That's the thing: we can't think of free will as arbitrary. That wouldn't be any kind of freedom or will at all. — NKBJ

I believe the key to thinking we have free will is to intentionally limit our understanding to some extent. This is a future case. I believe at some point in the future our ability to predict the future will be tremendously enhanced. Free will is the product of being ignorant of all the laws and notions that make reality real. Its like playing chess against a human opponent instead of Rybka. For Rybka to lose more often it designers would have to purposely limit its knowledge of the game of chess.

ok

we can see how things could exist with a first cause
- we cannot see how things could exist without a first cause — Devans99


I would use slightly different wording. I would say:

Understanding the true nature of the REALITY of existence could be as unattainable for humans...as understanding the relationship between The Milky Way Galaxy and M31.

That is not to say there are not ants somewhere in my backyard thinking..."I know the answers"...and trying to get its fellow ants to accept the truth of that. — Frank Apisa

there is truth to that but this is a forum where we argue and have the potential for atleast honing our own ideas or even learning new ideas. You clearly don't like his ideas on this forum topic. I don't see an end to this debate anytime soon.

Stop thinking of it as in investigation. Better to consider it an obsession, if you must name it.

Anyway, I admire your tenacity...even though I see it as especially misplaced here. — Frank Apisa

In alot of ways alot of ideas on this forum are a waste of time. We can't all be correct. This forum allows the potential for learning new things. I do enjoy arguing but i wasn't willing to at the very least hone my ideas then i'm not sure why i would be on this forum.

Does time still pass in this case? My understanding is that it does. I imagine a clock and next to it empty space. Time passes for the clock (in motion), but surely it must pass also for the empty space? — Devans99

Time would still pass but it would be impossible to measure in certain instances. If you accelerated the clock to the speed of light or had it approach the threshold of the speed of light (C) it would come to a complete stop (clock hands or digital clock). This effect has been shown to some degree on clocks on aircraft flying for days at a time (P-3). So time is measure relative to the particles that make up the time measuring devices. Without a clock you can have events that happen but you can't assess the length of time that those events occurred in relation to each other.

So he length of now might be some finite number, which would mean time is discrete? — Devans99

the way you phrased that is correct however if all objects are either motionless or if all objects or matter are moving at the same speed it is impossible to measure time due to Einstein's view of the universe. Time can't be measured if there is not disproportionate movement among particles. In other words in some cases time can only measured by events occuring but an accurate assessment of the measurement is impossible in the former case. Thats my understanding of special relativity atleast a part of it. I could go on with the rest of my understanding. This is taken from "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking.

What you said is definitely something everyone needs to vastly explore and not just listen to their high school teacher in regards to.

Except that the education model we practice today was conceived in ancient Greece as a way to manipulate young impressionable minds, turn them into copies of a master intellect, copies which would in turn repeat this practice. It was specified that only the affluent should be involved in the process, and there wasn't much variance for quite some time.

I'm not talking about opportunity for the individual, I'm talking about progress for the society, I'm talking about diversity of intellectual resources. Philosophy from its beginning was overtly aimed at educating the elite, there are written records of it, there's nothing absurd in what I've said. The model still exists today.

We have written records of educated men from affluent families, that's what we have. Again, I'm not talking about personal circumstances, and I'm not talking about individual opportunities. I'm talking about stunting overall intellectual progress by limiting the pool from which it's drawn by intentionally leaving the majority of people in ignorance for the sake of governance.

Throughout history, the educated have been the master, the uneducated have been the slave. This relationship works in some ways, but there are other ways it has caused major setbacks for our species.

And yes, Aristotle and those before and after him did precisely what you're saying they didn't do. Education began with the notion of "philosopher kings", a concept of creating an educated ruling class to control an uneducated servant class. By the time Kant came around, who was also from an affluent family, the concept had been fixed firmly in place.

