The Instigator
FexHere
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Athiest-one who believes in God but not knowing it.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,542 times Debate No: 1988
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (19)

 

FexHere

Pro

Modern atheist make the mistake of asserting that the lack of definite evidence for God's existence prove that God does not exist, as if God must be contrained by man's limited knowledge. - Bobby Jindal

believing in the idea that God does not exist is an acceptance that He/she is inferior to God. Not knowing that he was govern by Freewill that only unseen power can give.

" the desire for God is written in the human heart," CCath.
Tatarize

Con

By definition atheism is "a-" (without) "theism" (belief in god(s)). If you argue that atheists are simply theists (secretly believing in gods), then you've effectively negated your own argument. Atheists cannot, by definition, believe in God. If we did, we cease being atheists.

Your argument is primarily filled with hogwash and quotes about hogwash. And you overlook a small but extremely important fact: I do not control my beliefs. I don't believe that there is a God, not because I have evidence of the non-existence of God. I don't believe in God, because I don't find any compelling reason to believe and find the suggested stories associated with religion to be so odd and unbelievable that I simply don't believe them.

Thomas Paine once wrote that, "Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true." - Well, it all shocks my mind. It isn't just Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, talking snakes, tree of life, tree of knowledge, drowning the world, free will, angels of God, the constant and continual smiting, blood sacrifice to atone for sins, human blood sacrifice to atone for all sins, man-gods, rising from the dead, eternal punishments for finite crimes, impersonal revelations, all the different religions' contradictory claims, death worship, trivializing of existence, better explanations of science, atrocities of religion, advancement of society at the expense of previous religious beliefs, shrinking role left over for gods, continual logical fallacies used by religionists... I simply can't believe it. I don't believe it. Thus, I am an atheist.

It isn't even about evidence. I don't have any evidence for or against fire breathing dragons but for the life of me, I cannot be agnostic about the claim. If such a creature existed we should have some evidence. Even if the skeptic in me wants to wait for all the evidence or suspend disbelief... I can't. I disbelieve. You cannot tell me you've developed the ability to fly refusing to demonstrate and ask me to be agnostic about the claim. My beliefs are beyond my control and even if I didn't want to... I'd think you were full of crap.

--------------------

Carl Sagan,
http://www.godlessgeeks.com...

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Debate Round No. 1
FexHere

Pro

My opponents strongly believe that atheist is none, but believing in something that all comes from natural law, matter from organic matter.
furthermore, he argue that athiest confined itself in disbelieving in Supernatural power like God.

My point of validity:

a) Believing to something is unbelieving on the other point.
b) Believing refers to a choice.
c) Believing is deciding.
d) Deciding is a process of Freewill.

Now, Did some finest Scientist and even Sociologist prove that Freewill derive from natural process like natural evolution? The Fact is, none of them can give a 100% answers that these are the product of brain impulse.

Atheist, by choice, they dont believe in God. Why did they Choose it?

Atheist chose from the choices (to believe or not to believe)they choose using the process that they dont even know where it came from.
Only Theist can answer where does freewill come.,

They use the method that only believers(theist) could answers the origin.
So, they believe but they dont know it.
Tatarize

Con

I am an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. You need not disbelieve to be an atheist. I've seen too many arguments with horrible flaws, too many cults with absurd beliefs, and too many religious beliefs so silly that I simply couldn't wrap my head around them. I am an atheist because it honestly doesn't make any sense at all. I've looked at the evidence. I've read the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon. I've looked at the arguments in favor of God. I've talked with believers. I cannot help but disbelieve. There's a certain breaking point where you just have to call shenanigans on the whole damn thing. I'll freely admit that I don't have absolute proof there's no God. I don't have absolutely proof there's no anything-I-disbelieve-in. But, when you've argued with people who think that there are reptoid aliens inhabiting politicians because cameras sometimes have a reflection flare, well, I couldn't believe that even if I tried.

