20 plus students dead proof that god(s) doesn't exist?

[stardustbrain]

Hi,

 

I have a simple question. I am an atheist who believes in absolute morality. This event was immoral because it offended the harm-based moral ethic system, the only ethic system. I haven't had much luck with intelligent conversations on the issue so I'll ask here (bad idea maybe). If Any of the many gods that were said to have exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion ) existed, why did they not stop the children from being slain? This is one isolated incident, I know. When I was a theist, I hardly remember asking questions about deity intervention as I was told that it was wrong but as an atheist that is all I ask. If it's free will that killed the children, that's fine, then why not stop the bullets? If it was the fact that religion is removed from schools then why would god(s) enact vengeance on innocent children who literally had nothing to do with it's removal? I feel like I already know the answers to this question. Mass suffering is nothing new to anyone whose ever taken a course on anthropology or macroeconomics. But that is privy to the average American, this incident isnt. I am not attacking religion, I honestly would like to have theist provide me with knowledge that I lack, how doesn't this,(omitting other refutation) not vindicate the absence of any interventionist god(s)? You can troll if you are a theist but remember that (as far as I remember) Christ prayed for his enemies and other poly/mono theist religions advocate conversions. I am totally receptive to the possibility of such a conversion if I have a tenable argument. Thank you either way.

[ewmon]

It seems you ask why we don't live in paradise. Someone pulls a trigger, but the bullets don't reach their targets. Someone else jumps off a cliff, but doesn't get smashed to pieces at the bottom of the cliff. I eat too much ice cream, but I don't get an ice cream headache. A man and a woman have sex: if they want a baby, she gets pregnant, if they don't want a baby, she doesn't get pregnant.

 

So, why don't we live in paradise? Because we don't. (Did I mention that no one is born with any kind of guarantee.)

[imatfaal]

Hi,

 

I have a simple question. I am an atheist who believes in absolute morality. This event was immoral because it offended the harm-based moral ethic system, the only ethic system.

There are other ethical systems - as an example the ancient greeks talked of the need for eudaimonia through the pursuit of a virtuous life. I tend to think of my actions in a deontological rather than teleological manner - but of course the results must always be born in mind as well.

 

I haven't had much luck with intelligent conversations on the issue so I'll ask here (bad idea maybe). If Any of the many gods that were said to have exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion ) existed, why did they not stop the children from being slain? This is one isolated incident, I know. When I was a theist, I hardly remember asking questions about deity intervention as I was told that it was wrong but as an atheist that is all I ask.

I struggle to understand an atheist who looks for understanding and reasons through deities - or are you saying that you question others faith using these sorts of questions?

 

If it's free will that killed the children, that's fine, then why not stop the bullets?

Without consequences it isn't freewill - that's kinda the point. If I decide to do X, and am prevented from succeeding by an outside supernatural influence then my life is a vague shadow of what it could be; in some cases that might be great in others horrific, but in general it would stop humanity in its tracks.

 

If it was the fact that religion is removed from schools then why would god(s) enact vengeance on innocent children who literally had nothing to do with it's removal?

I hope no one would seriously suggest that this was divine punishment for a board of education's decision; but I would probably have my hopes dashed on foxtv.

 

I feel like I already know the answers to this question. Mass suffering is nothing new to anyone whose ever taken a course on anthropology or macroeconomics. But that is privy to the average American, this incident isnt. I am not attacking religion, I honestly would like to have theist provide me with knowledge that I lack, how doesn't this,(omitting other refutation) not vindicate the absence of any interventionist god(s)? You can troll if you are a theist but remember that (as far as I remember) Christ prayed for his enemies and other poly/mono theist religions advocate conversions. I am totally receptive to the possibility of such a conversion if I have a tenable argument. Thank you either way.

 

I am an atheist - but can see a few answers that could be give without too much contortion by a believer.

1. The FSM's plan is ineffable and unknowable - why should the logic, thought-processes and decisions of a being that vastly superior to humanity in every way be accessible to our lumpen and slow brains.

