How does /lit/ cope with the fact that science has decisively debunked free will, God, mortality, the immortality of the soul, beauty, and consciousness?To be fair, Hume had 90% of this ages ago too.
>>24688217
>>24688221based
>>24688217The answer is in your question: by reading Bakker.
>>24688217Idk all of those were written by gay faggots.
>>24688217All these concerns only matter if you can escape this layer of reality, but as we're bound to these laws, there are no direct implications.
>>24688350OP isn't that though, you deluded ape.
>>24688217"Science" is so desperate to justify it self that a huge contingent of physicists insist there's an invisible undetectable type of matter just to explain their flawed models. Blindly trusting knowledge because it dresses up as science is probably the stupidest thing you can do especially when it directly contradicts obvious reality.
All that shit will be forgotten or willfully ignored in 200 years so w/e.
>>24688217The only point against free will i see is a study where they measured time between brain signals and action/intent. And it is retarded. Anyone who uses it imply that part that makes decision doesn't belong to the body. >there something that spins inside the car before it starts moving that means that car can't actually move
>>24688366in the god delusion, dawkins says no historians think jesus existed which is wild statement considering almost all historians argue that he did. lol you see him shift when talking to john lennox like 3 times in their conversation to>ok there are probably 1 or 2 who think he existed>ok so a majority think he existed>well even if he did, it doesn't matterand that's basically just the beginning in handling this awful book. be very careful reading garbage from these pop culture atheists
>>24688487I have been trying to refute the argument of cause and effect that implies determinism but I simply can't in any way. Can you enlight me?
>>24688217Anyone with a masters degree or higher in natural sciences could tell you that thinks that anything that can't be quantified can't really be debunked or proven. All we have are theories and interpretations of results which a lot of the time get extrapolated and speculated about (which is read as truth) in the name of sensationalism. This is all the realm of the humanities.. which isn't really true science. But somewhat informed speculation which can only predict things to a degree which no true empiricist would actual deem as truth.
>>24688217at this point it gives me comfort loldood
>>24688217It hasn't because the science is shit.
>>24688493>dawkins says no historians think jesus existed which is wild statement considering almost all historians argue that he did. >lying polemicist midwit makes shit up to fuel his political agendaThere's nothing new under the sun.
>>24688252This man is a hardcore nihilist atheist though.
>>24688217How did science debunk beauty?
>>24688508I don't know how to put it smarter. I just don't see how it proves that there is no free will. Maybe it's just a definition problem and their definition of free will is just too specific. I bet there are tons of people in academia who criticized that fact properly. You just can't see their point in popular books because people who do pop "science" are losers in their field. Most popular of them are just Sagan's students who inherited his jewish beliefs.
>>24688252I love Bakker but his fiction is good in spite of his incredibly stupid philosophy, not because of it. It works on one level because it is actually a paradoy of Bakker's set.
>>24688508Freedom isn't about our acts being undetermined; it is about our relative capacity for self-determination and self-governance.Second, just as being is most properly predicated of substance, for there is never "nothing at all moving quickly" or "nothing in particular that is heavy," but always something moving or heavy, so too is freedom most properly said of men, not their individual acts. The same is true of virtue and goodness. The freedom and virtue of acts is parasitic on that of the person as an organic whole.
>>24688539See J.L. Mackie and the queerness argument. Universals are debunked too.
>>24688508If you identify as flesh then you've already defined away the problem. "You" are mechanistic flesh, by definition deterministic.But you are the divine qualia/soul, sitting outside time, space and causality. The will we share defined the environment and the flesh. You are responsible for your actions on every level, in flesh, in spirit and in heaven.
