A Declaration of my viewpoints of Predestination

[chessmanskeptic]

Predestination is a falsehood. I looked at AtheistArchon's argument and I find it laughable. Let me reiterate:

Lets take a look at this question:

Why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?

To see if man was obidient. Remember, God likes testing people. There are several stories in the old testament that are similar to this (i.e. Isaac and Abraham)

- Why then? Why would god put something so dangerous in Eden? Was the plan for A&E to eat the fruit, or not?

Look above, just like a said, it was just a test of the faith of man as a species.


That's tougher to answer than it sounds. No doubt the first try will be something along the "free will" lines, but this quickly dissolves, because it creates more problems. If eating the fruit gave A&E free will, then they didn't have free will beforehand, and were not responsible for their actions. If they DID have free will beforehand, then they certainly didn't need the tree to be there in order to have free will.


Yes, they had freewill beforehand just like any other species. All the fruit from the tree gave them was the knowledge of good and evil.











Now it is question and answer time. Please post only once and give me time to reply to them.

{G6: editted title and took out reference to MODERATED THREAD}

[Franko]

Archon:
Why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?

Chessman:
To see if man was obedient. Remember, God likes testing people. There are several stories in the old testament that are similar to this (i.e. Isaac and Abraham)

I guess the story could be seen as a metaphorical reference to “being tested”. Here’s the thing:

Tree of Knowledge = Worldtree of Destiny

In other words, if you were going to map out your predetermined future with every decision you could possible make appearing as a branch of different options, with different options going off from there, then you would have a tree-like map of your Destiny – That’s the metaphor of the “Tree of Knowledge”.

When Eve eats the apple, it is a metaphor for an individual becoming conscious. The knowledge of good and evil is Logic, the ability to perceive True and False, the ability to anticipate the future, the ability to perceive the branches on the tree of Destiny. That ability is what makes you conscious.

Archon:
- Why then? Why would god put something so dangerous in Eden? Was the plan for A&E to eat the fruit, or not?

Chessman:
Look above, just like a said, it was just a test of the faith of man as a species.

No, you can’t take the story Literally! It’s metaphorical. What the story is essentially saying is that you started off with “God”, and he created the “Omniverse”, and then one day this “God” decides that he needs some “company”, so he becomes more than One entity, and once “God” becomes more then One entity, it was inevitable that an individual would “out-perceive” the others (evolution). One was going to see what was True and what was False and it was going to give that one an advantage over the rest.

Archon:
That's tougher to answer than it sounds. No doubt the first try will be something along the "free will" lines, but this quickly dissolves, because it creates more problems. If eating the fruit gave A&E free will, then they didn't have free will beforehand, and were not responsible for their actions. If they DID have free will beforehand, then they certainly didn't need the tree to be there in order to have free will.

Chessman:
Yes, they had freewill beforehand just like any other species. All the fruit from the tree gave them was the knowledge of good and evil.

Essentially neither of you understands “free will” or Fatalism at all. Your argument amounts to a debate over the precise geometry of a Flat motionless Earth.

Free Will is never truly possible, but something akin to it would exist if Solipsism were True. In other words, If God (the genesis Creator) were a Solipsist, then he would have had Free will. He would be an entity with no external influences, and only if he was created by some force other than himself could it be said that his Fate was in any way controlled.

But as soon as there were 2 entities (Adam and Eve for example), then the days of “free will” were over, and Fatalism became the rule. It was Destined that some one was going to “eat the apple”, but A&E would have likely had no aforeknowledge of which of them was the “chosen one”. Not that there really was a “choosen one” per sae. God the Solipsist technically could have predicted what would happen, but he was unfortunately unable to comprehend reality in terms of multiple individual entities.

Believe me, that algorithm (Genesis, Pandora, Anuma Elish, etc.) is much older, and much more solid then either of you two would imagine.

[chessmanskeptic]

Free Will and the Christian Religion

The problem of free will assumed quite a new character with the advent of the Christian religion. The doctrine that God has created man, has commanded him to obey the moral law, and has promised to reward or punish him for observance or violation of this law, made the reality of moral liberty an issue of transcendent importance. Unless man is really free, he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions, any more than for the date of his birth or the colour of his eyes. All alike are inexorably predetermined for him. Again, the difficulty of the question was augmented still further by the Christian dogma of the fall of man and his redemption by grace.

[Franko]

I'll tell you the same thing that I essentailly tell the A-Theists.

If you are really interested in comprehending Fatalism, then you need to stop denying the obvious. Otherwise ... you're living on a flat world ... and it's far less interesting there.

[clk]

Um....aren't you supposed to cite your post?

[chessmanskeptic]

Here is something for you Franko that completely debunks you.


Taken Directly from Stanford University (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/).

[Franko]

Fatalism = The belief that all things happen as part of a logical sequence (an unbroken chain of cause and event), based on a fixed set of logical rules.

Essentially Fatalism denies the existence of “free will”, and the notions that individual action is based on magical, supernatural, or “random” incomprehensible forces.


But I wouldn't be a bit surprised to here some arrogant A-Theists stupid enough to claim that they had Proven Fatalism False. James Randi is offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove that Fatalism is False.

[SortingItAllOut]

Hello,

On the notion that god placed the tree in the garden in order to test man's obedience, I wonder...

Wouldn't the idea that man *might* disobey already be stewing around in god's mind? Otherwise, why bother? What I mean is that it seems to me that this is *the test* that god decided to put man to. There isn't any account of a battery of tests that he put man through before this. Such as, "was man smart enough to understand the test?" or "was man sufficiently able to understand that he might be deceived?"

Secondly, it seems to me that if god's purpose in creating a test is to figure out if man is an obedient creature, wouldn't he already know the answer? Seems to me that a god that has the power to create something from nothing and breathe life into the lifeless and create the ability to cogitate would also have the ability to discern what its creations could and could not do.

Also, doesn't it seem more than a little severe to effectively provide the world to man, set him up to fall via the words of a deceiving serpent, and then hit man with the big stick for being naive? I cannot imagine doing this to my children. For a god that supposedly loves man so, his wrath seems to get the best of him at times.

