Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ax · 06-10-2002, 05:58 PM

..

Quote:

This argument is a non-starter, because neither free will nor 100% determinism can be proven.

In light of what the bible says..
God created my brain an placed the things that would effect my choices and knew what my choices were going to be in place.He chooses people to go to hell and to heaven.This is true and is what the bible says.It is not fair.

Philosoft · 06-10-2002, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
And I am sorry, but I still don't get your objection on the grounds of omniscience. If I can see you making your choices, past, present, and future, how does the fact that I see and know what you are doing (the phrase "will do" doesn't apply to God, who lives in all times) how does that take away your ability to choose?

Because 1)you created me; 2)you knew all my future actions prior to creating me; 3)the fact that my actions were known with absolute certainty necessitates that those actions were intended by you.

Quote:

To know someone is going to do something is not the same as causing them to do it.

It is if you create them while having foreknowledge of their actions.

Quote:

You might ask why God created us if He already knew what we were going to do, but that is a different question than whether or not his knowledge of your actions PRODUCED your actions.

How can it be said that his actions did not produce my actions? If I create a robot with a certain set of parameters and I design it to produce baby robots with certain parameters, how is it possible that I am not responsible for the creation of the baby robot? The parent robot was unable to choose not to have a baby even if I had designed the robot to believe it had a choice. Simply because I didn't physically create the baby robot does not remove me from the causal chain!

luvluv · 06-10-2002, 07:38 PM

But just because he created you knowing you would chose something does not mean that you did not have a real option when you made the choice. It does not make you less free that God knew you were going to do something. You say that God produced your actions, but it would be much more accurate to say that God MADE YOUR ACTIONS POSSIBLE. The fact that he created you, and knew your choices, did not cause your specific choices, it just provided the framework to make them possible. Essentially, that is all you are saying. It just means that God, if you go way back, is one of the causes that brought you into existence. Along with the free will choices of your parents to, say, have you and not abort you. I still say that your parents, and not God, are responsible for your genes. Certainly God is responsible for GENES, but your specific set of genes are the results of the parents who made you. As I said before the doctrine of free will does not mean you are free from the influence of other people.

This is really going nowhere. I say we have freewill, and you say we don't, but there is really no way to prove it either way. I'm all ears if you come up with one.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

Philosoft · 06-10-2002, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
But just because he created you knowing you would chose something does not mean that you did not have a real option when you made the choice. It does not make you less free that God knew you were going to do something.

Are you kidding? If God creates person 'p' and two mutually-exclusive actions, 'a1' and 'a2' and decrees p will do a1 with a probability of 1, it is not possible that p will do a2. Therefore, it is an illusory choice. The freedom to choose does not actually exist.

Quote:

You say that God produced your actions, but it would be much more accurate to say that God MADE YOUR ACTIONS POSSIBLE.

And it would be much more accurate still to say that God made my actions certain. You cannot escape from this using weasel words that are incompatible with an omnimax God.

Quote:

The fact that he created you, and knew your choices, did not cause your specific choices, it just provided the framework to make them possible.

But they aren't just possible. There are no other actions that are otherwise possible. They are probable to the degree of certitude.

Quote:

Essentially, that is all you are saying. It just means that God, if you go way back, is one of the causes that brought you into existence.

God is responsible for my existence in the same way he would be responsible for my non-existence, were I not to exist.

Quote:

Along with the free will choices of your parents to, say, have you and not abort you.

Quote:

I still say that your parents, and not God, are responsible for your genes.

It doesn't matter what you say. How is the analogy I posted previously invalid?

Quote:

Certainly God is responsible for GENES, but your specific set of genes are the results of the parents who made you.

*sigh*

Not to mention the choices that God ensured would be made.

Quote:

As I said before the doctrine of free will does not mean you are free from the influence of other people.

Other people whose choices to influence are predetermined by God.

Quote:

This is really going nowhere. I say we have freewill, and you say we don't, but there is really no way to prove it either way. I'm all ears if you come up with one.

We are not stalemated simply because you assume you have a coherent position. You have made contradictory statements that require either retraction or redefinition. Now hop to.

DRFseven · 06-10-2002, 08:15 PM

Quote:

luvluv: This is really going nowhere. I say we have freewill, and you say we don't, but there is really no way to prove it either way. I'm all ears if you come up with one.

Let's just end this right now. Don't think about pink elephants for one minute. If you truly have free will, this will be no problem because your thoughts will not be caused by anything; they'll be free.

OK, start not thinking about pink elephants NOW! .....Still not thinking about them?

ax · 06-10-2002, 08:15 PM

An argument isn't just contradicting one another-its a series of related points to establish a definite answer! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

luvluv · 06-10-2002, 08:18 PM

"Are you kidding? If God creates person 'p' and two mutually-exclusive actions, 'a1' and 'a2' and decrees p will do a1 with a probability of 1, it is not possible that p will do a2. Therefore, it is an illusory choice. The freedom to choose does not actually exist."

