ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation. Also read my Internet article, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! According to a Newsweek article quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Based on what you said, I don't think you're a determinist. I think you're merely normal and make scientific judgements. I think determinists go a step farther than you do. But, that's just me.
Great response and the other one, too. I'm a hard determinist, anti-theist, humanist and a brony. However after examining most available arguments I have come to understand that Islam is a dangerous ideology, for example the "three things about Islam" video, what do you think of it? have you seen it? Am I islamophobic? is that bad?
this is all about opinion. There is no way of knowing if you used free will to decide what to do or if it was determined because you arent going to get several chances of doing it. 12 o clock 24 of january 2012 will only come once for example. You wont get several "hits" at it, thus you simply cant know if you choose something or if it is determined.
This is exactly what I've been talking about. People telling me what I beleive constantly. Watch me go to a religeous video comment that I'm a deist and see the different denominations of moron race for my soul like a lolly scramble. I don't bother replying to people (esp. atheists) who act like pricks because I happen to believe in a god. it's like telling someone to change their lifestyle to make your life easier which is something Christians LOVE to do.
@Coughlan000 and as you;re a new sub you might need to go through my back catalogue because "Islamophobia" is actually quite real even though it takes many forms.
@theawesomebeliever That doesn't make sense whatsoever. It is possible to have a phobia of something that is legitametly dangerous. Take heights for example: Heights are fucking dangerous if you fall of a cliff. Still you can have a irrational overexagerated fear of it. Same with Islam: Some Muslims are pretty crazy fuckers, doesn't make it normal or rational to be afraid of anything to do with Islam.
@reafdaw01 Of course it makes sense all you need to have it to make sense is to think about it, I explain:
1) islam is way to recent to be causing fear by irrational impulse as phobias usually do.
2) islam are two words in arabic while a phobia is a word in greek, unlikely to be a true scientifical description.
3) People are aware of why they do not like it. Even if overdriven it is still is not a fear, nor is it irrational therefore, rather disaproval for things as their mysoginy.
1) I'm not a psychiatrist but as far as I can tell, a phobia doesn't have to be about something evolutionary old. There is Arachibutyrophobia which defenitely is about something rather new (peanutbutter). One could argue that it is a subcategory of a general fear of things sticking in your mouth. But in the same way Islamophobia could be said to derive from xenophobia.
There's MUCH MORE reason to have Christophobia. Lets just stick to recent times, say since 1940. Pile up the dead bodies killed by Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Mujahedin.... on 1 side and those killed by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr on the other side.
So according to your logic, we should be terrified to death at the mere sight of a Christian.
@gunnerfan87 Occidental society accepted all who come to live here with open arms, it is rather violent actions of the inmigrants using their religions as an excuse that are causing people to change their opinion.
There is no such thing as "christophobia" either, even if it would have a more correct scientific classification as both words are greek.
Americans are not the responsible for the killing of christians on mahometan countries for the last 1600 yrs.
@theawesomebeliever 2) A semantic point. I agree, Islamophobia does not comform to the rules of naming phobias. But many phobias have been named with latin and greek mixed, which shouldn't be done either. If that's your main point than we are in agreement, although I think it's rather trivial. It does not speak to wether or not there are people with irrational fear of Islam.
@theawesomebeliever 3) Lot of people with phobias do aswell. And wether or not it is irrational is a whole other topic, which we can discuss if you want.
@reafdaw01 I just want you to realise that this term is incorrect therefore it shoud not be used for serious things as establishment of new laws censoring people from freedom of speech.
Once you agree to this fact we can continue to conversate about anything you like.
Fear of a book and set of rituals is by definition irrational. Islamophobia is a term the media created for sensationalism, true, but fearing a religion itself is irrational. Having a fear of potential actions by people who follow said religion is rational. So yes, the meaning behind the term islamophobia exists.
However, there's no such thing as muslim-o-phobia, since fearing a large percentage of followers can be and is rational, as many are not moderate =]
@1InboxToRuleThemAll What they fear on that book is the character the book talks about, nobody isfearing a book per se.
And there are already terms for this irrational fear: theophobia and zeuzophobia for starters, why not use the proper terms? It might offend the atheists? :)
The term islamophobia is bogus and is being used to restrain people from stating their minds about a religious prejudice against any other culture that they clash with.
im a determinist because i think that, hypothetically, having a complete knowledge of all the properties of every particle, law, effector etc. within the entire universe at any given time would make it possible to have a complete knowledge "......." at any other given time. i think this based on my very shitty understanding of physics and from hearing other people with a very shitty (occasionally good) understanding of physics expound.
note: assuming of course my knowledge wouldnt affect "..."
Yeah, i think that UJames did make a mess up here, it is like calling socialist, and communist the same thing, even though there are some differences, so i think he should just retract in a new video, and say that he was wrong.
@JohananRaatz one of your problems is that you throw out these terms like Qm info and virtual etc. Perhaps you and I may agree on more than we both know. However we'll never know until you're able to define your terms in a way meeningful to myself. I consider you an online friend and your always welcome to reach me on skype where we can continue this convo. Until then we're most likely just talkin past each other which is a shame. Perhaps you could be be a future guest on OAAPODCAST.
@OpenAirAtheist Let me explain. Scientists once considered what you're suggesting -they called it local hidden variables. Bell's inequalities were a test to see if local hidden variables exist or not.They did the experiments and concluded that they don't.
This leaves open the possibility of non-local hidden variables -but this only makes sense if space is an illusion. (ie. "spooky voodoo doll behavior")
"future guest"
Let's try that and it would be fun to skype again too.
That's why, even tho most Atheists DISagree with me, I believe in objective morality....an actual right or wrong answer based on logic.....due to the fact that there ARE rules or Laws in nature.
laws in nature dont dictate how we should behave... for instance the laws of nature could dictate us with a genetic predisposition to rape. does this mean rape is a good thing?
@InvincibleNumanist "laws in nature dont dictate how we should behave" Of course not, however what I was trying to say was that we can't make a decision that's OUTSIDE of nature....whether moral or immoral.
@InvincibleNumanist So any idea that choices are predetermined is only true insofar as our choices being limited to this reality. A choice, by the very definition, requires more than one option and ability to pick either or. If we CAN choose, we have natural freewill but our options r relegated 2 THIS environment up to and including our level of intellect. Our level morality depends on those things.
I know u hate me...commenting anyway. I agree that 1 cannot compare Determinists with Creationists. I think a Creationist's idea of freewill is not natural as it is free only due to being granted by a SUPERnatural deity whereas ur idea of freewill is natural. I think our choices are limited to our environment & the Laws therein as well as our intellectual abilty which is also natural & natural freewill is not hindered by this.
@coughlin000 saying somthing is not determined is to say we don't know how something occured -nothing more! To say we don't don't know how A occured, therefore A is uncaused, is an arguement from ignorance fallacy. If you throw out determinism you throw out logic ; )
@JohananRaatz Sir I have been in touch with Krauss he said inshort that your full of it. However has disproved determinsim and infact to argue against it you must pressupose it and use it!
@JohananRaatz Oops ment "However noone has disproved it" Also if your claiming anyone has disproven philosophical determinism any scientist would be shocked and mystified by such a claim sir : )
@OpenAirAtheist Well Krauss also said that Hameroff is full of it, he was quite rude about it as well. I put less stock in what he says now because of it.
