The odds; The outcome
BURT
Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
Mitch Raemsch; Predeterminism
Virgil
BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>
> Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>
Or would if any god existed. Which has yet to be unequivocally established.
BURT
> In article <6b93b1e4-766a-4928-93fc-d6a39034f...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>
> > Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>
> Or would if any god existed. Which has yet to be unequivocally established.
God does not need to prove that He exists.
Mitch Raemsch
Pink Freud
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:92c38842-636a-4d8a...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
You're right.
That would be YOUR responsibility.
Get to it.
Syd M.
Yes, he does. If he expects to gain us as followers.
PDW
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Science will never win the war against the belief in God.
Man order came after God. As a man I don't need personal proof.
Its stupid to be an atheist. Einstein was a believer in the Creator.
He was not an atheist and the atheists need to know that a certainty.
Mitch Raemsch; God does not play dice; Einstein
Devils Advocaat
Indeed Einstein wasn't an atheist, but he wasn't a theist either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views
Pink Freud
> On Dec 31, 5:48 am, "Pink Freud" <somewh...@about.com> wrote:
>> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:92c38842-636a-4d8a...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Dec 30, 7:44 pm, Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.NET> wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <6b93b1e4-766a-4928-93fc-d6a39034f...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>>
>> >> > Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>>
>> >> Or would if any god existed. Which has yet to be unequivocally
>> >> established.
>>
>> > God does not need to prove that He exists.
>>
>> > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> You're right.
>>
>> That would be YOUR responsibility.
>>
>> Get to it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Science will never win the war against the belief in God.
> Man order came after God. As a man I don't need personal proof.
I don't care what you need.
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1b3df6c4-4d60-43b1...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 5:48 am, "Pink Freud" <somewh...@about.com> wrote:
> >> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:92c38842-636a-4d8a...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Dec 30, 7:44 pm, Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.NET> wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <6b93b1e4-766a-4928-93fc-d6a39034f...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> >> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>
> >> >> > Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>
> >> >> Or would if any god existed. Which has yet to be unequivocally
> >> >> established.
>
> >> > God does not need to prove that He exists.
>
> >> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> >> You're right.
>
> >> That would be YOUR responsibility.
>
> >> Get to it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Science will never win the war against the belief in God.
>
> I don't care what you need.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is what I Don't need.
Mitch Raemsch
Pink Freud
Still don't care, Mitch.
How are you doing with that proof?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
God doesn't need to prove that He exists. Neither does man.
Science will never win the war on the belief in God.
Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Of course not. Since there is no reason to think that God exists, no
reason will persuade believers that they are wrong.
Uncle Vic
1f7d53...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> Its stupid to be an atheist.
If the only way you have to rationalilze your beliefs is to slander non-
believers, your beliefs must be very shallow.
Caution: you can drown in 1" of water.
--
Uncle Vic
AA # 2011
Member EAC Bitchslapping Dept.
BURT
> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1b3df6c4-4d60-43b1-b215-
> 1f7d53b5e...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Its stupid to be an atheist.
>
> If the only way you have to rationalilze your beliefs is to slander non-
> believers, your beliefs must be very shallow.
You have to be intelligent to see intelligent design.
Mitch Raemsch
David R Tribble
> You have to be intelligent to see intelligent design.
And: "You have to be evolved to see evolution."
Both statements are inane.
BURT
> Mitch Raemsch (BURT) wrote:
> > You have to be intelligent to see intelligent design.
>
> And: "You have to be evolved to see evolution."
You have to be man. But man's order in the universe didn't come first.
I say we will see evolution in ocean over millions of years. I bet on
it.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> Both statements are inane.
Uncle Vic
9ef0ce...@j32g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 31, 12:59 pm, Uncle Vic <urkiddingri...@nonono.com> wrote:
>> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1b3df6c4-4d60-43b1-b215-
>> 1f7d53b5e...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Its stupid to be an atheist.
>>
>> If the only way you have to rationalilze your beliefs is to slander non-
>> believers, your beliefs must be very shallow.
>
> You have to be intelligent to see intelligent design.
>
Intelligent design is neither.
Stan McCann
9ef0ce...@j32g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 31, 12:59 pm, Uncle Vic <urkiddingri...@nonono.com> wrote:
>
> You have to be intelligent to see intelligent design.
>
No, you have to be ignorant to see design in very flawed nature.
