Jump to content
Islamic Forum
atheism101

I Think Free Will Is An Illusion

Recommended Posts

Also, an alternative argument about Free Will. This may not be in accordance to traditional Muslim thought.

 

FREE WILL

 

Question. -- Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?

 

Answer. -- This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

 

For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.

 

Now another question arises. Man is absolutely helpless and dependent, since might and power belong especially to God. Both exaltation and humiliation depend upon the good pleasure and the will of the Most High.

 

It is said in the New Testament that God is like a potter who makes "one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour."[1] Now the dishonored vessel has no right to find fault with the potter saying, "Why did you not make me a precious cup, which is passed from hand to hand?" The meaning of this verse is that the states of beings are different. That which is in the lowest state of existence, like the mineral, has no right to complain, saying, "O God, why have You not given me the vegetable perfections?" In the same way, the plant has no right to complain that it has been deprived of the perfections of the animal world. Also it is not befitting for the animal to complain of the want of the human perfections. No, all these things are perfect in their own degree, and they must strive after the perfections of their own degree. The inferior beings, as we have said, have neither the right to, nor the fitness for, the states of the superior perfections. No, their progress must be in their own state.

[1 Rom. 9:21.]

 

Also the inaction or the movement of man depend upon the assistance of God. If he is not aided, he is not able to do either good or evil. But when the help of existence comes from the Generous Lord, he is able to do both good and evil; but if the help is cut off, he remains absolutely helpless. This is why in the Holy Books they speak of the help and assistance of God. So this condition is like that of a ship which is moved by the power of the wind or steam; if this power ceases, the ship cannot move at all. Nevertheless, the rudder of the ship turns it to either side, and the power of the steam moves it in the desired direction. If it is directed to the east, it goes to the east; or if it is directed to the west, it goes to the west. This motion does not come from the ship; no, it comes from the wind or the steam.

 

In the same way, in all the action or inaction of man, he receives power from the help of God; but the choice of good or evil belongs to the man himself. So if a king should appoint someone to be the governor of a city, and should grant him the power of authority, and should show him the paths of justice and injustice according to the laws -- if then this governor should commit injustice, although he should act by the authority and power of the king, the latter would be absolved from injustice. But if he should act with justice, he would do it also through the authority of the king, who would be pleased and satisfied.

 

That is to say, though the choice of good and evil belongs to man, under all circumstances he is dependent upon the sustaining help of life, which comes from the Omnipotent. The Kingdom of God is very great, and all are captives in the grasp of His Power. The servant cannot do anything by his own will; God is powerful, omnipotent, and the Helper of all beings.

 

This question has become clearly explained. Salutations!

 

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 249-251)

 

Bodies of text freak me out. Anyone want to summarize?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First question - to see if anyone can reconcile God's knowledge with free will

Second question - really irrelevant...

 

Is it irrelevant because you state free will is an illusion? Or because you haven't the answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodies of text freak me out. Anyone want to summarize?

No. If you want to ask a question, you must deal with the answer. If you want to ask a question in a manner where the only form of communication is through the written word, then you must be relegated to the fact the answer will also come through the written word.

 

I will not summarize so as to not subtract from what i posted. However, if you seek clarification, I would love to expound on my prior post, which I feel was as brief a summary as I could adequately find. Good luck, Atheism101. Asking questions and being freaked out by the size of an answer. If you haven't enough respect to even attempt an intelligent reading of an answer to a subject you asked, then maybe the question you asked truly means nothing to you.

 

Do you care about the answers here? If yes, why? If no, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it irrelevant because you state free will is an illusion? Or because you haven't the answer?

 

It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with free will.

 

No. If you want to ask a question, you must deal with the answer. If you want to ask a question in a manner where the only form of communication is through the written word, then you must be relegated to the fact the answer will also come through the written word.

