If science discover the existence of God, it could violate the free-will?

If you post something three times, how is that a moderator glitch?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God can't violate free will, given the faith.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A god that presents itself to reality has then influenced free will.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Captain kremmen,
The glitch sends the entire post to moderator review. I think Aqueous ID first noted it occurs mainly when links are involved. I normally dictate or type my posts in Word and copy them here. In this case I tried multiple times until successful after I had removed the "H" from the start of all links. I then edited the "H" back into the links and they became hyper. The following day (24-30 hours later), a moderator restored all the posts that were sent to moderator review and I had 4 exact postings, and I have deleted 3 of them.

@ Rhaedas,
A child looks at a parent as a god. How does that influence free will? How can a supreme being influence you unless it scares you into not sinning. If you acted different through fear that is not the same as not having free will. The only way someone can take away your free will is if they
a) put you in shackles and force you to do what they wish
or
b) take over your mind to the same effect.

@ kx00
you're not helping

 

kwhilborn, how can anything claim the title God without belief present? If you say I don't have free-will, then faith does not exist, therefore who gives a fuck.

Your talking to a genius, brother.

 

@ Kx00,
(since you want to swear).

First of all genius it is "You're" not "Your". That's from grade 3 in my country.

Secondly:

Okay GENIUS. You also just Fucked-up Grade 4 comprehension, as I argued FOR FREE CHOICE with a god. That does not spell genius in my book. Try learning to read/write before claiming to be a genius.

This is a science Forum. I actually expect most people here to be geniuses although that is not always the case as you keep demonstrating. Your lack of basic reading skills and tendency towards angry swear filled responses throughout this Forum make me think of you as mildly retarded and doubt you understand what I.Q. even stands for.

Learn to read. Attend School. See you back here in 10 years, although I'm pretty sure you'll have a lifetime ban before then.

In my last posting I said "You are not helping", because your swear filled prattle is demonstrative of the ignorant mindset attributed so often to those with blind faith, and paints you more diminutively than I ever could.

 

What "God" would exist constrained?

Are you evil?

 

@OP, guy.

EDIT:Keep up.

 

@ KXoo,
You rarely make sense (at least last three posts). Is English your first language?
God exist constrained? What could that possibly mean on any planet you inhabit?
Keep up? Is Op guy racing you? Do you mean "Keep it up" as in "good work"? Is this just two random words you pieced together inside your head and could spell?

 

When Adam and Eve ate the apple.
Surely the punishment for that should have been a verbal warning not an instant dismissal?
I think there are grounds for appealing to an industrial tribunal.
This is yet another example of God being a bad employer.

Also, Adam should have been given a gun.
Then he could have shot the snake.

 

I appreciate this post. While I am atheist, thoughts like these I can believe in and do admire. Can you honestly call this religion though? Or can you worship something that's ultimately yourself? I've played around with this exact theory for years now and I like the idea of it. The only reason I call myself an atheist or a skeptic though is because so many people believe in structured religion and that's what's always being conveyed to us(me). I want more out of life than worshiping an entity that's left us here without a known purpose. I've used this quote so many times by Einstein. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results". We've killed each other over religion and this idea of God for I don't know how many millenniums now yet spiritually we're downtrodden and the world gets worse daily. We've killed off our own imaginations which to me is infinitely more important than knowledge and have replaced it with logic. So no I haven't extended my terrible two's stage for the past 19 years and have been saying no to everything ever since. I'm a skeptic because for those past 19 years the same logic that's been presented to me hasn't changed.

 

Not at all. Atheism is, naturally a reaction to theism, so the Judeo-Christian myth is one of the concepts that we reject, but it's only one. And many atheists go further than that, disbelieving in the concept of a prime mover, or an intelligence at the beginning of the universe. Christopher Hitchens used to refer to himself as an adeist to get this point across. There really isn't a word that encompasses all of the things atheists don't believe in, but adeist would probably be a better term for most of us.

In other words, it's not that we're atheists because the idea of a God with a beard and a cane is ridiculous, but because there is no evidence whatsoever for an intelligence behind the universe.

I think I smell woo.

Could you explain why you feel this way? I have a nagging notion that your reasons are intangible and wish-based, but I'm hoping to be wrong.

Nonsense. That simply isn't true, unless you ignore the scientific method and concoct your own half-assed and entirely biased criteria.

How convenient! The only unbaised means of measuring this allegedly very tangible and material phenomenon just so happens to debunk it. Boy, it's a good thing you invented this fake criticism of the scientific method! You almost would have had to retire this childish fantasy and think like an adult. Really dodged a bullet there.

I'm not too well-versed on Freud, but I really think you're misinterpreting his (and Jung's) position on psychic energy.

He never made any claims about psychic "powers."

Jung also believed in astrology, ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance, and a number of other crackpot, woo-ified garbage. There is no evidence for synchronicity, and confirmation bias (as well as our nature as pattern-seekers) explains away any perceived meaning one might find in their coincidences.

Oh, wait, that's right, I'm supposed to account for the probability (which you can't quantify, conveniently) that this might be a real thing. Shoot. Reason and logic fails once again.

