Semalsia Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 [quote name='Didacus']Have you heard of the first and second law of thermodynamics?[/quote] What do the laws of thermoynamics have to do with determining the initial conditions of a system? [quote]How little value you must give to those closest to you if you see them as just animals without soul for pain or relief. What are they to you, entertainment value? A 'real live' television?[/quote] They are my friends. [quote]Animal kill in order to survive. to eat or not be eaten. They do not murder, kill for pleasure or just up and save a goat's life because they feel it is the right thing to do.[/quote] They murder. You should look into some animal social structures. They are not so different from us, and we are not so different from them. [quote]Please show me how my ideas are perversed?[/quote] I got the feeling that you think evolution has a will or a goal. You can't will against evolution, since there is nothing to go against with. Evolution is pointless. Humans are fit because they have a good probability of adaptation and survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 [quote name='Semalsia' date='May 13 2005, 12:28 PM']They murder. You should look into some animal social structures. They are not so different from us, and we are not so different from them. I got the feeling that you think evolution has a will or a goal. You can't will against evolution, since there is nothing to go against with. Evolution is pointless. Humans are fit because they have a good probability of adaptation and survival.[/quote] Are you familliar with the laws of thermodynamics? It suffices to claim that at time T(0) of the system, the system contains a scientifically defineable matter and energy and that this mater and energy will co-exist and react within the laws of science. The principal laws of science being those of thermodynamics - they precede the laws of quantum physics. If you argue that "Initial Conditions cannot be known", it is the equivalence of claiming "God's all knowing". It is the equivalent of syaing the universe is 'undefineable', like someone claiming that God is undefineable. I hope that you can see my point. Besides, the laws of thermodynamics do not need to be applied at the initial conditions of the bigBang. They can be applied at any choosen time within the existance of the universe. one simply needs to define the initial state of the system at at time after the bigbang, and before life on earth and this would be sufficient for argument's sake of the model. if you are unfamiliar with the laws of thermo, then it will be very difficult to continue this line of reasoning. Apes can commit murder? I think we differ in our definition of murder. Do the monkeys that commit murder believe that what they are doing to be wrong? In my opinion, this is weak. You are uncertain there exists freewill or self-awareness in humans and go looking for it in apes? The feeling you got was wrong. However, if there is a God - Creator of all things, would you not agree that He would have the ability to affect His creation? In the absence of God, you are correct that it is impossible to will evolution. Actually, this type of theory/thinking is precisely the type of thinking that Darwin disproved with his theory of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semalsia Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 [quote name='Didacus']I hope that you can see my point.[/quote] I don't. Buut it doesn't really matter, since this is not important to the original topic of free will. It doesn't matter whether or not we can know the initial condition, because it's there either way. Hmm-um... or is it? [quote]Apes can commit murder? I think we differ in our definition of murder. Do the monkeys that commit murder believe that what they are doing to be wrong? In my opinion, this is weak. You are uncertain there exists freewill or self-awareness in humans and go looking for it in apes?[/quote] I meant that they kill just to kill. I remember seeing this documentary about apes where this one male ape stole a baby ape from it's mother and ran away. A angry mob chased him to a tree where he finally broke the baby's neck. It was part of this kind of revenge and battle for power thing that we apes are good at. I wish I'd remember more of the reasons for it, but it was a long time ago. It was fascinating. I'm trying to say that free will is not required for us to be able to make decisions and choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 [quote] I don't. Buut it doesn't really matter, since this is not important to the original topic of free will. It doesn't matter whether or not we can know the initial condition, because it's there either way. Hmm-um... or is it? [/quote] You freely chose not to believe him. Therefore, you have free will and you expressed your will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philologus Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 [quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='May 9 2005, 02:53 PM'] I would love to have a few references to books that talk about this. I have a couple of coworkers who I would like to give it too and read. I know that in the end it all comes to Faith. [/quote] I don't think anyone mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas' section on "Does God