 

I will not summarize so as to not subtract from what i posted. However, if you seek clarification, I would love to expound on my prior post, which I feel was as brief a summary as I could adequately find. Good luck, Atheism101. Asking questions and being freaked out by the size of an answer. If you haven't enough respect to even attempt an intelligent reading of an answer to a subject you asked, then maybe the question you asked truly means nothing to you.

 

Do you care about the answers here? If yes, why? If no, why?

 

Calm down, I'll read it. I was typing those answers late at night and didn't want to go through the whole article. I can assure you there are many unimportant bits to that text you just copied, and it would have been easier to summarize than to retort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. ... Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

...These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.

Now another question arises. Man is absolutely helpless and dependent, since might and power belong especially to God. Both exaltation and humiliation depend upon the good pleasure and the will of the Most High.

 

...The meaning of this verse is that the states of beings are different. That which is in the lowest state of existence, like the mineral, has no right to complain, saying, "O God, why have You not given me the vegetable perfections?" In the same way, the plant has no right to complain that it has been deprived of the perfections of the animal world. Also it is not befitting for the animal to complain of the want of the human perfections. No, all these things are perfect in their own degree, and they must strive after the perfections of their own degree. The inferior beings, as we have said, have neither the right to, nor the fitness for, the states of the superior perfections. No, their progress must be in their own state.

 

Also the inaction or the movement of man depend upon the assistance of God. If he is not aided, he is not able to do either good or evil. But when the help of existence comes from the Generous Lord, he is able to do both good and evil; but if the help is cut off, he remains absolutely helpless. This is why in the Holy Books they speak of the help and assistance of God. So this condition is like that of a ship which is moved by the power of the wind or steam; if this power ceases, the ship cannot move at all. Nevertheless, the rudder of the ship turns it to either side, and the power of the steam moves it in the desired direction. If it is directed to the east, it goes to the east; or if it is directed to the west, it goes to the west. This motion does not come from the ship; no, it comes from the wind or the steam.

 

In the same way, in all the action or inaction of man, he receives power from the help of God; but the choice of good or evil belongs to the man himself. So if a king should appoint someone to be the governor of a city, and should grant him the power of authority, and should show him the paths of justice and injustice according to the laws -- if then this governor should commit injustice, although he should act by the authority and power of the king, the latter would be absolved from injustice. But if he should act with justice, he would do it also through the authority of the king, who would be pleased and satisfied.

 

That is to say, though the choice of good and evil belongs to man, under all circumstances he is dependent upon the sustaining help of life, which comes from the Omnipotent. The Kingdom of God is very great, and all are captives in the grasp of His Power. The servant cannot do anything by his own will; God is powerful, omnipotent, and the Helper of all beings.

 

This question has become clearly explained. Salutations!

 

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 249-251)[/i]

 

The article made a series of unsupported assertions. If God is omnipotent then he is not a "helper" he is a "doer". If God is all-knowing he isn't letting you have a choice, he has already made it such that whatever happens will happen. At best you are left with an illusion of free will.

 

Just as I expected. The article had nothing to do with the crux of the problem, and just like any other time someone decides to c&p an article or reference a video, it is simply of another person agreeing with them. It does not address the real issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are told to love Allaah with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our strength. If we truly loved Allaah, we would be totally pure and innocent in heart. At any decision time we would seek to follow what Allaah wants for us: importantly, this "seeking Allaah's will" would be instinctive and, by Allaah's love, instantaneous. This is how Adam and Eve were in Paradise, and how Christ always was. True freedom is to love Allaah: this is how we were created.

 

A car has 'free will': it can move forward at any speed. It also has 'freedom of choice' which is a separate thing, being able to steer, but instead of keeping on the road, it can also steer off the road into mud or deep water. When in mud or water it does not function as a car very well in moving forward but gets stuck.

 

'Freedom of choice' is in us only due to the fall of Adam, which happened because he was deceived "you will be like God" (Bible, Genesis 3:5). In other words, like in cartoons, Satan painted a road which ran into a tree, but painted it in such a way that a tunnel seemed to be in the tree. Therefore, to Adam (and Eve) it appeared that this was still the road, so with love of Allaah they naturally went towards it, but then hit the tree: and so the car crashed …

 

We now need to use our steering wheel (aka freedom of choice) to get back on the true road and not the false one …

 

Does this help? Love of Allaah is our natural state, not the state we live in now.

