NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, I've a question for anyone who believes that he has free will and that there exists an omniscient (all-knowing) being.

How do you reconcile those ideas? I mean, if the all-knowing being (let's use God as an example) knows everything, including the future, then He knows what you will do. If you did something else, He would be proven wrong, and thus not omniscient.

You might claim that "He knows what choice I will make, but still allows me to make that choice." Balderdash. If there's only one possible future (and God knows it), suppose you believe this will happen and try to avert it. You can't. God knows it will happen, so it will, and nothing you do can possibly change this. This includes future events like "you will buy a blue suit." Whichever color suit you buy, God knows what color you will choose before you choose it, so there's only one possible outcome, and thus no choice.

Come on, no one has anything to say? It doesn't bother anyone that two fundamental truths of Christianity are mutually exclusive?

Hey, I've a question for anyone who believes that he has free will and that there exists an omniscient (all-knowing) being.

How do you reconcile those ideas?

You have the free will to do whatever you will do and God already knows what you will choose to do when you exercise that free will. You may not like that explaination, but its quite logical given all the assumptions initially put foreward.

Hey, I've a question for anyone who believes that he has free will and that there exists an omniscient (all-knowing) being.

How do you reconcile those ideas? I mean, if the all-knowing being (let's use God as an example) knows everything, including the future, then He knows what you will do. If you did something else, He would be proven wrong, and thus not omniscient.

You might claim that "He knows what choice I will make, but still allows me to make that choice." Balderdash. If there's only one possible future (and God knows it), suppose you believe this will happen and try to avert it. You can't. God knows it will happen, so it will, and nothing you do can possibly change this. This includes future events like "you will buy a blue suit." Whichever color suit you buy, God knows what color you will choose before you choose it, so there's only one possible outcome, and thus no choice.
Simple, my Muslim beliefs do not equal that of another Muslim.


I just live my life the way I live it, believe in my God and the basic beliefs of Islam, and not make things so complicated. Why should I? It would only lead me to grow insane trying to make sense of everything.

God isn't exactly one that makes sense. I'd like to say that one who controls everything isn't exactly one that can be easily understood, but I fear atheists wouldn't understand. I want people to understand.

Oh great, I'm making things complicated...

*sigh*

Just live life and have faith in God if you choose to. That's what I say.

You have the free will to do whatever you will do and God already knows what you will choose to do when you exercise that free will. You may not like that explaination, but its quite logical given all the assumptions initially put foreward.

But how is that free will?

Take this hypothetical scenario: God chooses to speak to me, and tells me that in precisely one minute I will turn on the TV. Since He's all-good, we can assuming that He's not lying to me. I, however, am determined to spite Him, and so I make it my goal to not turn on the TV.
There are two possible outcomes:
1) I turn on the TV when God said I would. I have no free will.
2) I don't turn on the TV when God said I would. God was wrong.

ive never really understood why this particular problem bothers people

how can an all powerful god be limited by a paradox? just because it makes OUR head explode doesnt mean its beyong GOD

so god knows what my choice will be and has known from the beginning of time. how does that negate my choice in the matter? one may wonder why he bothers to play it out when he knows how it will end but thats HIS business. i know when i hand a $20 over the table to my son he will take it. does that mean he had no CHOICE?

god is not limited by semantics

But how is that free will?

Take this hypothetical scenario: God chooses to speak to me, and tells me that in precisely one minute I will turn on the TV. Since He's all-good, we can assuming that He's not lying to me. I, however, am determined to spite Him, and so I make it my goal to not turn on the TV.
There are two possible outcomes:
1) I turn on the TV when God said I would. I have no free will.
2) I don't turn on the TV when God said I would. God was wrong.

Strawman arguement; God's foreknowledge of the future doesn't inhibit your free will, your foreknowledge of the future does.

But how is that free will?

Take this hypothetical scenario: God chooses to speak to me, and tells me that in precisely one minute I will turn on the TV. Since He's all-good, we can assuming that He's not lying to me. I, however, am determined to spite Him, and so I make it my goal to not turn on the TV.
There are two possible outcomes:
1) I turn on the TV when God said I would. I have no free will.
2) I don't turn on the TV when God said I would. God was wrong.
Ever thought of:
3) You really wanted to watch some T.V. and your free will decided "what the heck, South Park is on!"

Besides, what good reason do you have to spite God? And what makes you think God will upfront tell you such a thing?

ive never really understood why this particular problem bothers people

how can an all powerful god be limited by a paradox? just because it makes OUR head explode doesnt mean its beyong GOD

so god knows what my choice will be and has known from the beginning of time. how does that negate my choice in the matter? one may wonder why he bothers to play it out when he knows how it will end but thats HIS business. i know when i hand a $20 over the table to my son he will take it. does that mean he had no CHOICE?

god is not limited by semantics
Hmm.....

Perhaps God simply knows OUR CHOICE ahead of time, but never made the choice for us. Thus, we had our free will and God knew about it all this time.

Kinda like we know that Bush is going to do something stupid in the near future but we never made the choice for him, now did we? Bad analogy, I know.

Strawman arguement; God's foreknowledge of the future doesn't inhibit your free will, your foreknowledge of the future does.

So, your position is that God knows all and people have free will, but if God told someone what will happen, that person would lose his free will?

So, your position is that God knows all and people have free will, but if God told someone what will happen, that person would lose his free will?
dude, read my post


If God told you you were going to get hungry and eat in one hour, and one hour comes and your HUNGRY and you really want to eat and you actually EAT....then you never lost your free will did you?

Ever thought of:
3) You really wanted to watch some T.V. and your free will decided "what the heck, South Park is on!"

I really want to spite God. If my rational brain makes a decision with all its energy, and it is overruled by my irrational South-Park-liking brain, then I don't think I have free will.

Besides, what good reason do you have to spite God?

Well, if I can prove that He's not omniscient, then I can stop all the people doing terrible things in His name. Otherwise I've proven I have no free will, which takes a load off my mind because I can no longer feel responsible for any of my sins.

And what makes you think God will upfront tell you such a thing?

It was a hypothetical situation. God could tell me such a thing (presupposing his existence), and that's all that's necessary.

dude, read my post


If God told you you were going to get hungry and eat in one hour, and one hour comes and your HUNGRY and you really want to eat and you actually EAT....then you never lost your free will did you?

I wasn't responding to your post, so excuse me if it didn't seem like I was responding to your post.

Anyhow, let me clarify what I mean by free will. In Freudian terms, I mean that my Ego has free will. I don't think that many suppose that their Id is part of their free will, because most don't choose to be hungry. I also don't think that the Superego is part of free will, because most people don't choose to feel guilt.

I really want to spite God. If my rational brain makes a decision with all its energy, and it is overruled by my irrational South-Park-liking brain, then I don't think I have free will.
The bold part says you do.



Well, if I can prove that He's not omniscient, then I can stop all the people doing terrible things in His name. Otherwise I've proven I have no free will, which takes a load off my mind because I can no longer feel responsible for any of my sins.
Well there is no black and white answer. What if the choice God said you were to make was one you were going to make no matter what, such as you applying for a certain college?

The bold part says you do.

So you choose to experience urges? I don't.

Well there is no black and white answer. What if the choice God said you were to make was one you were going to make no matter what, such as you applying for a certain college?

I would go to any length to disprove the omniscience of God. There's no choice I would make "no matter what" (that's not much of a choice).

Well, there's a couple ways to look at it. God is omniscient, and all we do is predetermined... in that case, how the hell are we supposed to know it's all predetermined? We can feel just as well that we're free to do as we will, but that's a false impression.
On the other hand, if God already knows what's going to happen, but you still have free will, you can look at it like this: Tape a basketball game. Check the final score. Now watch the game. You know what the final score is: does this mean that the players don't have free will?
Poor example, perhaps, but maybe God just decides not to interfere. Doesn't mean He can't change the future, because he's omnipotent, right?

So you choose to experience urges? I don't.Your brain tells you that you must eat. Therefore, your subconscious mind made a choice. Your conscious mind is not totally dominent.



I would go to any length to disprove the omniscience of God. There's no choice I would make "no matter what" (that's not much of a choice).
Well then that's just stupid IMHO.


A pwnish thought...what if God told you, you specifically, that you were to do something. Naturally, you would do the opposite to disprove it. But then God, in his infinite wisdom, backstabs you and says that he knew you were going to do the opposite, which you did and he actually knew.



Ehh, just a mind-triggering thought. :)

The future is not fixed; it is shaped by our actions and decisions in the present (free will). If God knows what those decisions are, he would not tell us.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia does not believe that God knows the future, but does believe that this is reconsilable with omniscience. The future, as anything except a concept, does not exist. Sometime later, it will exist, but will be called the present - after that, it will have existed, and will be called the past. At any given moment, however, the moment immediately after it, and every moment thereafter, are nonexistant. Therefore, knowledge of future events is not just impossible, it is utterly illogical. God can, naturally, predict the future, based on the way that each and every human has acted in the past, and what their present thoughts are, and would likely be so accurate that it would seem as if God did know the future. However, to say that omniscience means that one knows the future is akin to saying that omnipotence means that God could, for example, lift a rock that didn't exist.

Marxlan: I still don't see how that's free will. Free will to me implies that there are at least two possible actions I can take. If God already knows which action I will take, it seems to me that all the others aren't actually possible.


Your brain tells you that you must eat. Therefore, your subconscious mind made a choice. Your conscious mind is not totally dominent.

We must have different views of the self. I see myself as one consciousness, not a. . . something that consists of a consciousness and an unconsciousness that sometimes come into conflict. I don't see how my subconscious can be part of my free will since I have no control of my subconscious.

Well then that's just stupid IMHO.

Really? So there are things you would do no matter what? Even if God unequivocally told you that taking that action would damn you for all eternity?

A pwnish thought...what if God told you, you specifically, that you were to do something. Naturally, you would do the opposite to disprove it. But then God, in his infinite wisdom, backstabs you and says that he knew you were going to do the opposite, which you did and he actually knew.

Ehh, just a mind-triggering thought. :)

As I noted, a God that intentionally deceives me doesn't seem to me to be all-good. I wouldn't worship a jerk.

The future is not fixed; it is shaped by our actions and decisions in the present (free will). If God knows what those decisions are, he would not tell us.

I agree. There are a few obscure references (which I don't feel like digging out, sorry) which indicate that prophecy and "fixed" futures are not absolute. Free will, in that case, could have a noticable effect on a person's life then.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia does not believe that God knows the future, but does believe that this is reconsilable with omniscience. The future, as anything except a concept, does not exist. Sometime later, it will exist, but will be called the present - after that, it will have existed, and will be called the past. At any given moment, however, the moment immediately after it, and every moment thereafter, are nonexistant. Therefore, knowledge of future events is not just impossible, it is utterly illogical. God can, naturally, predict the future, based on the way that each and every human has acted in the past, and what their present thoughts are, and would likely be so accurate that it would seem as if God did know the future. However, to say that omniscience means that one knows the future is akin to saying that omnipotence means that God could, for example, lift a rock that didn't exist.
This is my belief, also. "Now" is the only reality.

Marxlan: I still don't see how that's free will. Free will to me implies that there are at least two possible actions I can take. If God already knows which action I will take, it seems to me that all the others aren't actually possible.But like I keep saying, what if you were going to make the action anyway?




We must have different views of the self. I see myself as one consciousness, not a. . . something that consists of a consciousness and an unconsciousness that sometimes come into conflict. I don't see how my subconscious can be part of my free will since I have no control of my subconscious.Well I'm more into science, so I guess that shaped my view on the matter. How our subconscious and conscious mind work together....it's your brain that makes the decisions, that's free will to me.



Really? So there are things you would do no matter what? Even if God unequivocally told you that taking that action would damn you for all eternity?
Well if God told me I was going to apply to college and become President one day, he's only describing the obvious to me.
If God told me that my Presidency would result in massive chaos and the deaths of millions, I would still make the choice that would result in such chaos. Why? Because I choose to.

Your intent on proving God wrong. I'm intent on living my life the way I choose to.



As I noted, a God that intentionally deceives me doesn't seem to me to be all-good. I wouldn't worship a jerk.[/QUOTE]

I think the two concepts, omniscience and free will are more compatible than you might think. The christian idea of free will, as I understand it, is that the human soul is a causal agent. What this means is that a human being can make decisions which are not just the inevitable outcome of causality and God's first act of creation. Some think of this as the most important thing we share with God. God and human beings are the only things in Christian theology that can be causes of this sort.

If you take that definition of free will, then it is entirely compatible with our actions being predetermined. God knows what we're going to do, but we're still the cause of our actions, rather than their just being the inevitable result of the first cause - which is creation.

So that's the best explanation I know... Of course I'm not actually Christian, and I'm quoting theology that's more than 1000 years old, so maybe doctrine has changed over time.