I have a multitude of other questions, but I'll stop at this point. I'm interested in your opinions.

Take care,
Sort:)

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
James Randi is offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove that Fatalism is False.
He is, is he? Interesting... and where might one learn more about this new "$ 1,000,000 Fatalistic Challenge" of Randi's?

[Ceinwyn]

My question is, what if Adam and Eve had completely ignored the Tree of Wisdom? Where would we be now?

Hypothetically, of course.

[Christian]

SortingItAllOut wrote:
Also, doesn't it seem more than a little severe to effectively provide the world to man, set him up to fall via the words of a deceiving serpent, and then hit man with the big stick for being naive? I cannot imagine doing this to my children. For a god that supposedly loves man so, his wrath seems to get the best of him at times.

As I said before, the children-father analogy falls apart from the onset, IMHO.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by Christian
SortingItAllOut wrote:
Also, doesn't it seem more than a little severe to effectively provide the world to man, set him up to fall via the words of a deceiving serpent, and then hit man with the big stick for being naive? I cannot imagine doing this to my children. For a god that supposedly loves man so, his wrath seems to get the best of him at times.

As I said before, the children-father analogy falls apart from the onset, IMHO.

Hi Christian,

I hadn't read this from you before, but I tend to skim much of the posts here due to time limitations.

Tossing out the father-child analogy, it makes me wonder why on Earth anyone would want to create such a world. I'm supposed to believe that somehow I will be better because I accept the fact that god made the world the way he did, whacked as it may seem, and I'm supposed to accept the fact that he'll play little games... call them tests if you will... to see what I'll do, like I'm a science experiment.

It seems unreasonable to me for anyone to subject anyone else to the "one strike and you're out" rule.

Just my opinion.

Take care,
Sort:)

[Franko]

CWL:
He is, is he? Interesting... and where might one learn more about this new "$ 1,000,000 Fatalistic Challenge" of Randi's?

Randi will pay you a million dollars (U.S.) if you can demonstrate conclusively your magic powers. All you have to do is explain precisely what you mean by "free will" (what specific magic ability are you claiming). Randi will design a test, and if you can prove that your magic "random" free will is real ... you get the dough.

Fatalism = The belief that all things happen as part of a logical sequence (an unbroken chain of cause and event), based on a fixed set of logical rules.

Essentially Fatalism denies the existence of “free will”, and the notions that individual action is based on magical, supernatural, or “random” incomprehensible forces.

[SpaceLord]

Franko, are you saying that, for instance, Quantum Mechanics is mistaken, that there is some Evil Genius(Descartes) stepping in when we try to measure things at the subatomic, quantum level? Because QM does seem to be correct. I believe Solid State Physics has not been explained in anything but QM.

[Girl 6]

Hi Chess,

I editted the title of your thread, since as far I know, none of the moderators are actively involved in MODERATING this thread.

I do hope you don't mind, but I don't want to mislead anyone that I'm actively doing anything to monitor this thread like the other one.

Feel free to comment on my actions here. I always welcome suggestions.

thanks!
G6

[Franko]

Right, right ...

Spacelord, just explain to me how you know (now, in the present) that when quantum gravity is finally fully explain that your precious magic quantum "randomness" isn't going to vaporize faster than a fart on a windy day?

How do you know this is True as a fact in reality now?

Based on your utter lack of information regarding the subject?

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
In other words, if you were going to map out your predetermined future with every decision you could possible make appearing as a branch of different options, with different options going off from there, then you would have a tree-like map of your Destiny – That’s the metaphor of the “Tree of Knowledge”.You have stated that "Free Will" isn't possible, Franko.

How, then, can you even speak of any of us making decisions? Are we not simply collections of atoms under the total control of The Laws Of Physics? How can anyone consigned to a "predetermined future" make a decision?

[Franko]

Unas: (A-Theist lunatic)
You have stated that "Free Will" isn't possible, Franko.

How, then, can you even speak of any of us making decisions? Are we not simply collections of atoms under the total control of The Laws Of Physics? How can anyone consigned to a "predetermined future" make a decision?

From the other thread …
“choices” (or “decisions”) still exist in Logical Deism, and as a Fatalist, I still use that term pretty much the same way that you would. The main difference, is in the perception of what that term means. I won’t make assumptions about how you believe it works, but in my mind, the term “choice” is simply the resultant output from my algorithm. You run a program, you give it an input, some code is executed in sequence, and an output is generated. The output is the “choice”. But in my reality, Choice is entirely deterministic, fundamentally no different than the computer code I am sure you are very familiar with.

Your consciousness is an algorithm the LD call MPB, I'm sure you've never heard this before. You don't perceive the recursion.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
But in my reality, Choice is entirely deterministic, fundamentally no different than the computer code I am sure you are very familiar with.

Your consciousness is an algorithm the LD call MPB, I'm sure you've never heard this before. You don't perceive the recursion. I perceive that you claim that humans can make choices, when your definition of what a human is -- a collection of atoms rigidly controlled by The Laws Of Physics -- absolutely precludes the possibility that a human could make a choice.

[SpaceLord]

Originally posted by Franko
Right, right ...

Spacelord, just explain to me how you know (now, in the present) that when quantum gravity is finally fully explain that your precious magic quantum "randomness" isn't going to vaporize faster than a fart on a windy day?

How do you know this is True as a fact in reality now?

Based on your utter lack of information regarding the subject?


franko, must you always be so caustic? I just asked you what you felt about QM. You didn't reply to my question at all. And I don't know where you get the idea that I hold QM so dearly. I just said it seems to be correct. As a true skeptic and believer in science, I will readily admit I was wrong if QM turns out to be incorrect.

The question remains: Why does it appear that QM works? Who is fooling us? If only Classical Mechanics and Relativity are correctly held theories, then why do computers work? Digital computers rely on Solid State Physics, and SSP relies on QM.

[Unas]

Originally posted by SpaceLord
franko, must you always be so caustic? I just asked you what you felt about QM. You didn't reply to my question at all.The evidence does seem to indicate that Franko is far more interested in lording it over people whom he unilaterally proclaims "wrong", than in engaging in any substantive discussion.

