Each element has its own unique properties and these characteristics do not deviate - H2 will always behave the same as all other H2 in the same conditions.
This isn't true. When you boil water, the path that an individual molecule takes is random. If you were to follow one particular molecule's path, then "rewind time" and do it again, it would not follow the exact same path the second time.
If the mind is a cause, then it must be a quantifyable element of force that acts upon the fabric of all components within the universe.
Sounds like gibberish to me....did you just make that up?
What is an "element of force"? What is the "fabric of all components" within the universe? How does an element of force "act upon" this fabric? And what is between your "if" and "then" that makes you think it is quantifiable?
We are all aware of many different forces - the forces that physicists have discovered and analyzed.
If the mind is a free agent, or a force having the ability to create an effect, we should be able to observe where the mind has such influences.
The mind doesn't need to use any other forces than the fundamental four.
Perhaps the mind's domain is bounded within that realm of quantum fluctuations occurring within the matter that composes our physical bodies. If this is really the case, then we open the door to connecting a cause (the mind's choice) to an effect (the way biochemical reactions take place).
Or it could just be right here. We don't need to open the door, there's plenty of room here for the causes and effects of the mind.
Maybe we, as humans, possess the ability to manipulate the chemistry within our brains by way of influencing the probability of how or when a particular reaction occurs within the brain.
Or it really is just neurons firing.
But the catch-22 to this is trying to connect the mind to the body.
There's solutions to the problem on that page. You seem to be favoring the Dualist side...
That seems to be a little out of date though... Modern science, cognitive neuroscience, has pretty much figured it out, with the neuron doctrine, in that all these "problems" you're bringing up can be solved with just neurons firing.
If the mind "exists" within that layer of probability, or quantum fluctuation,
And if it doesn't, then its still all good.
then there must exist a bi-directional flow of influence... i.e., your mind cannot know what the body is doing unless it is receiving information from the body about what the current state of the environment is.
The mind and the body do pass info to and from one another.
If matter itself influences the "fabric" of this quantum field then we have a means to support this concept.... i.e., the body influences the mind, which influences the body, which influences the mind, and so on and so forth.
But if you realize that there are no non-fundamental forces at play in the mind, and that the Universe doesn't have to be deterministic, and that the functions of the mind are all just neurons firing, then your whole "problem" of finding a place for matter to influence itself vanishes.
Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man. -Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
This is a reply to Message 342 that is off-topic in that thread.
Of course the answer is that he did but the Fall did for all that. To introduce the concept of evil, God had to also introduce the evil itself in the form of a talking snake representing a previously fallen angel.
It's a very, very strange and silly idea isn't it?
Yes, The Fall being a real historical event is a silly idea. But I don't subscribe to it so it's not a part of this reply.
Freewill is a purely religious concept so you have to ask, why couldn't god have created a world without harm?
I think you're looking at it backwards, at least from my perspective. I'm a religious person, and I believe that we have free will. But that belief stems, not from a religious position, but from observations of the real world.
At face value, here in RL, I have the freedom to do whatever I'm willing and able to do. My will is free.
Where my religion comes into play, is trying to make sense of that fact with my relationship with God - how does what He's wants me to do square with my own desires and what I want to do?
What is backwards, to me, is going: "Religion says that we have free will, and that God is omnipotent, so why doesn't God make the world differently?"
We can speculate on why God does or does not do things all day long and not take a single step forward. It's pointless.
On the other hand, we could accept that we do seem to have free will in this world, and then we can discuss what that means if there is a God and it has certain characteristics.
So, given that we have free will, and that evil is allowed to exist, there must be something more important about enabling free will than there is about eliminating evil.
The question shouldn't be why isn't God different, it should be 'given what we know, what would this tell us about God?'
Obviously - well to me at least - this is a totally specious argument because we are simply another organism competing to survive - competing against each other as well as our environment so harm is inbuilt by biology. Evolution completely explains why we ae the way we are.
It doesn't answer the bigger question of: "Why is the way we are the way that things are?" Just sayin'
When we have these discussions it's almost a default position that having the ability to do harm (free will) is important, even necessary. Is it really?
Apparently it is. That's the way things seem to be. Whether or not there is another way is kinda beside anything we can actually determine.
We gotta play the hand we're dealt - I don't see the point in discussing whether or not we could have been dealt a different hand.
Is a world without evil so evil?
It's a necessity if you don't want to just be following protocols. Would you rather be a droid?
If it counted as knowledge then it wouldn't count as religion there's a reason we say it takes faith...
Pretty useless then,
For me, religion has been quite useful. My highly analytical and scientific mind utterly failed to meet my emotional needs. It was only after embracing my religion and seeking God's help that I was able to improve my mental health.
Finding God showed me the way to finding my self. Finding my self showed me my desires. Having the free will to fulfill those desires allows me the ability to provide my self with pleasure (non-sexual).
And that is the key to happiness
I'm not saying it's the only way, but it certainly worked for me - and that's not useless.
The fact is that we cant get along without the concept. Where would we be without personal responsibility?
What I find interesting is how the our jurisprudence works better as we appreciate that people are a product of their environment.
To make sense, there has to be more people than environments; and so what you do in your environment is what makes you you. People are a product with their environment, not of it. Our wills are, actually, free to operate within their boundaries. That we decide what we will actually do is what puts the onus of our actions upon ourselves. Without this, a lot of our framework could come crashing down. To disregard the concept of free will is a fool's folly.