Every woo and crank out there whose idiotic, pseudoscientific theory has been debunked by objective measures and methods has some story about how the debunkers aren't "open-minded" enough, or are "conditioned to believe the way they believe." Those woos and cranks have an answer for everything. Rather than do the one thing that actually matters, which is adjust their theory based on the evidence. Instead, the woo and the crank is theory first, evidence be damned!

In the meantime, you'll believe even though there is no evidence to support it. In other words, you'll take it on faith.

Speaking of not being able to grasp speech (that was perhaps as clumsy a sentence as I've ever encountered by a native English speaker on these forums)... You're reduced to name-calling because you have nothing else to offer. You have no evidence, the ideas have been debunked by logic, reason, and objective testing, but because you really, really want to believe it, you have to defend this crackpot nonsense to the last. Hence, fling poo and hope your aggression wins over some weaker hearts and minds.

Right, the genuine article is always just around the next corner. Just one more payment, I promise, and your protection crystals will really work.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or it's a coincidence. Or you heard her screaming, and your brain turned those screams into a vivid dream about distress, which leads one to a hospital. You've failed to make a case as to what's so extraordinary about this story, or why it's best explained by synchronicity.

I mean, it isn't even impressive. If it really were a psychic dream, why didn't you just dream about the actual event? Why dream about your car instead of hers? And what purpose did it serve, since you were woken from the dream by the event itself? All that happened was that you dreamed about parking your car at a hospital, and then you parked a neighbor's car at a hospital. Or maybe you just think you did. It's entirely possible that you've unconsciously invented the dream (or even just its details) because of your natural confirmation bias. Perhaps the dream was about you driving a boat, and what little was left in your memory by the time you sat down to think of it was transformed in your mind to correlate to the event you just experienced. All of these things are possible.

What isn't possible is that the universe concocted this dream for some purpose. Even if we lived in a world where such a thing was accepted and common, your dream wouldn't be an example of it.

"I can do it, I swear! Just don't ask me to do it here, because it probably won't work. But trust me, I can do it!"

Crackpot.

Do you have a sense for irony? I feel you don't, otherwise you would not have uttered such a ridiculous thing. Anyway, the irony here is that you willfully admit the possibility that bias can work against your superpower, but fail to notice that it's almost certainly the driving force behind any perceived success you have.

I'm sure. Why don't you outline one right here, woo boy?

We don't.

We aren't.

We aren't.

Presupposing that things like telepathy and ESP exist, it's not a huge leap to suppose that there is some ubermind, but that's not the only solution. Of course, we know for a fact that these things don't exist, so the question is moot.

Of course you do, because that's the craziest possible explanation, and there's nothing at all in the concession that any of these phenomena exists that points to it. If you were to suddenly start thinking rationally, then you rob all prior woodom of its meaning.

See, now you're the one acting as if God is a guy with a beard and a cane. You've humanized it.

Again, this is immature arm-waving (literally!) that you've been reduced to because you don't have an actual argument to present.

Then why call it God? This is one of those things where you're only muddying the issue. Unless God is a kind of creative force with intelligence, there's really no point in calling it God. If God were gravity, for example, the better term for it would still be gravity, because gravity is what best describes its function. Calling it God only obfuscates it.

 

Skepticism is the kryptonite for psychic abilities. In an environment where everyone wants to believe it works, then curiously it does.

 

God is not only about physical creation. God is also about the ways natural human behavior. Religion began at the transition between natural and civilized. God is personified since the main thrust of religion is about natural human behavior. The creature would eventually control matter and energy so the mind needed to be right for that responsibility.

I found a simple criteria to differentiate natural from unnatural human behavior. I will the compare atheism to religion to see which is the illusion when it comes to human nature.

The criteria; natural human behavior does not requires mops to clean up the mess created by the behavior. This criteria was used because you will not find mops in nature, but rather natural behavior is self sustaining and mop free.

As an analogy, we can keep wild animals, in cages, in the zoo. This is not natural, but it is possible with mops (human props) to compensate for this unnatural environment. If we take the mops away, the wild animals will suffer and die. Natural human behavior is not a zoo illusion that need mops, but rather it is self sustaining without any artificial mops.

Let us look at human behavioral sciences, which follows and endorse the atheist philosophy, in terms of human sexuality. Does what science/atheism promote need mops to clean up STD's and other problems? The answer is yes. If we spend the resource the zoo illusion will appear to work. We can copy the apes, as long as we have zoo keepers with mops. Religion promotes marriage, which need no mops, unless you let the atheist work their illusions, then you will need mops.

The problem I have is not with science, per se, since I am a scientists. Rather I have a problem with science that overly embraced the atheist religion/philosophy. This make science political and deceptive. Behavior science calls unnatural natural to help promote its own mop religion. You start with the conclusion the atheist religion wants, and then pretend you are doing real science. The radical atheist then attack the natural human science of religion as mythology and keep it out of science. Science should not be looking for truth not an agenda.

