If life is predetermined then why do we even do anyhting?If God already has his plan and knows exactly what will become of us then why should we even do anyhting?And why did God give us freewill and not angels?Why is he letting us shun him which more and more people are doing, why didn't he force us to love him as he does angels?And how can it truly be that satan rose against god w/ 1/3 of the angels and is now in hell. if he was an angel how could he question god since he supposedly had no freewill and God made it so all of the angels loved him how could so many turn against him?

By the way I'm not trying to be rude about this. After re reading this I see that it looks as though I was trying to be a bitch but I can think of no other way to get my point across.And maybe I'm wrong and one of you or many of you will correctme, maybe some of you will agree with me who knows?

We do things because we are caused to do them. We are slaves to cause and effect and we are subject to the natural laws.

I'm not sure if the angels had free will. Satan rebeling might just have been caused by his jealousy when the Christian god made man.

I for one don't believe in free will. If creation or the big bang had started with the exact same conditions, then everything would play out the same. The randomness introduced by quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principal(Don't quote me on this. I profess to not having much knowledge about it) is not really free will. Well, that's what I think anyway.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-06-2004).]

i don't really agree with you there mate. i am in full favour of quantum mechanics and its implications. the uncertainty principal says that a particle is unsure in 4 areas time, energy, position and momentum. i don't like causality; chance is everything, beta decay occurs completely randomly as a simple example. i personally don't believe there is any underlying system that dictates this, only chance. u can sub-divide particles as much as you like to try and find out why something happens but then you just get one long infinite sequence when you try to answer the question "so we know that that makes that happen, but what does that which makes that happnen make that happen?" the power of quantum mechanics is emense and i don't know much about it (in terms of the maths), not being educated in the subject (me being only 14), even einstein rejected it!

We dont have free will.

Everything we think is electrical impulses and chemicals, not a soul.



Angels, on the other hand are said to be an ethereal being on another plane of existance. If they exist they have free will.

[This message has been edited by noskillz (edited 01-06-2004).]

icantthinkofaname:

Like I said, randomness does not equate to free will, at least, that's what I think.

Also, I don't think that is such a thing as randomness. It's only a pattern that we haven't found out yet. We can complicate this by throwing in the Christian god - an omniscient and omnipotent being. Is the concept of randomness and chance relevant or existing when such a being exists?

Before we have a discussion on free will, we should first define it. I'm not too sure about this one. Anyone got ideas?

Even if we had a soul, I'd imagine that my soul would be following rules when making decisions as well. If not, then it would be just acting randomly.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-06-2004).]

zesty turtle, which denomination of christianity are you talking about, because many of those seem to come from different denominations, not just one because they contradict. BTW God wanted us to have Faith, he doesn't need us to love him, he wants us to because its for the better of the soul.

No. 1: "If life is predetermined then why do we even do anyhting?"

- Because even if someone/thing knows what's going to happen, you don't.

No. 2: "And why did God give us freewill and not angels?"

- Biblically and technically speaking, he hadn't thought of it yet.

No. 3: "Why is he letting us shun him which more and more people are doing, why didn't he force us to love him as he does angels?

- What is the point of having free will if all your choices are the right choice. God gives us free will to choose him or not to choose him with the belief that we will choose him anyways.

No. 4: "And how can it truly be that satan rose against god w/ 1/3 of the angels and is now in hell."

- Lucifer was god favorite angel and they were/are very close. God asked Lucifer about his "opinion" on humans (creatures with free will) and when Lucifer said that they weren't worthy and challenged gods word god granted him his own domain and gave him 13 angels.

Cheers,

Lost

LostCause:

What is the point of having free will if all your choices are the right choice. God gives us free will to choose him or not to choose him with the belief that we will choose him anyways.

What's the point of the Christian god giving us free will if he already knows our decisions and can proceed with the consequences?

In Heaven, won't our choices be always the correct ones? I guess we are robots with no free will there.

Perhaps God only really needs us to have free will when deciding whether we want to be his obedient toys or not.

Then again, I'd argue that we don't have free will in that case anyway - our brains would just be weighing out the choices and the consequences before making our decision, something which I think the sub-conscious does way before our conscious mind takes credit for it.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-07-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

What's the point of the Christian god giving us free will if he already knows our decisions and can proceed with the consequences?

In Heaven, won't our choices be always the correct ones? I guess we are robots with no free will there.

Perhaps God only really needs us to have free will when deciding whether we want to be his obedient toys or not.

Then again, I'd argue that we don't have free will in that case anyway - our brains would just be weighing out the choices and the consequences before making our decision, something which I think the sub-conscious does way before our conscious mind takes credit for it.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-07-2004).][/B]

I, personally, do not adhere to any religious faith and I'd like to make it very clear, right here, that I do not believe in a Christian god. In fact, I don't even really understand all Christian concepts. However, I have studied them and tried my best. I am answering Zestys questions, the best I know how and I'm not trying to take sides here.

To respond to your rebuttal:

No. 1: What's the point of the Christian god giving us free will if he already knows our decisions and can proceed with the consequences?

- I personally don't believe that god is conscious in the kind of way we are. So, perhaps he is aware of what will happen and what we'll do, but he is also unaware of it at the same time.

In short: I don't know. And I'm perfectly okay with that. You don't have to know to believe.

No. 2: In Heaven, won't our choices be always the correct ones? I guess we are robots with no free will there.

- I've recently had the question of "If we go to a Christian heaven, when we die, do we become angels without free will or do we become something else. A different breed of spirits." which I think, somewhat parallels your question.

Again, in short: I don't know.

No. 3: Perhaps God only really needs us to have free will when deciding whether we want to be his obedient toys or not.

- Perhaps. In fact, if you read the bible, it basically states that god just gave us free will to make sure we'd come back to him. Apparently he was not pleased with the angels because they had to love him and he created us to make sure the angels really did love him.

No. 4: Then again, I'd argue that we don't have free will in that case anyway - our brains would just be weighing out the choices and the consequences before making our decision, something which I think the sub-conscious does way before our conscious mind takes credit for it.

- Alright, you don't believe we have free will. So, realize that that's the point of view you're coming from. But, since there's no proof one way or another, except the fact that others don't agree and know that others disagreement doesn't make you unable to believe.

Sounds like you've given this some thought and have an educated idea of what it is you're believing, so I'm not discrediting you or anything.

I just want everyone to be able to voice their opinions without feeling attacked. Dig?

Cheers,

Lost

Originally posted by LostCause:

I, personally, do not adhere to any religious faith and I'd like to make it very clear, right here, that I do not believe in a Christian god. In fact, I don't even really understand all Christian concepts. However, I have studied them and tried my best. I am answering Zestys questions, the best I know how and I'm not trying to take sides here.

Fair enough.

- I personally don't believe that god is conscious in the kind of way we are. So, perhaps he is aware of what will happen and what we'll do, but he is also unaware of it at the same time.

In short: I don't know. And I'm perfectly okay with that. You don't have to know to believe.

He's unaware and aware at the same time? Perhaps he exists and doesn't exist at the same time.

