Why does God punish the innocent and innocuous?

[iNow]

Free will probably doesn't exist anyway, so... Yeah.

[recursion]

Free will probably doesn't exist anyway, so... Yeah.

 

I think that may be due to a mis-definition of free will. What a lot of the materialist universe argument entails is that there is no true self, that is it an illusion presented by unexplained phenomenon.

 

However, while that may have truth to it, there is no denying the fact that you can make decisions based on what you know, who you are as a person, and other personal and/or environmental variables. Randomness is unexplained, definitively, so as long as there is an unknown, we will perceive randomness. Through these randomized occurrences, we make decisions based on self-identity, either through the abiding to hearsay or through logical thought. As there is definite truthiness in existence, there is a way to personally decide on what is the best course of action, giving free will to the person. While free-will or making a decision personally does not necessitate independent thought, it may perhaps be that will is most free when it is based on an independent assessment of the truth of what is, thus the ability to logically deduce a course of action based on a non-controlled identity and person provides free-will. A deterministic perspective is a self-less perspective and in that there is contradiction, for to perceive, there must be the self.

[iNow]

I think that may be due to a mis-definition of free will.

Nope. It's due to the rapidly accumulating evidence coming out of empirical neuroscience.

 

However, while that may have truth to it, there is no denying the fact that you can make decisions based on what you know, who you are as a person, and other personal and/or environmental variables.

Of course it can be denied, especially since studies show that we seem to make decisions roughly 500ms before they even reach or activate our centers for conscious awareness.

[recursion]

Nope. It's due to the rapidly accumulating evidence coming out of empirical neuroscience.

 

Of course it can be denied, especially since studies show that we seem to make decisions roughly 500ms before they even reach or activate our centers for conscious awareness.

 

You're making the unfounded assumption that you are only your consciousness. Also, there is no neuroscientific evidence for free-will, there is only understanding of the coalescent systems which evoke sentience, not sentience itself.

[iNow]

You're making the unfounded assumption that you are only your consciousness.

Nope. I'm making the entirely reasonable assumption that free will probably doesn't exist given what we're seeing in the research. No need to introduce strawmen or misrepresent my actual position.

 

Also, there is no neuroscientific evidence for free-will

I know. That's kinda my point.

[recursion]

Nope. I'm making the entirely reasonable assumption that free will probably doesn't exist given what we're seeing in the research. No need to introduce strawmen or misrepresent my actual position.

 

I know. That's kinda my point.

 

Please be specific in scientific discourse. We, as scientists, teach rigorous and error-free logic as well as clarity and specificity. Also, most fallacies do not need to be named as they are easy to explain, and it helps facilitate conversation and demonstrate understanding (fallacy naming has become a popular choice for pseudo-intellectualism, although it originally stemmed from sincere thought).

 

There is no neuroscientific evidence for free-will, as in, there is no evidence for or against its existence. A lot of it is semantic discussion rather than logical discussion, but we know science has not an understanding of sentience, and this is a large hurdle we need to overcome.

[iNow]

Please be specific in scientific discourse.

Where specifically do you feel I've been unclear?

 

There is no neuroscientific evidence for free-will, as in, there is no evidence for or against its existence.

This does not follow. Those variables are not commutative in the way you suggest.

 

Also: There is, in fact, neuroscientific evidence against the existence of free will. There is even an easy to follow wiki so folks can become familiar with the basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

Are we certain yet that free will doesn't exist? Nope, but the evidence toward that conclusion grows stronger and more robust each day and to say "there is no evidence against free will" would be either lying or ignorant. Which of those terms best describes what you're displaying here, recursion?

[recursion]

Where specifically do you feel I've been unclear?

 

This does not follow. Those variables are not commutative in the way you suggest.

 

Also: There is, in fact, neuroscientific evidence against the existence of free will. There is even an easy to follow wiki so folks can become familiar with the basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

Are we certain yet that free will doesn't exist? Nope, but the evidence toward that conclusion grows stronger and more robust each day and to say "there is no evidence against free will" would be either lying or ignorant. Which of those terms best describes what you're displaying here, recursion?

