• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you Think we have Free Will

Do you Think we have Free Will


  • Total voters
    59

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
As far as the variations in the views of Free Will I refer to"
OK .. but that is not a definition of free-will, it is a treatise .. a discussion.

In terms of different views of Limited Free WilI refer to the following:

First source: What is “limited free will”?
..and I see "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site."

..which is what I was saying .. your discussion is about psychology .. the reasons why we choose what we choose.

Theistic view of Limited Free Will

Limited free will does not require the agent to have full and complete power over their actions. It just requires "the power to be the ultimate creator and sustainer of some of one's own ends or purposes."
Who has told you that they think that we have complete control over our actions?
Not me, that's for sure.
..which is why it's not good to become angry .. because we are liable to lose control (grrr) :mad:

. . . but it is true your ancient tribal religious agenda determines your view of Free Will..
Nonsense .. I don't believe that you can read my mind !
It's no more than an assumption .. a bad one at that.

..your view toward the sciences of evolution reflect an intentional ignorance of science..
No .. it is not about ignorance .. I merely have a different opinion to you.
You embrace the theory of evolution, and its non-proven extensions in its entirety.
..whereas I do not. Why should I? Why should I believe in something that cannot be proven to be true?

Just because the core of evolutionary theory is provable, and is widely accepted as fact, doesn't mean
that every theory asscociated with it (there are 100's) are similarly provable fact.

This is what I see time and again .. people flinging mud at each other about T of E .. you're a science nutter, or you're an ignorant believer in fairy tales.
You are both as bad as one another. Meaningless nonsense.
One has to SPECIFY what they are referring to .. T of E, could be referring to many things.

Yes the rejection of the sciences of evolution represents the rejection of science
Sorry no .. see above.
Grouping all into one is deceit !
..whether it is wilful or not, I wouldn't know .. but feel sure in some cases, it is !

, because it rejects the science of every major academic institution and university in the world.
Don't be so dramatic.
Science is not the only academic pursuit in said universities, in any case.

YES! You reject contemporary science.
I reject your portrayal of science. I reject the deceit of "all or nothing".
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
OK .. but that is not a definition of free-will, it is a treatise .. a discussion.
It also defines the various views of Free Will. You have yet to DEFINE specifically on your definition of Free Will.
..and I see "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site."

..which is what I was saying .. your discussion is about psychology .. the reasons why we choose what we choose.
It is about Philosophy, Psychology and Neuroscience.
Who has told you that they think that we have complete control over our actions?
Not me, that's for sure.
..which is why it's not good to become angry .. because we are liable to lose control (grrr) :mad:
Not angry, just Frank Frank.
Nonsense .. I don't believe that you can read my mind !
I do not need to I can read your posts. They are problematic enough.
It's no more than an assumption .. a bad one at that.


No .. it is not about ignorance .. I merely have a different opinion to you.
It is not my opinion, it the science you reject, It is the intentional ignorance of science.
You embrace the theory of evolution, and its non-proven extensions in its entirety.
More profound ignorance of science. Science does not prove anything. I am just one scientist out 10s of thousands over the past ~170 years or more that study and research the sciences of evolution.
..whereas I do not. Why should I? Why should I believe in something that cannot be proven to be true?

Just because the core of evolutionary theory is provable, and is widely accepted as fact, doesn't mean
that every theory asscociated with it (there are 100's) are similarly provable fact.

This is what I see time and again .. people flinging mud at each other about T of E .. you're a science nutter, or you're an ignorant believer in fairy tales.
You are both as bad as one another. Meaningless nonsense.
One has to SPECIFY what they are referring to .. T of E, could be referring to many things.
Sciences of evolution refer to the sciences of evolution SPECIFICALLY
Sorry no .. see above.
Grouping all into one is deceit !
..whether it is wilful or not, I wouldn't know .. but feel sure in some cases, it is !
Your view of the sciences of evolution is deceitful,
Don't be so dramatic.
Science is not the only academic pursuit in said universities, in any case.
Of course, but the facts are the facts. You are as a matter of fact rejecting the science of ALL the major academic institutions and universities of the world and 96@+ of the scientist in the fields of science related to evolution, physics, and cosmology.
I reject your portrayal of science. I reject the deceit of "all or nothing".

