The existence of God

[sumay28]

Proof of a God

Wild salmon hatch from eggs buried in gravel on the bottoms of streams. Spaces between rocks in the gravel let water move around the eggs, which keeps them healthy. Plants on the side of the stream make shade on the water to keep it cool enough for salmon eggs. After they hatch, young salmon journey to ocean, where they spend several years growing up.
Once fully grown, they begin the journey back to the stream where they were born. No one is really sure how they find their way back to that one special stream. Some scientists think the salmon can smell very small differences in the water from different rivers, and that is how they know where to go. As salmon head upstream into rivers, they must pass all the same obstacles they faced as young fish. Still, they keep swimming. They are so strong they can swim against the current and jump up small waterfalls! Meanwhile, the bears and predators gather together like it's a holiday to catch em. And they do it all without food -- spawning salmon don't eat once they begin their swim upstream. During this time they go through extreme physical changes. They develop a beak-like thing, and their color changes. Once they reach the place where they hatched, the salmon spawn. Female salmon dig holes in the gravel with their tails and lay their eggs in the holes. Male salmon fertilize the eggs with a fluid called milt, then the female buries the eggs. When spawning is over, the adult salmon die. Their bodies become food for all kinds of scavenging animals, and also provide nutrients to the plants and soil of the forests that grow near the streams. In a few months, if all goes well, their eggs will hatch and the baby salmon will begin the cycle all over again.


ALLAHU AKBAR!!!

And still... people would rather accept no explanation for it, instead of just admitting even the POSSIBILITY that there is a Creator, a Governer... a GOD.

 

[time_spender]

sumay28 :

Wild salmon hatch from eggs buried in gravel on the bottoms of streams. Spaces between rocks in the gravel let water move around the eggs, which keeps them healthy. Plants on the side of the stream make shade on the water to keep it cool enough for salmon eggs. After they hatch, young salmon journey to ocean, where they spend several years growing up.
Once fully grown, they begin the journey back to the stream where they were born. No one is really sure how they find their way back to that one special stream. Some scientists think the salmon can smell very small differences in the water from different rivers, and that is how they know where to go. As salmon head upstream into rivers, they must pass all the same obstacles they faced as young fish. Still, they keep swimming. They are so strong they can swim against the current and jump up small waterfalls! Meanwhile, the bears and predators gather together like it's a holiday to catch em. And they do it all without food -- spawning salmon don't eat once they begin their swim upstream. During this time they go through extreme physical changes. They develop a beak-like thing, and their color changes. Once they reach the place where they hatched, the salmon spawn. Female salmon dig holes in the gravel with their tails and lay their eggs in the holes. Male salmon fertilize the eggs with a fluid called milt, then the female buries the eggs. When spawning is over, the adult salmon die. Their bodies become food for all kinds of scavenging animals, and also provide nutrients to the plants and soil of the forests that grow near the streams. In a few months, if all goes well, their eggs will hatch and the baby salmon will begin the cycle all over again.


ALLAHU AKBAR!!!

And still... people would rather accept no explanation for it, instead of just admitting even the POSSIBILITY that there is a Creator, a Governer... a GOD.

Allahu Akbaro kabira!
It was mazing sis sumay28..thanx for sharing!
its true...everything has a reason and its God!
czgibson,can i ask u something!
U must know some geology...the geologist say that Dinasaurs were on earth million years ago...after their extinction starts new smaller beasts apear on earth....they become smaller and smaller till the time is appropraite for humans too live,....the only creature that has the power 2 rule earth appears in a time that beast are smaller in size(A lion is beter than a meat-eater dinasaur!!!)
Now the question is who controled the conditions so it was good enough for humans 2 live? who made the creatures smaller so Human can live and rule earth while if he was born in Dinasaurs time he would taste the extinction!!
did the nature decide to do the procedure so when the conditions got better he born the only choosing-ruler creature? nature has a brain?
Whats the answer...can u tell me plz...i wanna now how u make stories for nature?!!
Wasalam and peace

p.s.sorry 4 the mistakes!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Time Spender,

czgibson,can i ask u something!

Certainly.

