Originally posted by Serge
I think it depends on how you define choice. If you define choice as the simple act of thinking through the different options at your disposal and arriving at a decision that best fits your particular needs, then the sensation of choice is within the very definition, and is not precluded by your choices ultimately being predetermined before you make them, as the factor of being completely and ultimately in control of what decision you'll make is not contained within the definition.
This is more or less what I define as choice. Throughout my life I will have the free will to choose many paths in my life because I don't know where they will lead me. I'm not omniscient nor omnipotent so in the realm of reality and human fallibility, this is free will for me.. I'm not sure why the opposition is trying to muscle in a universal definition for "Free will".
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except thatis illogical and ignores the fact that humans can be wrong. [/B]
Prove how it's illogical. Simply throwing out a term doesn't make it so. Furthermore, humans being wrong has to do with what exactly? They still have the freedom to choose from their perspective, which is the only perspective that matters.
the fact that everything is preordained has little to do with free will
OR
1. God is the creator of everything. (G > E)
2. Everything, is defined as all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. (E > O)
3. God created all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. (G > O)
4. Because God created all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. God predetermined every event the moment he specified the parameters of the universe. (G > O) > D
5. Because God predetermined every event the moment he specified the parameters of the universe, he is directly responsible for everything that happens. (D > R)
6. Because God created all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. God is directly responsible for everything that happens. (G > O) > R
7. Because God is directly responsible for everything that happens, Free Will does not exist. (R > ~F)
They still have the freedom to choose from their perspective, which is the only perspective that matters.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
If everything is preordained
Then
my decision is preordained
IF
my decision is preordained
Then
my decision isn't free
Theirs is not the only perspective that matters. Humans can have the sensation of free will, but that doesn't mean they actually have it. Look at it this way: you might enjoy the sensations you get from your blow-up doll, but that doesn't mean that you are in a relationship. 😬 [/B]
Except that's a flawed analogy on so many levels. I mean if you're going to ridicule my inabilities to get laid, you might not want to go down the typical route of "blow up dolls".
Originally posted by Autokrat
1. God is the creator of everything. (G > E)
2. Everything, is defined as all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. (E > O)
3. God created all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. (G > O)
4. Because God created all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. God predetermined every event the moment he specified the parameters of the universe. (G > O) > D
5. Because God predetermined every event the moment he specified the parameters of the universe, he is directly responsible for everything that happens. (D > R)
6. Because God created all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. God is directly responsible for everything that happens. (G > O) > R
7. Because God is directly responsible for everything that happens, Free Will does not exist. (R > ~F)
The choice is on you. You are directly responsible for what you do. God is only indirectly responsible. Being put in a certain position doesn't determine what choice you have to make. It would be a nice way of removing personal responsibility, but its not true.
interesting. I don't pretend to know exactly what proof analysis you are using, but I do know enough about Calculus to ask: Is it normal to bring in the F right at the very end without establishing what it means, and tying it into the rest of the proof? Sincere question.
1. G > E
2. E > O
3. G > O/ 1,2 HS
4. (G > O) > D
5. D > R
6. (G > O) > R/ 4,5 HS
7. R > ~F / Ergo: R > ~F
Far more intelligent people than you (and I) gave tired to reconcile Free Will with an all-knowing God and none of their arguments convinced me so start making some sense or stopping acting like I don't understand what you are talking about, because I do. You have no argument, all you have is the same broken record garbage that you mistakingly call an argument. If this was a philosophy 101 class the Professor would be gently explaining to you how I have provided the vastly superior argument while the rest of the class would be trying not to laugh at how stupid you would sound.
I don't mind listening to you explain WHY that is, but you haven't done so. You keep jumping that gap in your logic.
Oh and TJ
I think I might have already mentioned this but I have taken two quarters of Religious Studies (not counting my Philosophy of Religion courses) so would you please stop lecturing me on shit that I already know about (probably better than you.)
As I said, don't be an ASS. I doubt very highly that everyone on this forum knew this is a giant split in church philosophy.
The very fact that even theists cannot make up their mind about this just shows how difficult an issue it is to reconcile.
And shows that I'm not coming out of left-field with disagreeing with you.
Reread my post and simply count it as a reply since I don't have the endurance to explain to you why you are wrong again. You may just win this through the simple fact that I don't have to the desire to go to war with a broken record that repeats the same illogical argument over and over again. As for the issue about F, see my note to RN about how I realized I didn't do the best of jobs defining it.
Oh and by the way. I am in no way obligated to be nice to you. We are not equals in this debate. This is not a Socratic dialog between two peers, this is me, the Philosophy student with a decent formal education in the subject, explaining to you, the thespian, why your argument is wrong and illogical.
You have no idea how annoying it is to have someone like you try an explain to me how I don't know what I am talking about when I've spent the last two years learning and debating it with professors and other like minded enthusiasts.
It would be like me walking up to you on set and trying to tell you that you had applied your makeup incorrectly and your blocking sucked without having any idea what I was talking about.
Of course in your favor this is the f*cking internet so we could be anyone.
As for you DS. I don't even know where to begin. Your argument hinges on changing the definition of Free Will to make your conclusion work. This is not good logic, it is the typical theistic rationalization to make something illogical sound logical.
*Forget what I was saying earlier please*
Free Will: The ability or discretion to choose
[Tell me if this does not fit the particular definition you are using or the particular definition that is generally in question]
As I understand it you guys' (Red and Autokrat (and Nephthys and Andrew Ryan?)) argument essentially states that because the choices that we make are ultimately predetermined (given the existence of an omniscient being who knows what choices we will make before we make them, or the simple fact that what's going to happen will definitely happen, including the choices that we make, regardless of whether or not a given being knows of it), and that it's only possible for us (within our control) to make those single choices, that we ultimately have no "ability or discretion to choose"... right?
