|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free will: an illusion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
creavolution writes: I have yet to meet anyone who, after having actually met God, freely rejected Him.
But god knows what decision we will make, so in Effect he creates us (or some of us)knowing that we will not choose him. or choose to accept his advances. i.e. doomed to eternal hell..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Yes, I am trying to point out that an all knowing God, as per your belief, negates the possibility of free will in any real sense. There are two ways to look at this discussion. You can stand on the outside and look at me and what I say from the stance of an outside, disinterested observer. Or you can stand inside with me and have a look for yourself. Lets take the first one first. Crevo the observer iano believes/thinks that God existsiano believes/thinks that God is all knowing You don't believe/think these things yourself but you accept, for the purposes of discussion, that what I say I believe is what I believe. None of these belief are logical fallacies. But it is a logical fallacy for me to then say "I believe (or think that) free will is made illusionary by Gods all knowing". For that would mean I am a machine which means that 'I' don't exist at all. In saying such a thing I am slitting the throat of the very basis on which I say anything. A machine cannot believe things nor say that it thinks "free will is made illusionary..." You can accept my beliefs for the purposes of discussion but not at the same time as saying my saying free will is illusionary on account of an a.k. God. You must choose: me as free willed (within boundaries) individual or a machine with whom you speak (which is a waste of your time) Crevo the young believer The second way to look at it is for you to join me and believe (for the purposes of discussion) rather than accept (for the purposes of discussion) iano and crevo believe/think that God existsiano and crevo believe/think that God is all knowing You would in fact be assuming (for the sake of discussion) the same position of a young-in-his-faith-believer. A person who had gotten thus far and who now had some questions in mind. In this case you must examine what the consequences for you would be where you to ask the question, "believing/thinking what I already do, can I be free willed before an a.k. God" You face the same problems as above. You can only conlude you have a free will. Conluding otherwise means you render youself a machine and are in no position to comment on anything. No position to say that you believe or think. No position to wonder whether you have free will. Machines cannot wonder if they have free will. This is all I can say on this matter Crevo. The statement in point #1 in your OP is a logical fallacy given the couple of beliefs which are accepted/believed for the sake of discussion. In answering the next of your questions, I will assume the postion of us having free will but that that free will is subject to boundaries and limitations and influences. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : change he to God is all knowing Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given. NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
And the characters will arrive at whatever conclusions the story dictates. If they 'think', that is because the story says they think. They don't actually. No more that the characters in the novel you are reading at the moment 'think'. If they arrive at the 'conclusion' that the universe is indeterministic then that doesn't mean it is. They arrived there because the story says they would arrive there. If they 'suggest' that God could have made them possess virtual free-will by means of quantum indeterminism then that too is inevitable in the story. It doesn't mean that is the case. It would mean I am writing this because the story says I do and you will respond because the story says so too.
Exactly my point.
A very intricately woven story, but a story all the same. Discussion is pointless because there is no such thing as discussion. And my halting the discussion with you now until such time as you figure a way out of this dilema is part of that story.
Of course there is such a thing as a discussion. It's just a scripted one in which we are all completely unaware of what we are going to say until we beleive we have made the decision to say it.If you halt the discussion now, that is only because because the story says that is what you are going to do. you don't have a choice in the matter. (Hint: free will!)
Nope still don't see any. I haven't read the next few posts yet. I will do so right now
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4493 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
err sorry but thats the whole god thing .. having super powers ... like creating the universe ... you are saying that because god know what to you is a future event stop free will .. when to god its not the future
so either you except a god who has super power .. or you say there is no god .....or you come up ,with some strange limits you wish to impose on god ..... which is it ... onc e you have set the stage then get on to free will.. is not god setting you the test of discovery , ....if being saved is possible .. is it not only real if you do the "right" things because you belive them to be right OR is it better to follow a given script ?? should we not be good without thought , plan or scheme .. good for goodness sake ... yes i know a very very high ideal .. but self reconision of failing is part of discovery ..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Hi Iblis.
I think you are either missing or misunderstanding the point that Crevo and I are making.