Let me be clear to the readers here, as John McCarthy once wrote, "to count oneself as an atheist one need not claim to have a proof that God doesn't exist. One only need believe that the state of evidence on the God question is similar to that on the werewolf question." -- You need not disbelieve in gods to be an atheist. If you do not believe in god, you are an atheist. The middle position of not disbelieving or believing is called 'weak atheism' and is a perfectly respectable position. However, for all the claims of evidence and facts... I believe the werewolf myth to have nothing at the bottom. I do not believe that the full moon triggers a man-wolf transition or any similar phenomenon exists. I disbelieve in werewolves. I disbelieve in gods.

Atheists aren't confined to disbelief, but you can only laugh at so many arguments for God and silly beliefs before disbelief comes naturally. For example, did you know Mormons wear special holy underwear and don't even take them off to shower? There are a good number of atheists who neither believe in gods nor disbelieve in them. In this regard, my opponent is battle straw men.

As for his "point of validity":

a) Believing in something is not disbelieving in its opposite. If I do not believe in string theory that doesn't imply I disbelieve in it. Quite frankly, I just don't know and don't believe in either direction. One could easily look at two sides of an argument and not believe either side, anybody who has seen sports or political arguments will quickly relate.

b) Belief is not a choice. Can you believe the sky is pink? Can you believe fairies are fluttering about? Can you believe the moon is made of green cheese? Can you believe in gods? Can you believe in flying rabbits? You don't choose your beliefs. And though a good argument can switch them, I can't force myself to believe things which I find to be absurd and impossible. I understand that many theists rely on faith, but I see that as being completely incoherent. Many people believe, on faith, contradictory claims to what other people believe on faith. It perhaps gives some people some small control over their ability to believe things. But, most people struggle with it, their faith slips and they stop believing and need to keep trying to force themselves to believe when their minds are rejecting it on the same grounds I reject it: it simply isn't believable.

c) I have never been much of a fan of dark matter as a physics concept. I've thought it was a little bit of faulty math to try to make Newtonian physics fit with what we observe galaxies doing. I now believe it is actually out there, and not because I want to. The evidence is just mounting and like it or not, I can't avoid that belief. Likewise, I can't decide to believe the sky to be pink or elves make my shoes, or that God exists. There's no choice there, no decision. As much as I may want to believe I'll live forever or never have hard times... I can't. I cannot choose what I believe.

d) As for free will, it depends on what you mean. The Doctrine of Free Will is that humans have a magical ability to decide which is beyond the reach of some deity which is somehow independent of the brain. I do not find myself believing that. We certainly have volitional freedom. I could have chosen to debate you on this topic or I could have chosen not to. But, free will tends to grab that simple statement of fact and expand it into theological directions it doesn't seem to naturally go.

If I accept that my brain is simply a big ball of nerves, as every autopsy of every brain has found them to be, and there are still some odd things we just don't understand; I can no more believe that God does it than I can believe that when I'm not looking gremlins are making my computer function. I cannot help but believe that the motherboard and CPU I installed are doing the work. Likewise because nerves, impulses, lobes, and cells are the only things we find inside brains, albeit in amazingly complex arrangements, I can't help but believe that my brain is similar to other brains and works on the same principles.

I never chose to believe that the sky is blue, nor did I choose to disbelieve in werewolves. I don't believe in god. I have found no compelling reason why everything I find to be so absurd about religion isn't absurd. I have found no compelling reason why all of the shortfalls of all of the reasons I have seen for such a God are not shortfalls. I have seen nothing to contradict the history of religions of theories as to how they naturally they form without divine intervention. I have seen nothing so difficult to explain that I hopelessly grasp at supernatural straws. And, I have never seen a reason to suppose there is a supernatural straw to grasp at.