2. The FSM has put us on the earth to live our own lives and to prosper or fail through our own initiatives. She could create a situation in which suffering is removed but we would not be able to reach any of our potential. In a parallel with children going to university - we need to start making our own way in the world and no longer be guided and controlled by our parents.

3. Too many of the deities I have read about are nasty capricious and mean - whilst we still debate the possibility of god we cannot assume her be benevolent

[PeterJ]

The idea of an interventionist God does not work. I mean, what sort of God would create a universe that required His continual interference? It would be like giving Oneself an infinite and eternal 'to do' list. Why would God do that?

 

A more sophisticated idea is that God only works in the world via those who are in contact with Him, who Himself is changeless and forever apart from the spacetime universe. This would be Schroedinger's God, This God would be able to act in the world because We are God, and action is possible if we know this. But of course the term 'God' is problematic here. There are less emotive and confusing words that would do better. At any rate, this idea does not work if God is seen as acting wilfully and interfering with earthly events. .

[Moontanman]

Hi,

 

I have a simple question. I am an atheist who believes in absolute morality. This event was immoral because it offended the harm-based moral ethic system, the only ethic system. I haven't had much luck with intelligent conversations on the issue so I'll ask here (bad idea maybe). If Any of the many gods that were said to have exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion ) existed, why did they not stop the children from being slain? This is one isolated incident, I know. When I was a theist, I hardly remember asking questions about deity intervention as I was told that it was wrong but as an atheist that is all I ask. If it's free will that killed the children, that's fine, then why not stop the bullets? If it was the fact that religion is removed from schools then why would god(s) enact vengeance on innocent children who literally had nothing to do with it's removal? I feel like I already know the answers to this question. Mass suffering is nothing new to anyone whose ever taken a course on anthropology or macroeconomics. But that is privy to the average American, this incident isnt. I am not attacking religion, I honestly would like to have theist provide me with knowledge that I lack, how doesn't this,(omitting other refutation) not vindicate the absence of any interventionist god(s)? You can troll if you are a theist but remember that (as far as I remember) Christ prayed for his enemies and other poly/mono theist religions advocate conversions. I am totally receptive to the possibility of such a conversion if I have a tenable argument. Thank you either way.

 

 

It's more likely evidence that if a god or gods exists he ignores every one equally...

[stardustbrain]

 

 

It's more likely evidence that if a god or gods exists he ignores every one equally...

 

You see, this is perfectly logical and makes sense. But the fundamental problem with this is that the dynamic between worshiped and worshiper is intervention. That is why people pray and repent, that is why some religions slaughter animals..It's to appease the interventionist god. Saying that there is no interventionist god says there is no god. How many people (theist) attribute monstrosity to the individual? Or success to the individual? None. The worshiper does things to facilitate deity intervention (be good, believe,etc.) Further, god is omnipotent and created the world. If he wanted to change it he could, so he is responsible for every aspect of it.

 

 

Hi,

 

I have a simple question. I am an atheist who believes in absolute morality. This event was immoral because it offended the harm-based moral ethic system, the only ethic system. I haven't had much luck with intelligent conversations on the issue so I'll ask here (bad idea maybe). If Any of the many gods that were said to have exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion ) existed, why did they not stop the children from being slain? This is one isolated incident, I know. When I was a theist, I hardly remember asking questions about deity intervention as I was told that it was wrong but as an atheist that is all I ask. If it's free will that killed the children, that's fine, then why not stop the bullets? If it was the fact that religion is removed from schools then why would god(s) enact vengeance on innocent children who literally had nothing to do with it's removal? I feel like I already know the answers to this question. Mass suffering is nothing new to anyone whose ever taken a course on anthropology or macroeconomics. But that is privy to the average American, this incident isnt. I am not attacking religion, I honestly would like to have theist provide me with knowledge that I lack, how doesn't this,(omitting other refutation) not vindicate the absence of any interventionist god(s)? You can troll if you are a theist but remember that (as far as I remember) Christ prayed for his enemies and other poly/mono theist religions advocate conversions. I am totally receptive to the possibility of such a conversion if I have a tenable argument. Thank you either way.