U must know some geology...the geologist say that Dinasaurs were on earth million years ago...after their extinction starts new smaller beasts apear on earth....they become smaller and smaller till the time is appropraite for humans too live,....the only creature that has the power 2 rule earth appears in a time that beast are smaller in size(A lion is beter than a meat-eater dinasaur!!!)

Some creatures grew smaller, some grew bigger. The blue whale, for example, is the largest animal alive today. It's also the largest animal that has ever lived on the planet. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Now the question is who controled the conditions so it was good enough for humans 2 live? who made the creatures smaller so Human can live and rule earth while if he was born in Dinasaurs time he would taste the extinction!!
did the nature decide to do the procedure so when the conditions got better he born the only choosing-ruler creature? nature has a brain?
Whats the answer...can u tell me plz...i wanna now how u make stories for nature?!!

The simple answer is that nobody controlled the conditions you speak of. Nature accomplished this by itself.

Peace

 

[time_spender]

Greetings Time Spender,


Certainly.
Some creatures grew smaller, some grew bigger. The blue whale, for example, is the largest animal alive today. It's also the largest animal that has ever lived on the planet. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

the simple answer is that nobody controlled the conditions you speak of. Nature accomplished this by itself.

Peace

Greetings czgibson
first of all Whales live in the sea and its has nothing to do with humans!!
And its a simple fact that the beasts that were meat eaters and lived on land grew smaller or atleast became less dangerous....

and now,is nature intelligent?
it gives birth to the only creature that has the power to choose(so he can rule the earth!) when the appropriate time comes! do u mean nature knows that what he's doin?
If ur saying this then we believe that God did that with nature!
Hope u understand what i,m saying!!!
peace and

 

[muslim dude]

May Allah bestow His peace on these who are guided and may Allah bestow His peace on these who are not guided by guiding them to the straight path.

Bismillah.

Hi Callum,

Listen, hope you do not mind, but our discussion seems to have kind of split into two - one about the Qur'an and the other about existence of God so I am just going to concentrate on the latter, and insha'allah cover you points of comparing Shakespeare et al with the Qur'an in another more appropriate thread.

The point is you've made an assumption in your premise, therefore your argument is not logically binding. In form your argument may well be valid, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. Here's an example of a similar argument (exaggerated to make the point clear):

If all chickens are elephants,
and all elephants are bananas,
then all chickens are bananas.

That argument is logically valid, but it's not logically binding, because it's clearly nonsense, filled as it is with assumptions that bear no resemblance to the real world.

Ok, in my defence I would say that I was not making an assumption that God is the creator. Rather, I have attached a label "God" to The Creator. What you have to understand, is that many, many people in different cultures, different times and different locations have attached different labels to the same Entity. While it is true to say that people have differed on the attributes and sometimes on the essence of this Entity, one of the more common factors would be that this One was acknowledged as The Creator and The Sustainer of all that exists.

This would mean the argument that was put forward by myself in our discussion would not only be logically sound, but logically binding. The difference being syntactic rather than semantic so to speak.

In fact, I would say that "atheists" also have have attached a label to the The Creator and The Sustainer of all that exists...

So for your argument to be similar to what I said, it will run more like the following:

If all chickens are gallus gallus,
and all gallus gallus lay eggs,
then all chickens lay eggs.

Right, so you are asking what is this label that is used by atheists? I will let you answer that one by yourself.

The simple answer is that nobody controlled the conditions you speak of. Nature accomplished this by itself.

Nature is your label!

If you accept this, then I guess it is more of a question of discussing the attributes and essence of "The Creator and Sustainer of all that exists" rather than the existence of the "The Creator and Sustainer of all that exists" which is probably a separate discussion suitable for another thread.

I would like to conclude (insha'allah) our discussion by adding, though it is possible to use logic to derive the existence of "The Creator and Sustainer of all that exists" and some more of His attributes, muslims and perhaps other theists would argue that inorder to get a fuller understanding of the attributes and essence of The Creator, we as human beings, with our limited knowledge are in need of Divine Revelation for a clearer understanding. For muslims this would be the Qur'an and the Sunnah of The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

(Qur'an, Chapter 112 (Al-Iklhas: The Purity): 1 - 4)
"Say (O Muhammad (pbuh)): He is Allâh, (the) One."
"Allâh-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks)."
"He begets not, nor was He begotten;"
"there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."

