Faith and Reason.

[Seraph]

Are you just asking why things exist? We don't know, we don't know why things have mass even, but that just means we're ignorant, it dosen't mean there's a god.

Basically the question was if there is no god, can we even have free will, or are our actions all predetermined by the summation of forces in the Universe?

I don't think there is an answer at this point, it's just an interesting thought. Probably just as productive as anything else in this thread~

[Eratosthenes]

what is evidence for god? a rock that says "made in heaven" ?
To many, events are proof. The fact that some things took place and others didn't is enough. Because it is possible there is a grand architect of everything, it is possible everything is evidence of god.

How about if followers of a particular religion were immune to natural disasters, or had other forms of supernatural protection. For example, the bible says faith will protect you from deadly poisons. Anybody wanna bet their life on their faith?

[Kaylia]

Basically the question was if there is no god, can we even have free will, or are our actions all predetermined by the summation of forces in the Universe?

I don't think there is an answer at this point, it's just an interesting thought. Probably just as productive as anything else in this thread~

You could replace God with another concept of spiritual self, but it's pretty much the same. If there is only traditional physics force, there can't be free will in the religious sense.

However, you and I both exist, and the decisions we take are very real. I don't understand why free will is important when you are aware of your existance.

[Rammses]

Basically the question was if there is no god, can we even have free will, or are our actions all predetermined by the summation of forces in the Universe?

I don't think there is an answer at this point, it's just an interesting thought. Probably just as productive as anything else in this thread~

Well, there is a strong concensus for true randomness of some processes at quantum level. In that case, the nature of the universe wouldn't be deterministic.

[Neosutra]

@ kaylia:


Ofcourse not, no one said it was.

Stop trolling and go away.

We are talking about the Theory of Everything, or the Grand Unified Theory, that would help us explain some of the causes for our current physical systems and some of the erros we currently have in our models. PLEASE stop being that dense, you are reducing a good discussion into another Kaylia attention thread.

No one here said there was a single model that would explain everything in the universe. Only theists believe that, they call it god.

Are you saying you believe god is impossible?

[Seraph]

You could replace God with another concept of spiritual self, but it's pretty much the same. If there is only traditional physics force, there can't be free will in the religious sense.

However, you and I both exist, and the decisions we take are very real. I don't understand why free will is important when you are aware of your existance.

I asked the question because Neo stated he abandoned his religion because of the fundamental restraints it placed upon his free will. I found that confusing, and posed this question.

[Neosutra]

I asked the question because Neo stated he abandoned his religion because of the fundamental restraints it placed upon his free will. I found that confusing, and posed this question.

No I stated I abandoned religion when I determined their tenants had no validity. I simply noted the restraints that predestination held on those of faith.

[Seraph]

No one here said there was a single model that would explain everything in the universe. Only theists believe that, they call it god.

Are you saying you believe god is impossible?

I would say a compilation of correct models is, in itself, another model. Are you implying that given enough time humanity cannot possibly know everything?

[Neosutra]

I would say a compilation of correct models is, in itself, another model. Are you implying that given enough time humanity cannot possibly know everything?

No, I was referring to Kaylias premise that there couldnt be an all inclusive single postulate. And yes, I believe mankind could eventually develop a complete understanding of at least this physical reality, if we dont destroy ourselves first.

[Seraph]

No, I was referring to Kaylias premise that there couldnt be an all inclusive single postulate. And yes, I believe mankind could eventually develop a complete understanding of at least this physical reality, if we dont destroy ourselves first.

Well then, either we find out for sure whether god exists or not, or we destroy ourselves in the process. Maybe that's heaven and hell~

[Kaylia]

@ kaylia:


Ofcourse not, no one said it was.

Stop trolling and go away.

We are talking about the Theory of Everything, or the Grand Unified Theory, that would help us explain some of the causes for our current physical systems and some of the erros we currently have in our models. PLEASE stop being that dense, you are reducing a good discussion into another Kaylia attention thread.

No one here said there was a single model that would explain everything in the universe. Only theists believe that, they call it god.

Are you saying you believe god is impossible?

You did in the last thread, more than once. If you admit sciences can't be complete, the topic is pretty much over.



And thanks you for explaining many time what I already know. You should spend your time finishing your unification model instead. I can't wait to see it.

[edit]
Theist don't try to explain God, they just postulate it as something that can't be understood.

And no, I don't believe god is impossible. I simply believe it's impossible to make a model that explains why the world exists (God, or no God)

[Kaylia]

I would say a compilation of correct models is, in itself, another model. Are you implying that given enough time humanity cannot possibly know everything?

What Neosutra forgot to mention is to understand this "reality" completely, we would have to find a larger reality (one with physics laws that are more general than our), and because of basic science principles, this new reality would necessarily have an impact on our.
In other word, any larger reality would just become our reality, and we would be back at the beginning.


Physics (and sciences) is never exact, it's simply the best approximation we can make with our knowledges. I agree approximation is all you need to solve a problems on a macroscopique level, but it's never "everything". This is the key part in any sciences vs religion topic.

[Tristam]

Well, there is a strong concensus for true randomness of some processes at quantum level. In that case, the nature of the universe wouldn't be deterministic.

At the level of biology, the randomness of quantum mechanics does not govern the motion or actions of molecules. At this level, we (very accurately, I might add) assign probability to events based on thermodynamics and electrochemistry. So it's not deterministic, but also, quite emphatically, not random.

[Neosutra]

What Neosutra forgot to mention is to understand this "reality" completely, we would have to find a larger reality (one with physics laws that are more general than our), and because of basic science principles, this new reality would necessarily have an impact on our.
In other word, any larger reality would just become our reality, and we would be back at the beginning.


Physics (and sciences) is never exact, it's simply the best approximation we can make with our knowledges. I agree approximation is all you need to solve a problems on a macroscopique level, but it's never "everything". This is the key part in any sciences vs religion topic.

NO, your premise was disproved in the last thread. STOP pulling this higher reality bullshit. You dont need a more advanced model to exist to develop a model for our current system.

[Kaylia]

In the first thread:
Neosutra: lalalala

In the 2nd thread:
Your premise was disproved in the last thread

In the 3rd thread
Your premise was disproved in the last thread

In the Nth thread
Your premise was disproved in the last thread.

[Tristam]

I simply believe it's impossible to make a model that explains why the world exists (God, or no God)

Maybe there's no reason to it, maybe it just is the way it is, and discovering the laws that govern the universe are the best answer anyone can come up with. Beyond the creation of the universe, I think we have a pretty good understanding of how things came about above the level of atoms.

[Neosutra]

@ Kaylia:

You have a short memory, but since Im tired of you shitting up this once good debate on faith and science, Ill say that we can just disagree. Now just go away.

[0ni0n]

Kaylie, you do know the inadequacy of our current understanding about the universe is not a sound reasoning for the existence of God. Using a God as a means to an end in explaining natural phenomenon is a cop-out.

[Seraph]

What Neosutra forgot to mention is to understand this "reality" completely, we would have to find a larger reality (one with physics laws that are more general than our), and because of basic science principles, this new reality would necessarily have an impact on our.
In other word, any larger reality would just become our reality, and we would be back at the beginning.

I don't think you need to recreate the universe, or expand upon it, to understand how everything in it works, and model its behavior.

I know it's completely unreasonable at this time, but based on how other models are created, it's just a matter of scope.

[Kaylia]

It's illogical for this universe to not be a part of a bigger physics structure. You can approximatively explain interaction within it, but you can't possibly explain the reason why it started.

But hey, what kind of physicist would ask themselves this kind of stupid question about our universe birth.