 

Richard

PS. I can be verbose. Is this too long?

 

Edit, clarification: Adam and Eve had 'freedom of choice' before they sinned, but it always without hesitating followed the direction of the road, by their love of Allaah. However, compared to how we are in making decisions, then for practical purposes it appeared they they did not have freedom of choice, because their love of Allaah guided them. Choice was there, but love came before it and after it so it always 'went with the flow' of love towards Allaah.

Edited by EasternQibla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are told to love Allaah with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our strength. If we truly loved Allaah, we would be totally pure and innocent in heart. At any decision time we would seek to follow what Allaah wants for us: importantly, this "seeking Allaah's will" would be instinctive and, by Allaah's love, instantaneous. This is how Adam and Eve were in Paradise, and how Christ always was. True freedom is to love Allaah: this is how we were created.

 

A car has 'free will': it can move forward at any speed. It also has 'freedom of choice' which is a separate thing, being able to steer, but instead of keeping on the road, it can also steer off the road into mud or deep water. When in mud or water it does not function as a car very well in moving forward but gets stuck.

 

'Freedom of choice' is in us only due to the fall of Adam, which happened because he was deceived "you will be like God" (Bible, Genesis 3:5). In other words, like in cartoons, Satan painted a road which ran into a tree, but painted it in such a way that a tunnel seemed to be in the tree. Therefore, to Adam (and Eve) it appeared that this was still the road, so with love of Allaah they naturally went towards it, but then hit the tree: and so the car crashed …

 

We now need to use our steering wheel (aka freedom of choice) to get back on the true road and not the false one …

 

Does this help? Love of Allaah is our natural state, not the state we live in now.

 

Richard

PS. I can be verbose. Is this too long?

 

Edit, clarification: Adam and Eve had 'freedom of choice' before they sinned, but it always without hesitating followed the direction of the road, by their love of Allaah. However, compared to how we are in making decisions, then for practical purposes it appeared they they did not have freedom of choice, because their love of Allaah guided them. Choice was there, but love came before it and after it so it always 'went with the flow' of love towards Allaah.

 

A car neither has free will nor free choice. It is incapable of doing anything on its own, and is completely dependent on how we control it. This in fact favors my side of the argument more than it does yours.

You did not address how freedom of choice is logically compatible with an All-knowing being that controls everything. In fact just as the car does not have free will or free choice, how can we - since we are being controlled by God? Nothing happens but by the will of God and God knows everything - so granted these things than we are just as free as the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A car has 'free will': it can move forward at any speed. It also has 'freedom of choice' which is a separate thing, being able to steer, but instead of keeping on the road, it can also steer off the road into mud or deep water. When in mud or water it does not function as a car very well in moving forward but gets stuck.

 

A train has 'free will'. It can go forwards where it wants at whatever speed or it can go up or down or left or right. But when it goes off the tracks it does not function as a train very well in moving forward but gets stuck.

 

All I have done is set my analogy up slightly different and mine breaks down after 3 seconds. Yours breaks down after 5 seconds.

 

But what about this scenario: you come to a T-junction. You have decided to turn left. Your god, an all-knowing god, knows you will turn left.

Can you change your mind and turn right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is God all-knowing? Does God know the future?

 

If the answer to these questions is yes, there is no logical way that free will is possible. True free will is the ability to decide without any controlling influence.

 

If God already knows what I am going to do tomorrow, then I do not have free will. I cannot do anything but that which God already knows I will do. I may THINK I have choices, but I clearly do not, since the course of events is set in stone. I do not have the ability to do anything other than what God knows will happen, because any attempt I would make, God would have foreseen, and therefore I would be doing exactly what is set in stone for me.