I do not believe in god because it isn't believable, plausible, or comprehensible. I cannot pretend that I do not find it absurd. I cannot fear a hell I cannot believe in. I cannot desire a heaven I cannot not believe in. I cannot chose to believe because the severity or duration of punishments a loving god will inflict on me otherwise. I might be well advised to to take my chances on the absurd to avoid an unbelievable fate, but it *is* unbelievable. I can't believe it. I do not believe it.

My opponent argues that atheists choose to disbelieve in gods using a god-given ability of free will. I don't believe that. It's absurd. I don't choose to believe or not to believe nor does anybody else. I see no reason to suppose that my freedom of choice pivots on some unproven metaphysical whatnot. Even if there are some mysterious things about the brain, I do not and cannot suppose there is some odd choice-soul-spirit-entity thing making choices possible. I can throw my dog two steaks and it will choose between them. I do not think that that requires magically powers on the part of the dog. How am I suppose that my ability to chose between two steaks does?

Allow me to again point out that the topic of debate is whether or not I, or other atheists, believe in God without even knowing. If we did this, we wouldn't be atheists. If I'm believing absurd notions behind my own back, and fooling even myself, how does FexHere know it? A simpler explanation is that FexHere is wrong, making assumptions he shouldn't be making, and believing premises which shouldn't be believed. He is incorrect.
Debate Round No. 2
FexHere

Pro

I can't believe it. I do not believe it.-tatarize

a) Believing in something is not disbelieving in its opposite. If I do not believe in string theory that doesn't imply I disbelieve in it.
b) Belief is not a choice.
c)The Doctrine of Free Will is that humans have a magical ability to decide which is beyond the reach of some deity which is somehow independent of the brain.
I never chose to believe -tatarize

Point of Answers: you are an Athiest, you claim to be. you Choose to be. you answer all the questions. you decide that is the right answers.

Questions: Did anyone force you to decide all that?

"I've looked at the evidence. I've read the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon. I've looked at the arguments in favor of God. I've talked with believers. I cannot help but disbelieve."

My opponent is unaware that he was governed by His Freewill.

Athiest choose to use his freewill. if he stops to use it. i believe He cease all. He use God's Handwriting in his mind but he is UNAWARE OF IT.
Tatarize

Con

I am an atheist. I didn't choose to believe. Personally I would prefer to believe that I'll be living in eternal bliss forever and ever. I can't though, it's absurd. My mind rejects the belief as sure as it rejects the belief that the sky is pink.

>>"Did anyone force you to decide all that?"

Decide all what? I see a blue sky, I believe in a blue sky. I see a chair, I believe in that chair. I hear about werewolves with absolutely no substance to the myths and I don't believe in them. I hear about some magical God who has infinite power and wants the best for us all and see suffering and evil around us, I can't believe in it. I hear Bible stories less believable than your average fiction and I believe them less.

Your cannot simply repeatedly suggest that my beliefs are governed by my will and hope that that allows your argument to still succeed. Beliefs aren't choices. I can no more believe in an absurd god than I can believe I have the ability to flap my arms and fly. Furthermore, even theologically this is recognized, "you can show them the way but only the holy spirit can change their hearts". According to fairly common Christian doctrine, I don't have free will of beliefs.

Further, what is there to suggest that freewill exists? Yes, I can choose between doing A or B (note, not believing A or B) but how does that volitional freedom translate into free will as expanded and prescribed by religion?

Catholic Encyclopedia, Free Will
http://www.newadvent.org...

"The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time. It ramifies into ethics, theology, metaphysics, and psychology. The view adopted in response to it will determine a man's position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are man's thoughts and volitions, his character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself has had no sort of control? This is the real import of thefree-will problem."

Note the "genuine", "real", and "true" attached to moral 'freedom', 'choice', and 'ability to determine the course of his thoughts'. How is that something? How does having freedom and choice itself not be "real"? How is the choice a bird makes to fly away when I walk near by less real than my choice to walk by? There's no need for some expanded metaphysical whatnot.

