Free-will vs. Evolution
We have not heard the atheist-controlled media come out to attack free-will believers like how they have attacked Creationists even though the gaps Creationists point out are much much bigger and more objective than the gaps that free-will believers point out, but why is this?
It’s because the atheist-controlled media doesn’t really care about evidence, science, or proof, they care about ridiculing religion. I’m sure if people had attacked evolution for non-religious reasons they wouldn’t have that much of an issue with it.
– Physics tells us that free-will MUST be non-existent, that free-will is a scientific impossibility, it’s impossible
– Physics doesn’t tell us that evolution MUST be true (or even anything close)….
The neuroscientific consensus is that free-will is non-existent.
I haven’t heard even the tiniest peep from the atheist-controlled media attacking free-will believers, have you? People can freely talk about and discuss free-will at Universities without much issue, but they cannot do the same with evolution, why? If you go to a University and say “I believe in free-will” or “that free-will could exist” nothing would happen, but if you don’t believe in evolution you could get fired.
If you visit anti-science/atheist forums they allow discussions of free-will with no issue, but not discussions of evolution, even though the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is about a thousand times more objective and concrete than the evidence telling us that evolution occurred only through the known mechanisms, lol, what a joke the anti-science atheist clowns are.
The Scientific Evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent:
- Repeatable experiments (Libet’s experiment, RT experiments, Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimuli, etc..)
- Repeatable observations (drugs and chemical reactions altering consciousness)
- EVERYTHING in every single field of modern science (physics, chemistry, psychology, neuroscience, biology, medicine, etc…)
So the only way that free-will can exist is if somehow all of modern science is wrong.
Believing in free-will would require much more faith than believing that evolution is somehow false, but because of the atheist-controlled media most people wouldn’t know. I haven’t seen any documentaries in the media attacking free-will believers like how they attack Creationists, have you?
A Proof By Contradiction that free-will believers must not believe in science or care about evidence, or proof:
- If it’s true that you believe in science and care about evidence and proof then you would be around 100% certain that free-will is non-existent
- Believing in free-will contradicts this claim, proving that a free-will believer must NOT believe in science or care about evidence or proof
Now onto why the gaps free-will believers point out are insignificant and much smaller than the gaps Creationists point out.
Debunking the two main “gaps” free-will believers use:
- Circular reasoning: Quite common in free-will believing circles…they’ll say something like “free-will exists because I can choose to do [some action here]”…the only problem with this argument is that it’s circular reasoning.
You can’t conclude that you can choose unless you already assume that free-will exists. So this is just the same as saying “free-will exists because I assume that I have free-will and can choose”…which is basically equivalent to saying nothing.
If free-will was 100% non-existent we would conclude that “you feel inside that you can choose when in reality you always uncontrollably act”…this hypothesis of course matches every single piece of data perfectly. You don’t need to invoke the existence of free-will to explain anything.
Circular reasoning (concluding something by first assuming it) isn’t evidence of anything…
- Non-determinism: There’s three main issues with the infamous non-determinism argument from free-will believers:
- Neurons aren’t quantum particles or even close – Why would anyone believe that non-deterministic effects would apply to something as large as neurons (at least 18,000 times larger than most atoms)?
- Unpredictable will isn’t free-will – If we did somehow apply non-determinism to the brain it would be equivalent to saying that “someone who always has an uncontrollable spontaneous brain disorder has free-will”…how is that free-will?
- Challenging all conclusions drawn from determinism – If you believe that non-determinism can apply to the brain and neurons then you’re challenging basically all conclusions drawn from deterministic physics, like heliocentricism, General Relativity, radiocarbon dating, and every other conclusion drawn from deterministic physics. So do you free-will believers believe that we can throwout all the evidence telling us that heliocentricism is true (since it uses deterministic physics)? If you don’t, then why would you believe that we can throwout all the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent?
There can’t be any free-will. When you keep questioning why you did something you’ll see that it’s ALWAYS traced back to an uncontrollable reaction, not a choice or any choosing.