Itis not all or nothing, It is foundation of ALL science that supports the sciences of evolution, therefore you reject science.

See post #800 for an excellent source addressing Limited Free Will based on research in Neurobiology.

It is not my own idea.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Sorry, no ..
Do you accept the following as "fact"?

All life on Earth—including humanity—shares a last universal common ancestor (LUCA), which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago.
- Wikipedia -

Is that included in T of E or not for example?
Yes. I accept this as the nature of all life on earth based on the research and discoveries based on genetics. It is based on the actual "facts" ot the nature of the genetics of life. The evidence at present is overwhelming and key principle at the foundation of evolution and ALL the biological sciences based on genetics.

Why would you reject this?
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
The evidence at present is overwhelming and key principle at the foundation of evolution and ALL the biological sciences based on genetics..
No .. it is one hypothetical theory.

Why would you reject this?
I don't reject it as such .. I just don't see it's relevance.
i.e. it might be right, or it might be wrong

..and it doesn't excite me. I don't NEED to know what happened billions of years ago.
I don't NEED to know how G-d created the universe.

What I DO need to know, is how to avoid spiritual failure.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No .. it is one hypothetical theory.
No it is not, your English definitions and understanding of science is deficient as in your bogus demanding of proof concerning evolution. It is a fact your views of Free Will and the sciences of evolution direct reflect the dominant view of your religion. This is not a coincidence

Dramatics is necessary to bring forth the universal view of all science,
I don't reject it as such .. I just don't see it's relevance.
i.e. it might be right, or it might be wrong
You reject it not only as such but absolutely. Nonsense statements like " it might be right, or it might be wrong," does not reflect science, and the matter of fact that you consider it wrong based on your religious agenda,
..and it doesn't excite me. I don't NEED to know what happened billions of years ago.
That actually is not the issue. The sciences of evolution, physics and cosmology are intimately related to ALL science. You NEED to know the facts of science, as everyone.

You have not responded to post #800 and #804

You apparently do care, because you reject science based on a religious agenda. This is not remotely indifference or 'doesn't excite me.' The negative view of sciences of evolution, physics and cosmology in the Islamic world negates any real role in the sciences of the world and makes their education system an ancient backwater swamp in the real world.
I don't NEED to know how G-d created the universe.

What I DO need to know, is how to avoid spiritual failure.
This overwhelmingly amplifies the problem that your view of Free Will reflects directly the prevailing vie of Islam.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
No it is not..

The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is the hypothesized common ancestral cell from which the three domains of life, the Bacteria, the Archaea, and the Eukarya originated.
...
The LUCA has also been defined as "a
hypothetical organism ancestral to all three domains". The LUCA is the point or stage at which the three domains of life diverged from preexisting forms of life (about 3.5–3.8 billion years ago). The nature of this point or stage of divergence remains a topic of research.
Last_universal_common_ancestor - Wikipedia

..your English definitions and understanding of science is deficient..
..try avoiding ad hominem in your arguments..

Nonsense statements like " it might be right, or it might be wrong," does not reflect science..
I'm afraid you are wrong .. you confuse fact with theory.

You have not responded to post #800 and #804
Yes I have .. you said "Why would you reject this?"
See above.

The negative view of sciences of evolution, physics and cosmology in the Islamic world negates any real role in the sciences of the world and makes their education system an ancient backwater swamp in the real world.
I think it is you that is the one who are confused.
Of course, some countries are poor/oppressed, and do not have the resources for research & education.
Others, however, are not so backward .. they know that the oil age is receding, and embrace science
with the respect that it deserves.

