Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On the Topic of Free Will

joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 5:10:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This post is to address the common misconception between theists and non-theists on the subject of free will. As a theist my perspective on Free Will-will be taken from a Calvinist's/Reformed theological standpoint. Please note, that to my knowledge the majority of Christians in America follow a theology called Arminianism and that theology views this subject differently.

Theists position: God created man with free will in the extent that man is not 'inclined' in any way left to his self to make any bad/sinful decission. He is a completely 'free of evil' moral agent. God created man good, so man was 'inclined' to do good. Free will in the theistic understanding is not the ability to chose without any compulsion (which is completely illogical for any agent that is not compelled to do anything will do nothing). Free Will is the ability to chose without being inclined to sin.

Non-theists positions:
1 God designed a flaw within man that led to mans decission to sin.
2 A free choice is not a free choice when the agent is presented with a choice that has an external influence that will have a detrimental effect on the agent.

The attackers inject their reasoning of free will into the theists theology, and end up with a different theology and then proceed to attack said theology.

I would also wish to express that 'free will' is a poor term. The term 'free will' was coined during a time Christians debated the topic of the nature of man. Was man after the fall morally 'tabula rosa' (blank page) or does he have a nature of sin? The term was being used in a moral context not a logical context as I have witnessed being used by the attacking position (what is the correct term for this? please let me know I am new to this whole thing) on this forum. To address the complications of the term in Calvinist terminology 'free will' eventually became known as "bondage/Freedom of the will". Those terms were the titles of two books that drastically effected church theological history: Bondage of the Will (Martin Luther), and Freedom of the Will (Jonathan Edwards).

Free choice is not a free choice (to the extreme extent of the term) if influenced by an external force that would otherwise make the agent choose differently if the external force was not known/present. That is called coerssion. The theological understanding of 'free will' is related to moral choices being made as a result of the nature of the agent (nature of man, sin, an internal force). In a other post I said that 'free will is not free will if influenced also by an internal force'. However, I take that statement back. I cannot see the internal force of an agent being anything other then the nature of the agent. Therefor, the internal force being the nature of the agent is inseperable from the agent unless the agents very nature (essance) was changed. A choice made because of the nature of an agent and nothing more is a free choice. Finally, without an internal force (nature) or an external force (coerssion) I cannot see an agent making any choice.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 5:22:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't believe in free will. I believe everything is determined.

The limits of our own human perception prevent us from seeing all the variables that go into what actually is.

Free will is an illusion.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 6:12:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 5:22:00 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't believe in free will. I believe everything is determined.

The limits of our own human perception prevent us from seeing all the variables that go into what actually is.

Free will is an illusion.

Free will (as I have described above and 'everything is determined' are not exclusive. Just f.y.i.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 9:55:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 5:22:00 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't believe in free will. I believe everything is determined.

The limits of our own human perception prevent us from seeing all the variables that go into what actually is.

Free will is an illusion.

That's an odd thing for a Discordian-slash-Buddhist to say.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 10:12:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 9:55:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Free will is an illusion.

That's an odd thing for a Buddhist to say.

not really from my understanding...

didn't buddha hold that we understand the world of "things" as we discriminate them... operated by Cause and Effect.... Karma?

that when we think of the "things" of the world.. THAT (cause/effect) is the method by which we think of it?

Causes determine their effects.. and something like "your choice" is one of those "things" that are understood as coming to exist due to causes (like Your nature.. and that of the world)

If your choice is a thing.. which comes about from causes... then How is it Free?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 10:32:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 10:12:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/13/2011 9:55:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Free will is an illusion.

That's an odd thing for a Buddhist to say.

not really from my understanding...

didn't buddha hold that we understand the world of "things" as we discriminate them... operated by Cause and Effect.... Karma?

that when we think of the "things" of the world.. THAT (cause/effect) is the method by which we think of it?

Causes determine their effects.. and something like "your choice" is one of those "things" that are understood as coming to exist due to causes (like Your nature.. and that of the world)

If your choice is a thing.. which comes about from causes... then How is it Free?

From the broad perspective Buddha takes... the Ultimate nature of things/ Ultimate reality may be seen as BEYOND cause/effect... It simply IS..

but from that Broad perspective he would also not suggest that any individual "thing" can be said to exist... All is Nirvana.. Discriminations are without reason.

similarly... Even in the chain of causes which we understand a particular "choice" to have it's place in.... we would assume that they're rooted in something that is without cause... that simply IS..