Marxlan: I still don't see how that's free will. Free will to me implies that there are at least two possible actions I can take. If God already knows which action I will take, it seems to me that all the others aren't actually possible.

Sure, other things are possible. But you are only going to do one thing in a given situation. You're thinking in terms of human perception. We can remember the past, and are aware of the present (for the most part), but an omniscient being, in theory, is aware of everything, all points in time, all at once. The thing is that He isn't the one forcing you to do it.

Hell, if God is omnipotent, He could make himself not know what's going to happen, couldn't He? That would certainly throw out any notion of predestination. However, whether or not we are subject to predestination, it is going to seem to us that we have free will, so it's something that I hardly consider worth thinking on too extensively.

But like I keep saying, what if you were going to make the action anyway?

It still doesn't seem like free will to me. Granted, it's not coercing me against my will, but it's not free will. That situation sounds to me like an adventure game or RPG where the creators only designed one plot line, but want to give the illusion of choice, so you can make choices but regardless which choices you make you get painted into a corner of taking some predetermined action.

Well I'm more into science, so I guess that shaped my view on the matter. How our subconscious and conscious mind work together....it's your brain that makes the decisions, that's free will to me.

I'm not sure that you're more "into" science than I. The most widely-held view of psychologists and philosophers seems to be that the "self" is the consciousness. Check Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self) (a representation of the most popular beliefs) if you don't believe me.

Well if God told me I was going to apply to college and become President one day, he's only describing the obvious to me.
If God told me that my Presidency would result in massive chaos and the deaths of millions, I would still make the choice that would result in such chaos. Why? Because I choose to.

You're intent on proving God wrong. I'm intent on living my life the way I choose to.

See, that sounds silly to me. And heartless, but mostly silly. It almost sounds as if you have so little faith in your free will that you are determined to prove its existence (to yourself) by sticking to your choices no matter what.

It almost sounds as if you have so little faith in your free will that you are determined to prove its existence (to yourself) by sticking to your choices no matter what.
Or perceived choices. Don't go drawing a conclusion on us, now.

Or perceived choices. Don't go drawing a conclusion on us, now.

My apologies. I will attempt to be more precise in the future. Or rather, the part of me that I try to identify as "self" will try to attempt to be more precise, but this may not be an action it is possible for "me" to take.

Try looking at omniscience and free will this way:

You come to a crossroads from which there are five diverging roads. Each is equal in every way, length , condition, and destination. Your choice is which road to take.

God, taking time out from running everything, is watching you at the crossroads and knows the choice you face. He knows exactly what will happen if you choose the first road, what will happen if you choose the second road, etc. He knows every possible outcome down to the smallest detail, but you choose which road to take. Thus, God knows retains omiscience, but you made the choice. The choice made is irrelevant, though, because God knows the outcome no matter what choice you make.

I don't claim that this is entirely correct, but that's how I see it. The whole issue of free will has been a huge issue, theologically, and I recommend you read the writings of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin, who each address the idea at length.

I agree. There are a few obscure references (which I don't feel like digging out, sorry) which indicate that prophecy and "fixed" futures are not absolute. Free will, in that case, could have a noticable effect on a person's life then.
If you could point me at your references, I'd like to read them. 'Twould help me with my website.

Sure, other things are possible. But you are only going to do one thing in a given situation. You're thinking in terms of human perception. We can remember the past, and are aware of the present (for the most part), but an omniscient being, in theory, is aware of everything, all points in time, all at once. The thing is that He isn't the one forcing you to do it.

Hell, if God is omnipotent, He could make himself not know what's going to happen, couldn't He? That would certainly throw out any notion of predestination. However, whether or not we are subject to predestination, it is going to seem to us that we have free will, so it's something that I hardly consider worth thinking on too extensively.
The problem with this scenario is that it still assumes that what is going to happen is what is going to happen (it assumes a fixed Fate); it just modifies God in order to make him forgetful.

My will is not free. I charge $3.95 per minute.

Try looking at omniscience and free will this way:

You come to a crossroads from which there are five diverging roads. Each is equal in every way, length , condition, and destination. Your choice is which road to take.

God, taking time out from running everything, is watching you at the crossroads and knows the choice you face. He knows exactly what will happen if you choose the first road, what will happen if you choose the second road, etc. He knows every possible outcome down to the smallest detail, but you choose which road to take. Thus, God knows retains omiscience, but you made the choice. The choice made is irrelevant, though, because God knows the outcome no matter what choice you make.
Well done. That God knows what choice we might make does not mean that God makes the choice for us.

Try looking at it this way. God cannot exist fully within the universe if He created it (hence, must exist separately from the universe). If God exists outside the universe (though obviously He can affect the universe if He can create it), then He exists outside of time (which is tied to space, as Einstein proved). If He exists outside of time, then temporal, causal arguments and paradoxes are worthless because they simply don't apply.

Hey, I've a question for anyone who believes that he has free will and that there exists an omniscient (all-knowing) being.

How do you reconcile those ideas? I mean, if the all-knowing being (let's use God as an example) knows everything, including the future, then He knows what you will do. If you did something else, He would be proven wrong, and thus not omniscient.

You might claim that "He knows what choice I will make, but still allows me to make that choice." Balderdash. If there's only one possible future (and God knows it), suppose you believe this will happen and try to avert it. You can't. God knows it will happen, so it will, and nothing you do can possibly change this. This includes future events like "you will buy a blue suit." Whichever color suit you buy, God knows what color you will choose before you choose it, so there's only one possible outcome, and thus no choice.

Let's get all hypothetical and say that I know that Bottle will post in this thread. She then does so.

Have I removed her free will by predicting her actions? Of course not. You're spouting nonsense.

Try looking at it this way. God cannot exist fully within the universe if He created it (hence, must exist separately from the universe). If God exists outside the universe (though obviously He can affect the universe if He can create it), then He exists outside of time (which is tied to space, as Einstein proved). If He exists outside of time, then temporal, causal arguments and paradoxes are worthless because they simply don't apply.
Oh, well done again! One of the basic premises of the mythology of monotheism puts God apart from his creation (as opposed to the earlier goddess religions that put the goddess as her creation; the whole universe is her body). As such, the laws of time, logic and sentient consciousness that we use everyday simply don't apply to him.

(It makes sense in the context of the issue being discussed.)

You might claim that "He knows what choice I will make, but still allows me to make that choice." Balderdash. If there's only one possible future (and God knows it), suppose you believe this will happen and try to avert it. You can't. God knows it will happen, so it will, and nothing you do can possibly change this. This includes future events like "you will buy a blue suit." Whichever color suit you buy, God knows what color you will choose before you choose it, so there's only one possible outcome, and thus no choice.
Let's get all hypothetical and say that I know that Bottle will post in this thread. She then does so.

Have I removed her free will by predicting her actions? Of course not. You're spouting nonsense.
Prediction and foreknowledge are two different things.

The premise here is that God can "see" the entire span of time from beginning to end, and in that sense all actions are fixed in place. It's combining God with the concept of Fate, is what it is. The questioner, Igwanarno, probably believes in Fate, then.

Prediction and foreknowledge are two different things.

In the hypothetical statement I said I *know* Bottle will post in this thread. I never specified a mechanism for attaining that knowledge. Don't assume, it makes an ass out of u and me.

The premise here is that God can "see" the entire span of time from beginning to end, and in that sense all actions are fixed in place. It's combining God with the concept of Fate, is what it is. The questioner, Igwanarno, probably believes in Fate, then.

Most people automatically assume that if something is bound to happen then they had no choice. I have never seen anyone fill in the logical gap between:
----------
Premise: Somebody knows everything I'll do.

Therefore:

A: There's only one possible outcome.

GAP

C: Therefore I have no choice.
----------

I need something more. If someone could establish that:

A: There is only one possible outcome.

B: In order for there to be a choice there must be more than one possible outcome.

C: Therefore I have no choice.
----------

If someone could establish B using a rational framework, that would be helpful. Though I have serious doubts about anyone accomplishing it.

I know that I will post this. God knows that I will post this. It was still a choice for me. There were other courses of action for me to choose. The outcome was certain, but I had other options. It is the presence of multiple options/courses of action that make something a choice, not the final outcome.

Originally Posted by Aquinion
Try looking at omniscience and free will this way:

You come to a crossroads from which there are five diverging roads. Each is equal in every way, length , condition, and destination. Your choice is which road to take.

God, taking time out from running everything, is watching you at the crossroads and knows the choice you face. He knows exactly what will happen if you choose the first road, what will happen if you choose the second road, etc. He knows every possible outcome down to the smallest detail, but you choose which road to take. Thus, God knows retains omiscience, but you made the choice. The choice made is irrelevant, though, because God knows the outcome no matter what choice you make.


I have to say that I really agree with this the most, but maybe this is another way of looking at it. One way that I have looked at it by comaring time o space. In space you can have a point, a line, and a giant cube made of lines. in space the point is the present, a line is a string of presents making up past, present and future all of which exist at the same time. And the cube is a colection of all the diferent combinations of past, present, future. All of these exist at the same time, so that it is not that you can't make the decision it is that you already have in a present that is the fututre.

This is probably poorly word, but I hope it gets across the basic noton I was aiming at.

Everything that's going to happen is going to happen. It's science. However, because we A) cannot possibly consider every possible variable and therefore can't predict the future and B) are always going to be hoplessly irrational critters, it's probbly best not to worry about it.

In the hypothetical statement I said I *know* Bottle will post in this thread. I never specified a mechanism for attaining that knowledge. Don't assume, it makes an ass out of u and me.
Then your first sentence wasn't an example of your second, the conclusion? I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

Most people automatically assume that if something is bound to happen then they had no choice. I have never seen anyone fill in the logical gap between:
----------
Premise: Somebody knows everything I'll do.

Therefore:

A: There's only one possible outcome.

GAP

C: Therefore I have no choice.

If something is "bound to happen" (I assume you mean a high probability) then any "knowledge" of it is prediction. Prediction is just an educated guess or a logical extrapolation of the past/present into the future. Foreknowledge in this instance means that the outcome has already happened, as God is seeing it from the end of the timeline, as if it happened in the past. It therefore establishes Fate.

I need something more. If someone could establish that:

A: There is only one possible outcome.

B: In order for there to be a choice there must be more than one possible outcome.

C: Therefore I have no choice.

In my opinion, that is the dilemma as the original poster laid it out.

If someone could establish B using a rational framework, that would be helpful. Though I have serious doubts about anyone accomplishing it.

I know that I will post this. God knows that I will post this. It was still a choice for me. There were other courses of action for me to choose. The outcome was certain, but I had other options. It is the presence of multiple options/courses of action that make something a choice, not the final outcome.

Everything that's going to happen is going to happen. It's science.
No, that's Fate.

Science is, "Hey, let's test this and see what happens next!"

No, that's Fate.

Science is, "Hey, let's test this and see what happens next!"

Aye. SuperGroovedom is apparently a believer in determinism.

If something is "bound to happen" (I assume you mean a high probability) then any "knowledge" of it is prediction. Prediction is just an educated guess or a logical extrapolation of the past/present into the future.

I was not referring to probability.

Foreknowledge in this instance means that the outcome has already happened, as God is seeing it from the end of the timeline, as if it happened in the past. It therefore establishes Fate.

But it does not establish that Fate excludes choice, which is the critical component.

Then your first sentence wasn't an example of your second, the conclusion? I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

It was, but it was also poorly worded. My apologies. It happens when I am doing several things at once and not thinking so carefully as I should be.

But it does not establish that Fate excludes choice, which is the critical component.
Fate, by definition, excludes choice. It is the idea that all events, from the beginning of time to the end, are locked in place and cannot be altered.

B: In order for there to be a choice there must be more than one possible outcome.

If someone could establish B using a rational framework, that would be helpful. Though I have serious doubts about anyone accomplishing it.

It's in the definition of "choose." The OED says "choose" means "to make a selection between different things or alternatives." If there aren't any alternatives, it's not a choice.
I will grant that omniscience/fate does not preclude the illusion of choice, but that's all you get.

Fate, by definition, excludes choice. It is the idea that all events, from the beginning of time to the end, are locked in place and cannot be altered.
No.
Events cannot be 'altered' because events are instantaneous - they are Caused. To alter an event would require time travel. The ability to cause an event is sufficient for 'free will'.

If God knows what you are going to do, then your choices are predetermined. That hardly sounds like free will to me.

It's in the definition of "choose." The OED says "choose" means "to make a selection between different things or alternatives." If there aren't any alternatives, it's not a choice.
I will grant that omniscience/fate does not preclude the illusion of choice, but that's all you get.
You're not thinking logically. If someone knows you will do something, but does nothing to influence your decision, you still did it on your own violition.

Your argument goes like this: I'm at the top of a building. I can jump off, or I cannot. But, if someone knows I won't jump off, clearly I have no choices and my life is being controlled.

