I was talking to a friend on the weekend about predestination. It seems to be that ever since the Big Bang set things in motion, and the laws of physics came into being in this universe, everything that has happened since then, including every human thought or action, happened in causality, as a direct result of the laws of physics. I'm wondering what arguments you might have against this view.

I can guess that one of them will be my old favourite "quantum mechanics!!". I'm not sure, though, that the apparent randomness of QM means that causality isn't true on a Newtonian level. If it was true, playing pool would be a lot harder.

So... thoughts? Arguments? Intelligent ones please, ad hominem arguments are tiresome.

My first reaction to that is that it doesn't take into account the chaos and unpredictability that I think is apparent in the world.

People's actions, earthquakes, the weather...

Oh wait... are you saying that all things are predictable because they're a direct consequence of the laws of physics?

Or are you just saying that everything is simply a result of that?

There is no theory of everything, However there is a Chaos theory.

If you can correlate Astro Physics with Quantum Mechanics, you may have a chance, but until then (like most of CR's writing) it remains in fantasy land.

ad hominem arguments are tiresome.

Indeed they are, but they are necessary if/when the hominid in question (in this case CR) continues to pretend that his (science fiction) theories are in fact true science.

Cameron...... mate.....Sorry to have to tell you this, but you are a Fantasist not a Futurist.

I don't see any other way to discuss this other than to use the "tiresome" ad hominem argument.  Even the Big Bang, while accepted as "the best answer based on what we know" is, in absolute terms, still no more than a theory.  The ad hominen element of the argument is the supposition, albeit well tested within the bounds of our current knowledge, is impossible to refute until some of the explanations for the unusual or non-conforming observations are tested.  I am in no position to give a defintive argument for or against predestination based on the laws of physics so I won't.  I will merely point out that if you want to base your argument for predestination on those laws of physics which have taken effect since the Big Bang you will be, in absolute terms, defying the logic that you so endear.

I don't think the Big Bang is strictly necessary... if matter obeys deterministic rules and our brains are made entirely of matter (and our brains control our thoughts and actions) then it follows that our thoughts and actions are determined from what has gone before.

Adding a random element such as QM or Chaos doesn't place control in our hands, it just means a random element determines our thoughts and actions, unless we are able to direct that random element at will to come up one way or another.

@dek I'm saying that every particle which emanated from the Big Bang has, since that moment, obeyed the laws of physics. The way those particles interact with each other are also governed by the laws of physics. If those two statements are correct, then everything that has happened since the big bang,  and everything that will happen in the future, must have been determined 14.5 billion years ago.

@Arthur, ad hominem means attacking the person instead of their argument. I'm happy to debate ideas with people here but I can't be bothered engaging with people who just want to launch childish personal attacks, either on me or others.

Of course The Big Bang is a theory, we weren't around 15 billion years ago to observe that happened. It is, however, supported by plenty of  evidence, so until a better theory comes along, the logical approach is to run with it as the correct model. However, even if it isn't correct, there was still a "first event" which created the physical laws of the universe and my suggestion about "predestination" works the same.

Cam, I think it's a pretty far stretch to say that the bird flying into my window was determined 14.5 billion years ago.

I'll have to think about it some more, but it doesn't sit right off the bat

Cam, do you consider yourself responsible for your actions?

Are you just a passenger to your life?

Charlie, that depends on your definition of "responsible".

As I see it, there are two meanings.

1. Am I 'in control' of my thoughts and actions, that is, do I consciously initiate each thought / action outside of causality? This is usually what we refer to as "free will". In this sense, no, I am not "responsible", as I see no evidence to support the theory of "free will".

2. The other meaning could mean legally, am I legally responsible for my actions. In this case I would say yes. If I commit a crime, then I am to blame for that crime, I am "responsible".

It has repurcussions for the nature of identity. If I am not a free agent then what am I? What am I doing here if I'm not able to initiate actions? I try not to think about this. I like living under the illusion of free will!

I can't be bothered engaging with people who just want to launch childish personal attacks

Perhaps if you stopped behaving like a spoilt child and listened to reason, instead of some half baked unproven nonsense that you read in your story books, then people would treat you as a responsible adult. (of which you display no signs at the moment)

"Cameron Reillys Church of Science Fiction"?   That's what it is, founded on unproven theories, by a snake oil salesman.

 ad hominem means attacking the person instead of their argument. 