Back with determinism however, it doesn't matter if philosophic determinism is there, it still needs a physical mechanism. Now a possible physical mechanism still exists, however it's of a type that would require reality to be virtual. So what is it going to be? Are you going to hold to indeterminism or virtual reality?
@OpenAirAtheist Einstein thought that also, but it has since been shown by Bell's inequalities, that any local hidden variables that could be creating hidden causes do not in fact exist. (so we do know that QM events are uncaused -unless you want to try non-local hidden variables but I'd advise against that, that move would make you a supporter of us being in a virtual reality)
Or in the words of the physicist Michio Kaku: "Face it, Einstein was wrong!"
@AndroBubbles Yes it is. If it were not than one would not think that is was the antithesis of individual responsibility while the other is talking about calculations and likely hoods determined by other and all events. They're arguing past eachother.
My video, which approaches this discussion from a different angle, is in the featured videos. I would recommend fans of both Coughlan, James, and anyone else involved in this "debate" attempt to see it if you can. And no, I don't suggest compatibilism. I claim I am ignostic on this subject for reasons I explain in that video. I think that both "sides", as it were, lack sufficient evidence.
Bizarre that he'd make this kind of assertion to begin with. I'm not a determinist of any kind, but I fail to see how C + D share the same "basic mentality". Determinism doesn't really state anything about "order" in the universal sense. Ironically, James seems to be using"order" in the same way a lot of creationists do when they point to all that "order" in the universe. TBH I've never personally thought about this kind of thing too much as it makes my brain feel all squiggly :S
I feel like giving my perspective on free will and other issues.
Our thoughts and various mental processes are dependent on the forces acting on our brain, its formation, and its current chemistry.
As such, our thoughts are a product of a large number of influences. Does this mean that there is no free will?
I don't think so. I consider whatever happens to be going on in my brain to be "my processes". They may be physically based, but they are different than the processes which would go on...
@Clawdragoons In a different brain, and a different "self", even were it in the same situation and subject to the same outside forces.
To me, the fact that my mind is physically based is meaningless to the question of free will. My brain has internal processes as well as external ones, and I consider those internal processes to be what is relevant to the question of free will.
Determinism seems like an extrapolation on the monist view. That the universe exists as purely physical and observable. Determinism seems to go one step further and claim that through observation, reasonable predictions can be made. Now, given that our laws of physics aren't as set in stone as we would like. For instance, gravity stops working when you get things small enough. I prefer a little bit of chaos in the mix.
@ILikeTheThingsIDo By small, do you mean filling a small volume of space? Or do you mean consisting of very little mass?
If the former, you are mistaken. A black hole does have gravity, although it is thought to be a singularity, which is as small as it is possible for anything to be.
If the latter, I would like you to site your source. I know that gravity would become so small as to be negligible, but to say it stops working altogether?
@Clawdragoons It's the Higgs mass hierarchy problem. I can't really explain it well and I have an admittedly poor understanding of it, but I did gauge the implications. Also, maybe I should have said when you get into enough detail rather than meaning mass or volume.
it's absolutely impossible to combine deteminism and creationism, because creationism says there was a being that created everything, and therefore wasn't created itself, but deteminism says everything has a cause and a consequence, meaning any being would've been created by something else, so this debate seems retarded to me.
Determinism simply means there is a reason or cause for everything. As in, everything I do has a reason, and everything that happens has a cause. Which is true. However, reasons are subjective, causes aren't always predictable, and the possible reactions to both are circumstantial, which firmly separates Determinism from Theism or Creationism.
See James? I just eliminated the need for a video through 5 minutes of research. Pretty knee-jerk of you.
Wait Richard... You identify yourself as a determinist? So you're a nihilist then? idk, a deterministic worldview is certainly worth examining but the consequences of a determinist universe are so immense, I don't know if it's a matter of belief, determinism vs.free will is an interesting thought experiiment but I didn't know anyone could self-identify as a "determinist"... More of a nihilist no? Can you please enlighten me on this plz Richard, I would love to understand your POV, thanks
Also too the more and more we find out about genetics the more people are realizing that they are important in how we respond to different things. Personally I think it's both a combination of environment and genes but the environment needs those genes to act on. It's like The Scorpion and the Frog, in a lot of ways. Though that's a really simplistic way of looking at it, for this purpose the metaphor fits.
You know shit happens ,right. Your ad sponor here is Alliance Insurance telling people that the Euro is going to collaps and that people should invest their fuckin money wih these cunt snot baggers ! Where is your honor sir ! Fuck the general retards ! You got one of the biggest cocksucking economic terrorist doing your pre-ad ! Do you have a choice? It's pretty fuckin sick .OH yeah, Detards -they expected to be that way! Thanks
I know there's too many comments for you to read, but here goes anyway: Quantum mechanics, the probabilistic laws that govern every physical interaction in our lives, are truly random. This means that if you were to take the same universe, back it up a year, and run that year all over again, things would not come out the same. Not just a little different, but hugely different. In this way at least, strict determinism is provably false.
@htomerif hmm but it's the determinism vs free-will argument that's the real meat of the argument, isn't it. There's no reason to think that free-will is governed at a quantum level. So on the relatively macro-level of human brains, determinism wins over free-will, imo.
@SelfImmolator You might think so, and that has been a kind of classical interpretation of quantum mechanics for a long time, that it's relegated to the land of the micro. More and more this is being found not to be true, especially in the mesoscopic realm of the brain, quantum effects are significant. It almost tastes bitter to say the words, but there's no reason to think free will ISNT governed at the quantum level either. anyway, fuck youtubes 500 character limit to comments.
From Wikipedia: "Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen"
If that's what determinism is, I can't agree with it.
To my understanding, to the best that we've been able to discover, there are legitimately random things in the universe. For example, the specific collapse of a quantum probability function.
Why are there different types of determinism? To me it seems even less of a philosophy than atheism. Either we have free will or we have the illusion of free will and we can't escape it. It doesn't actually change anything in any practical way no matter the conclusion. Seems pretty worthless to 'be a determinist', even if the proposition is true.
Dick, have you ever heard of Bishop Fulton Sheen ? If this guy drives you nuts Bishop Sheen will drive you over a cliff. clips of him are on you tube, I apologize for the aneurism in advance.
Much like the argument for god can be summed up as "it is a mystery" to any inquiry in how it applies to the world, the exact same thing happens when people try to pretend the world isn't determined. How does the indeterminacy interact with our world? It's a mystery.. It is just a non-answer that can be summed up with "it makes me feel better"
sorry Dick you're wrong. In physics there is Hiezenberg's uncertainty principle, which state that you CANNOT predict where the electrons are going to be, they could even be at more than one place at the same time. You ncan only figure it a out as a possibility. Look up Michio Kaku's video on this.
" Primitive superstition lies just below the surface of even the most tough-minded individuals, and it is precisely those who most fight against it who are the first to succumb to its suggestive effects." Carl Jung
The interpretation someone is better then another because of one's belief .. is absolutely an " ego " driven energy .
Your thinking processes are healthy coughlan .. my regards :)
I'm a determinist. I think the Reasonable Doubts Podcast explains it very well. anyone interested in learning more should check out episodes 29, 30, and 34. It really is worth a listen.
