Polytheist -> Monotheist -> Atheist (651 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.52 on 42 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Gods Imaginary Friend (View user info) at 2006-02-08 23:01:33 EST
What if there is no god?
What if everything runs simply on chemical reactions? This would mean that there is in fact no free will. The scientists among you may quote the uncertainty principle, that in many subatomic reactions there are only probabilities of outcomes and it is impossible to say which will occur. But even at this level the current science is that each happens in a parallel universe and you have no conscious way of deciding which of these you live in and thus you still have no free will.
What if the point of you existence is not for the good of the planet, your country, your neighbourhood, or your family? What if it is not even for yourself? You are composed of around thirty thousand genes each trying to be the best. If one of these can find a way to reproduce without the rest it will, it might become a virus.
Even this is misleading, the gene has no purpose, it simply exists because it replicates. If it failed to do this well, it would simply stop copying itself.
What if the only reason we have an idea of god is because we create copies of the people we know in our own minds through our observations of them over the years? We then try to talk to them at their gravestone, or think we hear them when our mind becomes a little over-active. This would certainly form the foundation for a belief in the supernatural, which may have been the origin of religion.
Some even believe that religion is a virus of the mind. If the mind is a collection of thoughts, one scientist called them 'memes' rather than 'genes', then religion actually operates in the same way that a virus does. It is an evolution of thought negative to our survival, like a parasite.
Given this very rational belief in a complete lack of purpose in life. What the hell is the point? Do we just try to maximise the average high of our life until this collection of copies disintegrates?
Thought I'd post this to see what the Uberfolk think of my* no free will theory
*This is just a collection of the work of many scientists, it's not really MY theory.
User Reviews
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-02-10 01:23:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
For following this post with a link.
A link to the very site that a percentage of this post itself was derived from.
Bah.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-09 17:50:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Teephphah, maiorano84 - fair enough, perhaps when I get some time I will re-write this in more detail, with a better explanation on the memetic stuff and mabey some links.
jgreening - got a question for you. When one of these subatomic reactions occurs for which there are multiple possible outcomes, each with different probabilities, it is my 'understanding' that each occurs in a seperate universe. Does this means that the seperate universes always existed, or do they duplicate from the one already in existance just before the reaction occured?
Also, as far as each outcome existing in a seperate universe, lets say in the electron probablity distribution surrounding a nucleus, only to materialise as a particular outcome on observation. Wouldn't this mean that by the observation we could predict the exact location of the electron (not it's velocity. sure). If this is the case why do we say that that the electron has a 90% chance of being in a particular position, wouldn't it have a 100% chance?
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2006-02-09 17:16:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"What if there is no god?"
Not exactly challenging my belief system there, are ya? You aren't the first one to have this thought, and I for one, from early childhood, haven't believed in a god.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-02-09 17:01:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What if everything runs simply on chemical reactions? This would mean that there is in fact there will be a -2 on this post.
Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-02-09 11:30:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I won't pretend to have any high-level knowledge of physics, but I took offense to the "agnostics are like vegetarians" comment. Do NOT group us with leaf-eaters. Until anyone can prove to me one way or the other of a god's existence (with 100% certainty that doesn't involve a BS 10-page mathematical formula). Until then, I'll just pretend there's some ambivalent super-being playing a cosmic version of "The Sims" and he's currently taking a prolonged bathroom break.
But that was a separate argument. As for your actual post, I'm on the fence as well. Maybe science can one day break down the molecules the comprise the universe and the human genetic structure to the point where we can alter them and sort of "change the future" for better or worse. But then it can be argued that it was predetermined for humans to get to that point.
I dunno, maybe some alien life forms will drop by soon and teach us the secrets of the universe(s), because it seems at this point that we as a species haven't gotten past the "discusion" stage, no matter how high-level our theory and discoveries have gotten. I have a headache now.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-02-09 10:58:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Its not a theory either, its a hypothesis dumbass and not even a testible one.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-09 09:44:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Judging from the back and forth you have going on with Jay, you may not be the complete and total idiot you appear to be. You may have some sort of grasp on quantum physics, etc., BUT you seem to lack any sort of ability to convey the thoughts in your head through text.
The way this is written is so vague as to be unworthy of discussion.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-09 05:29:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck it, it's 3:30AM, my download is done, and I'm going to sleep.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-09 05:23:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
It in no way undermines free will, because you must ACT upon it to MEASURE it.
If there were no free will, it would BE THERE because it WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE ANYWHERE ELSE, SINCE THE PARTICLE WOULD HAVE NO FREE WILL.