Wow Cameron, I'm so glad you told us what that means, I'm sure neither Arthur nor I knew that before!

But you see, we have no other choice as you don't have an argument, all you have is a few cobbled together hyoptheses borrowed from others.

You yourself have nothing!! Yet you continue with this farcical notion that what you have is a church. C'mon you must be joking!

Charlie, I agree, it has huge repercussions! You might like living without the illusion of free will even more, ever considered that?

Hahaha Cam, you're so funny. Thanks for reading my message and replying so promptly. You should buy some books on Logic. (you need them)

As Aldous Huxley once said,,,"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." 

@ Andromeda, if you have nothing more to add than personal attacks on Cameron, perhaps this discussion is not the right one for you.

As for the discussion in general, the more I read of everyone's opinions, beliefs and presumptions, the more I am inclined toward actually believing in a supreme being, higher power, ultimate creator.  Your arguments are all PROVING the very thing that you're bent on disproving.  Since I have no wish to be "converted" to anyone's personal belief system, I find it very unsettling that intelligent people can stoop to such base behavior.  It appears that we are indeed just stupid animals ... even stupider in our "highly evolved" state than the "lesser" life that we exploit.  Disappointing.

Personally, I don't believe in "something from nothing" and therefore, Big Bang rings hollow.  Since that's the basis for this predestination theory, I'll have to dis-believe in predestination, too.  I don't think there is enough knowledge available to answer this question, and I don't really care.  If my existence is predestined, then I have no other choice than to see it through.  If not, then I will continue as I have ... ignorant that I may have no real choice, and make the best decisions I can make with the knowledge available to me at the time.

The predestination argument doesn't rely on the Big Bang theory - it only rests on the basis that everything physical follows physical laws, and that our brains operate only on a physical level.

I have to ask, if you don't believe something can come from nothing, how would a creator operate? They would have to bring forth something from nothing, after first having come from nothing themselves. If you can make the exception to the "no something from nothing" rule for God, then why not make it for the universe at large?

The Big Bang may not even require something to come from nothing - to my understanding the moment of the Big Bang itself is a singularity, the laws of physics as we understand them break down as you trace things backwards towards that point, so nothing can be said about what existed (or didn't exist) prior to the Big Bang. It's possible that there was a previous universe that came crashing together into a singularity before re-expanding in a Big Bang event.

There are other less intuitive, quantum-mechanics based theories about how the universe was started, I can't remember enough of the details for any kind of proper explanation but it involved collisions between multi-dimensional "branes".

In the absence of evidence, "God did it" really doesn't help. It's equivalent in my mind to giving up on an explanation and deciding that its too complicated to even try and understand what's really happening. If it could be explained exactly what God did, how he did it, and why a naturalistic explanation can't be found, then I'd look on it more favourable, but a God that moves in mysterious ways is no explanation.

@Arthur, ad hominem means attacking the person instead of their argument.

I expect if you read your well worn wikipedia dictionary for the description of ad hominem, it will, more than likey,  tell you that when a person puts forward a position, based on their interpretation of some situation or conclusion from a semblence of information, and the person discussing (or arguing) the point (for or against) is entitled to question the reason of the person for having that position.  Especially when your position on pre-destination is derived from well known suppositions and it is entirely likely that you have introduced a pre-concieved conclusion from which to start the discussion based on these suppositions.  Therefore it is entirely valid for the opening gambit of the "discussion amongst critical thinkers" is to establish the basis of the discussion.

This position is re-inforced by your statement:-  However, even if it isn't correct, there was still a "first event" which created the physical laws of the universe and my suggestion about "predestination" works the same.  What gives you the evidence that that the "Laws of The Universe" were actually created at a "First Event"?  and why must there have been a first event? If the laws were created due to that event how do we know, other than by using logical (or flawed logical) postulation, that all the laws are apparent to us and that there are no more to be created (or discovered).  Scientists have made more errors and wrong postulations than they have made correct ones when putting up theories to test, so what is the basis of using theirs (or anythings) theory to base an argument on - Especially if, as you pre-conclude, that every action will derive from those laws that govern the stuff around us (or even our minds).