@southpawOO7 "I'm a determinist. I think the Reasonable Doubts Podcast explains it very well. anyone interested in learning more should check out ...."
I listened to the RD guys. I have yet to hear an actual valid argument for determinism from them or anyone. It amazes me that atheists who hold that beliefs are not justified without sound arguments supported by evidence simply accept determinism as true when no such argument exists for it. It's a mad-house..
It's like chaos theory. There's no such thing as chaos, just a lack of measurements to predict the outcome. To me, life exists in the ignorance of those measurements.
@ShallowBeThyGames " A lack of measured energy " is called atrophy . also .. " chaos. " A large degree of life does indeed exist in the acceptance of the measurements of unpredictability .. but only if one can see beyond the opposing sides of the psyche .
@jungian9111 " A lack of measured energy " - Is that to say that 'some' energy is unmeasurable? I don't think that's what you're saying, but I was trying to comment in a very very simplistic manner. Yes, some things are unmeasurable/unpredictable right now, the boiling point of water might have been unpredictable 1000 years ago and there is always going to be a narrowing of uncertainty allowing for better predictability.
I disagree, Coughlan. There is no such thing as fate - thus determinism falls apart. If there was a such a thing as fate, then say my day of death is marked as the 5th of May, and I was to be killed by a train. But what happens if I decide to take the park route home on May 5th - no where near the tracks? If fate exists - a train would have to derail with such force as for it to make it to the park and crush me. But we know that only destiny exists - and me walking in the park saved my life.
@CrudOMatic Determinism is distinct from Fatalism. There is no 'fate' as such in a deterministic universe, you are part of the causal chain that has persisted since the beginning of the universe. Your actions do have consequences in the deterministic world, but since you act upon your desires, which are influenced by your neurochemistry and by ultimately external factors, you could not have made another choice in any particular situation.
@CrudOMatic You could not predict your own death because as you say your finding out about it influences what you do, but the point is the decision you make is the only decision you would have ever made given the situation. There was no randomness involved. It's like a man whose unaware he's locked inside of a room, but 'chooses' to stay in the room because that what he desires to do.
Can't stand UJames. He's so smug and pretentious that it's literally sickening. "Oh, I hate it when someone tries to tell me what I think and feel" - but then he turns around and does it to someone else. Hypocrisy, much?
Not to mention the whole "Hyper-Empathy" thing - where he claims to actually feel other's pain to such a degree that it makes him weep - BS. If he did, he wouldn't be trying to label and box people. Plus it makes him sound like a whiny cunt.
Good critique, Richard. James is one of my best friends, but in matters such as these, I seem to air on the side of caution and am sure to recognize how ambiguous our reality and ideas are.
Determinism is a dumb philosophy. It is like fatalism. "You can't do anything about it" is pretty much what it is all about.
Also, how about this: If people haven't got free will, and the stuff that they do is determined, and they can't help it, why would you punish criminals? They didn't want to breake the law. It was pre-determined.
@Coughlan000 "Because we were pre-determined to punish them." Must almost be the most narrow minded response you could've possibly given me. It's just one tiny step above of "because I say so".
Also, no, it's not an appeal to consequence. It is a statement of fact. If you believe you can't be blamed for anything, because it's pre-determined, then why would you even give a fuck? You just shrug what i've said off as a fallacy because it's convenient for you.
@Coughlan000 Not to mention, punnishments for crimes shouldn't be about punnishing someone for what they did, wether they could help it or not, it's about removing a danger from society, or also should be an attempt to help them learn what they did was wrong. Criminally insane people can't help what they do, we still lock them up or put them in places where they can get help.
@dudejohnny you just state that without explaining it and expect me to just take it as given? i'm sorry, but that's not how i roll. give me an argument.
I really have no business chiming in on the topic, because I have no idea what I'm talking about. I feel like this is too much to talk about in a comment section but I'll give it a go, I'll lead you into it. Correct me if I'm wrong, determinism is the philosophy that what is going to happen, is going to happen. It's sort of 'pre-determined'. Systems of equations are working themselves out, interacting and such. What about that means that we cannot make our own choice.
@dudejohnny what? you just argued against your own position. you say "determinism and free will go hand in hand" and at the same time you say that "we cannot make our own choice". make up your bloody mind!
@dudejohnny alright, the last sentence of that comment was supposed to be a question. better put a question mark behind questions, otherwise people might be a bit confused.
anyway, determinism is basically saying that everything is pre determined, also our behaviour (it's kinda mental, like believing in destiny). so what ever anybody was doing, he hadn't hat any say in it, it was all pre determined by the chemicals in his brain. now, where's the free will in this? I fail to see it.
I wouldn't say that determinism means things are predetermined, but could be if the we had the information to do so. Destiny is something completely different because your fate has already been calculated. The chemicals in his brain ARE him. The mathematics involved in creating the solution ARE his say. What outside force is restricting his own ability to apply his natural maths?
@BuecherFuerAlle Actually no. Any method for determining the future would, by necessity, need to take into account all possible influences, including it's own influence, and thus would result in an infinite loop and would never complete any predictions whatsoever.
I'm not a determinist myself, but nonetheless your statement is ridiculous, so I felt like pointing it out.
@BuecherFuerAlle You made this comment therefore I made a response to it because I feel that I must because everything that will happen is inevitable because everything is a reaction to something else. Everything, even your thoughts because you are made of an entire nation of organisms which create what you perceive as yourself which constantly interact with each others.
It is completely unlike God because God is a supernatural overlord, determinism is scientifically logical.
@TheDethBringer666 even if it is scienftifically logical, it's philosophical rubbish. as the example i gave before, how would you build the legal system of a society when you think it's all pre-determined.
@BuecherFuerAlle "even if it is scienftifically logical, it's philosophical rubbish"
It is based off of fucking physics. An action will cause an equal opposite reaction. Every fucking thing in the universe reacts to something which if you plotted the actions/reactions of every single little atom then you could predict every action/reaction that will ever happen.
It's basic fucking logic. And what the fuck does a system invented by a species of organisms have to do with the laws of physics?
@TheDethBringer666 yeah, because that is all that life is about. physics. i'm sure that our great knowledge of physics will bring about prosperity and justice for everyone. retard.
What does prosperity and justice have to do with reality? They are subjective man made ideas. In the UK justice is putting someone in a jail cell, in the middle east justice is sometimes stoning women to death over trivial shit. Science is not subjective, it is the study reality, which is apparently something you have little understanding of.
Your illogical connection with determinism and law amazes me.
@TheDethBringer666 that is my exact fucking point you daft twat! because of assholes like you, our legal systems are broken and need reform. but you don't care about that, do you? as long as you can be a smugg bastard and tell others that they're stupid, you don't have to deal with the fact that you yourself are a complete imbecile. now crawl back under the stone you came from and don't stand in the way of things that actually fucking matter you idiotic little shit!
@Afriboy10 I would not consider randomness to be free will. Our decisions are either deterministic, following from nature and nurture or they're at least part random when you add the field of quantum hoopla into the mix. Free will is a concept, it's not compatible with the universe we inhabit.
@Clawdragoons I know it's possible to hold a viewpoint in which determinism and free will are both accepted. It's called compatibilism. Coughlan already mentioned it in the video. I was referring to people who don't see determinism in anything.