And you're talking about the Large Hadron collider, which isn't being built to test 11 dimentional M-Theory.
It's being built in the hope of detecting Higgs boson particles, because the Higgs boson would make String Theory in general acceptable scientific fact.
Proving 11 dimentional M-Theory is still a few steps down the road, because3 even AFTER proving the Higgs boson particle existsm they still need to find the sero-mass graviton, as well as a good smattering of the superpartner particles like the squark and the sneutrino and most importantly, the selectron.
So now let me amend my statement, since you've read E.U., UNDERSTAND IT.
Shit, in Fabric, he even SHOWS how free-will can be incorporated into any physical model based on how we perceive time individually.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-09 05:13:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
maiorano84 - I've worked with one of those people so your comment is way off
jgreening - I've read the elegant universe. Also, they are building a particle accelerator right now to test the 11 dimensional consequese of the M-theory by doing experiments where they expect to sense a diminished amount of energy for a reaction, energy which could only have been absobed into the additional dimensions.
As for the everywhere in the universe part, I'm aware of this, it's how quantum computers work. However, what your saying doesn't contradict what I wrote. Because of this property you can't say with certainty where an electron, for example, is. It doesn't exist in orbit around the nucleus like in the cartoons, it exits around the nucleus as a probablity distribution. Once you measure it, it has a specific location, but this may different in other parrallel 'worlds'. We both agree on this, whats the problem?
So my point in bringing up the multiverse thing was to dismiss any claim that the uncertainty principle undermines the no free will theory
But I do appreciate the level of debate we're getting to.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-09 04:54:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
PARALLEL UNIVERSES????
Dude, I have *2* books for you, same author.
"Elegant Universe" so you have a BASIC understanding of Quantum Physics, String Theory, M-Theory and the like.
"Fabric of the Cosmos" for a more in depth look at the meaning of time, the uncertainty principle, and futher study into the "meaning of it all" from a scientific perspective.
NOW, the "multiple universe" theory, (also known by people who know what they're talking about as the Many World scenario) is a REMOTE POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF STRING/M-THEORY AND THE BELIEF OF A 3 DIMENTIONAL UNIVERSE ACTUALLY BEING A "THREE-BRANE" IN AN 11 DIMENTIONAL UNIVERSE THAT HAS NOT, AND CURRENTLY CAN NOT BE TESTED, AND IS NOT EVEN THEORETICALLY HASHED OUT TO A POINT OF BEING CONSIDERED A THEORY.
Please read that again.
Please?
Alright. Now, here's where your idea of "no free-will and the multiverse" goes off the tracks.
An individual particle/wave/field does not travel a determined path thru a multiverse. A particle/wave/field is EVERYWHERE, IN ALL PARTS OF THE MULTIVERSE until it is measured. When THAT happens, the partivle/wave/field IMMEDIATLY falls to that specific point in THAT specific universe, while still being all pervasive in every OTHER universe until it is measured there.
Now, do you want me to start REALLY embarassing you with high-level physics that you've never even fathomed yet?
Aw fuck it. You probably don't even understand what I've said here.
Submitted by Ballare (user info) at 2006-02-09 04:41:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
You actually believe that?
Huh.
Good luck with that.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-02-09 04:31:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And that's my cue to go to sleep. G'night, and here's a +2 in hopes you might actually rewrite this in a form that doesn't look like it was written by a rambling crazy guy nicknamed Nutty McNutnut by all the other nuts in the nuthouse.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-02-09 04:15:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"you knew about the theory of memetic evolution at that age, well done.
If not, read Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene' or any computer science papers by 'Pablo Moscato' on memetic evolution algorithms. "
Any tard-burger with a half a brain can quote other famous thinkers. It doesn't impress anybody, and it doesn't make you any smarter.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-02-09 04:09:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That has to be the lamest retort I've ever seen.
You, like many other people I've had the displeasure of talking to, mistake your "genius" for "idiocy".
I'm sure I would also have to take into account all those claims crazy people make about how lawn gnomes give cancer (actual claim from one of my neighbors, she's a bona fide nutjob). Maybe I'm just not thinking about those hard enough either.
You're trying to incite a God versus Science debate, and that's fine. You're just doing it in the most contemptible way possible by basing your entire argument off a point that has too many holes in it in the first place. In fact, your very first paragraph has almost no substance whatsoever. Allow me to demonstrate:
"What if everything runs simply on chemical reactions?" -
I can deal with this.
