On Jul 24, 8:46*pm, Thommadura wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:59 pm, "Dan Listermann" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message

....
On Jul 24, 2:00 pm, Virgil wrote:

In article
,
PD wrote:
Where is the scientific evidence there is no God?
In the same place as the scientific evidence that there are any.
So that by Ockham's principle, the wise do not presume any gods.
Nor then should one presume the existence of free will.

And therefore the *choice* to believe or not believe in God is an
illusion.

Is there a "choice" in the belief in Leprechauns too?

Apparently not. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of free will
or choice.

Indeed *- therefore invalidating religions - which is based on that claim!

Ah, so you agree that there is no evidence for free will or choice.
And by your own declaration, there is no reason to believe in
something for which there is no evidence.
Therefore, to stay consistent with your principles, you must not
believe in free will or choice.

Therefore, your nonbelief in God was not the result of your free will
or choice (since those are questionable), but is instead the result of
deterministic processes that constrained you to have that position,
much as it constrains the color of your eyes or the number of your
toes.

Therefore as well, those that DO believe in God have that position not
because of free will or choice, but as the result of deterministic
processes that have constrained them to have that position, just like
the color of their skin and the number of their teeth.

And so please tell me the value of condemning someone for a position
that is simply determined by forces outside of free will and choice,
and which happens to be different than your position which is
similarly determined? Do you condemn someone for being right-handed if
you are left-handed? Do you condemn blue-eyed people if you are brown-
eyed?

PD

PD wrote:
On Jul 24, 8:46 pm, Thommadura wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:59 pm, "Dan Listermann" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 24, 2:00 pm, Virgil wrote:
In article
,
PD wrote:
Where is the scientific evidence there is no God?
In the same place as the scientific evidence that there are any.
So that by Ockham's principle, the wise do not presume any gods.
Nor then should one presume the existence of free will.
And therefore the *choice* to believe or not believe in God is an
illusion.
Is there a "choice" in the belief in Leprechauns too?
Apparently not. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of free will
or choice.
Indeed - therefore invalidating religions - which is based on that claim!

Ah, so you agree that there is no evidence for free will or choice.
And by your own declaration, there is no reason to believe in
something for which there is no evidence.
Therefore, to stay consistent with your principles, you must not
believe in free will or choice.


SOrry - I never said I do not believe in free will or free choice - ]
I said that the religious concept of free choice is nonsense - and I
said that one clearly.

AND YOU are again putting words into my mouth that are not true

THerefore - the rest of your statements are garbage

PD wrote:
Therefore, your nonbelief in God was not the result of your free will
or choice (since those are questionable), but is instead the result of
deterministic processes that constrained you to have that position,
much as it constrains the color of your eyes or the number of your
toes.

And there you go again. How does 'A' presume to 'prove' 'B'? You really
need to address this if you intend to continue this claim and be
credible. Or, you can continue to claim with obviously flawed logic.

Consider. I can build, from a blueprint, (analogous of DNA being a
blueprint), a QRNG. This device is constructed with purely classical
physics. But when observations are made with this device, i.e. its
dynamic form, it produces completely unpredictable results.

Yet you would extend a classical bases for what sentience is to a
dynamic that includes the ability to learn and learning. Is language in
my genes? I'm I predisposed to learn many different languages so all
those languages are in some initial blueprint at my birth? That includes
DNA for radically different language structures like Navajo.

Is the QRNG an exception to the rule that the universe and all that is
in it, (including sentient beings), is completely deterministic?

Best, Dan.

DanB wrote:
PD wrote:
Therefore, your nonbelief in God was not the result of your free will
or choice (since those are questionable), but is instead the result of
deterministic processes that constrained you to have that position,
much as it constrains the color of your eyes or the number of your
toes.

And there you go again. How does 'A' presume to 'prove' 'B'? You really
need to address this if you intend to continue this claim and be
credible. Or, you can continue to claim with obviously flawed logic.

Consider. I can build, from a blueprint, (analogous of DNA being a
blueprint), a QRNG. This device is constructed with purely classical
physics. But when observations are made with this device, i.e. its
dynamic form, it produces completely unpredictable results.

Yet you would extend a classical bases for what sentience is to a
dynamic that includes the ability to learn and learning. Is language in
my genes? I'm I predisposed to learn many different languages so all
those languages are in some initial blueprint at my birth? That includes
DNA for radically different language structures like Navajo.

Is the QRNG an exception to the rule that the universe and all that is
in it, (including sentient beings), is completely deterministic?

Best, Dan.

There is an additional problem with his logic (Besides the FACT that I
never said I do not believe in free will - only the nonsense free will
of religion - which is coercion - not free will)

Since he is the one who is denying the existence of free will - because
he sees no proof of it - then HIS belief in gods - is not the result of
a free choice either - and is therefore rendered moot as well.

So - if he continues to say that free will does not exist - then he
cannot claim that his decisions are proper either.

PD wrote:
On Jul 24, 8:46 pm, Thommadura wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:59 pm, "Dan Listermann" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 24, 2:00 pm, Virgil wrote:
In article
,
PD wrote:
Where is the scientific evidence there is no God?
In the same place as the scientific evidence that there are any.
So that by Ockham's principle, the wise do not presume any gods.
Nor then should one presume the existence of free will.
And therefore the *choice* to believe or not believe in God is an
illusion.
Is there a "choice" in the belief in Leprechauns too?
Apparently not. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of free will
or choice.
Indeed - therefore invalidating religions - which is based on that claim!

Ah, so you agree that there is no evidence for free will or choice.
And by your own declaration, there is no reason to believe in
something for which there is no evidence.
Therefore, to stay consistent with your principles, you must not
believe in free will or choice.

Therefore, your nonbelief in God was not the result of your free will
or choice (since those are questionable), but is instead the result of
deterministic processes that constrained you to have that position,
much as it constrains the color of your eyes or the number of your
toes.

Ah - but it is YOU who claim that free will does not exist (Quoiting YOU
- "There doesn't appear to be any evidence of free will
or choice.")- because YOU see no proof of it- and THAT invalidates
YOUR position completely - based on your logic. So - that not only
invalidates religions - but also YOUR choice of gods as well.


So - to stay consistent with your principles - you would need to admit
that you have free choice - something you apparently are unwilling to admit.

SMILE!