It's utterly ridiculous, just because someone KNOWS something is going to happen doesn't mean they MADE it happen, which is the entire crux of your argument.

If God knows what you are going to do, then your choices are predetermined. That hardly sounds like free will to me.
No they aren't. They're just known. I know you're going to respire fairly evenly in the next 60 seconds. Therefore, since I know you're breathing, you have no free will on the matter. Now, if having read this you decide to not breathe for 60 seconds to spite me, then my actions in that case interfere with your free will, as I'm provoking you to do something. However, unless God specifically interacts with you, He is not changing your free will.

No.
Events cannot be 'altered' because events are instantaneous - they are Caused. To alter an event would require time travel. The ability to cause an event is sufficient for 'free will'.
Thank you, that's a good clarification.

It is the sequence of events that is unalterable as Fate.

Thank you, that's a good clarification.

It is the sequence of events that is unalterable as Fate.
At one point in time, everything will be history. History is unalterable. So is history an expression of Fate, or the other way around?

You're not thinking logically. If someone knows you will do something, but does nothing to influence your decision, you still did it on your own violition.

Your argument goes like this: I'm at the top of a building. I can jump off, or I cannot. But, if someone knows I won't jump off, clearly I have no choices and my life is being controlled.

It's utterly ridiculous, just because someone KNOWS something is going to happen doesn't mean they MADE it happen, which is the entire crux of your argument.
It's more like, God knows because he's seen that you have already done it. I think that's the position that Igwanarno is arguing.

To me, the only way any of this makes sense is that omniscience cannot include that which does not yet exist, namely the future.

It's more like, God knows because he's seen that you have already done it. I think that's the position that Igwanarno is arguing.

To me, the only way any of this makes sense is that omniscience cannot include that which does not yet exist, namely the future.
Time and space are constructs of God, He Himself is not physical unless He wants to be, He is not affected by time unless He wants to be. Therefore, it's perfectly plausible that he could exist in multiple places as once (as further evidenced by the Holy Spirit), and thus could exist at all places in all points of time and thus know everything, without necessarily affecting it.

At one point in time, everything will be history. History is unalterable. So is history an expression of Fate, or the other way around?
A good question. I think those who first posulated Fate thought the same thing, and extrapolated the idea into the future to say it's all fixed, the whole time line. The idea arose about the same time as the concept that the universe is a perfection of order (from Aristotle to Ptolomy), and about the same time that monotheism was popularized (circa 700-200 BC).

I wonder if they thought it would catch on so well or that it would become so ingrained in our language and thoughts that it would influence even people in our modern, science-dominated world.

Time and space are constructs of God, He Himself is not physical unless He wants to be, He is not affected by time unless He wants to be. Therefore, it's perfectly plausible that he could exist in multiple places as once (as further evidenced by the Holy Spirit), and thus could exist at all places in all points of time and thus know everything, without necessarily affecting it.
The only thing time is a construct of is the human imagination.

"Now" is reality, where consciousness resides.

The only thing time is a construct of is the human imagination.

"Now" is reality, where consciousness resides.

The only thing consciousness is a construct of is human perception.

Time is where the immagination resides.

You're not thinking logically. If someone knows you will do something, but does nothing to influence your decision, you still did it on your own violition.

Your argument goes like this: I'm at the top of a building. I can jump off, or I cannot. But, if someone knows I won't jump off, clearly I have no choices and my life is being controlled.

It's utterly ridiculous, just because someone KNOWS something is going to happen doesn't mean they MADE it happen, which is the entire crux of your argument.

It's not the act of someone knowing that something will happen that affects free will, it's the potential for someone to know that something will happen.

If I'm on top of a building and Joe Bob 500 miles away knows that I won't jump off, that means that there is no possible scenario in which I jump off which means that I did not have the choice to jump off.
If I'm on top of a building and Joe Bob 500 miles away has no knowledge of me whatsoever, but it is still true that I won't jump off, then there's no possible scenario in which I jump off which means I did not have the choice to jump off.

The knowledge itself isn't what disallows free will, it's the idea that the future is fixed.
To sum it up logically:
A. If someone knows the future without any chance of error, the future is predetermined.
B. If the future is predetermined, there is only one possible outcome from each scenario.
C. If there is only one possible outcome from each scenario, each actor in a scenario has no choice in that scenario.
D. If an actor has no choice, he has no free will.

So you see, someone knowing the future isn't required to negate free will, but someone knowing the future means the future is predetermined which means that there is no free will.

Note that my assertion C is comparable to Texan Hotrodder's assertion B, and he does not believe it to be self-evident.

The only thing consciousness is a construct of is human perception.

Time is where the immagination resides.
Since the only real time is "now" (real-time), then yes. :-)

The knowledge itself isn't what disallows free will, it's the idea that the future is fixed.
To sum it up logically:
A. If someone knows the future without any chance of error, the future is predetermined.
B. If the future is predetermined, there is only one possible outcome from each scenario.
C. If there is only one possible outcome from each scenario, each actor in a scenario has no choice in that scenario.
D. If an actor has no choice, he has no free will.

Why does an actor have only one choice in a play? Why does every Romeo and Juliet have the actors say the exact same lines. Simply because the play has already occurred. A person in a play is retelling a story, a story that the audience already knows. No surprise that the play doesn't change, because the event has already happened. God exists at all points of time and space, He has already seen someone make a choice. In this example, God is not Shakespeare, but rather the audience in the play, He knows what will happen since He's seen it before, but chooses not to mess with it.

Going on what Arammanar has said:

God can be thought of as eternal in two different ways. Either he exists through all time, from beginning to end, for all eternity, or he exists at all time, all at once. Now, seeing that God is supposed to be all-powerful, I am guessing that he would transcend time, and would not be bounded by it.

Once you get past the definition of eternal, omniscience and free-will no longer cause a problem. There is no past or future for God, it is all present. He sees all of your choices, all at once. He knows what choice you will make, because it has already happened.

Why does an actor have only one choice in a play? Why does every Romeo and Juliet have the actors say the exact same lines. Simply because the play has already occurred. A person in a play is retelling a story, a story that the audience already knows. No surprise that the play doesn't change, because the event has already happened. God exists at all points of time and space, He has already seen someone make a choice. In this example, God is not Shakespeare, but rather the audience in the play, He knows what will happen since He's seen it before, but chooses not to mess with it.

First of all, I want to be clear that I meant "actor" as in "one who takes part in any affair; a doer." If you want to draw an analogy to the theatre, that's fine though.

I don't see how what you're written responds to my argument. Are you saying that since God exists at all points in time, from some point of view the "present" is the past, and thus everything is predetermined and there is no choice? Somehow I doubt that, but that's what I got from your post.

To clarify a little something else, I have never meant to accuse God of "messing with" things to eliminate free will. I will readily admit that God has had no direct influence on the world for the past 1900 years, if you like. It is not God's actions, nor even God's omniscience that negate free will, but rather the idea that omniscience is possible.

It is not God's actions, nor even God's omniscience that negate free will, but rather the idea that omniscience is possible.
Bravo! You've convinced me. God is not omniscient (but then I already believed that). ;)

It's in the definition of "choose." The OED says "choose" means "to make a selection between different things or alternatives." If there aren't any alternatives, it's not a choice.
I will grant that omniscience/fate does not preclude the illusion of choice, but that's all you get.

My God, are you blind? You can't see that you are treating alternatives and outcomes as if they are the same thing, when in fact they are two different things? You just defined choice as making a selection between alternatives, not outcomes.

Noone chooses an outcome. We choose an alternative. The outcome of the alternative we choose is a consequence of the choice, not a choice in itself.

My God, are you blind? You can't see that you are treating alternatives and outcomes as if they are the same thing, when in fact they are two different things? You just defined choice as making a selection between alternatives, not outcomes.

Noone chooses an outcome. We choose an alternative. The outcome of the alternative we choose is a consequence of the choice, not a choice in itself.

The outcome is a consequence of the choice. Fine. I suppose that you won't extend that enough to mean that the outcome is a consequence of which choice we made? If you will admit that, we might be getting closer to understanding.

I admit, I mixed alternatives and outcomes to some extent. However, I don't think this was the crime it was made out to be, because they are directly related. If I choose to jump off the building (alternative), I will die soon due to high-speed impact with a sidewalk (outcome). If I choose not to jump (alternative), my family will rejoice (outcome). If it was an established fact that I will die soon due to high-speed impact with a sidewalk, then I must "choose" to jump. It is the only alternative available that leads to the foretold outcome.

Furthermore, I will claim that everyone chooses between outcomes and no one chooses between alternatives. The man on the ledge isn't thinking about the act of jumping; he's thinking about the choice between life and death. He expresses his desire for a given outcome by enacting one of the alternatives, but the choice in his mind was about which outcome he desires.

Black or White? BAH! i vote grey. Who says it has to be one or they other? this is the state of mind i fell into wihen is stopped trying to make sense of this particular issue. Freewill exsists, nothing is predetemined, but there is only one way things can happen because of the way the you and others function, there are other possiblilities for the future, but theses will never happen because it is impossible for you to make that dissision because of they way you were raised/born. thats how i think of it anyway. sorry if yuo have a hard time understanding my rablings.

The outcome is a consequence of the choice. Fine. I suppose that you won't extend that enough to mean that the outcome is a consequence of which choice we made? If you will admit that, we might be getting closer to understanding.

I admit, I mixed alternatives and outcomes to some extent. However, I don't think this was the crime it was made out to be, because they are directly related. If I choose to jump off the building (alternative), I will die soon due to high-speed impact with a sidewalk (outcome). If I choose not to jump (alternative), my family will rejoice (outcome). If it was an established fact that I will die soon due to high-speed impact with a sidewalk, then I must "choose" to jump. It is the only alternative available that leads to the foretold outcome.

Furthermore, I will claim that everyone chooses between outcomes and no one chooses between alternatives. The man on the ledge isn't thinking about the act of jumping; he's thinking about the choice between life and death. He expresses his desire for a given outcome by enacting one of the alternatives, but the choice in his mind was about which outcome he desires.

1.) I don't give a damn what the man on the ledge is thinking about. He chose to jump, that was his alternative. The outcome (and an easily forseeable one, God or no) of that was death. He had other alternatives, and therefore a choice, per your own definition.

2.) Let's say there are two pieces of candy that are identical except for their color. When you choose between the red piece of candy and a green piece, are you thinking of the outcome or the alternative?

3.) The part I bolded shows where you actually manage to contradict the definition of choice you provided. Your argument is inconsistent.

4.) People usually choose alternatives based on the outcome they predict that alternative will have (though not all choices are that well thought out, sometimes we use pure instinct). That does not change the fact that they are choosing alternatives.

Black or White? BAH! i vote grey. Who says it has to be one or they other? this is the state of mind i fell into wihen is stopped trying to make sense of this particular issue. Freewill exsists, nothing is predetemined, but there is only one way things can happen because of the way the you and others function, there are other possiblilities for the future, but theses will never happen because it is impossible for you to make that dissision because of they way you were raised/born. thats how i think of it anyway. sorry if yuo have a hard time understanding my rablings.
Ugh. Destiny, an even worse concept than Fate, and so self-defeating.

If free will exists, then exercise it to break out of this fatalistic attitude!

1.) I don't give a damn what the man on the ledge is thinking about. He chose to jump, that was his alternative. The outcome (and an easily forseeable one, God or no) of that was death. He had other alternatives, and therefore a choice, per your own definition.

If you don't give a damn what he's thinking about, then you don't care whether he's choosing an outcome or an alternative. So we can drop that part of the argument.

And he did not have any alternatives, because any alternatives he may have seemed to have would have had different outcomes, and he only had one outcome.

At this point I think we're both :headbang:ing. I believe that since each alternative has exactly one outcome and vice versa, if a person can have only one outcome he had only one alternative and thus no choice. You believe that the existence of alternatives even when it is logically impossible to take them still constitute a choice. It doesn't seem we're going to convince each other of anything, and the argument doesn't have a huge scope so there's not much we can do except repeat each other and argue over semantics.

Come on, no one has anything to say? It doesn't bother anyone that two fundamental truths of Christianity are mutually exclusive?
Your system of logic is absolutely horrible.
You make no sense. if God already knows what you are going to do, then how exactly are you going to change it? He doesn't force you to make the choice, but he knows which choice you will make.

That might be why no one was posting at first. You seem like a 12 year old who got all excited when he thought he'd finally found the key to discounting Christianity, and only later will realize that he was quite wrong.

Your system of logic is absolutely horrible.

Since you're criticising my logic, here it is laid out nicely again:

A. If God knows the future, the future is predetermined.
B. If the future is predetermined, there is only one possibly outcome for any given scenario.
C. If there is only one possible outcome, there is only one possible alternative.
D. If there is only one possible alternative, there is no choice.
E. If there is no choice, there is no free will.
_____
Therefore, if God knows the future, there is no free will.
The argument is valid. It's of the simple form If A then B, if B then C, . . . if Y then Z, thus if A then Z. Valid.

