The ancients knew the earth was round, what they did not know for the most part was that the earth is spherical.
In my opinion.
-
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!
Question to Creationists: What's the Mechanism?
- Thread starter Heyo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #creation #magic #mechanism
In my opinion.
Why are we talking about minds as opposed to brains?
Brains can be evolved from smaller brains, and minuscule brains can evolve from clumps of nerve cells.
In my opinion
firedragon
Veteran Member
So since you never heard something, you have the capacity of making positive claims based on what you have never heard?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Since this is a debate forum, I feel entitled to post whenever I want. And you are losing your cool
Well, it is a direct consequence of our scientific theories. Usually scientists do not write papers depicting the obvious. I am sure it will also be difficult to find research that shows that apples fall from trees also in general relativity.
Ciao
- viole
So which scientist with what research found out there is no free will?
The machine is the brain. Evolution is only concerned with the physical, it does not have any bearing on how ghosts came to be in the slightest
In my opinion.
Last edited:
Because any physical state is reducible to prior information. IOW: you cannot surprise the Universe without breaking virtually all physical laws known to man. The same is confirmed by relativity, which suggests a block Universe in which the future is already set and already existing, so to speak.
Of course, this is the case for libertarian free will. In case of free will, under a deterministic regime, then you will need to assume a compatibilstic view. Which is what most philosophers actually do, given that, again, all laws we know are unitarian, and leave therefore no space for libertarian free will.
Ciao
- viole
rational experiences
Veteran Member
A human said their first as conscious human memory is deceased. Human parents. Memories.
You then ask God theists did God create the living human from one death?
No.
Then you ask do human adults know they die?
Yes.
Are the first two humans deceased?
Yes.
Conscious self advice direct not rational.
Humans living secondary life a baby to adult is life continuance not the first.
As every human is first a human.
If you are healthy you are lucky.
If you are sick your DNA cell replacing creation is defective. As a human.
Question how and why did human DNA become defective.
The origin first form as a human was changed.
Not the first human. Humans first form as a human became defective.
First cell a theist claims is a microbe or a bacteria. By comparing orders of information by detailing it.
Today is still a microbe or a bacteria.
If those forms are meant to be described it is to be the least living presence by information it expresses a human says.....as I am superior to those forms.
If those forms did not exist science human expressed only would not be discussing a thesis. As rationality.
Science said in the beginning no form whatsoever existed.
Then pretend they know how a reaction formed.
Science.
Status of science.
That first nothing reaction not at all like any life living inside of stones gas heavens.
First in a science thesis.
On earth there is no first.
Scientists have not determined there is 'no free will,' but there is a lot of research that has determined that 'free will' is limited, but to what degree has not been determined. Scientists have determined that the belief in 'Libertarian Free Will' is basically been found false. I do not believe the beliefs of ancient religions that advocate 'Libertarian Free Will' are in line with the current scientific knowledge of the nature of human will. Likewise, ancient religious beliefs of predestination and human lives dominated by 'fate' is equally unrealistic. The reality is somewhere in the middle of limited free will.
The following is an interesting article about the current collaboration between psychologists and scientists that represents on going research on the question of 'Free Will.'
Philosophers and neuroscientists join forces to see whether science can solve the mystery of free will
Research by Libet and others have demonstrated limitations on free will as described in the article.
My view of the present state of the research is that we have a will, but it is not necessarily completely free. I describe this as 'potential free will.' We do make decisions, but they are dominantly limited within a range of choices. Actually there is a predictable range in most of our choices that follows a fractal pattern in our choices. Most of our decision making process is limited by factors such as: (1) The first is the obvious restraints of Natural Laws. (2) Evolved nature of being human that the protects use from harm, and the perpetuation of the human species, (3) The restraints of our culture and social peer relationships. Sometimes called the restraints of the 'Sense of community and belonging.' Tribalism unfortunately dominates our world and divides use often violently based on ancient tribal religions and cultures. This is also very problematic in the long term, because it often leads to an irrational rejection of science based entrenched ancient religious and cultural beliefs (4) The chain of decisions and events that restrain the outcome of future decisions.
Many if not most people claim to be able to think 'outside the box,' but by far most move the box around with them.
More to follow. . .
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
That was the claim that was made. But thanks for the information.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Which scientist?
firedragon
Veteran Member
So you have never heard of something because that something doesnt exist?
There was more substance to my post than this.
As referenced in my post Libet is one scientist that has research greatly limiting the concept of free will. Of course, making absolute claims in any discipline is just not science.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Of course. I understand.
firedragon
Veteran Member
If you wish to discuss consciousness, its a fabulous topic and your knowledge on that would be greatly appreciated. I would like to open a new thread on this and if you are okay with it, I will tag you on a post.
OK. Even though human will and consciousness human and/or animal are related they are different subjects.
Nope. But I think it is reasonable that if there were a creation story which would show knowledge which was not available at the time of its writing, we would know about it. The believer would say: Look! My creation history describes exactly how things have been created according to modern science. Only God could have known that at that time.
Alas, such stories do not exist. They are just creation myths, aka made up stories, written with the knowledge available at the time, and a lot of imagination. Things like Brahma creating the earth from a Lotus, Allah creating water (heavy elements again) and commanding things into being (how could they obey while not being is a mystery
), and other myths.Ciao
- viole
Well, all physical scientists. Especially the ones working in fundamental physics, relativity, QM and such. Strange question.
I smell a bit of ulltracrepidarianism from your side.
Do you understand what I mean when I say that all fundamental laws of physics are unitarian? And do you understand the consequences on libertarian free will if they are such?
Ciao
- viole
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats false. Maybe you are answering another question. No wait. You are absolutely answering some other question.