[dan_boersma]

Originally Posted by LWW

But to invoke Albert again:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

and here is what Einstein actually thought about god, as opposed to what he thought about people who misused him in advancing their views:

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."[6]
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

[jsp]

Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson

You take all this way too seriously. Chill out and you'll be more likely to get responses from me.

Yet another dodge.

Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson

Isn't "libertarian" the kind that rejects determinism? Where did I say that?

Do I have to bring up this post again, where you said the will is a "non-deterministic phenomenon that emerges from highly complex deterministic systems"? Doesn't asserting that a "non-deterministic" thing that exists means that you reject determinism?

[LWW]

Originally Posted by dan_boersma

and here is what Einstein actually thought about god, as opposed to what he thought about people who misused him in advancing their views:

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."[6]
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

That is one of many from Einstein on the topic, in none of which does he denounce the existence of a god, but there are many where his belief in a Creator is quite explicit.

[Patrick Johnson]

Originally Posted by jsp

...said the will is a "non-deterministic phenomenon that emerges from highly complex deterministic systems"? Doesn't asserting that a "non-deterministic" thing that exists means that you reject determinism?

If I suggested that will emerges from deterministic systems, shouldn't that be a hint to you that I don't "reject determinism"?

Make sense or talk to yourself.

pj
chgo

[8balljohn]

I'll try to answer this using as much common sense as possible. Okay, here it goes.. I'm NOT SURE if there's a God because nobody's ever seen him/her/it. To say there's a God with 100% certainty is ignorant. At the same time, to say there isn't a God is ignorant as well. Best answer: Not Sure.

[LWW]

Originally Posted by 8balljohn

I'll try to answer this using as much common sense as possible. Okay, here it goes.. I'm NOT SURE if there's a God because nobody's ever seen him/her/it. To say there's a God with 100% certainty is ignorant. At the same time, to say there isn't a God is ignorant as well. Best answer: Not Sure.

Do you believe you have the true free will to make your own decisions?

[8balljohn]

Originally Posted by LWW

Do you believe you have the true free will to make your own decisions?

Do you believe in God?

[8balljohn]

Originally Posted by LWW

Do you believe you have the true free will to make your own decisions?

Do you believe there is a God? I'll answer you when you answer me. You're probably much older & wiser than me, which is why I ask. Take care.

[LWW]

Originally Posted by 8balljohn

Do you believe in God?

If you would ave read the thread, the answer is obvious.

Since you chose not to, yes I do.

Now ... what was your answer?

Or, are you going to accuse me of deflection again because I answer questions in a discussion ... while you seem to be not so interested in it?

[8balljohn]

Originally Posted by LWW

If you would ave read the thread, the answer is obvious.

Since you chose not to, yes I do.

Now ... what was your answer?

Or, are you going to accuse me of deflection again because I answer questions in a discussion ... while you seem to be not so interested in it?

I'm not on here all day, so, sorry for not reading every post.

By you believing in God tells me a lot. 1) You have faith. Congrats. 2) You believe in something that isn't proven, so you might be the type who doesn't care for facts.

I'll answer since I promised. Yes, I am free to make my own decisions. Can I do/say whatever I want, anywhere I want? Yes I can. But it might come with a price. So, maybe I can't "truly" make my own decisions.

[LWW]

Originally Posted by 8balljohn

I'm not on here all day, so, sorry for not reading every post.

By you believing in God tells me a lot. 1) You have faith. Congrats. 2) You believe in something that isn't proven, so you might be the type who doesn't care for facts.

I'll answer since I promised. Yes, I am free to make my own decisions. Can I do/say whatever I want, anywhere I want? Yes I can. But it might come with a price. So, maybe I can't "truly" make my own decisions.

If you believe in an atheist universe then every event in all of history ... including your perceived free will ... are simply the universe following the only possible path that it could. In this instance, you and I would be nothing more than sacks of atoms following a predetermined path.

OTOH ... if you believe that you have true free will, then you are acknowledging a belief in an agent outside the equation that has granted you an exemption from the universal laws of nature.

All the greats minds in physics believe that one of those two possible states of existence are the only real possibilities.

Atheists who are honest accept that they are nothing more than a sack of atoms following an unchangeable path.

You and I don't believe this is the case.

Your answer demonstrates that you either acknowledge the existence of a supernatural entity granting you the ability for true free will ... or you really don't understand the issue.

That you possess true free will, as do I, is prima facie evidence that a god exists.

[jsp]

Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson

If I suggested that will emerges from deterministic systems, shouldn't that be a hint to you that I don't "reject determinism"?

But if you suggested that will is a "non-deterministic phenomenon", then shouldn't that be a hint that you "reject determinism"? Let me yet again repeat what you wrote...

"...that will (mind, if you prefer), is a non-deterministic phenomenon that emerges from highly complex deterministic systems."

A "non-determinist phenomenon" emerges from deterministic systems? I've posted repeatedly (here, here, here, and here) why this is completely non-nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson

Make sense or talk to yourself.

Lol. You're telling me to make sense?

[Patrick Johnson]

Originally Posted by jsp

I've posted repeatedly (here, here, here, and here) why this is completely non-nonsensical.

No, you haven't said repeatedly why that's nonsensical. You've said ad nauseum that it's nonsensical. You don't seem to know the difference, and I'm bored with pointing it out to you.

Lol. You're telling me to make sense?

I'm not that optimistic.

pj
chgo

[mortuarymike-nv]

Originally Posted by 8balljohn

I'll try to answer this using as much common sense as possible. Okay, here it goes.. I'm NOT SURE if there's a God because nobody's ever seen him/her/it. To say there's a God with 100% certainty is ignorant. At the same time, to say there isn't a God is ignorant as well. Best answer: Not Sure.

Sight is but one of our senses.
Cannot see oxygen yet you breath it .
Cannot see super heated steam yet it lights up most of the world.
You cannot see heat but You feel it.


It was said that Enoch walked with God .

There is 333 MESSIANIC PROPHECIES which have came true. This is part of what I base my faith on.

The book of Daniel gives the day that Jerusalem is destroyed by rome over 470 years in advance .

It was said That the temple would be destroyed and not one stone would be left on top another. and in 69 or 70 Ad rome sacked Jerusalem and a angry soldier torched the temple melting all the gold between the 20t to 30 ton stones that the temple was made out of.
Rome took every stone off all the other stones to get to the gold. Not One was left on top another.

Research
When certain bibles were writen . the dead ringer is time period 250 BC when the LXX was writen to when the new testament was writen 150 to 250 ad, Everone says the bible was writen where the past and prensent matches each other. A easy statment to make if you are not a believer.
but then the dead sea scrolls were found .

The book of daniel was hammered out on a cooper sheet and in perfect condition.
I compaired several versions of the bible to the dead sea scrolls and did the translation myself .

If you believe that the good things in life dont come cheap .
Then either does faith.

The facts are there but It takes time to study them.

MMike

[LWW]

Originally Posted by jsp

But if you suggested that will is a "non-deterministic phenomenon", then shouldn't that be a hint that you "reject determinism"? Let me yet again repeat what you wrote...

"...that will (mind, if you prefer), is a non-deterministic phenomenon that emerges from highly complex deterministic systems."

A "non-determinist phenomenon" emerges from deterministic systems? I've posted repeatedly (here, here, here, and here) why this is completely non-nonsensical.


Lol. You're telling me to make sense?

People who practice doublethink do not realize that non determinism cannot arise from determinism becuse that initself would e determinism.