Hi Azy
My claim is simply that the laws of physics are applicable to the molecules that make up your brain, I don't see why that requires any interpretation that hasn't been considered and accepted a million times already.
No, both our knowledge of the brain as well as our knowlegde of physics is at this point still to limited. Think about electrons in quantum mechanics for example. Some believe their behavior is completely random (without a cause) other scientists believe that there is a cause behind it that we fail to understand. I'm neutral towards each possibility, but the point remains, until we have deeper knowledge of such things, as well as for example the influence they have on the outcome of our decisions, we cannot make any conclusive claims.
What you seem to be implying is that brain activity is a product of your will, not that your will is a product of brain activity.
Yes that is a perfectly plausible scenario, because like I said we know to little of either the brain or physics to reach any conclusions.
You seem to accept that our brain processes are causal except for a few arbitrarily important moments when God steps in and the laws of physics are put on hold while you make a truly free choice. Also when a choice is made, God changes the rules of causation to suit what you have decided.
This is another second scenario. Not my personal favorite, bus still a possibility that renders your assumption inconclusive.
The third possible scenario, where the universe runs parallel so that our bodies would match our desires is the one I am personally inclined to
You called me up on the fact that we haven't proven causality holds true in all places at all, but that isn't how science works is it? What matters is that it has never been proved to be false despite attempts to do so.
No that's not what matters here. You seem to miss the entire point here. First of all, we're not clear on whether or not our brain is completely causal. In the case it isn't, that ends your argument completely. In the case the brain is causal, I have still brought up three possible scenarios that defeat your argument. Unless you can deny those scenario's, your argument again fails. Not only that, but only one of the three scenario's (the second) requires a deviation from regular causality. And if that scenario would be true, all our attempts would have failed either way. So no, what you have brought up there doesn't matter at all.
I'm not sure whether you believe your proposals can ever be shown to be true or even that they are falsifiable. It would be great if you could put forward just one case that would lead us to suspect your ideas could be a reasonable explanation.
Since it's your argument on the line, the burden of proof if yours. See if I were to come to you and say:
"this is how the brain works". Then the burden of proof is upon me. However it's the other way around:
*) You're coming to me telling me:
"this is how it works".
*) Then I'm replying to you:
"well that isn't proven"
*) To which you in return reply:
"Well how could it not be anything but this?"
*) To wish I bring hypothetical scenario's that show: it doesn't necessarily have to be in your proven way.
*) And know you're telling me, that unless I can prove these hypothetical scenarios that your (unproven!) viewpoint should be taken as default????
By what authority is your view better then mine?
Otherwise this is turning into a logic defying argument...
Not a single thing within my arguments defies logic. Please refrain from such judgmental comments. Your viewpoint seems as illogical to me as my viewpoint might seem to you. But to me my, viewpoint seems perfectly logical, just as I assume that to you your viewpoint seems perfectly logical. I used to be an atheist who debated
-just like you- that there is no free will. But logical reasoning changed my position, even before I reverted to Islam! So again, by what authority is your viewpoint better then mine?
...that has no point since we could just argue anything if we make the assumption of a boundless external intelligence who watches all and guides some while leaving no trace.
Oh that's golden, so you're telling me that the only way to make sense of an argument that contradicts free will which in turn contradicts God; is if your starting position is that there exists no God? So by your own logic, all arguments against free will and God are circular. Truth is, this debate isn't turning into anything different, it has been like that from the start on since your opening argument is biased by your paradigm (just as my counterarguments are biased by my paradigm). The only thing that's changing is your realization of this mutual antagonistic bias, not the conversation itself.
Hi AverAllahNoor
Dhan Dhan Guru Nanak Dev Ji Sahib was sent for all mankind too .... Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan.
Rome - Vatican has documents of his arrival.
1. All you seem to be able to prove (in that post) is that this person actually existed, not that he was a genuine prophet.
2. Do you have a point, or simply rising to the occasion to propagandize your views?
3. Isn't this completely of topic? Please use the proper thread for the proper message.