 

 

It seems you ask why we don't live in paradise. Someone pulls a trigger, but the bullets don't reach their targets. Someone else jumps off a cliff, but doesn't get smashed to pieces at the bottom of the cliff. I eat too much ice cream, but I don't get an ice cream headache. A man and a woman have sex: if they want a baby, she gets pregnant, if they don't want a baby, she doesn't get pregnant.

 

So, why don't we live in paradise? Because we don't. (Did I mention that no one is born with any kind of guarantee.)

No. I am asking why doesn't the interventionist god intervene? No example you gave was tangent to my point. If you are intimating that god allows monstrosity to transpire because to not do so would make the world perfect (that's a problem?) Then are you saying that the interventionist god (ALL GODs are said to be interventionist) exist and it chooses to help or not help because of reasons that transcend human understanding (or something else?) In other words shooting up a school full of children is bad to normal humans but not to god, as he didnt intervene.

 

There are other ethical systems - as an example the ancient greeks talked of the need for eudaimonia through the pursuit of a virtuous life. I tend to think of my actions in a deontological rather than teleological manner - but of course the results must always be born in mind as well.

 

I struggle to understand an atheist who looks for understanding and reasons through deities - or are you saying that you question others faith using these sorts of questions?

 

Without consequences it isn't freewill - that's kinda the point. If I decide to do X, and am prevented from succeeding by an outside supernatural influence then my life is a vague shadow of what it could be; in some cases that might be great in others horrific, but in general it would stop humanity in its tracks.

 

I hope no one would seriously suggest that this was divine punishment for a board of education's decision; but I would probably have my hopes dashed on foxtv.

 

 

I am an atheist - but can see a few answers that could be give without too much contortion by a believer.

1. The FSM's plan is ineffable and unknowable - why should the logic, thought-processes and decisions of a being that vastly superior to humanity in every way be accessible to our lumpen and slow brains.

2. The FSM has put us on the earth to live our own lives and to prosper or fail through our own initiatives. She could create a situation in which suffering is removed but we would not be able to reach any of our potential. In a parallel with children going to university - we need to start making our own way in the world and no longer be guided and controlled by our parents.

3. Too many of the deities I have read about are nasty capricious and mean - whilst we still debate the possibility of god we cannot assume her be benevolent

You see this is the problem with that, without intervention, poly/monotheist religions wouldn't exist. It is implicit whenever someone espouses a religion that god will intervene in your life. Thats why people pray for "the strength", pray for "guidance", pray that their wives and husbands won't get laid off in this economy. So to say that without consequences there wouldnt be free will is fundamentally dishonest to religious truth. So is the only logical point then that god created earth, everything in it, and stopped right there? Leaving us free to do whatever? In which case, most monotheist religions have it wrong then..because god have damn sure been intervening all throughout history.

[Moontanman]

 

You see, this is perfectly logical and makes sense. But the fundamental problem with this is that the dynamic between worshiped and worshiper is intervention. That is why people pray and repent, that is why some religions slaughter animals..It's to appease the interventionist god. Saying that there is no interventionist god says there is no god. How many people (theist) attribute monstrosity to the individual? Or success to the individual? None. The worshiper does things to facilitate deity intervention (be good, believe,etc.) Further, god is omnipotent and created the world. If he wanted to change it he could, so he is responsible for every aspect of it.

 

I see no evidence for any god or gods much less any intervention by them.

 

No. I am asking why doesn't the interventionist god intervene? No example you gave was tangent to my point. If you are intimating that god allows monstrosity to transpire because to not do so would make the world perfect (that's a problem?) Then are you saying that the interventionist god (ALL GODs are said to be interventionist) exist and it chooses to help or not help because of reasons that transcend human understanding (or something else?) In other words shooting up a school full of children is bad to normal humans but not to god, as he didnt intervene.

 

That makes any god a monster not worthy of anything but my contempt...

