Can a Christian really think freely?

[invictus1967]

Give me one (1) example of any sentence you have written that I have twisted.

 

I will admit I have not been debating. The debate can only start when both sides present an argument.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Give me one (1) example of any sentence you have written that I have twisted.

 

I will admit I have not been debating. The debate can only start when both sides present an argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you should take it to the arena. That way you all have time to prepare.

[crazy-tiger]

I will admit I have not been debating. The debate can only start when both sides present an argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We know...

 

We've been waiting for you to do so.

[Ouroboros]

The problem with the person with whom you are debating is that he's too stupid to realize how stupid his arguments are.

 

I officially award Invictus with his very own argument fallacy: argumentum ad exhaustion.  He will literally keep beating a dead horse until you give up, at which point, he will declare his victory.

Yes, you're absolutely right.

[DeathWorship]

That's a really good question to ask - from a naturalists perspective, sentience seems to be a deception.

I'm interested to know how physics has proved this. This seems to be an unusually limited sense of the word 'experience'. I can experience emotions, ideas, memories, cravings, all sorts of things that seem to be features of human existence, and experienced (in the normal sense of the word) that are not reducable to waves and vibrations.

 

I think what you might be saying is that all we can perceive empirically can be reduced to vibrations and waves, or that the "furniture" of the universe (matter, physical laws, etc) can all be described in terms of vibrations and waves.

 

But that still leaves us with the question - why do we have human experiences that seem to depart from those strictures?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well like i said, it's only and IDEA. tomorrow i will post the theory in its entirity, i'm heading to my physics buddies house now. i will explain about waves and vibrations too. right now i'm leaving work..

 

but like i said, it's an idea, not my belief.. my belief is really evolution based. i like to toy with new ideas though. i thought i would present it in a forum with people who can pick it apart.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo,

 

I have never once said I had proof of God, I always use the word EVIDENCE.

 

I am sure you understand the difference.

 

What right do you have to argue against my “freely” formed thoughts without any evidence or thoughts of your own?

 

Evidence: something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof; especially : something (as testimony, writings, or objects) presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of an alleged matter of fact

 

Proof: the effect of evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that a particular fact exists —see also EVIDENCE

They are pretty close in definition and usage. Proof is just a little bit stronger than evidence.

 

 

 

The evidence you've provided is not enough to be indisputable convincing or furnish a proof. Your arguments are just speculations just as much as mine. And I know it. That’s the reason why I argued with you, because you took the highway attitude that your evidence were strong enough to prove God, which they’re not.

 

Your evidence are not strong enough, and neither are mine, and now I will repeat myself for third or fourth time, that when we don’t know, the shortest solutions is the easiest to take. It’s just more likely that God does NOT exist. It’s not the evidence for or against God; it’s that our arguments will never prove either way!

 

I have every right to argue against you thoughts, just because you were the one stepping in arguing against OURS!!! We have our faith, and you have yours, and you claim we’re wrong. Then we have the right to claim you’re being so wrong to be so hardheaded.

 

My issue with you is not that you’re arguing a possibility of God, but you are using hardheaded arguments, and you’re not listening! You don’t even concede to the possibility that God maybe doesn’t exist!

 

If you just admit that you have doubts sometimes about God, and that there is a chance that God does NOT exist, then you and I, are on the same page!!! That all I’m asking!!! Admit that there is a chance that God does not exist, and we can move on.

[Mr. Neil]

You said it your self, it is an “essay”. That is, “it is someone else’s interpretation (opinion) of the data”. It is not your opinion, nor is it raw facts.

 

The author even said himself “deduce predictions”. The author further admits “no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically”.

 

He admits he is restricting his “hypothesis” to known science. And everyone admit there are more unknowns to the origins of a species than there are knowns.

 

It has no move validity than anything I have said.

 

Where is your “essay” (that is opinion) and where are your evidences (not necessary proof) to support that opinion.

Invictus, you don't seem to get it. You got caught. You lied. You will never be trusted on this site again.