Would the members of human behavior mop science, who promote the above illusion, be willing to put their money where their mouth is. We will run an experiment where we go mop free, like in nature, and let nature take its course. We will shut the atheist zoo done but leave the animals in the behavior cages. Then we compare mop science to natural mop free religion to see who wins.

 

Yup, like ouija boards and seances.

 

This is a word salad if I ever saw one. It doesn't even approach making sense. Disparate ideas thrown together in hopes that the confusion created by their pairing will give the impression of a philosophical statement.

So you're saying that sex for procreation never results in STDs and other problems? Interesting. Delusional and completely false, but definitely interesting. Also interesting is that in order to be privy to the knowledge found in your religion, it requires one gigantic freaking mop. Maybe more than one.

One more irony: atheist does not promote any kind of sex. The kind of sex practiced by people unbound by scripture (and by plenty of people bound by it, too) is just the kind of sex that comes naturally to them.

You are a scientists? Do you find that you argue over results with yourself, or is there a confirmation bias?

There is no atheist religion/philosophy. There are philosophies adhered to by atheists, but atheism itself is not one. There is no binding ideal within it. I've had to explain this to plenty of wacko theists before, so it's not really any sweat off my back to explain it to one more: atheism is the opposite of theism, not Christianity or whatever faith you belong to. What is theism? It's the belief in at least one intervening god. There is no inherent ideology in it. For ideology, for doctrine, one must add a level of complexity, which is religious denomination. Same goes for atheism; it isn't a philosophy and it has no doctrine, it's merely a position on the amount of gods in the universe.

Can I have an example? You tried sexuality and failed miserably. Maybe you can do better next time?

As opposed to what? Assuming that there's a god? Since there's no evidence for such a thing, adding god to the mix would require one hell of a shoehorn. And it wouldn't even change anything, since the presence of a god doesn't have any explanatory power. It wouldn't change the fact that people who have sex should get tested for STDs or at the least use protection unless trying to have a baby. It wouldn't change that.

I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about at this point. Why would science--which supposedly supports these mops as natural--remove the mops from the equation?

 

The whole point of the Adam and Eve story is that the writers of scripture had to find an ingenious way to explain why we're not in paradise. I admire the cleverness of the story. I also admire the cleverness of the flood story, where God promises never to destroy the Earth with floods ever again. Flooding the earth is physically impossible. I promise never to bend steel with my bare hands, ever again.

 

This is a word salad if I ever saw one. It doesn't even approach making sense. Disparate ideas thrown together in hopes that the confusion created by their pairing will give the impression of a philosophical statement.

So you're saying that sex for procreation never results in STDs and other problems? Interesting. Delusional and completely false, but definitely interesting. Also interesting is that in order to be privy to the knowledge found in your religion, it requires one gigantic freaking mop. Maybe more than one.

One more irony: atheist does not promote any kind of sex. The kind of sex practiced by people unbound by scripture (and by plenty of people bound by it, too) is just the kind of sex that comes naturally to them.

You are a scientists? Do you find that you argue over results with yourself, or is there a confirmation bias?

There is no atheist religion/philosophy. There are philosophies adhered to by atheists, but atheism itself is not one. There is no binding ideal within it. I've had to explain this to plenty of wacko theists before, so it's not really any sweat off my back to explain it to one more: atheism is the opposite of theism, not Christianity or whatever faith you belong to. What is theism? It's the belief in at least one intervening god. There is no inherent ideology in it. For ideology, for doctrine, one must add a level of complexity, which is religious denomination. Same goes for atheism; it isn't a philosophy and it has no doctrine, it's merely a position on the amount of gods in the universe.

Can I have an example? You tried sexuality and failed miserably. Maybe you can do better next time?

As opposed to what? Assuming that there's a god? Since there's no evidence for such a thing, adding god to the mix would require one hell of a shoehorn. And it wouldn't even change anything, since the presence of a god doesn't have any explanatory power. It wouldn't change the fact that people who have sex should get tested for STDs or at the least use protection unless trying to have a baby. It wouldn't change that.

What you're really looking for is science to promote the kind of behavior that is in-line with your absurd faith. Why not just come out and say so?

I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about at this point. Why would science--which supposedly supports these mops as natural--remove the mops from the equation?

 

It makes perfect sense. God exists as spirit, as consciousness that permeates everything (including the particles of the standard model). Human beings started out as just another ape. It was the pursuit of God that helped to civilize our species. Religion, and the pursuit of God/spirituality, allowed our culture to thrive. This expanded our ability to think and understand more advanced concepts. It allowed the ape to be able to develop technology so that we can control energy and matter.

What don't you understand?

 

That doesn't make sense.

No they didn't. Human beings were never apes. But here's the funny part: if they started out as apes and were only later civilized by God, then God cannot exist in everything. Otherwise there would have been no need for the transition.

Why would we need to pursue what is in us and all around us? If God really were everything, including us, then there's no pursuit.

I don't know what role religion had on discovery and education in prehistory, but monotheism certainly stopped it from ever contributing again.

The unscientific, nonsensical gibberish you and your kind resort to when trying to pretend you have a coherent point to make.