I think your post was a bit shorter than the "War and Peace" posts of someone who shall remain "thunderously" unnamed.
Posted on 10/28/2006 7:47:16 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Wondered where dreams come from, how are they generated?..
Came up with dream fairies?.. LoL.. Kind of funny but I'm half serious.. Maybe co-workers(angels) with God generate them.. i.e. dream FARIES..
The meme that the spirit needs something to keep it busy seems probable.. and very practical.. True?.. I dunno but dreams might also make wherever "we" end up when our body DIES (but the spirit does not) NOT SEEM STRANGE to US.. Us (maybe) being some dream like state but even more realistic..
Bet you would have never figured that that intelligent discourse of yours above would have lead ME in this direction, Wot?... ;)
LOL! Dear brother hosepipe, it all seems perfectly reasonable to me! :^)
LoL.... Faith can be a hard taskmaster.. or an easy one..
Depends I guess on what you have faith in..
2nd reality is indeed a fairy world..
Some can upset when you call their fairies UGLY TROLLS..
Dearest bother hosepipe, you just said a mouthful!!! So very true....
if you’re an atheist logically speaking you cannot believe in objective morality. You cannot believe in free will. These are two things that the vast majority of humankind implicitly believe in. We believe for example that if a person carries out a bad action, we can call that person bad because we believe that they are freely choosing those actions. … And just quickly an atheist believes we are controlled completely by our genes and make no free actions at all.
Quantum mechanics (and Quinn quoted Bohr) very clearly proves that nothing is deterministic, hence free will is absolutely assured (Schrodinger's Cat).
Now if they were talking about classical physics then Quinn would be correct, but they weren't.
I think your post was a bit shorter than the "War and Peace" posts of someone who shall remain "thunderously" unnamed.
Nope. Some things are not deterministic.
So what is absolutely determinable then?
That in three minutes I'm going to go get a drink of water.
Did you take into account your velocity when making that prediction? :) You know perfectly well that according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle you can't know all the parameters exactly.
Yes, but then why do we measure things?
Because close enough is generally good enough for our purposes.
Which is the working definition of determine. In QM you cannot "determine" the future state of the system. For instance, if you "precisely" measure where an electron is, you have absolutely no knowledge of its momentum so you cannot know where it will be.
We are in perfect agreement then. : )
Now, about the "fairies," I think we're in agreement about what Quinn meant. I've also spelled out why that shouldn't convince, but now I'll try to address some of your points.
or Tubridy's if you insist
Come now, it's not a matter of my insistence, it's a perfectly objective fact that "fairies" was Tubridy's term, at least in this interview. Further I'd say he and Quinn are very obviously stressing the term to unfairly characterize Dawkins arguments. So you see, as I pointed out, the strawman's on the other foot.
this sleight of hand begs the question of whether fairies and God really are equivalent.
Practicing some sleight of hand of your own? No one anywhere in the interview suggests that. Dawkins is very clear, it's the belief in God by some people that he considers delusional.
In the first place, no one is saying that adults don't have delusions.
The point that I tried to make is that adult delusions are more widespread than you and Quinn imply. Certainly you must agree that in the past they were very widespread. "Witches" were not suffered to live. Animals were put on trial. Spirits were propitiated. First borns were offered to Baal. I don't think human psychology has changed fundamentally so we are still prey to these impulses.
So even today, adult delusions are widespread. A very substantial number of Americans think the 2000 presidential elections were stolen. Far too many think the US government knew ahead of time or even abetted 9/11. Among very many American blacks, it is common knowledge that AIDS and crack are conspiracies perpetrated against them. These are modern American adults. And there are lots more delusions out there. Plenty here even at this web site.
DAWKINS sets himself up as the one who diagnoses who is delusional.... the people who he finds delusional are the ones who simply disagree with him.
Wrong. Dawkins is an athiest. Deists aren't athiests. Therefore Dawkins disagrees with Deists. But he doesn't think that Deist beliefs are delusional. Your claim is refuted.
Now, if there's no more to say about it, which of my other points would you like to discuss next?
Also, if there's some point of yours you think is important that I didn't address, I'll be glad to do it.
Yes, for those where QM applies, thus some things are not deterministic. At the moment, when I look away from my computer for a second and then look back, it is still where it was before.
Yes, but is it identical to what and where it was before you looked away? And did you know precisely where it was before you looked away?
Look I know you are trying hard, but you know better :) We don't live in a classical physics world. It may seem like it, but it is an illusion.
We have free will, whether it comes from God or physics I don't know. I do know that Quinns argument is a dead cat though, (with all due respect to Schrodinger).
How do you know? And prove it.
Come on up and I will show you a two slit experiment.
I have to leave for now :( I can continue this tomorrow if you want. It's been fun.
I've seen it. I've also seen the quantum eraser. You forget I agree with some. Anyway, if you thought Quinn lost, you needed to be the debater because Dawkins lost the argument.
Dawkins: Who says there’s not free will if there is no God? That’s a ridiculous thing to say. Quinn: William Provine for one who you quote in your book. I mean I have a quote here from him. “Other scientists, as well, believe the same thing… that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes and as you say environment and chemical reactions. That there is no room for free will.” And Richard if you haven’t got to grips with that you seriously need to because many of your colleagues have and they deny outright the existence of free will and they are hardened materialists like yourself. Tubridy: Okay. Richard Dawkins, rebut to that as you wish. Dawkins: I’m not interested in free will what I am interested in is the ridiculous suggestion that if science can’t say where the origin of matter comes from theology can.[changing the subject]
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.