Further, the argument in question suffers yet another flaw. Even if I had free will in the special metaphysical sense, how does that actually prove the existence of God? Vast swaths of people believe in volitional freedom and don't believe in God. The two are not joined at the hip. Just as a number of atheistic religions believe in the soul without believing in gods shows that souls do not require a belief in God.

In fact, many argue that the concept of freewill is incompatible with the concept of God. If I have volitional freedom and can choose to do A or B. If an all-knowing God knows that I will choose A, then what "real" choice did I have? What "genuine" freedom? If a God knows what I will do before I do it, what else can I do but that? This is the reason why metaphysical aspects added to volitional freedom, not for benefits to your ability to chose but rather to argue that your choice is God-given to excuse the God-taken ramifications on your freedom. If you can do A or do B, but you will do A... you don't have a "real" choice or "genuine" freedom.

How then can your argument succeed? Real free will, it seems, requires the non-existence of God. And though I see no more problem believing my brain controls my body as I do believing other people's brains control theirs or that all brains are made primarily of nerve cells. I see no more trouble choosing between one steak or another than my dog would have. But if I did, if I thought that this power were magically inclined, then it would be one more reason to find this deity you speak of to be absurd. Peaking into my brain and gathering what action I will choose is the antithesis of being able to make a real choice in this matter.

Knowing that I would find the notion of God to be absurd, why bother make me exist? I would fail and burn in hell forever regardless that I am good person; somehow beliefs are paramount (which makes no sense).

My opponent's argument is, as follows:
1) Atheists choose to disbelieve in God.
2) Atheists choose with their free will.
3) Free will is given by God.
4) Atheists use God's gift of freewill to choose to disbelieve in God.

He is mistaken in many ways:
* I do not choose my beliefs, nobody does. I find something to be completely absurd and cannot believe it. I find something trivial to accept and cannot help but accept it.
* Theologically, the holy spirit is suppose to change your heart... or some absurd notion like that.
* Atheists do not need to disbelieve in God. Atheists simply need to not believe in God. With no evidence for God, this is as easy as not believing in fire breathing dragons living in my Garage.
* Given the endless litany of really bad non-reasons offered to believe in God by apparently the totality of God-believers, I don't think there is anything there. If there was a God, shouldn't somebody have offered some more reasonable arguments in favor of the notion. The utter failure of apologetics to produce an argument in favor? This is not a logical argument that there is no God, but I don't need a logical argument, my disbelief came naturally after I came to realized that every defender of the faith was full of sh!t.
* Volitional freedom is not free will. Free will has a number of added theological baggage bits.
* I have no trouble believing my ability to choose is as natural as my pets' ability to choose.
* Free will does not require belief in God. You can have choice without believing in an all knowing deity.
* Free will is incompatible with the notion of a deity who knows what you will do before you do it, thus denying you "real" choice or "genuine" freedom.
* You may argue that regardless that every part of your argument is absurd, unbelievable, and unbelieved that it's true anyway. And that free will IS given by God regardless if I believe it or not and without this ability I would be as motionless of as a rock! In this case, you would need a remarkable amount of evidence to suggest that this is true. First and foremost you would need to prove the existence of God. As that is the thrust of this argument and a requirement thereof, we see that the argument is circular as well as absurd.
* You cannot use God to prove free will and free will to prove God.

I do not believe in your God because every argument I've seen has been as misguided as your argument is here. Moreover, I cannot help but laugh at religions. People prattle on about how their invisible friend is better than somebody else's invisible friend and even though neither one of them has a coherent reason why I should not find them both absurd, they continue to prattle.

You would be amazed at how coherent the world is without absurd notions of God.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
FexHere, I've studied a lot more logic than you apparently know. The fact is, your argument is flawed. Claiming that you had an argument which was outright ignored is wrong, you had a flawed argument and I pointed out a large number of flaws contained within the argument. The thrust of your argument was that "you need God explain your ability to make choices." That statement is categorically false.