I don't profess to knowing anything at all. But unlike you, I try not to believe. I am an agnostic because I refuse to take the leap of faith, something which is intellectually bankrupt for me.

- I've recently had the question of "If we go to a Christian heaven, when we die, do we become angels without free will or do we become something else. A different breed of spirits." which I think, somewhat parallels your question.

Again, in short: I don't know.

Fair enough. But would you please hazard a guess to add something to this discussion?

- Perhaps. In fact, if you read the bible, it basically states that god just gave us free will to make sure we'd come back to him. Apparently he was not pleased with the angels because they had to love him and he created us to make sure the angels really did love him.

Are you saying that the angels had no free will and that they were forced to love the Christian god? How then could Satan have rebelled?

Again, why would he need to be sure that the angels really loved him? The Christian god is often depicted as being omniscient - he already knows everything. If you deny that, discussions of the Christian god will only be more complicated.

To be fair, I haven't read the whole bible and I intend to go through the whole thing this year.

- Alright, you don't believe we have free will. So, realize that that's the point of view you're coming from. But, since there's no proof one way or another, except the fact that others don't agree and know that others disagreement doesn't make you unable to believe.

Why should I believe when I can reach a logical conclusion instead? Granted I am not 100% sure(because there might be new discoveries), but there's no faith involved. It's a conclusion that I have reached based on the information I have.

Do you disagree with me when I say that we don't have free will? If so, I'd be more than happy to hear your thoughts and have a discussion about it.

I just want everyone to be able to voice their opinions without feeling attacked. Dig?

You must be very sensitive to have felt that you were being attacked. I like to think that I'm a nice guy, and I acknowledge that I'm probably completely ignorant. That's why I try never to make a definite statement, but to pose my thoughts as questions with liberal helpings of "I think"'s and "perhaps"'s.



[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-07-2004).]

I think we have free will to a point, most of what we do is pre-determined by cause and effect, but we can in some cases choose how we handle certain situations.

quote:Originally posted by Hammer&Sickle:

zesty turtle, which denomination of christianity are you talking about, because many of those seem to come from different denominations, not just one because they contradict. BTW God wanted us to have Faith, he doesn't need us to love him, he wants us to because its for the better of the soul.

I am specifically refering to the Catholic denomination because I go to a catholic school

and that is the religion I know the most of considering I was blinded from what I think is the truth by it for many many years.



[This message has been edited by zEsTyTuRtLe (edited 01-07-2004).]

To Noraa:

"I don't profess to knowing anything at all. But unlike you, I try not to believe. I am an agnostic because I refuse to take the leap of faith, something which is intellectually bankrupt for me."

- I don't try to believe. I believe because I can't help it.

"Fair enough. But would you please hazard a guess to add something to this discussion?"

- Since you asked, my personal belief is that when you die, your spirit leaves your body, and that your spirit is your conciousness in it's puriest form. Without the hindrence of your body and 'species', you are able to look at the meaning, point, worth, etc... of your life without attachment and judge yourself accordingly.

You then go to wherever you suppose you go. Whether that's a Buddhist heaven or a Christian hell or if you are reincarnated as a bicycle seat or fizzle out like a candle.

But, that's for the sake of discussion, only.

"Are you saying that the angels had no free will and that they were forced to love the Christian god? How then could Satan have rebelled?"

- Lucifer, technically, did not "rebel". He was gods most trusted arch angel. He was the first of all gods (recorded...) creations - and the closest to god - and god called on his counsel in the matter of human creation. Lucifer was then the first angel granted freewill, by gods inquiry of opinion. But, Lucifer believed that if given freewill the angels would turn away from god therefore meaning that the humans would turn away from god. God disagreed and granted Lucifer permission to prove that humans are unworthy, he was then granted he own domain, and given (key word given) thirteen angels who were commanded to devote themselves to Lucifer.

However, Lucifer was never granted human command. He is still considered an angel and therefore still under command of man, meaning he is powerless to a human and cannot effect a human without gods consent.

"Again, why would he need to be sure that the angels really loved him? The Christian god is often depicted as being omniscient - he already knows everything. If you deny that, discussions of the Christian god will only be more complicated."

- *shrug* I'm not Christian, and I don't have an answer for this (as I don't believe this). But, as a Jew I can say that if you know everything, you inherently know nothing; which is the essential nature of of omniscience.

"Why should I believe when I can reach a logical conclusion instead? Granted I am not 100% sure(because there might be new discoveries), but there's no faith involved. It's a conclusion that I have reached based on the information I have."

- I would never tell anyone to believe anything as you can't believe on command. It's something you can only do on your own. But, I don't see spiritual belief as illogical at all. Not just as "there might be new discoveries" but that the mind is so powerful I believe that the mind, alone, could create a "spirit" and that the collective conciousness could create a god. Making the existence of spirit, and god, and afterlife, and etc... undeniably possible.

But, as there's not proof either way, I - at the same time - don't believe it makes much a difference.

"Do you disagree with me when I say that we don't have free will? If so, I'd be more than happy to hear your thoughts and have a discussion about it."

- Frankly, I take a slightly scientific stance on this matter.: I believe that humans are comprised of an unknown/anonymous/indecribed energy that derives from a particular finite but (because it's what our universe is made of) all powerful source. This source is the essence of Time (Time being with a capitol "T") and Time (the energy source) is moving, as a train full with the entire existence, on a curved, linear, track. Eventually, it reaches revelation, I believe, but I'm not quite sure how that would be determined, documented, or anything. This is why my studies as ongoing.

We: humans and otherwise existing excercises in conciousness are like cars moving along this highway. But, the overpasses we go under aren't just overpasses. Just as you flash through the shadow of an overpass you move through another dimension.

Imagine each second existing as it's own dimension. Not just frozen in time, but ever existing before and afterwards and still never existing to anything after because it never existed to anything before.

Now, as we're in this train, moving through these finite (but seemingly infinite) dimensions (inmeasureably quicker than even cells on a film strip), we - in the most technical sense - are the train. In other words, we only exist because we believe we exist, and time exists because we believe it exists, etc...

I believe "god" created "us" inadvertently so that "we" would recreate "him. Because without "us" god is like a set of train tracks existing without the existence of trains. He's meaningless, pointless, unnecissary, pathetic, etc... But, with a train (with it's infinite possibilities of cargo and power) it is a billion times more powerfull than even it's cargo.

So, I don't believe in free will. I believe we are what makes god, without us god is nothing, the ultimate underdog, but because he is omniscient (I hope - after all I've said - I don't have to explain why I believe that) he "knows" the "right" way of existing. So, sure, we have free will. We can do what we wish to do.

We can believe or not believe. And do I believe in angels? Yes. I believe god - in some way - created a sort of creature that existed souly dependant on him, but realized his pointlessness/impotence without a creature with free will and created humans as a revision of the angels.

Is this at all founded in scientific fact? No. But, I don't have to know to believe.

