Iacchus

Why, simply because it can't be expressed in "physical terms?" Well, then maybe it's not physical?

GenesisNemesis

No, because it's a theological concept. Science does not wander off into the realm of Theology.

Iacchus

Based upon no real scientific findings or, perhaps the misinterpretation of those findings? Then yes.

Well then, at the very least, I hope that I can keep you entertained.

spamandham

I don't think the exchange between you and untermensche really helps much in understanding what you mean by 'spiritual realm', so I'm going to assume you mean the typical place outside space most people tend to envision.

Unless there is some credible reason to suspect there is a spiritual realm, the idea is irrelevant at best.

Iacchus

And what makes it a theological concept? And, what makes you and/or Science think that it doesn't exist? Also, why shouldn't theology be concerned with things that exist on the physical level as well? It seems like the Catholic Church ultimately had to concede to the notions of Galileo, did it not?

GenesisNemesis

Well, for one thing, I've always heard the term "Free Will" come from Creationists, who are very religious people.

I didn't say it didn't exist. I wasn't arguing for or against it's existence.

Well, theology is "the study of God". :huh:

Yup. But that wasn't on theological matters, it was on scientific matters.

Iacchus

The notion of dualism suggests that these two "realities" exist simultaneously and act in accord with each other. And, what I'm attempting to explain to untermensche, is where the common element, hence "barrier," exists between these two realities.

Iacchus

So what? It's pretty evident to most people, whether they are religious or not, that free will does exist, don't you think? So, what does it have to do with religion? And how can Science overlook something so obvious as this? While in fact it hasn't and, in fact suggests maybe it's not so obvious and, that maybe the contrary is true? So, how can you say Science is not concerned with investigating it?

Yes, but if you believe that it exsists, while at the same time suggesting it's a theological issue, aren't you in fact admitting that it is evidence of God?

Yes, and theology is the study of human beings as well. So, does this mean Science should not be allowed to study human beings?

So, what of the notion of a geocentric Universe? Wasn't this in fact considered a part of theology (as well as current science) at that time? So, by acknowledging and/or conceding to Galileo's observations, hasn't the Catholic Church amended it's views on theology as well?

Iacchus

Yes, it does, in the sense that it tends to argue that free will doesn't exist.

GenesisNemesis

I'm not sure. I would say that I have the ability to choose, plan ahead, make split second-decisions, but I wouldn't call it "free will". I would call it an advantageous evolved trait.

Because the religious people are the ones bringing it up, not the secular people.

Well, scientists have investigated it in fruit flies. I admit I was wrong on it being a theological matter.
I forgot about this article.

Unless theology is a bunch of myths and speculation supported by zero evidence, which I think it is. How is Free Will evidence of God?

No. Science should be allowed to study human beings. It should be allowed to study everything, except the unfalsifiable, because unfalsifiable things are worthless to discuss. How is theology also the study of human beings?

Yes. But the text in the Bible stayed the same.