Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[godelian]

Yeah that said nothing about the singularity popping into existence out of nothing.

It definitely suggests that there is a beginning of time and space. What exactly happened in the beginning is an unsettled issue.

[attofishpi]

Based on what we know about science right now, things like energy, momentum, and four other quantities can never be created or destroyed. Instead, they change from one form to another. This leads to Leucippus' idea of determinism, which says, "Naught happens for nothing, but all things from a ground and of necessity." So, free will can't change the way things work in nature unless free will itself is physical and follows the same physical laws as everything else.

This is a consistent and long-held position of mine, rooted in philosophy and physics—not some recent AI-assisted invention. My arguments are grounded in historical thought and science, not algorithmic tricks. If you disagree, address the ideas, not some imagined source.

Your ideas are rooted in FAITH, nothing more than a religious fanatic.

1. You have NO comprehension of the mind and how an arrangement of atoms configured in some certain way permits U to comprehend any qualia sensation.

2. RE point 1, you have no (and no scientist does) comprehension of how U R able to comprehend anything.

3. Thus, and this is the important BIT Mike...you have no comprehension of how consciousness pertaining to decisions within the mind are of the free will of the mind OR a deterministic form of the universe, just playing out in some symphony of causality.

As Yoda would lament...mmm.

[Atla]

Yeah that said nothing about the singularity popping into existence out of nothing.

It definitely suggests that there is a beginning of time and space. What exactly happened in the beginning is an unsettled issue.

If you're going to use an AI on me, at least keep in mind that AIs can word things quite accurately. That's why it said "beginning of time and space as we understand them".

[BigMike]

Based on what we know about science right now, things like energy, momentum, and four other quantities can never be created or destroyed. Instead, they change from one form to another. This leads to Leucippus' idea of determinism, which says, "Naught happens for nothing, but all things from a ground and of necessity." So, free will can't change the way things work in nature unless free will itself is physical and follows the same physical laws as everything else.

This is a consistent and long-held position of mine, rooted in philosophy and physics—not some recent AI-assisted invention. My arguments are grounded in historical thought and science, not algorithmic tricks. If you disagree, address the ideas, not some imagined source.

Your ideas are rooted in FAITH, nothing more than a religious fanatic.

1. You have NO comprehension of the mind and how an arrangement of atoms configured in some certain way permits U to comprehend any qualia sensation.

2. RE point 1, you have no (and no scientist does) comprehension of how U R able to comprehend anything.

3. Thus, and this is the important BIT Mike...you have no comprehension of how consciousness pertaining to decisions within the mind are of the free will of the mind OR a deterministic form of the universe, just playing out in some symphony of causality.

As Yoda would lament...mmm.

Your response attempts to undermine determinism by pointing to gaps in our understanding of consciousness and the mechanics of qualia, but those gaps don’t contradict the evidence we do have about how decisions are made. Neuroscientific studies, for instance, demonstrate that our brains initiate decisions milliseconds—sometimes even seconds—before we become consciously aware of them. This suggests that consciousness is not the cause of decisions but rather a byproduct or an observer of processes already underway.

You’re conflating “not fully understanding consciousness” with “consciousness must therefore be free.” That leap is unjustified. The fact that we don’t yet comprehend the full mechanism of how an arrangement of atoms produces qualia doesn’t magically insert free will into the equation. Instead, what we observe supports the deterministic framework: our actions arise from prior causes, including neurological activity, environmental inputs, and past experiences. This deterministic chain leaves little room for the kind of "free will of the mind" you’re hinting at.

Faith doesn’t enter into this. Determinism isn’t a dogma; it’s a conclusion drawn from empirical evidence and logical consistency. If you want to challenge it, then address the evidence—like the brain’s decision-making processes occurring outside conscious awareness—not with appeals to mystery or gaps in current knowledge. The absence of full understanding isn’t proof of free will; it’s simply a call for further exploration.

[attofishpi]

This is a consistent and long-held position of mine, rooted in philosophy and physics—not some recent AI-assisted invention. My arguments are grounded in historical thought and science, not algorithmic tricks. If you disagree, address the ideas, not some imagined source.

Your ideas are rooted in FAITH, nothing more than a religious fanatic.

1. You have NO comprehension of the mind and how an arrangement of atoms configured in some certain way permits U to comprehend any qualia sensation.

2. RE point 1, you have no (and no scientist does) comprehension of how U R able to comprehend anything.

3. Thus, and this is the important BIT Mike...you have no comprehension of how consciousness pertaining to decisions within the mind are of the free will of the mind OR a deterministic form of the universe, just playing out in some symphony of causality.

As Yoda would lament...mmm.

Your response attempts to undermine determinism by pointing to gaps in our understanding of consciousness and the mechanics of qualia, but those gaps don’t contradict the evidence we do have about how decisions are made.

Gaps?

Provide a deterministic equation for the sensation of a pile of atoms (your fingernails) scratching the back of the opposing hand (another pile of atoms).

Neuroscientific studies, for instance, demonstrate that our brains initiate decisions milliseconds—sometimes even seconds—before we become consciously aware of them.

