moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1600275:date=Jan 19 2007, 09:31 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jan 19 2007, 09:31 PM) [snapback]1600275[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> i can define a turing machine inside a (very complex) finite state machine. i can't do the reverse. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not true. Turing machines by definition have an infinite read/write tape. There is no way of defining that inside of a machine with a finite number of states. A finite state machine is just a Turing machine without a read/write tape.
In fact, there is no computation in the universe that we know of that a Turing machine cannot in principle duplicate. Finite state machines can't do very simple things like determining whether parentheses match. In fact, finite state machines are exactly as expressive as classical regular expressions.
what if i define input as external stimuli and output as a reaction to the stimuli based upon the current state of the machine. also:
<!--QuoteBegin-Wikipedia. It must be true!+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wikipedia. It must be true!)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A nutshell formal description of a "Turing machine":
"A Turing machine is a <b>finite-state machine</b> associated with an external storage or memory medium." (Minsky (1967) p. 117)
"A Turing machine is essentially a <b>finite-state sequential machine</b> that has the ability to communicate with an external store of information"(Booth (1967), p. 354) <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1600440:date=Jan 20 2007, 05:07 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jan 20 2007, 05:07 PM) [snapback]1600440[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> what if i define input as external stimuli and output as a reaction to the stimuli based upon the current state of the machine. also: <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you can read back in what you write, then that is a Turing machine. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> A nutshell formal description of a "Turing machine":
"A Turing machine is a finite-state machine associated with an external storage or memory medium." (Minsky (1967) p. 117)
"A Turing machine is essentially a finite-state sequential machine that has the ability to communicate with an external store of information"(Booth (1967), p. 354)
then where's the disagreement? input and output are not part of the machine and don't have to be defined, we only need to have a state for turing operation and a set of substates to allow turing-mode processing
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1600478:date=Jan 20 2007, 07:55 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jan 20 2007, 07:55 PM) [snapback]1600478[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> then where's the disagreement? input and output are not part of the machine and don't have to be defined, we only need to have a state for turing operation and a set of substates to allow turing-mode processing <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The definition of a finite state machine includes the fact that it can't write. That's what makes it different from a turing machine.
from NIST: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Definition: A model of computation consisting of a set of states, a start state, an input alphabet, and a transition function that maps input symbols and current states to a next state. Computation begins in the start state with an input string. It changes to new states depending on the transition function. There are many variants, for instance, machines having actions (outputs) associated with transitions (Mealy machine) or states (Moore machine), multiple start states, transitions conditioned on no input symbol (a null) or more than one transition for a given symbol and state (nondeterministic finite state machine), one or more states designated as accepting states (recognizer), etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i don't see "not allowed to produce output" anywhere
what stops me from using one or more of the states to produce human or machine-readable output?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited January 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1600506:date=Jan 20 2007, 09:47 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jan 20 2007, 09:47 PM) [snapback]1600506[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> from NIST: i don't see "not allowed to produce output" anywhere
what stops me from using one or more of the states to produce human or machine-readable output? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It can't read its own output. It's input is disjoint from its output.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1600931:date=Jan 22 2007, 12:59 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jan 22 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]1600931[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> mechanical states to produce output and and mechanical states to read input. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here, read this tutorial on the limitations of finite state machines, and the languages that they cannot recognize. <a href="http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~derek/APPSandIMPS/fsms.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~derek/APPSandIMPS/fsms.pdf</a>
As I read that, it seems that a Finite State Machine cannot use its own Output as Input for a future transition. This does not prevent it from storing information, but does mandate that all stored information be stored in the choice of State. This means the storage capacity is inherently limited by the finite number of states available, making a FSM incapable of processing arbitrarily large amounts of data that exceed its available storage.
From the way you've been talking, it seems that Turing Machines <i>can</i> process arbitrarily large amounts of data. Does this suggest that humans are not, in fact, Turing Machines, since we have limited data storage capacity?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1601349:date=Jan 24 2007, 02:09 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Jan 24 2007, 02:09 AM) [snapback]1601349[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> From the way you've been talking, it seems that Turing Machines <i>can</i> process arbitrarily large amounts of data. Does this suggest that humans are not, in fact, Turing Machines, since we have limited data storage capacity? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The general argument is that humans can read and write, and in particular, they can read what they write. It's pretty straightforward if you have the patience to step through the operations of a Turing machine and simulate it yourself, so it's clear that ignoring the physical constraints of running out of paper, we have at least the computational complexity of a Turing machine.