 

And here you are, apparently unconvinced by documentations of evidence, of which you are not willing to follow through. You're not interested in learning anything. Again, it is quite apparant that you've only read the article far enough to quote a few sentences from the first page. And yes, all of your references are easily found on the first page. No effort was made on your part. There's simply no way, in the amount of time that you had been given, that you read that whole article.

 

Apparently, you're not convinced by mere words on a page, since words are just an interpretation of the facts and not the facts themselves. I wonder, then, what you expect to see from some schmuck cartoonist on an internet forum. What magic could I possibly weild to show you that evolution is a fact of biology? Why nothing, of course, because anything I type can only be an interpretation.

 

You know what, Invictus. Fuck you. I'm not going to do the work for you. I can point you in the right direction, but clearly you're not interested in learning. Learning would involve following up the references in the article I sent you, and that would involving leaving your house and actually going to a library or something. God forbid!

 

It's over, Invictus. Everyone here knows you're a dishonest little troll.

 

I would like to suggest a formal withdrawl from all arguments against Invictus until he grows some balls and actually puts forth some effort. What do you say, people?

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, I think you misunderstood my point, but DeathWorship is tracking with it, even though we disagree.

I shouldn't have jumped in on your thread of thought there between DW and you. I'm sorry about that.

 

Do you really believe that? I know DW does, and that's fine, but if you want to hold onto naturalism and yet still retain a sense of self, or meaning, you have to demonstrate how that would work.

I'm keeping an open mind to if free will exists or not, so it would be the same with free thought. And I guess now you will shower me with, "oh you haven't made up you mind so therefore you're wrong!" argument, like Invictus did. Just because we don't know things, it doesn't mean we're wrong making an assertion. The definition of freethough is that we don't follow one particular dogma, except for the scientific method. So yes, we're locked into the rational and scientific path, we are the members of the scientific church. But the difference is that I can change my mind if there's evidence enough.

 

Free-thought is difficult to defend for Christians. It is impossible to defend for Atheists.

You're basically draw the line back to the "soul" and the "spirit", don't you?

 

So quantum entanglement doesn't have any meaning to you?

[crazy-tiger]

Apparently, you're not convinced by mere words on a page, since words are just an interpretation of the facts and not the facts themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which raises the question... Why does he believe the Bible?

[Ouroboros]

About free will vs reality:

 

...

Over the past decade, Gisin and his colleagues at the university have been probing the peculiar features of quantum entanglement, the way the properties of two or more particles can become invisibly linked, even if they become separated. Do something to one, and quantum theory says that the other should be affected instantaneously. Gisin's experiments and those of many others certainly seem to show the effect is real. But if they have proved that, what's the point of carrying on? Well, says Gisin, something rather surprising is emerging from their results.

 

If Gisin's experiments can be trusted - and most physicists believe they can - and quantum theory is right, then basic logic says there is something fundamentally wrong with our view of the universe. It would be good news for quantum theory, but bad news for some of our deepest preconceptions about the nature of reality. "Either space-time is an illusion," Gisin says, "or free will is an illusion."

...

[Mr. Neil]

Which raises the question... Why does he believe the Bible?

Good point! He undermines his own faith.

 

At least with a scientific document, you can follow the references and actually read about how scientists reach the conclusions that they reach, but he doesn't care for that. An interpretations of the facts can only be an interpretation as far as he's concerned, and if that's what he believes, then he's rejected the scientific process and the objective way by which we learn things.

 

No wonder he's incapable of thinking. He's turned off the part of his brain that allows him to think.

[Ouroboros]

But that still leaves us with the question - why do we have human experiences that seem to depart from those strictures?

That would suggest that there is a common consciousness in the universe, like pantheism, instead of a personal monotheistic monarch in another dimension.

 

So why does this suddenly prove God, and not every other religion?

[Amethyst]

No wonder he's incapable of thinking. He's turned off the part of his brain that allows him to think.

