no evolutionist ever addresses argumentation, they all dismiss, complain, assert their authority, assert my lack of authority, they throw the kitchensink and then some, but never ever, do they address the argumentation.

You haven't validated it. You said we have the ability to choose therefore we have a soul therefore free will. Therefore suck it evolutionists.
But you need to find a way to establish THAT WE HAVE FREE WILL or that WE HAVE A SOUL or any of your other premises before you stack your other premises along with it. You have built a house with four walls a roof but no base.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I don't know what 'soul based freewill' is supposed to mean. I just put on a black shirt, that was freewill, I could have chosen another color. That is what we observe, choices. The concept of 'no freewill' is a theory, nothing more. Therefore, up to you to prove it.

Except I haven't proposed it. Can you show me where I have proposed that free-will does not exist? I have implied that it may not exist as we don't know. But I have not taken the stance against free will. You have misread.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't believe in objective good, evil ect. They are concepts. I don't desire to have apodictic certitude arrived at by science for things I don't believe to exist objectively.


You have provided this over and over again. However it doesn't make any difference unless you are able to give me a reason to believe that your view of free will is actually correct.

So it is your opinion that spirit exists? Or are you re-defining "soul" with sentience? Because to me sentience is what allows the free will to function. Specifically my belief on free will comes from potential vs realized situations where we have the cognitive ability to apply reality how we see fit. Now if my own thoughts are pre-determined then I suppose that is the end game but it isn't simply gravity pulls me one way and thus it be. I have the potential to do an infinite number of different choices. I have that ability to fulfill any of them at will. That is free will by my definition.

You haven't validated it. You said we have the ability to choose therefore we have a soul therefore free will. Therefore suck it evolutionists.
But you need to find a way to establish THAT WE HAVE FREE WILL or that WE HAVE A SOUL or any of your other premises before you stack your other premises along with it. You have built a house with four walls a roof but no base.

I have argumentation, you don't address it, that's a demonstrable fact. There is no possibility of open and reasonable discussion with any evolutionist / atheist / materialist etc. in my experience.

The evidence shows evolutionists reject free will, and subjectivity. Saying you accept free will and subjectivity, does nothing, because you define those things differently. Evolutionists reject free will and subjectivity in the sense that they reject it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. That is the foundation of all subjectivity.

Who you are as being the owner of your decisions, is your true self, the soul, as religion has stated for thousands of years. The existence of the soul and what is in it, is a matter of opinion. And the lord God almighty is also in this spiritual domain, governing over the material domain, choosing the way things turn out in the universe. By requiring evidence of God and the soul, evolutionists are rejecting the right of people to express their emotions and form an opinion. There is evidence of how things are chosen in the universe, freedom is real and relevant, despite the crude denial of evolutionists. But logic dictates there can never be any evidence of what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

 

[Sapiens]

I have argumentation, you don't address it, that's a demonstrable fact.

That's an unsupported claim that's likely wrong.

There is no possibility of open and reasonable discussion with any
evolutionist / atheist / materialist etc. in my experience.

If that's what happens in all cases, evolutionist / atheist / materialist etc. being rather a diverse group, I'd be willing to take odds that the fault is yours.

The evidence shows evolutionists reject free will, and subjectivity.

That's an unsupported claim, what evidence?

Is that members of the union of the evolutionist / atheist / materialist sets or those defined by the intersection of those sets?
Saying you accept free will and subjectivity, does nothing, because you define those things differently.

For English I use the OED, that is the standard in the field for English definitions, what do you use?

Evolutionists reject free will and subjectivity in the sense that they reject it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. That is the foundation of all subjectivity.

That's an unsupported claim that's likely wrong, but in any case the English is undecipherable.

Who you are as being the owner of your decisions, is your true self, the soul, as religion has stated for thousands of years.

That's an unsupported claim, who cares what religion has state? Oh, that's right you do, but that doesn't make it correct or real.

The existence of the soul and what is in it, is a matter of opinion. And the lord God almighty is also in this spiritual domain, governing over the material domain, choosing the way things turn out in the universe.

That's an unsupported claim, got any evidence at all?

By requiring evidence of God and the soul, evolutionists are rejecting the right of people to express their emotions and form an opinion.

That's an unsupported claim that is clearly wrong.

There is evidence of how things are chosen in the universe, freedom is real and relevant, despite the crude denial of evolutionists.

That's an unsupported claim that's likely wrong, how about some evidence like what choosing hat must be worn.

But logic dictates there can never be any evidence of what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

That's an unsupported claim, the logic dictates that I laugh till my sides split

 

[Ouroboros]

That's an unsupported claim that's likely wrong.
If that's what happens in all cases, evolutionist / atheist / materialist etc. being rather a diverse group, I'd be willing to take odds that the fault is yours.

I wonder why he keeps on arguing with all the evil evolutionists if they never change or listen? If it's so impossible to talk to us evolutionists, then why does he continues to argue? What's that adage again? If someone keeps on doing the same thing over and over again and expects a different result, it's a sign of insanity (or something like that), so perhaps he needs to stop arguing with the impossible and unreasonable evolutionists...

 

[Midnight Rain]

I have argumentation, you don't address it, that's a demonstrable fact. There is no possibility of open and reasonable discussion with any evolutionist / atheist / materialist etc. in my experience.

The evidence shows evolutionists reject free will, and subjectivity. Saying you accept free will and subjectivity, does nothing, because you define those things differently. Evolutionists reject free will and subjectivity in the sense that they reject it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. That is the foundation of all subjectivity.

Who you are as being the owner of your decisions, is your true self, the soul, as religion has stated for thousands of years. The existence of the soul and what is in it, is a matter of opinion. And the lord God almighty is also in this spiritual domain, governing over the material domain, choosing the way things turn out in the universe. By requiring evidence of God and the soul, evolutionists are rejecting the right of people to express their emotions and form an opinion. There is evidence of how things are chosen in the universe, freedom is real and relevant, despite the crude denial of evolutionists. But logic dictates there can never be any evidence of what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

For the first time I think in this thread I have an idea of what you were trying to say.

You mean that "free will" to you is the ultimate ability to "choose" whatever path we want without any kind of outside power affecting that. However this is fundamentally flawed as we can see how the environment plays a role in our decision making. And it goes even deeper than that.

However I believe in "Free will" in much the same way you do but with the correct scientific terms applied in terms of how its possible which I demonstrated with potential and fulfillment of potential. Now this does NOT in any way actually support the idea of an all powerful god figure that has total control of the universe with his master soul and will. That is purely a faith assumption.