Axiom(s) relating to belief in God.

By the way, my comments are all related to a strong suspicion that you are attempting to beg the question implicit in your "axiom," and that, in fact, you wish to discredit the axiom through the backdoor of begging the implicit question.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Why do you assume that there is any connection between naturalism and determinism? Accepting naturalism (at least in the scientific definition already provided) does not automatically lead to a conclusion that humans have no choice in their actions.

I agree. I don't know why Neo is making some of his assumptions.

I hope this isn't leading to the philosophical discussion about whether free will exists as in determinism. That discussion is always academic to the point of tedium.

0 Replies

Sorry, I did not intend to create confusion.

My personal belief is that God is the author of natural law and his greatest gift to intelligent creation is free will.

My hope was to get input on whether free will could exist in a model based from the premise of natural law, or would additional entities be necessary.

Apparently my mind set has muddied the waters. Could any here supply a filter?

0 Replies

religion should be more scientific and less tedious. the kind of science i have in mind is probability, or quantum physics.

rather than march around telling everyone to believe in god, or trying to prove one exists, and not another, it's more interesting to look at god as a series of probabilities. so 1. here's the evidence that god exists, and 2. here is a range of places he would be ethically, and 3. here are the ideas that come out of that we consider closest to 1 and 2.

neo could have his god and we could weigh him, but whether he is in our "imagination" or neo's would be essentially impossible to tell at any given time. the only problem is that shrodinger would be rolling in his grave for eternity, but as christianity teaches us, you have to be willing to make at least one sacrifice- probably.

shrodingerism: that cat may or may not have died for your sins...

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Sorry, I did not intend to create confusion.

My personal belief is that God is the author of natural law and his greatest gift to intelligent creation is free will.

My hope was to get input on whether free will could exist in a model based from the premise of natural law, or would additional entities be necessary.

Apparently my mind set has muddied the waters. Could any here supply a filter?

My remark about naturalism and determinism was just to point out that naturalism does not automatically imply determinism. To that extent, certainly you would have every reason to allege the existence of free will within a framework of naturalism, without reference to theism.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

My personal belief is that God is the author of natural law and his greatest gift to intelligent creation is free will.

You have already multiplied entities with this statement because you have inserted "God" in place of a simple unknown. And to make matters worse, you have implied certain attributes and intentions to that God thereby limiting it's potential range. Given this context, it's no wonder you fixate on Free Will because you are using it as a mechanism to measure your God's adherence to your morality. You are attempting to rationalize (for yourself) God's actions (some of which you don't approve), by counterbalancing the "Bad" against "the GIFT" of free will, thereby giving God a free ride on all the "bad" things out there.

But if free will is simply a natural aspect of the natural world, not a "Gift" at all, then you have no mechanism to forgive God for all the things you don't approve of.

neologist wrote:

My hope was to get input on whether free will could exist in a model based from the premise of natural law, or would additional entities be necessary.

Free Will, in the most rudimentary sense, is inherent in naturalism (your axiom) as is everything else. No additional entities are require, there is only one entity; the natural world.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

. . . Free Will, in the most rudimentary sense, is inherent in naturalism (your axiom) as is everything else. No additional entities are require, there is only one entity; the natural world.

I'll accept your concept of free will as one which somehow supersedes what we know of cause and effect. It is parallel to mine.

You have missed the point with this statement, however.

rosborne979 wrote:

You are attempting to rationalize (for yourself) God's actions (some of which you don't approve), by counterbalancing the "Bad" against "the GIFT" of free will, thereby giving God a free ride on all the "bad" things out there.

0 Replies

Re: Axiom(s) relating to belief in God.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Also, doesn't the Law of Conservation prohibit matter/energy from coming into being?

Only within our Universe. We know of no such restriction outside of our Universe. (same thing I've been saying for post after post. Why are you not getting this?)

Maybe because you haven't shown that there IS anything outside of our Universe, but you seem to assume that it exists.

I don't assume it exists. I don't even know what it might be if it does.

Your reference to 'outside our universe' is a statement of faith, since you have no evidence for any such, is it not?

If you are to be consistent, your appeal to something outside the universe resolving the conflict with the Law of Conservation should be backed by evidence of same, shouldn't it?

0 Replies

Re: Axiom(s) relating to belief in God.

real life wrote:

Your reference to 'outside our universe' is a statement of faith, since you have no evidence for any such, is it not?

The Universe as we know it, is described through physics, which defines our Universe (Space/Time) as being self-contained.

When something is self-contained, then there is "The Universe" and "Not The Universe". It seems reasonable for me to refer to "Not The Universe" as "outside", but if you prefer we can think of it as simply "Not-Universe".

Realizing that there is a Universe and a Not-Universe does not imply anything about the rules or structure of Not-Universe other than that they are two separate things (at least as far as physics is concerned).

real life wrote:

If you are to be consistent, your appeal to something outside the universe resolving the conflict with the Law of Conservation should be backed by evidence of same, shouldn't it?

There is no conflict with the Law of Conservation, because that law only relates to conditions within our Universe. It says nothing about the Not-Universe.

0 Replies

Re: Axiom(s) relating to belief in God.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Your reference to 'outside our universe' is a statement of faith, since you have no evidence for any such, is it not?

