God is the best planner of all?

[barney]

New Tangent.

The Nights Journey.
Mohammed went several times back and forth to Allah to renegotiate the number of prayers, each time turned back by moses, each time getting a better deal.

It's my suggestion that unless Allah planned this all ahead for an unknown reason,(and i suspect that will be the answer from the Muslims), that Gods initial plans cant have been planned that well, if two Human's (One in his forties and one dead for 2400 years) change his mind, not once but multiple times.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

New Tangent.

The Nights Journey.
Mohammed went several times back and forth to Allah to renegotiate the number of prayers, each time turned back by moses, each time getting a better deal.

It's my suggestion that unless Allah planned this all ahead for an unknown reason,(and i suspect that will be the answer from the Muslims), that Gods initial plans cant have been planned that well, if two Human's (One in his forties and one dead for 2400 years) change his mind, not once but multiple times.

Yeah you're correct the muslim interpretation has always been that it was Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) his intention in the first place to have it lowered. One of the reason why he did this was perhaps so we would know that the numbers of prayers are actually a mercy to mankind (as opposed to a more stricter larger number which would be the default)

 

[barney]

Similarly, in the OT, God is apopleptic with rage and is about to destroy the Israelites. Moses calms him down and he changes his mind. He actually says "i'm gonna destroy them" and Moses argues the toss about how that wouldnt mesh with the mercy and justice thingy. God changes his mind...as he had apparently planned, in Christian thinking, and lets them live.
This happens all over Exodus. Stuff like God or an angel wrestling Issac and dislocating his hip in an all night fight that Issac wins. God must have planned to lose the fight, which is a bit WWF for me.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Hi AverAllahNoor


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.

Perhaps, but I'm taking the opportunity to reveal a Prophet after Mohammed appeared. He existed, and yes he was a Prophet. Do some research if need be!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi barney
I guess we should allow Jews and Christians to answer that one, since Muslims question the authenticity of such details in the first place.

Hi AvarAllahNoor;

Perhaps, but I'm taking the opportunity to reveal a Prophet after Mohammed appeared. He existed, and yes he was a Prophet. Do some research if need be!

My point was that this isn't the place for you to propagandize your religion and viewpoints. I think there is enough liberty for you to express your views in the appropriate threads, a lot more freedom then you would find on other religious forums. There's no need for you to try and expand that freedom by going of topic in threads like this one.

 

[barney]

Hi barney
I guess we should allow Jews and Christians to answer that one, since Muslims question the authenticity of such details in the first place.
="Red"]

Yeah, I'm aware of that it was directed towards any veiwing.

 

[Azy]

Hiiii Steve

Let's get back to basics here. Neurology doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to this argument. The molecular building blocks of your brain are governed by the same laws that govern everything else.

The only assumption I am making is that the fundamental forces continue to act as they always have been observed and proven to do.

If you're arguing that the actions of the weak nuclear/electromagnetic force are different (or overridden completely) inside the human brain the onus is on you to propose a reasonable explanation and a way to test it.

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.

Probably the most complete description of quantum theory so far is Bohmian mechanics, which is essentially deterministic. Quantum events certainly appear random, and even if they were, does that actually aid your case in any way? That our thoughts would be based on random processes and not directed in any meaningful sense doesn't seem to tally with the idea of reasoned willful decision making.

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.

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

Since what we're really looking for is a logical conclusion based on the available evidence, I'd say these were a bit weak since:
1) There's no logic here
2) There's no evidence either

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.

Determinism is the basis of scientific observation as otherwise consistent experimental outcomes would be impossible and we do get consistent outcomes. Over millions of experiments (except at the quantum scale) the laws of physics have been seen to produce deterministic results and there isn't any compelling reason to believe that they don't.

Even if we assume that quantum mechanics is based on random processes, our choices are either a determined events ruled by deterministic laws or random events.
The fact that science sees the possibilities as either deterministic or random does not help your case at all. There is no scientific discussion over which circumstances God deems fit to change causality or alter time.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy

Let's get back to basics here. Neurology doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to this argument. The molecular building blocks of your brain are governed by the same laws that govern everything else.

There's more to neurology then simply chemistry of molecules. Take memories for example. We have absolutely no idea how they are stored in the brain; but it is however obvious that they can play significant roles in our choices. So far the best that we have been able to do is see that certain memories are correlated to certain areas. We know that we build neural networks, which rely on impulses (which is why I brought up quantum physics rather then chemistry).

