existentialism

[4LOM]

That's a good point, but the solution is supposed to resolve the inconsistency between foreknowledge and free will by saying there isn't any foreknowledge. God doesn't know what you do before you do it, but as you do it, it's just that you're always being born, choosing to sit, choosing to stand, and dying from God's perspective. So he sees the timeline of the universe all at once.

In the same way, if I see you sitting and then see you stand up, I know you are now standing, but my knowledge doesn't make you stand. I know because I see you do it, of course if I knew before you did it and my knowldge could not be wrong, then my knowledge would necessitate you standing.

From our perspective he does know what we do before we do it, but I don't know if that is enough to make the solution fail.

[loophole]

by your definition god is the tenth dimension (not in) therefore he cannot exist

[frig deuce]

I don't regard it as a philisophical question. A definite answer is either provable through science, or impossible to come to. It is too early to say that we are simply physical entities whose choices are dictated entirely by our environment and the matter we consist of.

this thread should have ended at this post.

[4LOM]

Expand Quote

I don't regard it as a philisophical question. A definite answer is either provable through science, or impossible to come to. It is too early to say that we are simply physical entities whose choices are dictated entirely by our environment and the matter we consist of.

[close]

this thread should have ended at this post.

If we're more than mattter in motion, what will science have to say about it?
Aren't the hard sciences limited to the quantifiable and repeatable/predictable? Why think reality can be known within those limits?
Wouldn't science have to say we are either wholly determined or partly random, but it could not say we are free (given freedom is not quantifiable or repeatable/predictable)?

Whether "truth is best accessed by science" cannot be answered by science. Isn't placing your faith in science a subjective/existential choice and not an objective/scientific conclusion?

[frig deuce]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I don't regard it as a philisophical question. A definite answer is either provable through science, or impossible to come to. It is too early to say that we are simply physical entities whose choices are dictated entirely by our environment and the matter we consist of.

[close]

this thread should have ended at this post.

[close]

If we're more than mattter in motion, what will science have to say about it?
Aren't the hard sciences limited to the quantifiable and repeatable/predictable? Why think reality can be known within those limits?
Wouldn't science have to say we are either wholly determined or partly random, but it could not say we are free (given freedom is not quantifiable or repeatable/predictable)?

Whether "truth is best accessed by science" cannot be answered by science. Isn't placing your faith in science a subjective/existential choice and not an objective/scientific conclusion?

If, if, if... you can't assume facts based on if. That's just theory, applying it to life is a whole other story. Your not getting anywhere with that argument.

There's no point of trying to predict something you can't fully understand until something concrete happens. You can't understand it because there are surely factors that we are still unaware of. Russians thought it was blasphemy and impossible for a black swan to exist, until one day they saw one. Now that they've experienced such an event, it makes perfect sense.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

If everyone thought that way, we'd never get anywhere.

[alrightythen]

today for dinner i had this:

with a little bit og meat and corn on the side. good stuff

[4LOM]

If, if, if... you can't assume facts based on if. That's just theory, applying it to life is a whole other story. Your not getting anywhere with that argument.

There's no point of trying to predict something you can't fully understand until something concrete happens. You can't understand it because there are surely factors that we are still unaware of. Russians thought it was blasphemy and impossible for a black swan to exist, until one day they saw one. Now that they've experienced such an event, it makes perfect sense.

You're asking how could we know if we're more than matter in motion or if there are some phenomena outside the reach of scientific inquiry?

And you're saying that these conditionals aren't applicable to life because we don't know whether we're more than matter in motion?

I think these have everything to do with concrete/individual lives because they are existential choices that will influence what the individual accepts/believes and how they'll live their life. The person that has faith that only science gives truth and the person that thinks science has its place but is methodologically limited will live different lives and experience the world differently. How much more concrete can you get than how you live your life?

[frig deuce]

Expand Quote

If, if, if... you can't assume facts based on if. That's just theory, applying it to life is a whole other story. Your not getting anywhere with that argument.

There's no point of trying to predict something you can't fully understand until something concrete happens. You can't understand it because there are surely factors that we are still unaware of. Russians thought it was blasphemy and impossible for a black swan to exist, until one day they saw one. Now that they've experienced such an event, it makes perfect sense.

[close]

You're asking how could we know if we're more than matter in motion or if there are some phenomena outside the reach of scientific inquiry?

And you're saying that these conditionals aren't applicable to life because we don't know whether we're more than matter in motion?

I think these have everything to do with concrete/individual lives because they are existential choices that will influence what the individual accepts/believes and how they'll live their life. The person that has faith that only science gives truth and the person that thinks science has its place but is methodologically limited will live different lives and experience the world differently. How much more concrete can you get than how you live your life?

Your being really ambiguous, can you explain the "existential choices that will influence what the individual accepts/believes and how they'll live their life" ?

Im saying I don't know what we are. I can only make the best of what I have. I don't only have faith in science. I don't put my faith in only anything. Im an empirical skeptic. I judge everything and accept or reject things in order to make better sense of this world. Im not going to assume things that I can't prove, or find proof in. It doesn't mean that proof isn't out there, its just that I, or anyone else haven't found a concrete argument for such assumptions. Im always looking for proof, but until it makes complete sense, I won't fully accept it.

Everything said in this thread is fully possible. Theres also an infinite of other possibilities that could be valid, though what im arguing is that we don't know for certain. At least I don't, and I find it ignorant and stupid to assume something that isn't fully understandable (yet).

Its like religion. Sure all these stories are possible, but they are all very low ranked on a scale measuring probability.