Free will: an illusion

I'm not in a hurry Crevo. You are looking for "decent" answers and so will I be when you object to them. That takes time. I'm not out to win a debate. Is souls I'm out to win. If your prepared to risk that then you have nothing to fear from me. It'll be a combat free zone (in the sense of combat = war)It'll have to be a great debate though. I'm not in the mood for a pile on. It would distract us both.Ask Admin to move it if your up for itEdited by iano, : No reason given.

It wouldn't be me doing the converting. I'd just be answering your questions. But in listening to them you run the risk.Its not a big deal to answer but not in an open forum. A topic like this would just get too messy.It's probably too late for this thread now its gotten going. Some other time then

I'm afraid the evangelist/argumentitive git in me would make that very difficult. I've tried that before and failed. No reason to suppose otherwise here. I have after all, predicted that this thread would become what it has become. Er...busy.

This is not my position Crevo. By all means carry on with the assumption, but please remove the reference to it being my position if you intend to do so. Its probably better to remove reference to my position altogether seeing as I am not partaking in the thread.

No apologies necessary. Thanks Its less a question of wanting to and more a question of not being able to. You said: Patently if free will is an illusion then the idea that there are choices to be made is an illusion too. God would know what will happen alright and what we are going to do - not choose to do. If not 'choose to do' then you had to write what you had to write and I am writing what I have to write.It seems to me that would be no 'me', no 'position', nothing to 'explain' - just instinctual (read programmed) machines doing what programmed machines do. Programmed machines cannot explain anything. They are unableNot that it seems to be holding anyone back here.

I'm afraid your off-target again Crevo. This is not my positon either.

Your leaping ahead Crevo. If a machine then you cannot have an "opinion" or a "thought" or "explain" or any of the other things "you" are taking for granted here. You just said what the programme spat out. It has no worth as such. Gobbeldymook Only if free will isn't an illusion can you even begin to talk about the boundaries in which that free will might operate.

I don't hold so. Of course again, you may conclude that that must be the case - but without referring to it as being my positon. For it is not.

If there is no creator God then you are a biological machine and free will is an illusion. A machine deciding for itself that it has free will is its perogative. But there is no reason to trust the machinations of such an entity. It is churning out notions it must churn out. Discussion is pointless as I pointed outIf, on the other hand we are created and free-will is rendered an illusion by Gods all-knowing then we are created biological machines and discussion is pointless here too.

First we must decide whether we have free will or not (free will subject to boundaries and influence perhaps - but free will all the same). I don't discuss with machines.Furthermore, an acceptance of our having true free will (confined as above, perhaps) necessitates there being a creator God. Not necessarily all knowing (I haven't thought that far ahead), but if all-knowing, that factor cannot make our free will an illusion for the reasons already stated.

If anyone does refute it then you can present their argument without quoting them. I have accepted your offer to ignore other posters in this thread. When you have a refutation or decide you have a true free will let me know.Right now, I'm off to worship practiceLater Mook

I was just threading water until you got here.

Chicken strips on the Fazers back tyre down to about 8mm wide at this point!

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.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.(Hint: free will!){ABE} have a read of the post below to Crevo. It shows one way out of this dilema. I don't suspect there are any othersEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

The Fazer thou isn't like the 6. Its a heavy beast and holds its weight up high too. You get the sense that it stepping out will be a less-than-recoverable affair - not like the lightweight kid brother.Not that it matters much. It pulls so strong everywhere in the rev range you don't have to hockey it around corners to keep up.Any resolution of the dilema?Although you might see all your points in the OP as of equal merit, this is not the case. Certain assumptions must be made to understand what free will is and the boundaries and contraints it is under. This involves the principle of 'suspending disbelief'Say someone who was an unbeliever wanted to find out about what the Gospel of John was saying about Jesus. An unbelieving theologian for example. What he would do is 'suspend disbelief' and work through what was being said. What he wouldn't do is pause at Jesus' first miracle and say "miracles are impossible" and walk away. He would assume miracles are possible and would progress on to find out what purpose the miracle had in the jigsaw picture he was trying to build up. As soon as he finishes his study, he reverts to normal, turns off the "suspend disbelief" and goes and watches the footieSimilarily one must make certain assumptions in order to progress here. You easily accept that suspending disbelief for the duration of our 'study' involves accepting that a creator God exists. If you are discussing with a person of my persuasion and want to find out about my view then you need to suspend disbelief and accept that God to be all knowing - which you seem to have done.And, as our current impasse indicates you must also accept that his all knowing doesn't mean your free will is an illusion. For if you don't accept that, but accept the other two then we hit an impasse where were God exists, is all knowing - but we are machines. No further discussion about free will is possible because 'we' don't exist at all to 'discuss'.This prevents discussion about the boundaries in which free will operates and the influences free will is under - the issues which might have some relevance to your OP questions 2) and 3)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

NB: I'm responding only to Crevo and PY in this thread.