 

There is a general lack of understanding regarding free-will as it's frequently defined ambiguously and with multiple conflicting meanings. Free-will does not imply that there is no physical process correlated with the greater being who we perceive as the self.

 

When I say be specific, I mean to avoid the ambiguities in our definitions of things as well as in any of our communications. Yes, there is strong evidence of correlated physical action, but there can not be any evidence against the clearly existent phenomenon of choice. This is a popular topic with which people like to evade conclusion with preference towards argument. With science, the conclusive truth is our goal, not argument, so argumentative behavior seeks to destroy our search for ultimate truth.

 

In conclusion, if you are a person, then you make those decisions based on what you know, think, and believe. You have the free option to chose, although we as intelligent, sentient (or near-sentient) beings do gravitate towards the truth, as the truth is the only indisputable conclusion. As such, people can be indeed held responsible for their actions, and the deterministic fallacy that is claiming I did not chose to do such a thing, "nature made me do it," is unfounded. The only possible aversion that the deterministic argument may provide is that the person was incapable of performing the correct judgement, however that does not change that it is the person that makes the decision. Science is a great thing in this regard, as it has essentially institutionalized the following of perfect thought, giving rigor and social consistency.

Edited January 4, 2015 by recursion

[iNow]

Yes, there is strong evidence of correlated physical action, but there can not be any evidence against the clearly existent phenomenon of choice.

Of course there can be, and I've already pointed you to some of it. Why do you continue making such plainly untrue and patently absurd statements in your posts?

 

With science, the conclusive truth is our goal, not argument, so argumentative behavior seeks to destroy our search for ultimate truth.

You IMO appear to be operating on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

In conclusion, if you are a person then you make those decisions based on what you know, think, and believe.

Implicit in your comment here is the idea that we have the capacity to make conscious choices. Simply ignoring the evidence that this appears quite unlikely doesn't make said evidence magically disappear.

[recursion]

Of course there can be, and I've already pointed you to some of it. Why do you continue making such plainly untrue and patently absurd statements in your posts?

 

You IMO appear to be operating on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

Implicit in your comment here is the idea that we have the capacity to make conscious choices. Simply ignoring the evidence that this appears quite unlikely doesn't make said evidence magically disappear.

I am using perfect logic, to the best of my ability. Please stop attacking me and provide logical discourse.

[andrewcellini]

Please stop attacking me

he is only attacking you arguments. note how he says "your comment" or "absurd statements." you are not your statements so don't take personal offense when other people find them invalid.

 

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edited January 4, 2015 by andrewcellini

[iNow]

I am using perfect logic, to the best of my ability.

 

Given the number of fallacies in which you engage, the frequency and consistency with which illogic is present in your posts, and how often you make specious assumptions, unfounded assertions, and build upon baseless and remedially false premises it is somewhat telling that you would describe your approach to argumentation and the use of logic as "perfect."

 

Now, do you care to address the actual discussion points in play and address my criticisms maturely, or would you prefer to continue evading core issues and getting upset because I refuse to offer any undue deference to your position?

[Ten oz]

There is a general lack of understanding regarding free-will as it's frequently defined ambiguously and with multiple conflicting meanings. Free-will does not imply that there is no physical process correlated with the greater being who we perceive as the self.

When I say be specific, I mean to avoid the ambiguities in our definitions of things as well as in any of our communications. Yes, there is strong evidence of correlated physical action, but there can not be any evidence against the clearly existent phenomenon of choice. This is a popular topic with which people like to evade conclusion with preference towards argument. With science, the conclusive truth is our goal, not argument, so argumentative behavior seeks to destroy our search for ultimate truth.

I disagree. In my opinion science seeks to learn and accumulate information. Truth as a monolithic concept is not tangible. Conclusive truth is redundant as belief in faith.