[Franko]

Spacelord:
The question remains: Why does it appear that QM works? Who is fooling us? If only Classical Mechanics and Relativity are correctly held theories, then why do computers work? Digital computers rely on Solid State Physics, and SSP relies on QM.

Computers and solid state physics do not require magic to function. These are simply religious notions that A-Theist like Unas (or Undercoverelephant/ Fool/De-Bungler/Titanpoint/Yatzi) put in your head.

Just because you were told that nature is random and magical doesn't mean that nature is actually random and magical.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
Computers and solid state physics do not require magic to function.Who has claimed that they do?
Originally posted by Franko
Just because you were told that nature is random and magical doesn't mean that nature is actually random and magical.Why do you equate randomness with magic?

[Franko]

magic = having no logical cause.

random = having no logical cause.

Elephant, you mystic. So predictable.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
magic = having no logical cause.

random = having no logical cause. Why do you claim that randomness is the same as "having no logical cause"?

[SpaceLord]

Originally posted by Franko


Computers and solid state physics do not require magic to function. These are simply religious notions that A-Theist like Unas (or Undercoverelephant/ Fool/De-Bungler/Titanpoint/Yatzi) put in your head.

Just because you were told that nature is random and magical doesn't mean that nature is actually random and magical.

Is QM "magical" Franko? I think you believe it is, yet you say that computers, which seem to rely on QM principles, are not magical. Which is it?

Franko, why do you assume that everyone who asks you hard questions is a idiot, and brainwashed? I haven't gotten any of my ideas from the people you mention, I have gotten them from physicists who know the theory of QM far better than you or I.

Edit:Perhaps this debate merits a new thread about SSP?

[Franko]

Spacelord:
Is QM "magical" Franko? I think you believe it is, yet you say that computers, which seem to rely on QM principles, are not magical. Which is it?

Nothing in the Omniverse (all of reality) is magical or supernatural.

But You and the other A-Theist claim that QM IS magical. You just don’t use the word “magic”, you say “random” or “stochastic’, or “indeterminism”, but all of those words mean the exact same thing. If you ever bothered to define them you’d see for yourself.

Franko, why do you assume that everyone who asks you hard questions is a idiot, and brainwashed?

When I hear A-Theist who ask me naïve questions about Determinism, and say that the present is not based on the past, and that universes magically appear out of timeless voids, and that they have magic “free will” powers that allow them to defy the laws of physics. And that things less conscious control things which are more conscious, and that people do not act based on what they believe. When I see people arrogantly calling theists names for believing in God, “based on no evidence” all the while the A-Theist believe in “free will” based on NO EVIDENCE ..

Then I tell them what I perceive – brainwashed imbeciles. I’ve counted you amongst their numbers, but that is your “choice”.

I haven't gotten any of my ideas from the people you mention, I have gotten them from physicists who know the theory of QM far better than you or I.

Yeah, so you say, yet you seem to have so much trouble proving your magic powers exist??

Puzzling?

Why don’t you just demonstrate this non-magic randomness by defying the laws of physics for us? Can’t you produce an Alive-Dead cat for us mystic-boy?

Why don’t you just explain what the YOU is that is making all of these “choices”? I thought the chemicals that made up your brain just obeyed TLOP like ALL chemicals? Where does the magic “free will” come into the equation? Why should I believe your extraordinary claim?

Where is the extraordinary evidence Spacelord? Not all of us can accept our worldview on Faith alone.

Could you give us an example of one of these events which (due to QM) is not caused by the past? (Since you know so much about it I have gotten them from physicists who know the theory of QM far better than you)

Ever wake up as a fish? Know anyone who ever did?

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

Unas:

Thats the standard definition that I know, How do you define the term "random"?

[Christian]

Sort wrote:
Hi Christian,

I hadn't read this from you before, but I tend to skim much of the posts here due to time limitations.

Same here.

Tossing out the father-child analogy, it makes me wonder why on Earth anyone would want to create such a world. I'm supposed to believe that somehow I will be better because I accept the fact that god made the world the way he did, whacked as it may seem, and I'm supposed to accept the fact that he'll play little games... call them tests if you will... to see what I'll do, like I'm a science experiment.

Why do you say the world is wacked? Why do you characterize it as little games or tests?

I can appreciate when someone says they rather had not been made by this god. I am of the opinion that it was good He made me and did so with my qualities.

It seems unreasonable to me for anyone to subject anyone else to the "one strike and you're out" rule.

Just my opinion.

Take care,
Sort

It seem to me the its "thousands of strikes and you're out." Just my opinion. :)

Girl 6 wrote:
I do hope you don't mind, but I don't want to mislead anyone that I'm actively doing anything to monitor this thread like the other one.

:D

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by SortingItAllOut
Hello,

On the notion that god placed the tree in the garden in order to test man's obedience, I wonder...

Wouldn't the idea that man *might* disobey already be stewing around in god's mind? Otherwise, why bother? What I mean is that it seems to me that this is *the test* that god decided to put man to. There isn't any account of a battery of tests that he put man through before this. Such as, "was man smart enough to understand the test?" or "was man sufficiently able to understand that he might be deceived?"

Secondly, it seems to me that if god's purpose in creating a test is to figure out if man is an obedient creature, wouldn't he already know the answer? Seems to me that a god that has the power to create something from nothing and breathe life into the lifeless and create the ability to cogitate would also have the ability to discern what its creations could and could not do.

Also, doesn't it seem more than a little severe to effectively provide the world to man, set him up to fall via the words of a deceiving serpent, and then hit man with the big stick for being naive? I cannot imagine doing this to my children. For a god that supposedly loves man so, his wrath seems to get the best of him at times.

I have a multitude of other questions, but I'll stop at this point. I'm interested in your opinions.

Take care,
Sort:)




I think that God knew that humanity was going to probably eat from the Tree of Knowledge out of curiosity.

Man realized the differences between good and evil was set.

God realized we were most likely to betray his trust in the first place, all he really wanted to do was see it for himself.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
Thats the standard definition that I know...False. "Magic" is not, and never has been, a "standard definition" for "randomness". You have invented this definition out of thin air to avoid discussing your claims.