It may not be sound.
Here's evidence in support of each premise:
A: God cannot know something that is unknowable. The only knowable form of the future is if it is determined (The "5-crossroad" analogy is a belief held by some that refutes this).
B: I think this is basically a tautology. If you want defense of it, attack it.
C: Here is where Texan Hotrodders and I disagree. I think that establishing that each outcome has a unique alternatives and vice versa does a good job of establishing that num_outcomes = num_alternatives, and when you set num_outcomes to 1 it's plain to see that num_alternatives = 1.
D: This is in the definition from OED.
E: I think this is in most persons' definition of Free Will.

Know, I would appreciate it if any and all future attacks on my logic would actually attack my logic, rather than my character. For your reference, that leaves you with 6 options:
1) Prove that the form of my argument is invalid.
2-6) Prove that one of my premises A-E is false.

Since you're criticising my logic, here it is laid out nicely again:

A. If God knows the future, the future is predetermined.
B. If the future is predetermined, there is only one possibly outcome for any given scenario.
C. If there is only one possible outcome, there is only one possible alternative.
D. If there is only one possible alternative, there is no choice.
E. If there is no choice, there is no free will.
_____

.......

Know, I would appreciate it if any and all future attacks on my logic would actually attack my logic, rather than my character. For your reference, that leaves you with 6 options:
1) Prove that the form of my argument is invalid.
2-6) Prove that one of my premises A-E is false.

1) How about God is outside of time (literally cannot exist inclusively inside of the universe if He created it, no?), therefore, causality arguments become absurd. There is no if / then argument if the rules of cause and effect no longer apply. Those rules only apply /within/ the framework of our universe.

If you don't like that (it was short and simple, I know), go ahead and read some Calvin, Wesley, Whitefield, Augustine, or Edwards. There's some big names that have had this same debate for hundreds of years. Personally, I don't think anyone on this board is going to do a better job of reasoning it than these men did. And trust me, they had a lot to say on it.

If you don't like that, there's a funny but detailed site called "Predestination, Free Will, and Shroedinger's Cat" here:
http://www.open.org/~bbm/muse/notions/Schrodinger's%20Cat/Schrodinger's%20Cat.html

1) How about God is outside of time (literally cannot exist inclusively inside of the universe if He created it, no?), therefore, causality arguments become absurd. There is no if / then argument if the rules of cause and effect no longer apply. Those rules only apply /within/ the framework of our universe.

Okay, God doesn't have to be the omniscient one. How's about God told Joe Bob Everything (and made sure that he'd remember it), and now Joe Bob is omniscient, but still within this universe. Remember, God is omnipotent, so He could do this if He wanted.

If you don't like that (it was short and simple, I know), go ahead and read some Calvin, Wesley, Whitefield, Augustine, or Edwards. There's some big names that have had this same debate for hundreds of years. Personally, I don't think anyone on this board is going to do a better job of reasoning it than these men did. And trust me, they had a lot to say on it.

It's hard to have a debate with a dead person (well, maybe not for some of the more devout Christians, but hard for me at least). I think I learn more through debate than just reading a text.

If you don't like that, there's a funny but detailed site called "Predestination, Free Will, and Shroedinger's Cat" here:
http://www.open.org/~bbm/muse/notions/Schrodinger's%20Cat/Schrodinger's%20Cat.html

The argument seems to be essentially, "Yeah, they're completely at odds with each other, but so is one part of science, and you can't possibly hold religion to higher standards than science." I don't buy it.

Okay, God doesn't have to be the omniscient one. How's about God told Joe Bob Everything (and made sure that he'd remember it), and now Joe Bob is omniscient, but still within this universe. Remember, God is omnipotent, so He could do this if He wanted.
Except He wouldn't, because that would interfere with free will. Just because God can do something, doesn't mean He wants to.

Except He wouldn't, because that would interfere with free will. Just because God can do something, doesn't mean He wants to.

The correct way to address a hypothetical situation is not "although possible, that's unlikely." I know that.

I also find it interesting that the transfer of information thousands of miles away from you changes the nature of your entire life. That seems illogical to me, and I wouldn't want it to be part of my belief system.

The correct way to address a hypothetical situation is not "although possible, that's unlikely." I know that.
Not really. Hypothetically, you could, by quantum tunneling, fall through matter from America to China. Has it ever happened? No. Will it? No. The difference between that and God is that God has a zero percent chance of doing something against His nature, rather than an infinitesimally small one.

I also find it interesting that the transfer of information thousands of miles away from you changes the nature of your entire life. That seems illogical to me, and I wouldn't want it to be part of my belief system.
What do you mean?

Not really. Hypothetically, you could, by quantum tunneling, fall through matter from America to China. Has it ever happened? No. Will it? No. The difference between that and God is that God has a zero percent chance of doing something against His nature, rather than an infinitesimally small one.

Isn't it God's nature to prove wrong people who have the hubris to presume to know what his nature is? I certainly couldn't state with 100% certainty that God would never do something, and it seems presumptuous of you to say so.

What do you mean?

You said "That [making Joe Bob omniscient] would interfere with Free Will."
Joe Bob's omniscience, as I see it, has no direct influence on you (at least not in the seconds after he becomes omniscient - eventually his influence will spread of course). Yet you imply that it would deprive you of Free Will (pretty damn big influence). Do you mean that you would be eventually deprived of Free Will, once you interacted with Joe Bob? In either case, it doesn't seem to me like information transfer should affect Free Will.

Okay, God doesn't have to be the omniscient one. How's about God told Joe Bob Everything (and made sure that he'd remember it), and now Joe Bob is omniscient, but still within this universe. Remember, God is omnipotent, so He could do this if He wanted.

Could He? Is that within his nature to do? To put someone in that position? I don't think it is, in fact, even when ... however you want to view this ... Jesus came to Earth, He was limited in His knowledge. Not knowing when the actual end would be. Don't make the "God can't make a rock he can't lift" argument.

It's hard to have a debate with a dead person (well, maybe not for some of the more devout Christians, but hard for me at least). I think I learn more through debate than just reading a text.

Well, unfortunately, you aren't going to learn nearly as much. It's hard to find geniouses in random debates on the internet. However, at any library, you have access to hundreds of brilliant men and women who have asked these same questions throughout the ages. Even Newton "stood on the shoulders of giants." I highly recommend it.

The argument seems to be essentially, "Yeah, they're completely at odds with each other, but so is one part of science, and you can't possibly hold religion to higher standards than science." I don't buy it.

I mentioned it was a funny site, not hugely serious. It still had a lot of nice detail in it.

Isn't it God's nature to prove wrong people who have the hubris to presume to know what his nature is? I certainly couldn't state with 100% certainty that God would never do something, and it seems presumptuous of you to say so.
God would never contradict himself, as He is infallible. Denying someone free will would do exactly that.

You said "That [making Joe Bob omniscient] would interfere with Free Will."
Joe Bob's omniscience, as I see it, has no direct influence on you (at least not in the seconds after he becomes omniscient - eventually his influence will spread of course). Yet you imply that it would deprive you of Free Will (pretty damn big influence). Do you mean that you would be eventually deprived of Free Will, once you interacted with Joe Bob? In either case, it doesn't seem to me like information transfer should affect Free Will.
I meant eventually Joe Bob's influence would spread, messing with free will, which is why he would not be given such power.

Could He? Is that within his nature to do? To put someone in that position? I don't think it is, in fact, even when ... however you want to view this ... Jesus came to Earth, He was limited in His knowledge. Not knowing when the actual end would be. Don't make the "God can't make a rock he can't lift" argument.

This isn't even him making a rock he can't lift, you claim that there exists a rock that he can't lift. I think being unable to make someone else omniscient is a big hindrance on His omnipotency.

Well, unfortunately, you aren't going to learn nearly as much. It's hard to find geniouses in random debates on the internet. However, at any library, you have access to hundreds of brilliant men and women who have asked these same questions throughout the ages. Even Newton "stood on the shoulders of giants." I highly recommend it.

Eh, it's a different kind of learning. If I'm really intrigued I'll look into it some more.

This isn't even him making a rock he can't lift, you claim that there exists a rock that he can't lift. I think being unable to make someone else omniscient is a big hindrance on His omnipotency.
He is not unable to do it, He simply doesn't want to. He told Jesus things no one else had ever known, same with Moses and with Abraham. However none of those three knew everything, because God didn't feel they needed to.

God would never contradict himself, as He is infallible. Denying someone free will would do exactly that.

So, since he has to be infallible, he can't logically do that? Ironically enough, I think we're now debating God's Free Will.
Anyhow, I think would not is not enough to invalidate a hypothetical situation. Could not is the phrase you need, and that infringes on His omnipotency.

I meant eventually Joe Bob's influence would spread, messing with free will, which is why he would not be given such power.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I still think it illogical that being told your future could influence your Free Will. I mean, you're walking down the street and then someone jumps out and infallibly yells your future at you, and suddenly you become a walking automaton?

So, since he has to be infallible, he can't logically do that? Ironically enough, I think we're now debating God's Free Will.
Anyhow, I think would not is not enough to invalidate a hypothetical situation. Could not is the phrase you need, and that infringes on His omnipotency.
The only restrictions on God are those He makes for Himself. He said that He will never contradict Himself, He has the power to do so, but not the desire. He would not do it because it would go against His values, just as you would not kill someone because it goes against yours.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I still think it illogical that being told your future could influence your Free Will. I mean, you're walking down the street and then someone jumps out and infallibly yells your future at you, and suddenly you become a walking automaton?
If God had told Moses that by hitting a rock he would never see the Promised Land, would Moses have hit the rock? It creates too many problems that God doesn't feel the need to deal with.

The only restrictions on God are those He makes for Himself. He said that He will never contradict Himself, He has the power to do so, but not the desire. He would not do it because it would go against His values, just as you would not kill someone because it goes against yours.

I don't think that analogy supports your argument, because I suspect you would have no problem with the statement "Suppose, hypothetically, that I had killed Billy Graham. . ."

Personally, I'm not content to not consider a situation just because it won't happen. However, I will admit that I can't convince you to accept that hypothetical situation and that you are somewhat justified in your refusal.

If God had told Moses that by hitting a rock he would never see the Promised Land, would Moses have hit the rock? It creates too many problems that God doesn't feel the need to deal with.

Does God not feel the need to deal with them, or do you?

I don't think that analogy supports your argument, because I suspect you would have no problem with the statement "Suppose, hypothetically, that I had killed Billy Graham. . ."

Personally, I'm not content to not consider a situation just because it won't happen. However, I will admit that I can't convince you to accept that hypothetical situation and that you are somewhat justified in your refusal.
Suppose, hypothetically, a square circle exists....I don't feel the need to debate something that has no basis in the realm of reality.

Does God not feel the need to deal with them, or do you?
If God felt the need to deal with it, He would have allowed the situation to occur.

This isn't even him making a rock he can't lift, you claim that there exists a rock that he can't lift. I think being unable to make someone else omniscient is a big hindrance on His omnipotency.

I'm not claiming that rock exists, I'm saying it's a rediculous argument ... a nonsense phrase, just like the question you asked. You're suggesting God create a causality-bound omniscient being who still has free will. To be omniscient, you necessarily have to be unbound by causality to retain any structure of will.

"God, to prove that you are real, do something that you cannot do! Now!"

It's a non-argument and identical to the rock argument. The problem is in trying to place logical restrictions on something not bound by the universe that displays those restrictions. This is related to why it's impossible to prove or disprove that anything outside our universe exists.

"God, to prove that you are real, do something that you cannot do! Now!"
More appropriately, it is the equivalent of saying, "If God was not God, would this impossible and admittedly unreal situation prove that he was not God?" Either way, it's silly.

Come on, no one has anything to say? It doesn't bother anyone that two fundamental truths of Christianity are mutually exclusive?

They aren't.

Omniscience means knowing what will happen. Free will means nobody makes you do stuff.

Knowing that a person will do something isn't the same as making them do it. Even if your knowledge is absolutely perfect. I know that cubes are cubic. I didn't make them cubic, I just know that they are.

Well, there's a couple ways to look at it. God is omniscient, and all we do is predetermined... in that case, how the hell are we supposed to know it's all predetermined? We can feel just as well that we're free to do as we will, but that's a false impression.
On the other hand, if God already knows what's going to happen, but you still have free will, you can look at it like this: Tape a basketball game. Check the final score. Now watch the game. You know what the final score is: does this mean that the players don't have free will?
Poor example, perhaps, but maybe God just decides not to interfere. Doesn't mean He can't change the future, because he's omnipotent, right?

The players on the tape, as opposed to the actual players who were recorded, do not have free will. If they did, it owuld be possible that the game would turn out differently.