Buddha (and Daoists) just suggests that the discrimination of Things, Causes, and Effects, is due to a biased perspective... and that, Ultimately, there is an uncaused Reality which lies behind it... That Discriminating particular things.. and noticing Cause/Effect are just what we happen to do... and that it doesn't sum up the Ultimate reality.

I would think that since buddha believes in an Ultimate reality (nirvana) lying behind the particular relations of things of Karma... He would be a Hard determinist.... in that that Ultimate, existent, reality is simply existent... and that it is directly, and Only, Through that that thoughts of Things occur...

notions of Karma are rooted in Nirvana.. but they don't characterize it/sum it up

the Causal Framework of things of Karma doesn't actually exist.. but those things being thought, as they are, is due to the Ultimate nature of reality that is Nirvana.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 10:47:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
or maybe I'm too generous in my espousal of what buddhists mean by Karma.. (I really haven't read too much from him)

that was my understanding of what buddha meant...

That Karma is the world of "things".. the world of Cause and Effect.. the world of discrimination... that we naturally tend to think in terms of.

and that Nirvana is understanding that Whole System of causes and effects all together.. which fit so closely to each other, So tied up all together, That it's quite impossible to distinguish one particular "thing" from another... They exist Through each other... by means of each other.. and In reality are quite inseparable.

Nirvana is that Whole, uncaused, existence... and any Active understanding of it's nature is accomplished through the Karmic discriminating of things which is Utterly tied up with causes/effects.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 10:50:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 10:12:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/13/2011 9:55:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Free will is an illusion.

That's an odd thing for a Buddhist to say.

not really from my understanding...

didn't buddha hold that we understand the world of "things" as we discriminate them... operated by Cause and Effect.... Karma?

that when we think of the "things" of the world.. THAT (cause/effect) is the method by which we think of it?

Causes determine their effects.. and something like "your choice" is one of those "things" that are understood as coming to exist due to causes (like Your nature.. and that of the world)

If your choice is a thing.. which comes about from causes... then How is it Free?

"In Buddhism, karma is not pre-determinism, fatalism or accidentalism, as all these ideas lead to inaction and destroy motivation and human effort. These ideas undermine the important concept that a human being can change for the better no matter what his or her past was, and they are designated as "wrong views" in Buddhism. The Buddha identified three:

1. Pubbekatahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering, including all future happiness and suffering, arise from previous karma, and human beings can exercise no volition to affect future results (Past-action determinism).
2. Issaranimmanahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism).
3. Ahetu-appaccaya-vaada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism).

Karma is continually ripening, but it is also continually being generated by present actions, therefore it is possible to exercise free will to shape future karma. P.A. Payutto writes, "the Buddha asserts effort and motivation as the crucial factors in deciding the ethical value of these various teachings on kamma."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 11:11:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 5:10:21 PM, joneszj wrote:
This post is to address the common misconception between theists and non-theists on the subject of free will. As a theist my perspective on Free Will-will be taken from a Calvinist's/Reformed theological standpoint. Please note, that to my knowledge the majority of Christians in America follow a theology called Arminianism and that theology views this subject differently.

Theists position: God created man with free will in the extent that man is not 'inclined' in any way left to his self to make any bad/sinful decission. He is a completely 'free of evil' moral agent. God created man good, so man was 'inclined' to do good. Free will in the theistic understanding is not the ability to chose without any compulsion (which is completely illogical for any agent that is not compelled to do anything will do nothing). Free Will is the ability to chose without being inclined to sin.


I think that position is globally a minority one as well.

Non-theists positions:
1 God designed a flaw within man that led to mans decission to sin.

This is correct in regards the bulk of Christian teachings.

2 A free choice is not a free choice when the agent is presented with a choice that has an external influence that will have a detrimental effect on the agent.

True.

The attackers inject their reasoning of free will into the theists theology, and end up with a different theology and then proceed to attack said theology.

I would also wish to express that 'free will' is a poor term. The term 'free will' was coined during a time Christians debated the topic of the nature of man. Was man after the fall morally 'tabula rosa' (blank page) or does he have a nature of sin? The term was being used in a moral context not a logical context as I have witnessed being used by the attacking position (what is the correct term for this? please let me know I am new to this whole thing) on this forum. To address the complications of the term in Calvinist terminology 'free will' eventually became known as "bondage/Freedom of the will". Those terms were the titles of two books that drastically effected church theological history: Bondage of the Will (Martin Luther), and Freedom of the Will (Jonathan Edwards).