"You must be very sensitive to have felt that you were being attacked. I like to think that I'm a nice guy, and I acknowledge that I'm probably completely ignorant. That's why I try never to make a definite statement, but to pose my thoughts as questions with liberal helpings of "I think"'s and "perhaps"'s."

- No. I didn't feel attacked. I was simply stating, I don't want anyone to feel attacked just because someone else disagree with their statements.

Cheers,

Lost

Originally posted by LostCause:

- I don't try to believe. I believe because I can't help it.

Is saying "I don't rightly know" beyond you? I guess that might involve some belief as well.

- Since you asked, my personal belief is that when you die, your spirit leaves your body, and that your spirit is your conciousness in it's puriest form. Without the hindrence of your body and 'species', you are able to look at the meaning, point, worth, etc... of your life without attachment and judge yourself accordingly.

You then go to wherever you suppose you go. Whether that's a Buddhist heaven or a Christian hell or if you are reincarnated as a bicycle seat or fizzle out like a candle.

But, that's for the sake of discussion, only.

What is your basis for this belief? Can you point me to some material?

Lucifer, technically, did not "rebel". He was gods most trusted arch angel. He was the first of all gods (recorded...) creations - and the closest to god - and god called on his counsel in the matter of human creation. Lucifer was then the first angel granted freewill, by gods inquiry of opinion. But, Lucifer believed that if given freewill the angels would turn away from god therefore meaning that the humans would turn away from god. God disagreed and granted Lucifer permission to prove that humans are unworthy, he was then granted he own domain, and given (key word given) thirteen angels who were commanded to devote themselves to Lucifer.

However, Lucifer was never granted human command. He is still considered an angel and therefore still under command of man, meaning he is powerless to a human and cannot effect a human without gods consent.

Again, where are you getting all this from? I'd like to read up on it.

Are the 13 angels who were commanded to devote themselves to Lucifer going to hell along with Lucifer?

- *shrug* I'm not Christian, and I don't have an answer for this (as I don't believe this). But, as a Jew I can say that if you know everything, you inherently know nothing; which is the essential nature of of omniscience.

What? I say that when you know everything, you know everything. Can you back up your assertion that knowing everything means knowing nothing?

- I would never tell anyone to believe anything as you can't believe on command. It's something you can only do on your own. But, I don't see spiritual belief as illogical at all. Not just as "there might be new discoveries" but that the mind is so powerful I believe that the mind, alone, could create a "spirit" and that the collective conciousness could create a god. Making the existence of spirit, and god, and afterlife, and etc... undeniably possible.

But, as there's not proof either way, I - at the same time - don't believe it makes much a difference.

Am I more justified to not believe for lack of evidence of the concept of a spirit? Isn't believing in something without evidence just slightly illogical?

Are you also saying that man created a god? Which one? The Christian god?

- Frankly, I take a slightly scientific stance on this matter.: I believe that humans are comprised of an unknown/anonymous/indecribed energy that derives from a particular finite but (because it's what our universe is made of) all powerful source. This source is the essence of Time (Time being with a capitol "T") and Time (the energy source) is moving, as a train full with the entire existence, on a curved, linear, track. Eventually, it reaches revelation, I believe, but I'm not quite sure how that would be determined, documented, or anything. This is why my studies as ongoing.

We: humans and otherwise existing excercises in conciousness are like cars moving along this highway. But, the overpasses we go under aren't just overpasses. Just as you flash through the shadow of an overpass you move through another dimension.

Imagine each second existing as it's own dimension. Not just frozen in time, but ever existing before and afterwards and still never existing to anything after because it never existed to anything before.

Ok, I'm trying to understand what you have said, but again, I would appreciate if you could point me towards some reading material.

Now, as we're in this train, moving through these finite (but seemingly infinite) dimensions (inmeasureably quicker than even cells on a film strip), we - in the most technical sense - are the train. In other words, we only exist because we believe we exist, and time exists because we believe it exists, etc...

You say that we and time exist because we believe they exist. Can you back that up? Have you also concluded that the Christian god(or your own diety) exists only because we believe he exists? I'm not sure that the Christian god would be happy to hear that his existence is bound to our belief. Your own diety might be fine with it, though.

I believe "god" created "us" inadvertently so that "we" would recreate "him. Because without "us" god is like a set of train tracks existing without the existence of trains. He's meaningless, pointless, unnecissary, pathetic, etc... But, with a train (with it's infinite possibilities of cargo and power) it is a billion times more powerfull than even it's cargo.

Again, I can't say that I'm familar with the diety that you are trying to put across, but I think that by definition, the Christian god is perfect and complete. He can just sit on his ass forever and bask in his perfection. Your diety might not be perfect and thus have wants and needs though.

So, I don't believe in free will. I believe we are what makes god, without us god is nothing, the ultimate underdog, but because he is omniscient (I hope - after all I've said - I don't have to explain why I believe that) he "knows" the "right" way of existing. So, sure, we have free will. We can do what we wish to do.

Which is it? You start by saying that you don't belief we have free will, and then you conclude by saying that we have free will.

By the way, what is your definition of free will? Is it only that we can do what we want to do? Do you agree that what we want to do is based on our brain weighing decisions and deciding for us which on is the best? I think that our subconscious makes all our decisions based on what it knows way before our conscious mind takes credit for it. Sorry if I have posted this in a previous post already.

We can believe or not believe. And do I believe in angels? Yes. I believe god - in some way - created a sort of creature that existed souly dependant on him, but realized his pointlessness/impotence without a creature with free will and created humans as a revision of the angels.

I don't think that your diety is very omniscient to have made a mistake. He doesn't seem like a being worthy of worship.

It seems consistent with the Christian scripture though. The Christian god made humans and then "realised"(even thought he knows everything already) that he fucked up yet again and had to clean up his own mess not once but twice by sending a flood and then a part of him to die as a human. As an aside, what kind of diety is blood thirsty enough to require a blood sacrifice for sins?

Is this at all founded in scientific fact? No. But, I don't have to know to believe.

Of course you don't have to know to believe. If you know, then you don't need to have faith and belief.

- No. I didn't feel attacked. I was simply stating, I don't want anyone to feel attacked just because someone else disagree with their statements.

Sorry, my mistake.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LostCause:

[B]To Noraa:

"Are you saying that the angels had no free will and that they were forced to love the Christian god? How then could Satan have rebelled?"

- Lucifer, technically, did not "rebel". He was gods most trusted arch angel. He was the first of all gods (recorded...) creations - and the closest to god - and god called on his counsel in the matter of human creation. Lucifer was then the first angel granted freewill, by gods inquiry of opinion. But, Lucifer believed that if given freewill the angels would turn away from god therefore meaning that the humans would turn away from god. God disagreed and granted Lucifer permission to prove that humans are unworthy, he was then granted he own domain, and given (key word given) thirteen angels who were commanded to devote themselves to Lucifer.

However, Lucifer was never granted human command. He is still considered an angel and therefore still under command of man, meaning he is powerless to a human and cannot effect a human without gods consent.