At the time that I view the end of the game, there is only one possible outcome. Analogy: God sees the end of game and knows what the score will be. I hit rewind. Analogy: God looks at the moments before the end of the game. I start watching again, as does God. The tape plays out the only possible way it can. Analogously, the reality that God is witnessing is necessarily predetermined. Free will, according to Christian doctrine, cannot exist.

Try looking at omniscience and free will this way:

You come to a crossroads from which there are five diverging roads. Each is equal in every way, length , condition, and destination. Your choice is which road to take.

God, taking time out from running everything, is watching you at the crossroads and knows the choice you face. He knows exactly what will happen if you choose the first road, what will happen if you choose the second road, etc. He knows every possible outcome down to the smallest detail, but you choose which road to take. Thus, God knows retains omiscience, but you made the choice. The choice made is irrelevant, though, because God knows the outcome no matter what choice you make.

I don't claim that this is entirely correct, but that's how I see it. The whole issue of free will has been a huge issue, theologically, and I recommend you read the writings of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin, who each address the idea at length.

Does God know which path you will take?

Come on, no one has anything to say? It doesn't bother anyone that two fundamental truths of Christianity are mutually exclusive?
this is a deep question.

instead of answering it --

some comments

do christians become anxious and maybe even a little angry when reminded tat the star of the Christianity Show was not a Christian? That Christos is a greek word? i hear the guy was a hebe, a Hebe and a reformer and very intelligent.

In tehCommonwealth of terran Individualists we reject the ideas of Constitutional Republic in favor for our happy snug anarchist democracy because of the writings of Plato and their germination of the Constitutional republic, a political model known for its inefficiency, susceptiblity to graft and, well, Plato...you figure it out.

One of our citizens in the CTI said that God could do anything, include make a rock so big she couldn't move it and them smoke it all by themseves! 9QWe had to give that citizen a little time out.)

mystic philosophy being our little nations major pastime -- the CTI's equivalent of the role Baseball plays in the United States and Japan -- we have differing views, but it seems to make sense to mysef, acting as current Chair, that God can do anything, even be both within and beyond paradoxes that bnaffle the minds of the small fragments of godconsciousness that we as human beings are said to represent.


but the man called "jesus' was definitely not a Christian. research shows that the philosophy he propunded was called 'the Way'.

best to you,
dr v. jones
Commonwealth of Terran Individualists International Realtions Chairperson

You're not thinking logically. If someone knows you will do something, but does nothing to influence your decision, you still did it on your own violition.

Your argument goes like this: I'm at the top of a building. I can jump off, or I cannot. But, if someone knows I won't jump off, clearly I have no choices and my life is being controlled.

It's utterly ridiculous, just because someone KNOWS something is going to happen doesn't mean they MADE it happen, which is the entire crux of your argument.

Wrong. You are at the top of a building. You can jump off, or you cannot. I BELIEVE you will not jump off, but I do not know with certainty that you will not jump. I could only know with 100% certainty that you would not jump if and only if that was the only possible outcome. If it was the only possible outcome, there would be alternatives. hence, you would have no choice.

If you don't give a damn what he's thinking about, then you don't care whether he's choosing an outcome or an alternative. So we can drop that part of the argument.

A choice is not "what I'm thinking about when I'm choosing." A choice is not "What I based my choice on." Come on. This is not a tricky distinction.

And he did not have any alternatives, because any alternatives he may have seemed to have would have had different outcomes, and he only had one outcome.

Finally. You get to the basic point. The problem I have with it is this: there were other alternatives, and therefore a choice. Also, your point that he had only one outcome is quite irrelevant. You see, when we make a choice there are alternatives. We can only choose one of them, and therefore will have only one outcome. With your logic, any choice (regardless of God's omniscience or even God's existence) would only have one outcome, and therefore no choice. Basically, your argument boiled down to its essence would look like this:

Choice=no choice

For some odd reason, I'll not be accepting that argument.

Originally Posted by Arammanar
God would never contradict himself, as He is infallible. Denying someone free will would do exactly that.
So, since he has to be infallible, he can't logically do that? Ironically enough, I think we're now debating God's Free Will.
God doesn't have free will, he has God's Will. God does not have choice. He "is what he is" --that is his nature. He cannot change, and that includes his mind. Some would say that means he is not all-powerful --it doesn't. It would be so for them, as power to them means just that; the ability to change and affect things. This is not God's power. God's power is creation. He creates it and it is. He can't change that.

Denying free will is not something God "does" because of this scenario --Arammanar worded that poorly --rather that changing God's nature creates a scenario that denies free will can exist. Free will is something all sentient creatures have. (All sentient non-God creatures, if you like.)

It is not in God's nature to change. It is in man's nature to understand things through change, so imposing that on God is only natural. But it's not logical.

God doesn't have free will, he has God's Will. God does not have choice. He "is what he is" --that is his nature. He cannot change, and that includes his mind. Some would say that means he is not all-powerful --it doesn't. It would be so for them, as power to them means just that; the ability to change and affect things. This is not God's power. God's power is creation. He creates it and it is. He can't change that.

Denying free will is not something God "does" because of this scenario --Arammanar worded that poorly --rather that changing God's nature creates a scenario that denies free will can exist. Free will is something all sentient creatures have. (All sentient non-God creatures, if you like.)

It is not in God's nature to change. It is in man's nature to understand things through change, so imposing that on God is only natural. But it's not logical.

It could be argued that, if you are using the Christian model of God, 'he' is indeed capable of changing 'his' mind... since, a change of emotional state is an equivalence, and biblical text is full of changes of emotion in 'god' - especially in terms of 'regret', which I believe carries a very distinct 'change-of-mind' implication.

Your assumption that all creatures have free will has no support... since we cannot even PROVE that humans have free-will. I think humans do, because I lack a belief in any greater, organising, power... but those who BELIEVE in a creator god, in a shaper of all things, are always going to be open to doubts as to whether they can ever TRULY have free-will, if they were 'made' by design.

Example: I build a computer which can carry on conversations, make logical connections... heck, maybe it even has 'dreams' in some capacity. It is STILL just the product of all I created, so everything it 'thinks' and 'does' is part of what I built into it. Can humans ever truly have free-will if they ARE pre-programmed by a creator?

It could be argued that, if you are using the Christian model of God, 'he' is indeed capable of changing 'his' mind... since, a change of emotional state is an equivalence, and biblical text is full of changes of emotion in 'god' - especially in terms of 'regret', which I believe carries a very distinct 'change-of-mind' implication.

Your assumption that all creatures have free will has no support... since we cannot even PROVE that humans have free-will. I think humans do, because I lack a belief in any greater, organising, power... but those who BELIEVE in a creator god, in a shaper of all things, are always going to be open to doubts as to whether they can ever TRULY have free-will, if they were 'made' by design.

Example: I build a computer which can carry on conversations, make logical connections... heck, maybe it even has 'dreams' in some capacity. It is STILL just the product of all I created, so everything it 'thinks' and 'does' is part of what I built into it. Can humans ever truly have free-will if they ARE pre-programmed by a creator?
First, it should be noted that mind and emotion are not equivocal in symbolic thinking, which informs religious thinking. Mind (air), emotion (water), body (earth) and soul or animation (fire) are four separate elements that make up man. Water and earth (clay) were used by God to fashion physical man, and the breath of God, that imparted soul, lit the fire of life within him and gave him consciousness. Emotion and body are part of the physical world (Nature) and therefore not in our control --we can modify them and shape them to some extent, but essentially are stuck with what we get at birth. Thought and soul are not part of the physical world. They are completely in our control and are generated and manipulated by us, within us.

Free will exists; it is a thought function. Its existence is proven every time a decision is made. If someone's interpretation of what the 'design' is includes things apart from the physical world (includes thought and soul) then they are going to run into problems, I agree. But the premise, the way I understand it, even in the Christian model, is that man has an independence of mind and soul, and the ability to create in that (entirely subjectively perceived) realm. This is the part of us that is in God's image, the part exonerated in poetry, art and music. (The clay part is in the goddess's image, but that's another story.)

Yes, there are instances of God's emotions, and also God's thoughts, expressed in words. The words translate directly what God is ("I am that I am") into language that we can intellectually understand and communicate to others. Man is made of thought and soul filtered through the medium of emotion and physical body --God isn't. God is formless --even the Judeo-Christian God uses this model. He does not have a body or emotion, and in my belief neither thought, as we understand it, nor animating soul. To assign any of those to God would be to give him some sort of form.

Man communicates through his body, with the four elements interconnected --soul and emotion into compassionate understanding; emotion expressed in immediate physical action and speech; emotion, body, soul and mind into love and relationship; etc. God communicates through his being, not through words. Translate the touch of God's being directly into the perception of a man, and man would have to translate that into something he understands: emotions, thoughts, physical sensations. These are the translations of communication with God recorded in the Bible, and expressed as motivations for God's "actions". It doesn't imply change as we know it.

Hope I'm not just muddying the water here (it's the clay goddess in me). ;-)

More thoughts on free will. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7376772&postcount=57)

Finally. You get to the basic point. The problem I have with it is this: there were other alternatives, and therefore a choice. Also, your point that he had only one outcome is quite irrelevant. You see, when we make a choice there are alternatives. We can only choose one of them, and therefore will have only one outcome. With your logic, any choice (regardless of God's omniscience or even God's existence) would only have one outcome, and therefore no choice. Basically, your argument boiled down to its essence would look like this:

Choice=no choice

For some odd reason, I'll not be accepting that argument.

It's not that there's only one outcome, it's that there's one specific outcome that was determined beforehand. Thus there was one specific alternative that was determined beforehand, and no other alternative existed (because if it did, a different outcome would exist, and that's not the case).

It's not that there's only one outcome, it's that there's one specific outcome that was determined beforehand. Thus there was one specific alternative that was determined beforehand, and no other alternative existed (because if it did, a different outcome would exist, and that's not the case).

You don't need an omniscient being for your reasoning to work. Premising an omniscient deity is unnecessary. By your logic, if there is only one outcome then only one alternative (course of action) existed. Therefore no choice. You're done. The universe is deterministic, and you didn't even have to admit the existence of a deity. Good job.

It could be argued that, if you are using the Christian model of God, 'he' is indeed capable of changing 'his' mind... since, a change of emotional state is an equivalence, and biblical text is full of changes of emotion in 'god' - especially in terms of 'regret', which I believe carries a very distinct 'change-of-mind' implication.

Your assumption that all creatures have free will has no support... since we cannot even PROVE that humans have free-will. I think humans do, because I lack a belief in any greater, organising, power... but those who BELIEVE in a creator god, in a shaper of all things, are always going to be open to doubts as to whether they can ever TRULY have free-will, if they were 'made' by design.

Example: I build a computer which can carry on conversations, make logical connections... heck, maybe it even has 'dreams' in some capacity. It is STILL just the product of all I created, so everything it 'thinks' and 'does' is part of what I built into it. Can humans ever truly have free-will if they ARE pre-programmed by a creator?

See'ya Grave..! :)

They've finally banned Iakeokeo.

I've enjoyed my conversations with you. Thanks for having the sense to see through my "confrontational behavior".

I won't be posting on these forums under ANY name again.

If you wish to see why the banning, simply search for my postings under Iakeokeo.

The "left" has finally censored Iakeokeo as "too controversial". Heh he he he..

Live well my friend..! :D

Wrong. You are at the top of a building. You can jump off, or you cannot. I BELIEVE you will not jump off, but I do not know with certainty that you will not jump. I could only know with 100% certainty that you would not jump if and only if that was the only possible outcome. If it was the only possible outcome, there would be alternatives. hence, you would have no choice.
Oh rubbish.
Consider:
You stand at the top of a building, and make a decision as to whether or not to jump off. Afterwards, I know what your decision was. Has your 'free will' been violated? No.
I get in a handy time machine and go back in time. I am now 5 minutes before you make the decision, and know what that decision will be.
Has your 'free will' been violated?
If you answer 'yes', then sure, YOU don't have 'free will' but that's because you're taking other people's opinion's too seriously, rather than getting on with living your life - the rest of us still do.
If you answer 'no', what is different between using a time machine and being omniscient?

You don't need an omniscient being for your reasoning to work. Premising an omniscient deity is unnecessary. By your logic, if there is only one outcome then only one alternative (course of action) existed. Therefore no choice. You're done. The universe is deterministic, and you didn't even have to admit the existence of a deity. Good job.

So you believe in fate, then? That is, the whole future is already all planned out and just waiting to happen, regardless of what happens today?
That is the datum necessary to deprive us of Free Will. It doesn't require omniscience to be proven, but omniscience does necessitate it (under many views of omniscience, but not e.g. Willamena's).

You stand at the top of a building, and make a decision as to whether or not to jump off. Afterwards, I know what your decision was. Has your 'free will' been violated? No.
I get in a handy time machine and go back in time. I am now 5 minutes before you make the decision, and know what that decision will be.
Has your 'free will' been violated?
If you answer 'no', what is different between using a time machine and being omniscient?