 

You see this is the problem with that, without intervention, poly/monotheist religions wouldn't exist. It is implicit whenever someone espouses a religion that god will intervene in your life. Thats why people pray for "the strength", pray for "guidance", pray that their wives and husbands won't get laid off in this economy. So to say that without consequences there wouldnt be free will is fundamentally dishonest to religious truth. So is the only logical point then that god created earth, everything in it, and stopped right there? Leaving us free to do whatever? In which case, most monotheist religions have it wrong then..because god have damn sure been intervening all throughout history.

 

 

Please give some examples of a god or gods intervening throughout history...

[stardustbrain]

 

I see no evidence for any god or gods much less any intervention by them.

 

 

That makes any god a monster not worthy of anything but my contempt...

 

 

 

Please give some examples of a god or gods intervening throughout history...

I meant religious history...Moses parting the sea...the talking burning bush...Zeus is creates thunder....Allah espouses compulsory conversions....I feel like I would be content with the creationist argument if and only if it stopped right there..Meaning that all religions with an intervening god who can help or harm you (all religions) are invalid.

[tar]

stardustbrain,

 

You seem to be offering arguments to show that an interventionalist god can not, under the circumstances be the case.

 

You were given some good counters that were indeed tangent to your thesis.

 

1. Such an interventionalist god could work through agents such as bullets and humans.

2. Such an interventionalist god need not have your outcome in mind, ie. she could be a Jets fan, or a Titans fan.

 

Additional questions I would ask you.

 

1. Why did absolute morality not kick in, and save the day? (Your god did not help either)

2. Could the event be, like 9-11, an example of the presence of evil in the world? (Bad, interventionist Gods, if you will)

 

In anycase, the event was beyond horrible, to us all. And there is probably nobody, that doesn't want to find a way for it to not happen again. Which, interventionalist God or not, suggests to me that we all would like to have had a way, to intervene. But we did not.

 

Regards, TAR2

Correction,

 

We did intervene. We rushed to hall and were shot, we hid and shielded the children and saved many lives. We lost 20 children, and we mourn the loss, and look for answers, so that we can pre-intervene, and prevent such horror in the future.

 

Regards, TAR2

[stardustbrain]

stardustbrain,

 

You seem to be offering arguments to show that an interventionalist god can not, under the circumstances be the case.

 

You were given some good counters that were indeed tangent to your thesis.

 

1. Such an interventionalist god could work through agents such as bullets and humans.

2. Such an interventionalist god need not have your outcome in mind, ie. she could be a Jets fan, or a Titans fan.

 

Additional questions I would ask you.

 

1. Why did absolute morality not kick in, and save the day? (Your god did not help either)

2. Could the event be, like 9-11, an example of the presence of evil in the world? (Bad, interventionist Gods, if you will)

 

In anycase, the event was beyond horrible, to us all. And there is probably nobody, that doesn't want to find a way for it to not happen again. Which, interventionalist God or not, suggests to me that we all would like to have had a way, to intervene. But we did not.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Correction,

 

We did intervene. We rushed to hall and were shot, we hid and shielded the children and saved many lives. We lost 20 children, and we mourn the loss, and look for answers, so that we can pre-intervene, and prevent such horror in the future.

 

Regards, TAR2

What do yo mean," my god?"...I said "I'm an atheist". I'm not sure if you are a theist and you pathologically assumed that every espoused ideology warrants the existence of god, so you attributed my idea of absolute morality to one, but I by no means believe in any deity. Absolute morality is a word. Like car, fiscal, embracement, work, etc. It is entirely impotent (weak, otherwise voided,empty). A god is omnipotent (if it can be conceived, it can be created.)