He emphatically DOES NOT decree it. He knows, or sees, them doing it.

"And it would be much more accurate still to say that God made my actions certain. You cannot escape from this using weasel words that are incompatible with an omnimax God."

They aren't "certain" anywhere but in God's mind. He knows for certain what you are going to do, but for crimminy's sake, that doesn't mean he made you do it!

"But they aren't just possible. There are no other actions that are otherwise possible. They are probable to the degree of certitude."

Every other action was possible. God just knows, or sees, which action you are going to take. He didn't make it for you! To know is not the same as to cause.

"Not to mention the choices that God ensured would be made."

He did not ensure they would be made. He simply knew, or sees, you making them.

"Other people whose choices to influence are predetermined by God."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not BY God, but with God's knowledge or under God's observation.

"We are not stalemated simply because you assume you have a coherent position. You have made contradictory statements that require either retraction or redefinition. Now hop to. "

I have done know such thing. I have simply asked how knowledge or observation of a person making a choice deprives one of the ability to make the choice.

Even if you create someone with the knowledge they will do something, it does not mean that it was not THEIR choice to do it. They are two totally different things.

Philosoft · 06-10-2002, 08:27 PM

Luvluv,

I do not understand a single distinction you make in that entire post. It looks to me that your sentences just say the same thing twice. Is there something magic about the doctrine of divine atemporality that makes this even slightly intelligible?

Syphor · 06-10-2002, 08:43 PM

Think for a second luvluv, God is omniscient and therefore knows you're going to do x, so how can what you do be anything other than x?

ax · 06-10-2002, 08:44 PM

Luvluv,
If you leave a house unlocked, and you say " it will probably get broken into" and it does, who is at fault? :
1.the owner.
2.the criminal.
3.both.
Please answer with one of the choices I have listed.And explain why.(imagine you are the insurance company).

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: ax ]

06-10-2002, 07:38 PM	#23
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	But just because he created you knowing you would chose something does not mean that you did not have a real option when you made the choice. It does not make you less free that God knew you were going to do something. You say that God produced your actions, but it would be much more accurate to say that God MADE YOUR ACTIONS POSSIBLE. The fact that he created you, and knew your choices, did not cause your specific choices, it just provided the framework to make them possible. Essentially, that is all you are saying. It just means that God, if you go way back, is one of the causes that brought you into existence. Along with the free will choices of your parents to, say, have you and not abort you. I still say that your parents, and not God, are responsible for your genes. Certainly God is responsible for GENES, but your specific set of genes are the results of the parents who made you. As I said before the doctrine of free will does not mean you are free from the influence of other people. This is really going nowhere. I say we have freewill, and you say we don't, but there is really no way to prove it either way. I'm all ears if you come up with one. [ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

06-10-2002, 08:44 PM	#30
ax Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In your mind! Posts: 289	Luvluv, If you leave a house unlocked, and you say " it will probably get broken into" and it does, who is at fault? : 1.the owner. 2.the criminal. 3.both. Please answer with one of the choices I have listed.And explain why.(imagine you are the insurance company). [ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: ax ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-10-2002, 08:15 PM	#26
ax Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In your mind! Posts: 289	An argument isn't just contradicting one another-its a series of related points to establish a definite answer! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

06-10-2002, 08:18 PM	#27
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	"Are you kidding? If God creates person 'p' and two mutually-exclusive actions, 'a1' and 'a2' and decrees p will do a1 with a probability of 1, it is not possible that p will do a2. Therefore, it is an illusory choice. The freedom to choose does not actually exist." He emphatically DOES NOT decree it. He knows, or sees, them doing it. "And it would be much more accurate still to say that God made my actions certain. You cannot escape from this using weasel words that are incompatible with an omnimax God." They aren't "certain" anywhere but in God's mind. He knows for certain what you are going to do, but for crimminy's sake, that doesn't mean he made you do it! "But they aren't just possible. There are no other actions that are otherwise possible. They are probable to the degree of certitude." Every other action was possible. God just knows, or sees, which action you are going to take. He didn't make it for you! To know is not the same as to cause. "Not to mention the choices that God ensured would be made." He did not ensure they would be made. He simply knew, or sees, you making them. "Other people whose choices to influence are predetermined by God." Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not BY God, but with God's knowledge or under God's observation. "We are not stalemated simply because you assume you have a coherent position. You have made contradictory statements that require either retraction or redefinition. Now hop to. " I have done know such thing. I have simply asked how knowledge or observation of a person making a choice deprives one of the ability to make the choice. Even if you create someone with the knowledge they will do something, it does not mean that it was not THEIR choice to do it. They are two totally different things.

06-10-2002, 08:27 PM	#28
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Luvluv, I do not understand a single distinction you make in that entire post. It looks to me that your sentences just say the same thing twice. Is there something magic about the doctrine of divine atemporality that makes this even slightly intelligible?

06-10-2002, 08:43 PM	#29
Syphor Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 991	Think for a second luvluv, God is omniscient and therefore knows you're going to do x, so how can what you do be anything other than x?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.