Free choice is not a free choice (to the extreme extent of the term) if influenced by an external force that would otherwise make the agent choose differently if the external force was not known/present. That is called coerssion. The theological understanding of 'free will' is related to moral choices being made as a result of the nature of the agent (nature of man, sin, an internal force). In a other post I said that 'free will is not free will if influenced also by an internal force'. However, I take that statement back. I cannot see the internal force of an agent being anything other then the nature of the agent. Therefor, the internal force being the nature of the agent is inseperable from the agent unless the agents very nature (essance) was changed. A choice made because of the nature of an agent and nothing more is a free choice. Finally, without an internal force (nature) or an external force (coerssion) I cannot see an agent making any choice.

Grill em, bake em, fry em, eat em, there waffley versatile ooh ooh!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 11:26:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Even though everything is determined, that doesn't mean that we don't subjectively experience free will.

Stupid people seem to think that if they don't have free will, that means that if they do nothing, they will automatically do something. Stupid people seem to think that not having free will means that you are incapable of analyzing yourself or doing anything. Everything you do, whether you feel you put effort into it or not is determined. The fact that having a certain bit of knowledge caused you to stop putting effort into things is in itself a variable that effected your behavior.

We are robots that are capable of becoming self aware.

There is nothing about by stance that conflicts with discordianism or even Buddhism as far as I know.

One could argue that because I don't truly believe in chaos, that conflicts with discordianism... However, I do believe in chaos. Chaos, like free will, is an illusion created by our inability to account for all variables. The variable unaccounted for is Eris. Eris is our inability to perceive anything objectively.

One could argue that because I don't truly believe in free will, that conflicts with Buddhism. This is not true. If you examine your thought processes till the point of enlightenment, that is when you realize that free will is an illusion.

It is all part of the Big Cosmic Joke.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 11:28:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But yeah Geo, it is for the reason that you state that it isn't helpful really to tell someone that everything is determined. Some people take it as a license to be a dipsh!t.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 11:33:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 10:50:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"In Buddhism, karma is not pre-determinism, fatalism or accidentalism, as all these ideas lead to inaction and destroy motivation and human effort. These ideas undermine the important concept that a human being can change for the better no matter what his or her past was, and they are designated as "wrong views" in Buddhism. The Buddha identified three:

1. Pubbekatahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering, including all future happiness and suffering, arise from previous karma, and human beings can exercise no volition to affect future results (Past-action determinism).
2. Issaranimmanahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism).
3. Ahetu-appaccaya-vaada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism).

Karma is continually ripening, but it is also continually being generated by present actions, therefore it is possible to exercise free will to shape future karma. P.A. Payutto writes, "the Buddha asserts effort and motivation as the crucial factors in deciding the ethical value of these various teachings on kamma."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Well.. even if that fully sums up Buddha's notion of Karma.. and I was simply wrong in my estimation of what buddha thought..
who cares.. as we both know by now.. Buddha was wrong in a similar way in taking His perspective and calling it Absolute in the case of his Favoring Empathy and saying it's objectively good.

lol :P

All is Nirvana.. All is Buddha.. All is Ultimate Reality = there are no "maybe's"... things are as they are..

Things appear as they do.. Through Ultimate Reality

now.. This has nothing to do with whether or not "people" can change over time.. or "better themselves"... this is possible even within a Cause and Effect framework...

in reality there is no absolutely distinct, soul-like individual/agent, of I or you to "choose".. Rather that subject, and that action, are inextricably bound to Feelings and Understandings.... we assume a distinct, Separate, subject (the Ego) b/c of patterns of understanding/feeling...

so.. it could hardly make sense that our "choices" rely on that distinct individual/ego more so than that individual has existence.. the Subject is only assumed to exist due to Understanding's/Feelings..

so How a choice can be rooted in a subject w/o being rooted in Understandings/feelings is Beyond imaginable...

and the arising of those Understandings/feelings are themselves due to the nature of things.. like "your" nature... or as we know now: ''your' brain.. and it's nature. Natures of which we understand by Further Causes...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 11:52:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, for the record, I don't consider to be myself a Buddhist, I just so happen to be able to make sense of a lot of what Buddha supposedly said.

