It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's time to wake up!

page: 52
25
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

That post is just sad. I'm not asking for proof that free will doesn't exist and god has even less to do with it.

Has the neuroscience branch of the scientific community accepted the theory as valid?




posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

It was fun, with your last comment you proved that you are an atheistic missionary.

Free will exists. I strongly disagree.
Bye! There is just no way to have a rational discussion with you or itisnowagain.

Unicorns are real! FU!



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No, it cannot because the question of control cannot even be debated to begin with on some level. The same way we can't disprove god exists. Neuroscience is certain that all decision are made before conscious, therefore there is no room for free will. So based on the overwhelming evidence, yes they have accepted that there is no free will.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

So you were being dishonest when you said the scientific community agreed with you and it took you 5 posts to finally own up to it.

Again with the claim of evidence. The results you mentioned are not conclusive evidence about control. They might just be observations after the fact.

They describe two occurances which are not necessarily the source of the control so, the honest answer is still, we don't know.


edit on 24-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It wasn't the best term I could've used. But based on the evidence there can't possibly be any room for free will.

As I said with the god example. We can't prove a negative. There is no evidence for control, just like there is no evidence god exists, so you can say we don't know if you look at it like that.

I like to say god doesn't exist. Some just say we don't know.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

The background noise in our brains leaves plenty of room for free will! We just don't understand it, yet.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
It wasn't the best term I could've used. But based on the evidence there can't possibly be any room for free will.

Perfect example of an argument from ignorance.


I like to say god doesn't exist. Some just say we don't know.

I also say that god doesn't exist but I am not going to be dishonest and say that the scientific community says that god doesn't exist when I know that their stance is that, we don't know.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Any one honest in the scientific community can say god doesn't exist because there is no evidence. All say he doesn't exist.
With free will it's the same. We don't have any evidence for it, and there is no conceivable way of talking about it because it can't possibly make any sense.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Any one honest in the scientific community can say god doesn't exist because there is no evidence.

But the stance of the community doesn't have to match up with the personal beliefs of it's members. There are scientists that believe in god and those that don't but,that doesn't change the stance of the scientific community because, it is a position based on evidence and that stance is that there isn't enough evidence to say either way.

Not your contrived logic of "We don't have any evidence for it, and there is no conceivable way of talking about it because it can't possibly make any sense." That is just an excuse to push forth your opinion and make it sound like it is based on something valid.


edit on 24-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Can you imagine non existence? No you can't. Doing so would be inconceivable. it's just not possible. You can also see if you can make a decision free from any cause. But you always find that any decision you make is based on something motivating/influencing/causing it. It can't be based on nothing at all. Simple logic.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

Seems like you still don't understand what evidence is.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Evidence doesn't necessarily need to come from science. Some facts we can know without the help of science. So answer my question. is it conceivable to imagine non existence? Is it possible to make a choice without anything at all influencing it?
edit on 24-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

You're the one who said science agreed with you, again, and again, I showed that it doesn't.

Science also tries to verify observations so that your flawed logic isn't spread as truth, when it isn't.

If it was as easy to be certain as you have proposed throughout the thread then science would be behind you. The fact that it isn't says it all.

Your questions are nothing more than wordplay.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Science does back it up. Certain people that is, not all. But again let's say I am wrong. You are arguing we can't know that we don't have free will, I can say yes, we can.

Please answer the questions as they are based on simple logic. Is it possible to make a decision without absolutely any influence whatsoever?



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: daskakik

Science does back it up. Certain people that is, not all. But again let's say I am wrong. You are arguing we can't know that we don't have free will, I can say yes, we can.

Members of the scientific community are not "the scientific community". You still don't understand that?

I'm arguing that, to date, we don't know because, we don't know.


Please answer the questions as they are based on simple logic. Is it possible to make a decision without absolutely any influence whatsoever?

I will not answer because answering either way proves nothing.


edit on 24-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

But you said god doesn't exist. But now you say you don't know. Which one is true?



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
But you said god doesn't exist. But now you say you don't know. Which one is true?

Really, you can't differentiate between "I say" and "We say"?


ETA: "We" implying the information in the shared database of knowledge known as "science".
edit on 24-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It doesn't matter. I or we. Do you personally know for sure god doesn't exist?



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

I or we does matter when talking about science and evidence.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Yes it does but science isn't necessary to figure absolutely everything out. As I said, we cannot imagine non existence, this is a fact made without the help of science.

Without science, I also came to the conclusion god isn't real because something like that cannot possibly be coherent with our reality. You can stop at "we don't know" but that's not good enough.




top topics



 
25
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join