I don’t get someone wanting to worship a god that condemns people to an eternity of torment because they don’t obey him. That’s the opposite of love.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t get someone wanting to worship a god that condemns people to an eternity of torment because they don’t obey him. That’s the opposite of love. [/quote]
You’re absolutely correct.
You really REALLY don’t get it and never did. No offense, seriously, but that happens to be the case. More later and I’m not ignoring the other guy, swole… something, sorry. No disrespect I just can’t remember. He had a couple points in his response that I wanted to address as well.
No other takers on the origins of the free will deity? My point is not whether it exists or if so in what form. My point is the practically ontological unquestioning assumption that it does. It may even appear that I am waxing dangerously close to dipping my little piggies into your arena with this.
I just know some of you smart analytical people are mulling it over a bit. And there most assuredly are some very intelligent people around here who’s formal education far exceeds my own. That’s a sincere statement BTW. Interestingly, some of the prime specimens are irresistibly drawn to threads like this one.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t get someone wanting to worship a god that condemns people to an eternity of torment because they don’t obey him. That’s the opposite of love. [/quote]
You’re absolutely correct.
You really REALLY don’t get it and never did. No offense, seriously, but that happens to be the case. More later and I’m not ignoring the other guy, swole… something, sorry. No disrespect I just can’t remember. He had a couple points in his response that I wanted to address as well.
No other takers on the origins of the free will deity? My point is not whether it exists or if so in what form. My point is the practically ontological unquestioning assumption that it does. It may even appear that I am waxing dangerously close to dipping my little piggies into your arena with this.
I just know some of you smart analytical people are mulling it over a bit. And there most assuredly are some very intelligent people around here who’s formal education far exceeds my own. That’s a sincere statement BTW. Interestingly, some of the prime specimens are irresistibly drawn to threads like this one.[/quote]
Actually Tirib I am going to try and get to it but won’t be able to until later today, at which point this thread will probably already have jumped onto another set of train tracks 
I’ll do what I can.
just one thing about free will
determinism is perfectly compatible with free will.
if we see determinism and free will as mutually exclusive, it’s only because we don’t pay enough attention to the concept of Will (and the notion of cause).
determinism states that natural events can be fully explained in terms of cause-effect relathionships.
action and reaction.
it means than free ACTION is indeed impossible and illusory.
but it doesn’t say anything about the Will. in one way or another.
Will (a fundamental characteristic of all living beings) can’t be explained at all in term of material causes.
by definition. because, strictly speaking, it’s not an event at all.
it is a specific relationship between a living being and its own actions.
and as such, will is only explainable in term of FINAL causes (goals).
as long as a living being set himself its own goal, his will is free.
obviously, you can always analyse and explains brain processes. you can always analyse and explains your actions, and even your choices in neurological terms or psychological terms. but then what you have explained is still NOT the will.
to explain the will itself, you have to speak the language of finality and goals.
and here, freedom is perfectly possible.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
<<< Actually Tirib I am going to try and get to it but won’t be able to until later today, at which point this thread will probably already have jumped onto another set of train tracks
I’ll do what I can.[/quote]Lemme throw in here that I certainly wasn’t picking on you, or anybody else for that matter. Your post just induced me to finally just ask outright why the overwhelmingly vast majority of people simply assume in an unconscious thoroughly ipso facto manner that their will is the most powerful entity in their lives. This assumption is so foundational that some people will be staring dumbfounded at their monitors wondering how anybody can even ask this question. As you probably guessed I have an answer =] I wanna hear other people’s first.
@kamui:
I am not a determinist or a fatalist. I am a divine providentialist. If that’s even a proper term, but it works here. I believe that absolutely everything including the paths of the leaves blowing across my street right now, has been decreed from all eternity by the all wise, all holy, all just and all powerful God to His own glory and purpose. All is by righteous design, not by chance or random cause and effect.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
your definition of modern subjectivity as a “path to enlightenment” is very interresting.
i see very well why you can say that.
but i’m sorry, i will side with the Christians here. and i will even borrow their words :
in my eyes, the “light” of this enlightenment is an extremely dangerous one. it’s a Luciferian light.
or at least, it’s a promethean one, to say that in more pagan terms
it’s a light of the “mind” directly opposed to the light of life.
with very concrete and tragic consequences. [/quote]
I can only tell you where it led me kamui:
The human mind, our personhood, ego, has no separate existence outside of the brain. Thought, and the subsequent thinker, is in- and of itself the distraction from NOW; this very moment.
Being present in this very moment, beit through thoughtlessness or through constant awareness of the distraction, that is living in the light of life. Everything is obvious and clear, especially the illusory nature of the sensuous self.
