Freethought & Rationalism Archive

chekmate · 02-25-2002, 07:08 AM

The Christian Creationist argument relies on the fact that every cause has to have an effect, right? And there are also many Christians that think that god gave us free will, and that's why we screwed up. If every cause has to have an effect, then it stands to reason that thought would have to follow that process also. Which would mean that all the thoughts that people have are made as a product of their environment. Somone becomes a murderer because of the way they were raised and the environment they were in growing up, and their parents raised them that way because of the way they were raised and their environment growing up, etc. forever. Which would mean that we don't have free will, and I was destined to become a non-believer and go to hell. So, in summary, if every effect needs a cause, then I have no free will, and I was destined to hell, and the bible was wrong (because it says we have free will). Or, not every effect has to have a cause, people have free will, and the universe DOESN'T need to have a creator.

I think that I may be missing some logic or something something here, but this has made brain hurt so far. Do you think that this might stand up as a valid argument to a creationist? anything that you might add? Let me know what you think.

chekmate · 02-27-2002, 08:17 AM

anybody?

hedonist ogre · 02-27-2002, 08:46 AM

I don't think it will go over well as an argument with a creationist in the evolution/creationist debate. It may, however, be applicable to the First Cause argument for the existence of god.

The problem is that most theists don't think of thoughts (decisions) as "things" that can be explained by cause and effect. Theists tend to see the mind as the manifestation of some immaterial soul not bound to the laws of the material universe.

I wouldn't exactly say that the Bible says we have freewill, in fact it seems to imply otherwise in some places. That is why, according to some versions of Christianity, you were predestined to be an unbeliever and attain hell.

Corey Hammer · 02-27-2002, 10:13 AM

Free will applies only to belief in God (if I remember the Bible correctly). The implication is that we can make choices, up to and including belief in God. Therefore, all thoughts are the results of choices made and we can create our own destiny.

That said.

You are partially right about the environment affected behavioral processes. However, the environment is not deterministic; cues in the environment may limit or expand behavioral strategies. In addition, each individual may have more (or less) strategies for coping with similar situations. That is, person A may be able to think of only 1 way to deal with someone who is agressing against them while person B can think of 4 or 5.

I refer to work by Crick & Dodge (1994). The Social Information Processing Model. Psychological Review.

(At least I think that's cite...I can't recall for sure, though it is Nickie Crick & Ken Dodge).

02-25-2002, 07:08 AM	#1
chekmate Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Downriver Detroit Posts: 1,961	free will relating to cause and effect... The Christian Creationist argument relies on the fact that every cause has to have an effect, right? And there are also many Christians that think that god gave us free will, and that's why we screwed up. If every cause has to have an effect, then it stands to reason that thought would have to follow that process also. Which would mean that all the thoughts that people have are made as a product of their environment. Somone becomes a murderer because of the way they were raised and the environment they were in growing up, and their parents raised them that way because of the way they were raised and their environment growing up, etc. forever. Which would mean that we don't have free will, and I was destined to become a non-believer and go to hell. So, in summary, if every effect needs a cause, then I have no free will, and I was destined to hell, and the bible was wrong (because it says we have free will). Or, not every effect has to have a cause, people have free will, and the universe DOESN'T need to have a creator. I think that I may be missing some logic or something something here, but this has made brain hurt so far. Do you think that this might stand up as a valid argument to a creationist? anything that you might add? Let me know what you think.

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

02-27-2002, 08:17 AM	#2
chekmate Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Downriver Detroit Posts: 1,961	anybody?

02-27-2002, 08:46 AM	#3
hedonist ogre Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 205	I don't think it will go over well as an argument with a creationist in the evolution/creationist debate. It may, however, be applicable to the First Cause argument for the existence of god. The problem is that most theists don't think of thoughts (decisions) as "things" that can be explained by cause and effect. Theists tend to see the mind as the manifestation of some immaterial soul not bound to the laws of the material universe. I wouldn't exactly say that the Bible says we have freewill, in fact it seems to imply otherwise in some places. That is why, according to some versions of Christianity, you were predestined to be an unbeliever and attain hell.

02-27-2002, 10:13 AM	#4
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	Free will applies only to belief in God (if I remember the Bible correctly). The implication is that we can make choices, up to and including belief in God. Therefore, all thoughts are the results of choices made and we can create our own destiny. That said. You are partially right about the environment affected behavioral processes. However, the environment is not deterministic; cues in the environment may limit or expand behavioral strategies. In addition, each individual may have more (or less) strategies for coping with similar situations. That is, person A may be able to think of only 1 way to deal with someone who is agressing against them while person B can think of 4 or 5. I refer to work by Crick & Dodge (1994). The Social Information Processing Model. Psychological Review. (At least I think that's cite...I can't recall for sure, though it is Nickie Crick & Ken Dodge).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.