I am inclined to take the position that it is more likely that nothing was ever created and that your "first event" was acually the first one that us poor miserable humans are capable of thinking about. Why can't that first event be something that was blasted from another dimension?

How am I supposed to use this predestination thing anyway?.  If I saw someone murders a friend or something, am I supposed to say "Ah well, it was predestined" so I won't bother shooting them in return or reporting it to the police? And whatever I did wouldn't matter anyway because it was predestined...  How will predestination enable me to predict something.  I could probably write an algorythym which would predict lots of things and I would use the logic of known event to predict next event.  But how would I predict that you would fetch your sunday papers on a bycycle, by car or by walking (assuming you had all three and actually did read newspapers on a sunday)...

@SK - And I've just read your post SK.  I found that well reasoned, intelligent and  balanced, you bring out the stuff which is known by reasonable assumption and set it against reasonable doubt.  By reading it I can conclude that the explanation for predestiny is not yet with us, or I could conclude that predestiny is not something that is true in all cases.  I can also conclude that it is irrelevant to add an unknown to give an argument any kind of conclusion without first understanding how it will be tested.

@ Giganat.  I wouldn't necessarily go along with your conclusion that the posts go some way to proving the presence of a creator but I do agree with your conclusion in you final paragraph about not actually caring about what the the cause of predestiny (if predestiny is something that is true) is because if you can't do anything about it then why worry?

Also there is talk here of personal attacks on Cameron Rielly.  If I use Camerons logic of predestiny he must be well aware that anyone who puts themselves up for something or uses their take on things to put themselves in a position of (a facilitator of) eminence must accept that (it is predestined that) the non-ignorants  of this world are going to see them as a person who is attempting to achieve some kind of Alpha status over them when in fact, they are no better than the rest of us.

If I saw someone murders a friend or something, am I supposed to say "Ah well, it was predestined" so I won't bother shooting them in return or reporting it to the police? And whatever I did wouldn't matter anyway because it was predestined...

Your reaction would be just as predestined as their action, and you would react in the way you would expect yourself to (by definition) since the way your brain is "wired" determines your response, the response would be how you would want to respond.

I guess that's the point to stop really caring - it's never going to make you do something you wouldn't choose to, since it operates on the same basis as our "choice" would. The only step beyond the norm is to accept that, given a specific set of input, when the brain is in a specific state, although we feel we consider a variety of options this is actually only part of the process by which we arrive at one inevitable response.

I think just by writing this out I understand better what you're saying AD, there's no way to distinguish between a world where people act according to predestination, and one where they act by free will. The difference (maybe) is which one we each think requires more of an assumption.

Well there we go then.  How does it make any difference to any debate or critical thinking if the outcome of anything is predetermined by the the result of the big bang, the result of the big sneeze (by the Aarklesiezure) or by the result of whatever.  If it's pre-determined by something it happens anyway, if it isn't something still happens anyway.

Here's a challenge to the greatest critical thinkers on this earth (although, I'm sorry to say, I doubt any of them would have even heard of Tangler)  What is the top three benefits that life on earth will have if we were to ever be able to get on top of this predestiny thing and be able to see (with objective and proven science) what will happen next.  What would actually be the point of having a competion of any kind, we would know who wins before it starts.

Turns into quite the mindfuck if we were to figure out the predestination and precisely predict the future.

The predestination would have to account for the effect of us knowing what we're predicted to do, but knowing the prediction we would assume ourselves to be able to willfully not do what we were predicted to do. Except if it's all predestined the prediction would have to have accounted for this, so the prediction would have been different, giving us a different thing to react to, changing the prediction again.

This of course, Makes No Sense (TM).

On the other hand, a paradox is by definition an impossible event, so there must be some way to resolve the apparent paradox of "what if we built a perfect prediction machine".

Perfect prediction being impossible would be the easiest way to make things make sense again.

@giganat, what was there before God?

@Cameron.  What was there before the Big Bang?  You answer that in your context then you answer giganat in hers.  Pointless question.  I thought this was supposed to be "critical thinking" not random stabs at opinion.