Then why when someone goes out and kills someone ppl are always like oo well satan forced him to do it or whatever. And in the Catholic faith it was 1/3 of the angels so I guess Catholics are just morons(.. but from personal experience I can see how that could be)

quote:Originally posted by noskillz:

We dont have free will.

Everything we think is electrical impulses and chemicals, not a soul.



Angels, on the other hand are said to be an ethereal being on another plane of existance. If they exist they have free will.

[This message has been edited by noskillz (edited 01-06-2004).]

According to Christianity, this is backwards. God granted Volition(free will) to mankind, yet the angels do not have it.

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

LostCause:

What is the point of having free will if all your choices are the right choice. God gives us free will to choose him or not to choose him with the belief that we will choose him anyways.

What's the point of the Christian god giving us free will if he already knows our decisions and can proceed with the consequences?

In Heaven, won't our choices be always the correct ones? I guess we are robots with no free will there.

Perhaps God only really needs us to have free will when deciding whether we want to be his obedient toys or not.

Then again, I'd argue that we don't have free will in that case anyway - our brains would just be weighing out the choices and the consequences before making our decision, something which I think the sub-conscious does way before our conscious mind takes credit for it.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-07-2004).]

Ahhhh, the mutual existence of free will and determinism. Fitzgerald once said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time."

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

intellectually bankrupt

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-07-2004).]

Haha! I have to use that in class sometime.

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

Originally posted by LostCause:

- Alright, you don't believe we have free will. So, realize that that's the point of view you're coming from. But, since there's no proof one way or another, except the fact that others don't agree and know that others disagreement doesn't make you unable to believe.

Why should I believe when I can reach a logical conclusion instead? [This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-07-2004).]

How do you come to this "logical" conclusion? In the end, there is always some place where you assume something, and for that I agree with LostCause.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

To Noraa:

- *shrug* I'm not Christian, and I don't have an answer for this (as I don't believe this). But, as a Jew I can say that if you know everything, you inherently know nothing; which is the essential nature of of omniscience.Cheers,

Lost

This might make sense for humans, but if God exists and he is omniscient, he knows everything.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

To Noraa:

Frankly, I take a slightly scientific stance on this matter.: I believe that humans are comprised of an unknown/anonymous/indecribed energy that derives from a particular finite but (because it's what our universe is made of) all powerful source. This source is the essence of Time (Time being with a capitol "T") and Time (the energy source) is moving, as a train full with the entire existence, on a curved, linear, track. Eventually, it reaches revelation, I believe, but I'm not quite sure how that would be determined, documented, or anything. This is why my studies as ongoing.

We: humans and otherwise existing excercises in conciousness are like cars moving along this highway. But, the overpasses we go under aren't just overpasses. Just as you flash through the shadow of an overpass you move through another dimension.

Imagine each second existing as it's own dimension. Not just frozen in time, but ever existing before and afterwards and still never existing to anything after because it never existed to anything before.

Now, as we're in this train, moving through these finite (but seemingly infinite) dimensions (inmeasureably quicker than even cells on a film strip), we - in the most technical sense - are the train. In other words, we only exist because we believe we exist, and time exists because we believe it exists, etc...

I believe "god" created "us" inadvertently so that "we" would recreate "him. Because without "us" god is like a set of train tracks existing without the existence of trains. He's meaningless, pointless, unnecissary, pathetic, etc... But, with a train (with it's infinite possibilities of cargo and power) it is a billion times more powerfull than even it's cargo.

Cheers,

Lost

How did you come to this conclusion?

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

Am I more justified to not believe for lack of evidence of the concept of a spirit? Isn't believing in something without evidence just slightly illogical?

Think about this objectively. The Christians believe that they do have "evidence": The Holy Bible. From their point of view, you are illogical for disbelieving in something that is evidenced.

From my objective point of view, your disbelief of God is just as logical as one's belief in God. We don't have true "proof" either way; although theists often believe that they do have proof.

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

I don't think that your diety is very omniscient to have made a mistake. He doesn't seem like a being worthy of worship.

It seems consistent with the Christian scripture though. The Christian god made humans and then "realised"(even thought he knows everything already) that he fucked up yet again and had to clean up his own mess not once but twice by sending a flood and then a part of him to die as a human. As an aside, what kind of diety is blood thirsty enough to require a blood sacrifice for sins?

First of all to address LostCause, I don't think Angels were "revised" as humans. They were a seperate creation.

Second of all, noraa, God didn't "fuck up", he gave humans Volition, and we proved ourselves unworthy(according to Christian doctrine).

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Think about this objectively. The Christians believe that they do have "evidence": The Holy Bible. From their point of view, you are illogical for disbelieving in something that is evidenced.

From my objective point of view, your disbelief of God is just as logical as one's belief in God. We don't have true "proof" either way; although theists often believe that they do indeed possess this ever-elusive proof.

Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Ahhhh, the mutual existence of free will and determinism. Fitzgerald once said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time."

What are you trying to say here? Free will and determinism exist at the same time? Why don't you give me a decent explanation and back up your repeated assertion that the Christian god gave us volition? Do animals have it too? Do computers have it too? The ability to make a choice doesn't count for much if you were influnced when making it.

Yes, I do not have a first-rate intelligence; nor do I claim to. What was the point of your quote?

How do you come to this "logical" conclusion? In the end, there is always some place where you assume something, and for that I agree with LostCause.

Alright, my mistake.

Second of all, noraa, God didn't "fuck up", he gave humans Volition, and we proved ourselves unworthy(according to Christian doctrine).

The bible states that the Christian god regreted having made man and then tried to clean up the mess that he made a la the flood. I don't know about you, but for me, that qualifies as him having made a mistake. Especially if he was omniscient in the first place.

In fact, today was the first time that I have been visited by Jehovah's witnesses. They happen to believe that even though the Christian god is omniscient, he decided not to know the future, turning creation and the hilarity that ensued into some sort of experiment.

To me, this is a cop out, but it makes a lot more sense eg. when the bible talks about the Christian god having reactionary emotions. If the Christian god did know that he was going to be angry at some point in the future, would he have been angry right then and there or would he have reserved his anger till that point in time when he was supposed to be angry?

I'm starting to think that maybe the Christian god did turn a blind eye to the future after all.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-10-2004).]

Noraa,

"Is saying "I don't rightly know" beyond you? I guess that might involve some belief as well."

- I don't know if you're trying to be snide but I'll just pretend you weren't. No, saying 'I don't know' is not beyond me. In fact, if you read some of my earlier posts in this thread, I think I wrote that exact qoute several times.

"What is your basis for this belief? Can you point me to some material?"

- You can look up The Time Method Theory, it's taught at the University of Boston, West Palm Beach, and now UCBerkeley, where I give seminars on it twice a year.

Other than that, I'll say my theory is inspired greatly by Wiccan and Judaic mysticsm teachings I was raised with, and rooted in theories such as Newtons Law, Einstiens Mouse, Allan Watts Is This It, and scientific studies of the movement of time.