 

[mysticalsilence]

Greetings Aamirsaab,

Do the points you mention seem like a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil to you?

The point is, do we need god to remind us that there are "poor souls" in the world? Do we need god to remind us that we can be killed at any time? I'm perfectly aware of these things even though I don't believe in god.

Peace

You know what’s funny?
What you call a problem I actually see as a solution!

I would actually call God lame if there was no evil on this planet and we where not capable of it.
Imagine humanity knowing the existence of God and communicating with him directly and also not being capable of doing evil.

a) We (humanity) wouldn’t be intellectually challenged to do anything we would just refer to god for the answer or for him to do it for us.
B) We would not really have free will because not being capable of doing evil and only good would limit our existence. I mean we wouldn't even be able to develop or conclude the relativity of evil it self!
c) Everyone would be awarded heaven just for being? (I especially like the concept of degrees of heaven in Islam getting what you deserve based on what you have done)

So not having evil would actually go against our existence as human beings how can you have free will when you cannot do evil?

Even as an atheist are you not thankful for your existence even if it was a bunch of atoms that just happened to be at the right time to form an embryo while your mother was pregnant. You have probably done things that are morally wrong in your lifetime and some people do even worst but in general everyone is thankful their existence.

That is why in general Humanity is also reflective of that and thankful for existence regardless of evil. The beauty of humanity itself is that we can choose and lead ourselves to where ever we choose.

Evil is what separates us from animals and makes our social behavior complex (free will).

Its like saying I want to watch TV but I don’t want to pay for the electricity.
Evil is part of the functionally of free will we are not complete without it.

Am I the only one that see beauty in evil(not evil deeds but its existence)



***

Also while I am at it I would also like to use an analogy that Denys Turner used to perhaps answer the question on why God might of created us.


its like asking why did Mozart create his music?
One could answer because he needed money or wanted to be famous.
But the simple and clear answer would be just because he could and it was an exercise of his creative powers.

I just think God created us because he could as simple as that.

 

[root]

mysticalsilence - How do you know that you have free will? Philosophical tradition claims that no choice is free unless it is uncaused: that is, unless the "will" is exercised independently of all causal influences. Choices are made by brains, and brains operate causally, that is they go from one state to the next as a function of antecedent conditions.

Your brain merely rationalises evil as something that it learns, not something that exists indapendently. Additionally, to claim that animals do not have free will then why does a chimp eat a banana, but refrains from eating it when the alpha male would spot him doing so?

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

mysticalsilence you amaze me, in a brilliant way of course, i never ever thought of things in such a way. Thanks

 

[mysticalsilence]

mysticalsilence - How do you know that you have free will? Philosophical tradition claims that no choice is free unless it is uncaused: that is, unless the "will" is exercised independently of all causal influences. Choices are made by brains, and brains operate causally, that is they go from one state to the next as a function of antecedent conditions.

Your brain merely rationalises evil as something that it learns, not something that exists indapendently. Additionally, to claim that animals do not have free will then why does a chimp eat a banana, but refrains from eating it when the alpha male would spot him doing so?

You know I really don’t know how to answer such a thing really because it sort of makes sense and I understand what you mean but it makes us look very robotic.
But let me give you a on the spot answer don’t counter argue it to much or quote me on it harshly as if it was my final answer.

First of there are major difference in what I meant by free will and as you took it. I'm sorry I dint should of put more effort into a clearer vocabulary.

Everyone knows that every "decision"(lets call it that) is caused(chemically and environmentally) in animals and also humans. But it’s not the cause of the decision itself that matters.
Amongst many other features of the human brain is the fact that we can take decisions that go against survival.(natural selection)

For example:
Suicide/self mutilation this really indicates a free will like state of mind for the humans vs. animals because whatever the cause its a "decision" an animal could not take because it is against its own survival.
Also your example of the chimp shows that its a mostly instinct based reaction. A Human will sometimes put himself in the face of danger for no apparent reason and animals will not do that that is what I mean by free will.