The only assumption I am making is that the fundamental forces continue to act as they always have been observed and proven to do.

No the assumption you're making is that these fundamental forces are the sole responsible for the outcome, that's a whole different thing then saying that the process of will works with fundamental forces.

If you're arguing that the actions of the weak nuclear/electromagnetic force are different (or overridden completely) inside the human brain the onus is on you to propose a reasonable explanation and a way to test it.

Like I already demonstrated, I do not have to prove that. Since it's your argument on the line, the burden of proof lies with you. The mere possibility of the option renders your argument inconclusive, to safe your argument from inconclusiveness, you'd have to either prove your view or disprove all alternative options. To suggest that your point of view should be valid even without proof unless I bring evidence is absurd, not to mention arrogant.

Probably the most complete description of quantum theory so far is Bohmian mechanics, which is essentially deterministic. Quantum events certainly appear random, and even if they were, does that actually aid your case in any way?

Bohmian mechanics are build on the assumption that there are hidden variables that govern particles. Assumptions assumptions assumptions...
As for your question, I'm neutral towards whether or not they are actually causal or random, and My viewpoints of free will are compatible with either case. However in the case that it is indeed random (meaning it has no physical cause) then yes your argument is completely destroyed.

That our thoughts would be based on random processes and not directed in any meaningful sense doesn't seem to tally with the idea of reasoned willful decision making.

They could have spiritual cause as opposed to physical cause.

Since what we're really looking for is a logical conclusion based on the available evidence, I'd say these were a bit weak since:
1) There's no logic here
2) There's no evidence either

There is no evidence for either your nor mine viewpoint. As for logic, like I said you are as much biased as I am. And I hold that my viewpoint is more logical then yours. But such a debate is completely futile. You cannot weigh of one paradigm against the other. To even suggest to do so shows that you have a very narrow minded view.

Determinism is the basis of scientific observation as otherwise consistent experimental outcomes would be impossible and we do get consistent outcomes. Over millions of experiments (except at the quantum scale) the laws of physics have been seen to produce deterministic results and there isn't any compelling reason to believe that they don't.

Well stick to the lesson please, I have always claimed that there is predestination, and thus there is strict determinism. The only thing we disagree on is what determines what. Be carefull not to fight strawmen arguments.

Even if we assume that quantum mechanics is based on random processes, our choices are either a determined events ruled by deterministic laws or random events.

Like I said a few paragraphs before, you're completely ignoring the possibility of a spiritual cause.

The fact that science sees the possibilities as either deterministic or random does not help your case at all.

It doesn't necessarily help mine, but my point is it doesn't help you either. Science is completely neutral in the debate on free will since "will" is something that is for the moment not covered by science. It is still in the "unknown". So you can't use science to tell whether or not it is free. You're whole argument is build on assumptions.

There is no scientific discussion over which circumstances God deems fit to change causality or alter time.

That's irrelevant. Whether or not there is ground for something to be within the realm of science has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true! There is no scientific discussion about whether or not willpower is free or not either. However you seem to have a hard time accepting that.

 

[Azy]

[BANANA]Hiii Steeeve[/BANANA]

There's more to neurology then simply chemistry of molecules.

There is more to computer science than the chemistry of molecules. Your friend Chuck made an interesting statement, he seems to believe that by giving them a sufficiently complex program that he has embued his electronics with a soul or some such capable or making decisions independent of it's physical being.

The mere possibility of the option renders your argument inconclusive, to safe your argument from inconclusiveness, you'd have to either prove your view or disprove all alternative options.

All 'truths' of science are tentatively true allowing that one day they may be proven false. However, that doesn't give you a licence to put forward anything you can think of without so much as a shred of reasoning behind it and say that it's a valid alternative.

Bohmian mechanics are build on the assumption that there are hidden variables that govern particles.

It makes predictions about these things and these predictions are borne out by what we actually see.
Bohmian mechanics and the Many Worlds interpretation are the two strongest alternatives for a solid quantum theory, both have support from experimental evidence and are both deterministic.

As for logic, like I said you are as much biased as I am. And I hold that my viewpoint is more logical then yours. But such a debate is completely futile. You cannot weigh of one paradigm against the other. To even suggest to do so shows that you have a very narrow minded view.