Yeah, I know, my interactions with GOD have proven that to me personally. "IT" appears to know where my conscious mind is about to ...."wane" in its direction of thought towards a conclusion that this """"GOD"" entity seems to know was where my mind was heading.

This suggests that consciousness is not the cause of decisions but rather a byproduct or an observer of processes already underway.

..it suggest nothing of the sort.

You’re conflating “not fully understanding consciousness” with “consciousness must therefore be free.” That leap is unjustified. The fact that we don’t yet comprehend the full mechanism of how an arrangement of atoms produces qualia doesn’t magically insert free will into the equation.

..and to the same extent, it doesn't magically NEGATE free will from the equation.

Instead, what we observe supports the deterministic framework: our actions arise from prior causes, including neurological activity, environmental inputs, and past experiences. This deterministic chain leaves little room for the kind of "free will of the mind" you’re hinting at.

I'm gonna have to be a kunt now Mike. "Little room" == PROBABILITY ...does not equal, that since the Big Bang, right here, right now, was always going to exist....including this fool stop ---> .

Faith doesn’t enter into this. Determinism isn’t a dogma; it’s a conclusion drawn from empirical evidence and logical consistency.

No. It's a dogma drawn from assumptions and arrogance (as is atheism) --- it's a BINARY flip-flop

If you want to challenge it, then address the evidence—like the brain’s decision-making processes occurring outside conscious awareness—not with appeals to mystery or gaps in current knowledge. The absence of full understanding isn’t proof of free will; it’s simply a call for further exploration.

Again, flip-flop


Mike, your fallible LOGIC works both ways..

[Atla]

we don’t yet comprehend the full mechanism of how an arrangement of atoms produces qualia

Nor the partial mechanism.. why would an arrangement of atoms produce qualia?

[BigMike]

Your ideas are rooted in FAITH, nothing more than a religious fanatic.

1. You have NO comprehension of the mind and how an arrangement of atoms configured in some certain way permits U to comprehend any qualia sensation.

2. RE point 1, you have no (and no scientist does) comprehension of how U R able to comprehend anything.

3. Thus, and this is the important BIT Mike...you have no comprehension of how consciousness pertaining to decisions within the mind are of the free will of the mind OR a deterministic form of the universe, just playing out in some symphony of causality.

As Yoda would lament...mmm.

Your response attempts to undermine determinism by pointing to gaps in our understanding of consciousness and the mechanics of qualia, but those gaps don’t contradict the evidence we do have about how decisions are made.

Gaps?

Provide a deterministic equation for the sensation of a pile of atoms (your fingernails) scratching the back of the opposing hand (another pile of atoms).

Neuroscientific studies, for instance, demonstrate that our brains initiate decisions milliseconds—sometimes even seconds—before we become consciously aware of them.

Yeah, I know, my interactions with GOD have proven that to me personally. "IT" appears to know where my conscious mind is about to ...."wane" in its direction of thought towards a conclusion that this """"GOD"" entity seems to know was where my mind was heading.

This suggests that consciousness is not the cause of decisions but rather a byproduct or an observer of processes already underway.

..it suggest nothing of the sort.

You’re conflating “not fully understanding consciousness” with “consciousness must therefore be free.” That leap is unjustified. The fact that we don’t yet comprehend the full mechanism of how an arrangement of atoms produces qualia doesn’t magically insert free will into the equation.

..and to the same extent, it doesn't magically NEGATE free will from the equation.

Instead, what we observe supports the deterministic framework: our actions arise from prior causes, including neurological activity, environmental inputs, and past experiences. This deterministic chain leaves little room for the kind of "free will of the mind" you’re hinting at.

I'm gonna have to be a kunt now Mike. "Little room" == PROBABILITY ...does not equal, that since the Big Bang, right here, right now, was always going to exist....including this fool stop ---> .

Faith doesn’t enter into this. Determinism isn’t a dogma; it’s a conclusion drawn from empirical evidence and logical consistency.

No. It's a dogma drawn from assumptions and arrogance (as is atheism) --- it's a BINARY flip-flop

If you want to challenge it, then address the evidence—like the brain’s decision-making processes occurring outside conscious awareness—not with appeals to mystery or gaps in current knowledge. The absence of full understanding isn’t proof of free will; it’s simply a call for further exploration.

Again, flip-flop


Mike, your fallible LOGIC works both ways..

Honestly, it’s exhausting to keep going in circles with arguments like this. How many times does this need to be said? Determinism doesn’t claim to explain everything about consciousness in its finest detail—it’s a framework grounded in evidence, not mysticism or speculation. Your insistence that determinism must account for every last sensation or thought down to an equation or be invalid is not only unrealistic but disingenuous. Science and determinism have always been about building models that describe and predict phenomena, not answering every philosophical musing someone throws at them.

And your "interactions with GOD" as a rebuttal to neuroscience? Come on. That’s not an argument; it’s a non-sequitur. Saying determinism “works both ways” is just wordplay—it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. If you have actual evidence that consciousness operates outside of deterministic processes, present it. If not, don’t expect vague, subjective experiences to be taken as counterarguments to decades of empirical research.

