Re: A scientific theory against God and morality

On 8 Feb 2006 02:17:41 -0800, "nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx"
<nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You can also violate free will by not acknowledging it, violating it by
"accident", rather then violating it on purpose.

no, you can't violate it by not acknowledging it. it either exists or
it doesnt.

The great majority of evolutionists does not believe in free will,

either this is true or it's not. if it IS true, it's irrelevant. if
free will exists, then your charge is irrelevant to the existence of
free will

but, of course your charge is ridiculous since free will is not a
scientific concept. it's scientifically meaningless.

according to my experience of asking them. If you start a discussion
which assumes the existence of free will as true, then they will
inevitably try to break the discussion down into a philosphical
discussion of wether or not free will exists at all.

gee imagine that. a scientist asking if a concept is scientific.
perhaps you can get a free will meter to determine how much free will
exists.


So you can never get anywhere when talking to an evolutionist about
free will, they understand nothing of it, they are forever stuck in a
philosphical discussion with themselves wether or not there is such a
thing at all.


and they dont understand the miss america contest as science either
for exactly the same reason. it's not science.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
    ... You can also violate free will by not acknowledging it, violating it by ... The great majority of evolutionists does not believe in free will, ... discussion of wether or not free will exists at all. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: i want to join with this group
    ... were not objective since you did not include evolutionists as well. ... consistent a phenomenon as the errors made by creationists. ... accomodate science, not by actual evidence. ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ayalas New Book
    ... Perhaps Nic interprets the title to mean "religion, ... to science," rather than "Darwin's gift to both science and ... yet one of their scientists says otherwise. ... Evolutionists who say that science has nothing to do with religion ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science didnt correct itself.
    ... There were, of course, creationists who suspected ... but there were evolutionists who suspected the same. ... But science didn't correct itself in 1930. ... their very first tenet. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Op-Ed: Our children deserve the best
    ... Are evolutionists truly concerned about pure science? ... Provine is as described, and the opinions quoted represent his point of view. ... The misleading inference is that he is typical of "evolutionists". ... Ms. Phillips here takes the same position as Provine: that the only true religion is that which questions evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)