Well let's be honest, you did lead me on a bit attempting to logically infer something based on assumptions that we do not and possibly can not know.

You're right we cannot argue these two things against each other, but you have to admit that one of the two has done a lot of explaining over the years and one has seen it's scope dwindle.

Like I said a few paragraphs before, you're completely ignoring the possibility of a spiritual cause.

What good would recognising it do? There is no way to test this and there are no observations that suggest it might be plausible.

That's irrelevant. Whether or not there is ground for something to be within the realm of science has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true! There is no scientific discussion about whether or not willpower is free or not either. However you seem to have a hard time accepting that.

While it has traditionally been the territory of theologians and philosophers, it would be a mistake to think that there is no scientific debate on the subject.

 

[Chuck]

There is more to computer science than the chemistry of molecules. Your friend Chuck made an interesting statement, he seems to believe that by giving them a sufficiently complex program that he has embued his electronics with a soul or some such capable or making decisions independent of it's physical being.

What that suppose to mean? You are mixing lot of things here 'soul' and 'making decisions independent of its physical being.' Where did you get all that from? I only pointed out that having processes doesn't eliminate free choice among different alternatives. So in your opinion there should no chemical or/and mechanical processes for an entity to have free choice?

 

[barney]

Just to point out we do have a very clear idea how memory is stored in the brain. The repeated use of neural pathways, burning a channel which enables future recollection to be enhanced.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi azy

There is more to computer science than the chemistry of molecules. Your friend Chuck made an interesting statement, he seems to believe that by giving them a sufficiently complex program that he has embued his electronics with a soul or some such capable or making decisions independent of it's physical being.

I would tend to disagree with him, although I respect his viewpoint.

All 'truths' of science are tentatively true allowing that one day they may be proven false. However, that doesn't give you a license to put forward anything you can think of without so much as a shred of reasoning behind it and say that it's a valid alternative.

No no, that is completely irrelevant. Let me put it this way: we haven't found any cause of our will. In other words, we don not know what causes it. You're assuming that it is a simple reaction to environmental impulses trough the classical causal laws. I hold that the environment has no major determining effect in it (even though it can guide will to some extend). Neither of these two views are scientific. Neither of these two views are based on empirical testing. Neither of these two views are falsifiable or tested. Yet you claim that your view should be the default scientific view? Based on what? Like I said, this is just your interpretation of how the brain works, science is at this point still very neutral towards how things actually are.

It makes predictions about these things and these predictions are borne out by what we actually see.
Bohmian mechanics and the Many Worlds interpretation are the two strongest alternatives for a solid quantum theory, both have support from experimental evidence and are both deterministic.

You missed the point. I said bohemian science is based on the assumption there are hidden variables. Since we don't know these variables, or don't know what causes them, all bets are off. So you cannot claim that will is a direct result of physics laws.

Well let's be honest, you did lead me on a bit attempting to logically infer something based on assumptions that we do not and possibly can not know.

I did no such thing, I merely showed you why your argument is logically flawed. I didn't infer; and I didn't base my case on any assumptions, I merely showed you the flaws in your logic.

I'll make you an analogy:
If I say: all beabeabea's are boobooboo's therefore, all boobooboo's are beabeabea's.
You could reply: no, maybe there are also boobooboo's that aren't beabeabea's.
I would then not be able to discredit your counterargument by saying: you're leading me on to assume that there exist something which we cannot know. It's not a matter of what we know and don't know, it's a matter of the argument being logically flawed.​

You're right we cannot argue these two things against each other, but you have to admit that one of the two has done a lot of explaining over the years and one has seen it's scope dwindle.

No I wouldn't admit such a thing at all. You make it seem like this is religion vs. science. but that's not what it is at all. Instead it's your paradigm based on your assumptions vs. my paradigm based on my assumptions. Like I said, science is completely neutral in this.

What good would recognising it do? There is no way to test this...

What good would it do? well very simple, it shows your argument is flawed. There is an alternative option that your logic fails to exclude. Hence your whole argument falls apart. And so what if you cannot test that? That doesn't mean it's not possible. As long as it is possible you should keep it into consideration when making any "proofs" that there is no free will. IF you fail to do that, your argument is flawed because it assumes that a certain possibility is not the case.

and there are no observations that suggest it might be plausible.

