Scientific Justification for Free Will?

[Divine Insight]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

[10CC]

.

I have tired of asking this question of theists.
Define nothing will you?

noth·ing pronoun \ˈnə-thiŋ\

Definition of NOTHING

1 : not any thing

Yes well actually I asked YOU to define nothing. You still haven't but you have used a definition of something the dictionary calls nothing. Yes?

I am sorry, but you are right, I did give the definition of something. Let me try again...

Definition of

What? I didn't hear you. Oh that's right there is not anything that is nothing. Damn that blows all of the theists arguments out of the non nothing that existed before existence, doesn't it? Oh well they've been making stuff up for a long time, I'm sure they can start again.

Or perhaps this would just support their arguments. If there is no such thing as nothing, then there had to be something that caused the universe to existence.

What was before the universe? And what caused it to exist?

My point is, your claim that 'nothing' is an incoherent concept supports Olavisjo's claim that it wasn't nothing that caused the universe to exist. I'm not saying it does anything to prove God.

Very true but then as you have pointed out it was Olavisjo's contention in the first place, it was never my contention. I was merely trying to make him see that his contention that nothing couldn't create the universe is completely nonsensical since nothing can't exist. If it did it would be something and his argument fails again. Anyway his argument is presented it fails. I'm not very good at explaining these concepts. Ergo nothing could create the universe if nothing could exist and by so existing be something. The nothing that is something could in fact create a universe. It makes as much sense as an uncaused cause.
A nothing that is something

[instantc]

I was merely trying to make him see that his contention that nothing couldn't create the universe is completely nonsensical since nothing can't exist.

This is non-sequitur. In fact, the opposite is true. If nothing can't exist, then the contention 'nothing couldn't create everything' is not nonsensical but logically sound. Obviously, if 'nothing' isn't even a coherent notion, then nothing couldn't create anything. Equally, the contention that a married bachelor didn't create everything is fully sound.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 316 by 10CC]
IOCC wrote:

What was before the universe? And what caused it to exist?

I have never seen a scientific explanation of the Big Bang theory that claims the universe came out of nothing. That is a claim made by theists, who use it to try to discredit the theory. The laws of physics can only trace the universe back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. The math fails at that point, and nothing more can be said, at least until General Relativity and Quantum Physics are successfully unified.

The theists have evaded the question of what came before God for centuries simply by saying that God has always existed. A similar idea about the universe before the Big Bang says that the universe is cyclic, expands and then collapses back on itself to form a new Big Bang and a new universe, repeating eternally. This is similar to the Hindu belief that the universe is the breath of Brahma. When Brahma exhales, the universe comes into existence. When Brahma inhales again, the unverse vanishes, and a new universe comes into existence with Brahma's next exhalation. Of course, Brahma is a very slow breather.

[olavisjo]

.

Of course, Brahma is a very slow breather.

I think Brahma just died and breathed his last breath, as it appears that the universe will continue expanding forever and will never collapse again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... ludes.html

[JohnPaul]

.

Of course, Brahma is a very slow breather.

I think Brahma just died and breathed his last breath, as it appears that the universe will continue expanding forever and will never collapse again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... ludes.html

I haven't explored all the new ideas coming out of String Theory, but it seems there is some reason to think that a new Big Bang could arise even out of a continuously expanding universe. And the idea of a continuously expanding universe is only explained by Dark Energy, which itself is only a convenient name given to something so far unexplained.

Maybe you should wait a few years before you plan a funeral for Brahma.

[help3434]

I was merely trying to make him see that his contention that nothing couldn't create the universe is completely nonsensical since nothing can't exist.

This is non-sequitur. In fact, the opposite is true. If nothing can't exist, then the contention 'nothing couldn't create everything' is not nonsensical but logically sound. Obviously, if 'nothing' isn't even a coherent notion, then nothing couldn't create anything. Equally, the contention that a married bachelor didn't create everything is fully sound.

It is not nonsensical, but it is a strawman argument often used by theists like olavisjo and 99%atheist.

[NoisForm]

...If nothing can't exist, then the contention 'nothing couldn't create everything' is not nonsensical but logically sound. Obviously, if 'nothing' isn't even a coherent notion, then nothing couldn't create anything.

Break this down with me if you would. I'm working it out as I go, so not exactly married to the idea.

The contention is that 'nothing couldn't create everything'. For simplicity, let's just call nothing 'n'.

'n couldn't create everything'

You seem to have agreed (at least for the sake of argument) that 'n' in this case, has no meaning ("isn't even a coherent notion"). This would mean that 'n' could be replaced with any nonsense combination of letters, equally without meaning. Conceding this renders the phrase as a whole nonsensical.

e.g.; 'bragle couldn't create everything'

If the term in question has no meaning, it follows that the phrase has no meaning, and therefore cannot be said to be 'logically sound' (or not!). In this case, the phrase doesn't actually say anything, or make a coherent claim.

Such variables can be used in some constructions, and the formulation could still be said to be logically sound, but no such formation exists in this statement.

e.g.; All H are M.
S is H.
Therefore, S is M.

Here, the identity of the variables aren't necessary to determine the statement's validity. The logic exists in the form. But in the phrase in question, it simply reads something like 'n couldn't create e'. Considering at least one of the variables has no value, its logic (or lack of...) cannot be determined, because the phrase has no meaning, i.e., it is nonsensical. Make sense?

[instantc]

If the term in question has no meaning, it follows that the phrase has no meaning, and therefore cannot be said to be 'logically sound' (or not!). In this case, the phrase doesn't actually say anything, or make a coherent claim.

This is trivial to me, since as someone said above, the argument is a straw man to begin with. But, I don't actually agree with you here. Lets go from 'nothing couldn't create everything' to 'nothing didn't create everything' as it was originally phrased here by olavisjo.

Suppose N is an incoherent notion. The question on the table is, what is the cause for X? Now, lets say the cause for X is called A, therefore everything that is not identical to A did not cause X. Therefore the contention 'B did not cause X' holds as long as the contention 'B is identical to A' is false. Now, if N is an incoherent notion, then 'N is identical to A' has to be false, since A is a coherent notion and N is not. Therefore the contention 'N did not cause X' is true. In case X has no cause, then 'B did not cause X' is true regardless of the identity of B. What would you say?

[A Troubled Man]

I have never seen a scientific explanation of the Big Bang theory that claims the universe came out of nothing.

[NoisForm]

This is trivial to me, since as someone said above, the argument is a straw man to begin with.

Yes, me as well. Heh. I just found myself wanting to figure out what my objection to it was, so I voiced it.

What would you say?

I find it fairly convincing actually, and I think you may be correct. I have some reservations about pronouncing judgement on proposition that contains incoherent terms, but your inclusion of...

then 'N is identical to A' has to be false, since A is a coherent notion and N is not.

...may manage to take care of that. It does sort of assume that this cause would ultimately be coherent, but I can live with that as I think it must be. Since I can't put my finger on the problem assuming there is one,...well done!