The way I see it: The choices that we make are determined not only by our "ability or discretion to choose" but the manner in which the external environment influences our "ability or discretion to choose".
As humans, it's entirely possible that we can possess "The ability or discretion to choose" but still ultimately only ever be able to make a single choice (*) not because we don't possess "ability or discretion to choose" but because the external environment, of which we have no control over, will always influence our "ability or discretion to choose" in a manner that propels us to make that choice, and that choice alone (and only possibly that choice). That doesn't mean that we don't have "The ability or discretion to choose" but rather that we don't have control over what influences our "ability or discretion to choose" into making the choice that it does... I think.
* - this might appear to be a contradiction but it's not as in the context in which I'm using the terms "The ability or discretion to choose" ultimately refers to our ability in the thinking process to make decisions, whereas the single choice that we can "only ever be able to make" refers to the choice that the external environment forces our "ability or discretion to choose" to make
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Not good logic? You mean like you having a different concept of free will to suit your argument? Try avoiding the hypocrisy. So far you have yet to show any evidence that my argument is illogical, just that it doesn't agree with yours.
All you did was change the meaning of the words Free Will so it could work in your argument. Any Philosophy 101 student could tell you that this not good debating. Its the kind of debating you do when you realize that you are wrong, so you change definitions until your argument makes sense.
But I'll humor you.
The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions; The doctrine that human beings (and possibly other beings, such angels or higher animals) are able to choose their actions without being caused to do so by external forces
This is the definition of Free Will that I am using and I'm saying that it is impossible because it is impossible to have more than one possible choice when the future is fixed. Why is the future fixed? Because God knows what the future is in an absolute and tautologus sense. Therefore there can be no choices that could alter this knowledge in any way. Which means all choices. While we still technically make a “choice,” there is only one choice to make because God, as I explained above, created all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. This also means he created the external forces that cause our actions.
From what I've gathered, your definition of Free Will is that the illusion of choice is enough, which is the most bizarre and absurd definitions of Free Will I've ever seen.
Originally posted by Autokrat
All you did was change the meaning of the words Free Will so it could work in your argument. Any Philosophy 101 student could tell you that this not good debating. Its the kind of debating you do when you realize that you are wrong, so you change definitions until your argument makes sense.
This is the definition of Free Will that I am using and I'm saying that it is impossible because it is impossible to have more than one possible choice when the future is fixed. Why is the future fixed? Because God knows what the future is in an absolute and tautologus sense. Therefore there can be no choices that could alter this knowledge in any way. Which means all choices. While we still technically make a “choice,” there is only one choice to make because God, as I explained above, created all: events, material and spiritual objects and/or entities and time. This also means he created the external forces that cause our actions.From what I've gathered, your definition of Free Will is that the illusion of choice is enough, which is the most bizarre and absurd definitions of Free Will I've ever seen. [/B]
It's an illusion from your perspective. I think it's "bizarre" and "absurd" to look at free will from an omniscient perspective. You can call it an "illusion", but as far as humans are concerned, they make their choices and they face the consequences. Now I would love to continue this but please show something that's not straight out of the "intro to Philosophy" textbook. I wasn't aware there was a universal definition for "free will".
Originally posted by Serge
*Forget what I was saying earlier please*Free Will: The ability or discretion to choose
[b][Tell me if this does not fit the particular definition you are using or the particular definition that is generally in question]
As I understand it you guys' (Red and Autokrat (and Nephthys and Andrew Ryan?)) argument essentially states that because the choices that we make are ultimately predetermined (given the existence of an omniscient being who knows what choices we will make before we make them, or the simple fact that what's going to happen will definitely happen, including the choices that we make, regardless of whether or not a given being knows of it), and that it's only possible for us (within our control) to make those single choices, that we ultimately have no "ability or discretion to choose"... right?
The way I see it: The choices that we make are determined not only by our "ability or discretion to choose" but the manner in which the external environment influences our "ability or discretion to choose".
As humans, it's entirely possible that we can possess "The ability or discretion to choose" but still ultimately only ever be able to make a single choice (*) not because we don't possess "ability or discretion to choose" but because the external environment, of which we have no control over, will always influence our "ability or discretion to choose" in a manner that propels us to make that choice, and that choice alone (and only possibly that choice). That doesn't mean that we don't have "The ability or discretion to choose" but rather that we don't have control over what influences our "ability or discretion to choose" into making the choice that it does... I think.
* - this might appear to be a contradiction but it's not as in the context in which I'm using the terms "The ability or discretion to choose" ultimately refers to our ability in the thinking process to make decisions, whereas the single choice that we can "only ever be able to make" refers to the choice that the external environment forces our "ability or discretion to choose" to make [/B]
By the way all the posts following this one were an expansion of this one, and not in reference to any other posts that came directly before them jftr.
Everyone scoot over to Serge's new thread please.
Autokrat: In regard to your post, i get what you are saying about the inequality of our positions, however:
If, as an actor, I performed, and you decided I absolutely sucked at acting, and then I stood up, and told you : "You don't know good acting, so you have no idea what you are talking about. It IS good." Then I would be way out of line. The performance should stand for itself, I shouldn't have to give you a list of credentials establishing myself as an actor.
In that way, you should be able to explain this to DS and myself in a way that makes sense, without having to tell us we should take your word for it, because you are a philosopher. Does that make sense? I am absolutely not following your logic in your above proof from 5 to 6. If you can explain that better, we can proceed. I don't think God knowing what happens establishes him as responsible for what happens.
Can you elaborate?