To this day, education, especially "higher education", is unavailable to countless people. My point is not that this was "unfair", but that it was inefficient. — whollyrolling

i think there is alot of truth to this. But to be fair there are alot of federal programs such as FAFSA and Affirmative action in the US that make an attempt to narrow the gap.

thats fair.

I’m open minded. Go ahead. If you’re scared of posting here though then you’ve lost already I think?

Of course some people will wish to frame you as X or Y rather than deal with your points though. I prefer points made and opinions expressed as succinctly as possible. My comment was neither an attack or defense of anything you’ve said. I merely pointed out how anyone, me, you or Anaxagoras can easily enough - purposefully or not - present stats that suit our views. I look for stats both for and against and assume they are only part of the full story. I’m more interested in the term used (hence my comment about the ‘white terrorist’ as opposed to ‘black terrorist’ or ‘asian terrorists’? Point being I find it typical of the kind of rhetoric flying around today and it lacks any clear definition because being from a country, speaking a certain language and/or having a particular skin tone don’t in any way convey a particular ideological position - although admittedly the country you grow up in does often represent some loose ideas upon which you venture out into the wider intellectual world if you so wish to.

Note: I was not disagreeing with anything you said merely offering the sort of counter argument I have seen from others in regards to the use of stats - when it suits them it’s fine, when it disputes some stance they hold too (consciously or otherwise) they are all too ready to question the source. I’m not omitting myself from this because I have erred before and will again; just hopefully less so than in the past :) — I like sushi

I’m open minded. Go ahead. If you’re scared of posting here though then you’ve lost already I think?

You probably are open minded. But the fate of western civilization doesn't depend on me making a great post on a forum. Are you willing to do a search on just how many countries on this earth that are already essentially Islamic theocracies? Are you familiar with the Ottoman empire? Are you familiar with Sharia law? I could go on and on but i like being on this forum. At this point in time i don't want to be accUsed of being a troll or a bigot.

For balance it is worth questioning the — I like sushi

for the post labeled the above there is alot i could say to that. There is a tremendous undertone of political correctness on forums such as this and across much of social media. I'll avoid a confrontation right now do to that. You responded to my statistics. There is alot more i could say about those statistics but i'll refrain from that right now. If you are interested in hearing my opinion on this touchy subject you can send me a private message. I don't want to be accused (keyword is accused) of being a troll or a bigot as people of my background very often are on sites such as this. I don't expect you to send me a private message but i did offer.

You even addressed in that long statement that there are supposedly more people apprehended in this country for possible (keyword possible) terror acts (not actually carrying them out). This proves my point right there. And this assumes your article is right in the first place. Heres the article i'm going to put forward.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-fatalities-by-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/

"The statistic shows the number of deaths due to terrorism worldwide between 2006 and 2017.
18,753 people were killed by terrorists in 2017. The number of terrorist attacks worldwide declined between 2006 and 2017. In 2006, about 14,371 terrorist attacks were counted, while in 2017, 18,753 terrorist attacks were counted. "

http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/

Study Says White Extremists Have Killed More Americans in the U.S. Than Jihadists Since 9/11

"They found that 48 people were killed by white terrorists, while 26 were killed by radical Islamists, since (keyword since) Sept. 11."

Please Please Please analyze the two quotes above carefully. White terrorists are cowards 99 out of a 100 times that being said over 10,000 deaths is a much larger number than 100. Please don't try to twist these two articles against me. Jihadists and white nationalists are a huge problem. Nationalism is a good thing to some extent or atleast can be at times.

I love the correction. I wonder why some of you are so busy correcting members on online discussion boards when you could be taking professorships at esteemed universities. But yes I did mean:

" Because more people are still dying or by domestic terrorist than international? — Anaxagoras

Sounds like your a liberal elite. I like liberals quite often but the liberal elite are the real problem.

"Because more people are still dying by domestic terrorist than international?"

No way. People are killed in Israel all the time by terrorists. People are killed and maimed all through out europe by terrorists all the time and in the United States most people are murdered due to domestic crimes or gang warfare. Try again. You are seriously delusional.