--
Stan McCann st...@surecann.com
BURT
> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:de1685bd-0f4b-4585-857f-
> 9ef0ce136...@j32g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Dec 31, 12:59 pm, Uncle Vic <urkiddingri...@nonono.com> wrote:
> >> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1b3df6c4-4d60-43b1-b215-
> >> 1f7d53b5e...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > Its stupid to be an atheist.
>
> >> If the only way you have to rationalilze your beliefs is to slander non-
> >> believers, your beliefs must be very shallow.
>
> > You have to be intelligent to see intelligent design.
>
> Intelligent design is neither.
Your neither.
The Chief Instigator
> On Dec 31, 12:59?pm, Uncle Vic <urkiddingri...@nonono.com> wrote:
>> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1b3df6c4-4d60-43b1-b215-
>> 1f7d53b5e...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Its stupid to be an atheist.
>>
>> If the only way you have to rationalilze your beliefs is to slander non-
>> believers, your beliefs must be very shallow.
>
> You have to be intelligent to see intelligent design.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
In the real world, you have to be massively stupid (and delusional) to see
that.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, TX
(http://www.io.com/~patrick) AA #2237
LAST GAME: Rockford 3, Houston 1 (December 30)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, January 1 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
BURT
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:07:26 -0800 (PST), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 12:59?pm, Uncle Vic <urkiddingri...@nonono.com> wrote:
> >> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1b3df6c4-4d60-43b1-b215-
> >> 1f7d53b5e...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > Its stupid to be an atheist.
>
> >> If the only way you have to rationalilze your beliefs is to slander non-
> >> believers, your beliefs must be very shallow.
>
> > You have to be intelligent to see intelligent design.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> In the real world, you have to be massively stupid (and delusional) to see
> that.
>
> --
> (http://www.io.com/~patrick) AA #2237
> LAST GAME: Rockford 3, Houston 1 (December 30)
> NEXT GAME: Saturday, January 1 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
Science thought that Einstein was stupid in some way for not accepting
their nutty idea of Quantum Mechanics randomness as being creative.
They judged their superior. And still think that they are smarter than
a Genius!
Only Genius is smart.
Mitch Raemsch
Dakota
mainstream physicists because of the evidence.
Intelligent design is just Creationism in disguise and was developed to
sneak it into public school science classrooms. It has failed every time
it's been challenged in court. It is believed only by massively stupid
and delusional people like you, Mitch.
BURT
Wrong randomness is not unpredictability. Unpredictability is not
being able to calculate.
>
> Intelligent design is just Creationism in disguise and was developed to
NO. God created evolution. Man order is not first in the universe.
God's creation was first.
> sneak it into public school science classrooms. It has failed every time
> it's been challenged in court. It is believed only by massively stupid
> and delusional people like you, Mitch.- Hide quoted text -
Science can never win the argument againt the belief in God.
It is a delusion to think there is no superior source for the
universe.
Its stupid not to believe in God.
> - Show quoted text -
Mitch Raemsch
Dakota
and antiparticles sometimes pop into existence from nowhere. It's also
accepted by mainstream physicists.
>
>> Intelligent design is just Creationism in disguise and was developed to
>
> NO. God created evolution. Man order is not first in the universe.
> God's creation was first.
>
>
>> sneak it into public school science classrooms. It has failed every time
>> it's been challenged in court. It is believed only by massively stupid
>> and delusional people like you, Mitch.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Science can never win the argument againt the belief in God.
> It is a delusion to think there is no superior source for the
> universe.
> Its stupid not to believe in God.
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Mitch Raemsch
>
now.
adamk
Really? I guess idiots like you confuse tautologies
for arguments. Still, I will reply with an argument;
you keep with the idiotic one-liners:
Given there is no convincing evidence, and
there are plenty of paradoxes, and there is evidence
to the contrary, it is idiotic for you to hold your
belief.
> Its stupid not to believe in God.
But then a stupid person like you said it. So the
two cancel out.
Go push your stupidity somewhere else, loser.
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Mitch " What, me Worry?" Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am not player of your game.
The Chief Instigator
> On Jan 1, 11:04?am, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:07:26 -0800 (PST), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Dec 31, 12:59?pm, Uncle Vic <urkiddingri...@nonono.com> wrote:
>> >> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1b3df6c4-4d60-43b1-b215-
>> >> 1f7d53b5e...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > Its stupid to be an atheist.