The interesting thing I think is that no one has ever found a model of computation in the physical world that is more powerful than a Turing machine. (Note that by "more powerful" I mean that for A to be more powerful than B, there must be something A can compute that B cannot. This says nothing about the time it might take A or B to perform it, except that the running times must be bounded.) There are purely theoretical models of computation that are more powerful than a Turing machine, but the ones I'm familiar with require you to be able to compute with real numbers, and it's an open problem of whether anything like that can physically exist. It has been shown that certain abstractions of quantum physics are no more powerful than a Turing machine. In general, the term "computable" is defined to mean something that is computable by a Turing machine.
<!--quoteo(post=1600067:date=Jan 19 2007, 04:35 AM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Jan 19 2007, 04:35 AM) [snapback]1600067[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That strikes me as a rather, well, useless version of free will. What is it good for if you can't alter the future? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's all a matter of perspective. Why be depressed that you can't change the future when you don't know the future to begin with? You can make choices, and the culmination of those choices are the future.
<!--quoteo(post=1598256:date=Jan 13 2007, 01:18 AM:name=DarkATi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi @ Jan 13 2007, 01:18 AM) [snapback]1598256[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think free will is the only way to go. We are where we are in life today because of the decisions we have made. We have to take ownership over our lives as humans. The idea that we can't help ourselves is devastating to human morality, responsibility and accountability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your first sentences miss the entire point. You can't just throw away determinism because 'we make decisions!'
And describing what might potentially happen if determinism is true has absolutely nothing to do with it actually being true or not.
I think that free will vs determinism is very tough. It seems right now that determinism should win, but I think it is definitely possible that some unknown emergent factor of intelligence lets us get out of that mess. Who knows!?
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
Our intelligence was predetermined and worked its way out over the thousands and thousands of years of evolution. Our intelligent acts at any point are also predetermined by factors that lead us to interpret events in a particular way and to respond in a particular predetermined way.
<!--quoteo(post=1602058:date=Jan 26 2007, 06:31 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Jan 26 2007, 06:31 PM) [snapback]1602058[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Your first sentences miss the entire point. You can't just throw away determinism because 'we make decisions!'
And describing what might potentially happen if determinism is true has absolutely nothing to do with it actually being true or not.
I think that free will vs determinism is very tough. It seems right now that determinism should win, but I think it is definitely possible that some unknown emergent factor of intelligence lets us get out of that mess. Who knows!? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's as simple as this for me:
<!--QuoteBegin-Deuteronomy 30:19+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Deuteronomy 30:19)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now <b>choose</b> life, so that you and your children may live<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Bible and the Bible says we have choices to make. I believe this is truth, and in so doing I also believe that it is true whether you believe it to be true or not.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And describing what might potentially happen if determinism is true has absolutely nothing to do with it actually being true or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I happen to totally agree with this concept. I believe in absolute truth and I believe that absolute truth never changes regardless of how accepting we are of it. I believe the Bible is absolute truth.
so you believe that the bible is the absolute truth and that god has set everything in motion and that god knows what will happen and all that jazz.
if god knows what will happen then he knows what you will do and your "choices" are predetermined. if you have true freedom over your actions then god does not know what you will do and is unable to see the future and is not omnipotent.
p.s.: this post is a reaction to your post generated by my current state (partially aggressive) and the content is generated by a combining and contextualizing content taken from various discussions, lectures and various other sources. i am a deterministic device.
<!--quoteo(post=1602315:date=Jan 27 2007, 11:41 PM:name=DarkATi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi @ Jan 27 2007, 11:41 PM) [snapback]1602315[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe the Bible and the Bible says we have choices to make. I believe this is truth, and in so doing I also believe that it is true whether you believe it to be true or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, so obviously this is a derail, but: What good reasons do you have for believing the bible? Show me some evidence, tell me why I should believe. I don't think that basing any real decisions on faith is a good thing to do.