Because people are still dying by domestic terrorist than international. — Anaxagoras

did you mean " Because more people are still dying or by domestic terrorist than international?

or

Because people are still dying by domestic terrorist than international. — Anaxagoras

And I did. Address my explanation or pipe down. — S

I've got stuff to do. I'll pipe down. Sorry. lol. Have a good day.

Even though the OP's argument seems valid. Without further evidence and considering people miss information all the time, at this point in time it is just an axiom or brainstorming idea at best.

f you don't believe that an arrow in flight must be motionless, then why do you believe that there must be a first cause?

Looks like the same kind of logic to me. — S

this was a straw man argument to begin with. he asked you to explain yourself.

One last thing, Christian...

...and this is "off-topic" also...

...you sound like a sock puppet for Devans.

Are you? — Frank Apisa

No but i am a member of this forum that agrees with some people on some issues and not some issues with other people.

Please don't pretend you're adding to a conversation. All you're doing is trying to shut down feedback you don't want to hear and talking about ants and apes and imagining there was ever a time in recorded history, or prior to it, that religion didn't exist in some form. — whollyrolling

You were the one who brought up religion. I said over and over that had nothing to do with OP. If you want to talk about the dangers of religion (i said this several times) start another Topic and i'll respond if you like. I said this many times. You didn't like my answer.

Until some future point in time yes you are correct this is my forum topic. I'll be waiting possibly forever. lol

Nice!

i answered the question that had nothing to do with the OP and you didn't like the answer even though i kept saying it had nothing to do with the OP

and you've chosen to focus primarily on that aspect of my commentary. — whollyrolling

just stop.

How can God be non-material if God doesn't exist, and how can you begin a discussion by assuming that God exists if there's no foundation for the claim? My commentary is directly related to the topic. The OP has begun by assuming that God exists, which implies that it doesn't, and I'm arguing that it's a contradictory, self-defeating and unproductive position. The existence of God has to be demonstrated in order to discuss its properties. — whollyrolling

i disagree. The OP is presenting the idea that what we view as a god or supernatural might not be magical nor supernatural at all. I said something to this effect in a previous post on this OP topic. The OP explains that this god might not be a god as classically defined but a creature with extra (read geometric) dimensional characteristics.

What are you talking about, being a troll? You're off topic and brushing my commentary aside without even considering it. It's not off topic. Try to be a little more open minded. — whollyrolling

read the OP and try to tell me that. Now i'll answer the question now that your pushing me.

A good book to read on this is Noah Harrari's "Sapien"

Before the common era CE or AD there were many religions just as there are now. Religion might be a human construct as dictated in the above book i mentioned. Ants kill other Ants. There is even an Ant species that captures other ants and enslaves them for labor. In some cases the second species of ants will revolt against the captor ant. I know your going to ask me for sources for that ant example but this is off topic so i'm not going to find the source. Send me a private message for a source.

Apes kill other ape tribes and as far as we know they have no religion. Religion has allowed for more efficient wars in terms of murdering massive amounts of people but people have been killing each other far be before the known world empires. The Roman empire for example brought writing to alot of areas so that these areas could record how they murder each other. I'm not a fan of the Roman empire. and on and on and on.

Read the above book or leave me alone on this particular forum topic about the dangers of religion

as i said over and over we are off topic.

I'm not talking only about violence, and it's not the main focus of my comment, just a portion. It's a relevant portion because belief in the supernatural has been used to justify atrocity more than it's been used to promote benevolence, and it's acted as a catalyst for rage among differing cultures. I'm talking about a species wasting time chasing invisible friends and carving statues that combine animals and humans and scary-face folk art instead of making ethical and intellectual progress. — whollyrolling

ok. I disagree. Thats off topic. Post another topic about that subject and stop being a troll today.

