I didn't think so. That is why I prayed.
Atheism and free will: proof that God exists.
- Thread starter Caroljeen
- Start date
Whatsisface
Well-known member
So if it could have gone on it's own, how did you determine God was responsible?
Furion
Well-known member
To know the living God of course. You're not promised anything else and those who know need nothing else.
It sounds like you need to increase your faith.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Im glad we both want to believe what is true.
”Dead end “ is an odd way to put it; I hope it doesn’t indicate a less-than-optimum approach. Atheism can be wrong, incorrect, illigocial, etc., but dead end? If we are committed to the truth, it shouldn’t matter if the truth leads us to a dead end or not.
The question is, should it be enough? That’s the question we should be discussing.
"Scientists could never discover that free will does not exist via scientific experimentation, because in a deterministic world, the result of the experiment would, itself, be determined. The conclusion that there is no such thing as free will would not be arrived at because the scientists chose to set up the experiment in a good way and reasoned correctly about the data they received. Instead, physics would determine both the study’s structure and conclusions. As such, the conclusion cannot be trusted.
Even if determinism is true, this truth would not be “discovered” by the experiment, but “determined.” Discovery requires the exercise of free will. That’s why all such experiments are self-defeating. They can only be informative if free will exists. And if the will must be free for the experiments to be informative, there is no point in doing the experiment. You already know the answer before you begin: free will exists."
thinkingtobelieve.com
Even if determinism is true, this truth would not be “discovered” by the experiment, but “determined.” Discovery requires the exercise of free will. That’s why all such experiments are self-defeating. They can only be informative if free will exists. And if the will must be free for the experiments to be informative, there is no point in doing the experiment. You already know the answer before you begin: free will exists."
Free will and science
Scientists could never discover that free will does not exist via scientific experimentation, because in a deterministic world, the result of the experiment would, itself, be determined. The conclu…
thinkingtobelieve.com
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Being discovered and being determined are not mutually exclusive, as far as I can see. Why can't something be both discovered and determined?"Scientists could never discover that free will does not exist via scientific experimentation, because in a deterministic world, the result of the experiment would, itself, be determined. The conclusion that there is no such thing as free will would not be arrived at because the scientists chose to set up the experiment in a good way and reasoned correctly about the data they received. Instead, physics would determine both the study’s structure and conclusions. As such, the conclusion cannot be trusted.
Even if determinism is true, this truth would not be “discovered” by the experiment, but “determined.” Discovery requires the exercise of free will. That’s why all such experiments are self-defeating. They can only be informative if free will exists. And if the will must be free for the experiments to be informative, there is no point in doing the experiment. You already know the answer before you begin: free will exists."
Free will and science
Scientists could never discover that free will does not exist via scientific experimentation, because in a deterministic world, the result of the experiment would, itself, be determined. The conclu…
He is limiting the research to discovering if we have a free will in a deterministic world. It can't be done. Its a contradiction and a waste of time.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
I'm confused. Are you (or that article) saying that it is possible for something - not necessarily free will - to be discovered and determined?
I agree that scientists could never discover that free will exists, or does not exist. From a scientific perspective, (libertarian) free will could not be distinguished from randomness. And there does appear to be randomness.
But the argument given is bunk. No reason is given to believe that a deterministic world would mean that the conclusion of an experiment could not be trusted. And no reason is given to believe that discovery requires the exercise of (libertarian) free will.