Even though I replied to you, as for your base using the philosophical claim to begin with!
I don’t know much about it I will look into it. I don’t have habit of just believing what people tell me is the standard. (At least not anymore)

Reply let me know if you think there is a weakness in this and I will look into it further.

Ali.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

mysticalsilence - How do you know that you have free will? Philosophical tradition claims that no choice is free unless it is uncaused: that is, unless the "will" is exercised independently of all causal influences. Choices are made by brains, and brains operate causally, that is they go from one state to the next as a function of antecedent conditions.

First of all there is absolutely no research that shows us that the outcome of a choice is as simple as a chemical reaction. Science is far from showing us that thinking is nothing more then a causal process. There are to many questions when it comes to understanding how the brain works.

But what is even more striking, is that suppose science would show that there's nothing more to our consciousness then just physical processes in our brains. Even if science would be able to show us just how the whole brain works, and what factors are decisive in the outcome of our choices, we still wouldn't be able to foresee the decisions a person will make. Because some processes that occur in our brain rely on the collisions of electrons. these collisions would require quantum mechanics to calculate, and as for now quantum mechanics at best can only give us a probability of an outcome.

Your brain merely rationalizes evil as something that it learns, not something that exists independently. Additionally, to claim that animals do not have free will then why does a chimp eat a banana, but refrains from eating it when the alpha male would spot him doing so?

He doesn't eat it out of opportunitism. He does not eat it because he realizes the consequence of eating it and he fears those consequences. Now doing something with a motive is still not the same as doing something out of free will. To exercise free will one has to do something out of ideology. For example fasting to worship even though your body asks for food, spending your time praying even though your mind would like to indulge in vain entertainment. That is the true free will.

 

[Chuck]

Speaking of free choice and evolution, here is something:

Sense of justice discovered in the brain

A brain region that curbs our natural self interest has been identified. The studies could explain how we control fairness in our society, researchers say.

Humans are the only animals to act spitefully or to mete out "justice", dishing out punishment to people seen to be behaving unfairly – even if it is not in the punisher's own best interests. This tendency has been hard to explain in evolutionary terms, because it has no obvious reproductive advantage and punishing unfairness can actually lead to the punisher being harmed.

Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10239&feedId=online-news_rss20

 

[Woodrow]

Just my own random thoughts.

Some people will make the statement that matter exists simply because it exists no further explanation needed. And that statement makes sense and needs no further interpretation.

Yet, when we say Allah(swt) exists simply because He exists, That is immediatly seen as an invalid statement and needs irrefutable documentation of it's truth.

People will say matter is quantifiable and qualifiable and will produce tools that show it can be measured. Yet, the tools can only measure what they are designed to be measured. They are designed with the preconcieved concept as to what they should find. The tool in itself is considered the proof that it works.

But, when we use tools of faith, revealed word, and historical observation to measure the existance of Allah(swt) we are told that our methods are flawed because we are using them with a preconcieved idea as to what we will find. We are told we have designed tools, with the concept of what they should find. We are considering our tools in themselves as proof they work


Us Humans sure are funny creatures.

 

[Trumble]

My take on that would be that I agree, but I note a certain inherent contradiction.

Yet, when we say Allah(swt) exists simply because He exists, That is immediatly seen as an invalid statement and needs irrefutable documentation of it's truth.

I certainly don't see it that way, and fully understand why muslims don't. However you happen to view God, or 'reality', or both (including atheistic materialism), somewhere down the line you need to accept some sort of faith based assumptions. What puzzles me, though, is why that can't just be accepted as an obvious truth. With that in mind

But, when we use tools of faith, revealed word, and historical observation to measure the existance of Allah(swt) we are told that our methods are flawed because we are using them with a preconcieved idea as to what we will find. We are told we have designed tools, with the concept of what they should find. We are considering our tools in themselves as proof they work

But why bother? From a purely personal point of view I think muslims would be better just taking the 'acceptance' approach. As I've said before, I find attempts to 'prove' the existence of God and truth of the Qur'an via so-called Qur'anic miracles and such utterly pointless, not least because few other than muslims, even when approaching with something resembling an open mind, find them even vaguely convincing of anything. Outside of an Islamic context they simply aren't convincing... and no desperate desire to 'deny' the existence of God is needed to think that way. The whole thing just gives the impression of an urgent need on the part of muslims to prove it to themselves rather than to anybody else, which I know is totally unfounded.