>>
>> >> If the only way you have to rationalilze your beliefs is to slander non-
>> >> believers, your beliefs must be very shallow.
>>
>> > You have to be intelligent to see intelligent design.
>>
>> > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> In the real world, you have to be massively stupid (and delusional) to see
>> that.
>>
>> --
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (http://www.io.com/~patrick) AA #2237
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?LAST GAME: Rockford 3, Houston 1 (December 30)
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? NEXT GAME: Saturday, January 1 vs. San Antonio, 7:35 ?
>
> Science thought that Einstein was stupid in some way for not accepting
> their nutty idea of Quantum Mechanics randomness as being creative.
> They judged their superior. And still think that they are smarter than
> a Genius!
> Only Genius is smart.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
You are anything but a genius, as you've demonstrated time and time again.
Back to the asylum for you.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, TX
(http://www.io.com/~patrick) AA #2237
LAST GAME: Houston 4, San Antonio 3 (January 1)
NEXT GAME: Friday, January 7 vs. Lake Erie, 7:35
BURT
I don't have to be smart. What about you?
>
> --
> Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patr...@io.com) Houston, TX
> (http://www.io.com/~patrick) AA #2237
> LAST GAME: Houston 4, San Antonio 3 (January 1)
> NEXT GAME: Friday, January 7 vs. Lake Erie, 7:35 - Hide quoted text -
The Chief Instigator
I'm sane, you aren't. *click*
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, TX
Han de Bruijn
> "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>
> Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>
If God knew every outcome, the universe would be deterministic and man
would not have free will, he rather would be a puppet on a string. God
wants humans to be _free_, so he does NOT know every man-made outcome
(though it's easy to predict some of the disasters mankind is heading
for).
Han de Bruijn
Aatu Koskensilta
> If God knew every outcome, the universe would be deterministic and man
> would not have free will, he rather would be a puppet on a string.
Why? If God knows that I will tomorrow freely choose to eat a pizza
how is my choice any less free?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Virgil
Then in your view "god" is not omniscient as some others viewers claim!
Virgil
Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
> Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > If God knew every outcome, the universe would be deterministic and man
> > would not have free will, he rather would be a puppet on a string.
>
> Why? If God knows that I will tomorrow freely choose to eat a pizza
> how is my choice any less free?
You would then have no ability to choose a sub instead.
A god having perfect foreknowledge of the future and humans having free will to choose
to act other than as that god foresees are logically incompatible.
And a will whose set of choices is always limited to 1 does not strike me as being very
free.
JT
> In article <1477eea2-f19a-4008-a2bb-8c4399453...@i18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31 2010, 3:52 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>
> > > Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch; Predeterminism
>
> > If God knew every outcome, the universe would be deterministic and man
> > would not have free will, he rather would be a puppet on a string. God
> > wants humans to be _free_, so he does NOT know every man-made outcome
> > (though it's easy to predict some of the disasters mankind is heading
> > for).
>
> Then in your view "god" is not omniscient as some others viewers claim!
If reality was a game of chess, maybe good is chess complete he knows
it all, but he ain't the player, we are the pieces and by
communication we decide our moves?
I have a feeling though that god do indeed exist and sometimes
interfer and even helps us with decisions. He is the holy ghost who
whispers the next move for you todo in the life of chess.
JT
Aatu Koskensilta
> You would then have no ability to choose a sub instead.
Why not? If God knows I will tomorrow freely choose to eat pizza it
follows that I will in fact freely choose to eat pizza and not a sub. It
does not follow that I have no ability to choose a sub.
> A god having perfect foreknowledge of the future and humans having
> free will to choose to act other than as that god foresees are
> logically incompatible.
No they're not. The argument that they are is based on a classic modal
fallacy, that of concluding that the necessity of B follows from A on
the basis that B is a necessary consequence of A; or in symbols, of
inferring
A --> []B
from
[](A --> B).
Aatu Koskensilta
> Then in your view "god" is not omniscient as some others viewers claim!
So what?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
Han de Bruijn
> Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.NET> writes:
> > You would then have no ability to choose a sub instead.
>
> Why not? If God knows I will tomorrow freely choose to eat pizza it
> follows that I will in fact freely choose to eat pizza and not a sub. It
> does not follow that I have no ability to choose a sub.
>
> > A god having perfect foreknowledge of the future and humans having
> > free will to choose to act other than as that god foresees are
> > logically incompatible.