 

Similarly, God already knows what He will do in the future. If it is true that God is all-knowing, then God knows what he will do "tomorrow" if we are to use such terms. God cannot change his mind, because He would have foreseen him changing his mind. Therefore, even God is bound to no free will because he is all-knowing.

 

Please let me know how you could possibly reconcile these two properties.

 

 

here is the answer to you questions

 

If God decided everything, how can we have free will?

 

logical answers with arguments about our free will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here is the answer to you questions

 

If God decided everything, how can we have free will?

...

logical answers with arguments about our free will

 

A summary of the argument if someone doesn't want to watch the video:

Dr. Naik is saying that you dont make certain decisions because God does writes down things in advanced. God writes things down in advanced because you will make a certain decision.

 

For the sake of argument I'll grant him this argument even though I don't agree with it. This is just to show how weak this argument really is. This allows for several problems immediately:

God is bound by time and is looking in the "future" to see what we choose. In reality, most people say God is not bound by time and thus God created all events "at once" (whatever that means outside of time). So in other words God is looking at our future just like our past and present. So at no point did WE make a choice, God created a full 4d (or if you go with current understanding of 11d) at once. So God isn't a smart guy predicting the future as Naik's analogy suggests. God is actually the cause of everything. So who is to blame if someone kills someone? Not to undermine earthly consequences, really it IS God's fault. God could have just as easily created a universe without this murder event, and in this universe the person God created would not choose killing. It would be an equally sound illusion of choice.

That last part is, of course, assuming that God can make choices. That's the second problem that arises. How can God "change his mind" as Naik suggested? Sorry to break it to you, but God would have already known he was going to change his mind - so no, God cannot change his mind because he would have foreseen that. So really Naik did not address the problems. We are still left with an inherent problem between choice of any sort and a being that has infinite knowledge that also controls everything. His classroom analogy is so clearly fallacious. God is not simply predicting, God knows, and is executing (if time bound) or already created a universe in which everything is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So God isn't a smart guy predicting the future as Naik's analogy suggests

 

HOW CAN YOU THEN BE GUIDED BY GOD IF YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOW CAN YOU THEN BE GUIDED BY GOD IF YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS.....

 

How can you get guided by the flying spaghetti monster if you eat spaghetti??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish to offer you this on free will from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

Catholic doctrine

Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands pre-eminent in his handling of this subject. He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichæeans, but insists against the Semipelagians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men's wills by His omnipotence and omniscience--through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. St. Augustine's teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. This they did especially in opposition to heretical authors, who exaggerated these features in the works of the great African Doctor and attempted to deduce from his principles a form of rigid predeterminism little differing from fatalism. The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possesses an infallible knowledge of man's future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man's future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind as a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains. Further, God's omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man's freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church--both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas--attempt to solve in different ways. The heresies of Luther and Calvin brought the issue to a finer point than it had reached in the time of Aquinas, consequently he had not formally dealt with it in its ultimate shape, and each of the two schools can cite texts from the works of the Angelic Doctor in which he appears to incline towards their particular view.

 

Here is a link for more on it (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yet######/cathen/06259a.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yet######/cathen/06259a.htm[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men's wills by His omnipotence and omniscience--through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. ... Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possesses an infallible knowledge of man's future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man's future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind as a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains. Further, God's omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man's freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church--both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas--attempt to solve in different ways. The heresies of Luther and Calvin brought the issue to a finer point than it had reached in the time of Aquinas, consequently he had not formally dealt with it in its ultimate shape, and each of the two schools can cite texts from the works of the Angelic Doctor in which he appears to incline towards their particular view.

 

Here is a link for more on it (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yet######/cathen/06259a.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yet######/cathen/06259a.htm[/url]

 

I'm doing some reading on that webpage. But this excerpt and as much as I have read of the webpage do not seem to solve the problem. Instead, for example, Spinoza mathematically demonstrates that there is no room for free will. I'm not sure how opposition would demonstrate that it is still possible. Even if God is outside of time (which I think is the main argument), then God has still created the whole timeline. That does not at all solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, friend. I thought I might recommend this article on Free Will. I understand that you have made up your mind about Free Will from your topic header, though. I know you mentioned somewhere else you don't read much and even if you have some critiques of the article, I thought it would have some good insights.