There is no "One truth" when it comes to science. Some things are proved facts, and others are
widely accepted hypotheses .. there is a difference, although you would rather have us believe there is not.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is the hypothesized common ancestral cell from which the three domains of life, the Bacteria, the Archaea, and the Eukarya originated.
...
The LUCA has also been defined as "a
hypothetical organism ancestral to all three domains". The LUCA is the point or stage at which the three domains of life diverged from preexisting forms of life (about 3.5–3.8 billion years ago). The nature of this point or stage of divergence remains a topic of research.
Last_universal_common_ancestor - Wikipedia

Yes, this how it is defined, but it is not hypothetical. This reflects your bias against science.
..try avoiding ad hominem in your arguments..
No ad hominem involved in my argument simply the problem of your rejection of science based on an obvious religious agenda. Your posts jump between religion is not the issue to evoking religion as an issue. That is a problem you have to deal with. Agian your misuse of proof reflects your deficiency in the English language and the rejection of science
I'm afraid you are wrong .. you confuse fact with theory.
No such conflation exists. Theories are based on objective verifiable evidence which are facts. You apparently are ignorant of the true meaning of theory and factual evidence in science.

Yes I have .. you said "Why would you reject this?"
See above.
You have presented no specific reason to reject this, just a bias against science and the misuse of the English language.

Please be specific concerning the science and not vague denials.

I think it is you that is the one who are confused.
No.
Of course, some countries are poor/oppressed, and do not have the resources for research & education.
This is not the issue at all. It is the issue of education in general irregardless of the affluence of the country,
Others, however, are not so backward .. they know that the oil age is receding, and embrace science
with the respect that it deserves.
the problem of backwardness here is the universal academic view of science not taught in the schools and universities,
There is no "One truth" when it comes to science. Some things are proved facts, and others are
This is not the claim of one truth, Science does not claim that, though your religious view is based on the claim of one truth based on an ancient religious agenda and the rejection of science.
widely accepted hypotheses .. there is a difference, although you would rather have us believe there is not.
Confusing and vague at best, Needs clarification.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Right .. and you are giving me a lesson on when 'hypothetical' does not really mean 'hypothetical' :D
Your terrible misuse of English and science continues unabated. Your use of the hypothetical is a corruption of English and science based on your religious agenda.
hypothetical adjective

imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true:

Still not responded to post #800 and 804.
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Your terrible misuse of English and science continues unabated. Your use of the hypothetical is a corruption of English and science based on your religious agenda.
..so what does The LUCA has also been defined as "a hypothetical organism ancestral to all three domains" actually mean? What does the word hypothetical mean in that context?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
..so what does The LUCA has also been defined as "a hypothetical organism ancestral to all three domains" actually mean? What does the word hypothetical mean in that context?
Wikipedia is not a scientific resource


The last universal common ancestor between ancient Earth chemistry and the onset of genetics​

Abstract

All known life forms trace back to a last universal common ancestor (LUCA) that witnessed the onset of Darwinian evolution. One can ask questions about LUCA in various ways, the most common way being to look for traits that are common to all cells, like ribosomes or the genetic code. With the availability of genomes, we can, however, also ask what genes are ancient by virtue of their phylogeny rather than by virtue of being universal. That approach, undertaken recently, leads to a different view of LUCA than we have had in the past, one that fits well with the harsh geochemical setting of early Earth and resembles the biology of prokaryotes that today inhabit the Earth's crust.

Introduction​

The very earliest phases of life on Earth witnessed the origin of life and genetics from the elements. There was a time when there was no life on Earth, and there was a time when there were DNA-inheriting cells. The transitions are hard to imagine. Some dates and constraints on the order of events helps us to better grasp the problem. The Earth is 4.5 billion years (Ga) old [1]. By about 4.4 Ga, the moon-forming impact turned the Earth into a ball of boiling lava [1]. Magma oceans with temperatures over 2,000°K forced all water from early accretion into the gas phase and converted all early accreted carbon to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) [1,2]. By 4.2 to 4.3 Ga, the Earth had cooled sufficiently enough that there was liquid water [3]—those first oceans were about twice as deep as today's [1,2]. Only later, hydrothermal convection currents started sequestering water to the primordial crust and mantle, which today bind one extra ocean volume [4,5]. The first signs of life appear as carbon isotope signatures in rocks 3.95 billion years of age [6]. Thus, somewhere on the ocean-covered early Earth and in a narrow window of time of only about 200 million years, the first cells came into existence. Because the genetic code [7] and amino acid chirality [8] are universal, all modern life forms ultimately trace back to that phase of evolution. That was the time during which the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all cells lived.