@ Cam: I haven't a clue ... I wasn't born yet.  Human history tells us it was "gods".  Most unexplained phenomena was attributed to random "gods" that controlled whatever was out of our control.  I can only guess that given a random human's perception of what (who?) God is, the answer could be anything from "nothing" to "there was no 'before' ".  I have trouble processing both.  That's why I'm here.  Besides, I never said that I believed in God, only that the debate was pushing the evidence in that direction.

I keep coming back to ideas like the possibility that we are seeing our world from the perspective of an ant seeing us.  I know that fiction has no real place here, but Dr. Suess' "Horton hears a Who" comes to my mind.  The possibility that we could be looking at our world from the perspective of a tiny creature that can't possibly imagine the larger entities surrounding it makes more sense.  An ant will continue doing what it knows how to do until it dies.  Is is pre-destined that this being will be stepped on, eaten by a spider, or get stuck in sticky sap?  Who knows?  It's a natural progression as we understand it from a human perspective.  Laws of nature and balanced eco-systems and all that.  How does pre-destination matter if we're all just ... I don't know ... bacterium and viruses in some unbelievably huge entity?

Actually, I like that comparison better ... we could be the small parts that make up a larger body.  Some white cells, some red cells, some bacterium, some protein, etc.  None of whom know what the body looks like, but all of whom will continue to do what they were designed to do until they die. The ones that rebel become the cancers.  Get enough cancer cells together and you can kill the body, even while not understanding how the whole thing works.  This all doesn't preclude pre-destination, just pushes it further off into some unknown timetable before the current focal point.  Are we supposed to be doing what we are designed to do or are we supposed to become a malignancy?  This is just my perspective.  I never claimed to have all the answers.

Anyway, back to the subject.

Cam has asked for arguments against his view.  Up to now we haven't really done that.  What we've done is to examine the validity of his evidence from which he came to develop his view with.  There is a broad agreement that the basis of the view itself has come up wanting and therefore we are at the same kind of position of arguing with a priest about the existence of a god.

I have tried to reconcile the LOTU concept against what Cam said:-

"Of course The Big Bang is a theory, we weren't around 15 billion years ago to observe that happened. It is, however, supported by plenty of  evidence, so until a better theory comes along, the logical approach is to run with it as the correct model. However, even if it isn't correct, there was still a "first event" which created the physical laws of the universe and my suggestion about "predestination" works the same. "  

"Supported by plenty of evidence" - but not tested evidence, the sort of evidence you'd ask a priest to produce in your argument with him against there being some kind of god.

"So until a better theory comes along, the logical approach is to run with it as the correct model" - that is pure opinion and nothing more.  Especially as your logical approach is ultimately derived from the crux of the theory of the Big Bang and Predestination.

However, even if it isn't correct, there was still a 'first event' which created the physical laws of the universe and my suggestion about 'predestination' still works the same" - What sort of comment is 'Even if it isn't correct'?  Is that to say 'Even if the Big Bang never happened, stuff was created anyway by some kind of event'  What event would that be?  At this point, think of how you would tear into a priest and trash his belief in a god and explain, with the same exactness that you'd expect him to explain to the contrary, that the event isn't a god of some kind who just happened to be passing a pile of nothing which just happened to be lurking at the edge of an empty nothingness and said - Go forth and create a universe with laws...!

Then we come to the 'suggestion of predestination' which 'works the same' with a dependance on all the above conjecture - Sorry Cam but you don't have a basis to steer the discussion to asking for contributors to argue against validated evidence, nor can you expect them to come up with valid arguments which are not based on opinions which are more, or less, solid than yours.

I would conclude that, in this case, we can make some good guesses about whether or not pre-destination is something worth considering but I wouldn't want to get involved in the guesswork - especially if I wanted to take the argument and present it to a master of divinity (or even the most idiotic priest), they'd make you look very, very stupid, and very quickly.

And when I look at what LOTU is claimed to be (against the utterances of the nearest thing it has to a high priest) I would say that it is nothing more than a poor attempt at trying to become a "name on the net".  My advice is to close all this nonsense down and go and find something worthwhile that would justify the millions that your parents and taxpayers have spent on your education.