I like Discordianism because it seems like nonsense at a glance, and it is, but there is a deeper meaning to its perceived meaninglessness that is awfully meaningful. It is actually a lot more philosophically deep than people give it credit for.

Discordianism is a joke that is played on people who don't get what it is saying. The people who get what it is saying have truly been touched by Eris. Invariably in ways that are naughty.

I belong to an unseriously serious about being seriously unserious ultra pretentious sect of unpretentiousness that goes by the name of "Discordian Cosmic Alfonzoist Buddhism"

However, the name itself is meaningless, and doesn't really describe much of anything. I am what I am. Lick my decals off, baby
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 12:14:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 12:02:15 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
If "omniscient" includes knowledge of the future, free will is incompatible with an omniscient God. Sorry!

The Theist rebuttal to that is that God is outside of time. His knowledge isn't temporal.

Of course the problem with that arises when you ask "Does God know what time it is?" which the answer would have to be "No" because he is atemporal and does not exist in a specific point on the timeline.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 12:22:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 12:14:19 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Theist rebuttal to that is that God is outside of time. His knowledge isn't temporal.

I'd say the problem with that is it concedes the argument :P

if God doesn't see creation Temporally.. Then it Ultimately ISN'T temporal.

If he sees the creation as an "Eternal Present".. or: all times at once... Then That's how it IS in Reality.

and so... your choices ARE what they are.. and couldn't be otherwise.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 12:31:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 11:26:17 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

Everything you do, whether you feel you put effort into it or not is determined.

At 3/13/2011 5:22:00 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

I don't believe in free will. I believe everything is determined.

You believe both everything is determined and also not determined?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 12:31:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 12:22:38 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/14/2011 12:14:19 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Theist rebuttal to that is that God is outside of time. His knowledge isn't temporal.

I'd say the problem with that is it concedes the argument :P

if God doesn't see creation Temporally.. Then it Ultimately ISN'T temporal.

No, God sees the whole timeline simultaneously. Picture a line, he exists outside of it and can see the whole line.

If he sees the creation as an "Eternal Present".. or: all times at once... Then That's how it IS in Reality.

Does not follow. We don't share the same perspective as God. We see things from inside the timeline, he sees the timeline from outside.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 12:34:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 12:02:15 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
If "omniscient" includes knowledge of the future, free will is incompatible with an omniscient God.

Not if you are a compatibilist.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 12:39:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 12:31:25 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/13/2011 11:26:17 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

Everything you do, whether you feel you put effort into it or not is determined.

At 3/13/2011 5:22:00 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

I don't believe in free will. I believe everything is determined.

You believe both everything is determined and also not determined?

I think you misread something. I'm saying that everything is determined.

By this, I mean that from a time-centric standpoint, the universe has an inevitable conclusion, and there is no true element of chaos. As Einstein once said, "God does not play dice with the universe". That pretty much expresses my thoughts on the matter.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 1:25:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 12:14:19 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/14/2011 12:02:15 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
If "omniscient" includes knowledge of the future, free will is incompatible with an omniscient God. Sorry!

The Theist rebuttal to that is that God is outside of time. His knowledge isn't temporal.

No, the theist answer would be Molinism [http://en.wikipedia.org...] or open theism [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. If I were a Christian, I would probably be an open theist.

Of course the problem with that arises when you ask "Does God know what time it is?" which the answer would have to be "No" because he is atemporal and does not exist in a specific point on the timeline.

The question "what time is it?" includes an implicit modifier, "what time is it now?" So, given that God is atemporal, the question "what time is it right now?" would be literally meaningless.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 1:27:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I should add that the question "what time was it when X occurred?" would be meaningful and there's no reason to think that God couldn't answer it.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 2:04:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 1:27:44 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I should add that the question "what time was it when X occurred?" would be meaningful and there's no reason to think that God couldn't answer it.

This.

There's no reason to suppose that because God is atemporal he has no epistemic access to temporal references.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 5:33:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 12:34:19 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/14/2011 12:02:15 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
If "omniscient" includes knowledge of the future, free will is incompatible with an omniscient God.

