General Music Chat

Natural law reduces all thought to mere chemical action & reaction. It's the psychiatric view, which means that, by this way of thinking, you can make anyone conform to the societal norm with the right pill.

That offends me to my core, especially since it's all mere theory, & has turned us all into guinea pigs for the medical & pharmaceutical communities.

And, as these theories have become mainstream, I expect the experimentation on humanity to continue at a breakneck pace, reducing us all to mere junkies in the system, & we will be FORCED to accept the meds through the absolute control of our employers, in conjunction with our ins co's.

We really need religion, imho, to protect us from this trend...AND we need the right to CHOOSE which one suits each of us, best.

Natural law reduces all thought to mere chemical action & reaction. It's the psychiatric view, which means that, by this way of thinking, you can make anyone conform to the societal norm with the right pill.

Apparently, you are unaware of brainwashing. As far as someone coming up with “the right pill” that can make anyone conform to the societal norm, I’m doubtful about human competence to even accomplish that. Totalitarian regimes have always tried to control the minds of the masses with mixed results. The natural element of random chance makes this kind of control impossible.

That offends me to my core, especially since it's all mere theory, & has turned us all into guinea pigs for the medical & pharmaceutical communities.

“No job is too dirty for a f**k scientist.” – William S. Burroughs

And, as these theories have become mainstream, I expect the experimentation on humanity to continue at a breakneck pace, reducing us all to mere junkies in the system, & we will be FORCED to accept the meds through the absolute control of our employers, in conjunction with our ins co's.

If the powers that be had their way we’d already be in that system.

We really need religion, imho, to protect us from this trend...AND we need the right to CHOOSE which one suits each of us, best.

Why religion? Granted, mythology of some sort usually plays a part in the human psyche regardless. But, many of us CHOOSE to leave Plato’s cave and remove the scales from our eyes. We took the “Red Pill” instead of the Blue.

Apparently, you are unaware of brainwashing. As far as someone coming up with “the right pill” that can make anyone conform to the societal norm, I’m doubtful about human competence to even accomplish that. Totalitarian regimes have always tried to control the minds of the masses with mixed results. The natural element of random chance makes this kind of control impossible.

That box in your living room and fluoride are nearly enough for the job. Propaganda is the most powerful tool ever created!

it's a bit more entertaining than the last video.

Bahnsen isn't saying we don't have free will. He's saying that if you believe that Natural law explains the world, then you're left with the asinine belief that we don't have free will. After all, if your explanation of human experience is that natural law dictates what can and cannot happen - then all your thoughts and actions are likewise dictated by natural law, since naturalism says your brain is nothing more than physical gray matter subject to natural law.

cheers.

I don’t see how natural law would negate Free Will. Granted, our choices are limited by what is possible. But, we have the capacity to think abstractly.
George Smith has a lot more patience than most would with Greg Bahnsen.

Well, you're stating what we already know - abstract thought and free will exist. The question at hand is this: if everything happens because of natural law theory, then how is free will possible in a purely physical, Natural Law world? The fact that we have free will is an indictment against Natural Law theory as an explanation for human experience.

A recap on what Natural Law states: everything is material and the result of what chemical reactions are possible because of the laws at work in physics. Atoms attract and repel each other not because they (free-will) desire to, but because laws of attraction are at work necessitating their paths and reactions. The atoms have no say so in whether or not they will repel or collide with each other.

The same holds true of chemical reactions. Not all chemicals can react with each other. They react because they can't do otherwise - it's built into their make up.

The brain, which is "gray matter", is material and therefore subject to laws of nature as well. It is a combination of electro-chemical reactions that happen because of these natural laws. As such the concept of free-will has no place in this concept of reality. If natural law were true, all of your thoughts and actions would be the result of Natural Law theory - there would be no freedom of thought. You would in fact be predetermined by your surroundings, and the concept of taking control over your environment wouldn't even be a consideration.

So the question remains - if the world around us is purely the result of natural law, then how is free will possible? The fact that you affirm free-will is an argument against natural law theory as being the driving force behind how you interact with the world freely.

Gordon Smith never answered this question because he had no answer.

I didn't listen to all the audio clips but all the video clip of the "Naturalist DR." proves is the problem with naturalism. It doesn't give a proof for god.

But the arguments against the existence of god are pretty damning, as there is no proof...and that's why they call it "faith".