 

[Woodrow]

The whole thing just gives the impression of an urgent need on the part of muslims to prove it to themselves rather than to anybody else, which I know is totally unfounded.

You are correct. I can understand why people would think that is what we are doing. That is something I had not thought about. Thank you for bringing that to attention.

We do not have any need to prove anything to others. We know Allah(swt) exists and that is all that matters. No need in trying to offer proof to anyone who is not receptive. It may be best if we just restrict our proofs to those who express a desire to learn why we believe as we do.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Greetings Trumble,
It is definitely erroneous to assert that such evidences are unconvincing absolutely outside of an Islamic context as demonstrated by the testimony of thousands of converts who embrace Islam on the basis of rational and objective investigation. It is one thing to claim that you find the evidences unconvincing, but it is another to assert that they are unconvincing to every non-muslim - by all means share your criticism of the evidences if you see any significant flaw in our argumentation. You can look at my posts in the the various threads on God or the Qur'an or the life of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and provide your criticism.

You see, in Islam we do not believe in blind faith. We don't just blindly accept the creed passed down by our ancestors. We use faith, but our faith is constructed upon rational and objective study of the truth, of the life of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, of the Qur'an and of other theologies and ideologies. Muslims maintain that Islam stands above all other theologies, ideologies and philosophies in its logical coherence and its ability to provide a complete explanation for our existence and place in the universe. As I said in another post:

On the contrary Islam has everything to do with logic. Faith should not be placed in illogical doctrines passed down by one's ancestors. Islam provides the most coherent, comprehensive and parsimonious explanation for our existence. It is analogous to how scientists accept the theory that provides the most parsimonious explanation for a specific observable phenomenon.​

Personally, when I present these evidences for the veracity of Islam - whether they be arguments on the doctrines themselves, the Qur'anic evidences, the life of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, etc. - I find the objections proferred by atheists and other disbelievers to be feeble and unconvincing. Many of these atheists realize this as well; Dr. Jeffery Lang and Dr. Laurence Brown have both authored books on the subject, both having been staunch atheists all their life. So the evidences clearly are convincing people from the other side, and certainly motivating them to become their ardent bearers. As such, in order to advance a viable objection, it takes a more rational and objective critique of the evidences than to simply assert that they "aren't convincing".

Regards

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/31757-there-any-real-proof-islam-right-religion.html

 

[Trumble]

It is definitely erroneous to assert that such evidences are unconvincing absolutely outside of an Islamic context as demonstrated by the testimony of thousands of converts who embrace Islam on the basis of rational and objective investigation. It is one thing to claim that you find the evidences unconvincing, but it is another to assert that they are unconvincing to every non-muslim - by all means share your criticism of the evidences if you see any significant flaw in our argumentation. You can look at my posts in the the various threads on God or the Qur'an or the life of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and provide your criticism.

Fair point, it would certainly be inappropriate to generalize to that extent, although I did say previously that;

because few other than muslims, even when approaching with something resembling an open mind, find them even vaguely convincing

I think 'few' is accurate.

As such, in order to advance a viable objection, it takes a more rational and objective critique of the evidences than to simply assert that they "aren't convincing".

True, certainly, when each is approached individually. I have, however, put forward viable (I wouldn't claim definitive) objections regarding a selection already across assorted threads and really don't think it would achieve much to do so again. As an entity, though, I'm not sure that is required, simply because if they were 'convincing' far more people would have been convinced by them. Some care is needed in clarifying what I am talking about here. Obviously huge numbers have been convinced by the Qu'ran in many ways, as many have been convinced by the Bible in much the same ways, but you will need to 'convince' me that much conversion to Islam has occurred because of "rational and objective investigation" in the scientific sense.

