Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Orange Wizard]

Oh, okay. Misread what you said. That would make Acts a poor comparison, unless you mean "the stuff the Apostles did in Acts", which is probably the case anyway, so I don't really know what I'm talking about any more.

[Bohandas]

I mentioned the two for different reasons. Wisdom because it's deuterocanonical, and Acts because it's what they did when god was with them but not talking to them

[Graknorke]

wat who is telling you people these things

I think we're operating on different ideas of "can" here. You're meaning theologically sound while I'm meaning your family (probably) won't arrange for you to be kidnapped/murdered.

[Micro102]

On the topic of free will, I think that while all my decisions are going to happen and could be calculated with math, it is because my mind and how I think (the basis of free will) are also predetermined. If I had a choice between A and B, you could calculate my choice from any point in the past, however I'd still consider it free will because I personally want to choose that. My choice is never infringed upon.

[Orange Wizard]

My choice is never infringed upon.

You're getting a bit hung up on semantics there, I think. Making choices isn't the same as free will. Free will is defined as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion" - that is, free will is not deterministic. If your choices can be calculated ahead of time then you are not exhibiting free will.

[Rolepgeek]

Quantum mechanic's effect on my thought processes are inherently unpredictable, therefore I have free will.

Alternatively, if you knew everything about someone's personality, you could 'calculafe' their decisions too. Knowing the position and state of every atom in their body at the decision point achieves the same thing but is far more difficult. Being able to predict someone's behavior does not mean they have no free will.

And in case, it's easier and healthier to act as if I do have free will, so I do.

[Telgin]

Quantum mechanic's effect on my thought processes are inherently unpredictable, therefore I have free will.

Are you sure?  Are you sure it's not just random, as quantum mechanics is?  Predictability isn't really necessarily related to free will.  After all, decisions can be made from randomness.  Imagine using dice and a table to decide outcomes of questions.

Whether you believe our actions are controlled by classical or quantum mechanical physics, at no point does a magical decider from outside of randomness or determinism factor in.

For free will to exist (due to quantum mechanics at least), you, that is, the part of you that makes decisions, would ultimately have to be physics.  Your consciousness or whatever would have to influence probability distributions of quantum mechanics to cause different neuronal pathways to fire.  While it's probably not strictly possible to prove that isn't the case, it's hard to imagine that it is.

Alternatively, if you knew everything about someone's personality, you could 'calculafe' their decisions too. Knowing the position and state of every atom in their body at the decision point achieves the same thing but is far more difficult. Being able to predict someone's behavior does not mean they have no free will.

Depends on what you mean by free will, but you can imagine from a philosophical point of view at least that if your future is entirely certain then free will either doesn't exist or is meaningless if it does.

To put it another way, we do make decisions based on history and current observations.  It's just that our decisions are always strictly dependent on those things, which are outside of our control, and thus our decisions are strictly outside of our control.  If we make decisions based on something other than what we have and are experiencing, what is it?

And in case, it's easier and healthier to act as if I do have free will, so I do.

While I don't believe in free will, I do believe this is the healthy mindset.  For all intents and purposes, whether we have free will or not is irrelevant outside of philosophical discussion.

[Rolepgeek]

Quantum Zeno effect, Telgin. plus I don't necessarily believe that I have to magically influence it in order to have free will. Though the concept is fairly meaningless

Speaking of QZ effect...I only very recently learned about and find it incredibly disturbing. If anyone can explain to me how/why it works, I would very much appreciate it, if it's about the manner the measurements are taken that screws with the particle or what because as of right now it's the strongest evidence in my mind for the world being something other than it appears.

[Loud Whispers]

Papal Encyclicals are fundamental to Catholic Christianity and form the basis of canon law but they're not themselves canon in the sense of being part of the faith's official holy book. The Talmud is central to the Jewish faith and form the basis of Rabbinic law, but it's not part of the Tanakh.
Plus, from your description, the Hadiths sound much closer to the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, or possibly the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, than any of he Gospels.