Yes there are, observation of special relativity suggests 4dimensionalism, which like I stated earlier makes my alternative view very plausible.

While it has traditionally been the territory of theologians and philosophers, it would be a mistake to think that there is no scientific debate on the subject.

No science only deals with explaining reactions, since we haven't found any thing that could physically cause our will, it is not within the realm of science.

 

[Trumble]

Just to point out we do have a very clear idea how memory is stored in the brain. The repeated use of neural pathways, burning a channel which enables future recollection to be enhanced.

We have no plausible description in scientific terms of what memory even is. We don't have a satisfactory explanation of mental representation (i.e how any cognitive event can mean something in the terms of the external world), and don't look like getting one any time soon. Without those things the most neurophysiology can claim is 'repeated use of neural pathways', etc, etc might have have something to do with it. That is hardly a 'very clear idea' of how the mechanism works.

No science only deals with explaining reactions, since we haven't found any thing that could physically cause our will, it is not within the realm of science.

Agreed. The 'scientific' position on this question amounts essentially to no more than believing a purely materialistic/reductionist explanation to be possible. Even then, the free will v. determinism question is likely to still be there. Quantum mechanics has been introduced as a possible route (due to elements of 'randomness') that might allow 'free will' in an otherwise deterministic universe but even if one interpretation or other of QM could be 'proven' correct there is still a whole metaphorical universe between that and applying it to the problem of free will, or even any sort of cognitive event.

 

[Muslim Knight]

Just to point out we do have a very clear idea how memory is stored in the brain. The repeated use of neural pathways, burning a channel which enables future recollection to be enhanced.

Not necessarily. What we have is selective memory. A person may totally forget what he had just read numerous times previously the day before, but remembers a distant childhood event which may have happened only once in his entire 25 years of life.

Scientists still could not explain the brain memory function entirely. They are baffled at the fact that why the brain decides which information to keep or discard. We can try to improve our memory by repetitive tasks, but the brain is autonomous in this case.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi barney, I overlooked your post before, so here's a late response =)

Just to point out we do have a very clear idea how memory is stored in the brain. The repeated use of neural pathways, burning a channel which enables future recollection to be enhanced.

That hardly explains how we store memories. At best what we have found is that somehow this neural network is related to our memories. We don't know though how this relation works. Does having a memory induce these currents trough the network or the other way around does an induced current cause the memory. And how does each synapse store it's memory? How is a specific point in the network charged with a value? For example, how does this network store "the color blue" or "the term ambiguous" and "last night's dinner"? I think you start to catch my drift by now, the neural network doesn't explain at all how the brain stores memories, it only explains how different memories work with each other, or in other words how the human mind makes associations between one stored memories and another.

 

[Azy]

I would tend to disagree with him, although I respect his viewpoint.

I would tend to disagree, although I respect his right to have a viewpoint.

No no, that is completely irrelevant. Let me put it this way: we haven't found any cause of our will. In other words, we don not know what causes it. You're assuming that it is a simple reaction to environmental impulses trough the classical causal laws. I hold that the environment has no major determining effect in it (even though it can guide will to some extend). Neither of these two views are scientific. Neither of these two views are based on empirical testing. Neither of these two views are falsifiable or tested. Yet you claim that your view should be the default scientific view? Based on what?

Based on our knowledge of the basics rules that govern our universe and that we don't actually know of any reason why they would not govern our brains. No one has ever seen anything that contradicts this, so what exactly is it you have observed that gives you a reason to think it not only could be wrong but probably is wrong?

No I wouldn't admit such a thing at all. You make it seem like this is religion vs. science. but that's not what it is at all. Instead it's your paradigm based on your assumptions vs. my paradigm based on my assumptions. Like I said, science is completely neutral in this.

Well it is when you start saying "this isn't scientifically proven, logically this and this could happen" and then "hey, you haven't considered a spiritual cause". Does that not sound like science and religion to you?

What good would it do? well very simple, it shows your argument is flawed. There is an alternative option that your logic fails to exclude. Hence your whole argument falls apart. And so what if you cannot test that? That doesn't mean it's not possible.

It's not impossible that we're all avatars acting out the wishes of a race of invisible supersquids living under the surface of neptune, communicating their desires by superluminal telepathy.
That doesn't mean it would have any credibility, unless there was sufficient reason to think that it might be true, not just that it might be possible.