Conclusions

More clues about LUCA's lifestyle are emerging. Investigations of modern biochemical pathways hone in on the same kinds of reactions as the phylogenetic approach [103]. Similarly, laboratory experiments also demonstrate the spontaneous synthesis of end products and intermediates of the acetyl–CoA pathway, the mainstay of LUCA’s physiology; new findings show that formate, methanol, acetyl moieties, and even pyruvate arise spontaneously at high yields and at temperatures conducive to life (30°C–100°C) from CO2, native metals, and water [98,147]. Those conditions are virtually impossible to underbid in terms of chemical simplicity [98], yet they bring forth the core of LUCA's carbon and energy metabolism [78,96,97,101,103] overnight. Did the origin of genetics hinge upon hydrothermal chemical conditions that gave rise to the first biochemical pathways that in turn gave rise to the first cells? Genes that trace to LUCA [78], ancient biochemical pathways [103], and aqueous reactions of CO2 with iron and water [98,110] all seem to converge on similar sets of simple, exergonic chemical reactions as those that occur spontaneously at hydrothermal vents [148]. From the standpoint of genes, physiology, laboratory chemistry, and geochemistry, it is beginning to look like LUCA was rooted in rocks.

You havenotreponded to post #800 and #804
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Wikipedia is not a scientific resource..
Sorry .. I don't do random links .. I stick with Wikipedia .. it is neutral ground.
Wikipedia is a professional site with references. I don't always agree with everything that's written there,
but that's not the point.

It's not hard to come up with random articles/links, that say what you want them to say.
If you won't answer to Wikipedia, then we're done.

..otherwise it becomes a slanging match of whose links are authentic, bla bla .. quite pathetic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 2 references associated with what I quoted..

 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Sorry .. I don't do random links .. I stick with Wikipedia .. it is neutral ground.
Wikipedia is a professional site with references. I don't always agree with everything that's written there,
but that's not the point.

It's not hard to come up with random articles/links, that say what you want them to say.
If you won't answer to Wikipedia, then we're done.

..otherwise it becomes a slanging match of whose links are authentic, bla bla .. quite pathetic.
This is not a random link I rely on scientific references. National Library of Medicine is not a random link. It is a specific detailed description of LUCA.

You have not responded to posts #800 and 804
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
..which is what I was saying .. your discussion is about psychology .. the reasons why we choose what we choose.
Since there are reasons why we choose what we choose our choices are constrained by those reasons in my view. To be free *and* constrained is an oxymoron as far as I can tell.
Who has told you that they think that we have complete control over our actions?
Not me, that's for sure.
If we don't have complete control then by definition we are not free as to be both constrained and free is oxymoronic in my view.
You embrace the theory of evolution, and its non-proven extensions in its entirety.
..whereas I do not. Why should I? Why should I believe in something that cannot be proven to be true?
This is ironic considering the other things you believe in which cannot be proven to be true such as revelation, judgement day, hell, Satan etc to name some of the unproven beliefs you hold.

Just because the core of evolutionary theory is provable
No its not provable, unless you mean to a legal standard of proof (as opposed to a scientific standard) in my view, but then so called "macro" evolution of humans from a common ape ancestor which you appear to reject is provable in a court of law using DNA.

This is what I see time and again .. people flinging mud at each other about T of E .. you're a science nutter, or you're an ignorant believer in fairy tales.
You are both as bad as one another.
False equivalence in my view.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
If we don't have complete control then by definition we are not free as to be both constrained and free is oxymoronic in my view..
If we are not free to make choices, because we are not in "complete control", then we wouldn't be safe
to drive, for example.

No .. most people, while not being in "complete control", ARE safe to drive .. because it is a matter of
degree i.e. how often do we lose control of our will, and to what extent
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It is just one more article about free-will by an author.
I have already explained my position.
You have explained your position based on your religious agenda,butyou have not responded to the article, You accused me of my view of Limited Free Willas my own and not based on science. I demonstrated that it is based on neurobiology research.

