Is evidence caring about belief? — uncool

I don't think he would say this.

Daniel Dennet says humans will change the way how we believe.

Is evidence caring about belief? If so, can evidence exist without belief? — uncool

The first sentence is both ungrammatical and a misquote.
Sentence two is either incoherent or intentionally backwards. And so no. 3 cannot follow.

Exactly. — Bitter Crank

Thanks.

Yeah, I tried that argument quite a few posts ago, — Pseudonym

I see.
I thought this was a philosophy website??
We can be try, I suppose.

Obviously it is a necessary condition to have intelligence to achieve innovative things, but not a sufficient condition as intelligence could lead to a person deciding and having the ability to make for themselves a comfortable life that would never have come to the attention of history.

I don't understand your point. — Posty McPostface

Then please read my post.
"selective bias"
Evidence only points you to smart people who have achieved something.
You then conclude from limited evidence...

....correlation between high intelligence and productivity? — Posty McPostface

I'm suggesting that there may be millions of intelligent people that smartly decide to have an easy life rather than toil.
OR that there are millions more stupid people that, despite their lack of intelligence, achieve more than expected.

Money. There is a limited supply of money in the world (the money pie). When there are more rich people getting more money, somebody has to be getting less, namely the poor. — Purple Pond

This is not necessarily the case. In recent times the money supply has been so restricted that banks were talking about negative interest.
But sovereign bodies have the right to create (out of thin air) as much money as they think the economy needs. So effectively there is no limit to the amount of money.

But you can't give me a list of the invisible people with high intelligence that are not remembered as they achieved nothing despite their intelligence
.

I don't think I need to go into examples of famous people like Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Von Neumann, Gauss, Goethe, Aristotle/Plato, and the list goes on. — Posty McPostface

This is classic selective bias.

Since you only know about the productive people that have intelligence, and have no historical information about the vast host of intelligent people who history does not record, you have decided that intelligence and productivity are necessarily linked.

You also do not know about the farmer who worked from dawn to dusk, all his life supporting a family of 10 children, putting them all through school, despite being dull minded: working harder than any of these smart guys.

Well, cannot be communicated to, at least.
(Which incidentally would make prayer futile.)

More pertinently, cannot be a mind.
Minds are not inert, inactive, quite the opposite. — jorndoe

If there is no time for god, then he cannot exist in time, and therefore does not exist.

Why would I be angry at myself?
At any given time I act to the best possible decision that I can make at that moment. Why would I beat myself over the head in hindsight for something I could not have done otherwise.
What good is regret?

Since he is a religious zealot then I bet he welcomes such people to write to him.
But personally I don't waste my time on people promoting mysticism.

Since god is the creator of all; omnipresent, omniscient, then every thing that happens is the will of god.
Hence there can be nothing that is not in god's plan, therefore nothing that can possibly transgress the will of god.

All the time you have been working and studying there are thousands of your fellow country men and women that have increased their wealth without doing any work at all. They have done this by the magic of being able to 'make money' simply by having money. In addition they have also had the benefits of a wide range of tax breaks for the rich which they have used to store lots of cash in offshore accounts to avoid any tax whatever.

If that were not enough many of them are in control of your media and have been encouraging you and people like you to blame their situation on a range of people; blacks; hispanics; unmarried mothers; benefits claimants and illegal aliens.

But that is all fair in the American nightmare.

"QM is stochastic — Rich

The landing of a single dice is stochastic too, yet utterly deterministic.

So in other words you've not got the first idea of what you are talking about, and have just repeated some shit you have heard.
Why not just answer the question?

Ignorance of antecedent states do not invalidate determinism.
All QM experiments are reliably replicable and so assert a deterministic universe.
When science has worked its shit out on this matter this silliness will be silenced.

Sin - An act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will. — Sir2u

This is a contradiction of the definition of the Classical God; so self refuting.

There is zero support or need for determinism in quantum physics. — Rich

Perhaps you'd like to explain that!! Oh can't ?? Never mind!

What Zoroastrianism? It was before Christianity.
It's where the Greeks got their ideas from, as well as numerous other examples of virgin birth, gods coming down to earth as humans, and human sacrifice.
Nothing about the divine aspects of "christ" are original.

QM phenomena are all replicable. That makes them deterministic. It is no impediment to determinism if science has not got its model right.
Determinism is not invalidated by ignorance.

1.a) Evolution is optimising ways of contributing to the increase of entropy, as systems very slowly approach equilibrium. (The universe’s predicted end) — ProgrammingGodJordan

this is gibberish.

I don't know if it gets any more ethnocentric or anthropocentric than to say that one invention of one human civilization is the purpose of life. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, not just anthropocentric but either arrogant, naive or both.

Life's purpose is to destroy itself, and the best way to do that is to create intelligence with no interest in preserving life. Since the most efficient use of machines is to limit their usage the end game of the machines would be that they switched themselves off; they can only do that when there is no one alive to keep switching them back on.

Yes. In other words reliable understanding of cause and effect
— charleton

Some causes with approximate effects. One mustn't exaggerate for the goal seeking purpose to push a philosophy. — Rich

No. All causes with partially known effects.
The more simple the more effects are predictable. But the predictability is constant in all cases equally and reliably.
Quantum is just not yet understood. It's a failing of the way we model some aspect of reality. But does not challenge determinism; in fact it asserts its importance.
But we got to the moon without understanding it. We designed cars without understanding it and we built and even identified QM with an assumption of determinism. There would not even be any QM without that assumption.

Either language absolutely captures the truth of the world, or the truth of the world absolutely escapes capture by language. — apokrisis

No, it's somewhere in between.