Currently, no one particularily knows how time moves, but there are three main beliefs. The most common is that time moves on a curved linear line (which is what The Time Method Theory is based on), another less popular belief is that it moves in a wave, and the most current one is that all dimensions exist in the same space and time is their action which is like the way a flourescent light pulsates. In otherwords, several different dimensions existing/pulsating in the same space at the same time generates time.

"Again, where are you getting all this from? I'd like to read up on it."

- Try the bible.

"Are the 13 angels who were commanded to devote themselves to Lucifer going to hell along with Lucifer?"

- Yes. Well, I'd say they went to hell, with Lucifer. But, you have to look at it this way: god GAVE hell to Lucifer and he GAVE Lucifer the thirteen angels to help him. So, it wasn't like they were banished there.

"What? I say that when you know everything, you know everything. Can you back up your assertion that knowing everything means knowing nothing?"

- Yes, I can. Plato said "All I know is I know nothing." Also the Buddhist belief that enlightenment can only come through emptiness. Emptiness, perhaps, isn't the best word to describe it. But, I hope you get what I mean.

The point is, is that when you know everything there is to know you no longer have any need to think and thereby sieze to know anything.

"Am I more justified to not believe for lack of evidence of the concept of a spirit? Isn't believing in something without evidence just slightly illogical?"

- I don't think believing in something without evidence is illogical. Afterall, there was a time people were laughed at for believing the world was round. We - humans - don't know everything, so believing in something we don't have evidence of isn't illogical, that's why believing isn't called knowing.

"Are you also saying that man created a god? Which one? The Christian god?"

- I'm saying "god" "created" our existence as a way to recreate him. Without our existence god would still exist, but he would be pointless.

The blueprints for my spiritual beliefs are based in a Judaic god, so that's initially what I think of when I think of god. That's not neccisarily what I believe, though. Also, the Judaic god and the Christian god are two entirely different characters.

"Ok, I'm trying to understand what you have said, but again, I would appreciate if you could point me towards some reading material."

- I think I already mentioned some good reading material. I could take a look in my library for more if you're interested.

"You say that we and time exist because we believe they exist. Can you back that up? Have you also concluded that the Christian god(or your own diety) exists only because we believe he exists? I'm not sure that the Christian god would be happy to hear that his existence is bound to our belief. Your own diety might be fine with it, though."

- Can I back that up? With what? More reading material? Sure. Analogies? Metaphores? Similies? Absolutely. If you want physical evidence, no. But, that's why it's a belief and a theory and not a fact.

Like I said before, "god" with exist without us, but would be pointless. Like a car without an engine.

"Again, I can't say that I'm familar with the diety that you are trying to put across, but I think that by definition, the Christian god is perfect and complete. He can just sit on his ass forever and bask in his perfection. Your diety might not be perfect and thus have wants and needs though."

- The reason you're not familiar with it, is because this isn't any documented diety. I'm using the word "god" simply for sake of having a noun. If I were going to call it what I truly believe it is, I call it Time.

It's concious only through the conciousness of it's existence, which encompasses all conciousness. Therefore, it is not concious itself but is concious through it's creations. It is omniscient because it encompasses everything. It is omnipotent because it encompasses everything.

It has no wants, needs, desires, etc... It is not infallible, or fallible, or anything that could be describe with human characteristics because it is not human, it is not any sort of living thing. It is just existing as existence.

he "knows" the "right" way of existing. So, sure, we have free will. We can do what we wish to do.[/b]

"Which is it? You start by saying that you don't belief we have free will, and then you conclude by saying that we have free will."

- Alright, I said it wrong. I believe we have "free will", but I don't believe we were granted free will. I don't believe it's a gift or anything. I believe we were simply created this way and Times encompassing everything makes it omniscient, but it doesn't really give a shit about what we do in any personal way. It is the example of a perfect existence.

Why is it an example of a perfect existence even though I stated it is niether fallible nor infallible? I'll tell you why. Because it is our existence. It's what our entire universe is based on. It's the only reference we have. Thereby, as far as we can know, it is perfect.

"By the way, what is your definition of free will? Is it only that we can do what we want to do? Do you agree that what we want to do is based on our brain weighing decisions and deciding for us which on is the best? I think that our subconscious makes all our decisions based on what it knows way before our conscious mind takes credit for it. Sorry if I have posted this in a previous post already."

- I answered some of these questions earlier, but I believe that we are spirits with bodies and that our minds, bodies, spirits, subconciouses, collective conciouses, etc... all make decisions together and independently.

"I don't think that your diety is very omniscient to have made a mistake. He doesn't seem like a being worthy of worship."

- There's no diety. I cleared that up. Not that there's no "god". Time may very well be "god". At least, that's what I'm aiming at.

"As an aside, what kind of diety is blood thirsty enough to require a blood sacrifice for sins?"

- I don't know. A man made one? Man is pretty blood thirsty.

Noraa, not that I'm not enjoying this little tete a tete, but I'm curious to know, is there something you're trying to convince me of? Because, this thread was posted by Zesty (who is of the catholic faith) asking questions pertaining to his faith. I was responded to his questions with my best christian perspective. My language was intended to empathize with him but did not necissarily imply that I was of personal convictions in the matter.

Cheers,

Lost

[This message has been edited by LostCause (edited 01-10-2004).]

First and foremost, I apologise if I have given you the impression that I am being snide or smug.

I was just asking questions to see what belief's you have in order to have a discussion. I'm not interested in converting anyone. In fact, it may not seem like it, but I am just trying to reconcile myself with my Christian upbringing. If I ever get back to Christianity, I think that I shall be able to defend it with a vengeance, so to speak.

Anyway, seeing as how your religion(perhaps I should say "belief's" instead) doesn't really have anything to do with the traditional Christian god, I will cease this discussion basically because I have no idea about what I'm talking about with respect to your "god"(for the lack of a better term).

However, there were bits in your latest post that I am somewhat familiar with.

Where in the bible does it say that the Christian god gave hell to lucifer to tend to instead of being used for everlasting punishment of lucifer and sinners? I was under the impression that it was a common misconception to think that lucifer and co will be running hell instead of suffering there like everybody else.

It would really help if you could quote me some specific bible verses.

That aside, I admit that your belief's are very interesting but they're out of my league in this case and I already have enough on my plate with Christianity.

Thank you for your time.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-10-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:



What are you trying to say here? Free will and determinism exist at the same time? Why don't you give me a decent explanation and back up your repeated assertion that the Christian god gave us volition? Do animals have it too? Do computers have it too? The ability to make a choice doesn't count for much if you were influnced when making it.

Yes, I do not have a first-rate intelligence; nor do I claim to. What was the point of your quote?

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-10-2004).]

Look at LostCause's explanation for the free will and determinism question.

Secondly, I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear, Christianity says that God gave us Volition, not me.

I disagree with you assertion that, "The ability to make a choice doesn't count for much if you were influnced when making it." If you have a choice, you have a choice.

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:



The bible states that the Christian god regreted having made man and then tried to clean up the mess that he made a la the flood. I don't know about you, but for me, that qualifies as him having made a mistake. Especially if he was omniscient in the first place.