Papal Encyclicals are given by the Papacy, not Jesus.
The Talmud is a good comparison, since it founds the basis of Rabbinic law, was passed down from Moses, but the Mishnah is canon and "(...) thus with the completion of the Talmud, as is stated in the canon incorporated in the Talmud itself (B. M. 86a). The Mishnah, the basal work of halakic tradition, thenceforth shared its authority with the Talmud."
The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon is given secondary canon status, the Book of the Acts of the Apostles is about the spread of Christianity and Jesus's Apostles and whose equivalent are the accounts of the Rashidun, and the Gospels are in fact the most similar to the Hadith;

• The Gospels detail the early life of Jesus, the Hadith detail the life as a whole of Muhammed
• Four of the Gospels are canon, the Sunni hadith are canon and synonymous with the Sunnah, the Shia hadith are canon (with the caveat that they consider some narrations within the hadith as made by fallible people, allowing for scholarly exegesis)

[Telgin]

Quantum Zeno effect, Telgin. plus I don't necessarily believe that I have to magically influence it in order to have free will. Though the concept is fairly meaningless

Going to be honest... I'm not sure I see how the quantum Zeno effect affects anything here.  I am operating on 5 hours of sleep, so maybe I'm just missing something.

In order for us to have free will, our decisions have to come from something other than determinism and random behavior.  What other possibilities even exist, aside from something immeasurable and divine / magical?  So far as I can tell, the quantum Zeno effect is just influencing randomness, but it's still random results.  The measurements that cause the influence themselves must be either deterministic or random, right?  I don't see how you can avoid determinism or randomness as long as you stick with physics.

Speaking of QZ effect...I only very recently learned about and find it incredibly disturbing. If anyone can explain to me how/why it works, I would very much appreciate it, if it's about the manner the measurements are taken that screws with the particle or what because as of right now it's the strongest evidence in my mind for the world being something other than it appears.

I'm hardly a quantum physicist, but by my understanding at least it works by limiting the "options" the observed particle has.  By interacting with an observer, it has to assume an absolute state during that interaction, during which it can't decay.  If you continue to observe it, it has fewer and fewer opportunities to decay because it has to stay in an absolute state for longer.

Why this works is probably almost a philosophical question in and of itself at this point, since it's getting to the point of dealing with fundamental rules of the universe that might as well have been chosen arbitrarily.

[Graknorke]

Quantum mechanic's effect on my thought processes are inherently unpredictable, therefore I have free will.

Can randomness really be called a meaningful choice? If you say that free will comes from randomness, literally everything has free will and it's still not anything worth cherishing.

[Bohandas]

Quantum Zeno effect, Telgin. plus I don't necessarily believe that I have to magically influence it in order to have free will. Though the concept is fairly meaningless

Going to be honest... I'm not sure I see how the quantum Zeno effect affects anything here.  I am operating on 5 hours of sleep, so maybe I'm just missing something.

In order for us to have free will, our decisions have to come from something other than determinism and random behavior.  What other possibilities even exist, aside from something immeasurable and divine / magical?

Even something divine or magical would still have to u=operate under some kind of rules, even if they were ineffable to us.

[nullBolt]

It's Not the ''Radical Shaykh'' it's Islam - Fahad Qureshi

When Muslim organizations invite Shaykhs who speak openly about the values of Islam, the Islamophobic western media starts murdering the character of that organization and the invited speaker. The question these Islamophobic journalists need to reflect upon is; are these so called ''radical'' views that they criticize endorsed only by these few individuals being invited around the globe, or does the common Muslims believe in them. If the common Muslims believe in these values that means that more or less all Muslims are radical and that Islam is a radical religion. Since this is not the case, as Islam is a peaceful religion and so are the masses of common Muslims, these Shaykhs cannot be radical. Rather it is Islamophobia from the ignorant western media who is more concerned about making money by alienating Islam by presenting Muslims in this way. Islam Net, an organization in Norway, invited 9 speakers to Peace Conference Scandinavia 2013. These speakers would most likely be labelled as ''extremists'' if the media were to write about the conference. But how come this conference was the largest Islamic Scandinavian International event that has taken place in Norway with about 4000 people attending? Were the majority of those who attended in opposition to what the speakers were preaching? If so, how come they paid to enter? Let's forget about that for a moment, let's imagine that we don't really knew what all these people thought about for example segregation of men and women, or stoning to death of those who commit adultery. The Chairman of Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi asked the audience, and the answer was clear. The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world. Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam. Islam is not radical, nor is Muslims in general radical. That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in western countries.

Been being harassed in the EU thread about talking about this stuff. :p

[Rolan7]

The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world.

Damn, that sucks.  But I wish it was more surprising, honest.

Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam.

Wait, huh?

Islam is not radical, nor is Muslims in general radical.

uh

That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in western countries.

Is this supposed to be logic?  I do not follow whatsoever...

[nullBolt]

Is this supposed to be logic?  I do not follow whatsoever...

Neither do I. I quoted it off the description in the video. I just found it interesting.