>
> No they're not. The argument that they are is based on a classic modal
> fallacy, that of concluding that the necessity of B follows from A on
> the basis that B is a necessary consequence of A; or in symbols, of
> inferring
>
> A --> []B
>
> from
>
> [](A --> B).
Sure:
A --> $#B
from
$#(A --> B).
Han de Bruijn
*us*
>... man
>would not have free will...
There is no evidence for the existence of free will.
Han de Bruijn
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:25:38 -0800 (PST), Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >... man
> >would not have free will...
>
> There is no evidence for the existence of free will.
>
> http://www.naturalism.org/celebrities.htm
In personal life, I simply HAVE experienced the existence of free will
i.e. the freedom to make right or wrong choices. If you make a wrong
choice, deliberately, then you should be guilty. But being guilty is
sort of taboo these days, rather take your daily prescription ..
Han de Bruijn
William Hughes
> Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.NET> writes:
> > You would then have no ability to choose a sub instead.
However, you might have the ability to not choose a sub.
Clearly, if we equate determinism with predictability, then God cannot
have foreknowledge of a non-deterministic event (assuming God is
constrained by
logic).
If we do not equate determinism with predictability, then what
do we mean by "to choose"?
Gosh, it is a good thing that sci.math is around, I thought
these were difficult questions.
- William Hughes
Ben Kaufman
>On Dec 30, 7:44 pm, Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.NET> wrote:
>> In article <6b93b1e4-766a-4928-93fc-d6a39034f...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>>
>> > Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>>
>> Or would if any god existed. Which has yet to be unequivocally established.
>
>God does not need to prove that He exists.
>
>Mitch Raemsch
Nor do we ever expect God (or Zeus etc) to do this, but the onus is on the
believers who try to force what they think are God's wishes on everyone else.
Ben
Ben Kaufman
>On Dec 31, 5:48�am, "Pink Freud" <somewh...@about.com> wrote:
>> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:92c38842-636a-4d8a...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 30, 7:44 pm, Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.NET> wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <6b93b1e4-766a-4928-93fc-d6a39034f...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> �BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>>
>> >> > Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>>
>> >> Or would if any god existed. Which has yet to be unequivocally
>> >> established.
>>
>> > God does not need to prove that He exists.
>>
>> > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> You're right.
>>
>> That would be YOUR responsibility.
>>
>> Get to it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Science will never win the war against the belief in God.
>Man order came after God. As a man I don't need personal proof.
>Its stupid to be an atheist. Einstein was a believer in the Creator.
>He was not an atheist and the atheists need to know that a certainty.
>
>Mitch Raemsch; God does not play dice; Einstein
Einstein was not talking about *your* God.
Ben
Ben Kaufman
>On Dec 31, 9:57 am, "Pink Freud" <somewh...@about.com> wrote:
>> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:052b4d90-9fba-4ae1...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 31, 8:03 am, "Pink Freud" <somewh...@about.com> wrote:
>> >> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1b3df6c4-4d60-43b1...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Dec 31, 5:48 am, "Pink Freud" <somewh...@about.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:92c38842-636a-4d8a...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > On Dec 30, 7:44 pm, Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.NET> wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article
>> >> >> >> <6b93b1e4-766a-4928-93fc-d6a39034f...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> >> >> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>>
>> >> >> >> > Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>>
>> >> >> >> Or would if any god existed. Which has yet to be unequivocally
>> >> >> >> established.
>>
>> >> >> > God does not need to prove that He exists.
>>
>> >> >> > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> >> You're right.
>>
>> >> >> That would be YOUR responsibility.
>>
>> >> >> Get to it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > Science will never win the war against the belief in God.
>> >> > Man's order came after God. As a man I don't need personal proof.
>>
>> >> I don't care what you need.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > That is what I Don't need.
>>
>> Still don't care, Mitch.
>>
>> How are you doing with that proof?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>God doesn't need to prove that He exists. Neither does man.
>Science will never win the war on the belief in God.
>
>Mitch Raemsch
The war is not belief in God, it's against religious fanatics who try to rewrite
science so it is compatible with their religion.
Ben
jbriggs444
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:25:38 -0800 (PST), Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >... man
> >would not have free will...
>
> There is no evidence for the existence of free will.
As a practical matter, the existence of that which has
unpredictable behavior in the face of external influences
is an adequate substitute for that which is free from
external influences.