The Universe as we know it, is described through physics, which defines our Universe (Space/Time) as being self-contained.

When something is self-contained, then there is "The Universe" and "Not The Universe". It seems reasonable for me to refer to "Not The Universe" as "outside", but if you prefer we can think of it as simply "Not-Universe".

Realizing that there is a Universe and a Not-Universe does not imply anything about the rules or structure of Not-Universe other than that they are two separate things (at least as far as physics is concerned).

real life wrote:
If you are to be consistent, your appeal to something outside the universe resolving the conflict with the Law of Conservation should be backed by evidence of same, shouldn't it?

There is no conflict with the Law of Conservation, because that law only relates to conditions within our Universe. It says nothing about the Not-Universe.

So, since the law of Conservation (and other scientific laws) give you no basis for describing anything outside of the universe, and you have no evidence that such exists (yet you claim to 'realize that there IS a universe and a not-universe'), why do you continue to appeal to it to resolve your dilemma?

The Law of Conservation prohibits matter/energy from being created.

The Law of Entropy removes the possibility that matter/energy have always existed (i.e. have been and are eternally existant) since we presently see things in a higher state of order than should be the case if matter/energy had existed from eternity past.

0 Replies

Re: Axiom(s) relating to belief in God.

real life wrote:

So, since the law of Conservation (and other scientific laws) give you no basis for describing anything outside of the universe, and you have no evidence that such exists (yet you claim to 'realize that there IS a universe and a not-universe'), why do you continue to appeal to it to resolve your dilemma?

There is no dilemma.

As far as we know (based on physics and BB Cosmology) the total amount of matter/energy within our Universe has been consistent since the first moment of time. Nothing has been created or destroyed.

You keep trying to link our internal universe to something outside of it with cause and effect (rules which exist only within our Universe), but there is no such linkage.

You keep thinking that something *happened* outside of our Universe, yet the very concept of *To Happen* implies a flow of time, which may not even apply.

I understand your difficulty in removing yourself form the bias toward the only rules we can even conceptualize, but you you will need to move beyond that bias in order to understand what we are talking about. In many ways, *magic*, which you are so fond of, is an easier concept. At least magic happens within a flow of time.

real life wrote:

The Law of Conservation prohibits matter/energy from being created.

Only within our Universe.

real life wrote:

The Law of Entropy removes the possibility that matter/energy have always existed (i.e. have been and are eternally existant) since we presently see things in a higher state of order than should be the case if matter/energy had existed from eternity past.

Even within this Universe it's not entirely certain that there has been any net increase of complexity or information. There may be a counterbalancing degree of disorder which is accumulating in some way which we don't yet understand. The physical aspects of our Universe apparently represent only 4% of the total space/time/energy component of the Universe.

0 Replies

Re: Axiom(s) relating to belief in God.

rosborne979 wrote:

You keep trying to link our internal universe to something outside of it

So do you.

rosborne979 wrote:

Only within our Universe.

rosborne979 wrote:

cause and effect (rules which exist only within our Universe)

And you know that how?

0 Replies

Re: Axiom(s) relating to belief in God.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
cause and effect (rules which exist only within our Universe)

And you know that how?

Excuse me, I could have stated that more accurately (anticipating that it would be put under the RL microscope of intense obtuseness). I should have said, "rules which are defined only in relation to our Universe".

0 Replies

You can blame me if you wish ros, but when you 'clarify' your statement in that manner , it invalidates your entire premise.

You want to argue for a scientific cause for the Big Bang, but you want a pass when asked how the law of conservation would allow such.

You alternately state or imply that the law would not have application 'pre'BB, without any proof that this is so.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You can blame me if you wish ros, but when you 'clarify' your statement in that manner , it invalidates your entire premise.

You want to argue for a scientific cause for the Big Bang, but you want a pass when asked how the law of conservation would allow such.

You alternately state or imply that the law would not have application 'pre'BB, without any proof that this is so.

You just aren't getting it RL. Sorry.

0 Replies

yeah , I 'get it' just fine.

You want to sit on both sides of the fence.

The law of conservation prohibits the creation of matter /energy.

You counter that this only applies within the natural universe.

yet when Christians discuss the 'supernatural' , you strenuously object that there is no natural proof of the existence of the supernatural, so we are 'unscientific ' for bringing it up.

0 Replies

0 Replies

0 Replies

In another place, I had asked:

Quote:

Are you asking for 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' ?

Ros responded:

Quote:

If the supernatural exists, it should still be possible for it to leave evidence in a natural form. A live flower for instance, with a completely unique genetic structure (no DNA), no known living relatives and no history in the fossil record. Or a large boulder which wasn't affected by gravity, floating just off the ground. IF such a things existed, they might be considered evidence for the supernatural (or god0

I think the fact that matter exists is good evidence.

However, scientific law (1st Law of Thermodynamics) states that matter cannot be created[/i].

So , where did it come from?

Isn't this a good indication that the 'supernatural' (i.e. something outside of the natural order) exists?

I think it bears considering.

Ros doesn't believe in the 'supernatural' because 'there's no evidence for it' , but still insists on the right to invoke 'something outside the natural order' when asked about it.

What's the dif? Not much. Cool

0 Replies

Axiom(s) relating to belief in God.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know