Do you expect to get more "good Karma" for this latest act of dishonesty, Franko?

[Christian]

From dictionary.com
Magic:
Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

Randomness:
An inexplicable misfeature

[Franko]

Unas/De-Bungler: (A-Theist)
Why do you equate randomness with magic?

Franko: (Logical Deist)
magic = having no logical cause.

random = having no logical cause.

Unas/De-Bungler: (A-Theist (Idiot))
Why do you claim that randomness is the same as "having no logical cause"?

Franko: (Logical Deist)
Thats the standard definition that I know, How do you define the term "random"?

Unas/De-Bungler: (A-Theist (Hypocrite))
False. "Magic" is not, and never has been, a "standard definition" for "randomness". You have invented this definition out of thin air to avoid discussing your claims

Yet I notice your failed to answer: How do you define the term "random"?

Why so evasive A-Theist, you are little a little chicken, scared of it’s own shadow? Do you fear me, are you afraid I am transmit myself across the Internet and jump out of your computer or something? It is rather obvious that you are desperately trying to avoid having a substantive discussion at all cost?

… So why are you posting here in the first place then? It makes you look rather fanatical and potentially insane …

From dictionary.com
Magic:
Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

Randomness:
An inexplicable misfeature

(A-Theist … so f*cking easy …)

[Unas]

You lied about the "standard definition" of "magic", Franko. Your invented religion allows you to disclaim responsibility for your lies. That's the only reason you invented it.

[Franko]

You lied about the "standard definition" of "magic"

Funny how so many of your other figments are “lying” along with me?

I guess Christian is just another of my “sock-puppets”? … or is he, the Wraith’s sock-puppet? I swear, I get us all confused more than You do … hehe …

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
Funny how so many of your other figments are “lying” along with me?I will accept that as your tacit admission that you knew you were lying. Thank you.

[Franko]

I will accept that as your tacit admission that you knew you were lying. Thank you.

Sure, and I'll accept this as a tacit admission that you know the Editors of Dictionary.com, and everyone who "contributed" to that work, are all simply figments of your imagination. Just like "Me" ...

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
Sure, and I'll accept this as a tacit admission that you know the Editors of Dictionary.com, and everyone who "contributed" to that work, are all simply figments of your imagination. Just like "Me" ... You are lying again. I have made no such admission.

[Franko]

You are lying again. I have made no such admission.

I notice your failed to answer: How do you define the term "random"?

I will accept that as your tacit admission that you knew you were lying (and wrong). Thank you.

www.infidels.org … the abyss awaits you …

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
I will accept that as your tacit admission that you knew you were lying (and wrong).You are lying again. I have made no such admission.

[Franko]

Is posting as a sock-puppet a demonstration of your honesty Unas? How about your sincerity in these conversations? You are living proof of how a person behaves when they believe there will be no consequences for their actions. You are quite mad, and obviously so ...

[SpaceLord]

Franko, every time I post something asking you a question about your beliefs, you accuse me of being an athiest(wrong) and ramble on about my belief that I have some sort of "mystical free willy." (wrong again) I am new to this stuff, but I am leaning toward believing that free will is an illusion, not real. And I am agnostic.

Why do you insist on attributing these belief to me? I just asked you a question about Quantum Mechanics, and Solid State Physics. I said nothing about free will, or god. But then you begin ad-hominem attacks against me, calling me an atheist, etc.

I repeat, one last time:

Solid State Physics(SSP) is a large part of Quantum Mechanics(QM). Digital computers work because of SSP. Therefore, without QM, we cannot explain why computers work, and they could not exist without knowledge of SSP. It follows that computers are not possible without accepting QM.

What part of this statement do you disagree with?

[Franko]

Spacelord:
Franko, every time I post something asking you a question about your beliefs, you accuse me of being an athiest(wrong) and ramble on about my belief that I have some sort of "mystical free willy." (wrong again) I am new to this stuff, but I am leaning toward believing that free will is an illusion, not real. And I am agnostic.

Well good Karma for you Spacelord. And just remember, I’m only dangerous when you’re crazy.

Why do you insist on attributing these belief to me?

I believe in Fatalism, if you disagree with me regarding Fatalism, then how is it “me” insisting on anything? I am stating the obvious – you disagree with what I believe.

I just asked you a question about Quantum Mechanics, and Solid State Physics. I said nothing about free will, or god. But then you begin ad-hominem attacks against me, calling me an atheist, etc.

I repeat, one last time:

Solid State Physics(SSP) is a large part of Quantum Mechanics(QM). Digital computers work because of SSP. Therefore, without QM, we cannot explain why computers work, and they could not exist without knowledge of SSP. It follows that computers are not possible without accepting QM.

What part of this statement do you disagree with?

I agree with the statement, the problem is that QM isn’t “random”. You not understanding how QG works, doesn’t mean that QG (or QM ultimately) works magically (randomly).

God may work in “mysterious ways” little Graviton, but I assure you … it’s not really “magic”. It only looks that way when you don’t understand the logic of it.

[Unas]

This post is a response to Franko's post #359975 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=359975#post359975). Should that post vanish, it will mean that Franko has deleted it. He will most likely repost it below, to make it appear as though no one had responded to it. His actions will be yet another demonstration of his fundamental intellectual dishonesty.
Originally posted by Franko
Is posting as a sock-puppet a demonstration of your honesty Unas?Provide empirically verifiable evidence that I am "posting as a sock-puppet", Franko. Your unsupported claim is worthless.

[SpaceLord]

I hate derailing the topic like this but...


franko said:

I'm only dangerous when you're crazy.

That's the point, franko. You lash out at me when I ask questions, accuse me of things I never mention, then act like you did nothing wrong when I set you straight. This is, I believe, the 3rd time you've done the same thing. It gets old, and gets in the way of any possible constructive debate when all you want to do is scream at someone for not agreeing with you.

So, whether I am "crazy" or not, you're "dangerous".