@Afriboy10 Ah. In that light, I understand your statement much better. Thank you for clarifying, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding the point that you were trying to make.
Can you predict the outcome of a game of billiards between 2 robots? If every variable is known under the strictest of controls, predictions can be made. Reality is far to complicated to predict the future. See article on Laplace's demon.
At least on the smallest scale, the universe is pretty random, not predictable. That being said, the larger a body is, the more predictable it becomes
Ujames like many uninformed YT activists, doesn't understand the MATHEMATICAL definition of determinism or non-determinism. If he did, he would understand that in the vast majority of cases determinism and non-determinism are exactly the same. They are perfectly mathematically equivilent. Claiming they are different is meaninglessly stupid unless you can demonstrate the question they address is properly a part of a subset of the recursive problems. Otherwise it's ramblings of a fool.
I am a determinist, but it's not a terribly useful distinction as we all function within the box. (And the cause and effect that brought me to this point could only have happened one way, and I would have always been a determinist.) I entirely agree, but it still makes my head hurt.
Free will is an illusion, well perspective really, but it's a useful illusion. Since we don't have the intellectual capacity to determine EVERYTHING, we have the concept of free will so that we can function in our environment. Just like our vision only sees a small band of the electro-magnetic spectrum, it's 'good enough' to get the job done
There is no "law of cause and effect" in modern physics (see my last tedious video as well as "Debunking Determinism" and "Debunking Determinism Again"). Those who insist on clinging to the notions of determinism and the absence of any free will do so by denying the validity of science, and in that sense are equivalent to creationists.
I already explained in detail to Dyna why free will was incompatible in both a deterministic universe as well as an indeterministic universe. He is the one denying science.
Among creatures born into chaos, a majority will imagine an order, a minority will question the order, and the rest will be pronounced insane. ~Robert Brault
free will is an illusion most evidence points to that conclusion it's hardly a convenient or pleasant thing to believe ,but if that's the truth then that's the truth ,end of .
Quantum Physics seems to suggest that if you had two identical universes there's no guarantee (and in fact it's unlikely) that in 1billion years they will still be identical.
Seeing as that's our best model of the universe so far I've always gone with that, ergo I'm not a determinist.
Also predictions made in science become less accurate as you extrapolate the parameters to high values. I don't think hard line Determinism holds any sway.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation. Also read my Internet article, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! According to a Newsweek article quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
based on the battle between evolution and creation, check out our new sci fi movie EVOLUTION CREEK decide for yourself!
chauncyhead 2 weeks ago
Based on what you said, I don't think you're a determinist. I think you're merely normal and make scientific judgements. I think determinists go a step farther than you do. But, that's just me.
VarmitCoyote 4 weeks ago
I'm a compatibilist myself.
BigLundi 1 month ago
Great response and the other one, too. I'm a hard determinist, anti-theist, humanist and a brony. However after examining most available arguments I have come to understand that Islam is a dangerous ideology, for example the "three things about Islam" video, what do you think of it? have you seen it? Am I islamophobic? is that bad?
Wh3tst0nE 1 month ago
God damn it I'll have to quit the video and get back to studying. Damn you procrastination.
ForYeensSake 1 month ago
Very strong, fast thinking. Concrete statements. Nice work.
Madkevin88 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is all about opinion. There is no way of knowing if you used free will to decide what to do or if it was determined because you arent going to get several chances of doing it. 12 o clock 24 of january 2012 will only come once for example. You wont get several "hits" at it, thus you simply cant know if you choose something or if it is determined.
gulbirk 1 month ago
Comment removed
gulbirk 1 month ago in playlist Flere videoer fra Coughlan000
This is exactly what I've been talking about. People telling me what I beleive constantly. Watch me go to a religeous video comment that I'm a deist and see the different denominations of moron race for my soul like a lolly scramble. I don't bother replying to people (esp. atheists) who act like pricks because I happen to believe in a god. it's like telling someone to change their lifestyle to make your life easier which is something Christians LOVE to do.
Adroitism 1 month ago
You can have a fixed system that includes chaotic units that function as a part of the whole.
I don't know about you, but I am a chaotic unit.
gabiotta 1 month ago
Just an add: there is no msuch thing as islamophobia as it is not an irrational fear.
There can be something as zeuzophobia or theophobia, however not islamophobia, that was a made up terminology.
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever all terminology is made up you idiot
Coughlan000 1 month ago 17
@Coughlan000 and as you;re a new sub you might need to go through my back catalogue because "Islamophobia" is actually quite real even though it takes many forms.
Coughlan000 1 month ago 5
@Coughlan000 lol before you call someone idiot check their background you silly fuck :)
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@Coughlan000
that was quite possibly the best thing I've read in a week...
jaykgrey 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever That doesn't make sense whatsoever. It is possible to have a phobia of something that is legitametly dangerous. Take heights for example: Heights are fucking dangerous if you fall of a cliff. Still you can have a irrational overexagerated fear of it. Same with Islam: Some Muslims are pretty crazy fuckers, doesn't make it normal or rational to be afraid of anything to do with Islam.
reafdaw01 1 month ago
@reafdaw01 Of course it makes sense all you need to have it to make sense is to think about it, I explain:
1) islam is way to recent to be causing fear by irrational impulse as phobias usually do.
2) islam are two words in arabic while a phobia is a word in greek, unlikely to be a true scientifical description.
3) People are aware of why they do not like it. Even if overdriven it is still is not a fear, nor is it irrational therefore, rather disaproval for things as their mysoginy.
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever I think I catch your drift. I still disagree though.
1) I'm not a psychiatrist but as far as I can tell, a phobia doesn't have to be about something evolutionary old. There is Arachibutyrophobia which defenitely is about something rather new (peanutbutter). One could argue that it is a subcategory of a general fear of things sticking in your mouth. But in the same way Islamophobia could be said to derive from xenophobia.
reafdaw01 1 month ago
@reafdaw01 only if the xenophobia came from those who invented the term.
I understand your concern, merely pointing out what I know as someone who have studied psychology.
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever
There's MUCH MORE reason to have Christophobia. Lets just stick to recent times, say since 1940. Pile up the dead bodies killed by Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Mujahedin.... on 1 side and those killed by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr on the other side.
So according to your logic, we should be terrified to death at the mere sight of a Christian.
Goodbye
And may god be less.
gunnerfan87 1 month ago
@gunnerfan87 Occidental society accepted all who come to live here with open arms, it is rather violent actions of the inmigrants using their religions as an excuse that are causing people to change their opinion.
There is no such thing as "christophobia" either, even if it would have a more correct scientific classification as both words are greek.
Americans are not the responsible for the killing of christians on mahometan countries for the last 1600 yrs.
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@reafdaw01 Latumway has a mild form of that!
IsThatEtchas 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever 2) A semantic point. I agree, Islamophobia does not comform to the rules of naming phobias. But many phobias have been named with latin and greek mixed, which shouldn't be done either. If that's your main point than we are in agreement, although I think it's rather trivial. It does not speak to wether or not there are people with irrational fear of Islam.
reafdaw01 1 month ago
@reafdaw01 If it does not conforms to the classification system it is more than clear it is a bogus.
Hence either there is no but, or the but is incorrect.