We do not require that the dice be random. Only that
they appear so.
Las Vegas is a good enough existence proof for me.
Tim Little
> inferring
>
> A --> []B
>
> from
>
> [](A --> B).
I hadn't thought about it in terms of modal logic, but that is a very
concise and straightforward way of expressing the fallacy.
--
Tim
Virgil HANCHER
<4d53aa99-06e0-4784...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Han de Bruijn <umu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why not? If God knows I will tomorrow freely choose to eat pizza it
> > follows that I will in fact freely choose to eat pizza and not a sub. It
> > does not follow that I have no ability to choose a sub.
> >
> > > A god having perfect foreknowledge of the future and humans having
> > > free will to choose to act other than as that god foresees are
> > > logically incompatible.
> >
> > No they're not. The argument that they are is based on a classic modal
> > fallacy, that of concluding that the necessity of B follows from A on
> > the basis that B is a necessary consequence of A; or in symbols, of
> > inferring
Isn't my choosing that sub a necessary consequence of that allegedly
omniscient god knowing that I must?
Han de Bruijn
> On 2011-01-04, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
> > inferring
>
> > A --> []B
>
> > from
>
> > [](A --> B).
>
> I hadn't thought about it in terms of modal logic, but that is a very
> concise and straightforward way of expressing the fallacy.
Who says that "modal logic" bears any resemblance to reality ?
Han de Bruijn
Tim Little
> Isn't my choosing that sub a necessary consequence of that allegedly
> omniscient god knowing that I must?
No more so than choosing a sub at time T is a necessary consequence of
being observed to choose a sub at time T+1. The only difference is
that the omniscient god can observe your decision at time T-1 instead
of T+1.
--
Tim
Virgil HANCHER
Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:
Then when that alleged god sees me eating a sub beforehand , I am free
not to eat anything at the time?
That would be a very peculiar universe
Tim Little
> Then when that alleged god sees me eating a sub beforehand , I am free
> not to eat anything at the time?
>
> That would be a very peculiar universe
Personally, I think any universe with completely omniscient gods would
be a peculiar universe. But that has nothing to do with free will or
not.
I was seen eating muesli for breafast this morning, by a reliable
witness. *Given* that I was seen eating muesli by a reliable witness,
was I free to have skipped breakfast?
The answer is obviously no. In the set of all possible worlds in
which a reliable witness observed me to eat muesli, I did in fact eat
muesli. Likewise, in the set of all possible worlds in which an
omniscient god knew that I would eat muesli, I did in fact eat muesli.
However, it is perfectly consistent that there are in both cases many
possible worlds in which I chose not to eat muesli. So my choice is
free.
--
Tim
David Bernier
If the concept of free will can be made perfectly clear,
that would be interesting to me.
Here's one reflection:
It seems to me that whatever I may do, it is always
what I want to do at the moment I do it:
For example, if and when I press "send" for this post,
"send post" will be what I want to happen.
The process of arriving at some "decision", or
going against a previous "decision", is
not really clear to me.
----
How could "will that isn't free" be distinguished from "free will"?
David Bernier
Tim Little
> If the concept of free will can be made perfectly clear, that would
> be interesting to me.
I doubt there is a single clear concept of free will. I think (like
most things) there are multiple distinguishable concepts that get
lumped under the same label.
> It seems to me that whatever I may do, it is always what I want to
> do at the moment I do it:
Normally this would be the case, but some people do take actions that
even while they were doing it, they did not want to do so and felt
powerless to prevent themselves. Is that still free will?
There is also increasing evidence that many of the actions we take are
actually initiated a measureable amount of time before we experience
the mental state of deciding to do them. To what extent is the
subjective experience of "decision" an illusion after the fact?
Other interesting data points have come from experiments in electrical
stimulation of brain areas. Some resulted in muscle movements that
could be repeatably triggered, yet were experienced as voluntary
decisions to carry out the action. Were they a result of free will?
--
Tim
JT
What does free will and causuality have todo with eachother, free will
can only exist in solitude and none interaction. As soon there is an
environment causing causual effects, your free will is limited to how
you choose to interact with the environment, circumstances and events
that take place.
Here the environment is the social surrounding and physical reality,
the circumstances your inner world (your history and schematas) and
events the causual physical ambivalence that you have to make a
decision regarding.
We are free to make any decision, but in reality the number of legal
moves is not infinite. And that will halt your plans.