Iblis writes:
No problem with this part except to emphasize that we actually do not have the ability to know the final outcome until after the event. That is the crux of the argument
We can, however, observe their actions. We can eventually SEE what the outcome is. Our ability to know the final outcome, as it happens, does not in any way prevent them from making whichever turns they make and certainly does not mean we somehow are forcing them to end up where they are. Their "free will" or more properly indeterminacy is not interfered with by our observation, and it is NOT our fault if some of them end up on one side of the room rather than the other.Iblis writes:
Here is the problem. You are now bringing interference into the equation. Neither Crevo or myself have ever suggested any kind of interference. The fact is that interference would put a whole new slant on the slant on the argument and really screw it up. Now, let's postulate a being that can see not just the present, but the future, the entirety of the spacetime continuum at once, or something like that. This being values free will and doesn't interfere with people's decisions. The outcome of those decisions are "already" known, but there is no reason that that knowing would constitute interference just because it includes one more dimension than the previous examples. The reason we tend to think it somehow does make a difference is because we don't really value free will (in others) and we WOULD interfere.My argument specifically excludes interference of any kind. Iblis writes:
It doesn't matter one iota whether I or God or some super powered Alien like Superman can do anything about it at all since any kind of interference is specifically excluded from my argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with omnipotense (the ability to do something about it) and everything about the ability to know it's gonna happen. Now let's add omnipotence, this is the actual real kicker, not omniscience at all. When I'm watching you jump off a building, from down below, I can't really do crap about it. Take your own analogy. You jump off a roof. If an omnipotent God knows you are going to do it and has always known you are going to do it then you ARE going to do it. If you were to reconsider at the last moment and not jump then that would make him wrong. An omnipotent God cannot be wrong. That is the point here. And that means that for all of eternity, you were destined to jump off that roof and there wasn't a single thing that you could ever do to change that.God didn't make you do it or even withhold his interference to stop you doing it. He simply knew that you would do it. But if I'm your omnipotent creator and already know you are going to make the plunge, and could reach out and make you fly instead, or change the past or create you differently or make sure you take your meds or whatever intervention might be suitable
This point really puts the cat among the pidgeons.Let's say that....
As I said above, being omnipotent means knowing all things across all time and never being wrong about the tiniest little detail.All of our lives are like a big soap opera to an omnipotent God. he can watch them over and over and over like we can watch a video replay. And each time he watches the rerun, the same thing is gonna happen. How boring is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
I have yet to meet anyone who, after having actually met God, freely rejected Him.
Weel there were once this couple by the name of Adam and Eve who knew God really well. They met him face to face all the time and talked with him regularly.Now what was it that happened to them....? It slipped my mind for the moment...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
We really aren't getting anywhere with this.
I am looking at this as an observer. Correct What do I observe? I observe someone who believes a bunch of stuff that I believe are mutually exclusive. There is no way that I can step into your position of accepting these things without undermining the reason for even taking part in this discussion. I contend that if God is Omniscient then free will is an illusion since he already knows every action that will ever be taken by any of us at any time. If I have the ability to do any single little thing or make one solitary choice that God does not already know then it is his omniscience that is the illusion. For example if I watch an episode of faulty towers, I am then omniscient about what happens in that episode. When I watch the re-run, Basil is gonna slp manuel around the head at exactly the same time for doing exactly the same stupid thing every timeThere is absolutely no way that it can happen any differently. Basil has no free will in the matter. All of eternity is like that to an Omniscient God. Does this make us unthinking automatons?Hell yes!!! Is there any point arguing with such an automaton?Not really. You are right about that. But what choice do we have? We are the way we are. You say.