This conversation isn’t a flip-flop. It’s a one-way street of me explaining basic principles of causality to someone who keeps tossing out red herrings. It’s tiresome, and unless you’re willing to engage seriously, there’s no point in continuing this back-and-forth.

[attofishpi]

we don’t yet comprehend the full mechanism of how an arrangement of atoms produces qualia

Nor the partial mechanism.. why would an arrangement of atoms produce qualia?

It's not Y ...the question is HOW.


..too late at night BigMike, you keep insisting on circular reasoning, perhaps that wouldn't happen if instead of quoting at the TAIL end, you made some effort to address each point individually as i do.

[Atla]

we don’t yet comprehend the full mechanism of how an arrangement of atoms produces qualia

Nor the partial mechanism.. why would an arrangement of atoms produce qualia?

It's not Y ...the question is HOW.


..too late at night BigMike, you keep insisting on circular reasoning, perhaps that wouldn't happen if instead of quoting at the TAIL end, you made some effort to address each point individually as i do.

I'm not Mike, and the first question, sorry, first quest_ION is Y.

Who says an ar_range_ment of a(t)to_ms pro_duces qu_Ali_a?

[Belinda]

This is a consistent and long-held position of mine, rooted in philosophy and physics—not some recent AI-assisted invention. My arguments are grounded in historical thought and science, not algorithmic tricks. If you disagree, address the ideas, not some imagined source.

Your ideas are rooted in FAITH, nothing more than a religious fanatic.

1. You have NO comprehension of the mind and how an arrangement of atoms configured in some certain way permits U to comprehend any qualia sensation.

2. RE point 1, you have no (and no scientist does) comprehension of how U R able to comprehend anything.

3. Thus, and this is the important BIT Mike...you have no comprehension of how consciousness pertaining to decisions within the mind are of the free will of the mind OR a deterministic form of the universe, just playing out in some symphony of causality.

As Yoda would lament...mmm.

Your response attempts to undermine determinism by pointing to gaps in our understanding of consciousness and the mechanics of qualia, but those gaps don’t contradict the evidence we do have about how decisions are made. Neuroscientific studies, for instance, demonstrate that our brains initiate decisions milliseconds—sometimes even seconds—before we become consciously aware of them. This suggests that consciousness is not the cause of decisions but rather a byproduct or an observer of processes already underway.

You’re conflating “not fully understanding consciousness” with “consciousness must therefore be free.” That leap is unjustified. The fact that we don’t yet comprehend the full mechanism of how an arrangement of atoms produces qualia doesn’t magically insert free will into the equation. Instead, what we observe supports the deterministic framework: our actions arise from prior causes, including neurological activity, environmental inputs, and past experiences. This deterministic chain leaves little room for the kind of "free will of the mind" you’re hinting at.

Faith doesn’t enter into this. Determinism isn’t a dogma; it’s a conclusion drawn from empirical evidence and logical consistency. If you want to challenge it, then address the evidence—like the brain’s decision-making processes occurring outside conscious awareness—not with appeals to mystery or gaps in current knowledge. The absence of full understanding isn’t proof of free will; it’s simply a call for further exploration.

I thought it may be helpful to distinguish between Cosmos and universe. The Cosmos is everything that exists whereas the universe is that subset of the Cosmos which is everything that has mass within the Cosmos. (Not a cut and paste exactly but I got this definition from The Physics Forum).

[Impenitent]

I thought it may be helpful to distinguish between Cosmos and universe. The Cosmos is everything that exists whereas the universe is that subset of the Cosmos which is everything that has mass within the Cosmos. (Not a cut and paste exactly but I got this definition from The Physics Forum).

the universe is only that which has mass? interesting

is light not part of the universe?

is the space between bodies not part of the universe?

-Imp

[BigMike]

I thought it may be helpful to distinguish between Cosmos and universe. The Cosmos is everything that exists whereas the universe is that subset of the Cosmos which is everything that has mass within the Cosmos. (Not a cut and paste exactly but I got this definition from The Physics Forum).

Ah, thank you for pointing that out—I hadn’t realized! I appreciate the correction.

[accelafine]

I thought it may be helpful to distinguish between Cosmos and universe. The Cosmos is everything that exists whereas the universe is that subset of the Cosmos which is everything that has mass within the Cosmos. (Not a cut and paste exactly but I got this definition from The Physics Forum).

Ah, thank you for pointing that out—I hadn’t realized! I appreciate the correction.

Except that it's not correct. If anything, the reverse is true. 'Universe' is the totality of everything, including space/time.

[attofishpi]

Can the Religious Be Trusted?

Seriously though. What a ridiculous thread title Mike (yet again), are you some form of bigot?

Can the non-religious be trusted?

..just as daft. Ya can't pigeon hole everyone as the same..FFS.

AND, why are these daft threads of yours in the Politics area?

[accelafine]

Can the Religious Be Trusted?

Seriously though. What a ridiculous thread title Mike (yet again), are you some form of bigot?

Can the non-religious be trusted?

..just as daft. Ya can't pigeon hole everyone as the same..FFS.

AND, why are these daft threads of yours in the Politics area?

You're just jealous because he can write (notwithstanding AI) and you can't