Some think it's not polite to discuss this, but the non-believers have to live with the believers side every day. If there was no religion I'd wager the Republican party would be a quarter of what it is today as many of it's issues are moralistic.
And I'm weary of the fact that once you bring up the problems with the proof of god's existence, all you seem to get back is anger, hatred, and threats of violence.

I think the world would be much healthier if we all started to see our human situation a bit clearer.......

Frankly the little good religion does is far outweighed by the damage it's done to the societies of the world...

Well, you're stating what we already know - abstract thought and free will exist. The question at hand is this: if everything happens because of natural law theory, then how is free will possible in a purely physical, Natural Law world? The fact that we have free will is an indictment against Natural Law theory as an explanation for human experience.

The fact that abstract thought and free will exist makes them self-evident: They exist. They are real… at least as well as we can judge reality. How that contradicts nature, I don’t know how you come to that conclusion.

A recap on what Natural Law states: everything is material and the result of what chemical reactions are possible because of the laws at work in physics. Atoms attract and repel each other not because they (free-will) desire to, but because laws of attraction are at work necessitating their paths and reactions. The atoms have no say so in whether or not they will repel or collide with each other.

Human beings are a bit more complicated than an atom, and that’s saying a lot in itself.

The same holds true of chemical reactions. Not all chemicals can react with each other. They react because they can't do otherwise - it's built into their make up.

Our minds are built into ours, at least optimally. Physical deformity and mental illness notwithstanding. I think some of the thalidomide babies were born without physical brains in their skulls.

The brain, which is "gray matter", is material and therefore subject to laws of nature as well. It is a combination of electro-chemical reactions that happen because of these natural laws. As such the concept of free-will has no place in this concept of reality. If natural law were true, all of your thoughts and actions would be the result of Natural Law theory - there would be no freedom of thought. You would in fact be predetermined by your surroundings, and the concept of taking control over your environment wouldn't even be a consideration.

You make some invalid assumptions and leaps in logic. You are describing it as though either of have a full understanding of the mechanics involved. Neither of us do. I’m not a neurosurgeon and am pretty sure you’re not. Freedom of thought isn’t an absolute either. The human mind does have limitations imposed on it by biology. We don’t have telepathy, telekinesis, or omniscience. Intelligence, temperament, memory, and other factors vary from person to person.

So the question remains - if the world around us is purely the result of natural law, then how is free will possible? The fact that you affirm free-will is an argument against natural law theory as being the driving force behind how you interact with the world freely. .

Your assumption that free will is negated by nature doesn’t make sense. It is an absolutist position that oversimplifies things.

Gordon Smith never answered this question because he had no answer.

As he said, the question was nonsensical. Greg Bahnsen constantly plugged God into any answer that should have been, “I don’t know.”

"Frankly the little good religion does is far outweighed by the damage it's done to the societies of the world..."

I would say that you're speaking of political movements, more than religion. Oh, they may have their gods as their excuse to control te masses, to perpetrate their atrocities, but at the core of it, the organized groups have little to do with personal faith, personal relationships with the creator, or the spiritual, or whatever.

As far as I can tell, the judeo/christian/moslem model of religion is the only one that perpetrates these things you speak so derisively of...well...there was the Thuggee, but they weren't really trying to convert anyone, were they? They killed & stole as part of their relationship with Kali. Well...there was also Confusionism, but I hesitate to call that a religious movement, even though it clearly has all the earmarks of one...but then, so did the Nazi movement before & during WWII.

When religion is handled in a personal manner, i.e. within the familial unit, within the somewhat closed community, it is more often a rather good thing for the individuals involved, & the community as a whole. When it becomes a political movement, atrocities always follow. Always.

Gee, I just spoke to god and he told me it was ok to stomp your head until you cry like the little bitch you are and then stomp you some more.

Now where are my doc martens?

Oh yeah, ok..ready to go..

I didn't listen to all the audio clips but all the video clip of the "Naturalist DR." proves is the problem with naturalism. It doesn't give a proof for god.

But the arguments against the existence of god are pretty damning, as there is no proof...and that's why they call it "faith".

Some think it's not polite to discuss this, but the non-believers have to live with the believers side every day. If there was no religion I'd wager the Republican party would be a quarter of what it is today as many of it's issues are moralistic.
And I'm weary of the fact that once you bring up the problems with the proof of god's existence, all you seem to get back is anger, hatred, and threats of violence.