 

In your closing statement you say "[the event was horrible]..Which, interventionalist God or not, suggests to me that we all would like to have had a way, to intervene. But we did not. " Is right in its own respect, but this does not answer my question. I am asking about the existence of god (s). I am saying that any posited god is interventionist and or omnipotent., why didn't they intervene. You elucidated on human intervention.I literally KNOW that humans can intervene, as I don't believe in god. I just wanted a tour though the psyche of a theist in moments like this. So, can I leave with this, 1) you are a theist that believes in god (necessarily omnipotent, benevolent) 2) you are saying "Bad, interventionist Gods" exist (eradicating any monotheist argument, in other words you cant believe this if you are Christian) 3.) And Finally "We did intervene. We rushed to hall and were shot, we hid and shielded the children and saved many lives. We lost 20 children, and we mourn the loss, and look for answers, so that we can pre-intervene, and prevent such horror in the future. " This response evades my question altogether, but I can deduce that this means that humans intervene because god cant, because go doesnt exist or else he necessarily would have saved the innocent from being slain as he is a necessarily omnipotent, benevolent, historically intervening god. Correct me if this summary is off.

[tar]

stardustbrain,

 

I think I might be a pantheist, if you require a label.

 

I however measure myself as an atheist as that I, along with you figure the God of the bible does not exist as advertised in the Bible.

 

So your assumptions about me, are probably off the mark.

 

You could read through Inow's thread "people that believe in God are broken" and you would find some clarification of my general appoach to this issue, as well as the approach of dozens of other thoughtful people that range from hard atheists to quite solid theists. You will find you are not the first person to think about this, and much of what you alude to in your analysis of my response, speaks of insights already had and refined, discussed and countered.

 

I think you will find the thread useful.

 

As to the 20, the God of the Bible, did not show up. But whatever God there is, had to be there, because there is no other place but here, there and everywhere, for any God to be. So its not the God of the bible. Suggest something else. Why do you think it happened? And what can we, together, do about it? And why does it affect us so much, if it didn't happen to us? And if there is no God of the bible to be responsible...for stepping in, or not stepping in, what entity do you propose IS responsible? Must be us, there is nobody here, but us.

 

Questioning why God did not step in, is thus a more involved question than you think. And your answer is a non answer. You say God did not step in, because he would of, if he existed. It was your image of God that failed to live up to your expectations. You cannot fault a God you don't believe exists, for acting improperly...well you can, but it doesn't make any sense to do so.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 21, 2012 by tar

[Bill Angel]

It is implicit whenever someone espouses a religion that god will intervene in your life.

There is a famous assertion by Einstein that "God does not play dice with the universe". Einstein was resolute that the universe should be wholly predictable through physical laws. Perhaps that shooting in Connecticut was wholly predictable through physical law, as was the death of over 300,000 caused by an earthquake in Haiti iputn 2010.

Could not one's religious views be that God set the Universe into existence via the Big Bang, and then let events play out according to the physical laws that underlie them?

 

[stardustbrain]

There is a famous assertion by Einstein that "God does not play dice with the universe". Einstein was resolute that the universe should be wholly predictable through physical laws. Perhaps that shooting in Connecticut was wholly predictable through physical law, as was the death of over 300,000 caused by an earthquake in Haiti iputn 2010. Could not one's religious views be that God set the Universe into existence via the Big Bang, and then let events play out according to the physical laws that underlie them?

 

You know, I would accept this. This, does however eradicate any religion in which god specifically intervened (ie: Zeus and thunderstorms, Christian God impregnating the virgin Mary, etc.). This argument is something I don't have the knowledge to argue as it essentially says that a omnipotent being created everything that can be vindicated by science.

[JBrownSays]

Hi,

 

I have a simple question. I am an atheist who believes in absolute morality. This event was immoral because it offended the harm-based moral ethic system, the only ethic system. I haven't had much luck with intelligent conversations on the issue so I'll ask here (bad idea maybe). If Any of the many gods that were said to have exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion ) existed, why did they not stop the children from being slain? This is one isolated incident, I know. When I was a theist, I hardly remember asking questions about deity intervention as I was told that it was wrong but as an atheist that is all I ask. If it's free will that killed the children, that's fine, then why not stop the bullets? If it was the fact that religion is removed from schools then why would god(s) enact vengeance on innocent children who literally had nothing to do with it's removal? I feel like I already know the answers to this question. Mass suffering is nothing new to anyone whose ever taken a course on anthropology or macroeconomics. But that is privy to the average American, this incident isnt. I am not attacking religion, I honestly would like to have theist provide me with knowledge that I lack, how doesn't this,(omitting other refutation) not vindicate the absence of any interventionist god(s)? You can troll if you are a theist but remember that (as far as I remember) Christ prayed for his enemies and other poly/mono theist religions advocate conversions. I am totally receptive to the possibility of such a conversion if I have a tenable argument. Thank you either way.

