Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[accelafine]

You can imagine all sorts of impossible things, perhaps: but you can't create them. It's mathematically that we can see that it's impossible. A chain with infinite prerequisites never gets started.

It's precisely Mathematics which gives us the framework for reasoning about the possibility. Such as the negative integers going back from 0 (which you could represent as The Big Bang) going all the way to negative infinity.

Try going there. Go ahead. Write the sequence. Start at "0," but before you write "0", you have to write "-1". And before you get to write "-1," you have to have already written "-2"...and so on, infinitely.

(This exactly models the infinite causal regress problem: because one explicit requirement of an attribution of causality is that it must come before the thing it is supposed to have "caused." If it happened after, then you can know for sure it wasn't a "cause.")

Call me when you're done.

See it, yet? Try it, and you will.

Are you trying to 'prove' your unprovable and 'unknowable' 'God'? And with cute number games no less? Tsk tsk. Isn't that blasphemy?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Truth and objectivity aren't always easy things to handle, Mr. Pronouncer.

You, Gary, have absolutely no access either to “objectivity” and certainly to no “truth”.

You pronounce this, not me.

[Middle English pronouncen, from Old French prononcier, from Latin prōnūntiāre : prō-, forth; see pro-1 + nūntiāre, to announce (from nūntius, messenger; see neu- in Indo-European roots).]

Jerk.

It was not said in that spirit, FYI. My general theory is that •people• have substantially lost any sense of ground. Philosophy does not help them much. In fact it de-grounds them even more.

[Immanuel Can]

...by induction.... there's no number without a predecessor.

I think you should do it by hand. You're not managing to realize what the thing you just said means, so perhaps you need a closer engagement with the test.

"no number without a predecessor": that means there's no predecessor for ANY number anymore.

No, it doesn't. It means you can't identify a number which doesn't have a predecessor.

No, it means there ISN'T one, whether you can identify it or not. Infinite doesn't mean "of unknown number"; it means infinite...that there is ALWAYS the requirement of a preexisting cause.

Or dead simply: a chain of events that, for each step, always requires a 'predecessor' for every event never starts.

Now, that's so obvious, if you can't get it...well, you have to get it, and be trolling.

[Immanuel Can]

It's precisely Mathematics which gives us the framework for reasoning about the possibility. Such as the negative integers going back from 0 (which you could represent as The Big Bang) going all the way to negative infinity.

Try going there. Go ahead. Write the sequence. Start at "0," but before you write "0", you have to write "-1". And before you get to write "-1," you have to have already written "-2"...and so on, infinitely.

(This exactly models the infinite causal regress problem: because one explicit requirement of an attribution of causality is that it must come before the thing it is supposed to have "caused." If it happened after, then you can know for sure it wasn't a "cause.")

Call me when you're done.

See it, yet? Try it, and you will.

Are you trying to 'prove' your unprovable and 'unknowable' 'God'?

I'm aiming for something much simpler: to get somebody to understand a basic mathematical fact. It's seems hard to some, but then, some are not very bright.

[BigMike]

I think you should do it by hand. You're not managing to realize what the thing you just said means, so perhaps you need a closer engagement with the test.

"no number without a predecessor": that means there's no predecessor for ANY number anymore.

No, it doesn't. It means you can't identify a number which doesn't have a predecessor.

No, it means there ISN'T one, whether you can identify it or not. Infinite doesn't mean "of unknown number"; it means infinite...that there is ALWAYS the requirement of a preexisting cause.

Or dead simply: a chain of events that, for each step, always requires a 'predecessor' for every event never starts.

Now, that's so obvious, if you can't get it...well, you have to get it, and be trolling.

It's "aleph-null" (ℵ₀), the smallest kind of infinity though....

[accelafine]

Try going there. Go ahead. Write the sequence. Start at "0," but before you write "0", you have to write "-1". And before you get to write "-1," you have to have already written "-2"...and so on, infinitely.

(This exactly models the infinite causal regress problem: because one explicit requirement of an attribution of causality is that it must come before the thing it is supposed to have "caused." If it happened after, then you can know for sure it wasn't a "cause.")

Call me when you're done.

See it, yet? Try it, and you will.

Are you trying to 'prove' your unprovable and 'unknowable' 'God'?

I'm aiming for something much simpler: to get somebody to understand a basic mathematical fact. It's seems hard to some, but then, some are not very bright.

Right. Just some random 'maths' for no particular reason

[Alexiev]

If Determinism were true, there would be no such thing as any genuine choice, ever. Not since the very beginning of the universe.

