An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2012, 07:43 AM
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
(07-09-2012 10:59 PM)TBH717 Wrote:  Why would God punish us for creating us a specific way? If he is ultimately responsible for everything by creating everything and knowing events would transpire a specific way, this means God is ultimately responsible for everything. Good, evil, original sin, charity, YET he punishes or rewards us for the gift or burden he has placed on us from the start.

Welcome to the forums... and everything you said pretty much is shortened down to my one sentence sig... below...

Drinking Beverage

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 11:52 AM
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
Quote:no it dont.

We are of nature, period!

but if you want to freakout- i am a natural, yet go look at the goof hanging on a cross, in just about every christian church.

no one knows what 'jesus' looked like, but damn that is weird.
*No it doesn't
*But
*Christian
*Jesus

Yes it does, read his posts more carefully.

Quote:man made the laws...... not god(s)

man created the 'word'

what 'god' are you talking about?
*Man
*Gods
*Man
*Word
*what
*God
He's talking about the Christian God. Hence the title, the Biblical God.

Quote:
man wrote the old beliefs/book and is experiencing 'space and the universe', finally!

the error is people have come to accept santa claus. And now actually think they know what HE is thinking.

Scary fuckin shit!
*Man
*The
*Santa Claus


So what are you now exactly? A pagan? I thought you were a Christian just the other week.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Question's post
08-09-2012, 01:19 PM
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
(08-09-2012 06:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  



See the other videos available by Eagleman about the subconscious elements which contribute to consciousness.
For example : http://beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/842-pigdog















"Neuoscience and Free Will" and "Free Will & Neurology: brain activity to conscious decision" are the videos I was talking about in the post you responded to. Now, before I spend about three hours on watching the remaining videos, which definition of 'free will' is supposed to be debunked? Thanks in advance. Smile

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 01:45 PM
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
(08-09-2012 01:19 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Now, before I spend about three hours on watching the remaining videos, which definition of 'free will' is supposed to be debunked? Thanks in advance. Smile

There are many theories of "free will". Actually I don't even think "will" is an acceptable construct. It clearly is not "one thing" Our emergent behaviors are the product of many "waring" neuro-chemical reactions, many of which we are not conscious of.

So which ones, did you have in mind, that you want debunked ? The Eagleman stuff is more interesting, than the two you mentioned you had seen.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 01:55 PM
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
(08-09-2012 01:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So which ones, did you have in mind, that you want debunked ? The Eagleman stuff is more interesting, than the two you mentioned you had seen.
That's a tough question. I'm not entirely sure which definition I'm thinking of when I'm using the term "free will", but I think this one describes my view sufficiently.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
(08-09-2012 01:55 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(08-09-2012 01:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So which ones, did you have in mind, that you want debunked ? The Eagleman stuff is more interesting, than the two you mentioned you had seen.
That's a tough question. I'm not entirely sure which definition I'm thinking of when I'm using the term "free will", but I think this one describes my view sufficiently.

Assuming you meant Aquinas, I guess there is no refutation of that. No one would waste their time.
His arguments for free will are pretty obviously nutty. He knew nothing about Psychology, and Neuro-science.
All of them assume, that the process and elements of the choice are known to , and present in consciousness, before the action is either done, or the decision to do it is made. That's simply not true. Eagleman, (maybe in some of his other lectures), discusses this extensively.

Aquinas :
--- First, man has "free-will".
**Nope. Typical Aquinas, assert something with no proof or evidence. Assumes that the universe which is perceived by our brains is intuitive, and that the perception is accurate.

--- Second, free-will is a power.
**It "appears" to him to have "potential" power. The events which culminate in a behavior are complex, and he had no clue about neuro-chemistry.

--- "Third, free-will is an "appetitive power", i.e. not a cognitive power (the term "appetite" from Aquinas's definiton "includes all forms of internal inclination.")
**What ? If free will is not a cognitive power, then it's not uniquely human. He
basically he had no knowledge of Psychology. His paradigms are simply WAY outdated. (Details upon request). part of this argument, (the long version), could be used to say back to him, "so god is the source of evil ?" (See below).

--- Fourth, free-will is not a power distinct from will. Aquinas states that "the principal function of free-will is to choose", and that judgment "concludes and terminates counsel. Now counsel is terminated, first, by the judgment of reason [i.e. the will]; secondly, by the acceptation of the appetite [i.e. the free-will]."
**Nope his separation of human mentation into those categories is false, and not helpful. Will vs "free" will ? ??? "Appetite is an archaic concept, he used, as he did not understand what human motivation and behavior origins were all about, and he tried to explain then, in a non-scientific way.

Aquinas : "Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 02:59 PM
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
(08-09-2012 02:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Assuming you meant Aquinas, I guess there is no refutation of that. No one would waste their time.
His arguments for free will are pretty obviously nutty. He knew nothing about Psychology, and Neuro-science.
All of them assume, that the process and elements of the choice are known to , and present in consciousness, before the action is either done, or the decision to do it is made. That's simply not true. Eagleman, (maybe in some of his other lectures), discusses this extensively.

Aquinas :
--- First, man has "free-will".
**Nope. Typical Aquinas, assert something with no proof or evidence. Assumes that the universe which is perceived by our brains is intuitive, and that the perception is accurate.

--- Second, free-will is a power.
**It "appears" to him to have "potential" power. The events which culminate in a behavior are complex, and he had no clue about neuro-chemistry.

--- "Third, free-will is an "appetitive power", i.e. not a cognitive power (the term "appetite" from Aquinas's definiton "includes all forms of internal inclination.")
**What ? If free will is not a cognitive power, then it's not uniquely human. He
basically he had no knowledge of Psychology. His paradigms are simply WAY outdated. (Details upon request). part of this argument, (the long version), could be used to say back to him, "so god is the source of evil ?" (See below).