Lets forget a little the personal viewpoints and restrain ourselves to reason shall we?
it is also not trivial if people are using this to arrest and coherce others as it is happening on real life.
We are being tossed a massive ammount of control by those using this pseudo "term".
There is no irrational fear of mahometanism.
theawesomebeliever 3 weeks ago
@theawesomebeliever 3) Lot of people with phobias do aswell. And wether or not it is irrational is a whole other topic, which we can discuss if you want.
reafdaw01 1 month ago
@reafdaw01 I just want you to realise that this term is incorrect therefore it shoud not be used for serious things as establishment of new laws censoring people from freedom of speech.
Once you agree to this fact we can continue to conversate about anything you like.
theawesomebeliever 3 weeks ago
@theawesomebeliever
Fear of a book and set of rituals is by definition irrational. Islamophobia is a term the media created for sensationalism, true, but fearing a religion itself is irrational. Having a fear of potential actions by people who follow said religion is rational. So yes, the meaning behind the term islamophobia exists.
However, there's no such thing as muslim-o-phobia, since fearing a large percentage of followers can be and is rational, as many are not moderate =]
1InboxToRuleThemAll 3 weeks ago
@1InboxToRuleThemAll What they fear on that book is the character the book talks about, nobody isfearing a book per se.
And there are already terms for this irrational fear: theophobia and zeuzophobia for starters, why not use the proper terms? It might offend the atheists? :)
The term islamophobia is bogus and is being used to restrain people from stating their minds about a religious prejudice against any other culture that they clash with.
Propaganda.
theawesomebeliever 3 weeks ago
orbit
donniegerrard 1 month ago
im a determinist because i think that, hypothetically, having a complete knowledge of all the properties of every particle, law, effector etc. within the entire universe at any given time would make it possible to have a complete knowledge "......." at any other given time. i think this based on my very shitty understanding of physics and from hearing other people with a very shitty (occasionally good) understanding of physics expound.
note: assuming of course my knowledge wouldnt affect "..."
volound 1 month ago
I like Dennett's outlook on the whole thing.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
Yeah, i think that UJames did make a mess up here, it is like calling socialist, and communist the same thing, even though there are some differences, so i think he should just retract in a new video, and say that he was wrong.
whedonfreak976 1 month ago
@whedonfreak976 or better yet using socialist, communist, islamist, and Atheist interchangeably (like certain politicians)
squirrelywrath2 1 month ago
@squirrelywrath2 Yeah LOL and a lot of them do not even know the real meaning of socialism, and communism so that is funny.
whedonfreak976 1 month ago
@whedonfreak976
Greatest Poe of all times!
SonOfTanit 1 month ago
there are christians who are determinists - they are called calvinists - after a young boy who had a tiger as a best friend.
MensRifleAssociation 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz one of your problems is that you throw out these terms like Qm info and virtual etc. Perhaps you and I may agree on more than we both know. However we'll never know until you're able to define your terms in a way meeningful to myself. I consider you an online friend and your always welcome to reach me on skype where we can continue this convo. Until then we're most likely just talkin past each other which is a shame. Perhaps you could be be a future guest on OAAPODCAST.
OpenAirAtheist 1 month ago
@OpenAirAtheist Let me explain. Scientists once considered what you're suggesting -they called it local hidden variables. Bell's inequalities were a test to see if local hidden variables exist or not.They did the experiments and concluded that they don't.
This leaves open the possibility of non-local hidden variables -but this only makes sense if space is an illusion. (ie. "spooky voodoo doll behavior")
"future guest"
Let's try that and it would be fun to skype again too.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
That's why, even tho most Atheists DISagree with me, I believe in objective morality....an actual right or wrong answer based on logic.....due to the fact that there ARE rules or Laws in nature.
julzabro 1 month ago
@julzabro
laws in nature dont dictate how we should behave... for instance the laws of nature could dictate us with a genetic predisposition to rape. does this mean rape is a good thing?
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist "laws in nature dont dictate how we should behave" Of course not, however what I was trying to say was that we can't make a decision that's OUTSIDE of nature....whether moral or immoral.
julzabro 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist So any idea that choices are predetermined is only true insofar as our choices being limited to this reality. A choice, by the very definition, requires more than one option and ability to pick either or. If we CAN choose, we have natural freewill but our options r relegated 2 THIS environment up to and including our level of intellect. Our level morality depends on those things.
julzabro 1 month ago
I know u hate me...commenting anyway. I agree that 1 cannot compare Determinists with Creationists. I think a Creationist's idea of freewill is not natural as it is free only due to being granted by a SUPERnatural deity whereas ur idea of freewill is natural. I think our choices are limited to our environment & the Laws therein as well as our intellectual abilty which is also natural & natural freewill is not hindered by this.
julzabro 1 month ago
Orbit, we can predict pluto's orbit
Frakon25 1 month ago
@coughlin000 saying somthing is not determined is to say we don't know how something occured -nothing more! To say we don't don't know how A occured, therefore A is uncaused, is an arguement from ignorance fallacy. If you throw out determinism you throw out logic ; )
OpenAirAtheist 1 month ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Sir I have been in touch with Krauss he said inshort that your full of it. However has disproved determinsim and infact to argue against it you must pressupose it and use it!
OpenAirAtheist 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Oops ment "However noone has disproved it" Also if your claiming anyone has disproven philosophical determinism any scientist would be shocked and mystified by such a claim sir : )
OpenAirAtheist 1 month ago
@OpenAirAtheist Well Krauss also said that Hameroff is full of it, he was quite rude about it as well. I put less stock in what he says now because of it.
Back with determinism however, it doesn't matter if philosophic determinism is there, it still needs a physical mechanism. Now a possible physical mechanism still exists, however it's of a type that would require reality to be virtual. So what is it going to be? Are you going to hold to indeterminism or virtual reality?
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OpenAirAtheist Einstein thought that also, but it has since been shown by Bell's inequalities, that any local hidden variables that could be creating hidden causes do not in fact exist. (so we do know that QM events are uncaused -unless you want to try non-local hidden variables but I'd advise against that, that move would make you a supporter of us being in a virtual reality)
Or in the words of the physicist Michio Kaku: "Face it, Einstein was wrong!"
watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
Haay..him sae retard!!
RetardElla 1 month ago
*facepalm* This is another definition debate.
salamut2202 1 month ago
@salamut2202 No it's not. Even by a broad definition, determinism makes quite a bit of sense, whereas there is no sound argument for creationism.
AndroBubbles 1 month ago
@AndroBubbles Yes it is. If it were not than one would not think that is was the antithesis of individual responsibility while the other is talking about calculations and likely hoods determined by other and all events. They're arguing past eachother.
salamut2202 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My video, which approaches this discussion from a different angle, is in the featured videos. I would recommend fans of both Coughlan, James, and anyone else involved in this "debate" attempt to see it if you can. And no, I don't suggest compatibilism. I claim I am ignostic on this subject for reasons I explain in that video. I think that both "sides", as it were, lack sufficient evidence.
