Why Jesus & Not Others!?

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 02:35:12 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 02:31:05 PM

Quote from: Wendy on October 21, 2008, 02:28:36 PM

He governs how everything will turn out in the end, but we still have free will.

Which contradicts itself, obviously. If God knows how we will end, why send even one person to hell? A benevolent God would not do such a thing to his beloved creations.

/god

with a puff of logical, he's gone.

When I grab my dog by the collar I know he will try to run which lets me pull him up by the collar and steer him.

So does he lack free will because I know what he'll do? Is he forced to run?

You excel at the use of straw-men, but why would God grab me by the collar?

Actually your statement is a straw man. You say that knowledge of what someone will do means they have no free will because they have to do what you know they'll do. I know what my dog will do, does he lack free will?

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 02:44:39 PM

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 02:35:12 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 02:31:05 PM

Quote from: Wendy on October 21, 2008, 02:28:36 PM

He governs how everything will turn out in the end, but we still have free will.

Which contradicts itself, obviously. If God knows how we will end, why send even one person to hell? A benevolent God would not do such a thing to his beloved creations.

/god

with a puff of logical, he's gone.

When I grab my dog by the collar I know he will try to run which lets me pull him up by the collar and steer him.

So does he lack free will because I know what he'll do? Is he forced to run?

You excel at the use of straw-men, but why would God grab me by the collar?

Actually your statement is a straw man. You say that knowledge of what someone will do means they have no free will because they have to do what you know they'll do. I know what my dog will do, does he lack free will?

How is my statement a strawman? I was responding to your fallacy.

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 02:44:39 PM

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 02:35:12 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 02:31:05 PM

Quote from: Wendy on October 21, 2008, 02:28:36 PM

He governs how everything will turn out in the end, but we still have free will.

Which contradicts itself, obviously. If God knows how we will end, why send even one person to hell? A benevolent God would not do such a thing to his beloved creations.

/god

with a puff of logical, he's gone.

When I grab my dog by the collar I know he will try to run which lets me pull him up by the collar and steer him.

So does he lack free will because I know what he'll do? Is he forced to run?

You excel at the use of straw-men, but why would God grab me by the collar?

Actually your statement is a straw man. You say that knowledge of what someone will do means they have no free will because they have to do what you know they'll do. I know what my dog will do, does he lack free will?

I disagree with your argument. I think the possibility of exact future prediction implies determinism, therefore eliminating free will. So, if you could know exactly what your dog will do, then he has no free will, nor does anyone or anything else.

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 04:52:33 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 02:44:39 PM

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 02:35:12 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 02:31:05 PM

Quote from: Wendy on October 21, 2008, 02:28:36 PM

He governs how everything will turn out in the end, but we still have free will.

Which contradicts itself, obviously. If God knows how we will end, why send even one person to hell? A benevolent God would not do such a thing to his beloved creations.

/god

with a puff of logical, he's gone.

When I grab my dog by the collar I know he will try to run which lets me pull him up by the collar and steer him.

So does he lack free will because I know what he'll do? Is he forced to run?

You excel at the use of straw-men, but why would God grab me by the collar?

Actually your statement is a straw man. You say that knowledge of what someone will do means they have no free will because they have to do what you know they'll do. I know what my dog will do, does he lack free will?

I disagree with your argument. I think the possibility of exact future prediction implies determinism, therefore eliminating free will. So, if you could know exactly what your dog will do, then he has no free will, nor does anyone or anything else.

I think ability to predict does not prohibit free will. Free will does not require randomness. Simply it means you are not forced to do something.

If God knows the outcome of your life before you are even born, how is anything you do a choice?

If God knows the outcome of your life before you are even born, how is anything you do a choice?

Thank you.

That is the exact argument I just made, but raist just disagreed with no justification.

I took out all those nasty big words.