The dictionary definition of choice is: "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."

You don't read far enough in your own dictionary, then. That's the non-technical and non-philosophical use of the word "determine," as it "to choose."

Here's the technical, philosophical definition of "Determinism." And I'll cite my source:

"determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did." (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Or

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." (Stanford)

Or

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs." (The Information Philosopher)

Good we could clear that up.

I know what determinism means. Unlike you, I also know what "choice" means. In fact, I quoted the dictionary definition of "choice" (not "determine"). I notice that none of the definitions of determinism that you so kindly provided contradicts my point in any way, or even mentions the word "choice". Based on the meaning of "faced with" my point stands. People can be "faced with" alternatives despite the fact that it is predetermined which one they will choose. Why is this hard to understand? It's obvious to anyone who speaks English.

A poker player chooses to either call, fold or raise. Which choice he will make may or may not be "determined". That's irrelevant to whether the alternatives he faces demand a "choice".

[Immanuel Can]

Are you trying to 'prove' your unprovable and 'unknowable' 'God'?

I'm aiming for something much simpler: to get somebody to understand a basic mathematical fact. It's seems hard to some, but then, some are not very bright.

Righ. Just some random 'maths' for no particular reason

Like I said...things like understanding mathematics or spelling a word are just too hard for some people.

[Immanuel Can]

The dictionary definition of choice is: "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."

You don't read far enough in your own dictionary, then. That's the non-technical and non-philosophical use of the word "determine," as it "to choose."

Here's the technical, philosophical definition of "Determinism." And I'll cite my source:

"determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did." (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Or

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." (Stanford)

Or

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs." (The Information Philosopher)

Good we could clear that up.

I know what determinism means.

Apparently, you didn't. Now you do.

I quoted the dictionary definition of "choice" (not "determine").

And I pointed out that you were supposed to be responding to quotation you clipped about Determinism. But it matters not. The important fact is that in a Deterministic universe, there are no genuine choices. And that's something upon which all the definitions converge.

[Alexiev]

And I pointed out that you were supposed to be responding to quotation you clipped about Determinism. But it matters not. The important fact is that in a Deterministic universe, there are no genuine choices. And that's something upon which all the definitions converge.

As I clearly demonstrated, there are "genuine choices" in a deterministic universe. The poker player genuinely "chooses" to fold, raise, or call whether his action is predetermined or not. That's because he is "faced with" alternatives and he doesn't know which one he is going to choose until he chooses it. Why is this hard to understand? God may know which choice he will make, but he doesn't, and neither do his opponents at the poker table. Are you saying "choice" is an inappropriate word to describe his decision (if the universe is deterministic)? If so, why do we use "chose" in the past tense?
The chooser can no longer change his choice -- but the word accurately describes the process by which he made it.

[Noax]

If you don't understand the relevance, I'll be happy to show it's not only relevant but conclusive.

Try to create an actual infinite regress on paper. Count backwards from 0...-1...-2...but don't write any number until the earlier number has already been written. And email me again when you finally get to write your first number.

QED.

One white swan does not demonstrate that all swans are white, especially since Zeno came up with counterexamples that dismantle your argument. Also, the issue of infinite regress was never part of my point or is anything I brought up or proposed. Hence my still calling it all irrelevant to my point.
I am not claiming infinite regress, nor am I denying that uncaused events occur.

Every choice has a "basis," but that "basis" is never the total explanation of why the decision goes the way it does.

Agree. I am not worried about why the decision goes one way or the other. But I am saying that the basis contributes to the choice made.

Staring at the $5, your wife has a choice. One thing should could "base" it on is her desire for coffee. Another is her desire for parking. Another is her desire for you to retain your $5. All of those choices are "based on" things: but which one, which "basis" will she choose to respond to? You don't know.

Fine. Agree with all that. It's what having a choice is all about. It's not what distinguishes choice from free choice, which, as I've said, depends on some definitions, and your definition (talking about initiating a new causal chain) seems to be akin to 'not a function of basis'.

If Determinism were true, there would be no such thing as any genuine choice, ever.

'Genuine choice' has not been defined. If you mean free choice, then say that. Sans definition, the statement is taken as 'choice', and there very much is choice even under determinism. Perhaps an example distinguishing genuine choice vs false choice would help clarify this term.
Maybe the difference is an anthropocentric one. Non-hispanic humans are the preferred species. If a non-Hispanic human makes a choice, it's genuine. If anything else does, it's not genuine. Please pick something other than that.