'm on topic, and I didn't refer to a specific historical instance. Maybe you could elaborate on that, I'm not sure what you feel is inaccurate. — whollyrolling

i'm not getting into that. Start another topic and i'll reply to that topic on religion and it's role in world violence.

this is not historically accurate. we're getting off topic.

That is not what physicists say. You would be able to know how fast you are travelling by measuring how long it takes to reach a star or planet of known distance. Your clock would be ticking away normally as far as you are concerned. What physicists say is that all the laws of physics look the same to you regardless of how fast you are travelling. So you would not know how fast you are travelling by looking for anomalies - there would be none. -Kippo

tests have been shown in airplanes traveling for several days (P-3) that the clocks slow down or tell time slower than the clock on the earth's surface. This is due to each particle within the clock (each particle has a x vector, y vector, z vector) has vectors and when you combine the 3 vectors the sum can never exceed C (speed of light). When you increase the clock in one direction (at higher speeds over a long period time for analysis purposes) you are slowing each particle down in one or two of it's other vectors. The net result is the clock loses its ability to accurately tell time. A good book on this is "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking. Alot of Physicists write bad books, this is not the case with that book.

I looked up Noosphere on wikipedia. I would have to study that essay for about a day to understand it. My definition was based on various people who believed in new age things, who have described similar things over the years.

Every argument for the existence of the supernatural begins with an assumption that it exists. The argument fails before it reaches an explanation. — whollyrolling

i guess he was saying this creature or entity isn't really supernatural but is in fact a phenomenon that can be explained through advanced geometry and other fields of math and science.

Is the OP's question even answerable? — YuZhonglu

thats a good question. The OP does point to the fact that how we percieve our world could be a reflection on the time in history that we live in and....

The OP would have to go into tremendously more detail to get his/her point across.

but were off topic from the OP

yeah i should have used the word extend instead of transcend for the sake of argument. You are correct. As far as alot of things in modern science as well as in religion too, yes alot things don't make sense. I gave you a definition of Collective Soul because you didn't want a hyperlink.

Collective Soul:

The notion that even though we each testify to different things ultimately we are all many voices inside one being that transcends the whole universe. I believe if explained a certain way that this can be attributed to any religion. Its like a world wide web but is usually given an eternal like aspect. There are many variations and sub variations on this concept.

i'll pull up a definition of collective consceince and we'll use that as the definition of god for this OP until the OP clarifies this

Ok. Goes like this. Let's say Person A provides an answer to his question. "God is material because of X or Y reason."

But if Person A is talking about a different God than the OP, doesn't that mean he didn't actually answer the OP's question? 'Cuz what the OP is asking for is whether HIS concept of God is material or not. — YuZhonglu

i don't feel i should have to explain this in relation to the OP but:
the OP is saying god could fit just about any basic model given in religions of the world. From collective consceince ranging all the way to Allah or Jehohah. But he is refering to something that has the ability to make decisions or that thinks it can make decisions. Collective conscience falls under those criteria it just is a concept that is not quickly articulated.

So that means when he talks about God, and when you talk about God, and when I talk about God, we're each talking about a different God. Right? — YuZhonglu

sure. What does that have to do with the OP.

Oh don' t bother. As it happens my math is better than yours. — YuZhonglu

Prove it.

But my senses are different from yours. Doesn't this mean I would define matter and material differently than you? -YuZhonglu

To some measure yes. Each person's experiences greatly shapes the decisions they make and their notions of what is true.

No, it's quite relevant to the conversation. He has some concept of God. I have some concept of God. To what extent are our concepts "same?"

Perhaps the reason people can't agree on anything in these discussions is that each person is talking about a different 'God.' — YuZhonglu

I doubt it. I think its a lack of understanding of advanced geometry and even a lack of understanding of chemistry and physics. We should start with Newtonian physics and move up.

Matter and material is only defined by our senses. When we say we exist in a space/time universe that is a scientific term bases on our senses. The OP is implying there might be things our senses don't know how to accurately or correctly interpret. Feel, taste, touch and so on.