 

'Philosopher and computer scientist Dr. Angus Kenuge has made some important observations concerning the limitations of materialism; among other points, he notes that,(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_muslimmatters(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2011/11/23/free-will-and-determinism-from-a-scientific-and-religious-perspective/#_ftn7"][7][/url]

“inflexible adherence to materialism could prevent us from finding the truth,” just as it is not reasonable for a crime detective to say, “”the murderer can't be in the cellar, because I'm afraid to look there.”'

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_muslimmatters(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2011/11/23/free-will-and-determinism-from-a-scientific-and-religious-perspective/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_muslimmatters(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2011/11/23/free-will-and-determinism-from-a-scientific-and-religious-perspective/[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not allowed to post urls yet. The article is called (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_muslimmatters(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2011/11/23/free-will-and-determinism-from-a-scientific-and-religious-perspective/"]Free[/url] Will and Determinism from a Scientif and Religious Perspective on MuslimMatters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not allowed to post urls yet. The article is called (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_muslimmatters(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2011/11/23/free-will-and-determinism-from-a-scientific-and-religious-perspective/"]Free[/url] Will and Determinism from a Scientif and Religious Perspective on MuslimMatters.

 

This article you mention

 

The debate over free will, already two millennia old[1], is still ongoing. Academic conferences, books and journal articles continue to address these issues, with different 'experts' arguing for often radically different theories.[2] Modern science and data have introduced new elements and angles, but they have not, by any means, disproved the existence of free will.

 

is probably one of the worst I have read in my entire life. It so full of strawmen, all types of other fallacies and ridiculous statements that it is hard to believe a person can really make something like this public. He places a lot of trust in a guy called Angus Menuge (he once calls him Dr. Angus Kenuge), a Christian apologist, who has some crazy ideas about free will and evolution. Oh boy.

 

I strongly advise you to first read what you are quoting. This has NOTHING to do with anything remotely scientific and is sheer mumbo-jumbo.

 

If you see sentences containing "many scientists nowadays" or "an academic methodological study" be careful. Anyone who is serious will qualify statenments like these with proof.

 

Finally, we see exactly what his motive is: "Monotheism, on the other hand, justifies the scientific endeavor, because it holds that God is the creator both of human minds and of the phenomena and laws of science" is not a statement any real scientist would make as science and scientists do NOT concern themselves with the super-natural and would never make a statement so wrong.

 

Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article you mention

 

The debate over free will, already two millennia old[1], is still ongoing. Academic conferences, books and journal articles continue to address these issues, with different 'experts' arguing for often radically different theories.[2] Modern science and data have introduced new elements and angles, but they have not, by any means, disproved the existence of free will.

 

is probably one of the worst I have read in my entire life. It so full of strawmen, all types of other fallacies and ridiculous statements that it is hard to believe a person can really make something like this public. He places a lot of trust in a guy called Angus Menuge (he once calls him Dr. Angus Kenuge), a Christian apologist, who has some crazy ideas about free will and evolution. Oh boy.

 

I strongly advise you to first read what you are quoting. This has NOTHING to do with anything remotely scientific and is sheer mumbo-jumbo.

 

If you see sentences containing "many scientists nowadays" or "an academic methodological study" be careful. Anyone who is serious will qualify statenments like these with proof.

 

Finally, we see exactly what his motive is: "Monotheism, on the other hand, justifies the scientific endeavor, because it holds that God is the creator both of human minds and of the phenomena and laws of science" is not a statement any real scientist would make as science and scientists do NOT concern themselves with the super-natural and would never make a statement so wrong.

 

Sorry.

Can you post the real link? I can't seem to decode what the link was supposed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×