 

In conclusion, if you are a person, then you make those decisions based on what you know, think, and believe. You have the free option to chose, although we as intelligent, sentient (or near-sentient) beings do gravitate towards the truth, as the truth is the only indisputable conclusion. As such, people can be indeed held responsible for their actions, and the deterministic fallacy that is claiming I did not chose to do such a thing, "nature made me do it," is unfounded. The only possible aversion that the deterministic argument may provide is that the person was incapable of performing the correct judgement, however that does not change that it is the person that makes the decision. Science is a great thing in this regard, as it has essentially institutionalized the following of perfect thought, giving rigor and social consistency.

Do you apply this equally to all life? Does a grasshopper make decisions based on what it knows, thinks, and believes?

[Strange]

We, as scientists...

 

You are clearly not a scientist, so why the "we"?

[pears]

The three main possibilities are:

 

1. There is no god.

2. God is perfectly willing to let you suffer. This is rationalized as testing people for the afterlife, or the result of free will, which god created, so it comes back to him anyway.

3. God is jealous and punitive, which he says he is in the bible.

 

4 - God is willing to let you suffer but the purpose of suffering is unknown.

 

If you're talking about the God of the bible then, he is not described just as a jealous God but as an incarnate God - who comes and suffers along with us. My view of God is that everything we experience he experiences. Whenever we suffer he suffers too. Just my opinion.

 

 

Lets not just make it always about us and our suffering...

 

What kind of a vain God would create a whole universe for the sole, perverse purpose of worshipping Him.

 

Why do you think that's the reason God created the universe (if he did)? Could there be another reason?

[Strange]

4 - God is willing to let you suffer but the purpose of suffering is unknown.

 

5 - God doesn't want us to suffer but is powerless to do anything about it.

[MonDie]

Of course it can be denied, especially since studies show that we seem to make decisions roughly 500ms before they even reach or activate our centers for conscious awareness.

 

Small quip: Is it that we decide 500ms prior, or that our decision can be predicted 500ms prior?

[Strange]

 

Small quip: Is it that we decide 500ms prior, or that our decision can be predicted 500ms prior?

 

Obviously it is 500ms before we are aware of our decision. This is hardly surprising as we (our brains) have to integrate signals that can vary in time by nearly 1 second so that they all appear to be happening "now".

 

It is rather annoying that some people claim this means that someone else is making the decision for us (or something).

[StringJunky]

Perhaps our emotions informs the decision-making process first then it is modulated by our conscious self; if necessary.

[Strange]

Perhaps our emotions informs the decision-making process first then it is modulated by our conscious self; if necessary.

 

There is a lot of evidence that most of our decisions are made at an "intuitive" level, before our "rational brain" gets involved.

[Robittybob1]

It makes me cringe when I see innocent people suffer.

Would a caring God partake of such injustice?

What conclusion does this lead us to?

 

Please advise.

If all you do is cringe, you are hopeless too! There are stories in the Bible where the odd righteous one and his family is spared. Noah and Lot are two names I can think of now, but if you went through the Bible I would say there would be 20 occasions where someone is saved.

[iNow]

Small quip: Is it that we decide 500ms prior, or that our decision can be predicted 500ms prior?

Interestingly, it seems to be both (not either/or), and these findings have been consistently replicated.

.

 

if you went through the Bible I would say there would be 20 occasions where someone is saved.

And if you "went through the bible" you would also find that there are several times that many where someone is murdered, slaughtered, beaten, or commanded to do all three.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

[Robittybob1]

Interestingly, it seems to be both (not either/or), and these findings have been consistently replicated.

.

 

And if you "went through the bible" you would also find that there are several times that many where someone is murdered, slaughtered, beaten, or commanded to do all three.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

I Would imagine there have been all sorts of ransacking and pillaging that has gone on over the millennia. All of our ancestors would be guilty of it.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Robittybob1

[iNow]

Relevance?

[Robittybob1]

Relevance?

Our history is just as relevant. We can't just say the Hebrews are guilty, just because their history was recorded and ours not.