I think the world would be much healthier if we all started to see our human situation a bit clearer.......

Frankly the little good religion does is far outweighed by the damage it's done to the societies of the world...

I think you're reading hostility into my post - there's no anger in any of my posts. I'm just explaining the positions in the link I posted.

The fact that abstract thought and free will exist makes them self-evident: They exist. They are real… at least as well as we can judge reality. How that contradicts nature, I don’t know how you come to that conclusion.

You still don’t understand the argument. If Natural Law theory really did apply as the sole explanation for how we think, then we would not have freedom of thought. The Laws of nature would prevent it – in fact, everything we did would be pre-determined by these laws. The conclusion you should be coming to is that Natural Law theory couldn’t be the explanation for knowledge and free will. The limitations it puts on you via physical laws does not square with the reality that we DO in fact have free will.

Perhaps an analogy : pretend there’s a theory that says computers don’t exist, and then you use a computer to type up your argument. Your actions prove your theory is wrong. The same with Natural Law theory. The fact that you decided to reply, and took control over your environment to do so, disproves Natural Law theory as an explanation for the reality we experience - well, that is unless you believe you had no choice in the matter because the Laws that govern your body made you do it

Human beings are a bit more complicated than an atom, and that’s saying a lot in itself.

A human being is composed of atoms. Just because they are flying in tight formation doesn’t mean that they somehow escape the Laws of Nature individually.

Our minds are built into ours, at least optimally. Physical deformity and mental illness notwithstanding. I think some of the thalidomide babies were born without physical brains in their skulls.

So you’re saying our mind is more than physical? Perhaps there’s a spiritual element to it? If so, I’d wholeheartedly agree.

You make some invalid assumptions and leaps in logic. You are describing it as though either of have a full understanding of the mechanics involved. Neither of us do. I’m not a neurosurgeon and am pretty sure you’re not. Freedom of thought isn’t an absolute either. The human mind does have limitations imposed on it by biology. We don’t have telepathy, telekinesis, or omniscience. Intelligence, temperament, memory, and other factors vary from person to person.

I’m not concerned with the mechanics – I’m concerned about the implications of the theory that says our experience is solely the result of Natural Law theory. It seems pretty straight forward to scientists that the brain is a combination of electo-chemical reactions – bio based tissue. Bio is governed by the Laws of physics, at least according to the theories materialists and Natural Law theorists have propounded. As such, Laws are unchanging by definition, so all the components that make up the brain are governed by non-changing laws. So the question is pretty straight forward – doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the theory would apply to the brain, and the concept of free-will doesn’t comport with this theory.

Your assumption that free will is negated by nature doesn’t make sense. It is an absolutist position that oversimplifies things.

So where does free will come from then, if all we are is a bag of atoms? There’s a leap of faith to presume that just because they’re flying closely together, they can somehow self-realize, form opinions and take control over other fellow atoms in a non-Natural Law fashion. Don'cha think?

Gordon Smith never answered this question because he had no answer.

As he said, the question was nonsensical. Greg Bahnsen constantly plugged God into any answer that should have been, “I don’t know.”

The question is not non-sensical at all. In fact, he (Dr. Smith) attempted to answer it, which means he understood the question enough to form an attempted answer, but his answer begged the question.

The question is this: if the world we live in is material only, and material is governed only by Laws, then certainly people who are made of material only (in this view) are also governed by these laws. On what justification to you lean to say that people (sacks of atoms) are exempt from the Laws of Nature in such away that they can free-will away from these Laws of Nature?

The fact that abstract thought and free will exist makes them self-evident: They exist. They are real… at least as well as we can judge reality. How that contradicts nature, I don’t know how you come to that conclusion.

You still don’t understand the argument. If Natural Law theory really did apply as the sole explanation for how we think, then we would not have freedom of thought. The Laws of nature would prevent it – in fact, everything we did would be pre-determined by these laws. The conclusion you should be coming to is that Natural Law theory couldn’t be the explanation for knowledge and free will. The limitations it puts on you via physical laws does not square with the reality that we DO in fact have free will.