A machine cannot believe things nor say that it thinks
I contend that this is an incorrect assertion. It has by no means been shown that machines are incapable of beleiving. We are, in fact biological machines no matter which way we cam to be. Creator god or natural processes. We exist and we at least think that we think (if that makes sense)Anyway that is not the major point here. I fully agree that a mindless automaton cannot trully think. It just goes through the motions but could quite well be absolutely unaware that not one thought that crosses it's mind is it's own.That is the position that the existence of an Omniscient God inevitably leads us. The whole thing boils down to one simple premise and one simple question. The premise: An Omniscient God infallibly knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen to every one of us at every point throughout our entire lives The question: If said god knows, with the kind of certainty that I cannot even dream of, that on a specific day, at a specific time, I will make a specific choice to perform a specific action, ........ Is there any way that I can make a different choice than the one that he knows I will make? If you can answer that question with a simple yes or no then this discussion will be over. IF NO then.... Free will is negated. I have absolutely no real choice since despite the illusion of free will, every choice I will ever make is 100% foreknown. To all intents and purposes I am a robot. If YES then.... Omniscience is negated since me having the genuine free will meams that nobody can ever have any kind of foreknowledge of what I am going to do next.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Have a read of msg 122 to Crevo and come back on which of the two positions you want to take and what is your rationale for contining a discussion in the case of the observer or your rationale for supposing illusionary free will should you choose to look at things from the inside perspective.
NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
err sorry but thats the whole god thing .. having super powers ... like creating the universe ... you are saying that because god know what to you is a future event stop free will .. when to god its not the future
Exactly. To God it is NOT the future. Ever tried changing the past? Can you change a decision you made last week?
so either you except a god who has super power .. or you say there is no god .....or you come up ,with some strange limits you wish to impose on god ..... which is it ... onc e you have set the stage then get on to free will..
I think you may be trying to say something here but I can't quite make out what. We are not trying to set limits on God. We are trying to figure out the reality of what those limits (if any) might actually be, by the use of the application of logic. is not god setting you the test of discovery , ....if being saved is possible .. is it not only real if you do the "right" things because you belive them to be right OR is it better to follow a given script ?? should we not be good without thought , plan or scheme .. good for goodness sake ... yes i know a very very high ideal .. but self reconision of failing is part of discovery ..
OK now I'm completely lost. Maybe it's just me but I don't have a faintest clue what you just said. Edited by PurpleYouko, : fixed formatting mistake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
What we are discussing here is God's omnicience vs free will.
If God does not foresee the future, If the future is determined by our actions, then it is more likely free will exists as a reality. However, IF God, outside time, knows all things at all times in eternity... what will be will be, he knows that, he knows what I will have for breakfast tomorrow, he knows how many beers I will have tonight when I finish work, He knows what my average speed will be as i drive home from work..etc. etc. What 'choices' am I really making, if the outcome is already know?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
there are, are there not ex-Christians on this website?
folk who believed, but no longer do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
iano writes:
It would certainly provide a challenge for your beliefs. However I'm not sure of the wisdom of thinking "well I can't think that cos that means I've been wrong all these years" But it is a logical fallacy for me to then say "I believe (or think that) free will is made illusionary by Gods all knowing". For that would mean I am a machine which means that 'I' don't exist at allYou seem to be simply pushing aside any argument that challenges your position wrt God/Omniscience/ free will here. iano writes:
Perhaps the basis on which you say anything is flawed?
But it is a logical fallacy for me to then say "I believe (or think that) free will is made illusionary by Gods all knowing". For that would mean I am a machine which means that 'I' don't exist at all iano writes:
I am accepting for the purposes of this discussion that You can accept my beliefs for the purposes of discussion but not at the same time as saying my saying free will is illusionary on account of an a.k. God. You must choose: me as free willed (within boundaries) individual or a machine with whom you speak (which is a waste of your time)a)God Exists, and b)He is all knowing What I am pointing out is the condratiction (as I see it) between these assumptions and any claim of free will.You seem, at this stage, to be saying "well that can't be right, because that means I'm wrong" rather than actually challenging the point. iano writes:
Again... it is not sufficient to dismiss the issue merely because it challenges your position, you should investigate that challenge, try to understand the depth of that challenge, try to counter that challenge, defend against it. If you cannot counter it, or defend against it, it is likely/possible that the challenge holds water, and the idea being challenged is flawed.
In this case you must examine what the consequences for you would be where you to ask the question, "believing/thinking what I already do, can I be free willed before an a.k. God"
iano writes:
Within the confines of you a.k. God scenario yes. However if God is not a.k. or does not exist, then we are merely biological machines, who possess free will as our fututre is unknown and based only upon the choices we make, Not what some God has known for eternity. otherwise means you render youself a machine and are in no position to comment on anything You appear to have a boundary, a boundary across which you will not go. That boundary seems demark the point at which anything challenges your beliefs. Any point I raise that questions eithera)the existance of god, or b) the omniscience of God must be thrown out ignored, that appears simply to not be an option you are willing to discuss. Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Have a read of msg 122 to Crevo and come back on which of the two positions you want to take and what is your rationale for contining a discussion in the case of the observer or your rationale for supposing illusionary free will should you choose to look at things from the inside perspective.
Interesting dilema you set there Ian.here are my thoughts. Position 1
PY as the observer writes:
Then I take a look at what you say next. I did this above but this time I will try to look at in in a slightly different light.
iano believes/thinks that God existsiano believes/thinks that God is all knowing Iano writes:
Up to this point OK.
You don't believe/think these things yourself but you accept, for the purposes of discussion, that what I say I believe is what I believe. None of these belief are logical fallacies. Iano writes:
I disagree. Saying this would be the only logical conclusion of your two premises. But it is a logical fallacy for me to then say "I believe (or think that) free will is made illusionary by Gods all knowing".Your reason for saying this is. For that would mean I am a machine which means that 'I' don't exist at all. In saying such a thing I am slitting the throat of the very basis on which I say anything. A machine cannot believe things nor say that it thinks "free will is made illusionary..."
This is simply an unfounded assertion and as such is irrelevent and has no place in the argument. Just because you find it incredulous that a machine could think and recognise its own "I"ness does not make it so. (ooh I made up a new word ) You then set the bounds
You can accept my beliefs for the purposes of discussion but not at the same time as saying my saying free will is illusionary on account of an a.k. God. You must choose: me as free willed (within boundaries) individual or a machine with whom you speak (which is a waste of your time)
Except that I cannot accept these things without first conceding the entire argument. As far as I am concerned either your premises are correct and you are a mindless machine or your premises are false and we all have free will (possibly but by no means certain). Now I will look at the other option you gave me.
PY as a young believer writes:
iano and PY believe/think that God existsiano and PY believe/think that God is all knowing "believing/thinking what I already do, can I be free willed before an a.k. God"
Sorry to burst your bubble but I still conclude no such thing. You face the same problems as above. You can only conlude you have a free will.If i know that the premises are correct and believe it with all my being then I am forced to conclude that I have no free will whatsoever and am indeed following a predestined path in which I happen to believe in God. I have been there for real. It is, in point of fact, the most damning peice of evidence in my decision to change those premises. They simply DO NOT WORK. It is utterly impossible to reconcile an A.K. god with free will.
This is all I can say on this matter Crevo. The statement in point #1 in your OP is a logical fallacy given the couple of beliefs which are accepted/believed for the sake of discussion.
Then all you are really doing is abandoning the discussion since as far as Crevo and myself are concerned the very premises that you want us to "accept" for the discussion are impossible for us to accept.The very nature of our argument rests on these premises being impossible. Could you argue your side if you had to first agree to "accept" that your premises are false?What you ask is a little like arguing that 2 + 3 = 6 and insisting on the fact that for the duration of the discussion, it must be accepted that 3 is actually 4. Once the premise is accepted then the argument is over. What you have to understand is that it is your premise that we are attempting to refute. How can we do that if we first accept it. It's ludicrous. Edited by PurpleYouko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
ikabod writes:
What I am saying is that the idea of free will coupled with an all knowing god is in itself a contradiction. there is no need for me to try to define or limit or disprove an all knowing god. The parameters of the Xian teaching does it nicely. For my part I cannot reconcile an all knowing god with free will. so either: so either you except a god who has super power .. or you say there is no god .....or you come up ,with some strange limits you wish to impose on god ..... which is it ... onc e you have set the stage then get on to free will..God does not exist, or he is not all knowing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For my part I cannot reconcile an all knowing god with free will. Well, if you throw something like omnipotence in there then god can be all-knowing AND allow free will to exists. He has the power to make the contradiction possible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024