JoycianExskirtsions 1 month ago
Dude you Rock. I agree fully with you again
BuddhistBushcrafter 1 month ago
Bizarre that he'd make this kind of assertion to begin with. I'm not a determinist of any kind, but I fail to see how C + D share the same "basic mentality". Determinism doesn't really state anything about "order" in the universal sense. Ironically, James seems to be using"order" in the same way a lot of creationists do when they point to all that "order" in the universe. TBH I've never personally thought about this kind of thing too much as it makes my brain feel all squiggly :S
pamew 1 month ago
I feel like giving my perspective on free will and other issues.
Our thoughts and various mental processes are dependent on the forces acting on our brain, its formation, and its current chemistry.
As such, our thoughts are a product of a large number of influences. Does this mean that there is no free will?
I don't think so. I consider whatever happens to be going on in my brain to be "my processes". They may be physically based, but they are different than the processes which would go on...
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
@Clawdragoons In a different brain, and a different "self", even were it in the same situation and subject to the same outside forces.
To me, the fact that my mind is physically based is meaningless to the question of free will. My brain has internal processes as well as external ones, and I consider those internal processes to be what is relevant to the question of free will.
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
@Clawdragoons Correction: Internal processes as well as being subject to external forces.
I am not implying that my brain somehow operates outside of itself. That would be silly. I just wanted to clarify that point.
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
Determinism seems like an extrapolation on the monist view. That the universe exists as purely physical and observable. Determinism seems to go one step further and claim that through observation, reasonable predictions can be made. Now, given that our laws of physics aren't as set in stone as we would like. For instance, gravity stops working when you get things small enough. I prefer a little bit of chaos in the mix.
ILikeTheThingsIDo 1 month ago
@ILikeTheThingsIDo By small, do you mean filling a small volume of space? Or do you mean consisting of very little mass?
If the former, you are mistaken. A black hole does have gravity, although it is thought to be a singularity, which is as small as it is possible for anything to be.
If the latter, I would like you to site your source. I know that gravity would become so small as to be negligible, but to say it stops working altogether?
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
@Clawdragoons It's the Higgs mass hierarchy problem. I can't really explain it well and I have an admittedly poor understanding of it, but I did gauge the implications. Also, maybe I should have said when you get into enough detail rather than meaning mass or volume.
ILikeTheThingsIDo 1 month ago
although cognitive dissonance is so common among our dumb species that I'm not surprised someone managed to mix determinism and creationism
ayrea 1 month ago
it's absolutely impossible to combine deteminism and creationism, because creationism says there was a being that created everything, and therefore wasn't created itself, but deteminism says everything has a cause and a consequence, meaning any being would've been created by something else, so this debate seems retarded to me.
ayrea 1 month ago
From what I've read so far, I know this:
Determinism simply means there is a reason or cause for everything. As in, everything I do has a reason, and everything that happens has a cause. Which is true. However, reasons are subjective, causes aren't always predictable, and the possible reactions to both are circumstantial, which firmly separates Determinism from Theism or Creationism.
See James? I just eliminated the need for a video through 5 minutes of research. Pretty knee-jerk of you.
ootdega 1 month ago
There a quick video I did on my thoughts on this, and issues with the line of thinking some people have.
wolfwing1 1 month ago
Wait Richard... You identify yourself as a determinist? So you're a nihilist then? idk, a deterministic worldview is certainly worth examining but the consequences of a determinist universe are so immense, I don't know if it's a matter of belief, determinism vs.free will is an interesting thought experiiment but I didn't know anyone could self-identify as a "determinist"... More of a nihilist no? Can you please enlighten me on this plz Richard, I would love to understand your POV, thanks
Knr911 1 month ago
agree with your points, you appear high thou but oh well so were all the great artists.
McLovinlt 1 month ago
*3:09
Howieeeeex 1 month ago
3.09 nah you didn't.
Howieeeeex 1 month ago
Also too the more and more we find out about genetics the more people are realizing that they are important in how we respond to different things. Personally I think it's both a combination of environment and genes but the environment needs those genes to act on. It's like The Scorpion and the Frog, in a lot of ways. Though that's a really simplistic way of looking at it, for this purpose the metaphor fits.
MistressArte 1 month ago
You know shit happens ,right. Your ad sponor here is Alliance Insurance telling people that the Euro is going to collaps and that people should invest their fuckin money wih these cunt snot baggers ! Where is your honor sir ! Fuck the general retards ! You got one of the biggest cocksucking economic terrorist doing your pre-ad ! Do you have a choice? It's pretty fuckin sick .OH yeah, Detards -they expected to be that way! Thanks
steviebkhall 1 month ago
I know there's too many comments for you to read, but here goes anyway: Quantum mechanics, the probabilistic laws that govern every physical interaction in our lives, are truly random. This means that if you were to take the same universe, back it up a year, and run that year all over again, things would not come out the same. Not just a little different, but hugely different. In this way at least, strict determinism is provably false.
htomerif 1 month ago
@htomerif hmm but it's the determinism vs free-will argument that's the real meat of the argument, isn't it. There's no reason to think that free-will is governed at a quantum level. So on the relatively macro-level of human brains, determinism wins over free-will, imo.
SelfImmolator 1 month ago
@SelfImmolator You might think so, and that has been a kind of classical interpretation of quantum mechanics for a long time, that it's relegated to the land of the micro. More and more this is being found not to be true, especially in the mesoscopic realm of the brain, quantum effects are significant. It almost tastes bitter to say the words, but there's no reason to think free will ISNT governed at the quantum level either. anyway, fuck youtubes 500 character limit to comments.
htomerif 1 month ago
People who argue that "Determinism is a ridiculous theory" should probably go study Philosophy...
TheUnillogical 1 month ago
Orbit is the word you were looking for :P
ganjapoot 1 month ago
@thebrainenema is that asshole "theguywhoreviewsgames" bothering you let me know ill get that fucker
Azjorden 1 month ago
Let's see...
From Wikipedia: "Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen"
If that's what determinism is, I can't agree with it.
To my understanding, to the best that we've been able to discover, there are legitimately random things in the universe. For example, the specific collapse of a quantum probability function.
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
so who hatched the egg? the chicken?
TheBrainEnema 1 month ago
Why are there different types of determinism? To me it seems even less of a philosophy than atheism. Either we have free will or we have the illusion of free will and we can't escape it. It doesn't actually change anything in any practical way no matter the conclusion. Seems pretty worthless to 'be a determinist', even if the proposition is true.
AtheistAlias 1 month ago
I'm at a loss to understand how determinism and free will can be compatible.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lazyperfectionist1 "I'm at a loss to understand how determinism and free will can be compatible."
It can't. If someone holds that free will exists in some way then they hold the free-will position.
shlockofgod 1 month ago
"If everyone respected each other, the world would be a better place to live."
This, however, raises the question of what constitutes respectful treatment. It depends on who you ask.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
Dick, have you ever heard of Bishop Fulton Sheen ? If this guy drives you nuts Bishop Sheen will drive you over a cliff. clips of him are on you tube, I apologize for the aneurism in advance.
AfterFauve001 1 month ago
Good video Coughlan.
All love and respect
Eopyk 1 month ago
You should read his amazon reviews. He is a very strange person.
ApathyPersonified 1 month ago
Much like the argument for god can be summed up as "it is a mystery" to any inquiry in how it applies to the world, the exact same thing happens when people try to pretend the world isn't determined. How does the indeterminacy interact with our world? It's a mystery.. It is just a non-answer that can be summed up with "it makes me feel better"
unclexbob 1 month ago
sorry Dick you're wrong. In physics there is Hiezenberg's uncertainty principle, which state that you CANNOT predict where the electrons are going to be, they could even be at more than one place at the same time. You ncan only figure it a out as a possibility. Look up Michio Kaku's video on this.
