I really don’t think that my computer, laptop, or phone can love, be evil, or be good. Do you? Wouldn’t we just be more complex machines?
Nope. Nor is my laptop a biochemical machine. Is yours? That being said, if a laptop ever becomes complex enough to run something as complex as, say, a simulation of a dog's brain, then you'll see behavior that you could classify as evil or good. We're a long way from that. Everything from a crowbar to a human brain is a machine of a sort. That doesn't mean we are anything like crowbars.
SetiAlpha6: When will you tell us why it is off the mark? Please point out where the factual errors occur. What does the love of God have to do with whether the Turin Shroud is real or a fake? I addressed this point earlier in the thread. (Why didn't you reply to that post?) You seem to think that determinism rules out the possibility that your will could be free, but you haven't tried to explain why you think that. For starters, you need to carefully examine what you mean by "free" when you say "free will". Do you mean anything other than "supernatural"? Why not? What is it about those atoms bumping into each other that would prevent you from making choices? The atoms are involved, every time you make a choice, you know. You think there's some other ingredient required? A supernatural something added into the mix, perhaps? How do you propose to distinguish the real love from the chemical love look-alike? What test would you advise? Define robot. If you define it as "something that has no free will", then you're begging the question - assuming from the start what you're trying to prove. Where else would your thoughts come from, if they aren't a product of your brain and its chemical and electrical reactions? What's your suggestion? Atheists display the same capacity for love that you do, as far as I can tell. For starters, does my computer understand the concept? If not, then the answer would appear to be "no". Is the head covering cloth another available, examinable item? Interesting. Where is it, these days? What kind of energy burst, exactly? Got any details? Are we talking light, x-rays, neutron flux? "Energy burst" seems like a place holder for "we don't know how it could have happened".
Do you have a reference for that? I've never heard of Ray Rogers (though I have heard of Roy Rogers Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), so you'll need to provide a link to what he has to say and what scientific reception it got. But Wiki, at least, disagrees with you: "Some proponents for the authenticity of the shroud have attempted to discount the radiocarbon dating result by claiming that the sample may represent a medieval "invisible" repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth.[8][9][16][13][80][81][82][83]However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[10][11][12] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[13][14] the bio-contamination hypothesis[16] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[11]"
Sure, I will search for the video on Ray Rogers today, and hope to post it later today. Thanks! I guess this is kind of a verbal snowball fight between two biases. Makes it hard to figure out what the truth really is for everyone on both sides. And yes, my love for God makes me biased, in a similar way to how I love and am biased in favor of my own Dad.
Sorry James! I really appreciate your comments but I have limited time, and I certainly (100% chance) do not know the answer to every question. So I just try to do my best, that is all I can do. I will look into your excellent questions and points, and respond the best that I can. Thanks So Much for your patience ! ! !
Not really. In fact, not by a country mile. What you've got there is a fight between snowballs of credulity vs cannonballs of fact.
Yet, the Bible is full of prophecies. Prophecy implies just that - predestination. Did Judas have free will?
It's not that hard, really. You are clearly a strong religious believer, but that seems to be getting in the way when you make your case. It would be lovely to think the Shroud really is evidence of the Resurrection, but the evidence is not in favour, which is why the Church is very careful not to endorse this relic except as an aid to devotion. Very wise of them. But I'll be interested to see what this Ray Rogers person has to say - and equally importantly, what the science community has to say about Ray Rogers.
This is not a problem for me at all. You and I are both certainly capable of knowing some things in advance without directly causing them to happen. If you can do this why can’t God on a much bigger scale? I think Judas most likely had a freewill. If he did, God will hold him accountable for his own choices. If not, God will not hold Judas accountable for those things he had no control over. Excellent questions, but as for me, I see no problems here. Romans 9 is probably the best place for you to launch your view from, not sure I have the time right now to get into all of that right now. Maybe later.
What is your speculation based on? From what I've heard, there was nothing "customary" about the handling of Jesus' body. But the age does not point to the first century. The Shroud-believers claim that the carbon date was on a "repair" is not based on evidence, is it? It's just an excuse for the date not matching. You seem to only be looking at one study that confirms your beliefs. The body of evidence seems to suggest that it is a man-made image of some sort. But the real question isn't even about the authenticity of the image. The real questions are: Why would you associate the shroud with Jesus? Even if it was Jesus' shroud, how does it indicate resurrection?
Assuming that the Shroud of Turin does have an ancient origin, and even assuming that it has a supernatural origin, (these are already huge and probably unjustified assumptions), what justification is there for associating it with Jesus? Why shouldn't we conclude that it was the product of the supernatural energies of one of the ancient wonder-workers like Apollonius of Tyana? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana It seems to me that the Shroud of Turin's supposed significance is the product of preexisting faith, more than it's evidence that justifies that faith.
Well, no, you can't. You can predict with good assurance that someone will do something but you can't know 100% for a great many reasons. The person involved still has free will. But let's say that I do know with 100% certainty (somehow) that in 10 years you will commit a murder. Do you have any free will to prevent yourself from doing that?
This lecture has a lot of information presented on the Shroud of Turin, you can decide how valid you think each point is yourself. I am sure that some of these points are disputed. Just in case someone has the time and has an interest.
Of course I would still have a freewill! Obviously my freewill would have led to that action. And you were able to look through time to see what my freewill decided to do. So do you think you have a freewill yourself or not? You do right?
Instead of just galloping ahead and posting the same old same old, why don't you respond to some of the points raised in this thread?
Are you suggesting that I have to "seriously" look into every crackpot claim before I can rule it out? I would be very busy. I don't put any stock in any of the multitude of religious claims for the same reason that I don't read the supermarket tabloids. I rely on multiple news media to seriously look into news stories and I rely on scientists around the world to look into scientific ideas and phenomena. Religious dogma has been retreating in the face of scientific advancement for centuries. It is my hope that it will continue to atrophy until it dies like the parasite on society that it is.