Personally, when I present these evidences for the veracity of Islam - whether they be arguments on the doctrines themselves, the Qur'anic evidences, the life of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, etc. - I find the objections proferred by atheists and other disbelievers to be feeble and unconvincing.

As I find the science based 'evidences' feeble and unconvincing, which is both precisely my point and as far as I went. I just think Islam has far stronger arguments, as theology, as metaphysics, and as a way for individuals to lead spiritual, fulfilling and happy lives, than messing about with attempted scientific parallels. Of course, as you don't view them that way, you won't agree.

I'd better add to that that I can certainly agree halfway regarding the 'logic' of Islam, compared with the other monotheistic religions - certainly if I believed in God, at least in the way you do, I would most certainly be a muslim. Islam is the logical conclusion to the monotheistic tradition, and were I a Christian I would no doubt happily 'revert' after suitable "rational and objective investigation". But I'm not. Both traditions share the same basic assumption, one I cannot accept, and in the absence of any evidence (in my opinion) cannot accept. My own beliefs are based on faith, but a faith underpinned by the fact they make far more inherent sense to me than theism. They fit my gut feelings as to the way things are. And also have rather more 'scientific' backing (in my opinion), but that isn't really relevant... I don't need to find such backing, hence my question as to why some muslims do.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Trumble,
Thanks for your post.

As an entity, though, I'm not sure that is required, simply because if they were 'convincing' far more people would have been convinced by them.

My response to that assertion would be that the vast majority of people have not had the arguments explicated for them in a lucid and comprehensible manner that they can relate to. As well, aren't we assuming here that human beings are always rational? We know that the interplay of hormonal intricacies in the brain with external environmental factors gives rise to a host of attitudes, convictions and decisions that are constructed on personal biases and desires and not rational grounds.

but you will need to 'convince' me that much conversion to Islam has occurred because of "rational and objective investigation" in the scientific sense.

Okay. Rather than throw a number of testimonies from converts at you, I would like to introduce you [if you haven't already read them] to some excerpts which I posted from Dr. Jeffery Lang's book here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/14884-reflections-some-ayat.html

I just think Islam has far stronger arguments, as theology, as metaphysics, and as a way for individuals to lead spiritual, fulfilling and happy lives, than messing about with attempted scientific parallels. Of course, as you don't view them that way, you won't agree.

If you are referring to my comparison with scientific theories then I don't think such a comparison comes at the expense of those other arguments.

certainly if I believed in God, at least in the way you do, I would most certainly be a muslim.

Islam is the logical conclusion to the monotheistic tradition, and were I a Christian I would no doubt happily 'revert' after suitable "rational and objective investigation".

I am impressed by your honesty and open-mindedness :thumbs_up

But I'm not. Both traditions share the same basic assumption

Absolutely; I would concurr that the transition from Judaism or Christianity to Islam certainly involves less of a transformation in one's beliefs than from atheism to Islam which must be quite revolutionary for one's outlook on life and the universe. When you think about it, you admire the courage it takes for an individual to undertake such a journey, whether rightly or wrongly, depending on your perspective.

My own beliefs are based on faith, but a faith underpinned by the fact they make far more inherent sense to me than theism. They fit my gut feelings as to the way things are. And also have rather more 'scientific' backing (in my opinion), but that isn't really relevant

If it something you believe then I think it is relevant. Don't you think you are following the same methodlogy with respect to faith and logic that I outlined above? You are not blindly placing your faith in the doctrines of your ancestors but you are going with what is intuitively most reasonable in your eyes. Granted the difference here may be that you hold this process to be inherently subjective and therefore would not make the claim of objective evidence and investigation, but I think the core understanding of faith and logic between you and I is the same.

Thanks once again for your insightful comments.

Peace

 

[root]

mysticalsilence - You know I really don’t know how to answer such a thing really because it sort of makes sense and I understand what you mean but it makes us look very robotic.

It's a shame you see it that way, but it's a minor point really.