CrayZDude2 1 month ago
Conflating Determinism with order is dumb as fuck.
Determinism isnt order, it is random as can be.
bla34112 1 month ago
@ shock of god.. its indeed a fact.. LOL unless you do not read many math books..
styzor 1 month ago
" Primitive superstition lies just below the surface of even the most tough-minded individuals, and it is precisely those who most fight against it who are the first to succumb to its suggestive effects." Carl Jung
The interpretation someone is better then another because of one's belief .. is absolutely an " ego " driven energy .
Your thinking processes are healthy coughlan .. my regards :)
jungian9111 1 month ago
A question: What is free-will free from?
zarkoff45 1 month ago
I'm a determinist. I think the Reasonable Doubts Podcast explains it very well. anyone interested in learning more should check out episodes 29, 30, and 34. It really is worth a listen.
southpawOO7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@southpawOO7 "I'm a determinist. I think the Reasonable Doubts Podcast explains it very well. anyone interested in learning more should check out ...."
I listened to the RD guys. I have yet to hear an actual valid argument for determinism from them or anyone. It amazes me that atheists who hold that beliefs are not justified without sound arguments supported by evidence simply accept determinism as true when no such argument exists for it. It's a mad-house..
shlockofgod 1 month ago
It's like chaos theory. There's no such thing as chaos, just a lack of measurements to predict the outcome. To me, life exists in the ignorance of those measurements.
ShallowBeThyGames 1 month ago
@ShallowBeThyGames " A lack of measured energy " is called atrophy . also .. " chaos. " A large degree of life does indeed exist in the acceptance of the measurements of unpredictability .. but only if one can see beyond the opposing sides of the psyche .
jungian9111 1 month ago
@jungian9111 " A lack of measured energy " - Is that to say that 'some' energy is unmeasurable? I don't think that's what you're saying, but I was trying to comment in a very very simplistic manner. Yes, some things are unmeasurable/unpredictable right now, the boiling point of water might have been unpredictable 1000 years ago and there is always going to be a narrowing of uncertainty allowing for better predictability.
ShallowBeThyGames 1 month ago
I disagree, Coughlan. There is no such thing as fate - thus determinism falls apart. If there was a such a thing as fate, then say my day of death is marked as the 5th of May, and I was to be killed by a train. But what happens if I decide to take the park route home on May 5th - no where near the tracks? If fate exists - a train would have to derail with such force as for it to make it to the park and crush me. But we know that only destiny exists - and me walking in the park saved my life.
CrudOMatic 1 month ago
@CrudOMatic "There is no such thing as fate"
You are fated to die within the next hundred years and you will spend your short miserable life on a tiny rock orbiting a minor star.
Prove me wrong.
zarkoff45 1 month ago
@CrudOMatic Determinism is distinct from Fatalism. There is no 'fate' as such in a deterministic universe, you are part of the causal chain that has persisted since the beginning of the universe. Your actions do have consequences in the deterministic world, but since you act upon your desires, which are influenced by your neurochemistry and by ultimately external factors, you could not have made another choice in any particular situation.
senorfatso 1 month ago
@CrudOMatic You could not predict your own death because as you say your finding out about it influences what you do, but the point is the decision you make is the only decision you would have ever made given the situation. There was no randomness involved. It's like a man whose unaware he's locked inside of a room, but 'chooses' to stay in the room because that what he desires to do.
senorfatso 1 month ago
Heisenberg uncertainty principle FTW!!!
God does play dice.
duracell777 1 month ago
Can't stand UJames. He's so smug and pretentious that it's literally sickening. "Oh, I hate it when someone tries to tell me what I think and feel" - but then he turns around and does it to someone else. Hypocrisy, much?
Not to mention the whole "Hyper-Empathy" thing - where he claims to actually feel other's pain to such a degree that it makes him weep - BS. If he did, he wouldn't be trying to label and box people. Plus it makes him sound like a whiny cunt.
CrudOMatic 1 month ago
Thanks for the heads up about the Ujames channel change.
nephthysuk 1 month ago
me and the kkk have something in common, we both hate westburro
sobored671 1 month ago
Good critique, Richard. James is one of my best friends, but in matters such as these, I seem to air on the side of caution and am sure to recognize how ambiguous our reality and ideas are.
VarmitCoyote 1 month ago
Determinism is a dumb philosophy. It is like fatalism. "You can't do anything about it" is pretty much what it is all about.
Also, how about this: If people haven't got free will, and the stuff that they do is determined, and they can't help it, why would you punish criminals? They didn't want to breake the law. It was pre-determined.
Determinism takes away personal responsibility.
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle "why would you punish criminals? They didn't want to breake the law. It was pre-determined."
Because we were pre-determined to punish them. You see how easy that was to sort out.
"Determinism takes away personal responsibility."
Thats called an appeal to consequences, just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not true
Coughlan000 1 month ago 25
@Coughlan000 "Because we were pre-determined to punish them." Must almost be the most narrow minded response you could've possibly given me. It's just one tiny step above of "because I say so".
Also, no, it's not an appeal to consequence. It is a statement of fact. If you believe you can't be blamed for anything, because it's pre-determined, then why would you even give a fuck? You just shrug what i've said off as a fallacy because it's convenient for you.
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@Coughlan000 both of you fuctards know nothing what you talk about
zionistslut 1 month ago
@Coughlan000 Not to mention, punnishments for crimes shouldn't be about punnishing someone for what they did, wether they could help it or not, it's about removing a danger from society, or also should be an attempt to help them learn what they did was wrong. Criminally insane people can't help what they do, we still lock them up or put them in places where they can get help.
wolfwing1 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle
Determinism and free will go hand in hand... that's where your argument falls apart...
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@dudejohnny you just state that without explaining it and expect me to just take it as given? i'm sorry, but that's not how i roll. give me an argument.
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle
I really have no business chiming in on the topic, because I have no idea what I'm talking about. I feel like this is too much to talk about in a comment section but I'll give it a go, I'll lead you into it. Correct me if I'm wrong, determinism is the philosophy that what is going to happen, is going to happen. It's sort of 'pre-determined'. Systems of equations are working themselves out, interacting and such. What about that means that we cannot make our own choice.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@dudejohnny what? you just argued against your own position. you say "determinism and free will go hand in hand" and at the same time you say that "we cannot make our own choice". make up your bloody mind!
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle
I never said we can't make our own choice. I beg you read what I actually wrote.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@dudejohnny alright, the last sentence of that comment was supposed to be a question. better put a question mark behind questions, otherwise people might be a bit confused.
anyway, determinism is basically saying that everything is pre determined, also our behaviour (it's kinda mental, like believing in destiny). so what ever anybody was doing, he hadn't hat any say in it, it was all pre determined by the chemicals in his brain. now, where's the free will in this? I fail to see it.
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle
I wouldn't say that determinism means things are predetermined, but could be if the we had the information to do so. Destiny is something completely different because your fate has already been calculated. The chemicals in his brain ARE him. The mathematics involved in creating the solution ARE his say. What outside force is restricting his own ability to apply his natural maths?
