Thread 24688217

How does /lit/ cope with the fact that science has decisively debunked free will, God, mortality, the immortality of the soul, beauty, and consciousness?

To be fair, Hume had 90% of this ages ago too.

>>24688221
based

>>24688217 (OP)
The answer is in your question: by reading Bakker.

>>24688217 (OP)
Idk all of those were written by gay faggots.

>>24688217 (OP)
All these concerns only matter if you can escape this layer of reality, but as we're bound to these laws, there are no direct implications.

>>24688350
OP isn't that though, you deluded ape.

>>24688217 (OP)
"Science" is so desperate to justify it self that a huge contingent of physicists insist there's an invisible undetectable type of matter just to explain their flawed models. Blindly trusting knowledge because it dresses up as science is probably the stupidest thing you can do especially when it directly contradicts obvious reality.

All that shit will be forgotten or willfully ignored in 200 years so w/e.

>>24688217 (OP)
The only point against free will i see is a study where they measured time between brain signals and action/intent. And it is retarded. Anyone who uses it imply that part that makes decision doesn't belong to the body.
>there something that spins inside the car before it starts moving that means that car can't actually move

>>24688366
in the god delusion, dawkins says no historians think jesus existed which is wild statement considering almost all historians argue that he did. lol you see him shift when talking to john lennox like 3 times in their conversation to
>ok there are probably 1 or 2 who think he existed
>ok so a majority think he existed
>well even if he did, it doesn't matter
and that's basically just the beginning in handling this awful book. be very careful reading garbage from these pop culture atheists

>>24688487
I have been trying to refute the argument of cause and effect that implies determinism but I simply can't in any way. Can you enlight me?

>>24688217 (OP)
Anyone with a masters degree or higher in natural sciences could tell you that thinks that anything that can't be quantified can't really be debunked or proven. All we have are theories and interpretations of results which a lot of the time get extrapolated and speculated about (which is read as truth) in the name of sensationalism. This is all the realm of the humanities.. which isn't really true science. But somewhat informed speculation which can only predict things to a degree which no true empiricist would actual deem as truth.

>>24688217 (OP)
at this point it gives me comfort loldood

>>24688217 (OP)
It hasn't because the science is shit.

>>24688493
>dawkins says no historians think jesus existed which is wild statement considering almost all historians argue that he did.
>lying polemicist midwit makes shit up to fuel his political agenda
There's nothing new under the sun.

>>24688252
This man is a hardcore nihilist atheist though.

>>24688217 (OP)
How did science debunk beauty?

>>24688508
I don't know how to put it smarter. I just don't see how it proves that there is no free will. Maybe it's just a definition problem and their definition of free will is just too specific. I bet there are tons of people in academia who criticized that fact properly. You just can't see their point in popular books because people who do pop "science" are losers in their field. Most popular of them are just Sagan's students who inherited his jewish beliefs.

>>24688252
I love Bakker but his fiction is good in spite of his incredibly stupid philosophy, not because of it. It works on one level because it is actually a paradoy of Bakker's set.

>>24688508
Freedom isn't about our acts being undetermined; it is about our relative capacity for self-determination and self-governance.

Second, just as being is most properly predicated of substance, for there is never "nothing at all moving quickly" or "nothing in particular that is heavy," but always something moving or heavy, so too is freedom most properly said of men, not their individual acts. The same is true of virtue and goodness. The freedom and virtue of acts is parasitic on that of the person as an organic whole.

>>24688539
See J.L. Mackie and the queerness argument. Universals are debunked too.

>>24688508
If you identify as flesh then you've already defined away the problem. "You" are mechanistic flesh, by definition deterministic.
But you are the divine qualia/soul, sitting outside time, space and causality. The will we share defined the environment and the flesh. You are responsible for your actions on every level, in flesh, in spirit and in heaven.

>>24688572
>>24688605
>>24688639
What I mean is this: Everything is caused by something from the past. We cannot control ours or others actions in the past. If our present is caused by the past, and we cannot control the past, then we cannot control anything.
The closest I got was to think that the present will be our future's past, so we could control our future that way, yet anything from the present is determined by the past so that refutal simply doesn't make sense.

>>24688252
>the king of gurblesmucker led the hordes of smarflefluff over the plains of pumpersnickle

"Science" has done no such thing. It starts with false premises and ends with false conclusions. It's become an ouroboros, to put it diplomatically.

>>24688217 (OP)
>How does /lit/ cope with the fact that science has decisively debunked free will, God, mortality, the immortality of the soul, beauty, and consciousness?
>To be fair, Hume had 90% of this ages ago too.
Buddhism debunked the knowability of free-will 2500 years ago. I feel kind of sad for science. It is like watching a child scream with joy as it shits itself. Son: I'm been stewing in my own poop for years.

>>24688217 (OP)
Gödel debunked reason itself, so I just choose to ignore it.

Existence precedes reason you can just choose to believe in things you know are true lol.

>>24689415
You are assuming that what happened in your past always gives you only 1 possible choice in the future. I don't see any evidence for that.

>>24690481
Not the future, but the present. The effect that is the present was caused in the past, and I cannot change the past.

>>24690447
That's not what godel did. He proved there is no mathematical model that could encapsulate all knowledge. It means we will never have complete knowledge. This is not related to reasoning.

>>24688261
This.
But y'all are just too dumb to move on.

>>24688217 (OP)
Everyone knows this shit already dude, and no one gives a shit.

Live your life and do what you want. Only losers care about determinism, lack of free will, God or the question of if he exists.

Everything you describe here, no sane man thinks of it, they just do their business and live as they wish.

>>24688487
Free will is logically incoherent. Either your will flows from your predisposition (over which you have no control) or it is totally spontaneous and random (again you have no control). Couple this with the fact that behavioral predispositions are subject to evolution, it means that every action is predetermined. Thomas Hobbes actually has the best wording:

Liberty and necessity are consistent: as in the water that hath not only liberty, but a necessity of descending by the channel; so, likewise in the actions which men voluntarily do, which, because they proceed their will, proceed from liberty, and yet because every act of man's will and every desire and inclination proceedeth from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual chain (whose first link is in the hand of God, the first of all causes), proceed from necessity. So that to him that could see the connexion of those causes, the necessity of all men's voluntary actions would appear manifest.

>>24688217 (OP)
If it did, woe be to science. Thank God Trump is defunding universities.

only academics could be this wrong

>>24693057
>Free will is logically incoherent
About as incoherent as your aforementioned justification for your own homosexuality, mayhaps.

>>24688217 (OP)
They're pseuds who just deny it, like standard NPC pseuds. Just look at this thread, everyone rejecting your premise is a moron.

>>24693078
It's completely untestable and doesn't correspond to anything that we can possibly perceive; what is it? freedom to choose from what? The next thing? You don't know what it is. I throw a ball and it falls. I swing my arm, and the hand follows. The notion has nothing to it. Freedom to do what? What binds you is reality itself.

>>24688578
I appreciate the inversion is entirely the point of his project but I still find it fascinating how he manages to write such a compelling portrait of a man with an extremely powerful will in a world where the biggest players are all driven and motivated by intense fear and anxiety about the destination of their immortal souls and he himself is an eliminativist who is virtually certain that death is the end and there is no hope for any future life whatsoever.

>>24694349
The qualia of the experience includes the mechanism that lead to the action. Whatever mechanism determines that an action should be taken is "you".

>>24688217 (OP)
Free Will? Who, when?
God? Who, Dawkins? LOL.
This is bait, innit?

>>24688217 (OP)
Are those books peer reviewed scientific papers?