In fact, today was the first time that I have been visited by Jehovah's witnesses. They happen to believe that even though the Christian god is omniscient, he decided not to know the future, turning creation and the hilarity that ensued into some sort of experiment.

To me, this is a cop out, but it makes a lot more sense eg. when the bible talks about the Christian god having reactionary emotions. If the Christian god did know that he was going to be angry at some point in the future, would he have been angry right then and there or would he have reserved his anger till that point in time when he was supposed to be angry?

I'm starting to think that maybe the Christian god did turn a blind eye to the future after all.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-10-2004).]

I probably made the mistake here, but just so that we can clear this up, could you quote the passage in the Bible?

P.S. Jehovah's Witnesses are in no way indicative of mainstream Christianity. They learn their doctrine from a magazine. Enough said.

Noraa,

"Where in the bible does it say that the Christian god gave hell to lucifer to tend to instead of being used for everlasting punishment of lucifer and sinners? I was under the impression that it was a common misconception to think that lucifer and co will be running hell instead of suffering there like everybody else."

- I don't (at the moment) have a bible in front of me, but it is in Genesis and I'll be happy to look up some passages for you tomorrow.

Furthermore, I'd like to clarify a few things about this whole Lucifer/hell/angels thing. At that point in the bible, there was no christianity and the concept of a Christian god did not exist. I, therefore, find it almost impossible to maintain a christian outlook on this subject.

In Judaism (and according to the first four books of Moses i.e.: The Torah, i.e.: The Old Testament) heaven is the place where the angels live and is the closest thing to a place where god "lives". Hell is the place where Lucifer and his angels devise ways to trip up humans. Humans, however, never venture into these two realms.

There is no concept of heaven or hell as options in the afterlife for humans. You judge yourself and punish or reward yourself accordingly and you exist in a sort of "limbo" like state, for lack of a better word. It's not with negative connotation as it sounds, though.

So, by these terms he didn't give Lucifer hell so he could lord over it and poke dead sinners with pitch forks all day. It was a place for Lucifer to exist without god. God created it especially for him because it would be the only place in existence without god.

However, because Lucifer is still an angel he is still subservient to humans and cannot do anything effecting humans without gods consent. Reference: the story of Joob.

Lucifer was/is gods favorite angel and there is no statement in the bible that he ever siezed to be gods favorite angel. God felt sorry for him, became angry with him, etc... on occassion, but as in the story of Joob and many other parts of the bible god and Lucifer are hanging out like buddies. As far as can be told, they love the crap out of each other.

Cheers,

Lost

Old "I am that I am" or Mr. Burning Bush as

He's known to his friends. Isn't He the old

immortal, unchanging "Rock of Ages"? In other

words Is, Was, Will Be; Forever & Ever Amen.

One with Itself outside of Time. So if It's

One with Itself, all things are known, since

It's outside of Time, all things in Time are

known.

The Beginning & the End: Alpha & Omega (as

ol' Water Walker, said).

We do things because our universe seems temporal even if it is not. All our wisdom cannot change the fact that the universe still seems the way it did when we were 5 years old. The difference is that now we simply know all the stuff on Mad Scientists and My God can beat the shit out of your God. It makes no difference.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:



Plato said "All I know is I know nothing."

[This message has been edited by LostCause (edited 01-10-2004).]

Actually it was Socrates who said, "All I know is that I know nothing." Plato just wrote it down.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

- I don't think believing in something without evidence is illogical.



Actually, believeing in something without evidence is one of the very definitions of illogical.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:



Afterall, there was a time people were laughed at for believing the world was round.



At that time, with the empirical data that was gathered(and lack thereof), it WAS illogical to believe the earth was round.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:



We - humans - don't know everything, so believing in something we don't have evidence of isn't illogical, that's why believing isn't called knowing..

Actually believing is defined as accepting something as the truth, so it follows the same ramifications as "knowing". In Logic, the burden of proof is ALWAYS upon the claimant.

Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Look at LostCause's explanation for the free will and determinism question.

Secondly, I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear, Christianity says that God gave us Volition, not me.

I disagree with you assertion that, "The ability to make a choice doesn't count for much if you were influnced when making it." If you have a choice, you have a choice.

I can't remember, but I don't think that LostCause's explanation has anything to do with the Christian god and theology. I'll read it again and maybe post something later.

I'd say you don't have a choice anyway(sorry if I didn't say it right in my previous post), seeing as how our choices are either determined or random. I don't think that that's a false dichotomy. If I have indeed missed out on listing a possible choice, then please tell me about it. If not, then which is it? Are our choices determined or random?

I probably made the mistake here, but just so that we can clear this up, could you quote the passage in the Bible?

Genesis 6:5

The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thought of his heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 6:6

The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Genesis 6:7

So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-mean and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and the birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."

So yeah, I think that counts as the Christian god having made a mistake and trying to clean it up and start all over again.

Of course, the only person who the Christian god deemed good enough to save(Noah and his family) got drunk and laid naked in his tent after the flood and a chat with the Christian god. It got more comical when he cursed his son for accidentally seeing his nakedness and blessed his two sons who covered his naked ass with a cloth. Perhaps the Christian god should've gotten a clue if he wanted to avoid more emotional anguish.

If the Christian god were omniscient, then he would've already known all of this, and the fact that using the flood would not work and that he had to ask a big favour from his pal Jesus.

That's why I'm beggining to think that the Christian god has indeed chosen to not look at the future. Makes a hell of a lot more sense when the bible talks about the Christian god having reactionary emotions.

P.S. Jehovah's Witnesses are in no way indicative of mainstream Christianity. They learn their doctrine from a magazine. Enough said.

I don't care if they learn their doctrine from reading words that magically appear on their toilet paper. If what they say makes sense eg. the Christian god choosing not to look at the future, I'll consider it.

I won't be converting anytime soon though.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-10-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by zEsTyTuRtLe:

If life is predetermined then why do we even do anyhting?

because we're predetermined to do them, stupid ass.

I was looking through the New Catholic Encylopedia(it is THE source for all questions pertaining to Christianity) and I looked up Free Will(because of this topic and because my Philosophy Club is having a discussion on Free Will this coming Thursday). I found many explanations for the "man has free will and yet God knows what will happen?" question.

Here are some selections(edited down quite a bit):

Catholic Doctrine:

God possesses an infallible knowledge of man's future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man's future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind as a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains. Further, God's omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man's freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church--both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas--attempt to solve in different ways. The heresies of Luther and Calvin brought the issue to a finer point than it had reached in the time of Aquinas, consequently he had not formally dealt with it in its ultimate shape, and each of the two schools can cite texts from the works of the Angelic Doctor in which he appears to incline towards their particular view.

Thomist and Molinist Theories:

The Dominican or Thomist solution, as it is called, teaches in brief that God premoves each man in all his acts to the line of conduct which he subsequently adopts. It holds that this premotive decree inclines man's will with absolute certainty to the side decreed, but that God adapts this premotion to the nature of the being thus premoved. It argues that as God possesses infinite power He can infallibly premove man--who is by nature a free cause--to choose a particular course freely, whilst He premoves the lower animals in harmony with their natures to adopt particular courses by necessity. Further, this premotive decree being inevitable though adapted to suit the free nature of man, provides a medium in which God foresees with certainty the future free choice of the human being.