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle both of you fuctards know nothing what you talk about
zionistslut 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle
oi.. you have few misconceptions on what determinism actually says.
Yes you can't do anything about it, but you also can't know what will happen, now can you? So you can still influence the world one way or another
bla34112 1 month ago
@bla34112 but that is the entire point of determinism. it is that you CAN know in advance what will happen, and figgure it out, through science.
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle
That,
is outside our skill level, and always will be.
Hey look, i predicted the future!
bla34112 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle Actually no. Any method for determining the future would, by necessity, need to take into account all possible influences, including it's own influence, and thus would result in an infinite loop and would never complete any predictions whatsoever.
I'm not a determinist myself, but nonetheless your statement is ridiculous, so I felt like pointing it out.
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle You made this comment therefore I made a response to it because I feel that I must because everything that will happen is inevitable because everything is a reaction to something else. Everything, even your thoughts because you are made of an entire nation of organisms which create what you perceive as yourself which constantly interact with each others.
It is completely unlike God because God is a supernatural overlord, determinism is scientifically logical.
TheDethBringer666 1 month ago 10
@TheDethBringer666 even if it is scienftifically logical, it's philosophical rubbish. as the example i gave before, how would you build the legal system of a society when you think it's all pre-determined.
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle "even if it is scienftifically logical, it's philosophical rubbish"
It is based off of fucking physics. An action will cause an equal opposite reaction. Every fucking thing in the universe reacts to something which if you plotted the actions/reactions of every single little atom then you could predict every action/reaction that will ever happen.
It's basic fucking logic. And what the fuck does a system invented by a species of organisms have to do with the laws of physics?
TheDethBringer666 1 month ago
@TheDethBringer666 yeah, because that is all that life is about. physics. i'm sure that our great knowledge of physics will bring about prosperity and justice for everyone. retard.
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle Holy shit you really are fucking stupid.
What does prosperity and justice have to do with reality? They are subjective man made ideas. In the UK justice is putting someone in a jail cell, in the middle east justice is sometimes stoning women to death over trivial shit. Science is not subjective, it is the study reality, which is apparently something you have little understanding of.
Your illogical connection with determinism and law amazes me.
TheDethBringer666 1 month ago
@TheDethBringer666 that is my exact fucking point you daft twat! because of assholes like you, our legal systems are broken and need reform. but you don't care about that, do you? as long as you can be a smugg bastard and tell others that they're stupid, you don't have to deal with the fact that you yourself are a complete imbecile. now crawl back under the stone you came from and don't stand in the way of things that actually fucking matter you idiotic little shit!
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
My only question is whether people who seriously believe in free will think there's some in-built random generator in us.
Afriboy10 1 month ago
@Afriboy10 I would not consider randomness to be free will. Our decisions are either deterministic, following from nature and nurture or they're at least part random when you add the field of quantum hoopla into the mix. Free will is a concept, it's not compatible with the universe we inhabit.
YetAnotherHeretic 1 month ago
@Afriboy10 Disclaimer: I am not a determinist.
Nonetheless, depending on your definition of "free will", it is possible for both the idea of determinism and free will to exist simultaneously.
I would imagine that those who believe in free will and determinism define free will in such a way that the two are compatible.
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
@Clawdragoons I know it's possible to hold a viewpoint in which determinism and free will are both accepted. It's called compatibilism. Coughlan already mentioned it in the video. I was referring to people who don't see determinism in anything.
Afriboy10 1 month ago
@Afriboy10 Ah. In that light, I understand your statement much better. Thank you for clarifying, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding the point that you were trying to make.
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
Can you predict the outcome of a game of billiards between 2 robots? If every variable is known under the strictest of controls, predictions can be made. Reality is far to complicated to predict the future. See article on Laplace's demon.
1umbnonearth 1 month ago
At least on the smallest scale, the universe is pretty random, not predictable. That being said, the larger a body is, the more predictable it becomes
Coquipirate 1 month ago
As far as I know, LatumWay no longer considers himself a determinist.
koryakapelinal333 1 month ago
Ujames like many uninformed YT activists, doesn't understand the MATHEMATICAL definition of determinism or non-determinism. If he did, he would understand that in the vast majority of cases determinism and non-determinism are exactly the same. They are perfectly mathematically equivilent. Claiming they are different is meaninglessly stupid unless you can demonstrate the question they address is properly a part of a subset of the recursive problems. Otherwise it's ramblings of a fool.
beechgrovejoe 1 month ago
What pretty blue eyes you have
CFCNOTBUMMER 1 month ago
I am a determinist, but it's not a terribly useful distinction as we all function within the box. (And the cause and effect that brought me to this point could only have happened one way, and I would have always been a determinist.) I entirely agree, but it still makes my head hurt.
ArcasDevlin 1 month ago
I was jumping around yelling "Orbit! Orbit!" You should have seen it man. It was quite a scene. :D
Sarahon06 1 month ago
/watch?v=la31lOcbDHc&feature=channel_video_title
How to Dissolve the Problem of Free Will and Determinism - a rather good lecture by SisyphusRedeemed
GreatGungHolio 1 month ago 2
Free will is an illusion, well perspective really, but it's a useful illusion. Since we don't have the intellectual capacity to determine EVERYTHING, we have the concept of free will so that we can function in our environment. Just like our vision only sees a small band of the electro-magnetic spectrum, it's 'good enough' to get the job done
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 month ago
There is no "law of cause and effect" in modern physics (see my last tedious video as well as "Debunking Determinism" and "Debunking Determinism Again"). Those who insist on clinging to the notions of determinism and the absence of any free will do so by denying the validity of science, and in that sense are equivalent to creationists.
DynaCatlovesme 1 month ago
@DynaCatlovesme Ive seen your videos, they are truly dreadful
Coughlan000 1 month ago 9
@Coughlan000 I can't argue that, lol, it's one reason I don't make them often. I stand by the substance of them, however.
DynaCatlovesme 1 month ago
@DynaCatlovesme The substance was what i was referring to
Coughlan000 1 month ago
@Coughlan000 My you are in a bad mood!
DynaCatlovesme 1 month ago
@Coughlan000
LOL
I already explained in detail to Dyna why free will was incompatible in both a deterministic universe as well as an indeterministic universe. He is the one denying science.
trick0171 1 month ago
@DynaCatlovesme perhaps " both ", laws exist side by side ..
jungian9111 1 month ago
Among creatures born into chaos, a majority will imagine an order, a minority will question the order, and the rest will be pronounced insane. ~Robert Brault
MilitantPeaceist 1 month ago
free will is an illusion most evidence points to that conclusion it's hardly a convenient or pleasant thing to believe ,but if that's the truth then that's the truth ,end of .
sausage4mash 1 month ago
people don't choose the sexual orientation, that is called "Gay Determinism" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
xMachineGhostsx 1 month ago
Quantum Physics seems to suggest that if you had two identical universes there's no guarantee (and in fact it's unlikely) that in 1billion years they will still be identical.
Seeing as that's our best model of the universe so far I've always gone with that, ergo I'm not a determinist.
Also predictions made in science become less accurate as you extrapolate the parameters to high values. I don't think hard line Determinism holds any sway.
AlexThomson1000 1 month ago