[Christian]

SpaceLord:

If I may interject here for a moment. If you can forget Frank's comment on your mental state for a second, I would like to hear your opinion on his response (his one):
Frank wrote:
I agree with the statement, the problem is that QM isn’t “random”. You not understanding how QG works, doesn’t mean that QG (or QM ultimately) works magically (randomly).

Frank continues to equate magic with randomness because one of the definitions of magic is as follows (according to Webster's New World Dictionary):
any misterious, seemingly inexplicable, or extraordinary power or quality

As I understand it, QM specifically state that events are truly random, they follow no known rules. They are inexplicable and extraordinary. There is no other theory that claims this. Can you comment, specifically why randomness would not fall into the definition of misterious, seemingly inexplicable, or extraordinary power or quality

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic





I think that God knew that humanity was going to probably eat from the Tree of Knowledge out of curiosity.

Man realized the differences between good and evil was set.

God realized we were most likely to betray his trust in the first place, all he really wanted to do was see it for himself.


Hi,

Now, I'm not trying to beat this into the ground. I just wonder why such a test would be executed in the first place. Because the results were *grave* and, in my opinion, a test that could not be passed by Adam and Eve. Their transgression brought about trouble for all humankind.

Let's face it - we make lots of mistakes and are easily deceived, especially before we have had the big cruel world smack us around a few times. Did Adam eat the fruit because he was curious or because he was encouraged by Eve? Did Eve eat because she was curious or because she was encouraged by the serpent? Had they ever been deceived before? I don't remember anything about being deceived prior to this.

I equate this to my son when he has said or done something at a family function that he wouldn't have if not encouraged by my little brother. My son knew, for instance, that I didn't want him taking a cookie out of the cookie dish until after dinner. Now, my little brother told him that it would be okay and so my son ate one. Following God's lead, I would have tossed him out into the big, cruel world with a set of clothing to fend for himself over this minor offense. Of course, I didn't do this because he had been given false information by my brother.

My point is that *if* the Eden story is true, and that is a HUGE "if", then how we not also view god as a deceiver? Or at least a flim flam artist on the midway of life, setting us up for a "fall". How is it that anyone can say that he loves us? Why create the eternal hell hole to toss aside those who question god's existence? His love?

These are just a few of the many problems I have with the Biblical account. I'm not saying that it is false, but if it is true, I surely don't understand god's motivation.

Just my thoughts.

Take care,
Sort:)

[SpaceLord]

Christian:

QM is definitely a strange beast. Yes, to us it appears that, on the quantum level, things are random. I'm not convinced, but the thing we're all using, computers, does seem to indicate that

A: something like "magic" is going on, or

B. we don't have all the information.

I think of QM as a working model, that seems to work well. But, man, does it ever mess with my head. :eek:

So, on one hand, we have experimental data suggesting things like Heiseberg' uncertainty principle. On the other hand, some of the implications seem totally illogical. So perhaps Descartes was right...there is an Evil Genius secretly modifying our results... :D Or, even worse, Logic is invalid, or does not describe our universe :eek: :eek:

[Franko]

QM is definitely a strange beast. Yes, to us it appears that, on the quantum level, things are random. I'm not convinced, but the thing we're all using, computers, does seem to indicate that

I suppose the FACT, that computers aren't "random", or "magical" doesn't alter your dogmatic and contradictory statements here one iota?

If QM is soooo incredibly random then how come no one has ever seen a genuine Alive-Dead Cat???

There's just no evidence for your magic 'free willy" god. I keep telling you ...


... Hey, BTW ... one other thing. I was speaking to the LG (TLOP), and she just wanted me to pass a warning along to you ...

She (TLOP) is very dangerous when YOU are crazy.

For example if you like to run red lights (you crazy), take a shower with gasoline (you crazy), jump off of tall buildings (you crazy), or believe you have magical powers and TLOP doesn't really exist (you crazy) .

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko


Randi will pay you a million dollars (U.S.) if you can demonstrate conclusively your magic powers. All you have to do is explain precisely what you mean by "free will" (what specific magic ability are you claiming). Randi will design a test, and if you can prove that your magic "random" free will is real ... you get the dough.

Fatalism = The belief that all things happen as part of a logical sequence (an unbroken chain of cause and event), based on a fixed set of logical rules.

Essentially Fatalism denies the existence of “free will”, and the notions that individual action is based on magical, supernatural, or “random” incomprehensible forces.


Franko, Franko, Franko.... you really have an interesting view of reality...

Look, my fatalistic friend, as you claim that determinism is true, you obviously believe that the future can be accurately predicted. If you can prove determinism true by, say, accurately predicting the outcome of twenty dice throws, you get the dough. Actually, I think that there have been a number of claimants who have purported to possess such abilities...

Two words: "woo" and "woo".

[Franko]

CWL
If you can prove determinism true by, say, accurately predicting the outcome of twenty dice throws, you get the dough.

said this before counter: 27

Determinism <> Omniscience

I don't have to prove Omniscience for Determinism to be True.

Other than claiming the universe is fundamentally magical but you can't prove it, do you have any real observable evidence that the present in NOT based on the past, or that things happen magically and without reason?

How often do you run red lights for no reason CWL?

Why don't you do this? If the universe (and your behavior) is half as "random" and magical as you claim, shouldn't this sort of thing happen all the time? People doing things NOT based on what they know and believe?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
said this before counter: 27

Determinism <> Omniscience

I don't have to prove Omniscience for Determinism to be True.
You don't have to prove anything in order for anything to be true. You do however have to prove your particular version of determinism if you want people to believe in it.

Other than claiming the universe is fundamentally magical but you can't prove it, do you have any real observable evidence that the present in NOT based on the past, or that things happen magically and without reason?

How often do you run red lights for no reason CWL?

Why don't you do this? If the universe (and your behavior) is half as "random" and magical as you claim, shouldn't this sort of thing happen all the time? People doing things NOT based on what they know and believe?
All I am saying is: prove your particular version of determinism true and you are sure to win Randi's million. I am certain he would be prepared to design a test for you - heck, he probably even has one lying around from a previous claim which he can use again.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
I don't have to prove Omniscience for Determinism to be True. What do you have to prove, for "Determinism" to be true, Franko?