My first statement qualified as an apt disproof by contradiction. Atheists by definition cannot believe in God in any fashion or they are not atheists. Therefore your argument is wrong by definition.

Feel free to challenge me to another debate. However, to say that free will proves God and God proves free will is problematic to say the least. Simply because you've been taught that free will exists, doesn't mean it does, and certainly doesn't mean that volitional freedom is a theological construct.

If you were taught that elves caused it to rain, when it rains you'd see more evidence of elves. So taught that decisions require free will and God, you see decisions and you conclude that they require God. And this isn't even noting the massive flaw in assuming beliefs are choices and subject to our wills (free or not).

You were owned, get over it. God doesn't exist, get over it.
Posted by FexHere 8 years ago
FexHere
All assertment end into so called red herring. the argument deflect the disjunctive syllogism.

sample: a or b? you chose c, thats illogical. you have to
choose from the choices given to you.
sample2: a=b; b=c therefore a=c, proper arrangement of
thesis.

these two is a valid argument. if you dont know it,I think you have to study logic 101.

What is the Topic all about " One Who believes but not knowing it" Did i proved to my opponent that he is unaware?
Posted by artC 8 years ago
artC
Fexhere is a nutcase, obviously.
Posted by FexHere 8 years ago
FexHere
May God Bless You. He loves you, though you deny Him.
Posted by FexHere 8 years ago
FexHere
I'm proud of you Tatarize, You proved to me how passionate you are. Don't get me wrong with my comments before. I salute you on this topic.

God bless you. Hoping for another Topic. But please understand me, some of my answers are quite short because im not a full-time debater, I will tell you if i have an ample time so that i could focus on it.

Thanks once again.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
I understand what it means, and the ready made equivocation surrounding it. Sometimes it is just meant to be volitional freedom, other times it morphs into a metaphysical choice ability which transcends reality. It isn't a very coherent idea, so accusing me of lack of understanding is fairly dishonest.

The main topic is "Athiest[sic] one who believe in God but not knowing it" -- I showed that to be inaccurate in a variety of ways. Feel free to check my arguments, or challenge me to another debate. I do not need to summon people to vote for me. If you notice you have two votes, half of them your own. If there is a grand conspiracy it involves not only adding votes by depriving them to you.

I may not be able to explain how I choose one thing over another thing, anymore than I can explain how a bird choses particular strands of grass for its nest. I can however note that because brains are composed fairly exclusively of neurons, neurons probably have something to do with it.

Theists don't have answers they have assertions.

That's another thing. I've always been struck by theistic answers leaving mysteries just as mysterious as before they were offered. Whereas the real answers, the science answers, the nuts and bolts of why things work this way and not that way are so satisfying! Why does a helium balloon rise? Why is the sky blue? How do the tides work? Saying that God did it, doesn't leave me any less perplexed, it leaves me dumbfounded. How does anybody accept that as an answer at all?

To claim that there is some sort of metaphysical freewill beyond the will of an eagle building a nest, or a dog choosing a treat, or an insect choosing which way to fly is bad enough. Then to say that only the religious have an answer for this new type of will beyond that of animal choices? I really can't believe there's anything there to be answered. I cannot fathom the question is coherent, why would I accept your obvious flawed answer?
Posted by FexHere 8 years ago
FexHere
Sorry, athiest cannot give a concrete idea what Freewill means. They tried to eliminate the main debate topic. Tatarize, i think call all his bunch of friends to vote for him. Up to now, Tatarize failed to rebut the topic.
I dont care for who wons here, Athiest Chose to be Athiest, They cannot Give Exact reasons and fact where these choices come from.
To be or not to be that is the questions. Only theist can assert this.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
>>"free will is a philosophical concept, not a theological doctrine,"

I've heard some philosophers discussing and they do so in the original theological sense. To say it isn't a doctrine is misguided. It is a doctrine in the literal sense.
http://www.newadvent.org...

