@thenorfolkmafia
active 6 years, 10 months agoForum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Define free will.
That’s what my post was …
That a brain in the same state, given the same environmental stimuli would produce different behaviour each or some of the times that those stimuli are applied.The only way to test that theory, which is what it is, is a parallel universe with cameras recording events in every one ascertaining whether identical stimuli present identical results. As you haven’t access to a universe traversing a normal linear time line into a quantum parallel reality your “theory ” can’t be proven or substantiated can it?
Laws of physics aren’t set in stone and are transient continually being modified through the ages – using them as a template to define if free will exists is a weak argument.
If you want to ‘ammend’ the laws of physics, then you need very strong evidence, of why the current laws do not work, what the new laws should be, and why the new laws are correct.
The evidence is the ” laws” are continuing to be updated and can’t explain satisfactorily why we are here , how the universe is here or anything else remotely close to being an absolute law.
Words from the heart never mean nuffink to you so so clever types how reminded am I why I don’t engage with these types of bollox conversations. You will now argue banter intelligent words about in order to get one up on eachother and it will just be a who is more clever and knows more than the other crap bullshit conversation trying to impress eachother with who knows more and who has the most valid argument. so I graciously back out. I’m thick I should stick to writing crap poetry and not go beyond my limitations Sits down in the corner waits for continuous one up mans ships. yawn.
I haven’t a clue who you are talking to or what you are saying
Free will does exist if you go against social structure and go against the law and go against society in general.
Free will is the idea that if unknowingly placed into identical situations a person could make different choices each time. This requires that the brain has functionality outside of its biological and chemical components. The laws of physics dictate that given the same state of molecules, electrons, ect inside of the brain, and given the same environmental input, the brain must always make the same choice. It can never do anything else, it is predetermined by the state of the universe at that point in time. The is no evidence that suggests this isn’t the case.
Laws of physics aren’t set in stone and are transient continually being modified through the ages – using them as a template to define if free will exists is a weak argument.
Free will does exist if you go against social structure and go against the law and go against society in general.
Free will is the idea that if unknowingly placed into identical situations a person could make different choices each time. This requires that the brain has functionality outside of its biological and chemical components. The laws of physics dictate that given the same state of molecules, electrons, ect inside of the brain, and given the same environmental input, the brain must always make the same choice. It can never do anything else, it is predetermined by the state of the universe at that point in time. The is no evidence that suggests this isn’t the case.
Define free will.
Whether Jesus existed is irrelevant , what is relevant is whether he was ” the son of God”. Most historians accept there probably was a figure existing round this time called Jesus who was most likely a travelling trickster elevated to divine/holy status perpetuating a myth he was the son of “God”
History isn’t science. There is no evidence that Jesus existed, so there is no reason to believe that he did. (The bible also says that there was more than one Jesus, most people seem to ignore this)
Where did I say ” there is evidence Jesus existed”? I stated many historians accept there probably was a figure called Jesus. History is everything including a history of sciences.
. There is evidence that the cosmos is a creation of Love; .
Where?
Gerry, there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the case about God’s existence. God exists or doesn’t exist is something we can all agree on. We can stop at agnosticism, or something can make us move on. There is evidence that the cosmos is a creation of Love; there is also evidence that the cosmos is a cold and indifferent place. The adult conversation lies in presenting arguments against or for his existence; in listening to the arguments; and in sifting the evidence at each point in your life to make a decision. I don’t know whether God exists or not, unlike the Dawkins crowd and the fundamentalists. I have human doubt, and I don’t intend to let go it it, as that way lies the enthusiasm whihc tends to fanaticism. I feel pretty confident (as far as possible) that some versions of God are less likely than others. Human reasoning can certainly lead you so far, to the lip of faith. Whether you then withdraw or move forward could be a result of some secretions within the brain or it could be the revelation that God is there waiting for you to stop keeping the door shut. I don’t have a final answer to that one. That acknowledgment of doubt and of the possibility of stepping forwards or backwards despite the doubt isn’t a black and white decision. It’s a decision whihc is always open to us all.
It is nowhere near as black and white as you imply, firstly you have to define ” God”, secondly you have to accept your own consciousness is infact reality, then you have to accept your brain like others have said only uses a tiny amount of it’s capacity ( like us all) so our perception of what is real/not real is fundamentally flawed. From this shaky base of awareness, we are not in a position to make conjecture over anything regarding what could contitute an illusion of ” existence”. As you alluded to on the other thread, mechanical physics gives way to Newtonian/ quantum physics and in new generations this simplistic way of looking at ” God ” will be laughed at. The holy spirit floating round the room and judgement day is just as daft as witches and hobgoblins
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but when you’re dead, you’re dead. The notion that all living creatures have a soul and paradise awaits with worms, flies, rats and bats fluttering around as relatives peer through the haze saying welcome to heaven is too ridiculous to merit a discussion.
Again, I have to ask, Mr Norfolk. What you’re saying may well be true or maybe not. But how do you know?? You may feel you feel fairly certain, but some Muslims feel just as certain that they’re heading for a harem in paradise. maybe they’re right, too. Who knows? How do you know?
I don’t , I use the balance of probability with the limited information at my disposal. I would suggest my approximation of what happens after death bears a closer resemblance to truth than a book of fiction based on a middle aged paedophile and his 9 year old wife but who knows.
Everyone can believe what they want, the majority of people are with you… How do you know lol
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but when you’re dead, you’re dead. The notion that all living creatures have a soul and paradise awaits with worms, flies, rats and bats fluttering around as relatives peer through the haze saying welcome to heaven is too ridiculous to merit a discussion.
I’ve been reincarnated 😈
That a brain in the same state, given the same environmental stimuli would produce different behaviour each or some of the times that those stimuli are applied.