The time traveler's knowledge is no good.
Of course, time travel as a whole is pretty sketchy, but here's the best conception of it that agrees with free will, IMO:
At each decision point, the timeline branches into two or more different timelines, one for each decision (in other words, there exist alternate timelines wherein you do/don't jump).
Just because in the timeline of the time traveler the jumper jumped, doesn't mean that there is no longer a bifurcation point.

See'ya Grave..! :)

They've finally banned Iakeokeo.

I've enjoyed my conversations with you. Thanks for having the sense to see through my "confrontational behavior".

I won't be posting on these forums under ANY name again.

If you wish to see why the banning, simply search for my postings under Iakeokeo.

The "left" has finally censored Iakeokeo as "too controversial". Heh he he he..

Live well my friend..! :D

See, now that IS a shame.

A role-playing centred forum where someone is deleted for playing the role of the adversary in the piece.

Considering SOME of the stuff that HAS been tolerated, and stacking it in comparison to Iakeokeo and his abrasive alter-ego, I think he might be right... and that censorship has strayed outside of it's conventional intent and bounds. Comparing Iakeokeo's ablative technique to some of the outright flames/insults/prejudice or just blatant vulgarity and rudeness I have encountered elsewehere on these forums (Dischordiac?), and the fact that Iakeokeo has been survived by some of his more inflammatory contemporaries... I can't help but be a little sadder...

Farewell, Iakeokeo... may "It Is" rest your "Is".

First, it should be noted that mind and emotion are not equivocal in symbolic thinking, which informs religious thinking. Mind (air), emotion (water), body (earth) and soul or animation (fire) are four separate elements that make up man. Water and earth (clay) were used by God to fashion physical man, and the breath of God, that imparted soul, lit the fire of life within him and gave him consciousness. Emotion and body are part of the physical world (Nature) and therefore not in our control --we can modify them and shape them to some extent, but essentially are stuck with what we get at birth. Thought and soul are not part of the physical world. They are completely in our control and are generated and manipulated by us, within us.

Free will exists; it is a thought function. Its existence is proven every time a decision is made. If someone's interpretation of what the 'design' is includes things apart from the physical world (includes thought and soul) then they are going to run into problems, I agree. But the premise, the way I understand it, even in the Christian model, is that man has an independence of mind and soul, and the ability to create in that (entirely subjectively perceived) realm. This is the part of us that is in God's image, the part exonerated in poetry, art and music. (The clay part is in the goddess's image, but that's another story.)

Yes, there are instances of God's emotions, and also God's thoughts, expressed in words. The words translate directly what God is ("I am that I am") into language that we can intellectually understand and communicate to others. Man is made of thought and soul filtered through the medium of emotion and physical body --God isn't. God is formless --even the Judeo-Christian God uses this model. He does not have a body or emotion, and in my belief neither thought, as we understand it, nor animating soul. To assign any of those to God would be to give him some sort of form.

Man communicates through his body, with the four elements interconnected --soul and emotion into compassionate understanding; emotion expressed in immediate physical action and speech; emotion, body, soul and mind into love and relationship; etc. God communicates through his being, not through words. Translate the touch of God's being directly into the perception of a man, and man would have to translate that into something he understands: emotions, thoughts, physical sensations. These are the translations of communication with God recorded in the Bible, and expressed as motivations for God's "actions". It doesn't imply change as we know it.

Hope I'm not just muddying the water here (it's the clay goddess in me). ;-)

More thoughts on free will. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7376772&postcount=57)

Now, I'm 'all about' symbolism... but there are one or two concepts here... the idea that religious thinking is informed by symbolism may indeed be valid... but I would argue that not all of the religions base their thinking on the SAME symbolism - and, just because a faith derives from an elemental basis, doesn't mean that it is the same 'symbolic' basis as other faiths.

The other concept I would dispute is that of the "soul", and i wonder what exactly you mean by it? The christian mythology of the 'soul' is clearly not an accurate rendition of the 'soul' as described in Hebrew scripture... where does your conception of 'soul' come from?

I still don't see anything in your post that ACTUALLY acts as clear evidence of the presence of free-will... except that, from a christian perspective, the fact that people CAN do evil must somehow entail that they freely CHOOSE to do evil.

Given scriptural evidence of evil coming from god, and evil acts done by god, I see no reason why humans should act in evil fashions for any other reason than pre-ordination... which doesn't validate the theory of free-will.

And, I'm not taking scripture at face value, over this issue, or any other... the biblical clearly describes all kinds of body parts for 'god' also, most notably his backside, perhaps - and I understand that those parts of a diety are not necessarily 'real'... but, the 'scripture' for christianity is ALL there is to describe god, as christianity perceives it... so, if the bible implies change, you have the choice of disbelief (my option) or acceptance.

And, you KNOW you LOVE muddying the waters... don't pretend to be contrite! ;)

Now, I'm 'all about' symbolism... but there are one or two concepts here... the idea that religious thinking is informed by symbolism may indeed be valid... but I would argue that not all of the religions base their thinking on the SAME symbolism - and, just because a faith derives from an elemental basis, doesn't mean that it is the same 'symbolic' basis as other faiths.

The other concept I would dispute is that of the "soul", and i wonder what exactly you mean by it? The christian mythology of the 'soul' is clearly not an accurate rendition of the 'soul' as described in Hebrew scripture... where does your conception of 'soul' come from?

I still don't see anything in your post that ACTUALLY acts as clear evidence of the presence of free-will... except that, from a christian perspective, the fact that people CAN do evil must somehow entail that they freely CHOOSE to do evil.

Given scriptural evidence of evil coming from god, and evil acts done by god, I see no reason why humans should act in evil fashions for any other reason than pre-ordination... which doesn't validate the theory of free-will.

And, I'm not taking scripture at face value, over this issue, or any other... the biblical clearly describes all kinds of body parts for 'god' also, most notably his backside, perhaps - and I understand that those parts of a diety are not necessarily 'real'... but, the 'scripture' for christianity is ALL there is to describe god, as christianity perceives it... so, if the bible implies change, you have the choice of disbelief (my option) or acceptance.

And, you KNOW you LOVE muddying the waters... don't pretend to be contrite! ;)
Actually, I don't love muddying - I just wish everyone could see things as clearly and easily as I do, but I can't explain it well.

God's butt is in the Bible?? hehe.

I haven't studied Christianity nor Judaism. My ideas do not stem from there. I simply find that much they espouse makes perfect sense in terms of the mythologies that preceeded them, which is what I studied for a time in the early 90's. In my studies I started early, so to speak, in the Palaolithic and quickly advanced to the Neolithic (since there's not much known about the former but a wealth of information on the latter). I figured to get a more complete picture of history by starting at the beginning and working my way forward, rather than looking back at it from the future.

If you start with the core ideas, you can trace the evolution of religions in the Middle East through in consciousness from its earliest period to the modern day. It is possible to see how each builds upon what came before.

About symbolism: myths contain symbolism, which is what makes the metaphor. Myths that have been handed down to us from these Old Europe and Indo-European cultures are the backbone upon which these religions have been formed, so there is much similiarity of imagry and meaning carried forward.

More later, but I have to get to work.

Actually, I don't love muddying - I just wish everyone could see things as clearly and easily as I do, but I can't explain it well.

God's butt is in the Bible?? hehe.


Exodus 33:23 "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

Nice.

Oh rubbish.
Consider:
You stand at the top of a building, and make a decision as to whether or not to jump off. Afterwards, I know what your decision was. Has your 'free will' been violated? No.
I get in a handy time machine and go back in time. I am now 5 minutes before you make the decision, and know what that decision will be.
Has your 'free will' been violated?
If you answer 'yes', then sure, YOU don't have 'free will' but that's because you're taking other people's opinion's too seriously, rather than getting on with living your life - the rest of us still do.
If you answer 'no', what is different between using a time machine and being omniscient?

You are assuming, first of all, that things will go on exactly as they had before. If that were true, then my actions would necessarily be predetermined and my free will would be an illusion. It has nothing to do with people's opinions.

Now, let's say that things may change instead of going on exactly as they had before. Then I do have free will, but you (the observer) do not know what the outcome will be.

The difference, then, between a time machine and omniscience is this: a time machine will take you to different times in Time, and has no bearing on the nature of Time, while omniscience assumes that the future is knowable and therefore has a direct bearing on the nature of Time.

Oddly enough, no one noticed the glaring error in my post.

So you believe in fate, then? That is, the whole future is already all planned out and just waiting to happen, regardless of what happens today?

No, I don't believe in determinism. I simply believe that it is logical.

No, I don't believe in determinism. I simply believe that it is logical.

Then why did you say this:
By your logic, if there is only one outcome then only one alternative (course of action) existed. Therefore no choice. You're done. The universe is deterministic, and you didn't even have to admit the existence of a deity. Good job.
?
The implicit assumption that gets you from the "if-then" to the "therefore" is that there is only one possible outcome of any scenario.

Exodus 33:23 "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

Nice.
Haha!

Now, I'm 'all about' symbolism... but there are one or two concepts here... the idea that religious thinking is informed by symbolism may indeed be valid... but I would argue that not all of the religions base their thinking on the SAME symbolism - and, just because a faith derives from an elemental basis, doesn't mean that it is the same 'symbolic' basis as other faiths.
I've seen it demonstrated, and it makes sense, that the Middle-Eastern religions are based in this same symbolism. These symbols, with these meanings, permeate the Bible. They are the same symbols developed by early priests (most notably Sumerian) in their religions to divine messages from the gods, which later developed into the practice of astrology; and they have been demonstrated to inform Neolithic and Paleolithic art as well. Essentially both these practices (religion and astrology) are informed by the same myths, which have at their very roots the same core religious symbols --the feminine (earth/water/goddess) and the masculine (air/fire/god), once embodied in sun and moon.

Yes, other religions in other parts of the world have similar elements with different meanings. I don't think there is any claim of universality about the meaning of symbols drawn from just one mythology, though there is similiarity of motifs drawn from comparative mythology... but within the context of this one physical area on the globe, where religions have been built upon what came before, evolved and blended with other religion's symbols (like the Zoroastrian concepts of light/heaven/good and dark/hell/evil) the basic earth-element symbols have been noticably carried forward and still inform parts of the religion, like the aforementioned Genesis, and the eating and drinking of the deity to gain Communion (symbolic identification).

The other concept I would dispute is that of the "soul", and i wonder what exactly you mean by it? The christian mythology of the 'soul' is clearly not an accurate rendition of the 'soul' as described in Hebrew scripture... where does your conception of 'soul' come from?
What does the soul mean to me? I don't see it as a non-corporeal entity that inhabits the body. I use phrases like "imparted at birth" because that is how some see it, and the poetry speaks to a level of understanding that is common. It suits my needs as well as other's.

I think it's all a matter of perspective. Some identify the soul with "inner self," and I see some validity in that. Self is aware; most importantly, Self is aware of Self. The soul doesn't think --we have mind for that. The soul doesn't feel --we have heart for that. And the soul certainly doesn't detach itself, get up and walk around --we have a body for that. ;) Its only real job is awareness. God is immanent creation, this "it is" going on around us every moment, and so its only job is existence. They both have simple jobs that parallel each other, one on a macro scale and the other on a micro scale.* This makes soul a symbol of god through which we can identify with god. So the soul is symbolic identification with god, a little god-hood within each of us.

Some I've heard consider the soul like a conductor, directing the affairs of mind, heart and body. I think the "soul" of Christianity is a religious concept that the animation of life (as opposed to the inanimacy of death) is accomplished by a thing. God created life, and breathed soul into it to animate it. So soul is a part of God given us by God, specifically that which animates us. This symbolism is not terribly dissimilar to the "self" concept, except of course concretised.

I still don't see anything in your post that ACTUALLY acts as clear evidence of the presence of free-will... except that, from a christian perspective, the fact that people CAN do evil must somehow entail that they freely CHOOSE to do evil.

Given scriptural evidence of evil coming from god, and evil acts done by god, I see no reason why humans should act in evil fashions for any other reason than pre-ordination... which doesn't validate the theory of free-will.

And, I'm not taking scripture at face value, over this issue, or any other... the biblical clearly describes all kinds of body parts for 'god' also, most notably his backside, perhaps - and I understand that those parts of a diety are not necessarily 'real'... but, the 'scripture' for christianity is ALL there is to describe god, as christianity perceives it... so, if the bible implies change, you have the choice of disbelief (my option) or acceptance.
Free will is not caused by nor validated by the choice to do evil, though morality is; free will is simply the ability to choose. The religion is about morality. Therefore, putting free will in a Christian context, it has to begin with a moral choice. In order to choose morally we have to have a choice between 'good' and 'bad' (or 'evil'). I don't see pre-ordination, predestination or Fate as any valid reason for a decent religion of any sort: they are not useful ideas. They do not advance man's consciousness in any way. They do not challenge him to grow spiritually. The idea that evil exists so that we can choose not to do it, on the other hand, makes a challenge; it challenges us to be good. The choice is the thing; that's what it's all about.