But let me give you a on the spot answer don’t counter argue it to much or quote me on it harshly as if it was my final answer. First of there are major difference in what I meant by free will and as you took it. I'm sorry I dint should of put more effort into a clearer vocabulary.

Cool, no sweat.

Everyone knows that every "decision"(lets call it that) is caused(chemically and environmentally) in animals and also humans. But it’s not the cause of the decision itself that matters. Amongst many other features of the human brain is the fact that we can take decisions that go against survival.(natural selection)

Yes, as the dominant species on this planet, our hoghly evolved intelligence and group social skills have made us top dog around this solar system of ours.

For example:
Suicide/self mutilation this really indicates a free will like state of mind for the humans vs. animals because whatever the cause its a "decision" an animal could not take because it is against its own survival.

Is this not just a difference in the level of intelligence and our own massive frontal lobe capability, what I mean is \I doubt very much animals can concieve suicide if they cannot concieve their own existence! One must be aware of what you have before one can decide to take it away!

Also your example of the chimp shows that its a mostly instinct based reaction. A Human will sometimes put himself in the face of danger for no apparent reason and animals will not do that that is what I mean by free will.

The point was here that another mechanism over-rides free will, (assumuing we have free will in the first place). Science itself is Agnostic to the question "do we have free will" because of the deep paradox of both camps to the question we do or do not. Even trying to prove we have free will in itself presents a huge paradox.

Even though I replied to you, as for your base using the philosophical claim to begin with! I don’t know much about it I will look into it. I don’t have habit of just believing what people tell me is the standard. (At least not anymore)

Agreed, each of us is a work of art sculpted by evolution and second by experience and reflection upon one's social perceptions, as our perception matures so does the level of autonomy. Aristotle called this wisdom..........

But consider for one second, suppose a teleportation machine scans your brain and every sindle cell that makes your body and digitally encodes it then destroys your "self" transports the data somewhere else where it is recoded at your destination? You arrive in precisely the same condition that you "left" identical in body brain and patterns of mental activity, all your beliefs, memories emotions and experiences all apparent and you go about your business feeling and believing nothing has changed in the slightest. Just like waking from a dreamless state. If you are comfortable with this scenario then you should be comfortable with the bundle theory, you appreciate that the "self" is no more than patterns of energy and information which can be disrupted and reconstituted without destroying the "self" or indeed your "soul" for that matter, since they are simply tools of the brain like software programmes that help you make sense of all the input your brain recieves, other tools of the brain for example are the sense of past, the present and the future.

If on the other hand you would be i9nclined to think that the reconstructed you is not you at all, a replica void of the "self" and absent in soul. All your friends and family would see you as you but you would consider yourself at this poinyt a replica of what was originally you and if you believe this then you are in the ego theory.

Which one are you inclined to be choose, (under your own free will, but would that choice be free since in effect you would need to consider your personal beliefs of just who you are and why you are here before you even consider an answer). What a bummer eh!

Reply let me know if you think there is a weakness in this and I will look into it further.

I look forward to seeing if you are an ego theorist or bundle.

Steve - To exercise free will one has to do something out of ideology. For example fasting to worship even though your body asks for food,

I am inclineds to agree, however. As stated earlier to Mysticalsilence, something more is going off, not just free will, if we can call it that but restraint. Fasting is not acting in free will at all, and following ideology in no way at all demonstrates any free will.

Steve - spending your time praying even though your mind would like to indulge in vain entertainment. That is the true free will

"vain entertainment", quite an impoverished view. However that said again this cannot prove anything for free will. More like indoctrination and firmiliarity in that we don't want to suffer the consequences of not being a good muslim!

 

[mysticalsilence]

Yes, as the dominant species on this planet, our hoghly evolved intelligence and group social skills have made us top dog around this solar system of ours.

Yes but once again this really weakens "natural selection" ! Chemical possibilities that allow "anti-survival" reactions are not possible progessional mutations in "natural selection".

Is this not just a difference in the level of intelligence and our own massive frontal lobe capability, what I mean is I doubt very much animals can concieve suicide if they cannot concieve their own existence! One must be aware of what you have before one can decide to take it away!

