Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop; TrisB
You wrote: "To not have free will wouldn't stop you from making choices." Okay. But what kind of choices?

LOLOL! I had the same reaction. A circuit board does not make choices, it executes logic. Software is the same albeit not hard-wired.

The metaphysical naturalist (atheist) view is that "all that there is" is matter in all its motions, microscope to telescope. The necessary consequence of that line of thought is that the "mind is what the brain does" that "there is no ghost in the machine."

That means the mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon which can cause nothing to happen!

The atheist's "reality" (a false, second reality actually) - unfolds according to physical laws and physical constants only. What is called a "choice" is an illusion, it can cause nothing to happen. It is like a circuit board, cellular automata, or a phenomenon emerging from self-organizing complexity. The universe, in the atheist view, is executing its program.

Moreover, atheism fails on causation per se.

If not for time, events would not occur. If not for space, things would not be.

Every cosmology has a beginning and they all rely on space/time for causation. Yet there is nothing in the void of the beginning - no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no physical laws, no physical constants, no thing and especially no physical causation. There must be an uncaused cause of causation itself, i.e. God.

The chief difference between them, it seems to me, is that humans can work outside of their "programs" -- which is why they have free will, and why computers do not. FWIW.

Exactly so, my dear sister in Christ! Thank you for all of your outstanding posts.

121 posted on 11/09/2006 10:07:16 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: Alamo-Girl
Thanks for your reply. Your description of the atheist view is accurate to the way I see it, just on your last paragraph:

[Every cosmology has a beginning and they all rely on space/time for causation. Yet there is nothing in the void of the beginning ... There must be an uncaused cause of causation itself, i.e. God. ]

Classic situation - your argument is self contradicting. Cant you see that if you reject something purely because it is uncaused, THEN YOU MUST REJECT AN UNCAUSED GOD. God is thus absolutely not a solution to the problem of creation.

On the flipside, if you accept an infinitely old God (not requiring a creation), then you could equally accept the idea of an eternal cosmos, and don't need a God to solve the problem of creation. You are not solving the problem, you are evading it.
124 posted on 11/10/2006 12:14:58 PM PST by TrisB (Reply to Alamo-Girl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson