update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

Who is we & historical view of what?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Read it back, does tme progress per decision on alternatives in the future, or doesnt it.

read what back? Alternatives to what? What is this fortune telling?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Have you been able to find any evidence about anticpation that would be usefull to this discussion? I don't believe anyone here involved in this, myself included, has a clue about what you have been going on about. You state an opinion that alternatives are in the future, as proof that this theroy is true and consiquintly that creation is true because of it. Yet you have done nothing to show how anticipation theory works nor how it ties to creationism. You can't even demonstrate the one statement that you keep repeating(that alterantives are in the future) I could just as easily assert that alternatives are in the present, or that alternatives do not exist, or that any alternatives are merely in my mind and physically there is only the present. Your one linears are just not cutting the mustard. Please expand one your thoughts so that we can further this discussion.

I think it was demonstrated before in the thread that people simply do not read what I write, or don't remember it. So I think that goes a long way in explaining incomprehension.The direct experience of alternatives in the future should be sufficient evidence for them. And if that doesn't do it, well is there anything at all that could really be more convincing then that?That gives a time principle as explained before, of time progressing per decision on the alternatives. And that is sufficient for creationism, since creationism is based on the exactsame principle.Now some people say that decisions are only made in brains, well that could be true, it could also not be true, it is besides the point, the point here is that time progresses per decision on alternatives in the future.Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

If x then y, if y then x. I don't believe that is what I think Taz.What I think is that theory itself is by no means proof, and evidence itself is only the logical component which makes a theory viable. Now the evidence favouring the flood theory is that there is death in the fossils. There are no orderly transitionals, as far as I know - except for the order in the text books. The books will show an order, but that doesn't prove there is an order (simple to complex), because the majority of the rocks don't show what the textbooks show.

Sorry but that is not evidence for anything.
1. If an alternative does lie in the future how can you have a direct experience of it?
2. If I have a choice to make between left or right than both alternatives converge in the present so alternatives are both in the present and the future.
3. There is no way of proving that an unrealized alternative still exists (since you say that both alternatives are in the future than my decision would be unable to eliminate a non realized alternative.)
4. time pregression can be stated as a series of desicions in the present, with knowledge of past expeirences and without any alternatives in the future.
5. You never stated why this is sufficient for creationism or why this would prove creationism and not any other alternative. Why is this not sufficient for evolution. Evolution states that what we see today is a progression of realized decisions in the past.
6. You have never stated where this mysterious decision making power comes from if it is not internalized.
7.Even if all these unaswered and contradictory statements are incorrect, you still haven't answered the biggest question. So what? What does time pregression have anything at all to do with the equivication to creationism?
Please stop rehashing the whole left right thing and get down to the nitty gritty of it.

So I take that to mean you have no direct experience of alternatives in the future.

No I am asking for clarification. How can you have a direct experience of something that is in the future? My point being that inorder to directly eperience something you and it would have to occupy the same time. If I wanted to experience something that is in my future I have to wait till it and I occupy the same time frame, in which case it is no longer in the future but in the present. If I want to subjectively experience something in my future I could fathom probabilities but that boils down to best quess, since I can not predetermine all of the variables that lie on my course to this said future experience.

In my opinion that is irrellevant philosophizing. Its just a yes or no question, perfectly understandable untill you get into philosophical details. Its not neccesary to enter into such details, I dont have to explain every single last thing about decisions, neither do you have to explain every single thing about causes. We can use the words .is. and .future. and .alternative. and the word .and. without explaining every philosophical detail about it.So to identify deciding alternatives in the future in your experience, it is easiest to identify alternatives in the present and start searching from there. For example you might write down on 2 pieces of paper go left, or go right. These alternatives are in the present obviously, now from there search your experience if you can also find these alternatives in the future.

So my philosophizing on the assumption of your most basic premise is irrelevant. So long as it allows you to presuppose your assumption and then begin to establish your own philosophy of the ramificatios? With no proof that your most basic premise is correct? That is not very scientific or even logical. In fact it is a little to open minded. however since this is a free for all I will concede and allow you the benefit of the doubt, if for nothing more than to allow us to further the conversation. Decisions occuring in the present effect alternatives in the future.
However I would like you to expand on the other questions and points I raised in message 260.
Ok the ball is yours, philosophize away.

Ok, having established the alternatives in the future by evidence from direct experience, we now proceed with the logic of freedom that follows from it.As before, the first thing to notice is that we have a time principle, by decision on the alternatives time progresses.Accepting this time principle, we reject the time principle of relative motion, since we might explain motion with decision, but cannot explain decision with motion, and we dont want to accept a second time principle without similar direct evidence.The second thing to notice is that for freedom there must be no predertimination. Material predertermines, so to get freedom we start the decision from no material, or zero. This can also be easily established in direct experience, that we make decisions by goodness and badness etc. things which are not material.Are you still following this.

Are you sure you understand what relative motion is? Relevant motion states that I can toss a ball on a moving train and it will appear to me that the ball moved straight up and down. While another observer would state that the ball flew in an arc. Both observation are correct based on the relative motion of each observer. In other words the laws of physics do not break down for an object moving at constant velocity in reference to another object. There is plenty of direct evidence for relative motion. How does your time progression lead to a rejection of this principle of relativity? What and how does material predetermine? Also decisions are based on much more complex issues than god/ bad. If you are deciding on the quality or goodness/ badness of a said persons' behaivor you would have to judge them by any number of things. Some of which are material. Examples include that which was said/ done by them, appearence etc. etc.. All material things. Also as was stated before we have very reliable evidence that decisions are processed in the brain, which is very material. Or are you stating that this idea of goodness and badness just floats into your head from an unknown outside source?

Did you take the red pill or the blue pill Syamsu?Still waiting for an honest response to vitamin c in Message 101

Rejecting relative motion as a true time principle, does not mean to reject relative motion altogether. So that is mainly just a word issue. The direct experience showed an alternative going from the future to the now by decision, we can hardly avoid thinking of this as a time principle. Also what is good about this time principle is that by it time actually consists of something, namely the sequence of decisions. But what does time itself consist of by relative motion. It does not seem to consist of anything by that relative notion. So you see the superior creationist logic clarifies a lot.You have some notion from direct experience that decisions are at least partially based on non material things. You can then argue from ethics that if you mistakenly identify a material thing as deciding that you might violate the rule that science may not speak about what ought, and ought not. So the safe side of ethics demands that you tread with care in this area. Besides from that the logic does not work any other way. That material predetermines is evidenced in many materialist science theory which of themselves presuppose perfect predictability.