Having a choice to do 'good' or do 'evil' (which includes an inherent choice of what is evil and what is good), we make our individual decision. Why should any humans choose the 'evil' act? I can't say, except that sometimes one person's evil is another's good. Christians may now lambaste me. ;-)

"I don't believe in evil; just love and mistakes." -me




* I love how my ideas of God have evolved since I came on these boards. The 'micro scale' of self-awareness is accomplished through perception and understood subjectively. The 'macro scale' of "it is" is accomplished through immanent creation and understood objectively. God could then be seen as the creation's subjective awareness.

I can't believe no mentioned this yet but here goes:

What if God knew every possible permutation of combinations based on your choice in every situation (an infinite number of possibilities). They (gods) would then know all possible outcomes and therefore be omniscient while allowing you your freedom of choice.

Personally I believe omniscience, like omnipotence is a self defeating definition that cannot exist in our universe (given our laws of physics and space-time). Thereby, I do not believe they are possible. However, if someone wishes to define a god not within the laws of our universe and still definable by our language and knowable by human intelligence, I will entertain the idea (with great hilarity).

Then why did you say this:

I was congratulating you on getting your argument done properly. Frankly, it was about time. Furthermore, I was glad you had put it in a way that I could easily demonstrate logically that the universe is deterministic even without the presence of an omniscient being, which would indicate that the fact that we (logically speaking) have no free will has nothing to do with said being, and is simply a) a product of our language and logic, and/or b) simply the nature of the universe.

Then why did you say this:

?
The implicit assumption that gets you from the "if-then" to the "therefore" is that there is only one possible outcome of any scenario.
If there is only one outcome, it's not necessary for anyone to be aware of it because determinism explains it. No need for God.

I can't believe no mentioned this yet but here goes:

What if God knew every possible permutation of combinations based on your choice in every situation (an infinite number of possibilities). They (gods) would then know all possible outcomes and therefore be omniscient while allowing you your freedom of choice.

In order to "know all" God would have to know the actual outcome, not just the possible outcomes, if there were any other possible outcomes.

Assuming that there is *one* and we're not just in an infinite series of parallel universes, of course. In that case, God could indeed be omniscient while allowing for free will in the manner you suggested.

Of course, the fact that we're applying limitations to an unlimited being and that therefore our argument is inconsistent does not escape me, and makes for a humorous backdrop to this always interesting but futile discussion.

Furthermore, I would like to note that there would not be an infinite number of possibilities in a finite life. There would be a number of possibilities too large for us to account for, but not infinite possibilities.

In order to "know all" God would have to know the actual outcome, not just the possible outcomes, if there were any other possible outcomes.

Assuming that there is *one* and we're not just in an infinite series of parallel universes, of course. In that case, God could indeed be omniscient while allowing for free will in the manner you suggested.

Of course, the fact that we're applying limitations to an unlimited being and that therefore our argument is inconsistent does not escape me, and makes for a humorous backdrop to this always interesting but futile discussion.

Furthermore, I would like to note that there would not be an infinite number of possibilities in a finite life. There would be a number of possibilities too large for us to account for, but not infinite possibilities.

Well answered! I especially liked the bolded parts :). You stole my post :p

A pwnish thought...what if God told you, you specifically, that you were to do something. Naturally, you would do the opposite to disprove it. But then God, in his infinite wisdom, backstabs you and says that he knew you were going to do the opposite, which you did and he actually knew.



Ehh, just a mind-triggering thought. :)

One of the 10 Commandments is, "Thou shalt not bear false witness". What kind of precedent would it set if God doesn't even follow his own rules?

At each decision point, the timeline branches into two or more different timelines, one for each decision (in other words, there exist alternate timelines wherein you do/don't jump).
You believe that the entire universe splits in half every time you consider scratching yourself?
Egotistical much?

Lovely violation of conservation of energy, BTW.

Haha!


I've seen it demonstrated, and it makes sense, that the Middle-Eastern religions are based in this same symbolism. These symbols, with these meanings, permeate the Bible. They are the same symbols developed by early priests (most notably Sumerian) in their religions to divine messages from the gods, which later developed into the practice of astrology; and they have been demonstrated to inform Neolithic and Paleolithic art as well. Essentially both these practices (religion and astrology) are informed by the same myths, which have at their very roots the same core religious symbols --the feminine (earth/water/goddess) and the masculine (air/fire/god), once embodied in sun and moon.

Yes, other religions in other parts of the world have similar elements with different meanings. I don't think there is any claim of universality about the meaning of symbols drawn from just one mythology, though there is similiarity of motifs drawn from comparative mythology... but within the context of this one physical area on the globe, where religions have been built upon what came before, evolved and blended with other religion's symbols (like the Zoroastrian concepts of light/heaven/good and dark/hell/evil) the basic earth-element symbols have been noticably carried forward and still inform parts of the religion, like the aforementioned Genesis, and the eating and drinking of the deity to gain Communion (symbolic identification).


What does the soul mean to me? I don't see it as a non-corporeal entity that inhabits the body. I use phrases like "imparted at birth" because that is how some see it, and the poetry speaks to a level of understanding that is common. It suits my needs as well as other's.

I think it's all a matter of perspective. Some identify the soul with "inner self," and I see some validity in that. Self is aware; most importantly, Self is aware of Self. The soul doesn't think --we have mind for that. The soul doesn't feel --we have heart for that. And the soul certainly doesn't detach itself, get up and walk around --we have a body for that. ;) Its only real job is awareness. God is immanent creation, this "it is" going on around us every moment, and so its only job is existence. They both have simple jobs that parallel each other, one on a macro scale and the other on a micro scale.* This makes soul a symbol of god through which we can identify with god. So the soul is symbolic identification with god, a little god-hood within each of us.

Some I've heard consider the soul like a conductor, directing the affairs of mind, heart and body. I think the "soul" of Christianity is a religious concept that the animation of life (as opposed to the inanimacy of death) is accomplished by a thing. God created life, and breathed soul into it to animate it. So soul is a part of God given us by God, specifically that which animates us. This symbolism is not terribly dissimilar to the "self" concept, except of course concretised.


Free will is not caused by nor validated by the choice to do evil, though morality is; free will is simply the ability to choose. The religion is about morality. Therefore, putting free will in a Christian context, it has to begin with a moral choice. In order to choose morally we have to have a choice between 'good' and 'bad' (or 'evil'). I don't see pre-ordination, predestination or Fate as any valid reason for a decent religion of any sort: they are not useful ideas. They do not advance man's consciousness in any way. They do not challenge him to grow spiritually. The idea that evil exists so that we can choose not to do it, on the other hand, makes a challenge; it challenges us to be good. The choice is the thing; that's what it's all about.

Having a choice to do 'good' or do 'evil' (which includes an inherent choice of what is evil and what is good), we make our individual decision. Why should any humans choose the 'evil' act? I can't say, except that sometimes one person's evil is another's good. Christians may now lambaste me. ;-)

"I don't believe in evil; just love and mistakes." -me




* I love how my ideas of God have evolved since I came on these boards. The 'micro scale' of self-awareness is accomplished through perception and understood subjectively. The 'macro scale' of "it is" is accomplished through immanent creation and understood objectively. God could then be seen as the creation's subjective awareness.

I think that proves you are doing it 'right'. In my humble opinion... if you debate but don't learn anything, you were never really debating.

I can see clear elementalism in the biblical texts... god incarnated as flame, the 'magical' properties of water, the thunder being the voice of god, etc. But, I don't necessarily connect those ideas with the elements as representational of aspects of humanity/divinity... they seem, to me, more like a direct adaptation of 'early hunter-gatherer man' encountering his surroundings, and 'spiritualising' it... In other words, I think you give the EARLIEST Hebrews too much credit for the depth of their religious iconography. I DO believe they embroidered their text LATER... and that, once they got started on this whole 'religions' thing, they took to it like ducks to (holy) water... but I still see the earliest pages of Genesis as description of a hunter-gatherer culture coming to terms with a lack of nomadic lifestyle, and the ability to specialise in non-survival-disciplines (like a 'preisthood'), as they acquired herding and farming technologies from their more-civilised neighbours.

The soul? The soul is life. That is it... it is the animation of tissue. Hebrew text describes it in that term... even Jesus says that the soul CAN be destroyed. The 'soul' is how the early Hebrews accounted for what, I believe, the Egyptians called 'ba' - the breath of life.

But then, to me, 'spirituality' is something that happens in your head... and some people are more 'willing' to conceptualise it.

I think that proves you are doing it 'right'. In my humble opinion... if you debate but don't learn anything, you were never really debating.

I can see clear elementalism in the biblical texts... god incarnated as flame, the 'magical' properties of water, the thunder being the voice of god, etc. But, I don't necessarily connect those ideas with the elements as representational of aspects of humanity/divinity... they seem, to me, more like a direct adaptation of 'early hunter-gatherer man' encountering his surroundings, and 'spiritualising' it... In other words, I think you give the EARLIEST Hebrews too much credit for the depth of their religious iconography. I DO believe they embroidered their text LATER... and that, once they got started on this whole 'religions' thing, they took to it like ducks to (holy) water... but I still see the earliest pages of Genesis as description of a hunter-gatherer culture coming to terms with a lack of nomadic lifestyle, and the ability to specialise in non-survival-disciplines (like a 'preisthood'), as they acquired herding and farming technologies from their more-civilised neighbours.

The soul? The soul is life. That is it... it is the animation of tissue. Hebrew text describes it in that term... even Jesus says that the soul CAN be destroyed. The 'soul' is how the early Hebrews accounted for what, I believe, the Egyptians called 'ba' - the breath of life.

But then, to me, 'spirituality' is something that happens in your head... and some people are more 'willing' to conceptualise it.
Cave man see fire! ooh shiny! :-) Even hunter-gatherers had a deep religious attitude towards life.

I could counter that you underestimate not only the intelligence of people who spiritualise things, but the mentality that allows for this to occur. If linguistics is your interest, you might like to explore Marija Gimbutas (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Marija-Gimbutas), whose work opened a door to deciphering the language of symbolism inherent in artifacts from these people (being early Bronze Age and Neolithic peoples who developed religion) who speak and think in poetry, and for whom every aspect of living has a spiritual significance.

Cave man see fire! ooh shiny! :-) Even hunter-gatherers had a deep religious attitude towards life.

I could counter that you underestimate not only the intelligence of people who spiritualise things, but the mentality that allows for this to occur. If linguistics is your interest, you might like to explore Marija Gimbutas (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Marija-Gimbutas), whose work opened a door to deciphering the language of symbolism inherent in artifacts from these people (being early Bronze Age and Neolithic peoples who developed religion) who speak and think in poetry, and for whom every aspect of living has a spiritual significance.

I do not necessarily underestimate the intelligence of people who spiritualise things... I just have no REAL evidence to increase my estimation of what was behind the burning bush, or 'voice of thunder' stories. Listen to children explain what they THINK thunder is, and you get some very good, intelligent guesses... but still, mostly, they anthropomorphosize some element... "it's god playing dice", "it's giants walking on clouds", etc.

Like I said... the later text shows more 'evolved' symbolism... but the initial volumes don't carry any extra assurance, for me, that there was depth to the symbolism, other than "oooh, fire shiny.... and hot... and it get's bigger, and it eats stuff"... and the immediate anthopomorphic transformation of phenomena into god.

I do not necessarily underestimate the intelligence of people who spiritualise things... I just have no REAL evidence to increase my estimation of what was behind the burning bush, or 'voice of thunder' stories. Listen to children explain what they THINK thunder is, and you get some very good, intelligent guesses... but still, mostly, they anthropomorphosize some element... "it's god playing dice", "it's giants walking on clouds", etc.

Like I said... the later text shows more 'evolved' symbolism... but the initial volumes don't carry any extra assurance, for me, that there was depth to the symbolism, other than "oooh, fire shiny.... and hot... and it get's bigger, and it eats stuff"... and the immediate anthopomorphic transformation of phenomena into god.
Well, you asked where my religious ideas come from. It comes from understanding things in a not-REAL way: from a grasp of the symbolism, from a perspective of the subjective, from poetry that speaks to me non-literally.

If you cling to looking at spiritual things in a materialistic, literalistic manner *only*, then there is no hope of understanding them. That's my opinion, anyway.

Like the children: we humans have have a much better talent for creating and using symbolism when our minds are not cluttered by modern life and modern prejudices. And it's not about believing the literal symbol. We see belief as a trick if we're looking at it literally --ask a child if he "believes God plays dice" or "believes in Santa" and he may nod seriously; the symbolism fits. But once he's grown to a point where he understands what it means to believe, the nod turns into a frown. He realises he's being asked to believe the literal, not the symbol.