Put another way: What repeatable experiment could be conducted that would falsify the hypothesis that the universe is fundamentally deterministic?

[Unas]

Franko caught in another lie:
Originally posted by Franko
Other than claiming the universe is fundamentally magical but you can't prove it...Cite the post in which CWL claimed that "the universe is fundamentally magical".

You can't, for the simple reason that your claim is just another of your lies.

[Christian]

SpaceLord wrote:
Christian:

QM is definitely a strange beast. Yes, to us it appears that, on the quantum level, things are random. I'm not convinced, but the thing we're all using, computers, does seem to indicate that

A: something like "magic" is going on, or

B. we don't have all the information.


Ok, let me see if I'm getting this correctly.

A. MQ shows evidence of the supernatural, magic.

B. We don't yet have a unified theory of everything.


If B is correct then, the universe is deterministic. If A is correct then, the supernatural exists.

Now, if B is correct, there is no free will.

So, on one hand, we have experimental data suggesting things like Heiseberg' uncertainty principle. On the other hand, some of the implications seem totally illogical. So perhaps Descartes was right...there is an Evil Genius secretly modifying our results... Or, even worse, Logic is invalid, or does not describe our universe

Please note the implications of what you are saying. One of them is evidence of God.

CWL wrote:
Look, my fatalistic friend, as you claim that determinism is true, you obviously believe that the future can be accurately predicted. If you can prove determinism true by, say, accurately predicting the outcome of twenty dice throws, you get the dough. Actually, I think that there have been a number of claimants who have purported to possess such abilities...

In theory, if Franko knew all the variables, he could predict absolutely the outcome.

And this is what happens in real life, the more information we have the better we are at predicting outcomes.

I was taught in my science classes that the usefulness of postulates and theories was precisely its predictive powers.

We value those sciences where we have accounted for the most variables thus giving us the power to predict outcomes.

You don't have to prove anything in order for anything to be true. You do however have to prove your particular version of determinism if you want people to believe in it.

How many versions are there? My particular view is cause and effect. I can predict with 100% certainty that if I throw a rock forward 20 times, the rock will go in the direction I throw it.

All I am saying is: prove your particular version of determinism true and you are sure to win Randi's million. I am certain he would be prepared to design a test for you - heck, he probably even has one lying around from a previous claim which he can use again.

My understanding is that Randi would not give me the 1 million if he knew I understand all the variables of cause and effect.

If I had a machine that could detect the exact amount of force exerted on the dice, the wind factor, the weight of the dice and so forth. I could predict with 100% accuracy how the dice would role. Simple proof of this, is that, if I manipulate the dice (insert weight as to make them land a certain way) I can cause them to land a certain way. All I have done is know the variable beforehand.

Unas wrote:
Put another way: What repeatable experiment could be conducted that would falsify the hypothesis that the universe is fundamentally deterministic?

For the exception of QM, all sciences point to this conclusion. For example, how else would forensic scientist determine the cause of death of any human? How else would phamaceudical scientist develop drugs to cure deseases?

[SpaceLord]

Since this has drifted so far off topic, I am starting a new thread about QM and religion.

I'm not posting in this thread about QM again.

Thanks!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Christian

As I understand it, QM specifically state that events are truly random, they follow no known rules. They are inexplicable and extraordinary.
Small point of clarification. It's not that quantum events follow no known rules. Quantum physicists can describe the behavior of quantum events rather well, it's just that some parameters are impossible to predict simultaneously. Especially since measuring one parameter changes another. The "randomness" reflects an inability to peg down all parameters at the same time, which is required for determinism.
There is no other theory that claims this. Actually, thermodynamics and, to a lesser extent, electrodynamics, do assume a level of statistical randomness. Consider, Thermodynamics of a gas is the study of the amount of keneitc energy. There is no way to calculate the movement of each particle with in a space, so we use statistical mathematics to determine the behavior of the overall system. Likewise, we can't track the individual movements of each electron to determine the behavior of the system so we use statistics describe the overall system.

Can you comment, specifically why randomness would not fall into the definition of misterious, seemingly inexplicable, or extraordinary power or quality Well, I only find it mysterious when you try to force the idea to fit in with our everyday macroscopic view. Once you except that conditions are different at the atomic and sub-atomic levels, it becomes easier. These laws are dictated by what is observed, not the other way around. If the laws are "magical", then one must conclude that nature is magical. I don't consider nature to be magical, so I don't find the laws to be magical. The universe is what it is. If it doesn't make sense, whose fault is that?

[Franko]

Ahhh, for a moment you showed a glimmer of hope ... but alas ... as you wish. I am more than willing to continue relieving you of that burdensome Energy ...

CWL: (A-Theist)
All I am saying is: prove your particular version of determinism true and you are sure to win Randi's million. I am certain he would be prepared to design a test for you - heck, he probably even has one lying around from a previous claim which he can use again.

What don’t you understand about the word LOGICAL CWL(oser)?? … As in Logical Deism? The LD Love James Randi! He’s offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove that Logical Deism is False. You see, the LD (like Randi) don’t believe in “magic”, or “the supernatural”, we are "Skeptical" (un-like the A-Theist, and Pseudo-Materialists). We are Fatalist. We believe that ALL things happen for LOGICAL (comprehensible) reasons, and that Ultimately Nothing is unexplainable or beyond knowing.

Randi will pay you a million dollars (U.S.) if you can demonstrate conclusively your magic powers. All you have to do is explain precisely what you mean by "free will" (what specific magic ability are you claiming). Randi will design a test, and if you can prove that your magic "random" free will is real ... you get the dough.

Fatalism = The belief that all things happen as part of a logical sequence (an unbroken chain of cause and event), based on a fixed set of logical rules.

Essentially Fatalism denies the existence of “free will”, and the notions that individual action is based on magical, supernatural, or “random” incomprehensible forces.

If you ever here anyone call themselves a Logical Deist … You can be sure of at least one thing … They are a Fatalist, and they don’t believe in the pseudo-magical powers of undefinable “free will”.