--- Fourth, free-will is not a power distinct from will. Aquinas states that "the principal function of free-will is to choose", and that judgment "concludes and terminates counsel. Now counsel is terminated, first, by the judgment of reason [i.e. the will]; secondly, by the acceptation of the appetite [i.e. the free-will]."
**Nope his separation of human mentation into those categories is false, and not helpful. Will vs "free" will ? ??? "Appetite is an archaic concept, he used, as he did not understand what human motivation and behavior origins were all about, and he tried to explain then, in a non-scientific way.

Aquinas : "Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature."
Huh? Why would I mean Aquinas? As far as I can see, I linked you to the definition of Daniel Dennett ("Free will as unpredictability").

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 03:09 PM
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
(08-09-2012 02:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(08-09-2012 02:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Assuming you meant Aquinas, I guess there is no refutation of that. No one would waste their time.
His arguments for free will are pretty obviously nutty. He knew nothing about Psychology, and Neuro-science.
All of them assume, that the process and elements of the choice are known to , and present in consciousness, before the action is either done, or the decision to do it is made. That's simply not true. Eagleman, (maybe in some of his other lectures), discusses this extensively.

Aquinas :
--- First, man has "free-will".
**Nope. Typical Aquinas, assert something with no proof or evidence. Assumes that the universe which is perceived by our brains is intuitive, and that the perception is accurate.

--- Second, free-will is a power.
**It "appears" to him to have "potential" power. The events which culminate in a behavior are complex, and he had no clue about neuro-chemistry.

--- "Third, free-will is an "appetitive power", i.e. not a cognitive power (the term "appetite" from Aquinas's definiton "includes all forms of internal inclination.")
**What ? If free will is not a cognitive power, then it's not uniquely human. He
basically he had no knowledge of Psychology. His paradigms are simply WAY outdated. (Details upon request). part of this argument, (the long version), could be used to say back to him, "so god is the source of evil ?" (See below).

--- Fourth, free-will is not a power distinct from will. Aquinas states that "the principal function of free-will is to choose", and that judgment "concludes and terminates counsel. Now counsel is terminated, first, by the judgment of reason [i.e. the will]; secondly, by the acceptation of the appetite [i.e. the free-will]."
**Nope his separation of human mentation into those categories is false, and not helpful. Will vs "free" will ? ??? "Appetite is an archaic concept, he used, as he did not understand what human motivation and behavior origins were all about, and he tried to explain then, in a non-scientific way.

Aquinas : "Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature."
Huh? Why would I mean Aquinas? As far as I can see, I linked you to the definition of Daniel Dennett ("Free will as unpredictability").

They both come up in my link. Dennett also did not know about Neuro-biology. Neuro-chemistry, or if he did he didn't address it to the extent that it has today.
Free will is basically a "religious" belief.
http://phys.org/news186830615.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2012 03:36 PM by Vosur.)
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
(08-09-2012 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They both come up in my link. Dennett also did not know about Neuro-biology. Neuro-chemistry, or if he did he didn't address it to the extent that it has today.
Are you sure that you know which Daniel Dennett I was talking about? The one I meant most certainly knows about neuro-biology and neuro-chemistry.

(08-09-2012 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Free will is basically a "religious" belief.
http://phys.org/news186830615.html
In what way does the article adress Dennett's concept of free will? From what I've understood, the author of the source you cited argues that free will cannot exists because we are, after all, nothing but biochemical machines [correct] and that our brain has to obey the laws of physics [correct]. However, whether or not choices are made consciously or unconsciously is, in the end, irrelevant, because both mechanism are controlled by our brains, that are, in a broad sense, 'us'. 'I' am my brain.

I'd also like to point out that I've been unable to find any experiment conducted on whether or not creative activities and complex choices are controlled subconsciously. The ones in the videos I've seen so far are always very simple choices, such as "left or right", "yes or no", "stop or play".

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2012, 04:19 PM
RE: An Attempt at Debunking the Biblical God
(08-09-2012 03:31 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(08-09-2012 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They both come up in my link. Dennett also did not know about Neuro-biology. Neuro-chemistry, or if he did he didn't address it to the extent that it has today.
Are you sure that you know which Daniel Dennett I was talking about? The one I meant most certainly knows about neuro-biology and neuro-chemistry.

(08-09-2012 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Free will is basically a "religious" belief.
http://phys.org/news186830615.html
In what way does the article adress Dennett's concept of free will? From what I've understood, the author of the source you cited argues that free will cannot exists because we are, after all, nothing but biochemical machines [correct] and that our brain has to obey the laws of physics [correct]. However, whether or not choices are made consciously or unconsciously is, in the end, irrelevant, because both mechanism are controlled by our brains, that are, in a broad sense, 'us'. 'I' am my brain.

I'd also like to point out that I've been unable to find any experiment conducted on whether or not creative activities and complex choices are controlled subconsciously. The ones in the videos I've seen so far are always very simple choices, such as "left or right", "yes or no", "stop or play".

Watch the Eagleman stuff. You are not "free" if what is in control is not in your consciousness. You are SUBJECT to processes which, (being in your brain..is irrelevant), you are not conscious of. How is THAT "free" ? You may be subject to yourself, (and so what are we arguing about anyway ?), but the concept is not about 'subject to yourself, or something "else". It's about CONSCIOUSLY evaluating possibilities of behavior. If THAT is not conscious, how is that a "free" choice. It's not about "free from something or someone else", it's about "free TO" make any possible choice. (It comes from religion, ...a choice to obey or not obey).
You are neither free from you subconscious, or free to make any possible choice.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: