But in a fixed future, every "spontaneous" action, to counter an obstacle has been determined. If the future is not fixed, then free will doesn't exist, because free will relies on a fixed future to alter.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimaHybrid
Printable View
But in a fixed future, every "spontaneous" action, to counter an obstacle has been determined. If the future is not fixed, then free will doesn't exist, because free will relies on a fixed future to alter.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimaHybrid
bravo bravo bravo.. kudos.. i have no idea what that word means....
Determinism does not negate the idea that our expressions can contain truth. The term refers to the idea that everything is causally determined based on the preceeding laws. Anything but that is speculation. Whether or not you truly consider facts at hand anymore, it will have been causally determined to be that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
This was interesting, I will give you credit. How the mind works biochemically and the conscious appraisal and reasoning are very similar. The conscious appraisal and reasoning is merely the result of biochemistry and ultimately physics which my brain uses during its lifetime. Ultimately everything is a bunch of energy moving around, so you could say that we don't really know anything; there's only one substance and thus no comparison.Quote:
Everything we know comes to us through our senses, and we make inferences about the world we live in via those senses; these inferences lead us to more detailed conclusions; as such, all possible knowlege depends upon the validity of our reasoning (that with with we make inferences); if the certainty we express by words such as must be, therefore and since is a real perception as to how things outside our own minds must be, then all is well and good. But, if this sense of certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents how our minds work (determinism) - then we can have no knowledge at all (liberal borrowing from CS Lewis, Miracles).
In other words: our perception of the reality of the world cannot be true if determinism is correct, because our vision of what the world is merely a result of how our minds work electronically/chemically, rather than a conscious appraisal and system of inferences we make using our reason.
How does one empirically arrive at something by mathematical means?Quote:
Truth is not purely a mental construct; but neither is all truth empirically arrived at by mathematical means. You keep quoting mathematical proofs as if that's all reality is founded upon: what mathematical proofs can you offer me that any of your posts contain any truth whatsoever? Aren't your posts merely a result of the random electronic/chemical processes in your brain over which you have no say or control?
Math is not what reality is founded upon, it's the predictible way it behaves, and it isn't used to tell people how truthful a post is. Anything dealing with quantities is pretty much mathematics, or can be mathematically shown. My posts are from determined biochemical processes in my brain, and to say that "I" have no control over it is pretty arbitrary when the pronoun refers to something which is not different than anything else.
The use of language very much kills the ability to see things as they are. You know separate words for different objects, how they move and how you feel, but its under the false pretense that they are about separate things. All matter is a form of energy (or substance) and it shifts, as it were. What you refer to as you is in fact no different.
My answer is yes and no. I suppose if a person really wants one and puts effort into having it, then it is possible. If will is really free, than bad habits would be rid of more easily, yes? For me, Ambrose Bierce took on this question with his definition of the word "decide" or decision. " A decision is the preponderance of one set of influences over another." If he is right, this debunks at least partially, a totally free will. Another quote might help...forget the author..."We are a part of all that we have met". So many forces and emotions, thoughts and instincts govern our behavior, the concept of free will is at best partially true and always tenuous. quasimodo1
God is Omniscient - there is "no may". God knows the future already. Even the "prayers of good people" so there is no need to alter the future. If he needed to do that then he is not omnisicient - hence contradictory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
Show me how Characters in a novel make choices. Remember everything that will happen is already written down in a book by God.Quote:
Well, he have high will (Kulli İrade=Total Will) but we do have little will, so he creates concept of good and choices, but we choose 'em.
See above.Quote:
He creates every action and thing but we choose them. For example concept of death created by God, just like concept of goodness or life, but you are the one who choose one of choices, for example if you kill someone you choosed it if you help and give good things to someone, then it's you choice too. Also he knows everything happened, but that doesn't mean he forced you to do something.
The argument presented by Pendragon appeared to be that if determinism were true, everyone would act like clones - a counter-argument is that this assumes everyone is being acted on by identical causes (i.e. has an identical brain).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Please do not personalise your arguments.
If you do not like a poster's arguments, wordings and/or style, feel free to ignore them.
As I said, "Have a nice day." Pointless arguments do no one any good. If the good Doctor will accept my apology for any misunderstandings, I am certain I will not bother anyone further.
Dear Pen: It seems to me that when religion gets on a forum, objectivity and openmindedness go off. I'm sure that i've upset more than one deist or believer, very few of whom seem to be able to comprehend spirituality without need of deity. There's no oxymoron there. quasimodo1
My understanding of determinism is pretty simple, so I may be saying stupid things here, but I understand determinism to mean that choice is a determined by some force or influence in my life - not my will. Granted: many things may influence our choices, but determinism suggests that the choice was not mine, but the processes that surround me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
Thank you. Lewis articulates my belief much better than I can: if our perception of how the world is is merely a function of how our brain works and not a conscious, freely chosen inference, then we can know nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
I should have written "by empirical or mathematical means."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
Going metaphysical on me doesn't change the fact that you just admitted that your thoughts were the product of determined biochemical processes; as such, they can hold no true validity because you weren't in charge of those ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
But we have to use language to communicate. Just because all matter may be a form of energy doesn't make all matter identical. A tree and a guitar are both made of wood, but they function quite differently and are separate things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
This presupposes the idea that the future exists to be known. Does it? How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Still on the novel analogy, huh? That one doesn't work because we are real and the characters in a novel aren't; we exist and have been given an independent physical, psychological and moral reality that characters of a novel (imaginative creations) do not. They're not the same - at least in the way you're trying to connect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
I think I've stated my point well enough to leave things more or less as they are. The concept of the self, what you call you, must be completely illusory. To state that "you choose something" does not follow because there is only one thing; you're comprised of atoms and they are concentrated energy, and perceived changes are only a result of its kinetic manifestation. Any mention of the soul or afterlife is an appeal to the imagination and not grounded.
All that is (matter and its movement) is fundamentally identical, the differences appear as a result of our ignorance of this fact. I don't like it anymore than you do, but at the same time this is the only way things can be.
Our fundamental difference appears to be our foundational philosophies: I believe I am a divinely created creature and was given the gift of free will; your comments suggest that you are a naturalist and view life as only material in nature. If this is so, then that would adequately explain our differing positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
Yes, man does have free will........that is, of course, until he gets married.
I figured that was a given...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by BibliophileTRJ
Did you get the PM I sent you, Mr. Dr. Ralph?
yes MAN has afree well
according to many religions " isalm, christianity, and the jews" , Man has got the absolute free well, and freedom to choose
Thomas Aquinas, " the scholastic philosopher", proved thaT God has the absolute knowledge of MAN's attitudes and plans , but as the known God do not interfer in Man's choice so Man bears the bearings of his choices
THE Night Closet
But is there any water in it? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Night Closet
My humble apologies :blush:
Quote:
Yes, man does have free will........that is, of course, until he gets married.
May I refer both you chaps to the "Will feminism dismantle patriarchy" thread... You need to spend more time there ;)Quote:
I figured that was a given...
in the dualistic terminology of the english language "free will" does indeed exist. but we probably shouldnt take the rules of english grammar to be synonymous with the patterns of the universe.
I know, I said I wouldn't bother people. Forgive me, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Guys, you may not have noticed, but this is the Religious Section, not the Philosophical Section. The question of free will therefore should be approached from the religious standpoint. If one wishes to discuss the philosophical implications of the thought, why not start a thread on the Philosophy Section?
Free will as it applies to Religion is thus: Does God hold the fate of man, or can man choose his own fate? Will a man's choices be in the end what saves or dooms him? I suggest reading Ezekiel chapter 18 and chapter 33, and the last chapter of Revelation. These scriptures clearly point out that a man's choice will be his salvation or doom.
God Bless.
Pen.
I do not believe in free will, it seems to me that a person must be all knowing in order to act absolutely. If a person does wrong regularly from not knowing of God or his consequences, the only thing he can be held absolutely in contempt of is being foolish. The Lord said 'they are like us now' when Adam and Eve sinned. I'm guessing from Job that 'us' means God and Satan, but this still doesn't justify the idea of human will. If your a goat or a sheep you can't help but be one or the other. You are what you are. :)
Not everyone's religion is Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Point taken. Dr. Ralph is correct. I cannot help but notice this post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
Perhaps someone from another Religion would like to present his or her scriptural reference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Night Closet
God said "they are like us now" in that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (God uses the royal "we" to refer to Himself all through the creation narrative, though it can also be used as proof of the Trinity), not to mean that humanity was like God and Satan. If you believe what you say about foolishness/ignorance being the only cause for disapproval, read Romans. God has written His law on our hearts, that even those who never hear the Gospel are without excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by linz
I would counter by referring to the countless instances of God "hardening" a man's heart, as well as numerous references to the opposite effect... Even Paul's conversion. I would specifically point to Exodus, with the hardening of Pharaoh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
True. But scripture cannot contradict scripture. Pharaoh had been given a chance to allow the slaves to go free without punishment. He refused. So God took full punishment on Egypt for the entire 400 years of slavery and all the children slain by that Pharaoh who tried to kill Moses. Thus to exact punishment, he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Paul's conversion is an example of a man being given a choice. He asked what he was supposed to do. He could have refused, and added Aninias to his list of people to arrest. He chose to go God's way.
This is a closed book with me. I believe in man's free will. That said, if another does not, who am I to judge and say that they are wrong? If we both are sincere in our service to God, we do God a disservice by allowing that point to be our dividing line. United we stand, but a house divided against itself will surely fall.
God Bless.
Pen.
Right you are. No reason to fight. However, for the sake of the pure intellectual argument, I would like to make one last comment. True, on the surface Pharaoh was offered the choice of allowing Israel to go free. However, as I understand it (just clarifying my point--don't want to get into a bigger mess, here), internally his heart was continually hardened, in order that God might accomplish His will in punishing Egypt. Last post, I promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Some theologians argue that the action of God's conviction on the human heart will either soften it or harden it - that the statement "God hardened Pharoh's heart" does not necessarily mean that the "hardening" was consciously done by God's action, but that the condition of Pharoh's heart caused it to "harden" in response to the conviction of God upon it. Since God knows us intimately, it may be assumed that God was certain that Pharoh would choose thusly, but there was a chance (however small) that Pharoh might have chosen otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Okay, but how about "He gave them over to unnatural passions"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
We are condensed experience. Our 'choices' are influenced by personal history and present environment. In order to continue operating in the world, we are fooled by the brain into thinking that we have freewill. It makes sense out of our conditioned responses.
It seems to me that true free choice, if there is such a thing, would have to be spontaneous and random, free from premeditation and bias. It would have to break the linear nature of the cause and effect process that rules the Universe. There is no freewill. For an intellectually demanding argument against freewill read Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons. For a more relaxing and leisurely argument, read John Gray's Straw Dogs.
He allowed them to pursue that which would hurt them in a variety of ways. I don't get what you're implying with this example in terms of free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
If you're suggesting that the verb "gave" indicates active action by God I disagree.
I think that "gave" is a verb, is it not? Verbs imply action, and give is a relatively active verb. I would also refer you to the episode in which God confuses (I believe that is the term used, though I may be wrong) the Egyptians, and causes them to give over their wealth to the Israelites before they left. Plus, the term hardening is used so repetitiously that it seems to indicate God's direct action. Additionally the term "elect" and "those He chose" would imply that God does in fact elect His people, and if He does that, why should He not have the power to force action or deny the will of people being exercised?
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary lists 53 definitions for the word "give" - so it's not quite as cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it. I'm trying to make a linguistic point here about what the word "gave" implies in terms of God's action. "Give over" is defined as such: "to put into the care of; transfer." So, I would reply that God's "giving over" of those listed in Romans to their "unnatural passions" was less God doing something in the way of choosing what these people would serve and more of allowing them to be put into the care of the Devil due to their choices (cf. Paul's recommendation in I Corinthians about the man living in sexual immorality). Such behavior is passive action - He withdraws His care and allows them to be "given" completely to their passions without mitigating conviction from the Holy Spirit. I can't say for certain that that is what it means, but the point I'm making about "give" is that it doesn't imply necessarily here that God did anything that impeded the free choice of these individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
The frequency of the usage of "hardens" does not change what it means; C.S. Lewis said that Christ generally recieved one of three responses here on earth: 1) you worshipped him; 2) you were terrified of him; 3) you hated him. I believe that that's true, and I don't wonder if the conviction of the Holy Spirit on the human heart doesn't create the same responses in humans. The sun alternately hardens and softens different materials here on earth - perhaps the contents of our hearts create a similar interaction with the warmth of the Holy Spirit is applied.
A.) You precisely made my point with regards to the "give over" thing: God, through the withdrawal of His gracious assistance allows the men to exercise their own will (I will not say free, for a different reason). But until that point, God had been restraining them. That is the eternal way it works: God restrains the sinful nature of man, and when He does not, man sins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
B.) God knows the effect of His own Spirit beforehand-- therefore, in His infinite wisdom and according to His plan, He uses the effect of the Spirit to accomplish His means. As John Calvin says, God does not sit idly in a tower hoping that fortune will accomplish His means.
Grace and Peace.
The "restraint" is not active - He stops them from nothing - but He may be convicting them and dropping consequences into their lives to try and steer them away from the cliff they're heading pell-mell towards - but I do not believe He actively impedes our free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Knowing how we will react to a certain situation does not mean He made us choose as we did. We still freely chose, and there is always the chance that we could choose otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Ah, now we reach the fundamental break. Calvinism for me, and I think you would feel comfortable describing yourself as Wesleyan or Arminian? I believe that man's will is always (in the present life, of course) disposed toward evil, and cannot overcome it. I believe that only God's active restraint prevents totality of sin. However, I do not argue that we freely choose to do evil, only that God at times chooses to restrain us. Calvin says we sin "of necessity, but not under compulsion." We will sin, this is inevitable. But God does not compel us to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
See, this is where Calvin & you are on a slippery slope. If God restrains people sometimes, why not all the time - especially in the case of bad things happening to good people.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Don't you see that if Calvin is correct there are no good people? However, this is an important issue. God does not restrain us all the time for several reasons. He does not desire a universe of automatons-- He sometimes allows us to carry out our will because to do otherwise would essentially negate the most God-like thing about humanity-- the ability to choose and act on choice. Furthermore, He allows it to strengthen us-- faith and morals are like muscles, they must be used in order to remain strong. And He allows sin in order to both convict (pangs of conscience sometimes are more effective than a thousand blessings) and to judge (living with the consequences of sin is like a pre-Judgment judgment). And, please remember, I don't have all (if any) of the answers.
Grace and Peace.
You're right: Calvinist I'm not. Paul made it clear that we freely choose who we serve. His words become nonsense if free will doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
No, they don't. I will present the Reader's Digest version of the Calvinist will:
1. Originally free.
2. Made slave to sin after the Fall.
3. Freed by faith-- but the trappings of flesh cause the believer to sin.
Hence-- God frees our will and we freely choose to believe. I'm just glad to see we're both thinking about this kind of thing.
Grace and Peace, Red.
The calvinist attitude is one of the more difficult concepts to reconcile with a benevolent god, I guess the more apt term to have used is innocent rather than good. Dont worry though I'm not looking for answers, existence of gods or otherwise doesnt interest me - belief systems do, I am interested in the abrahamic religions in probably the same way the religions of Ancient Greece, Rome & Egypt interest you. Only difference is I have living followers of these religions to pose questions to.
I wish you'd reconsider your stance, and I don't think the concept of a benevolent God is hard to reconcile with Calvinism... but I won't get into that.
Personally, I think Norse and Irish mythology are so much more interesting than Greco-Roman, don't you?