JT
*us*
>On Jan 4, 8:08 am, * US * wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:25:38 -0800 (PST), Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >... man
>> >would not have free will...
>>
>> There is no evidence for the existence of free will.
>
>As a practical matter, the existence of that which has
>unpredictable behavior in the face of external influences
>is an adequate substitute for that which is free from
>external influences.
Yet the insistence on unpredictability seems baseless.
>We do not require that the dice be random. Only that
>they appear so.
>
>Las Vegas is a good enough existence proof for me.
Why?
*us*
>On Jan 4, 2:08 pm, * US * wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:25:38 -0800 (PST), Han de Bruijn <umum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >... man
>> >would not have free will...
>>
>> There is no evidence for the existence of free will.
>>
>> http://www.naturalism.org/celebrities.htm
>
>In personal life, I simply HAVE experienced the existence of free will
Why do you believe that?
*us*
>Why do you ask ?
There's no evidence for free will.
*us*
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:16:16 -0500, * US * 's cat ran across the
>keyboard resulting in:
>
>>There's no evidence for free will.
>
>Hi, I was just wishing y'all the best for this year.
>
>I haven't followed this topic and
>don't know what the conversation is about.
There's no evidence for free will.
http://www.naturalism.org/celebrities.htm
Belief in the myth of sin is the basis for a lot of cruelty.
*us*
>... a free will ...
>...the free
>will ...
You have no evidence for its existence at all.
>An unbalanced mind ...
It makes you desperate to believe in myths.
>Seek competant [sic]
Seek assistance with spellchecking.
As a believer in malicious myths, you're not
in any position to suggest anything.
>.. search for competant [sic]
Seek assistance with spellchecking.
As a believer in malicious myths, you're not
in any position to suggest anything.
>... learning about human behaviour ...
You'll do better with that if you don't believe
in lies based on hatred.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:24:04 +0100, Caravaggio <Carav...@invalid.com> wrote:
*us*
>My mind is geared to accept that anything is possible.
Yet it isn't possible for you to present evidence of free will.
*us*
>...not "mentally stable".
>®ROTFL@MAO©
>Caravaggio
It makes you believe in things which aren't real.
Dan Cass
Am I free to respond to this?
Perhaps it was determined long ago that I would...
*us*
>totally unrelated ...
The discussion of free will is an important one.
I particularly like the statements on it made by
Einstein, Schopenhauer, and Spinoza.
Their points remain unrefuted.
Don Stockbauer
Therefor, I have free will.
And yes, there is only one future, but that doesn't prove determinism,
it just means that's the one I've picked for myself.
Bart Goddard
4813-99f4-2...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> I can make decisions.
>
> Therefor, I have free will.
I just wrote a C++ program that says the same thing.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
*us*
>I can make decisions.
You believe you make decisions even as
your past and present circumstances
totally control your actions.
>Therefor, [sic] I have free will.
Non sequitur.
>... determinism ...
It isn't necessary to the point that there is
no evidence for free will at all.
*us*
>...I had no interest in the subject and
>had not read ...
That's obvious.
Too bad for you that you can't do better.
*us*
>Don Stockbauer <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:005766ec-d574-
>4813-99f4-2...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I can make decisions.
>>
>> Therefor, I have free will.
>
>I just wrote a C++ program that says the same thing.
You couldn't help that ...
Bart Goddard
> You have no evidence for its existence at all.
>
"Free will" doesn't exist. It was conjured up by
atheists as a meme to undermine sound Christian doctrine.
*us*
>"Free will" doesn't exist.
There is no evidence for it, anyway.
http://www.naturalism.org/celebrities.htm
Belief in the myth of sin is the basis for a lot of cruelty.
>It was conjured up by
>atheists as a meme to undermine sound Christian doctrine.
On what would that claim be substantiated, if it were?
mike3
<snip>
> You couldn't help that ...
Just as Hitler could not help being evil. Let's not despise him, for
he was not the ultimate cause of his evil, since free will does not
exist, but something else was.. But wait, "sin" doesn't exist:
<snip>
> There's no evidence for free will.
>
> http://www.naturalism.org/celebrities.htm
>
> Belief in the myth of sin is the basis for a lot of cruelty.
Yet according to you, they could not help that they believed in it.