It is a given you reject science, and refuse to coherently respond to published scientific research.
We either have free-will, or we do not.
The two extremes are not supported by contemporary research. As with the sciences of evolution you reject the science.
We are either safe to drive, or we are not.
Responded to this foolishness.

Again it is evident in your posts you inconsistently flip flop between your view is not based on religion to evoking religion and God to justify your "beliefs' concerning Free Will and the sciences o evolution.

Question: Do you accept the science, physics and cosmology that our earth, solar system and universe is billions of years old?
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't believe that you can read my mind !
He reading your words and reading your mind indirectly through them.
It's no more than an assumption
I guess you're right. He's assuming that you're being honest. Is he wrong?
I merely have a different opinion to you.
How do you know? Can you read his mind?
You embrace the theory of evolution, and its non-proven extensions in its entirety...whereas I do not. Why should I?
Because the theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubt is unreasonable, that is, not founded in reason, but in faith.
Why should I believe in something that cannot be proven to be true?
Still using the word proven after all of these years and corrections? The theory is correct. It is well grounded in evidence. Besides, you're an Abrahamic theist. None of your beliefs about gods, angels, afterlives, or the supernatural in general are founded in anything at all.
Science is not the only academic pursuit in said universities
He knows that. Did you think that that was his claim? If so, read it again: "it rejects the science of every major academic institution and university in the world."
Do you accept the following as "fact"? All life on Earth—including humanity—shares a last universal common ancestor (LUCA), which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago. - Wikipedia - Is that included in T of E or not for example?
Yes, that overwhelmingly likely to be correct. The only non-supernaturalistic alternative is that life arose spontaneously more than once (not necessarily on earth given the possibility of panspermia) and that two of these primeval populations still have ancestors, in which case there may be more than one LUCA
What I DO need to know, is how to avoid spiritual failure.
Your definition of spiritual is different from mine. You no doubt thing that I as an atheist am a spiritual failure, but that's how I see Abrahamic religion. Authentic spirituality arises from a sense of connection to one's world. Abrahamism is antithetical to that, especially Christianity, which teaches that the wisdom of the world is foolishness, to not be a part of the world, that the world is a passing phase made of base matter fit for apocalyptic destruction, and which diverts attention from the here and now to some imagined place to be visited after death.

How many believers live life as if they're waiting at a cosmic bus stop to be rescued from this world dreaming about spirits and thinking that that is spirituality? How many tell us that life has no meaning or purpose if this is all that there is? This is the opposite of spirituality to me. That's alienation from this world, not connection.
Sorry .. I don't do random links
The source was the National Center for Biotechnology Information.
Wikipedia is a professional site
No, it's not. The NCBI, however, is a professional source. But I agree with you that Wiki is a valuable resource. I've found errors in it, but like science itself, one of it functions is peer review and error correction. People like you and I function as the peers. I've found and corrected errors there, but maybe only twice, and not in fifteen years at least.

And you say that you refer to the links in Wiki articles. You just finished calling those random links.
We either have free-will, or we do not. We are either safe to drive, or we are not.
An interesting test for free will. Are you aware that motor vehicles are now driving. Safety is still not there, but it will be. Will you say that such cars have free will because they drive safely?
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
The theory is correct. It is well grounded in evidence.
"the" theory? What theory?

..and please don't say 'theory of evolution', because that could mean many things.
It could refer to natural selection, which we learn about in elementary school .. or
it could refer to 100's of other theories or 'extended evolutionary synthesis' , which is
deceitful.
i.e. saying that ToE is 'proven science', and being purposely vague

No, it's not. The NCBI, however, is a professional source. But I agree with you that Wiki is a valuable resource..
I'm not saying that NCBI is not a professional source, but when it comes to having debates with
others, be they Christians, atheists or anything else, it is no good if there are no rules in the debate
and we can quote links willy-nilly.

..and in this case it is about quoting scientific articles by authors of your/my choice.
Wikipedia functions as an effective neutral ground for the scientist, the layman, believer or disbeliever.
i.e. all of us

Will you say that such cars have free will because they drive safely?
Would I say that driverless cars can become human? No.
 
Top