The entire concept (“free will”) is logically flawed. It is incoherent (not comprehensible), and fundamentally inconsistent by axiomatic observation that the notion defies the existence of Logic (and Skepticism) as it’s major premise.

[Franko]

Christian:
Ok, let me see if I'm getting this correctly.

A. MQ shows evidence of the supernatural, magic.

B. We don't yet have a unified theory of everything.


If B is correct then, the universe is deterministic. If A is correct then, the supernatural exists.

Now, if B is correct, there is no free will.

What are you doing Christian!! For the Love of God!!!

You aren’t suppose to be understanding this while the A-Theist “super-minds” are Not understanding it (or pretending not to)! Think of what this will do to their carefully constructed little fantasy world, where Theist and Deist such as ourselves are the “morons”?

Christian:
Please note the implications of what you are saying. One of them is evidence of God.

That may be very True Christian, but as ANY A-Theist will tell you, All the burden of proof rest on YOU. The default assumption is that you are only allowed to believe in magic if you are attempting to prove that YOU are “God”, and Not someone else. If you are attempting to prove that someone else is God, and you use Logic to do it, then logic is no longer valid, because everyone knows that the universe is inherently magical, and ergo did not require a “God”, because it simply appeared supernaturally all on its own.

Only an idiot who believes in a “God” would believe there was a Logical explaination for it all (ultimately).

Christian:
In theory, if Franko knew all the variables, he could predict absolutely the outcome.

And this is what happens in real life, the more information we have the better we are at predicting outcomes.

I was taught in my science classes that the usefulness of postulates and theories was precisely its predictive powers.

We value those sciences where we have accounted for the most variables thus giving us the power to predict outcomes.

Very perceptive, my Brother.

Yet note that how when it comes to the core tenet of A-Theism the fundamental belief required, the A-Theist turn science and Logic on their head, and assume the EXACT opposite stance of what you posted, so nicely above.

Their entire notion of “free will” rest on non-predictablity, and the present not being based on the past. It is the zenith of anti-science, and anti-logic. Why do you think that our “God” suffers not a witch to live?

Christian:
For the exception of QM, all sciences point to this conclusion. For example, how else would forensic scientist determine the cause of death of any human? How else would phamaceudical scientist develop drugs to cure deseases?

Here is the A-Theist Big Science Lie … THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE INTERPRETATION OF QM, AND NOT ALL OF THEM RELY ON MAGICAL RANDOM SOLUTIONS.

Unas, (like the Elephant) loves that MWI nonsense far more than he loves the Truth.

[Franko]

Upchurch: (Another A-Theist)
Small point of clarification. It's not that quantum events follow no known rules. Quantum physicists can describe the behavior of quantum events rather well, it's just that some parameters are impossible to predict simultaneously. Especially since measuring one parameter changes another. The "randomness" reflects an inability to peg down all parameters at the same time, which is required for determinism.

WRONG!

(counter: 28)

inability to peg down all parameters at the same time, which is required for OMNISCIENCE (ALL-KNOWING) -- But NOT for DETERMINISM!!!

The only thing that is required for Determinism is that the SYSTEM is following (Obeying) Logical rules. You "Knowing" what the rules are is irrelevant to whether or not things are happening logically and objectively.

You are trying to pretend that the only way Determinism could be true is if you had the power of Omniscience -- the ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy. That's nonsense.

And you Idiots, talk about "straw-men"? Ohh, the "pride" of A-Theism ...

[Christian]

Upchurch:

Hi nice to see you again. Why don't we take the party to SpaceLord's thread. Franko, you are invited...

I will quote from your responses there. Can I get a confirmation?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Christian
Upchurch:

Hi nice to see you again. Why don't we take the party to SpaceLord's thread. Franko, you are invited...

I will quote from your responses there. Can I get a confirmation?
You are more than welcome to reprint any of my posts.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
What don’t you understand about the word LOGICAL CWL(oser)?? … As in Logical Deism? The LD Love James Randi! He’s offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove that Logical Deism is False. You see, the LD (like Randi) don’t believe in “magic”, or “the supernatural”, we are "Skeptical" (un-like the A-Theist, and Pseudo-Materialists). We are Fatalist. We believe that ALL things happen for LOGICAL (comprehensible) reasons, and that Ultimately Nothing is unexplainable or beyond knowing.
I hate to brake it to you pal, but Randi is an atheist (http://www.randi.org/jr/062102.html) (of the "second kind" - just like myself). Further, he is not very fond of your views on morality.

Originally posted by the Amazing One
I must report that I found this particular "crop" of students to be the most exciting and promising group I've encountered so far in the many years I've been the opening speaker for the AGS. At the same time, I must also tell you that I had an experience there that I very much wish had not taken place. One student, questioning me on my religious beliefs and finding that I'm an atheist-of-the-second-kind (one who does not/cannot deny the existence of a deity, but holds that there is not good evidence for any deity) threw me the question that I consider to be the last-ditch refuge of the religious believer under pressure. Said he, "Tell me, if there were no God, why would anyone act in a moral manner?"

That question — and its clear implication — enrages me in general, and did so more coming from someone who had been accepted into that community for his ability to think and learn. I responded loudly and at length, telling the young man that I was grossly insulted by the implication that I, as an atheist, would not act in a moral fashion because I did not fear divine retribution — Hell and damnation. I act morally and "properly" (by my definitions, of course) because it is just hard-wired into me to do so, and because when I test and question my decisions made on that basis, I conclude that "doing the right thing" is productive, useful, and preferable. And I thought that way long before Spike Lee verbalized the principle.....

In short, Randi is no "Logical Deist" and you know it. I am not surprised however, remembering your claims about Einstein (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11387).

Why do you have this compulsive need to distort reality? It doesn't do any wonders for your credibility, you know...

[Franko]

CWL: (Dishonest A-Theist)
So one would think. Fortunately for the good Sage of Baltimore, he has taken care of that problem by declaring James Randi a Logical Deist. One learns something new every day...

I never said James Randi was a Logical Deist CWL! I simply stated that the Logical Deist loved James Randi, we fully support the goals, ideals, and purposes of JREF. I have no idea what James Randi believes about “God’ in his heart, and I suspect that You don’t either. I can only comment on the Man’s actions … they speak far louder than any words.