 

Hi,

 

I have a simple question. I am an atheist who believes in absolute morality. This event was immoral because it offended the harm-based moral ethic system, the only ethic system. I haven't had much luck with intelligent conversations on the issue so I'll ask here (bad idea maybe). If Any of the many gods that were said to have exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion ) existed, why did they not stop the children from being slain? This is one isolated incident, I know. When I was a theist, I hardly remember asking questions about deity intervention as I was told that it was wrong but as an atheist that is all I ask. If it's free will that killed the children, that's fine, then why not stop the bullets? If it was the fact that religion is removed from schools then why would god(s) enact vengeance on innocent children who literally had nothing to do with it's removal? I feel like I already know the answers to this question. Mass suffering is nothing new to anyone whose ever taken a course on anthropology or macroeconomics. But that is privy to the average American, this incident isnt. I am not attacking religion, I honestly would like to have theist provide me with knowledge that I lack, how doesn't this,(omitting other refutation) not vindicate the absence of any interventionist god(s)? You can troll if you are a theist but remember that (as far as I remember) Christ prayed for his enemies and other poly/mono theist religions advocate conversions. I am totally receptive to the possibility of such a conversion if I have a tenable argument. Thank you either way.

Your question is simple, but the answers you want are not so simple because you refuse to accept the fact that GOD! created you and all other humans with a free will.

If you do not believe in this free will, you would not come into this forum and ask this simple question.

If you really! do not believe in this, Do whatever you want to do because you only live once and die once. RIGHT!

After you die! why you care what happens to you!!

Edited January 6, 2013 by JBrownSays

[iNow]

Your question is simple, but the answers you want are not so simple because you refuse to accept the fact that GOD! created you and all other humans with a free will.

 

Except, the existence of god is NOT a fact. It is a faith-based position rooted in belief and personal wish thinking. Could there be a god? Sure, maybe, I suppose, but the existence of that entity can hardly be described as a "fact" if you hope to remain accurate. I might also ask which god, but whatever.

 

As a follow-on... The entire concept of free will has been called into question by modern neuroscience (which shows in essence that decisions are made before they ever even enter into our conscious awareness, which translates to mean that there is nothing free about our will, and it is much more likely the outcome of chemical processes). This essentially means your argument is rooted in an unfounded assumption and is then propped up by an inaccurate claim... Not exactly a good foundation on which convince others of the merit of your position.

 

If you do not believe in this free will, you would not come into this forum and ask this simple question.

 

You need to support this. I will forewarn you... The data is not on your side.

 

 

If you really! do not believe in this, Do whatever you want to do because you only live once and die once. RIGHT!

After you die! why you care what happens to you!!

 

Once I am dead, you are right. I will no longer care what happens to me, but I do currently care how I live my life as a member of this community of humans sharing this planet together, and I do care how things will be left for my loved ones and offspring once I'm dead and gone. I am good without god, and I find it repugnant to think that you only act kindly to others due to a fear of punishment. If you can only be good to your fellow humans due to fear of retribution after you die, then I find you to be far more amoral than any nonbeliever is due merely to choosing not to accept your myths and fairy tales as true or compelling.

Edited January 6, 2013 by iNow

[zapatos]

 

... you refuse to accept the fact that GOD! created you ...

And you refuse to use words as commonly defined.

[jp255]

Hi,

 

I have a simple question. I am an atheist who believes in absolute morality. This event was immoral because it offended the harm-based moral ethic system, the only ethic system.