No thing in existence is objective. Existence is itself.
[/quote]
I’m not going to pretend like I understood a word you said.[/quote]
x2
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
<<< Actually Tirib I am going to try and get to it but won’t be able to until later today, at which point this thread will probably already have jumped onto another set of train tracks
I’ll do what I can.[/quote]Lemme throw in here that I certainly wasn’t picking on you, or anybody else for that matter. Your post just induced me to finally just ask outright why the overwhelmingly vast majority of people simply assume in an unconscious thoroughly ipso facto manner that their will is the most powerful entity in their lives. This assumption is so foundational that some people will be staring dumbfounded at their monitors wondering how anybody can even ask this question. As you probably guessed I have an answer =] I wanna hear other people’s first.
@kamui:
I am not a determinist or a fatalist. I am a divine providentialist. If that’s even a proper term, but it works here. I believe that absolutely everything including the paths of the leaves blowing across my street right now, has been decreed from all eternity by the all wise, all holy, all just and all powerful God to His own glory and purpose. All is by righteous design, not by chance or random cause and effect.[/quote]
Perhaps the issue here is not that the “overwhelmingly vast majority of people assume that their will is the most powerful entity in their lives.”
Perhaps the problem is that you assume this is so.
You may not know as much about what is going on in other peoples’ heads as you think you do.
Consider the dismissive response you offered just a few posts ago when someone (I think it was forlife) wondered out loud why anyone would worship a god who commits so many people to damnation. You were justified in your dismissiveness, because the question made a few very large and incorrect assumptions about what goes on in your head.
The same may be true here.
It is, of course, possible that you are right. However, you must first bring some sort of proof to the table. Otherwise, this is just a straw man argument.
Bring some studies, some research, some points of evidence that are strong enough to draw a conclusion from regarding the psychology of “most people.” Then, we can argue about it.
I know it sounds like I’m being a nit-picking hardass. However, I think that one of the best things anyone could do for this forum or any other like it is to vigorously root out and expose straw men arguments.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
your definition of modern subjectivity as a “path to enlightenment” is very interresting.
i see very well why you can say that.
but i’m sorry, i will side with the Christians here. and i will even borrow their words :
in my eyes, the “light” of this enlightenment is an extremely dangerous one. it’s a Luciferian light.
or at least, it’s a promethean one, to say that in more pagan terms
it’s a light of the “mind” directly opposed to the light of life.
with very concrete and tragic consequences. [/quote]
I can only tell you where it led me kamui:
The human mind, our personhood, ego, has no separate existence outside of the brain. Thought, and the subsequent thinker, is in- and of itself the distraction from NOW; this very moment.
Being present in this very moment, beit through thoughtlessness or through constant awareness of the distraction, that is living in the light of life. Everything is obvious and clear, especially the illusory nature of the sensuous self.
No thing in existence is objective. Existence is itself.
[/quote]
I’m not going to pretend like I understood a word you said.[/quote]
x2[/quote]
In short:
Our “self” is a construct of the senses and can’t exist independent of them [no soul].
Objectivety does not exist because perception is pure subjectivety.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
your definition of modern subjectivity as a “path to enlightenment” is very interresting.
i see very well why you can say that.
but i’m sorry, i will side with the Christians here. and i will even borrow their words :
in my eyes, the “light” of this enlightenment is an extremely dangerous one. it’s a Luciferian light.
or at least, it’s a promethean one, to say that in more pagan terms
it’s a light of the “mind” directly opposed to the light of life.
with very concrete and tragic consequences. [/quote]
I can only tell you where it led me kamui:
The human mind, our personhood, ego, has no separate existence outside of the brain. Thought, and the subsequent thinker, is in- and of itself the distraction from NOW; this very moment.
Being present in this very moment, beit through thoughtlessness or through constant awareness of the distraction, that is living in the light of life. Everything is obvious and clear, especially the illusory nature of the sensuous self.
No thing in existence is objective. Existence is itself.
[/quote]
I’m not going to pretend like I understood a word you said.[/quote]
x2[/quote]
In short:
Our “self” is a construct of the senses and can’t exist independent of them [no soul].
Objectivety does not exist because perception is pure subjectivety.
[/quote]
And this is one of the reasons I have a problem with people proclaiming their god to be perfect. We cannot, with our fallible and impressionable minds (and all our senses) describe perfection in an objective sense.
To say that one’s god is awesome is fine. To say that he definitely is perfect, is to miss the point.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t get someone wanting to worship a god that condemns people to an eternity of torment because they don’t obey him. That’s the opposite of love. [/quote]
You’re absolutely correct.