"This would mean that there is in fact no free will." -
Where the hell does this come from? This statement has no merit, substance, or anything worthy of calling it an argument at all. You're simply jumping from A to Z without acknowledging everything else in between. That's a pretty shitty thing to do, my friend.
"The scientists among you may quote the uncertainty principle, that in many subatomic reactions there are only probabilities of outcomes and it is impossible to say which will occur."
Uh huh... a piss-poor attempt at quoting existing ideas and loosely tying them to your original point. I guess that's fine, since you've already proven you're a moron.
"But even at this level the current science is that each happens in a parallel universe and you have no conscious way of deciding which of these you live in and thus you still have no free will." -
This entire statement would require the reader to have a vague understanding, let alone belief, in quantum physics. Why are you bringing up parallel universes? To make this sound cool? Why would I have to first determine which universe I live in to figure out if I have free will or not? Once again, there's nothing for me to think about here, you're just trying to somehow take complex ideas that you have no understanding of, and tie them into whatever beliefs you might have.
If you're going to come up with a decent argument, how about you actually propose a solid concept? Maybe then your only defense wouldn't have to rely on you saying "YOU JUST HAVE TO THINK REEEEEAAAAL HARD" to all the morons who don't seem to understand the one genius in the world that is you.
Move over Socrates.
Submitted by Garrik (user info) at 2006-02-09 03:59:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 for effort but you could have presented it a little better, and if you don't understand quantum mechanics don't try and explain it, it is painful for those of us who actually do.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-09 03:51:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Meh. I had these same revelations when I was about 14 or 15"
you knew about the theory of memetic evolution at that age, well done.
If not, read Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene' or any computer science papers by 'Pablo Moscato' on memetic evolution algorithms.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-09 03:45:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You, like many people I have talked to, just don't get it. You're not thinking about it hard enough.
In you previous example, what makes you 'choose' to calm down? It is another set of chemical reactions over which you have no control
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-02-09 03:37:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Stop giving yourself +2s and come to terms with the fact that you're an idiot writing out some hare-brained pseudo-philosophical bullshit that you and all of your friends that was "neat-o" as you were rebelling against the system by doing shots of your mom's peach schnapps. If you want to get technical, realize this:
"Free-will" may just be a religious way of saying that humans actively control certain chemical reactions in their bodies. Anger, sadness, happiness, and all other emotions are all different chemical reactions which all fall under the average person's control.
Adrenaline (A hormone secreted by the adrenal medulla that is released into the bloodstream in response to physical or mental stress, as from fear or injury. It initiates many bodily responses, including the stimulation of heart action and an increase in blood pressure, metabolic rate, and blood glucose concentration) can also be actively controlled by various athletes, martial artists, and monks (because monks can do anything).
It's not too hard to imagine that people control the chemical reactions in their bodies by, say, realizing that they need to calm the fuck down before they end up killing somebody. To base your entire argument on your belief in bio-chemistry and then say that there is no free-will is a glaring contradiction which can only be shadowed by how utterly thoughtless you truly are.
Look at it this way: if we had no control over our chemistry, then we would all suffer from being uncontrollable self-destructive whirlwinds of emotion. To say otherwise is just plain retarded.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-09 03:34:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
MrSparkle847 - I have no woes to share, I'm just interested in what people think on this topic, I don't want to come up with a belief system when I'm 15 and stick with it for the rest of my life. I want my understanding of the world to grow and the best way is through dicussion.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-09 03:30:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"If I were so inclined I could say "God made you so that your genes execute commands a,b,c at times x,y,z, and make a case for monotheism?'"
genes came about through an evolutionary process, by defintion no one made them.
and as for jgreening, it is so sad that you have no choice, but to be a fuckwit. I pitty you.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2006-02-09 02:20:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Meh. I had these same revelations when I was about 14 or 15. I was raised in the church, so when I questioned my faith, I did it with significantly greater strength than my peers.
Difference between you and me is that I talked to my pastor about some of it and internalized the rest, rather than try to explain my woes to an online community that doesn't give half a shit.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-09 01:29:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow.
Three owns in a row.
Get fucked, n00b.
Submitted by RamenNoodle (user info) at 2006-02-09 01:18:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If there is no free will then everything must be pre-determined right? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't predetermination one of the knocks on monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Judaism? If I were so inclined I could say "God made you so that your genes execute commands a,b,c at times x,y,z, and make a case for monotheism?
Personally I do believe in free will.
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2006-02-09 00:39:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-09 00:34:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
"I'm agnostic {you left us out}." - agnostics are like vegetarians, who cares what you think?