If there is a God that is omnipotent, then he knows everything. If he knows everything then he knows the future. If he knows the future then your path is determined already. Even if he chooses to ignore it, you still have no free will because your path has already been determined. There's the illusion of freewill, but there is no freewill.

Reasonable argument? Flaws?

I guess I should start talking dumber

It's not your fault. You've been away for too long.

I guess I should start talking dumber

Oh, sorry. I just read your argument about determinism.

I understand what you guys are saying. I just don't believe that because your path is determined you didn't choose it. Yes people are predictable. Maybe I misunderstand the definition of free will. I don't believe that the human brain is capable of making random decisions anyways. The human brain is wired by the things that happened. So the sum of your experienced in life wire your brain in a way that if you knew enough you could figure out every choice a person will make. Does this mean the choice is not made? Maybe it is because I focus more on biology than on spirituality. I think free will is more about making a choice, and less about freedom. Sure you can't choose what you won't choose, but this is more a redundant statement, because if you are destined to choose choice a and you choose choice b an omnipotent being would have known you would choose choice b.

Sorry if i'm rambling, to sum it up, i think free will is more about the freedom to make a dumb choice, than about the ability for your choice to be unknown.

I would argue that determination is the absolute antithesis of a free will.   There is no ability not to choose, and only one choice is possible, therefore there is an unfree will. There is no 'ability' in that system, the will is essentially impotent.

I would argue that determination is the absolute antithesis of a free will.   There is no ability not to choose, and only one choice is possible, therefore there is an unfree will. There is no 'ability' in that system, the will is essentially impotent.

Would we have free will if we could go back in time and change our decisions somehow?

Not if your decision to go back in time was part of a deterministic system.

Not if your decision to go back in time was part of a deterministic system.

Good point.

So... what's the topic again? Why Jesus, not others?

I would argue that determination is the absolute antithesis of a free will.   There is no ability not to choose, and only one choice is possible, therefore there is an unfree will. There is no 'ability' in that system, the will is essentially impotent.

I disagree, there is an ability to choose, it is simply the choice is known. You are using choice out of context. Choice is a decision made based on the merits of each side. How do we decide these merits? Our brain. Our brain is completely wired and the choice could be known with enough information. Therefore the word choice is meaningless, with your definition.

Quote from: Benocrates on October 21, 2008, 09:00:43 PM

I would argue that determination is the absolute antithesis of a free will.   There is no ability not to choose, and only one choice is possible, therefore there is an unfree will. There is no 'ability' in that system, the will is essentially impotent.

I disagree, there is an ability to choose, it is simply the choice is known. You are using choice out of context. Choice is a decision made based on the merits of each side. How do we decide these merits? Our brain. Our brain is completely wired and the choice could be known with enough information. Therefore the word choice is meaningless, with your definition.

You are under the illusion that you are choosing, but you do not have free will under this system.

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 09:05:26 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on October 21, 2008, 09:00:43 PM

I would argue that determination is the absolute antithesis of a free will.   There is no ability not to choose, and only one choice is possible, therefore there is an unfree will. There is no 'ability' in that system, the will is essentially impotent.

I disagree, there is an ability to choose, it is simply the choice is known. You are using choice out of context. Choice is a decision made based on the merits of each side. How do we decide these merits? Our brain. Our brain is completely wired and the choice could be known with enough information. Therefore the word choice is meaningless, with your definition.

You are under the illusion that you are choosing, but you do not have free will under this system.

What is the definition of free will? I state that may brain does exactly as it wishes. I am the sum of my brain at least intellectually. So I do exactly what I want. Therefore everything i do is my will.

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 09:06:32 PM

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 09:05:26 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on October 21, 2008, 09:00:43 PM

I would argue that determination is the absolute antithesis of a free will.   There is no ability not to choose, and only one choice is possible, therefore there is an unfree will. There is no 'ability' in that system, the will is essentially impotent.