This is somethign I was not going to reply to but this reminds me of a verse from the quran.

"We shall seize him by the forelock,
a lying, sinful forelock."

It once again comes to perception but massive agreements with science the Quran has. This maybe translated to forelock because the translator looks for the closest word available in english but in arabic it really means frontal lobe litterally. lying tongue , lying heart lying mind in general could of been the options people of logic in those times could of taken.But this is very specific about where lying takes place.

The point was here that another mechanism over-rides free will, (assumuing we have free will in the first place). Science itself is Agnostic to the question "do we have free will" because of the deep paradox of both camps to the question we do or do not. Even trying to prove we have free will in itself presents a huge paradox.

I based my response on what I knew.
If you knew this before you should of said I dont know if we have free will.
But you chose to say we do not have free will?

Agreed, each of us is a work of art sculpted by evolution and second by experience and reflection upon one's social perceptions, as our perception matures so does the level of autonomy. Aristotle called this wisdom..........

But consider for one second, suppose a teleportation machine scans your brain and every sindle cell that makes your body and digitally encodes it then destroys your "self" transports the data somewhere else where it is recoded at your destination? You arrive in precisely the same condition that you "left" identical in body brain and patterns of mental activity, all your beliefs, memories emotions and experiences all apparent and you go about your business feeling and believing nothing has changed in the slightest. Just like waking from a dreamless state. If you are comfortable with this scenario then you should be comfortable with the bundle theory, you appreciate that the "self" is no more than patterns of energy and information which can be disrupted and reconstituted without destroying the "self" or indeed your "soul" for that matter, since they are simply tools of the brain like software programmes that help you make sense of all the input your brain recieves, other tools of the brain for example are the sense of past, the present and the future.

If on the other hand you would be i9nclined to think that the reconstructed you is not you at all, a replica void of the "self" and absent in soul. All your friends and family would see you as you but you would consider yourself at this poinyt a replica of what was originally you and if you believe this then you are in the ego theory.

Which one are you inclined to be choose, (under your own free will, but would that choice be free since in effect you would need to consider your personal beliefs of just who you are and why you are here before you even consider an answer). What a bummer eh!

I did not understand why you emphasized at cause so much but now I realize it. Well to tell you the truth based on my knowledge(even though very limited compared to most of you) I know that we has human beings have not even understood fully what "self" is let alone to go beyond that level and assume about its properties. Unless I missed out on some pregessions in science there is no proof that even if we where even capable of replicating a human being exactly like you declared it( i doubt it will ever happen) that all of his memories and and experiences would remain intact.

And also once again correct me if I am wrong I dont keep up with everything.
From my understanding we have not even fully understood at a lower level how the brain processes things. Perhaps we understand locations of certain activities in the brain and also how information transfers itself etc etc.

I mean lets start by first being capable of reparing a damaged human being(dead or brain dead) before jumping on possible assumptions of what would happen by reconstructing one!

I mean the advance in quantum physics and the suggestion that parts of matter are not static, leave room for so many possibilities such as the holographic brain theory , the concept of the operator.etc etc.

Science has a "lead" that makes a lot of sense but the are far from solving the case. And just because you have an advantage in terms of explaining how things work to a certain degree does not mean you should jump ahead on detailed conclusion of all the possibilities of how they could be and why they are.

 

[root]

Yes but once again this really weakens "natural selection" ! Chemical possibilities that allow "anti-survival" reactions are not possible progessional mutations in "natural selection".

I don't see how it would. Commiting not just actual suicide but since we briefly discuss evolution, genetic suicide as well (people who never go on to have a family), I can't see how your point has any concerns to evolution since in effect, evolution works with large numbers and if you were to guess a percentage of suicides amongst humans it would be inssucnificant.

Humans are very subjective. France banned a book once because it was causing so many suicides amongst young men, I think the book is available on the internet still. Japanese suicide pilots and Islamic suicide bombers also fall into this category,

But consider, try to kill yourself by holding your breath and see how far your free will and eagerness to die get's you!!!! I don't think gentic suicide or actual taking of one's own life effects natural selection inb a manner you seem to imply.

Regards

Root