But, you are making an ASSUMPTION that freedom of thought is somehow un-natural or dependent on a supernatural explanation. From what I’ve read on quantum mechanics we live in a universe made up of AT LEAST eleven dimensions! In such a universe it is difficult to grasp many concepts, like subatomic particles which flicker in-and-out of existence or backwards in time! How this affects the properties of physical matter is largely unknown. There is no “unified theory of everything” yet.

Perhaps an analogy : pretend there’s a theory that says computers don’t exist, and then you use a computer to type up your argument. Your actions prove your theory is wrong. The same with Natural Law theory. The fact that you decided to reply, and took control over your environment to do so, disproves Natural Law theory as an explanation for the reality we experience - well, that is unless you believe you had no choice in the matter because the Laws that govern your body made you do it

Your analogy is flawed.

A human being is composed of atoms. Just because they are flying in tight formation doesn’t mean that they somehow escape the Laws of Nature individually.

But, you don’t know all the laws of nature. No one does. So, you don’t know what limitations are present or not in a living mind.

You make some invalid assumptions and leaps in logic. You are describing it as though either of have a full understanding of the mechanics involved. Neither of us do. I’m not a neurosurgeon and am pretty sure you’re not. Freedom of thought isn’t an absolute either. The human mind does have limitations imposed on it by biology. We don’t have telepathy, telekinesis, or omniscience. Intelligence, temperament, memory, and other factors vary from person to person.

I’m not concerned with the mechanics –

That’s what the whole argument is about.

I’m concerned about the implications of the theory that says our experience is solely the result of Natural Law theory. It seems pretty straight forward to scientists that the brain is a combination of electo-chemical reactions – bio based tissue. Bio is governed by the Laws of physics, at least according to the theories materialists and Natural Law theorists have propounded. As such, Laws are unchanging by definition, so all the components that make up the brain are governed by non-changing laws. So the question is pretty straight forward – doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the theory would apply to the brain, and the concept of free-will doesn’t comport with this theory.

I think the bottom line is, “What is life?” No one knows. “Am I my body or my mind?” For lack of a better term, we are the ghost in the machine, self-aware software… sort of. But, without functioning hardware we can’t exist. And our freedom is limited by this hardware. But, we’re not slaves to it. Also, the roles energy and matter play are mostly unknown in a living organism. Electo-chemical reactions – bio based tissue is our most basic understanding of it.

So where does free will come from then, if all we are is a bag of atoms? There’s a leap of faith to presume that just because they’re flying closely together, they can somehow self-realize, form opinions and take control over other fellow atoms in a non-Natural Law fashion. Don'cha think?

There’s a leap of faith that none of this is a hallucination, that all of this is real. Our senses are the best approximation we have to discern “reality.” Since life comes from nature it should follow that our free will also comes from nature.
Interesting thing about Buddhism is that it totally predicted many discoveries made millennia later by physicists, the oneness of the universe, interconnectedness of everything. For all anyone knows we are all one consciousness viewing itself objectively

Let me sum it up for everybody.......... YOU DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW... and neither does anybody else.

So please everybody stop talking like you have the answer.
When you die you "may" find out, but until you die and stay dead you know squat just like everybody else!

I think you're reading hostility into my post - there's no anger in any of my posts. I'm just explaining the positions in the link I posted.

No Jams I didn't think that....

Sorry if I gave you that impression....

I would say that you're speaking of political movements, more than religion. Oh, they may have their gods as their excuse to control te masses, to perpetrate their atrocities, but at the core of it, the organized groups have little to do with personal faith, personal relationships with the creator, or the spiritual, or whatever.

As far as I can tell, the judeo/christian/moslem model of religion is the only one that perpetrates these things you speak so derisively of...well...there was the Thuggee, but they weren't really trying to convert anyone, were they? They killed & stole as part of their relationship with Kali. Well...there was also Confusionism, but I hesitate to call that a religious movement, even though it clearly has all the earmarks of one...but then, so did the Nazi movement before & during WWII.

When religion is handled in a personal manner, i.e. within the familial unit, within the somewhat closed community, it is more often a rather good thing for the individuals involved, & the community as a whole. When it becomes a political movement, atrocities always follow. Always.

Nope, I wasn't saying that at all.

Though I see where you'd think that..... I think it's destructive anytime one lives in delusion. And though I'm sure many are comforted by the thought of a god in the sky taking care of them, I still believe it's harmful in the long run....Especially ( as you stated) as it applies to political movement.