I disagree, there is an ability to choose, it is simply the choice is known. You are using choice out of context. Choice is a decision made based on the merits of each side. How do we decide these merits? Our brain. Our brain is completely wired and the choice could be known with enough information. Therefore the word choice is meaningless, with your definition.

You are under the illusion that you are choosing, but you do not have free will under this system.

What is the definition of free will? I state that may brain does exactly as it wishes. I am the sum of my brain at least intellectually. So I do exactly what I want. Therefore everything i do is my will.

Yes, but I thought we were arguing theology... not biology?

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 09:07:36 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 09:06:32 PM

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 09:05:26 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on October 21, 2008, 09:00:43 PM

I would argue that determination is the absolute antithesis of a free will.   There is no ability not to choose, and only one choice is possible, therefore there is an unfree will. There is no 'ability' in that system, the will is essentially impotent.

I disagree, there is an ability to choose, it is simply the choice is known. You are using choice out of context. Choice is a decision made based on the merits of each side. How do we decide these merits? Our brain. Our brain is completely wired and the choice could be known with enough information. Therefore the word choice is meaningless, with your definition.

You are under the illusion that you are choosing, but you do not have free will under this system.

What is the definition of free will? I state that may brain does exactly as it wishes. I am the sum of my brain at least intellectually. So I do exactly what I want. Therefore everything i do is my will.

Yes, but I thought we were arguing theology... not biology?

Your point being? Theology still has to base itself within fact.

in a deterministic system, there is no choice. Choice is simply an illusion, a product of a mind that experiences linear time.

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 09:08:38 PM

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 09:07:36 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on October 21, 2008, 09:06:32 PM

Quote from: Raist on October 21, 2008, 09:05:26 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on October 21, 2008, 09:00:43 PM

I would argue that determination is the absolute antithesis of a free will.   There is no ability not to choose, and only one choice is possible, therefore there is an unfree will. There is no 'ability' in that system, the will is essentially impotent.

I disagree, there is an ability to choose, it is simply the choice is known. You are using choice out of context. Choice is a decision made based on the merits of each side. How do we decide these merits? Our brain. Our brain is completely wired and the choice could be known with enough information. Therefore the word choice is meaningless, with your definition.

You are under the illusion that you are choosing, but you do not have free will under this system.

What is the definition of free will? I state that may brain does exactly as it wishes. I am the sum of my brain at least intellectually. So I do exactly what I want. Therefore everything i do is my will.

Yes, but I thought we were arguing theology... not biology?

Your point being? Theology still has to base itself within fact.

No theology is based within fact.

in a deterministic system, there is no choice. Choice is simply an illusion, a product of a mind that experiences linear time.

That only says that from an outside perspective we do not choose. Since we lack that perspective you can not prove that.

I am arguing that we do have choice.

We're running around in circles here.

not necessarily a circle. I think that time can be viewed from a non-linear context via reason, i.e. we can remove ourselves from our condition and extrapolate truth. Therefore, in a nonlinear context of time, a deterministic system would eliminate choice as a selection between possibilities. There are no possibilities, only realities.

not necessarily a circle. I think that time can be viewed from a non-linear context via reason, i.e. we can remove ourselves from our condition and extrapolate truth. Therefore, in a nonlinear context of time, a deterministic system would eliminate choice as a selection between possibilities. There are no possibilities, only realities.

A cone?

not necessarily a circle. I think that time can be viewed from a non-linear context via reason, i.e. we can remove ourselves from our condition and extrapolate truth. Therefore, in a nonlinear context of time, a deterministic system would eliminate choice as a selection between possibilities. There are no possibilities, only realities.

I like this statement. I could see how from an outside reference it all becomes input output. No real choice. Just a beginning and a predetermined  output.


I've never thought of free will in the ridiculous way. I've always thought of it in a more reserved way. There is no outside force driving the decision.

well, in a linear context it is useless to talk of the will being anything other than free. However, the freedom of the will is a very important concept in many philosophical and metaphysical systems.