I think you're missing out on real thinking when you use a very old text that was written by people who knew very much less than we currently do about the universe to make your decisions. You say it was written by God? Show me why I should believe that.
<!--quoteo(post=1602563:date=Jan 28 2007, 10:36 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 28 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]1602563[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You don't need reasons for believing in the Bible. You can simply choose to believe. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1602563:date=Jan 29 2007, 01:36 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 29 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]1602563[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You don't need reasons for believing in the Bible. You can simply choose to believe. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah you can do that, and it's widely accepted that that's a good thing to do, but it's not obvious to me why that's the case. Why can't you accept the Koran with no reason? With no reasons how do you choose which one?
Even though lots of people believe what you said I don't think it can be true about anything.
edit: <a href="http://hometown.aol.com/toexist/ltn09.html" target="_blank">http://hometown.aol.com/toexist/ltn09.html</a> Why it might be bad to believe things with no reason.
I seem to vaguely recall that I once thought about the conflict between omnipotence and free will. I guess the only thing certain is that an omnipotent being would know whether there's free will or not. But would an omnipotent being have free will?
<!--quoteo(post=1602573:date=Jan 29 2007, 12:22 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Jan 29 2007, 12:22 AM) [snapback]1602573[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yeah you can do that, and it's widely accepted that that's a good thing to do, but it's not obvious to me why that's the case. Why can't you accept the Koran with no reason? With no reasons how do you choose which one?
Even though lots of people believe what you said I don't think it can be true about anything. edit: <a href="http://hometown.aol.com/toexist/ltn09.html" target="_blank">http://hometown.aol.com/toexist/ltn09.html</a> Why it might be bad to believe things with no reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know how to make it any simpler. You simply choose to. Why are you not a Muslim or a Jew? You did not choose to.
<!--quoteo(post=1602749:date=Jan 29 2007, 09:41 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 29 2007, 09:41 PM) [snapback]1602749[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I don't know how to make it any simpler. You simply choose to. Why are you not a Muslim or a Jew? You did not choose to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why am I not a Muslim or Jew? Because after using my brain, and looking at the evidence, I have decided that there is no god, and this goes for the Muslim and Jew god just as it goes for the Christian god. So I ask you again: Do you have any good reasons to believe? For everything in your life you need a reason to believe something, but I guess you don't need a reason to believe Christianity? It's pathetic special pleading that's only accepted because of societal norms.
i motion for the creation of a derailment thread and present:
a) god knows the future, therefore you follow the path he has set and are on rails. b) you control the future, god doesn't know what's going to happen and is not omnipotent. select one.
I could say I believe the Koran because I find truth to it, OR because I don't find truth to it. But in both of those cases, I would believe because I chose to. My choice is not linked with the image of reason.
<!--quoteo(post=1602808:date=Jan 30 2007, 08:54 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 30 2007, 08:54 AM) [snapback]1602808[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I believe because I choose to believe.
I could say I believe the Koran because I find truth to it, OR because I don't find truth to it. But in both of those cases, I would believe because I chose to. My choice is not linked with the image of reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But why believe in the first place?
You don't wake up and think "I think today I'll believe... that I have 3 testicles!" because it's ###### stupid.
<!--quoteo(post=1602794:date=Jan 30 2007, 12:58 AM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jan 30 2007, 12:58 AM) [snapback]1602794[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> i motion for the creation of a derailment thread and present:
a) god knows the future, therefore you follow the path he has set and are on rails. b) you control the future, god doesn't know what's going to happen and is not omnipotent. select one. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're confused about the definition of "omnipotent".
Omnipotent is all-powerful, Omniscient is all-knowing. I happen to believe God has both qualities, but its entirely possible for something to be omnipotent without being omniscient.
Gah, I even knew this and I just echoed BM like a parrot. My non-mainstreamyness has failed me. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
Comments
i can define a turing machine inside a (very complex) finite state machine. i can't do the reverse.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not true. Turing machines by definition have an infinite read/write tape. There is no way of defining that inside of a machine with a finite number of states. A finite state machine is just a Turing machine without a read/write tape.