Not if you are a compatibilist.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Dude great post!
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 5:39:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 5:10:21 PM, joneszj wrote:

There are DEGREES of freedom within our will; IF you do not take hold of the small choices, the larger ones will always be too much for you; we become the sum of our choices and, depending whether they follow God's Word or not, we will EITHER become the prisoners of our choices (addiction and depravity etc) OR we will be set free by them..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 9:05:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 12:39:05 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are direct quotes, I am not misinterpreting anything, they are your direct words.

As Einstein once said, "God does not play dice with the universe".

Yes, and he was wrong. It is an example of paradigm-lock as noted by Khun. Einstein wanted desparately for his vision of UFT to be true and thus rejected QM, inspite of the constant wealth of experimental verification - ironically, the same process of course is what generated General Relativity so he accepted it when it showed what he wanted and then rejected it when it did not.

As he was fond of saying that, Bohr (who was part of the core Cophenhagen Interpretation) growing tired of it and responded famously "Einstein, stop telling God what to do.". Note beyond QM, Chaos Math shows that it is impossible to determine events which are sufficiently non-linear as the bounds for the outcome are beyond the ability of perturbation analysis to determine as the information content is too high.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 10:49:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 9:05:55 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/14/2011 12:39:05 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are direct quotes, I am not misinterpreting anything, they are your direct words.


I know they are my direct words, you are misreading something. I don't see the contradiction.

As Einstein once said, "God does not play dice with the universe".

Yes, and he was wrong. It is an example of paradigm-lock as noted by Khun. Einstein wanted desparately for his vision of UFT to be true and thus rejected QM, inspite of the constant wealth of experimental verification - ironically, the same process of course is what generated General Relativity so he accepted it when it showed what he wanted and then rejected it when it did not.

As he was fond of saying that, Bohr (who was part of the core Cophenhagen Interpretation) growing tired of it and responded famously "Einstein, stop telling God what to do.". Note beyond QM, Chaos Math shows that it is impossible to determine events which are sufficiently non-linear as the bounds for the outcome are beyond the ability of perturbation analysis to determine as the information content is too high.

I didn't pull that quote because it was Einstein, I pulled the quote because It describes my thoughts on the matter.

None of this conflicts my thoughts that there is nothing that is truly random, only variables unaccounted for.. And yes, because it is impossible for us to account for all variables, we have no choice but "pretend" that there is an element of chance, because to us, there appears to be. We are incapable of examining every variable, because everything is connected.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 10:54:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 10:49:14 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/14/2011 9:05:55 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/14/2011 12:39:05 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are direct quotes, I am not misinterpreting anything, they are your direct words.


I know they are my direct words, you are misreading something. I don't see the contradiction.


As Einstein once said, "God does not play dice with the universe".

Yes, and he was wrong. It is an example of paradigm-lock as noted by Khun. Einstein wanted desparately for his vision of UFT to be true and thus rejected QM, inspite of the constant wealth of experimental verification - ironically, the same process of course is what generated General Relativity so he accepted it when it showed what he wanted and then rejected it when it did not.

As he was fond of saying that, Bohr (who was part of the core Cophenhagen Interpretation) growing tired of it and responded famously "Einstein, stop telling God what to do.". Note beyond QM, Chaos Math shows that it is impossible to determine events which are sufficiently non-linear as the bounds for the outcome are beyond the ability of perturbation analysis to determine as the information content is too high.

I didn't pull that quote because it was Einstein, I pulled the quote because It describes my thoughts on the matter.

None of this conflicts my thoughts that there is nothing that is truly random, only variables unaccounted for.. And yes, because it is impossible for us to account for all variables, we have no choice but "pretend" that there is an element of chance, because to us, there appears to be. We are incapable of examining every variable, because everything is connected.

Quantum physics disagrees with you. Also your "variable unaccounted for" spiel is obfuscating BS.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 11:01:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm telling you that Quantum Physics does not disagree with what I'm saying.

Quantum physics shows how how pervasive the variable unaccounted for is.

If you honestly think the variable unaccounted for is BS, then you clearly don't understand what the words mean.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 11:03:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 11:01:48 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm telling you that Quantum Physics does not disagree with what I'm saying.

Quantum physics shows how how pervasive the variable unaccounted for is.

If you honestly think the variable unaccounted for is BS, then you clearly don't understand what the words mean.

Excuse me, that I'm using it to mask BS.

I'm not, it is very relevant in the contexts that I use it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp