The existence of a population that touts "Free will" as a viable or coherent concept is an indictment of the education system - worldwide.

Contradiction is the only basis for an objective concept of "wrong". Accordingly, contradiction is the foundation for both math and logic - there is no alternative. "Ideas" that contain internal contradictions then are inherently, irrevocably, objectively wrong and incoherent.

For example, if I say that "I am taller than myself" - the internal contradiction should be clear and obvious. As such, it is not a coherent idea and is merely gibberish. Every idea that contains any internal contradiction is equally incoherent gibberish.

Furthermore, every animal has a will. Animals can react to their surroundings, predict the future, and plan accordingly. Any substantial attribute of "free will" is necessarily subsumed entirely by the simpler and coherent concept of "will".

"Free will", on the other hand is a gibberish term that is constantly reinvented on every occasion for the specific purpose of fanaticizing that humans are somehow separate and apart from other animals (that then do not have "free will"). This myopic superiority complex is the only consistent and coherent aspect of the concept of "free will". It is useful as sign of uneducated narcissism and nothing more.

If the internal, structural contradiction of "free will" is not obvious on it's face, it might best be revealed by Christopher Hitchens who said: “Yes I have free will; I have no choice but to have it.” This mocking comment of his reduces the idea to an absurdity on its face. Others also readily admit to this same structural defect when they claim their favorite deity has given it to them.

"Free will" proponents then have not been properly educated in either logic or its application both of which are basic requirements for a modern education.

The Morality Game

Morality arises from an individual based on a game they play in their head where they try to keep score, balance their books and the books of everyone around them much the same way a person makes a budget to spend their money.

The driving imperative of both of these activities is to ensure their own well being first, the well being of the people they love second, the well being of the people in the group they love the most third, etc, etc,

As a result of limited resources and limited knowledge, these two games can never be played to a satisfactory "end" they can only be "managed". As such a person who spends all of their money and ends up broke is not evidence that they don't care about their own well being or the well being of others. It could indicate many things.

Being careless with money might indicate the person is more driven by their emotions than the cold reality of a budget. It might indicate they can't do the math required to understand the implications of a budget. It might indicate they are overly optimistic about their own prospects. It might indicate they are pessimistic about their need to plan for the future.

So there is no clear method to understand why an individual may have troubles budgeting their money. The best we can do is a statistical analysis of humans and then show the trend for a deficiency in each important area required for managing a budget.

No individual case can be use to show that people generally would not want to balance their own budget if they could. In the same regard, morality is even more abstract as it lacks a tangible currency, but the game is identical to balancing a budget. The objective of balancing the morality budget is to promote ones own individual well being and the well being of others using the currency of the golden rule.

Luke 19:27

Luke 19:27New International Version (NIV)

27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’” - Jesus

2 Apples + 2 Bananas = 4 Bananas

" I would deeply like to know more about how set theory works with evoo. Rilu" Bil Wight sure thing man, but I am betting you already know about it, just not in those terms. Here is an interesting example I have been using recently:

2 Apples + 2 Bananas = 4 Bananas (wrong - because set theory)
2 Apples + 2 Bananas = 4 Fruit (correct - because set theory)

It is a useful example for a few reasons - it shows that set theory is not just a part of math, but it is fundamental to all math. Set theory is even more fundamental than counting, because if we can't agree to what we are counting - the counting itself cannot be considered valid or rigorous. This is why it is taught as part of 4th grade math or earlier. Essentially we could say "like terms" arise from set theory in that we can only add like terms (as shown above) if we want the math to be valid and rigorous.

The reason we don't typically mention these details is that they are so fundamental it would seem patronizing and pedantic to do so. The ideas are assumed to be simple, pervasive, and easily corrected without formal notation outside of especially complex situations.

Set theory formalizes the 3 laws of logic from Plato and Aristotle into the syntax/grammar of math and can be easily understood with Venn Diagrams in most cases. Importantly, nested hierarchies (like the tree of life from common ancestry) are just a different notation for the same concepts of set theory when the relationships are too complex for easy represent in a Venn Diagram.

With these tools in hand, to understand then how set theory alone is sufficient to render common ancestry a scientific fact, a person need only understand very basic science (and genetic inheritance). That is, all scientific evidence is based only on testable, repeatable evidence. Nothing else is permitted as scientific evidence - this is essential knowledge to pass 8th grade science.

It is sufficient then to notice then that all organism inherit their genes from their parents, in all cases (10th grade biology). There is no other source for their genes. ERV's seem like an exception, but they are not. We can come back to ERV's and address them further if necessary. Importantly then, there is no other place for an organism to get it's genes than from it's ancestors.

A Griffin as commonly defined for example if it existed as a lone type of creature, without signs of coherent ancestors in the real world - would be the kind of thing required to overturn evolution. It cannot be put into the mandatory pattern demanded by the hierarchy of common ancestry. It would specifically require a lion ancestor and an eagle ancestor which would violate genetics and biology. There exists no such organism that violates these fundamental concepts of common ancestry that arise from 4th grade math.

On the other hand, the specific and complex pattern of egg yolk genes in all mammals is sufficient to show conclusively that all mammals had a common ancestor that laid eggs. There is no other scientific evidence or alternative explanation for this complex pattern across all mammals to arise and the fact that it comports with set theory in such great detail is simply a staggering fact of genetics.

Additionally, we can continue to trace this pattern back to common ancestors that did not yet lay eggs and there is evidence that DNA based organisms evolved from RNA based organisms though this evidence is not yet conclusive. It is important though as RNA forms naturally, like snow and thus shows that every necessary mechanism and essential condition for life to form is factually present here on Earth even today.

Not quite as important, but equally impressive is the fact that there is not even a sign in any scientific evidence that there could possibly be an alternative. The fact of this inheritance and the detail of its pattern conforming with 4th grade math comprehensively and in great detail is as non-controversial as the Earth being a globe.

Additionally, this pattern that arises from Biology and Genetics fits perfectly into the many lines of other independent evidence from other fields like the pattern of bones illuminated by Paleontology, the pattern of rock layers illuminated by Geology, the chemical composition of those rocks as illuminated by Chemistry, the durability of those chemicals as illuminated by Physics and even the stability necessary for all of these parts to arise and function together as a unit as illuminated by Cosmology.

In short, the fields of science are interwoven and interdependent to such an extent that the entire enterprise of science would have to be wrong, the 4th grade math of set theory would have to be a farce, and laws of logic from Plato and Aristotle itself would have to be incoherent for there to be any hope in overturning common ancestry (evolution).

As a result, any person who is unaware that common ancestry is a scientific fact has a fundamental deficiency in either their knowledge of 4th grade math, 8th grade science, or 10th grade biology. There is no alternative for such profound ignorance.

These scientific facts are so well established that every reputable scientific organization from around the world, the most conservative and reliable organizations whose reputations are on line for even the smallest mistake (especially from competition with each other); and who are under tremendous local political and cultural pressure to disagree if they can - instead all agree in writing that these facts are conclusive, there is no sign of an alternative, AND positions to the contrary arise from deception, ignorance, and error alone.

I apologize for that final run on sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article…

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/intro_01

http://exploringorigins.org/rna.html

http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx

The Context

"so does constitute as logic enough to say I'm not promoting the entirety of the Bible?" -Kemp Slice

Yahweh is the boss of the stories of the Bible. In these stories, he murders babies for fun. Once he sent a henchman (the "Christ") named Jesus who was to be thrown into a volcano as an excuse for his sycophants to feel special about themselves.

Outside of the context of this fictional story - there is no Jesus or Christ in the real world. When you talk about Jesus or Christ it is within the context of this perverted little story called the Bible.

Jack Frost

ID people lets highlight your necessary logical fallacies: 1 - Complex things like snow need a designer (in the case of snow the designer is Jack Frost), this is an argument from ignorance. Its a logical fallacy indistinguishable from gibberish. 2 - Complex things need a designer, except for your designer, this is special pleading. Its a logical fallacy indistinguishable from gibberish.

indistinguishable from gibberish

god ideas are predicated on logical fallacies. Until you can describe your god idea without using logical fallacies it is indistinguishable from gibberish.