In fact, there is no computation in the universe that we know of that a Turing machine cannot in principle duplicate. Finite state machines can't do very simple things like determining whether parentheses match. In fact, finite state machines are exactly as expressive as classical regular expressions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wikipedia. It must be true!+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wikipedia. It must be true!)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A nutshell formal description of a "Turing machine":
"A Turing machine is a <b>finite-state machine</b> associated with an external storage or memory medium." (Minsky (1967) p. 117)
"A Turing machine is essentially a <b>finite-state sequential machine</b> that has the ability to communicate with an external store of information"(Booth (1967), p. 354) <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what if i define input as external stimuli and output as a reaction to the stimuli based upon the current state of the machine. also:
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you can read back in what you write, then that is a Turing machine.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
A nutshell formal description of a "Turing machine":
"A Turing machine is a finite-state machine associated with an external storage or memory medium." (Minsky (1967) p. 117)
"A Turing machine is essentially a finite-state sequential machine that has the ability to communicate with an external store of information"(Booth (1967), p. 354)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly what I just said.
then where's the disagreement? input and output are not part of the machine and don't have to be defined, we only need to have a state for turing operation and a set of substates to allow turing-mode processing
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The definition of a finite state machine includes the fact that it can't write. That's what makes it different from a turing machine.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Definition: A model of computation consisting of a set of states, a start state, an input alphabet, and a transition function that maps input symbols and current states to a next state. Computation begins in the start state with an input string. It changes to new states depending on the transition function. There are many variants, for instance, machines having actions (outputs) associated with transitions (Mealy machine) or states (Moore machine), multiple start states, transitions conditioned on no input symbol (a null) or more than one transition for a given symbol and state (nondeterministic finite state machine), one or more states designated as accepting states (recognizer), etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i don't see "not allowed to produce output" anywhere
what stops me from using one or more of the states to produce human or machine-readable output?
from NIST:
i don't see "not allowed to produce output" anywhere
what stops me from using one or more of the states to produce human or machine-readable output?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It can't read its own output. It's input is disjoint from its output.
mechanical states to produce output and and mechanical states to read input.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here, read this tutorial on the limitations of finite state machines, and the languages that they cannot recognize.
<a href="http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~derek/APPSandIMPS/fsms.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~derek/APPSandIMPS/fsms.pdf</a>
From the way you've been talking, it seems that Turing Machines <i>can</i> process arbitrarily large amounts of data. Does this suggest that humans are not, in fact, Turing Machines, since we have limited data storage capacity?
From the way you've been talking, it seems that Turing Machines <i>can</i> process arbitrarily large amounts of data. Does this suggest that humans are not, in fact, Turing Machines, since we have limited data storage capacity?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The general argument is that humans can read and write, and in particular, they can read what they write. It's pretty straightforward if you have the patience to step through the operations of a Turing machine and simulate it yourself, so it's clear that ignoring the physical constraints of running out of paper, we have at least the computational complexity of a Turing machine.
The interesting thing I think is that no one has ever found a model of computation in the physical world that is more powerful than a Turing machine. (Note that by "more powerful" I mean that for A to be more powerful than B, there must be something A can compute that B cannot. This says nothing about the time it might take A or B to perform it, except that the running times must be bounded.) There are purely theoretical models of computation that are more powerful than a Turing machine, but the ones I'm familiar with require you to be able to compute with real numbers, and it's an open problem of whether anything like that can physically exist. It has been shown that certain abstractions of quantum physics are no more powerful than a Turing machine. In general, the term "computable" is defined to mean something that is computable by a Turing machine.
That strikes me as a rather, well, useless version of free will. What is it good for if you can't alter the future?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's all a matter of perspective. Why be depressed that you can't change the future when you don't know the future to begin with? You can make choices, and the culmination of those choices are the future.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
Your first sentences miss the entire point. You can't just throw away determinism because 'we make decisions!'
And describing what might potentially happen if determinism is true has absolutely nothing to do with it actually being true or not.
I think that free will vs determinism is very tough. It seems right now that determinism should win, but I think it is definitely possible that some unknown emergent factor of intelligence lets us get out of that mess. Who knows!?