Exist" in his "Summa Theologica". Even though this work was written 800 years ago his reasoning is flawless. However, the post-modern, relativistic, undisciplined mind may have trouble following logic these days! Here is an online link to it: [url="http://www.stjamescatholic.org/summa/index.html"]Summa Theologica[/url] Philologus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 [quote name='Philologus' date='May 13 2005, 04:31 PM']I [snip] [url="http://www.stjamescatholic.org/summa/index.html"]Summa Theologica[/url] Philologus[/quote] Great site. I will try to find time to read it over the weekend. Thanks Philologus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 The best argument I've read for the existence of God was in Fyodor Dostoevsky's [i]The Brothers Karamazov[/i] (which is my favorite book). Dostoevsky argued that if God does not exist, then objective morality cannot exist. The thing is, most atheists I've come across believe that murder is wrong -- and rightly so! What Dostoevsky wrote, however, is that atheists, by their own beliefs, have no basis to believe that murder is [i]really[/i] wrong. If God does not exist, then objective truth cannot exist. If God does not exist, morality would be man-made, and because it would be man-made, it would also be subjective. If murder is only subjectively wrong, then what right do people have to impose their views on those who do not oppose murder? What right do people have to make laws against murder? One could argue that moral and civil laws could rightly be based on the views of the majority, but there were times in history when racial slavery was accepted by the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KizlarAgha Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 [quote name='BeenaBobba' date='May 13 2005, 11:12 PM'] The best argument I've read for the existence of God was in Fyodor Dostoevsky's [i]The Brothers Karamazov[/i] (which is my favorite book). Dostoevsky argued that if God does not exist, then objective morality cannot exist. The thing is, most atheists I've come across believe that murder is wrong -- and rightly so! What Dostoevsky wrote, however, is that atheists, by their own beliefs, have no basis to believe that murder is [i]really[/i] wrong. If God does not exist, then objective truth cannot exist. If God does not exist, morality would be man-made, and because it would be man-made, it would also be subjective. If murder is only subjectively wrong, then what right do people have to impose their views on those who do not oppose murder? What right do people have to make laws against murder? One could argue that moral and civil laws could rightly be based on the views of the majority, but there were times in history when racial slavery was accepted by the majority. [/quote] True enough but these days atheists will simply argue enlightened self-interest. That is, that whether or not murder is wrong, it damages a society, and therefore should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 [quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 14 2005, 12:21 AM']True enough but these days atheists will simply argue enlightened self-interest. That is, that whether or not murder is wrong, it damages a society, and therefore should be banned.[/quote] Or argue the 'instinct' card. It one of thier 'awnsers-all' arguments. I started reading the summa theologica. Fascinating stuff. I like this passage: "Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable. But what is supremely knowable in itself, may not be knowable to a particular intellect, on account of the excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the bat by reason of its excess of light." Unfortunately you require a basis of beliefs and God before reading this stuff, and you also need a very good foundation of the bible and knowledge prior to reading it. I admit many statements are difficult to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 [quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 14 2005, 02:21 AM'] True enough but these days atheists will simply argue enlightened self-interest. That is, that whether or not murder is wrong, it damages a society, and therefore should be banned. [/quote] But that's the thing. If God does not exist, then even damage would be relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchisedec Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 [quote name='BeenaBobba' date='May 14 2005, 01:05 PM'] But that's the thing. If God does not exist, then even damage would be relative. [/quote] Even if God exists, morals for instance can still be relative. You kill a baby, you committed a sin. God tells you to kill the baby, and now the same act is no longer a sin. God can make things arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 I was reading an excerpt from PETER KREEFT in which he says: [quote] Furthermore, how could the design that obviously exists now in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? It violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a Mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a Mind, by the way, even those who did not believe any revealed religion.) [/quote] The full article can be found here: [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ics/ap0002.html[/url] very interesting stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now