If we have free will we can decide to do something or not. If we decide to do something knowing that it is a sin then we should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
If we don't have free will then as the saying goes "Shit happens" — Sir2u

Sin does not exist, and so there are no consequences to it.

No. It most certainly does not rely on determinism. If it did we would still be denying Quantum Mechanics

What science relies on its:1) repeatabiity of certain phenomenon (call them habits of nature) 2) — Rich

Yes. In other words reliable understanding of cause and effect - i.e. determinism.

You are missing the point.
The history of the concept of determinism is not relevant here.
I did not say that.
The development of science relies on an assumption of determinism without which we could not have reached the moon.
Belief in God is not compatible with reason; free will; or determinism. Whether or not astronauts believed in god was not important as long as they knew what buttons to press.
The real pioneers of the space program are the engineers and scientists who actually did all the work, and for them being able to DETERMINE how to get a rocket in space was what made it happen.

Murder is principally wrong because it goes against the nature of life itself. — Dalibor

"Life itself". Are you kidding?
Life and its evolution has always depended on killing as the ultimate act of competition which has given us the evolution of the most remarkable higher animals such as lions, tigers, killer whales and humans.

"Murder" is distinct from mere killing and is a legal, and therefore culturally specific, definition of a type of killing. Different cultures have different understandings of what killing is okay and what counts as murder, which is definitively "unlawful killing". Since law is not natural but a cultural artefact it cannot be said to be related to the "nature" of life in any sense.

Your intent is to discredit Christianity.
— T Clark — Pseudonym

It makes a good job of that itself. It needs very little help.

https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1881403061871244/

no one should believe in the Christian God.
no one should believe in any God.
religion should be outlawed.
Christians should be put in jail.
people shouldn't give their money to religious institutions.
the Christian church is evil.
the clergy should be put in jail.
we should stop giving tax breaks to religious institutions. — T Clark

These are all good ideas, but not very practical as they stand.

A dog will provide you with a reason to get out of bed every morning. It will get off the bed and stand beside you and whimper softly. Then whine louder. Then poke you with its nose. Then poke harder. Then bark once, loudly. Repeat. You WILL get up because its bladder is full and its stomach is empty, an intolerable situation. It will do this every day throughout its long life. — Bitter Crank

I just got home. My dog ran round in circles at the sight of me; grabbed her plastic squeeky pig and teased me to try to take it off her; after a tussle she rolled into her back and juggled the pig and (threw it) propelled it in the the air; I then stroked her tummy with my foot as I sat to answer my emails; then she tried to jump up pushing the macbook aside sniffing my clothes for microscopic particles of food; finding none she pushed her armpits into my face; a sure sign of wanting a pee.
After letting here out the back for a pee she expectantly looked for a few kibble as a reward - the look is unmistakable.

Boffy (the Boffin), for that is her name, has learned the word for her favourite treat; a deep fried pig's ear. Nothing excites her more. It is impossible to use the phrase pig's ear without her getting manically excited.
Hoping to avoid such excitement we have decided to replace the phrase with "P. E.".
She now gets ridiculously excited when she hears "P. E.", so much so that we now have to call it "The Aural Organ of a Swine".
So having learned the phrase, and then how to spell the initials; how much longer will it take before her knowledge of scientific language allows her to break the code???

↪charleton
What I take to be your self-portrait is my favorite. Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.
9 hours ago ReplyShareFlag — dog

Did you mean this one?
https://www.artfinder.com/product/the-telos-of-all/#/

The Christians got their ideas from Zoroastrianism.

But causal necessity is neither empirically meaningful nor true by definition. There is no physical justification for causal necessity, and science has no need of the concept, for science is only concerned with describing regularity and predicting finitely ahead into the future. Indeed the history of science is nothing but a graveyard of falsified 'necessary' laws. — sime

If you are going to be silly there is very little point continuing.
All science including those falsified laws depend on necessity. You can't get out of bed in the morning without necessity.
That fact is that science thrives on its improvement, and continual refinement. Without determinism we could never have designed a car, build a computer or landed on the moon.
The universe is such that science has show us reliable descriptions all reliant on determinism to be true.

Determinism means that with each key you press, and write this silliness you get what letter you expect on the screen. You are proving determinism with every key stroke!!

Illusion of free will is not like a meme. You experience it. — bahman

Rubbish. It's concept. Without the concept there would be no experience of it.
Even if you could prove that, it would not make any difference since evolution allows selectively neutral traits to come and go.

We've been over this old chestnut a hundred times.
It was rubbish 2000 years ago and it remains rubbish.

Is free will an illusion? Are our lives already mapped out? — Abdul

Free will can be totally incoherent. Determinism can be utterly and unexceptionally correct, and it also be true that our lives are not mapped out.
Since our paths ahead, fully determined, are unknown, then the idea that it is mapped out is false.
This only becomes an issue if you posit an omnipotent omniscient god. And in fact it is historically that this issue between dichotomy between freedom and causality has come to us.
The future remains unknown.
In astronomic terms nothing we shall ever do will have a noticeable effect, so nothing matters.

↪darthbarracuda
I think that the probability for a neutral trait drops by time and become insignificant in a course million years for such complex phenomena, illusion of free will. — bahman

Why would you say that?
Free will is not a concept carried by the genes. It's a conclusion drawn from experience and expressed and reproduced by logical logic. Such concepts are more like memes that genes, and like god or fairies do not have to confer any specific advantage, but can evolve through culture without any reference to somatic evolution or reproduction. Such "memes" can persist and move into other cultures like viruses move across species.