These?
Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
It does. You are still riding a donkey and following a goat?
Independently, by each observer. Note we are dealing with a strict dichotomy. We are also dealing with a huge lack of direct, experiential knowledge as to what ultimately drives the universe.
If God is natural, then what is supernatural? There is a problem with defining natural as only that which can be understood by human reason, at least from an empirical standpoint. The problem is that we have no way of determining whether our definition of natural coincides with objective reality.
In addition to that, the dichotomy invites a tautology: We end up saying science can only deal with only natural phenomena while at the same time defining "natural" as only that which science can apprehend. How can science know for sure it is not the "nature" of things to fly apart without reason and disintegrate into nothing intelligible?
Beer is good first aid.
you are welcome, though i suspect I didn't state my point clearly enough. It is not that the particular breed of believer would say that God lies, but that "God lies" is, for them, an inescapeable corollary of the evidence indicating what science says it does. So they deny that the evidence says what science says it does, out of theological necessity.
All because of their (to my eye) false dilemma.
now - a semi-related tangential issue: take a look at "massive"
"massive" is a computer program developed to automatically simulate extremely large numbers of massed INDIVIDUAL combatants for the battle scenes of the Lord of the Rings.
for each species or race, several ranges of physical and behavioral characteristics were developed.
Each individual simulant was given a randomly selected value in each range. These mixed-bag values were intended to create variance between the movement speeds and styles of the combatants, so that the simulants looked and moved like live extras instead of a bunch of, well, computer-generated simulants.
But... it generated a surprise side effect: some of the simulants FLED the battlefield. The programmers were quite surprised by this behavior. But they let it stay, as it adds a little more realism to things.
Now, I will not say that this is an example of "free will"
What I will propose is that this is an example of semi-random assemblages of ranges of standardized components producing unanticipated and apparently "designed" or intended results.
I will also go so far as to wonder... If this illusion of free will derives from combinations of basic elements, what other behaviors which we *do* call free will are in fact just as illusory?
You have a method to determine opinion and what some one does not know or can't be observed?
see 1063 - the "either Genesis is 100% factual, or God Lied" dilemma is faced only by some breeds of believers. others have no such problem.
My Savior rode a donkey and gave His life for me. He is the same One who made the heavens and the earth and all that is contained therein, and still sustains them. Therefore I am not worthy to ride a donkey. I am not even worthy to breathe a single breath of life.
But you? Since you hold the key to history and know what is best for the education of all the children in our land, I suppose I should wear knee pads and kneel to your noodley ideology. No thanks. You can be the goat and kiss my grits. I know where I'm going, and it ain't on my own account. As for you, I guess you'll have to settle. Have fun.
I was just responding to the dare of whether or not it could be argued through induction, as opposed to deduction.
HAH! I got the Battle Of Hastings Prime!!!
What does any observer have to evaluate the substance that presents itself to reason and senses? Only a single mind that resides within the observer himself. That makes for messy science.
Oh. Wait. There are other observers who cropped up by nature, all unintelligiently undesigned, who might have something to offer as corroboration. Listen to them!
I do believe in absolutes and objective reality. I guess I should have added the sarcasm tag concerning that statement. I've had the *there are no absolutes* used on me often enough.
I think, however, that being truly objective is very difficult. Our point of view tends to color what we see way too much and there's always room for error because there's always some decision made that is just a matter of judgement. Our interpretation is often colored by how we feel, or what we're thinking of at the moment.
I am only stating what science has observed. This is not my opinion.
GG is absolutely great - but not cheap!
There are a couple of other companies now marketing the generic at about 30-40% cheaper.
Appears to work just as good as GG.
Do NOT buy a big bottle to get the savings of bulk if you can't use most of it within 1-2 months, for if a duffus forgets the LID sometime, the saving turns into real hard cash!
"And another thing. It is easy to understand. Anyone can become an evolutionary biologist in an afternoon. Just read a book. Most of them are half illustrations anyway. It’s not like studying mathematics or physics, lot of head splitting stuff there.
"It is thus infinitely droll to see evolutionary biologists restrain themselves from debating the issue on the grounds that the public is apt to get confused. And God Knows, there’s no need to confuse the public so long as they keep those swell funding checks coming." - Dr. David Berlinski
These?
Check close again: do they STILL look like mutant rats??
And if you found some, frozen in stone, you'd STILL get a bunch of folks arguing over just what their 'message' really is!
NOW you've REALLY piqued our (mine anyway) curiosity!
Beautifully put! All because of their (to my eye) false dilemma.
One of the other conudrums is that contradictory evidence based upon empirical studies are NOT fatal to science, because science claims to be *A MODEL* and hence subject to revision. Revealed truth based upon authority claims to be, well, revealed. So one way out is to say "well, it's only *moral* truth, which then runs the risk of making "spritual" become roughly synonymous with "Pickwickian"...
If this illusion of free will derives from combinations of basic elements, what other behaviors which we *do* call free will are in fact just as illusory?
That would be more powerful if "free will" had been posited upon observations of others, rather than (say) the Cartesian je pense, donc je suis.
And then you get into the entire Red Herring, Pandora's Box, Troll Garden extraordinaire of "what is *will*"?, how "free" is it (running the gamut from "totally free" to "conditioned" to "automaton"...
and from there it is but a short step (fall?) to Free Will vs. Predestination, etc.
I mean, come on, this thread's already over 1,000 posts as it is, and I'm too tired to read the last 500 right now :-(
But about the automatons, you could do some nifty stuff in *simulating* evolution if you tweaked the program. In particular, sensitivity analysis on the parameters, to see what combinations led to the aforementioned "Brave Sir Robin" behaviour...which might have *temporary* survival value. The problem is that so much of the behaviour is so dependent on the values of the parameters chosen, (think analogies to semi-empirical molecular modeling), that it has little *direct*, *specific* (ab initio) predictive value...
...and thereby hangs a tale.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.