******
Apparently you do.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-09 00:34:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe you should post...
Lesse...
User history...
One post...
Which is crap...
Well, let's see now...
Hmmm...
This is a pickle...
Since you've posted nothing of worth... ever... maybe you should just fade into obscurity like the 20000 or so other users who have either been alters or sucked balls.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-09 00:34:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I'm agnostic {you left us out}." - agnostics are like vegetarians, who cares what you think?
Submitted by Malachewaii (user info) at 2006-02-09 00:12:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you're going to base the theory on chemical balances in the body, all you have to do is get drunk or smoke pot, or whatever kind of controlled substance you enjoy, and the chemical makeups are different. It's too shaky.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-09 00:09:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
jgreening - maybe I should post pictures of rabits instead
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2006-02-09 00:06:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Words are fun to play with. Maybe we aren't supposed to know for a reason. Stop thinking about your ideologies and build a shed for pappy.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-09 00:01:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
1) Don't +2 yourself. It doesn't help.
2) You forgot agnostics, self-theists, and many other forms.
3) You can not at any time know a given particles position AND velocity and/or spin. Nor can you know a waves probablity and location.
What does this mean?
Nothing.
Just like this post.
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:57:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by GuinnessSince1759 (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:50:06 (#)
Ranking: -2
Science is law. Welcome to uber. Have fun.
*****
Any scientist would disagree. Science is the constant questioning of any given law, that's how it advances. {They knew that back in 1759}.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:56:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Choice, 'free will' is nothing more than chemical/emotional reactions within an ever in flux set of variables both within and without, it changes every nanosecond."
But is that really free will, it's predeterminned. Sure it's like the weather with so much complexity in it's order it apears as chaos, but there is order there. This means you *Really* don't have any control over what happens, how the chemical reactions will play out
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:52:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ha...you know you're fresh when one of the new guys is giving you grief and the -2 welcome.
|
|
V
Submitted by GuinnessSince1759 (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:50:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Science is law. Welcome to uber. Have fun.
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:48:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm agnostic {you left us out}. Your first sentence is viable, you second is absurd when placed beside it
"What if everything runs simply on chemical reactions? This would mean that there is in fact no free will."
Choice, "free will" is nothing more than chemical/emotional reactions within an ever in flux set of variables both within and without, it changes every nanosecond.
I read The Old Testament once like a book, it's such a juicy horror story and its god so awesome and outright cruel, I loved it- as mythology. One of the biggest questions I had after reading it was, do angels have free will? They supposedly once had it, but do they still?
Submitted by Malachewaii (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:44:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you truly think there is no free will.. why are you still alive?
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:39:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"If there were no free will, you wouldn't debate whether or not to get angry at someone who pisses you off, because it would be an automatic reation of being pissed, or laughing it off"
If I debated whether or not to get angry, then that was how it was always going to be, my predetermined genetics and envrioment led me to act that way. I would have had no choice in the matter of debating over a choice.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:35:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"no real grounds"?
You'd be surprised how many scientific journals back up the NFW theory. If you want to say something useful give some more details, what is your theory on life the universe and everything? What books would you recommend?
Submitted by Malachewaii (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:35:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I think I understand the trend, but it's not solid yet, it's too premature. If there were no free will, you wouldn't debate whether or not to get angry at someone who pisses you off, because it would be an automatic reation of being pissed, or laughing it off. Say for instance, someone pissed on your shoes. If no one had free will, he would have pissed on your shoes out of basic instinct. Your reaction would have to be automatic to thoroughly denounce free will. Besides.. before today, you always had the choice to write this on uber. Today is the day you decided to do it. I dont think there will ever be a philosophy that denounces free will altogether.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:19:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
This is pretty basic/weak philosophical issues with no real grounds and that most have heard or thought of before.
But you're heading in the right direction; start reading more and more, my friend.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-08 23:17:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Just thought I'd review myself to get in the 'most recently reviewed' thing. Plus I thought I'd add something to my post.
The cool thing about the no free will theory is that you can't really get angry with other people because they had no choice in doing whatever it was that angered you. You just identify what they are and avoid them, or remove them from society if they did something really heinous.
It also means that you can't be embarrassed about anything you did in the past, as you had no choice in the matter anyway. It's best not to think like this when it comes to future events though or it will bend you mind into a pretzel. Basically if you think you can change something in the future change it, if not, don't worry, you had no choice about it anyway.
P.S. if you decide you can change something and take action to that end, you were always going to make that choice anyway so if it turns out to be the wrong one, well, you never had any choice.