The premotive decree is thus prior in order of thought to the Divine cognition of man's future actions. Theologians and philosophers of the Jesuit School, frequently styled Molinists, though they do not accept the whole of Molina's teaching and generally prefer Suarez's exposition of the theory, deem the above solution unsatisfactory. It would, they readily admit, provide sufficiently for the infallibility of the Divine foreknowledge and also for God's providential control of the world's history; but, in their view, it fails to give at the same time an adequately intelligible account of the freedom of the human will. According to them, the relation of the Divine action to man's will should be conceived rather as of a concurrent than of a premotive character; and they maintain that God's knowledge of what a free being would choose, if the necessary conditions were supplied, must be deemed logically prior to any decree of concurrence or premotion in respect to that act of choice. Briefly, they make a threefold distinction in God's knowledge of the universe based on the nature of the objects known--the Divine knowledge being in itself of course absolutely simple. Objects or events viewed merely as possible, God is said to apprehend by simple intelligence (simplex intelligentia). Events which will happen He knows by vision (scientia visionis). Intermediate between these are conditionally future events--things which would occur were certain conditions fulfilled. God's knowledge of this class of contingencies they term scientia media. For instance Christ affirmed that, if certain miracles had been wrought in Tyre and Sidon, the inhabitants would have been converted. The condition was not realized, yet the statement of Christ must have been true. About all such conditional contingencies propositions may be framed which are either true or false--and Infinite Intelligence must know all truth. The conditions in many cases will not be realized, so God must know them apart from any decrees determining their realization. He knows them therefore, this school holds, in seipsis, in themselves as conditionally future events. This knowledge is the scientia media, "middle knowledge", intermediate between vision of the actual future and simple understanding of the merely possible. Acting now in the light of this scientia media with respect to human volitions, God freely decides according to His own wisdom whether He shall supply the requisite conditions, including His co-operation in the action, or abstain from so doing, and thus render possible or prevent the realization of the event. In other words, the infinite intelligence of God sees clearly what would happen in any conceivable circumstances. He thus knows what the free will of any creature would choose, if supplied with the power of volition or choice and placed in any given circumstances. He now decrees to supply the needed conditions, including His corcursus, or to abstain from so doing. He thus holds complete dominion and control over our future free actions, as well as over those of a necessary character. The Molinist then claims to safeguard better man's freedom by substituting for the decree of an inflexible premotion one of concurrence dependent on God's prior knowledge of what the free being would choose. If given the power to exert the choice. He argues that he exempts God more clearly from all responsibility for man's sins.

Free will and the Protestant Reformers:

A leading feature in the teaching of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially in the case of Luther and Calvin, was the denial of free will. Picking out from the Scriptures, and particularly from St. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy of grace, the all-ruling providence of God, His decrees of election or predestination, and the feebleness of man, they drew the conclusion that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughout life. As a consequence, man is predestined before his birth to eternal punishment or reward in such fashion that he never can have had any real free-power over his own fate. In his controversy with Erasmus, who defended free will, Luther frankly stated that free will is a fiction, a name which covers no reality, for it is not in man's power to think well or ill, since all events occur by necessity. In reply to Erasmus's "De Libero Arbitrio", he published his own work, "De Servo Arbitrio", glorying in emphasizing man's helplessness and slavery. The predestination of all future human acts by God is so interpreted as to shut out any possibility of freedom. An inflexible internal necessity turns man's will whithersoever God preordains. With Calvin, God's preordination is, if possible, even more fatal to free will. Man can perform no sort of good act unless necessitated to it by God's grace which it is impossible for him to resist. It is absurd to speak of the human will "co-operating" with God's grace, for this would imply that man could resist the grace of God. The will of God is the very necessity of things. It is objected that in this case God sometimes imposes impossible commands. Both Calvin and Luther reply that the commands of God show us not what we can do but what we ought to do. In condemnation of these views, the Council of Trent declared that the free will of man, moved and excited by God, can by its consent co-operate with God, Who excites and invites its action; and that it can thereby dispose and prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification. The will can resist grace if it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive. Weakened and diminished by Adam's fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race.



P.S. Personally, I find the defense of the Jesuits the most satisfying.

[This message has been edited by CesareBorgia (edited 01-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

[b]Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Genesis 6:5

The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thought of his heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 6:6

The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Genesis 6:7

So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-mean and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and the birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."

So yeah, I think that counts as the Christian god having made a mistake and trying to clean it up and start all over again.[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-10-2004).]

It can easily be intrepreted both ways(i.e. god screwed up or man screwed up)

To LostCause:

I found this passage in Letters 22:4 which explains the creation of hell. Satan was not "given" hell, but banished to it.



Lucifer fell, Lucifer who used to rise at dawn; and be who was bred up in a paradise of delight had the well-earned sentence passed upon him, "Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord." For he had said in his heart, "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God," and "I will be like the Most High." Wherefore God says every day to the angels, as they descend the ladder that Jacob saw in his dream, "I have said ye are Gods and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes." The devil fell first, and since "God standeth in the congregation of the Gods and judgeth among the Gods," the apostle writes to those who are ceasing to be Gods--" Whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal and walk as men?"

CesareBorgia:

Do the two options I presented earlier constitute a false dichotomy? I'll read what you posted a few more times to fully absorb it(whew, long paragraphs), but could you tell me if there is a third option apart from saying that our decisions are determined by conditions or that they are random?

Can any of the two cases above count as having free will?

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

Do the two options I presented earlier constitute a false dichotomy?

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-11-2004).]

Could you repost them, because I can't seem to find them(without sorting through this rather large thread)

Option 1: The deterministic view that all our actions are simply based on conditions and previous happenings a la cause and effect.

Option 2: Our choices are random a la quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.

And my other question was about whether the above options count as having free will.

I think volition counts as "will", not free will. Seems to me that animals have this as well as robots.

As an aside, is there such a thing as randomness when there's an omniscient being involved? I think that randomness means a pattern that we do not know of yet. This may go towards taking down option 2 in that what's apparently random might be following some rule or pattern that we don't know. That is of course unless even a omniscient and omnipotent being cannot handle predicting the future when the uncertainty principle is involved.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

Option 1: The deterministic view that all our actions are simply based on conditions and previous happenings a la cause and effect.

Option 2: Our choices are random a la quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-11-2004).]

I think it may be a false dichotomy. They are not the same, but I think trying to compare Option 1 with Option 2 is like trying to compare apples and oranges.

As for Option 2, I understand the uncertainty principle a little differently. It basically states that if you try to observe a particle, you have to disturb it, and thus the future position of the particle is uncertain. Now, that is only if one trys to observe a particle, if one lets the particle alone and doesn't go poking about, the position of the particle may very well be predictable. This is my own charlatan view of the uncertainty principle. Correct me if I am wrong.

