4 ms·

> why? can you justify this statement? Yes. Based on your next sentence, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. You state that the scientific method

by Xurinos 16y ago

> why? can you justify this statement? Yes. Based on your next sentence, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. You state that the scientific method is about making conclusions on observable data and then discarding them when new data arrives. This is incomplete. Good scientific experiments depend on variables under your control. In layman's terms, you must be in control of everything, know what is going on, and test the specific thing, the one variable you are not controlling. And there are varying degrees of variables involved in the scientific method, along with their complexities. Now, just in case we already agree and that your statement assumed all that, then I would find fault with the theory that you have sufficient "observable data". That is the entire problem. We already know what you are missing. You need the entire set of experiences that someone has stored in their brain. You need to know the state of the body as well, so that you can identify additional influences (such as a headache, making for hastier decisions based on more recent experiences). You need instruments that can provide you this data, and then you can run your statistics and learn something. And, of course, you need to have an understanding of the influences of the various experiences and body issues; so you have many studies to run before you get to tackle the issue of free will. Fortunately, we have a LOT of these studies already (and a lot more to do). See psychology, etc. > could you elaborate on an appropriate instrument to appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively? I am in full agreement with your criteria. Maybe one day we will have the technology to do this. Right now, I cannot imagine what the instrument is. I would propose that another god could observe God, or the context of the universe around God could be used in some fashion or produce an instrument to observe God. Maybe in God's metauniverse, there are entities analogous to our rocks, plants, and so forth that could be used to observe His passing. Taking another approach, this might be akin to gut bacteria trying to prove the existence of Earth. If existence as we know it is an extension of God, how can we identify God? (Trying to avoid the obvious circular argument.) Anyway, this is all freshman philosophy stuff. Good fodder for coffee talk. Suffice it to say that when we are talking science, we are indeed talking about using tools that "appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively". Just because we do not have those tools does not invalidate truths about our universe. We did not have a yardstick until the 10th century. We have come a long way since then, and we have a long way to go.

noodle 16y ago
> ... then I would find fault with the theory that you have sufficient "observable data". That is the entire problem. i agree, and i think then it comes down to each of our own personal opinions, unless you have some hard facts to provide (i surely don't, as you say, this is basically coffee talk for me, here). sub-question: what do you feel like is the alternative to free will? predestination? do you feel that by disproving free will, it will lead to greater empirical evidence of god or gods (a la "god's plan")? or that proving free will somehow reduces the odds of the existence of god or gods?
- Xurinos 16y ago
  > what do you feel like is the alternative to free will? predestination? I would propose that the alternative is manipulation, and the most extreme form of manipulation is predestination. Less extreme forms are environmental manipulation, our bacterial collective, and so forth. Was it predestined by God or by some initial atomic movement or potential energy? We do not have evidence either way, but it is fair to point out the possibilities. I have my personal belief, which is compatible with both and leaves space for the truth. I see the topic of free will orthogonal to the topic of gods. We have to be careful here; there are religious beliefs that we humans were granted free will by God. Within that context, if we learn conclusively that free will does not exist, then there was no gift, and it is a blow towards God, although not necessarily disproving God. After all, if we are capable of deceit, isn't it possible that God is also capable of deceit? So what we think we understand from Him might only be what He wants us to see. We also may not be capable of understanding His reasons. In the same vein, HE may simply be a purely creative force with no reasoning other than to make a bunch of stuff and let what sticks stick. So I think we can erode belief systems -- and our minds are generally frail enough to sway -- but it will be pretty difficult to disprove a god. On the other hand, opportunity may arise where a god can be proven. Perhaps He did reveal himself (several times), and time gave us an easy excuse to forget and deny, to beg for fresh evidence. Today, what could God possibly do that we cannot do that would conclusively prove His existence? And why should He bother?
  - noodle 16y ago

by Xurinos 16y ago

noodle 16y ago

> ... then I would find fault with the theory that you have sufficient "observable data". That is the entire problem. i agree, and i think then it comes down to each of our own personal opinions, unless you have some hard facts to provide (i surely don't, as you say, this is basically coffee talk for me, here). sub-question: what do you feel like is the alternative to free will? predestination? do you feel that by disproving free will, it will lead to greater empirical evidence of god or gods (a la "god's plan")? or that proving free will somehow reduces the odds of the existence of god or gods?

Xurinos 16y ago
> what do you feel like is the alternative to free will? predestination? I would propose that the alternative is manipulation, and the most extreme form of manipulation is predestination. Less extreme forms are environmental manipulation, our bacterial collective, and so forth. Was it predestined by God or by some initial atomic movement or potential energy? We do not have evidence either way, but it is fair to point out the possibilities. I have my personal belief, which is compatible with both and leaves space for the truth. I see the topic of free will orthogonal to the topic of gods. We have to be careful here; there are religious beliefs that we humans were granted free will by God. Within that context, if we learn conclusively that free will does not exist, then there was no gift, and it is a blow towards God, although not necessarily disproving God. After all, if we are capable of deceit, isn't it possible that God is also capable of deceit? So what we think we understand from Him might only be what He wants us to see. We also may not be capable of understanding His reasons. In the same vein, HE may simply be a purely creative force with no reasoning other than to make a bunch of stuff and let what sticks stick. So I think we can erode belief systems -- and our minds are generally frail enough to sway -- but it will be pretty difficult to disprove a god. On the other hand, opportunity may arise where a god can be proven. Perhaps He did reveal himself (several times), and time gave us an easy excuse to forget and deny, to beg for fresh evidence. Today, what could God possibly do that we cannot do that would conclusively prove His existence? And why should He bother?
- noodle 16y ago