Also, I want you to provide the PROOF that belief in "free will"
***CANNOT***
do any good. If you cannot prove this, then the belief itself is
blameless; something else is instead to blame.
scaaahu
> "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein
>
> Science knows only the odds. God knows every outcome.
>
> Mitch Raemsch; Predeterminism
Allow me to ask,
Is the computer you used to send your post created by
scientists or your god?
Is the invention of computers a result of efforts by a
bunch of scientists
or
a result of preying by a bunch of people like you?
If it is latter, you can sit and prey and let scientists
create another intelligent product for you!
*us*
>On Feb 5, 9:30�am, * US * wrote:
><snip>
>> You couldn't help that ...
>
>Just as Hitler could not help being evil.
It's myth-based to ascribe evil to a person
rather than to actions.
>Let's not despise him, for
>he was not the ultimate cause of his evil, since free will does not
>exist, but something else was.. But wait, "sin" doesn't exist:
It's a myth based on hate.
It prevents some from making the effort
to understand why people do things.
>> There's no evidence for free will.
>>
>> http://www.naturalism.org/celebrities.htm
>>
>> Belief in the myth of sin is the basis for a lot of cruelty.
>
>Yet according to you, they could not help that they believed in it.
It doesn't require free will to learn from the
errors of others.
>Also, I want you to provide the PROOF that belief in "free will"
>***CANNOT***
>do any good.
If you believe that, then it's on you to provide
evidence for your belief.
One notes that you have none.
>If you cannot prove this, then the belief itself is
>blameless; something else is instead to blame.
That's merely a non sequitur.
Bart Goddard
>>If you cannot prove this, then the belief itself is
>>blameless; something else is instead to blame.
>
> That's merely a non sequitur.
>
It's exactly the same as your non sequitur. You've
demonstrated a 6-year-old understanding of theology and
philosophy. You're just another typical fundamentalist.
*us*
>It's ...
As if you'd know.
If you weren't so limited, you'd understand
that under different conditions someone
who does something evil may not have
done that at all.
>If you cannot prove this, then the belief itself is
Bart Goddard
> It prevents some from making the effort
> to understand why people do things.
>
Hilarious. In your little, limited, blind world where
you must have one of two extremes (free will or
pre-determinism) and where your rejection of one absurdity
forces you to embrace the other, in that little world,
people do things for one, stupid, boring reason: They're
little chemical computers and they're programmed that way.
And so this guy, who makes the minimum effort possible to
understand "why people do things", bitches that others
might be doing the same.
Complete, utter moron. Please stop wasting oxygen.
*us*
>... little, limited, blind ...
Your ad hominem fallacy isn't valid discourse.
I've posted a cite where Einstein, Darwin, Clemens,
and others discuss this issue. Have you read it?
>you must have one of two extremes (free will or
>pre-determinism)
That's not necessarily so.
On 6 Feb 2011 13:38:49 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>It's ...
As if you'd know.
If you weren't so limited, you'd understand
that under different conditions someone
who does something evil may not have
done that at all.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:43:03 -0800 (PST), mike3 <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 5, 9:30 am, * US * wrote:
><snip>
>> You couldn't help that ...
>
>Just as Hitler could not help being evil.
It's myth-based to ascribe evil to a person
rather than to actions.
>Let's not despise him, for
>he was not the ultimate cause of his evil, since free will does not
>exist, but something else was.. But wait, "sin" doesn't exist:
It's a myth based on hate.
It prevents some from making the effort
to understand why people do things.
>> There's no evidence for free will.
Bart Goddard
>>... little, limited, blind ...
>
> Your ad hominem fallacy isn't valid discourse.
>
Can't take your own medicine, eh? Well, no surprise.
Bye-bye, idiot.
Tim Golden BandTech.com
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:43:03 -0800 (PST), mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 5, 9:30 am, * US * wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> You couldn't help that ...
>
> >Just as Hitler could not help being evil.
>
> It's myth-based to ascribe evil to a person
> rather than to actions.
>
> >Let's not despise him, for
> >he was not the ultimate cause of his evil, since free will does not
> >exist, but something else was.. But wait, "sin" doesn't exist:
>
> It's a myth based on hate.
At least you've gotten a little bit beyond free will here, but the
opportunities to extend this discussion into more substantial ground
lay throughout human behavior.
We are programmable beings. To what degree we can write our own
programs is a measure of free will. To what degree the conscious self
is the entire human, and so on... we seem to be comprised of competing
parts even within a unified human.