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:



As an aside, is there such a thing as randomness when there's an omniscient being involved? I think that randomness means a pattern that we do not know of yet.

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-11-2004).]

Yes, I agree with this. It is not truly random, but merely random to us. This would support the existence of UFT(Universal Field Theory) that could explain everything.

I'm not too sure about the uncertainty principle myself actually.

In any case, would you agree that option 2(our choices are random) pretty much goes down the drain?

Do you merely hope for the existence of a hidden third option or can you present something?

If not, then are you still of the opinion that we have free will(I apologise for assuming what your opinion is on this matter)? If so, why?

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:



If not, then are you still of the opinion that we have free will(I apologise for assuming what your opinion is on this matter)? If so, why?



For me to say either way(we do have free will or we don't have free will) would violate metaphysics at its most fundamental level. For that, I must invoke my ignorance in this matter. The only definite statement that I can make is that I hope that we have free will.



[This message has been edited by CesareBorgia (edited 01-12-2004).]

Fair enough. It would be nice to know what the third option is, though.

Good luck with your philosophy club discussion. Be sure to tell me anything interesting that you guys come up with.

quote:Originally posted by kevinboyd:

because we're predetermined to do them, stupid ass.



So are we predetermined to sit with our thumb up our ass and say something stupid like that when everyone else in the forum has brought something meaningful to the conversation?I'm sorry I must have missed the part where we were all predetermined to not even believe in (assuming he is real) our creator. If it was he who predetermined our lives why did he let everyone hate him. And why in the hell would he predetermine war? So the answer "because we were predetermined to them, stupid ass" doesn't exactlty help me so shut the hell up you bigot.

Oh and to everyone else Thank you for your help.



[This message has been edited by zEsTyTuRtLe (edited 01-12-2004).]

CesareBorgia:

Sorry about not posting this earlier, but it just occured to me that I don't understand what you mean when you say that making a conclusion about free will would violate metaphysics at its most fundamental level.

Could you please expound on that?

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

CesareBorgia:

Sorry about not posting this earlier, but it just occured to me that I don't understand what you mean when you say that making a conclusion about free will would violate metaphysics at its most fundamental level.

Could you please expound on that?

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-12-2004).]

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is defined as the study of any of the most fundamental concepts and beliefs(i.e. being, existence, universal, relation, causation, space, time, event).

Now since the only metaphysically definate statement I can make is, "Cogito Ergo Sum", trying to determine the true(metaphysical) nature of will(is it predetermined or is it free) is rubbish.

I see. Thanks.

If "trying to determine the true(metaphysical) nature of will(is it predetermined or is it free) is rubbish", I wonder why we bother at all.

Are we trying to determine the nature of will on another level? If not, then shouldn't we just cease discussions because they are futile?

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-13-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

I see. Thanks.

If "trying to determine the true(metaphysical) nature of will(is it predetermined or is it free) is rubbish", I wonder why we bother at all.

Are we trying to determine the nature of will on another level? If not, then shouldn't we just cease discussions because they are futile?

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 01-13-2004).]

I guess we are "trying to determine the nature of will on another level". The problem is, any level other than the metaphysical is meaningless.

some thing related:

"it is better to have debated a question without settling it, than to have settled a question without debating it" Joseph Jauber

something unrelated:

"all science is either physics or stamp collecting" Ernest Rutherford

I guess you have a point.

But still, according to what CesareBorgia said, there really is no point in having discussions if the metaphysical level is the only meaningful level to debate on but doing so and reaching conclusions is rubbish anyway.

I just thought i'd answer his original question: "is there anything we can do?"

nope.

quote:Originally posted by noraa_boy:

I guess you have a point.

But still, according to what CesareBorgia said, there really is no point in having discussions if the metaphysical level is the only meaningful level to debate on but doing so and reaching conclusions is rubbish anyway.

This is actually a very valid philosophical theory(that everything is bunk, including philosophy) that was most famously articulated by Wittgenstein. If you are interested in further pursuing this theory, I suggest you read his, "Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus."

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

To LostCause:

I found this passage in Letters 22:4 which explains the creation of hell. Satan was not "given" hell, but banished to it.



Lucifer fell, Lucifer who used to rise at dawn; and be who was bred up in a paradise of delight had the well-earned sentence passed upon him, "Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord." For he had said in his heart, "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God," and "I will be like the Most High." Wherefore God says every day to the angels, as they descend the ladder that Jacob saw in his dream, "I have said ye are Gods and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes." The devil fell first, and since "God standeth in the congregation of the Gods and judgeth among the Gods," the apostle writes to those who are ceasing to be Gods--" Whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal and walk as men?"

This mentions Lucifers disagreement with god and it mentions his "fall from grace", it also mention that god put him somewhere away from him, but nowhere does it state that Lucifer was banished or even put in "hell".

--------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, I've been absent for a few days, so I'm a bit discombobulated.

"Actually it was Socrates who said, "All I know is that I know nothing." Plato just wrote it down."

- You're right. My mistake.

"Actually, believeing in something without evidence is one of the very definitions of illogical."

- That's semantics. You know what I meant. Have of the time I write on here I'm doped up on something or other, so I opologize for the poor choice in words, but, yes, well, you know what I meant.

Geez, I need to sleep...

"At that time, with the empirical data that was gathered(and lack thereof), it WAS illogical to believe the earth was round."

- That doesn't mean it was correct, though. That's exactly what I mean. Just because we think something, or even have "evidence" of something doesn't make it correct. It may make it logical to believe it, but there's no garauntee you're not wrong. Therefore, thinking that something that cannot be proven may be true (proven at some time or another) isn't illogical.

"Actually believing is defined as accepting something as the truth, so it follows the same ramifications as "knowing". In Logic, the burden of proof is ALWAYS upon the claimant"

- More semantics. Granted, you're write, but like I said before: you know what I meant.

Cheers,

Lost

I admire he with much knowledge, yet can accept and admit his mistakes.

Thank you.

O boy, I just realized how many typos I made in that reply...

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Thank you.

O boy, I just realized how many typos I made in that reply...

Cheers,

Lost

Glad it wasn't just me http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

This mentions Lucifers disagreement with god and it mentions his "fall from grace", it also mention that god put him somewhere away from him, but nowhere does it state that Lucifer was banished or even put in "hell".

I guess it is up for intrepretation. To me, the fact that he was "sentenced" means he was banished.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

I guess it is up for intrepretation. To me, the fact that he was "sentenced" means he was banished.

"Somewhere away from god" has always been defined as hell. It's called the place without god isn't it?

quote:Originally posted by noskillz:

We dont have free will.

Everything we think is electrical impulses and chemicals, not a soul.

Angels, on the other hand are said to be an ethereal being on another plane of existance. If they exist they have free will.



Nope. They are still slaves to their own will.

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooobooooooooooooooooooooodyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyy knowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwsss the trouble i've seeeeen nobody knowwwwwwwwwwws my troubles, because I can.

[This message has been edited by LostCause (edited 01-18-2004).]

excellent debate http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)