[QUOTE=Willamena #122]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
I do not necessarily underestimate the intelligence of people who spiritualise things... I just have no REAL evidence to increase my estimation of what was behind the burning bush, or 'voice of thunder' stories. Listen to children explain what they THINK thunder is, and you get some very good, intelligent guesses... but still, mostly, they anthropomorphosize some element... "it's god playing dice", "it's giants walking on clouds", etc.

Like I said... the later text shows more 'evolved' symbolism... but the initial volumes don't carry any extra assurance, for me, that there was depth to the symbolism, other than "oooh, fire shiny.... and hot... and it get's bigger, and it eats stuff"... and the immediate anthopomorphic transformation of phenomena into god.


Well, you asked where my religious ideas come from. It comes from understanding things in a not-REAL way: from a grasp of the symbolism, from a perspective of the subjective, from poetry that speaks to me non-literally.

If you cling to looking at spiritual things in a materialistic, literalistic manner *only*, then there is no hope of understanding them. That's my opinion, anyway.

Like the children: we humans have have a much better talent for creating and using symbolism when our minds are not cluttered by modern life and modern prejudices. And it's not about believing the literal symbol. We see belief as a trick if we're looking at it literally --ask a child if he "believes God plays dice" or "believes in Santa" and he may nod seriously; the symbolism fits. But once he's grown to a point where he understands what it means to believe, the nod turns into a frown. He realises he's being asked to believe the literal, not the symbol.

You know my asymptotic thoughts on the nature of god, ie omniscience and free will.

But that's not why I'm here. Well,.. yes it is, but only peripherally.

Iakeokeo/Iakeo-OK/Hurhurhur/Hehhehe/Heeheehee/
Hyurhyurhyru/Antifascisthilarity/Antiantianti/Iakeo[soon to be]

These are my banned personas. All within the last 2 days. The "gods" of these forums have decided to impose their "divine right" to ban me these many times simply because I, first, spoke my mind, then because I dared annoy a sufficient quantity of leftists (who are quite noisy), THEN because I dared stand up for my "right" to free speech by pointing out the fascist tactics of their enforcement of the "don't say anything controversial unless you're a leftist" policy.

These forums are of no use to me anymore. If I'm not free to engage in conversation then it's OBVIOUSLY silly for me to attempt to converse. If the MODs ban me as soon as they recognize me, which I've made NO effort to disguise (I still use the font/color self-identifier), then it's just a game of cat and mouse game, and I've better things to do than that.

The strictures (censorship) of these forums, no doubt a leftist over-reaction to a Bush victory, have succeeded in reducing the value of interaction on these forums.

So,.. can the Mods know all (omniscience) and what effect will that condition have on my free will to act..? :)

They CAN'T know all (and apparently do not possess an IP level banning device) and therefore they really can't keep me from "resurrecting" into a new persona.

BUT,.. why would I want to be associated with such a fascist organization..?

So,.. is it "free will" for me to "go my own way"..?

I contend that it is. I choose to do so. And these forums are poorer for my leaving. Just as they would be poorer for you or anyone else choosing to leave.

Have a good time in your conversations here. And speak freely. :D

"It is" be with you. An obviously redundant statement,.. but I specialize in obviousness and redundancy.

You know my asymptotic thoughts on the nature of god, ie omniscience and free will.

But that's not why I'm here. Well,.. yes it is, but only peripherally.

Iakeokeo/Iakeo-OK/Hurhurhur/Hehhehe/Heeheehee/
Hyurhyurhyru/Antifascisthilarity/Antiantianti/Iakeo[soon to be]

These are my banned personas. All within the last 2 days. The "gods" of these forums have decided to impose their "divine right" to ban me these many times simply because I, first, spoke my mind, then because I dared annoy a sufficient quantity of leftists (who are quite noisy), THEN because I dared stand up for my "right" to free speech by pointing out the fascist tactics of their enforcement of the "don't say anything controversial unless you're a leftist" policy.

These forums are of no use to me anymore. If I'm not free to engage in conversation then it's OBVIOUSLY silly for me to attempt to converse. If the MODs ban me as soon as they recognize me, which I've made NO effort to disguise (I still use the font/color self-identifier), then it's just a game of cat and mouse game, and I've better things to do than that.

The strictures (censorship) of these forums, no doubt a leftist over-reaction to a Bush victory, have succeeded in reducing the value of interaction on these forums.

So,.. can the Mods know all (omniscience) and what effect will that condition have on my free will to act..? :)

They CAN'T know all (and apparently do not possess an IP level banning device) and therefore they really can't keep me from "resurrecting" into a new persona.

BUT,.. why would I want to be associated with such a fascist organization..?

So,.. is it "free will" for me to "go my own way"..?

I contend that it is. I choose to do so. And these forums are poorer for my leaving. Just as they would be poorer for you or anyone else choosing to leave.

Have a good time in your conversations here. And speak freely. :D

"It is" be with you. An obviously redundant statement,.. but I specialize in obviousness and redundancy.
You're still here? ;-)

It is an exercise of free will for you, if you choose to refrain from posting here, for no one controls you but you. But is it "free will" if you keep coming back? ;-) Not so much.

It is giving in to desire, to pride, to need...? Whatever the reason, it says: you are not in control of you. It surrenders control to the world outside of you, outside the mind; something "out there" that you need to align yourself with.

Like those people who profess to believe in Fate or predestination.

I empathize with that, though. It, too, is part of being human.

I was congratulating you on getting your argument done properly. Frankly, it was about time. Furthermore, I was glad you had put it in a way that I could easily demonstrate logically that the universe is deterministic even without the presence of an omniscient being, which would indicate that the fact that we (logically speaking) have no free will has nothing to do with said being, and is simply a) a product of our language and logic, and/or b) simply the nature of the universe.

I still don't think my argument proves anything without God. Perhaps we should switch sides and you argue why I have no free will even without God and I argue why I do.

You believe that the entire universe splits in half every time you consider scratching yourself?
Egotistical much?

Lovely violation of conservation of energy, BTW.

I also believe that every time I scratch myself I move billions of billions of molecules around. I don't think it's egotistical.

And come on, conservation of energy? That's only been proven in one timeline. It doesn't even apply.

[QUOTE=Willamena #124]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeo
You know my asymptotic thoughts on the nature of god, ie omniscience and free will.

But that's not why I'm here. Well,.. yes it is, but only peripherally.

Iakeokeo/Iakeo-OK/Hurhurhur/Hehhehe/Heeheehee/
Hyurhyurhyru/Antifascisthilarity/Antiantianti/Iakeo[soon to be]

These are my banned personas. All within the last 2 days. The "gods" of these forums have decided to impose their "divine right" to ban me these many times simply because I, first, spoke my mind, then because I dared annoy a sufficient quantity of leftists (who are quite noisy), THEN because I dared stand up for my "right" to free speech by pointing out the fascist tactics of their enforcement of the "don't say anything controversial unless you're a leftist" policy.

These forums are of no use to me anymore. If I'm not free to engage in conversation then it's OBVIOUSLY silly for me to attempt to converse. If the MODs ban me as soon as they recognize me, which I've made NO effort to disguise (I still use the font/color self-identifier), then it's just a game of cat and mouse game, and I've better things to do than that.

The strictures (censorship) of these forums, no doubt a leftist over-reaction to a Bush victory, have succeeded in reducing the value of interaction on these forums.

So,.. can the Mods know all (omniscience) and what effect will that condition have on my free will to act..?

They CAN'T know all (and apparently do not possess an IP level banning device) and therefore they really can't keep me from "resurrecting" into a new persona.

BUT,.. why would I want to be associated with such a fascist organization..?

So,.. is it "free will" for me to "go my own way"..?

I contend that it is. I choose to do so. And these forums are poorer for my leaving. Just as they would be poorer for you or anyone else choosing to leave.

Have a good time in your conversations here. And speak freely.

"It is" be with you. An obviously redundant statement,.. but I specialize in obviousness and redundancy.


You're still here? ;-)

It is an exercise of free will for you, if you choose to refrain from posting here, for no one controls you but you. But is it "free will" if you keep coming back? ;-) Not so much.

It is giving in to desire, to pride, to need...? Whatever the reason, it says: you are not in control of you. It surrenders control to the world outside of you, outside the mind; something "out there" that you need to align yourself with.

Like those people who profess to believe in Fate or predestination.

I empathize with that, though. It, too, is part of being human.

Ah,.. but I DO have to purposefully "come back" into these forums, and that IS free will.

Is it "giving into" a compulsion,... or "choosing to follow" a compulsion..?

Yet another silly distinction. Heh he he he he.... :D

The simple fact is that, as has been claimed by the "fairer sex" forever, changing one's mind is a prerogative, and as such a "choice".

And if it's a choice, it's free will,.. even if it appears to be "surrender".

But once again I'm talking in circles, which is my favorite sport. And why do I find doing so so interesting? Because in the "sarcastical circularity" of circlular logics, we discover that the circle is bigger and smaller than we thought.

All argument reduces to absurdity eventually. BUT that doesn't mean that the argument, or the "discovered" absurdity, aren't valuable.

The single thing that I find MOST AMAZING about "argument" is the investiture of emotional energy in it. I'm certainly as guilty as anyone in getting pissed off (or blissed out) at the machinations of so-called argument.

But why should that be a surprise? Where do we humans have to "express ourselves", especially in an environment like this one (an internet forum), that basically ISN'T some form of argument/conversation..?

There's art, I suppose, but isn't that just "a statement" through visual means?

Yeah,.. I suppose it is some "need to align with else-who" that "keeps the conversation going". Wouldn't it be nice if people recognized, on a level not exclusively subconsciously, that we're all on the same side,.. the side of "trying to align"...?

And to illustrate this, I shall now, nicely and with the full expectation that you see it as an attempt at syncopation (yes I do know what that means!) with you, CHOOSE to call you a POO-HEAD, because I don't believe in predestination, though I do rather like the concept (retrospectively applied) of FATE.

"Destiny..! Destiny..! No escaping it for me..!" <-Dr. Frankensteen>

Heh he he he he....! :D

Ah,.. but I DO have to purposefully "come back" into these forums, and that IS free will.

Is it "giving into" a compulsion,... or "choosing to follow" a compulsion..?

Yet another silly distinction. Heh he he he he.... :D

The simple fact is that, as has been claimed by the "fairer sex" forever, changing one's mind is a prerogative, and as such a "choice".

And if it's a choice, it's free will,.. even if it appears to be "surrender".

But once again I'm talking in circles, which is my favorite sport. And why do I find doing so so interesting? Because in the "sarcastical circularity" of circlular logics, we discover that the circle is bigger and smaller than we thought.

All argument reduces to absurdity eventually. BUT that doesn't mean that the argument, or the "discovered" absurdity, aren't valuable.

The single thing that I find MOST AMAZING about "argument" is the investiture of emotional energy in it. I'm certainly as guilty as anyone in getting pissed off (or blissed out) at the machinations of so-called argument.

But why should that be a surprise? Where do we humans have to "express ourselves", especially in an environment like this one (an internet forum), that basically ISN'T some form of argument/conversation..?

There's art, I suppose, but isn't that just "a statement" through visual means?

Yeah,.. I suppose it is some "need to align with else-who" that "keeps the conversation going". Wouldn't it be nice if people recognized, on a level not exclusively subconsciously, that we're all on the same side,.. the side of "trying to align"...?

And to illustrate this, I shall now, nicely and with the full expectation that you see it as an attempt at syncopation (yes I do know what that means!) with you, CHOOSE to call you a POO-HEAD, because I don't believe in predestination, though I do rather like the concept (retrospectively applied) of FATE.

"Destiny..! Destiny..! No escaping it for me..!" <-Dr. Frankensteen>

Heh he he he he....! :D
Hehe. Circles rock. I hope they let you stick around a while.

I find the arguing often like treading a fine line, because I don't want to offend and yet I love to invoke replies and make my ideas known. People invariably find them odd, but then I find people odd too.

Now the idea of Fate is fine and makes sense retrospectively, if it's identified that the future does not exist. The future is nothing but a talent humans have to project, abstract, extrapolate and anticipate. :D

Oh, and that's Fraaaankensteen. ;-)

Hehe. Circles rock. I hope they let you stick around a while.

I find the arguing often like treading a fine line, because I don't want to offend and yet I love to invoke replies and make my ideas known. People invariably find them odd, but then I find people odd too.

Now the idea of Fate is fine and makes sense retrospectively, if it's identified that the future does not exist. The future is nothing but a talent humans have to project, abstract, extrapolate and anticipate. :D

Oh, and that's Fraaaankensteen. ;-)

Oooo,.. too twoo..! <Lionel Twain>