As I believe I've said, the argument around predestination doesn't depend entirely on the Big Bang theory. All it requires is that the universe be composed entirely out of matter that obeys solely physical principles. If that's the case then from any abitrary point in time you can theoretically trace backwards to tell what happened in the past, and extrapolate forwards to predict future events.

In practice, we can't, and never will be able to make such predictions, but if the universe is proceeding via physical principles then the future is determined from the past, not our idea of free will.

As a separate thing, the Big Bang theory is well established as the current idea of where everything started... I know that "In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded" isn't exactly intuitive, but it's what the best evidence we have so far points to (and an explosion of nothing is something of an oversimplification of course)

As for the actual value LOTU as a thing (the Church of, as opposed to the idea of universal laws), I'll leave you to argue that point with Cameron.

Your last point is just what I was trying to illustrate SK.  Religious people using their unproven beliefs against a proponent of using "the best available beliefs from the scientific community".  I don't say that I disagree, or agree with any of it, I am merely pointing out (in a round about way) that it is pointless trying to convince someone of your position when it is only based on "the best available information".  Ipso-facto, any of the sides then have a good argument.  You never know, one of the "yet to be discovered" universal laws may explain this supernatural stance of the religious community.  Meanwhile either position (and subjects related to either position) could be easily said to be based on how an individual (or group of individuals) interpret stuff around us.

When you look at the concept of LOTU against the concept of atheism, LOTU is an attempt to create a vehicle by which atheists who apparently think and believe like Cameron are trying to draw others in to their way of the world.  That sounds, looks and feels like a religion to me.  In his defence it is probably unitentional because I can't imagine anyone with a broad intelligence setting out on such a path.  He will either mature with age and put all this behind him or draw himself (and those poor ignorants that he can convince) deeper into his world of scientific fantasy, much in the same way that he believes those who subscribe to supernatural religions have done.

it is pointless trying to convince someone of your position when it is only based on "the best available information".  Ipso-facto, any of the sides then have a good argument.

Surely a position that is based logically on the best information we have available thus far has a far better chance of turning out to be right (or at the least, mostly right but lacking in some details) then a position based on superstition.

While it is always theoretically possible that the next big discovery is something that validates one religious belief or another, this doesn't lend them any credence in the here and now - if you go down that route, any belief that cannot be conclusively disproved (i.e. most of them) could be considered valid on the basis that maybe we just haven't got the right evidence yet.

I don't follow a religion or believe in a god.  But that's it, I personally don't have enough tangible things within my own tiny little world to be able to believe.  I believe, that on the balance of all things scientific that their might have been a big bang type of event.  However there is not enough evidence to tell me that either belief is 100% fact. But I still have my beliefs.  Whether they are down to Predestination or explained in some other arbitary idea, I don't really care because I'm me and I believe what I believe because of me.  Do I care what you believe (in terms of no gods/religion) no, I don't.  Never have done, never will and it won't upset me one jot to find out that you don't care about what I believe either.

What does give me the hump is when someone thinks they have a better belief than someone else (about no-gods/religion) and attempts to care on someone eleses behalf - For example "Can Christians Be Converted To Reason".  Why should that concern someone who doesn't believe, why should anyone believe that Christians need to be converted to anything, unless they have the belief that their way is best and want to become megalomanic about it and put themselves up as some sort of priest.

I take no issue with someone privately believing whatever the hell they want, but its a rare belief that has no effect on anything at all outside of your private life. When people are acting on the basis of illogical or superstitious beliefs, I don't think it leads to good places when those actions affect the world the rest of live in.

You know and will have heard before the kinds of examples I could come up with... basically any time religious beliefs intersect with political issues or public policy there's the potential for it to all go horribly wrong in one way or another.

get a room, you two

Quiet you

So what you are saying is that because I don't have a belief in a supernatural entity and subscribe to superstition that I may be better placed to make decisions for humanity?  Or are you saying something which has more complex connotations.

Yeah, shut up heller.  Opinions from well educated scientific people are not welcome on this forum...!