You really REALLY don’t get it and never did. No offense, seriously, but that happens to be the case. More later and I’m not ignoring the other guy, swole… something, sorry. No disrespect I just can’t remember. He had a couple points in his response that I wanted to address as well.
No other takers on the origins of the free will deity? My point is not whether it exists or if so in what form. My point is the practically ontological unquestioning assumption that it does. It may even appear that I am waxing dangerously close to dipping my little piggies into your arena with this.
I just know some of you smart analytical people are mulling it over a bit. And there most assuredly are some very intelligent people around here who’s formal education far exceeds my own. That’s a sincere statement BTW. Interestingly, some of the prime specimens are irresistibly drawn to threads like this one.[/quote]
You’d be surprised what I used to believe about god, given my current views. I didn’t say that I ever believed in a god that condemned people to eternal suffering if they didn’t obey him…only that I would never consider such a being to be loving and worthy of my worship. I think, in fact, that such a being would be evil.
Some of the other Christians in this thread might disagree with your view of god, however. The older religions tend to be more focused on a vengeful god full of wrath than the more modern religions, but not exclusively so.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
your definition of modern subjectivity as a “path to enlightenment” is very interresting.
i see very well why you can say that.
but i’m sorry, i will side with the Christians here. and i will even borrow their words :
in my eyes, the “light” of this enlightenment is an extremely dangerous one. it’s a Luciferian light.
or at least, it’s a promethean one, to say that in more pagan terms
it’s a light of the “mind” directly opposed to the light of life.
with very concrete and tragic consequences. [/quote]
I can only tell you where it led me kamui:
The human mind, our personhood, ego, has no separate existence outside of the brain. Thought, and the subsequent thinker, is in- and of itself the distraction from NOW; this very moment.
Being present in this very moment, beit through thoughtlessness or through constant awareness of the distraction, that is living in the light of life. Everything is obvious and clear, especially the illusory nature of the sensuous self.
No thing in existence is objective. Existence is itself.
[/quote]
I’m not going to pretend like I understood a word you said.[/quote]
x2[/quote]
In short:
Our “self” is a construct of the senses and can’t exist independent of them [no soul].
Objectivety does not exist because perception is pure subjectivety.
[/quote]
I tend to agree with this, although I also have to point out that the inherent subjectivity in every person doesn’t imply the inexistence of an objective physical universe.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
<<< Actually Tirib I am going to try and get to it but won’t be able to until later today, at which point this thread will probably already have jumped onto another set of train tracks
I’ll do what I can.[/quote]Lemme throw in here that I certainly wasn’t picking on you, or anybody else for that matter. Your post just induced me to finally just ask outright why the overwhelmingly vast majority of people simply assume in an unconscious thoroughly ipso facto manner that their will is the most powerful entity in their lives. This assumption is so foundational that some people will be staring dumbfounded at their monitors wondering how anybody can even ask this question. As you probably guessed I have an answer =] I wanna hear other people’s first.
@kamui:
I am not a determinist or a fatalist. I am a divine providentialist. If that’s even a proper term, but it works here. I believe that absolutely everything including the paths of the leaves blowing across my street right now, has been decreed from all eternity by the all wise, all holy, all just and all powerful God to His own glory and purpose. All is by righteous design, not by chance or random cause and effect.[/quote]
Well, I’d hoped to get to this tonight but worked from 9am until nearly midnight. It’s now almost 2 and even if I had the extra time to devote to this, I don’t trust my brain to accurately translate the words to my fingers.
I do have an answer for you, though, and I am pretty certain I know what yours is, too (or rather, your reasoning for believing that free will does not exist). Fair warning, though, going down this path will lead us directly back into the Catholic vs. Protestant debate, because it is one of the fundamental differences in our belief systems, stemming from Luther and Calvin themselves (not that they originated the idea of predestination/necessarianism/determinism/fatalism/pickyourism).
Before I get into my reasons, though, if you don’t mind, would you honestly answer a question for me? I promise I’m not trying to play any sophistic games or introduce deceit into the argument. The question is: Do you live your life as if it is pre-determined? Please explain why or why not.
[quote]kamui wrote:
just one thing about free will
determinism is perfectly compatible with free will.
if we see determinism and free will as mutually exclusive, it’s only because we don’t pay enough attention to the concept of Will (and the notion of cause).
determinism states that natural events can be fully explained in terms of cause-effect relathionships.
action and reaction.
it means than free ACTION is indeed impossible and illusory.
but it doesn’t say anything about the Will. in one way or another.