When philosophers speak of "free will," they don't mean there are no physical conditions or even reasons to choose one thing or another, just as in the case of your wife and the $5. They mean that within all the prior conditions, the choice still ultimately happens by way of human volition, not merely by cause-effect of physical prerequisites, as in Determinism.

You listed several physical conditions and/or reasons to choose one thing or another with the $3 example. Yes, even under deterministic physics (as much as in random physics), the choice happens under volition, human or otherwise. Volition under natural physics is implemented with physical processes. It might not in the physics you envision, but that doesn't stop any interpretation from being an example of volition.
You've still not defined free will, but it appears in this comment to be something like <not a function of natural physics> which is more in line with the typical definition, as opposed to 'initiate a new causal chain' which makes no sense at all, and has been the point of my comments.

What Determinists think is that you only imagine you have will, but you really don't.

Will is what you want to do. Of course you have that. It's totally evident. Even a frog has it. How it works seems to be the issue at hand. Volition is the connection between that will and the action resulting from it. That's also present in both interpretations. The difference is it being free or not, and yet again, that is dependent on definitions of that word.

What you really have is causality making anything but one choice impossible.

Even under non-deterministic physics, yes. I've never seen somebody make anything but one choice. Attempts perhaps, but in the end it's still one choice. MWI (totally deterministic BTW) let's you make more than one choice, but the definition of 'you' becomes gray in that scenario. I don't think you're an MWI fan any more than I am, but I doubt you can name an interpretation you prefer (Wigner???) since I can't think of one that supports your view.

You talk about determinists being self-deceived, but that's only if they're wrong, just like you'd be deceived if they (or even the non-deterministic naturalists) are right. Your assertions about the deception beg your view, and are thus fallacious.

if all things are predetermined

How is 'predetermined' distinct from 'determined'?

You seem to be under the impression that I support determinism, and that it is something you need to shoot down. All I am doing is pointing out an inconsistency in your description of the word 'free', be it your definition or not.

[Atla]

(Plot twist: the universe could be 5D due to quantum behaviour, where we just see a 4D slice of it. If we have some conscious control over the decoherence processes, then we may have some apparent "free will", except this kind of free will would still be part of 5D determinism. But from the everyday 4D perspective, it would look like we have some limited ability to bend the world to our will and our desires. Which might explain things like prayer.)

[Age]

Try going there. Go ahead. Write the sequence. Start at "0," but before you write "0", you have to write "-1". And before you get to write "-1," you have to have already written "-2"...and so on, infinitely.

(This exactly models the infinite causal regress problem: because one explicit requirement of an attribution of causality is that it must come before the thing it is supposed to have "caused." If it happened after, then you can know for sure it wasn't a "cause.")

Call me when you're done.

See it, yet? Try it, and you will.

Are you trying to 'prove' your unprovable and 'unknowable' 'God'?

I'm aiming for something much simpler: to get somebody to understand a basic mathematical fact. It's seems hard to some, but then, some are not very bright.

Yet it is 'this one' who BELIEVES, absolutely, IN some thing, which this one does NOT YET EVEN KNOW if 'that thing' even exists, or NOT.

[Age]

I'm aiming for something much simpler: to get somebody to understand a basic mathematical fact. It's seems hard to some, but then, some are not very bright.

Righ. Just some random 'maths' for no particular reason

Like I said...things like understanding mathematics or spelling a word are just too hard for some people.

And, OBVIOUSLY, "immanuel can" misspells words, some times, and does not understand mathematics, fully. So, as "immanuel can" said,
'Some things are just too hard for some people, like "immanuel can".

[Age]

You don't read far enough in your own dictionary, then. That's the non-technical and non-philosophical use of the word "determine," as it "to choose."

Here's the technical, philosophical definition of "Determinism." And I'll cite my source:

"determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did." (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Or

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." (Stanford)

Or

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs." (The Information Philosopher)

Good we could clear that up.

I know what determinism means.

Apparently, you didn't. Now you do.

I quoted the dictionary definition of "choice" (not "determine").

And I pointed out that you were supposed to be responding to quotation you clipped about Determinism. But it matters not. The important fact is that in a Deterministic universe, there are no genuine choices.

What an ABSOLUTE IMBECILIC and IDIOTIC conclusion AND response.

LOL What even is a so-called 'genuine choice', EXACTLY?

These people would 'try to' say just about absolutely ANY thing in the hope that 'those words' will, somehow, back up and support their 'current' BELIEFS.

And that's something upon which all the definitions converge.

But, that is NOT some thing upon which all the definitions converge. As this one just SHOWED.