Most free-will believers/atheists would ridicule young Earth Creationists who attack radiometric dating, but we can see that free-will is more of an outlandish claim!:
- Radiometric dating pre-assumes that determinism is true, that “a collection of atoms of a radioactive nuclide decays exponentially at a [PREDICTABLE] rate described by a parameter known as the half-life”
- A carbon atom is around 0.22 nm in diameter, compared to 0.004 mm – 0.1 mm for a neuron, so neurons are around 18,000 – 450,000 times larger than carbon atoms!
- If the fools (atheists) believe that non-determinism can apply to something as large as a neuron, they must certainly believe that it would apply to something as small as a collection of carbon atoms, meaning that radiometric dating would be invalid if they are correct!
- Believing that non-determinism would apply to things as large as neurons would completely negate the accuracy of radiometric dating (meaning the decay time is unpredictable)
Just a simple example of how the gaps Creationists point out are actually more rational and much bigger than the gaps that free-will believers point out. Is it more irrational to believe that non-deterministic effects would apply to something as small as a collection of atoms or to something as large as neurons?
Questions for free-will believers:
- If the scientific evidence supporting evolution is enough to convince you then the scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent should be MORE than enough to convince you, so do you believe in evolution or not?
- If the scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent isn’t enough to convince you then the scientific evidence supporting evolution shouldn’t be even close to close to enough to convince you, so do you believe in evolution or not?
- Do you believe that all of modern science in general is wrong (since if free-will exists it would mean so)?
- Do you have any other reason for believing in free-will besides the two main gaps I pointed out?
The gaps Creationists point out when attacking evolution are much bigger and more objective than the gaps that free-will believers point out. This is because physics doesn’t tell us that evolution must be true like how it tells us that free-will must be non-existent.
The story of how free-will is non-existent has remained consistent throughout scientific history (since the scientific revolution began!).
The story of how humans evolved keeps changing over and over again. This is because the scientific evidence supporting evolution is very weak in comparison to the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent. If you read books on how humans evolved from the 1990s it’s very different from modern day books (2010s+) on how humans evolved, and that’s the change that occurred only in around 20 years. It’s only been since 2008 that Denisovans have even been discovered!
For instance, recently (December 2013) a 400,000 year-old Denisovan human fossil has been discovered in Europe distorting the previously accepted picture of human evolution. The mtDNA analysis shows the fossil to be Denisovan, which is real shock and hard to swallow, so hard that most biologists still insist that it must be homo heidelbergensis regardless of the mtDNA analysis.
“The story of human evolution is not as simple as we would have liked to think,” Meyer said. “This result is a big question mark. In some sense, we know less about the origins of Neanderthals and Denisovans than we knew before.” – http://www.livescience.com/41679-oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-homnid.html
The reason why the story hasn’t been consistent for evolution is because the scientific evidence supporting evolution isn’t nearly as objective as the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent (based on direct observations, experiments, and really everything in modern science).
Physics doesn’t tell us that evolution must have occurred just as modern day biologists believe, that’s why evolution is so much weaker than the non-existence of free-will.
- If you say you do believe in free-will, then this is basically equivalent to saying that you don’t believe in science or care about evidence or proof
- If you say you don’t believe in free-will, then you must already believe in some type of God
- If you say that you aren’t certain or sure if free-will exists, then you shouldn’t be certain of anything in science
So it’s just a lose/lose/lose situation for the atheists.
If we as a society gave up on the free-will delusion then:
- No one could blame anyone, knowing their actions to be uncontrollable
- It would be very easy to forgive and forget, not hold grudges, etc…
- We could look at the scientific causes of negative behavior and try to eliminate negative behavior rather than merely blaming people
- People could see the true innocence of all beings
The delusional belief in free-will causes so many issues in society, mainly causing people to unnecessarily blame each other.
- There can’t be any such thing as “free-will” (based on everything in modern science)
- The reason why the media has attacked Creationists has absolutely nothing to do with science, evidence, or proof, but with ridiculing religion
- The media hasn’t come out to attack free-will believers and is directly responsible for allowing the delusional belief in free-will to continue
- If you believe that free-will is debatable then you should believe that evolution and everything else in science is debatable
- The media and free-will believing atheists in general do not care about evidence, science, or proof, it was just a LIE
- Atheists in general are disgusting people, the nastiest people, the lowest form of life, animals, manimals, savages, subhuman beings
- The main block to human progress has always been atheists