Your first sentences miss the entire point. You can't just throw away determinism because 'we make decisions!'
And describing what might potentially happen if determinism is true has absolutely nothing to do with it actually being true or not.
I think that free will vs determinism is very tough. It seems right now that determinism should win, but I think it is definitely possible that some unknown emergent factor of intelligence lets us get out of that mess. Who knows!?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's as simple as this for me:
<!--QuoteBegin-Deuteronomy 30:19+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Deuteronomy 30:19)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now <b>choose</b> life, so that you and your children may live<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Bible and the Bible says we have choices to make. I believe this is truth, and in so doing I also believe that it is true whether you believe it to be true or not.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And describing what might potentially happen if determinism is true has absolutely nothing to do with it actually being true or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I happen to totally agree with this concept. I believe in absolute truth and I believe that absolute truth never changes regardless of how accepting we are of it. I believe the Bible is absolute truth.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
if god knows what will happen then he knows what you will do and your "choices" are predetermined.
if you have true freedom over your actions then god does not know what you will do and is unable to see the future and is not omnipotent.
p.s.: this post is a reaction to your post generated by my current state (partially aggressive) and the content is generated by a combining and contextualizing content taken from various discussions, lectures and various other sources. i am a deterministic device.
Ok, so obviously this is a derail, but: What good reasons do you have for believing the bible? Show me some evidence, tell me why I should believe. I don't think that basing any real decisions on faith is a good thing to do.
I think you're missing out on real thinking when you use a very old text that was written by people who knew very much less than we currently do about the universe to make your decisions. You say it was written by God? Show me why I should believe that.
You don't need reasons for believing in the Bible. You can simply choose to believe.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't need reasons for believing in the Bible. You can simply choose to believe.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah you can do that, and it's widely accepted that that's a good thing to do, but it's not obvious to me why that's the case. Why can't you accept the Koran with no reason? With no reasons how do you choose which one?
Even though lots of people believe what you said I don't think it can be true about anything.
edit: <a href="http://hometown.aol.com/toexist/ltn09.html" target="_blank">http://hometown.aol.com/toexist/ltn09.html</a>
Why it might be bad to believe things with no reason.
Yeah you can do that, and it's widely accepted that that's a good thing to do, but it's not obvious to me why that's the case. Why can't you accept the Koran with no reason? With no reasons how do you choose which one?
Even though lots of people believe what you said I don't think it can be true about anything.
edit: <a href="http://hometown.aol.com/toexist/ltn09.html" target="_blank">http://hometown.aol.com/toexist/ltn09.html</a>
Why it might be bad to believe things with no reason.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know how to make it any simpler. You simply choose to. Why are you not a Muslim or a Jew? You did not choose to.
I don't know how to make it any simpler. You simply choose to. Why are you not a Muslim or a Jew? You did not choose to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why am I not a Muslim or Jew? Because after using my brain, and looking at the evidence, I have decided that there is no god, and this goes for the Muslim and Jew god just as it goes for the Christian god. So I ask you again: Do you have any good reasons to believe? For everything in your life you need a reason to believe something, but I guess you don't need a reason to believe Christianity? It's pathetic special pleading that's only accepted because of societal norms.
a) god knows the future, therefore you follow the path he has set and are on rails.
b) you control the future, god doesn't know what's going to happen and is not omnipotent.
select one.
I could say I believe the Koran because I find truth to it, OR because I don't find truth to it. But in both of those cases, I would believe because I chose to. My choice is not linked with the image of reason.
I believe because I choose to believe.
I could say I believe the Koran because I find truth to it, OR because I don't find truth to it. But in both of those cases, I would believe because I chose to. My choice is not linked with the image of reason.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But why believe in the first place?
You don't wake up and think "I think today I'll believe... that I have 3 testicles!" because it's ###### stupid.
i motion for the creation of a derailment thread and present:
a) god knows the future, therefore you follow the path he has set and are on rails.
b) you control the future, god doesn't know what's going to happen and is not omnipotent.
select one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're confused about the definition of "omnipotent".
Omnipotent is all-powerful, Omniscient is all-knowing. I happen to believe God has both qualities, but its entirely possible for something to be omnipotent without being omniscient.