 

Like I said, he's brainwashed. In fact, he freely admitted it.

[crazy-tiger]

Mr. Neil,

 

You have never shown any evidence of evolution. You throw out references to websites that are nothing more than homepages for blowhards spouting their beliefs the same as I am.

 

You give the opinion of others that are no more valid than mine.

 

I gave you concrete documented evidence:

----Einstein’s general theory of relativity

----Hubble’s Law

----Background radiation found in the 60s

----Smoot’s Berkley team’s discoveries in the 90s

 

What have you given in the way of documented science?

 

And what “freely” formed thoughts have you generated from your evidence other than my thoughts are wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh Mr Invictus...

 

Your "concrete documented evidence" isn't evidence at all, is it?

 

It's nothing more than references to people who are "blowhards spouting their beliefs the same as you are."

 

You give the opinions of others that are no more valid than ours...

 

Never rely on evidence that is of the same form as that which you deny is evidence at all.

You'll find that you very quickly look like a fool for doing so. (and your argument is very quickly demolished...)

 

 

Have a nice day.

[Ouroboros]

I would like to suggest a formal withdrawl from all arguments against Invictus until he grows some balls and actually puts forth some effort.  What do you say, people?

I made my arguments before I saw your post, and I agree.

 

Even if I will not completely draw back from this topic, I will refuse to go into repetitive arguments ad nauseam. And since we clearly are on different pages and can't move beyond bickering I will refrain myself from posting to the bare minimum.

[Ouroboros]

Mr. Neil,

 

You have never shown any evidence of evolution. You throw out references to websites that are nothing more than homepages for blowhards spouting their beliefs the same as I am.

 

You give the opinion of others that are no more valid than mine.

 

I gave you concrete documented evidence:

----Einstein’s general theory of relativity

----Hubble’s Law

----Background radiation found in the 60s

----Smoot’s Berkley team’s discoveries in the 90s

 

What have you given in the way of documented science?

 

And what “freely” formed thoughts have you generated from your evidence other than my thoughts are wrong?

 

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures,

or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves.

An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond

my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or absurd

egoism of feeble souls."

                  -- Albert Einstein

 

  "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,

education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.

Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear

of punishment and hope of reward after death."

            --Albert Einstein

 

      "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His

children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can

be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse

Him."

                      --A. Einstein

                        (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)

[invictus1967]

I am not arguing against your opinions, because you won’t give me an opinion. You want me to read someone else’s “essays”.

 

Mr. Neil,

 

Where did I lie? Did you or did you not call your reference an “essay”? Did the author of that “essay” admit to “deduced predictions” or not?

 

When you are relying on a hypothesis that is based on hypothesis to form your own hypothesis you must admit that is shaky at best. Once you reach the third generation of hypothesis any evidence has long disappeared and you are only left with a hypothesis without a foundation.

 

As for this being over, you are right. You folks have nothing. You refuse to give your own personal opinion. Your entire argument is based on my argument. Whatever I say, you just disagree. No foundation or justification, no opinion of your own. You just wait for me to speak, then you say “F-you, you idiot”.

 

You all try to accuse me of twisting your words when I simply copy and paste them into my posts. I ask for an example of me twisting or misquoting you and all I get is the “F-you, you idiot” response again.

 

Please don’t accuse me of not being able to think until you demonstrate the ability yourself. And I assure you, not many consider “F-you, you idiot” the result of higher thinking.

 

Until you present an intelligent argument for something, ANYTHING, it is indeed over.

[Ouroboros]

I am not arguing against your opinions, because you won’t give me an opinion. You want me to read someone else’s “essays”.

Ok, I will give some of my opinions.

 

My belief is that the Ekpyrotic Universe model makes sense, and I believe that could be an explanation to the universe. I believe there are multiple universes. And this universe was caused by a collision between this and another universe. The effects were a big bang from a very small entry point that expanded, and energy poured in into our universe.

[Guest smoothmoniker]

I shouldn't have jumped in on your thread of thought there between DW and you. I'm sorry about that.