A person who struggles to lose fat weight is a fine instance. Clearly
one portion of their thinking wishes to eat less, but obviously since
they are struggling another portion is in conflict with that portion.
Voilla, free will does not generally exist for humans.
If free will did exist then each of us would be capable of repeating
Newton's and Einstein's work from scratch, or even better. This is not
the case, therefor any notion of absolute free will is invalid.
However, we should still grant the human some ability to perform
variations, and we should not deny the free will concept as an ideal
to be approached. We are sadly limited, yet we must explore those
limitations.
Each day that A child stands with their hand over their heart and
speaks a pledge of allegiance to their country are they not speaking a
program? When a child learns their alphabet are they not running a
program? These mechanisms rely upon mimicry and here the social
qualities of the human dovetail nicely into your Hitlerian vector of
thought, for Hitler was not alone. Should we admit that were we
citizens of that state that we might have been swept into the fold?
Yes, we should. Should Americans admit that they are guilty of similar
lip-service of pro-democracy within a false democracy that holds other
countries down?
Politics does contain more immediate social mechanisms than a subject
like mathematics... ah, but does it really? When a political scientist
answers a question on a test they likely have quite a bit more freedom
than does the mathematician, where there may be just one correct
answer. Regardless, when we sit in a classroom and receive a grade for
our performance then the mimicry training that humans operate by are
pretty clearly exposed. Those who take the strongest variations will
likely travel some poor paths. Newton for instance would apply number
theory to his bible; the same man who brought calculus to life.
Darwin was willing to apply variational principles to the evolution of
living organisms. For us as individuals with just one life to live we
should attempt the same on our span, which largely means the adoption
of the experimental paradigm. Unfortunately the results here can be
paltry but for a few breakthroughs per hundred or thousand variations.
This is a more accurate portrayal of the level of freedom of the
human, and it is not a pretty one.
The level of failure amongst variations may help to explain how
cultures and our social behavior of mimicry come to be. Food choices
for instance can be fatal, and so the experimentalist who pledged
themselves to this vector of variation is on tender ground. Some
mushrooms are delicious, some hallucinogenic, and some fatal. Some are
unknown, and this natural state of the unknown and from a blank slate
is more what we are born into. That it still exists about us to this
day even within the piles of accumulation that we witness is a stage
of development that the academic mindset seems unaware of until one
reaches the end nodes of a tendrilled structure.
We should take what freedoms we have, though they are slight. As
prisoners of this existence the prison could be far worse. Still, how
we can awake to the failings rather than be hypnotized into accepting
them, well, I do believe that we are all subject to this problem.
Beyond the experimental paradigm there is also the skeptical paradigm,
which will minimize the accumulation. The problems; all of them; are
open.
- Tim
funkenstein
wrote:
Nice, I like it.
I am reminded of Harry Browne's "How to be free in an unfree world".
*us*
wrote:
>... To what degree we can write our own
>programs is a measure of free will...
Not really.
You haven't shown that anyone transcends
their circumstances at all.
Wishful thinking doesn't count.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:43:03 -0800 (PST), mike3 <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 5, 9:30�am, * US * wrote:
><snip>
>> You couldn't help that ...
>
>Just as Hitler could not help being evil.
It's myth-based to ascribe evil to a person
rather than to actions.
>Let's not despise him, for
>he was not the ultimate cause of his evil, since free will does not
>exist, but something else was.. But wait, "sin" doesn't exist:
It's a myth based on hate.
It prevents some from making the effort
*us*
>Nice, I like it.
Too bad it didn't offer any evidence of any free will at all.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:43:03 -0800 (PST), mike3 <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 5, 9:30 am, * US * wrote:
><snip>
>> You couldn't help that ...
>
>Just as Hitler could not help being evil.
It's myth-based to ascribe evil to a person
rather than to actions.
>Let's not despise him, for
>he was not the ultimate cause of his evil, since free will does not
>exist, but something else was.. But wait, "sin" doesn't exist:
It's a myth based on hate.
It prevents some from making the effort
*us*
>Can't take ...
So you have only fallacy and now you're
going to run away.
You can't help that.
Sucks to be you.
On 6 Feb 2011 21:09:48 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>... little, limited, blind ...
Your ad hominem fallacy isn't valid discourse.
I've posted a site where Einstein, Darwin, Clemens,