I honestly would like to have theist provide me with knowledge that I lack, how doesn't this,(omitting other refutation) not vindicate the absence of any interventionist god(s)?

I feel like I already know the answers to this question

 

I think you don't really need a theist's response to come to a conclusion. You believe in absolute morality so the following should make sense?

 

a god that created this universe by choice, had the power to intervene in the events that occur in the universe but chose to let the children die is viewed by the absolute moral believer to be immoral.

a god that created the universe by choice and did not have the power to intervene in any events is viewed to be immoral? (as it is still the cause of the shooting)

a god that didn't have the choice to create the universe, but had the power to intervene in events and did so to the best of it's ability is viewed as moral. etc.

 

You don't need a theist's response, and I don't think you will get adequate answers which will allow you to be able to have your questions answered (I didn't in a similar kind of thread). So I think it is best that you just leave it at the above, and if a god has the same description as one of the above then you label it as moral or immoral depending on the action of the god. I don't really know what absolute morality is, so the above might be wrong, but still you can make your own descriptions to categorise gods.

 

 

The entire concept of free will has been called into question by modern neuroscience (which shows in essence that decisions are made before they ever even enter into our conscious awareness, which translates to mean that there is nothing free about our will, and it is much more likely the outcome of chemical processes). This essentially means your argument is rooted in an unfounded assumption and is then propped up by an inaccurate claim... Not exactly a good foundation on which convince others of the merit of your position.

You need to support this. I will forewarn you... The data is not on your side.

 

I agree that the concept of free will has been called into question by neuroscience. Though I think the research has been misinterpreted by those who use it to claim that free will doesn't exist. I also disagree when you say the "data is not on your side" to JBrownsays, data to support either side is weak and isn't plentiful. The matter of illusion of free will vs free will is far from resolved.

Edited January 7, 2013 by jp255

[PeterJ]

The concept of freewill has been called into question by metaphysics since it began. Neoroscientists often don't mention this, but let's give credit where it's due. In reality neuroscience can have nothing to say about freewill, it is beyond the scope of the discipline,.although some neuroscientists who like to do metaphysics do express opinions.

[imatfaal]

Peter: I am not so sure you are correct there - maybe a few years ago, but not now. Functioning Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging can show that many "decisions" we believe are made explicitly in the higher consciousness are actually already decided before the higher realms get a look in - with the conscious mind merely creating post hoc rationalisations of decisions that the experimenter can see were already made before the decision-maker realised.

 

If free will is not conscious - is it free will? iNow will have some better references than I - hopefully he will post some.

[iNow]

In reality neuroscience can have nothing to say about freewill, it is beyond the scope of the discipline,.although some neuroscientists who like to do metaphysics do express opinions.

 

This is a ridiculous position for you to take. Studying the brain directly, we can determine the origin of decision making. Those studies have shown repeatedly and through different methodologies that choice occurs prior to awareness. You may not like the implications of the work, but that does not mean the work is moot or irrelevant.

 

iNow will have some better references than I - hopefully he will post some.

 

Here's a quick one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

[jp255]

Those studies have shown repeatedly and through different methodologies that choice occurs prior to awareness

Can you provide a citation for this please? I don't think that any of the studies on that wiki page explain much, if anything, about what determines the outcome when an individual is presented with a choice.

[iNow]

Can you provide a citation for this please? I don't think that any of the studies on that wiki page explain much, if anything, about what determines the outcome when an individual is presented with a choice.

I have to disagree. References 1,2,3,8,12,13,16,17,18,20,26,34,37 and a few others actually do.

[jp255]

your "data is not on your side" comment relies on extension of the conclusions of those studies to complex planned behavior, which I don't agree with.

 

Even when considering simple behavior such as the finger movements, reference 23 shows that the readiness potential, which other studies have assumed to be the preparation of movement (and therefore the intiation of the decision to move), is present regardless of movement or no movement. This raises doubts and so in my opinion, it isn't clear what the cause of movement/behaviors is.