Yes there are, observation of special relativity suggests 4dimensionalism, which like I stated earlier makes my alternative view very plausible.

By your own reasoning science has no business with free will, so why start arguing this point?

No science only deals with explaining reactions, since we haven't found any thing that could physically cause our will, it is not within the realm of science.

Interesting debate

 

[Chuck]

I would tend to disagree, although I respect his right to have a viewpoint.

This conversation is not making any sense. First you paraphrase me incorrectly, then he disagree, then you disagrees. You want to take the liberty to wrongly paraphrase me but you seem to be avoiding my question.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy

Based on our knowledge of the basics rules that govern our universe and that we don't actually know of any reason why they would not govern our brains.

That is wrong, you keep saying that, but it's wrong wrong wrong. Just repeating the argument doesn't make it true! Like I said before. There's a difference between saying that you believe the brain works trough causal forces, and believing that these causal forces are directly responsible for our will. And like I said, my personal inclination is that there is actually causal processes in our brain. However you're not only assuming that there's causal relations in our brains, you're also assuming that our free will is a direct result of it! Basically that makes as much sense as saying: "we see that cars and houses and lakes and mountains and distant stars and galaxies don't have souls, so why would humans have a soul if we haven't found it anywhere else.

Well it is when you start saying "this isn't scientifically proven, logically this and this could happen" and then "hey, you haven't considered a spiritual cause". Does that not sound like science and religion to you?

No it doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds like "your interpretation of science vs religion" Because like we have all repeatedly said to you: science is completely neutral in this point. So it's never science vs religion. It's you trying to back your personal ideas and arguments up with science (but failing to do so).

It's not impossible that we're all avatars acting out the wishes of a race of invisible supersquids living under the surface of neptune, communicating their desires by superluminal telepathy.

There's a huge difference. I'm not making any assumptions whoms validity rely on whether or not the above is true. However you are making assumptions whoms validity rely on whether or not there could be a spiritual cause. And like I said, there are many indication of a spiritual soul, so your ridiculous analogy of the neptune creatures is highly inapt.

That doesn't mean it would have any credibility, unless there was sufficient reason to think that it might be true, not just that it might be possible.

So things can only be true if there's sufficient reason to think they are true. That's a very bold arrogant statement. there used to be a time when there weren't any reasons to think that the earth isn't the center of the universe. If people would have your attitude, we'd still be in those dark ages. Regardlessly, that's irrelevant, like I said, there are lots of indications of a soul.

By your own reasoning science has no business with free will, so why start arguing this point?

Again your many strawmen arguments could mean one of two things:
1. You're deliberately trying to make me look bad by making up strawmen-arguments.
2. You're not paying close attention to what I'm saying and just trying to "fight" anything that I post.

Anyway: no, by my reasoning science is still neutral since the indications we have are not conclusive, that however doesn't exclude that we do have indications of the existence of a soul. That also doesn't exclude indications towards a stage-universe trough which the souls traverse. In other words, there are indications that make my view a lot more plausible than yours.

Interesting debate

No arguing by links please.

Hi chuck
don't worry, I didn't disagree with you just because he misquoted you. Rather I disagree because I think that any current forms of AI that we have are by design not build to be intelligent, but rather built to mimic human intelligence. So the AI lacks a cognitive factor. For example a chatbot doesn't respond in a certain way because he thinks that is intelligent, he simply does so because we programmed him to respond that way because the programmers think that such a response is an intelligent response. (Or in the case of a chatbot who learns, the people talking to him take function as "programmers"). Similar things can be said about other AI. Like program that makes abstract poetry, it reads articles online, and looks at which words are often combined in sentences and builds associations. So what it does, it's simply programmed to analyse intelligent writings, and copy that intelligence into abstract art. The program however doesn't make any statements or doesn't convey any feelings with his "art" as opposed to an artist. this cognitive factor is very crucial to "free will". Inserting randomness into a line of program may in a sense make the program "free" but it doesn't give the program "willpower".

 

[Pygoscelis]

There is no such thing as free will. lawyers always charge for their services.

 

[jd7]

Folks, thanks for the insights (work demands). I have only had time to barely scan them, I will do my best to study them.

If I have understood some of the replies correctly it is the preservation of the Quran is seen, by some, as the main reason to believe Islam/Quran to be devinely inspired?

JD7