 

It wasn't a private thread, it's a public forum. I got no problem with you jumping in. I was just clarifying my position.

 

I'm keeping an open mind to if free will exists or not, so it would be the same with free thought.

 

Ok, regardless of how you end up on this, you have to admit, that's a pretty funny sentence. My whole point is that, if free will doesn't exist, you're not keeping an open mind about anything. Something else is keeping it open for you. Or not.

 

 

And I guess now you will shower me with, "oh you haven't made up you mind so therefore you're wrong!" argument, like Invictus did.

 

Whoaaaah Nelly. Easy there boy. Do I look like Invictus? Do I talk like him? Do I smell like him? More importantly, do I jump to wild and unsubstantianted accusations like him? Please do me the courtesy of at least letting me make my own statements, and not borrowing them from someone else on my behalf.

 

 

So quantum entanglement doesn't have any meaning to you?

 

Quantem Entanglement is quickly becoming the "God of the Gaps" for naturalism. Tell you what. Assume I have a graduate level understanding of quantum physics, assume that I've read Mermin, Schroedinger, Neumman, Dirac, that I understand Hilbert space, entanglement, and the collapse of local realism. Now you explain to me how this affects our understanding of mind, free-will agency, and sentience.

 

Ready? Go.

[Mr. Neil]

Where did I lie?

You referred to the link as a "homepage". It's not a homepage.

 

I wouldn't want to assume that when you said "homepage" that you really meant "web article" or something that implied what it actually was. That would be twisting your words. I wouldn't want to do that, and I hope you have at least a little intellectual honesty to not twist your own words, either.

 

You see, "homepage" implies two things.

 

1. A homepage is the index page on a website. It's the first page you come to when you enter a website. The page I linked you to was not the index page of a website.

 

2. Being a singular word, homepage implies only one page, like a GeoShitties site or something. If you had actually done any reading, you would have noticed that what I gave you was a multi-page document; not a page.

 

You can't deny this. You clearly didn't go, otherwise your description of the article wouldn't have been so antithetical. You insinuated that you knew something about the site, as though you visited, but clearly you didn't. You bore false witness. You lied.

 

No amount of weasling will get you out of it. You are a dishonest troll, your arguments have been disingenuous all along, and now, finally, I caught you in a bold-faced lie. Everyone knows it, and you know it.

 

What that article will show you is the information that scientists have at their disposal and the methodology they use to interpret that information. It also has references that, if you're actually interested in learning, you can follow to their sources and find out more about evolution.

 

Here's the thing, Invictus. If evolution is false, then there's no harm in learning about it! But if it's true, then hiding from it isn't going to do anything. Reality ain't like your god, Invictus. Closing your eyes doesn't make it go away.

[Ouroboros]

Ok, regardless of how you end up on this, you have to admit, that's a pretty funny sentence. My whole point is that, if free will doesn't exist, you're not keeping an open mind about anything. Something else is keeping it open for you. Or not.

That is very true. It is a funny sentence!

 

Whoaaaah Nelly. Easy there boy. Do I look like Invictus? Do I talk like him? Do I smell like him? More importantly, do I jump to wild and unsubstantianted accusations like him? Please do me the courtesy of at least letting me make my own statements, and not borrowing them from someone else on my behalf.

Yes, you’re right. You’ve played a better game and I respect you for it.

 

Quantem Entanglement is quickly becoming the "God of the Gaps" for naturalism. Tell you what. Assume I have a graduate level understanding of quantum physics, assume that I've read Mermin,  Schroedinger, Neumman, Dirac, that I understand Hilbert space, entanglement, and the collapse of local realism. Now you explain to me how this affects our understanding of mind, free-will agency, and sentience.

 

Ready? Go.

What I’m referring to is Nicolas Gisin and his experiments in Lake Geneva, where the test of quantum entanglement starts to question if space-time is or if our free will is an illusion. Even that the laws of nature may somehow connected to keep quantum theory's strangest predictions to come true.