What don’t you understand about the word LOGICAL CWL(oser)?? … As in Logical Deism? The LD Love James Randi! He’s offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove that Logical Deism is False. You see, the LD (like Randi) don’t believe in “magic”, or “the supernatural”, we are "Skeptical" (un-like the A-Theist, and Pseudo-Materialists). We are Fatalist. We believe that ALL things happen for LOGICAL (comprehensible) reasons, and that Ultimately Nothing is unexplainable or beyond knowing.

Randi will pay you a million dollars (U.S.) if you can demonstrate conclusively your magic powers. All you have to do is explain precisely what you mean by "free will" (what specific magic ability are you claiming). Randi will design a test, and if you can prove that your magic "random" free will is real ... you get the dough.

Fatalism = The belief that all things happen as part of a logical sequence (an unbroken chain of cause and event), based on a fixed set of logical rules.

Essentially Fatalism denies the existence of “free will”, and the notions that individual action is based on magical, supernatural, or “random” incomprehensible forces.

If you ever here anyone call themselves a Logical Deist … You can be sure of at least one thing … They are a Fatalist, and they don’t believe in the pseudo-magical powers of undefinable “free will”.

The entire concept (“free will”) is logically flawed. It is incoherent (not comprehensible), and fundamentally inconsistent by axiomatic observation that the notion defies the existence of Logic (and Skepticism) as it’s major premise.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
I never said James Randi was a Logical Deist CWL! I simply stated that the Logical Deist loved James Randi, we fully support the goals, ideals, and purposes of JREF. I have no idea what James Randi believes about “God’ in his heart, and I suspect that You don’t either. I can only comment on the Man’s actions … they speak far louder than any words.
In an effert to avoid further flagrant cross posting I refer to my answer here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=361725#post361725).

[Unas]

Originally posted by SpaceLord
That's the point, franko. You lash out at me when I ask questions, accuse me of things I never mention, then act like you did nothing wrong when I set you straight. This is, I believe, the 3rd time you've done the same thing. It gets old, and gets in the way of any possible constructive debate when all you want to do is scream at someone for not agreeing with you.Franko is not interested in "constructive debate". He is here for one reason only: to denigrate others for things they didn't actually say.

Screaming at other people about how stupid they supposedly are lets Franko pretend -- if only for an instant -- that he is somebody.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Christian
I was taught in my science classes that the usefulness of postulates and theories was precisely its predictive powers.Good point. Franko's belief in the "Logical Goddess" doesn't allow him to predict anything at all.

It does, however, allow the rest of us to predict that he'll continue to scream out his lies about other people, because they don't fall down and worship his "Goddess" and the mystical Revealed Truth that Franko Alone has been blessed with.

Does it occur to anyone that a Supreme Being who has managed to attract only one believer is seriously challenged in the PR department?

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
Unas/Tricky:

What exactly is making the “choices”? Aren’t “YOU” (people) just your physical brain?We don't know yet. There's a great deal about the relationship between the mind and the brain that remains to be discovered. Unlike Franko, scientists try hard not to allow religious dogma to color their reasoning on such matters.
Originally posted by Franko
What evidence or logical reason do you have for believing that these “choices” are real? Isn’t it a fact, that your “choices” are simple an illusion like the colors red, green, and blue, when the [b]real reality is oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light? Isn’t your “free will” similarly an illusion while the real reality is that you are a puppet completely under the control of Almighty TLOP (The Laws of Physics)???

Please explain your reasoning for believing this?Franko is again attributing to others a set of beliefs that they have not expressed. He's not interested in debate. He is interested only in making sure everyone knows how much he hates us for not accepting His Word as Gospel Truth. He is, in short, just another religious fanatic without the guts to conduct an honest discussion.
Originally posted by Franko
[b]The fact that you have been going sooo far out of your way dodging this question for months and months makes me think that you believe this based solely on wishful thinking and pessimism, or because you simply don’t have enough integrity or intellectual honesty to concede the point.Franko, a proven liar, is lecturing someone else on "integrity" and "intellectual honesty". That's one of the best laughs I've had all day...

[Franko's Goddess]

Does it occur to anyone that a Supreme Being who has managed to attract only one believer is seriously challenged in the PR department?
That's solipsism for you.

[Franko]

Unas/Tricky/SunDog/Plus all other A-Theist Sock-puppets:

I realize that you are DESPERATELY trying to avoid perceiving the glaring contradictions in your Dogmatic Religious Beliefs. I just don’t think that a Skeptics forum for people trying to discuss RELIGION and PHILOSOPHY is the appropriate place for you to be doing it. If you are unwilling or unable to explain your beliefs, and your only purpose for posting on this forum is to harass any Skeptic who believes in a Deity, then you really have no business being here. The is the RELIGION and PHILOSOPHY forum of a SKEPTICS website; not Infidels.org. Take you hate-mongering and condescensions directed towards Theists and deists elsewhere.

What exactly is making the “choices”? Aren’t “YOU” (people) just your physical brain? … and isn’t your physical brain simply made of atoms (chemicals) obeying the same laws that ALL chemicals obey? How are the chemicals in your brain making “decisions” or “choices” beyond those made by any other chemicals? Are you claiming that the carbon atoms in your physical body obey a different set of rules from those obeyed by other carbon atoms?

What evidence or logical reason do you have for believing that these “choices” are real? Isn’t it a fact, that your “choices” are simple an illusion like the colors red, green, and blue, when the real reality is oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light? Isn’t your “free will” similarly an illusion while the real reality is that you are a puppet completely under the control of Almighty TLOP (The Laws of Physics)???

Please explain your reasoning for believing this? The fact that you have been going sooo far out of your way dodging this question for months and months makes me think that you believe this based solely on wishful thinking and pessimism, or because you simply don’t have enough integrity or intellectual honesty to concede the point.

I see no logical reason why you hold these beliefs.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
I realize that you are...This is a repeat of a post from another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=366523#post366523). Franko has very little original to say today, apparently. His whinings have already been answered (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=366504#post366504).