Your getting up or staying in bed is dictated by things like the many neuron firings in your brain which cause you to make the decision the way you do. The neuron firings are determined to some extent by the electrolytes in your system. The electrolytes are determined by what you ate or drank the night before. The things you ate or drank were determined both by availability and by the electrolyte-neuron-induced-firing of the night before. The food composition of the food you ate and the drink you drank were determined by many factors in nature and manufacturing, all of which were determined by many other factors.
When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works. Until then, perhaps lay off the junk science explanations.
What's the matter? Having trouble refuting the things I say with any factual science?
Don't get me wrong. It is totally acceptable that my programming recognizes the programming, while yours doesn't. It's the way we are programmed. However, the amazing thing is that we have a little bit to do with our own programming, even though science doesn't know it, or recognize that it could be this way... in fact, doesn't even really think we do.
No, your garbage description of how neurons work doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of credibility to warrant spending any time correcting. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only refutation required is to draw attention to your post, and let people associate the uneducated nonsense within with its author.
This isn't the place to delve into the papers that explain how neurons work.
The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.
Wake up and see that the idea of free will is beyond the explanation of science. Thus, science by its inadequacy for explaining free will, suggests that free will is an illusion. There is no free choice. There is only the illusion of free choice.
What? You don't believe in science? Eeeeaaaagh.
Here's perfect example of you taking something scientific and just making stuff up without having the slightest understanding of what you're talking about.
The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.
Folks like you are so good at taking peoples' focus off the point. But people are learning.
First, yes Newton's Third Law does state exactly what the reaction is. See if you can keep up here: it is equal and opposite.
Now, look at this in a little more detail. The actions are made up of real activity - brain chemicals, electrons, etc., doing their job. The opposite reaction is therefore, not real. If it were real, it would not be an opposite reaction. The free will equal reaction is an illusion.
Newton's Third Law describes the interaction for force pairs,
Did you get your own words? "Forced pairs." In other words, action and reaction, cause and effect.
and the specific, exact reaction is stated as equal and opposite.
With regard to neurons firing and brain activity in general, there are countless, hundreds of thousands of actions and causes. Each one works with others to produce the outcome - the reactions, the effects - the illusion of free will. Why is it an illusion? Because it feels free, but is actually actions and reactions, causes and effects, producing the appearance of free will.
Second, his law doesn't prove that there are no random actions. Even if you want to argue semantics on this, the point can be conceded without consequence, because doing so certainly doesn't have any application to your conclusion: everything is pre-programmed. Everything certainly is not. If you want to argue it is, you'll need something that actually supports the conclusion. Newton's Third Law isn't it.
All you have said here is "No, no no." Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect. These are universal. There is no evidence of anything other than action and reaction, cause and effect. Random suggests effect without cause. But there is no evidence of such.
The Great First Cause is the One Who got the whole cause and effect thing going. Nobody has substantive evidence to the opposite... the opposite that suggests that there is anything random happening. All is cause and effect.
Third, Newton's Third Law has nothing to do with neurons firing.
Every action has to do with Newton's Third Law, because there is no action outside of the fact that there was something that caused it. This means that even the firing of neurons was caused by something or many somethings.
Fourth, you still do not understand how neurons work.
And neither do you. If you did, you would already know about how God interacts with cause and effect without being affected by either cause or effect.
The moral of the story here is please don't try to science without proper adult supervision. You're not mentally equipped for it.
The moral of the story is that I am not equipped to satisfactorily deal with jokers, like you, who think that they are using science, but then have no real answer or ability to make the answer plain to people.