I'm saying that religious beliefs will change the criteria by which a person judges what the right thing to do is. When the people affected by the decision don't share those beliefs there's going to be some conflict. I think people in authority have a duty to put the facts first and not allow their personal religious beliefs to come into things.

Plus there are some decisions (things of a scientific bent mainly) where it really is best to go by the facts, not by superstition or dogma.

I'm saying that religious beliefs will change the criteria by which a person judges what the right thing to do is. 

Just in the same way that someone who doesn't do religion might prefer to make decisions based on available scientific, logical or other available facts and therefore exclude the relevance of other possibilities.  You could say that a religious person would actually have the benefit of another angle from which to approach the problem and gives them a greater perspective of thought.  As we know, even rock-solid proven scientific facts can become unstable through no known means.

Plus there are some decisions (things of a scientific bent mainly) where it really is best to go by the facts, not by superstition or dogma.

No problem with that, as long as you stick to tangible things like washing mashines and ipods. You still have to keep a check on the science stuff though.  There is a lot of research done based on megolomania or some other hidden agenda (money orientated) that, when published, is generally accepted within the scientific world and we only find out later that they have missed something because of the ability to comprehend a test, or result - and this is where your checks and balances from the "other" group of thinkers comes into play.  That then either halts progress or stops a future disaster.  How many times have I heard:-

"If only we'd done it that way we would be well ahead"  - 

"We followed all the proven procedures and formulas but it turned out to be a disaster"

"We understand what it all does as pieces but put them together and the result is unpredictable on 1 occaision out of 100,000"

"Well, initially it was successful and it is still working fine but we've discovered something that is of a major concern for the future"

"This has turned out really great and we foresee no problems from any stakeholder" 

In our world of many different things and many different ways there is little value in being a "one-way or another" kind of person and this reflects over the whole of society.  Science, technology and related things are easy to stuff up - and sometimes that is because we have been convinced that "we know for a fact".  Hmmm, maybe I'll start a church of that ilk...   Maybe I'm predestined to do so.  I know, I'll base it on that tiresome old subject of Quantum Mechanics, bring in the whole subject of Astro Physics and use Bhuddism as an intertwining blend.  Maybe we can also have a couple of ghosts to keep the Abraham and Hindu types happy.

What rock-solid proven scientific facts have become unstable? If you mean things that were considered to be true but then found to be false, the "rock-solid proven" thing was never rock-solid, it was based on insufficient evidence.

Come to that, what "rock-solid proven" science do you know of? The most rock-solid parts of science are the various "Theory of ______"s, and those are still essentially just our best guess with current evidence (although making it as far as being an official theory would indicate we think it's very highly probable that it's correct.

Anyone with a hidden agenda is liable to produce something bad, it's just that science gets accepted more easily because fewer people understand how it really works (to challenge it), and statistics sound more official than Bible passages 

A philosophical statement is easier to argue with and disagree with, when "science" is handed down from an authoritative source it tends to be accepted by most - the challenging is left up to other science-types (and even then it turns into a debate that a lot of people pick their side of for unscientific reasons).

As for your church, your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter 

Ok hands up, wrong phrase - even I don't believe in rock-solid scientific facts and I suppose using that phrase and you picking up on it illustrates what I'm trying to say - that even scientists understand that there is no such thing as rock-solid science.  I guess that is probably the reason that a good number of scientists believe in a god.  And the probability of theories (or accepted science) being correct is based on the balance of evidence. Some for, some against and some unknown.  To come up with a standpoint it might be that if you can see that the obsevable happens, explain most of it, deduce some of it and ponder the options you might be minded to think of a greater power to explain the ponderables, or not.  But don't go and argue against religion from a scientific stand-point, it will get you to the same place as someone arguing for religion from their standpoint.

As for my idea of a church.  Here's the deal.  I'll start it as soon as I die.  You'll be the recipient of my first newsletter.  I'll even get the devil himself to write an introduction.  I'll have to ask you to get it printed and distributed though...

Do stop playing around with adolescents, Arthur Dent

I'm looking for bigger fish.

But I think they (it) has stopped feeding.

I could be offended by the suggestion that my age makes me not worth talking to, but I'm pretty hard to offend... and getting worked up about something like that just doesn't feel worth it.

Look out...I'm beginning to like you...