 

“Entanglement is a new explanation for how things happen in the universe," Gisin says. "It's on the same conceptual level as cause and effect: there's cause, effect and entanglement."

 

What I’m saying is that if the scientists don’t know if free will could be a result of the quantum mechanics, why do we even hold that it must or must not be either way?

 

My opinion is not that you are wrong in asserting God to exist, but I don’t deny anyone to assert the opposite. And I base this solely out of our lack of understanding of our own universe. We are not at the point of knowing this way or the other way, and yet Invictus claims that he is right and his argument is the final evidence that God exists.

 

I’m only arguing against him because of his strong headed attitude. In most arguments you will see people say “I believe it is like this”, and someone points it out, and I answer “yes, that’s my personal opinion”. But Invictus demands solid proof to contradict his hypothesis and there is none, but there’s no solid proof to support it either.

 

When the scientists talk about the “Nothing” before Big Bang, they call it the singularity or the structured nothing, the edge of time or the north pole of space and time.

 

It’s just very unclear what was “before” big bang, just because the word “before” constitutes the concept of “time” that started at big bang!

 

It’s just like a horserace, and someone asks which horse winning the race before the starting gun has been fired. No one is winning, the “God” or “No God” is both losing and both are winning! But my bet on the race is on the “No God” horse! And that is totally based on my personal and subjective opinion, and I base my decision on that the horse starts on the inner track.

 

 

***

 

SM, I think I remember that you and I came to the agreement (In my post I changed my mind, just like a good little freethinker) that you have a freewill and freethought too. Right? So it was my bad to start arguing with you again!

[Amanda]

We are not restricted to the authority of the Bible, we simply choose to accept it. We are “free” to think of a Creator, but we can also reject Him as you have done.

 

Once you reject the Creator, your thoughts are no longer “free”.

 

In regards to our origin, you are not “free” to think in terms of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution. Your thoughts are restricted to those areas because anything beyond them implies God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Invictus... I love you man... and hope that what I've said did not offend you, as that was never my intention. I respect you as a child of God!!! I understand that you want everyone to embrace and give high regards to the same 'annointing' you have tasted... I DO UNDERSTAND!!! All I'm saying brother, is perhaps we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater! Perhaps many could consider that we must give to receive... including patience. Patience is a virtue. BTW, make no mistake... I think you are a wonderful person! My apologies if you got the wrong impression the first time!

[Ouroboros]

To add to the thought of Intelligent Design and how everything is so “perfect”:

 

(And I’m surprised that Invictus didn’t use this as the argument for God instead, it’s more modern than the Kalam argument.)

 

The reality we observe in our laboratories is only an imperfect reflection of a deeper and more beautiful reality, the reality of the equations that display all the symmetries of the theory.

- Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory

 

The thought is that Nothing was perfect, and our universe is a shattered Nothing, creating an imperfect balance between the forces of matter.

If the imbalance wasn't there, matter and antimatter would annihilate each other.

 

ref.

The Hole in the Universe, K.C. Cole

The Book of Nothing, John D. Barrow

[Amanda]

That would suggest that there is a common consciousness in the universe, like pantheism, instead of a personal monotheistic monarch in another dimension.

 

So why does this suddenly prove God, and not every other religion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HanSolo.. I've been reading this fascinating thread... yet find myself dumbfounded by how much intellect you and others have in this area... and I must admit envious of your insights. For me, theory is easier... math is difficult... so could you give me a subject to start researching that would lead me to a portal that enters into this world and begin to see where you might be in regards to this subject? Thanks.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo.. I've been reading this fascinating thread... yet find myself dumbfounded by how much intellect you and others have in this area... and I must admit envious of your insights. For me, theory is easier... math is difficult... so could you give me a subject to start researching that would lead me to a portal that enters into this world and begin to see where you might be in regards to this subject? Thanks.

Ouch, I think that question was one of the harder ones!

 

I'm going to send you a PM (Personal Message) about it.