I am making the assumption that quantum effects are causeless. I freely admit this and most physicists do as well. The old Einstein quote, "God does not play dice with the world." -- He was apparently wrong. It looks like the world is composed entirely of little dice. I might be wrong even if there is a hidden cause in some hidden dimension, it adds no weight to the idea that I made this choice.

>>"My point was that there is a conceivable mechanism for free will other than god."

I don't believe there are. Even if there are some random bits of this or that in our thought processes or some non-deterministic choice matrix. We don't escape it. We do not transcend reality to make choices in some mystical sense. Even with random jitter in our brains causing different end states than might not otherwise have occurred we don't avoid the problem. If some fraction of our choice is random and the other fraction is predetermined this does not suggest that some third fraction suddenly forms, by which, we make choices independent of reality.

I don't think that quantum consciousness is possible at all. I don't think there's anything magic about consciousness. It appears to largely be a function of our neocortex... composed of nerves... just like the rest of the brain. Can our decisions be partially random/uncaused, of course. Does that mean those decisions are somehow made in this special sort of free will realm? Categorically no. I don't think giving free will quantum garb makes it less incoherent or less absurd.

However, let me say, this has been some of the most insightful commentary I've seen in a while.
Posted by DreamingBearcat 8 years ago
DreamingBearcat
Actually, free will is a philosophical concept, not a theological doctrine, but point well taken.

The thing is, you're making an unfounded assumption too: quantum effects are causeless. Quantum effects are "random"; that is, we cannot predict them. We do not know what actually causes a particle to pop into being or to disappear. Some have speculated that quantum effects are due to the effects of gravitation from the future or other universes (which would explain both unpredictability and the strangely weak force of gravity). My point was that there is a conceivable mechanism for free will other than god.

Also, you forget about emergent characteristics: it is entirely possible (though, at the moment, unprovable) that the interaction of quantum effects gives rise to consciousness, free will, etc. even though the individual parts have none of those.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
DreamingBearCat, you will see some quantum effects boiling up from below into the world of the cellular and chemical. But, even the averages of billions or millions of "choices" is enough to negate the effect. It is still negligible. On the average the amount of lactose said protein breaks down will average out.

I'm quite sure you can let certain quantum effects have very real effects in middle world. However, freewill? I'll admit it is impossible to deterministically calculate everything you will do. This is trivially true, but free will is very different idea. You could make a Geiger counter pick up background radiation over a short duration where on average it will detect the decay of a radioactive particle half the time and relay the results. If you delegate your decision to a causeless quantum effect... do you suddenly have free will?

By and large the quantum effect will average out, even at that level. And, if some quantum factors make real differences. But, it would be impossible to calculate any of it anyway. So you've proposed a very sketchy model to save an absurd religious doctrine and actually saved nothing. There is more theologically baggage to free will than simply a non-deterministic universe.

We don't know the results, and we don't know our choices before they make them. You could try to apply wave function collapse to decision or argue for quantum choice... but really, you're dressing nonsense is new language. We should perhaps let the data precede the results. Rather than take a theological doctrine and dress it up in 21st century words with sketchy reasoning, we should simply accept that we have the ability to make choices because we make choices.

Even if Quantum Effects bubble up to change our actions, does it really give us free will? Do causeless quantum phenomenon really give "us" the choice? Or does it rather suggest that part of our choice might just be random?
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by greendaybjalover 7 years ago
greendaybjalover
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Agent 8 years ago
Agent
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Agent_D 8 years ago
Agent_D
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kylevd 8 years ago
kylevd
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 8 years ago
GaryBacon
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 8 years ago
PreacherFred
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Lenfent 8 years ago
Lenfent
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 8 years ago
pazmusik
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DreamingBearcat 8 years ago
DreamingBearcat
FexHereTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03