Will (a fundamental characteristic of all living beings) can’t be explained at all in term of material causes.
by definition. because, strictly speaking, it’s not an event at all.
it is a specific relationship between a living being and its own actions.
and as such, will is only explainable in term of FINAL causes (goals).
as long as a living being set himself its own goal, his will is free.
obviously, you can always analyse and explains brain processes. you can always analyse and explains your actions, and even your choices in neurological terms or psychological terms. but then what you have explained is still NOT the will.
to explain the will itself, you have to speak the language of finality and goals.
and here, freedom is perfectly possible. [/quote]
I wrote a post that seems to have disappeared into the ether professing my new man-crush on kamui. Posts like the above are the origin of that crush.
Very cool insight, kamui. The distinction of the Will as meta-phenomenal (is that the correct term for this concept?) and the marriage of this idea with determinism is something I have never encountered before.
Don’t you dare leave PWI.
I certainly hope your students appreciate you. I know that every time I read one of your posts I feel like I have learned something new.
Here’s how I see it.
Either our actions are randomly determined or they are caused by something.
Unless you’re psychologically deranged, your actions are unlikely to be randomly determined. And even then, there is an underlying cause like a skewed perception of reality.
Therefore, all of our actions are caused by something else. That is Newtonian determinism at the core. You can’t escape the chain of cause and effect, which means that everything we do was caused by something that came before.
Some posit a First Cause, but the logical conclusion of this theory is that everything can ultimately be traced to this original cause, and hence the original cause is ultimately responsible. There can be no free will under this theory, except the will exercised by the First Cause.
Others posit an infinite series of causes and effects, in which case there is no ultimate responsibility, only an ongoing expression of consequences from what came before. Here again, there is no free will unless that will has always existed.
The only possibility I can see for free will is if you step into Einstein’s world of relativity, in which time, space, and matter are not absolutes, and in which not everything is determined by cause and effect per Newton. If anything can be said for free will, I would point to the double-slit research which suggests true randomness, or at least a cause which is beyond our current ability to measure or comprehend.
you could as well break the kantian taboo and call Will a metaphysical phenomena.
the strict parallelism (without intersection) between the chains of material causes and the chains of final causes was first elaborated by Spinoza.
the version i posted is basically the same thing, expressed in a more contemporary and less scholastic terminology.
[quote]
Don’t you dare leave PWI.[/quote]
i found a good way to practice my english skills, and i don’t intend to stop right now^^
[quote]
I certainly hope your students appreciate you.[/quote]
well, i don’t teach philosophy. at least not directly.
i teach history and french litterature in the french version of your vocational schools.
my students tend to be “difficult students”. and sometimes extremely difficult students.
(“i had been arrested by the police” is not an uncommon reason for absence).
so i’m not sure “appreciate” is the good word here.
usually, they respect me.
some of them actually respect the teacher. the others respects “the Bear”.
[quote]kamui wrote:
you could as well break the kantian taboo and call Will a metaphysical phenomena.
the strict parallelism (without intersection) between the chains of material causes and the chains of final causes was first elaborated by Spinoza.
the version i posted is basically the same thing, expressed in a more contemporary and less scholastic terminology.
[quote]
Don’t you dare leave PWI.[/quote]
i found a good way to practice my english skills, and i don’t intend to stop right now^^
[quote]
I certainly hope your students appreciate you.[/quote]
well, i don’t teach philosophy. at least not directly.
i teach history and french litterature in the french version of your vocational schools.
my students tend to be “difficult students”. and sometimes extremely difficult students.
(“i had been arrested by the police” is not an uncommon reason for absence).
so i’m not sure “appreciate” is the good word here.
usually, they respect me.
some of them actually respect the teacher. the others respects “the Bear”. [/quote]
My wife is a 4th grade teacher in a bad neighborhood here… it ain’t easy from what I can tell.
Something I meant to mention earlier:
Objectivity breaks down at the quantum level.
So, there may not actually be anything such as an objective universe… lending some degree of credibility to… well, fuck… just about anything.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
<<< I wrote a post that seems to have disappeared into the ether >>>[/quote]As did my fairly long one from this morning =[
No time at the moment. I don’t how to consciously live as if my life were predestined or not. I simply awaken every morning and ask God to teach me how to love Him more perfectly than I did yesterday, to love my wife as He loves me, to order my every thought, word and deed to His glory and a whole lotta prayer for other personal stuff and other people as well. Including many here.
I haven’t spent a significant amount of time or energy probing the unsearchable depths of His persons or plan for years. BTW, I do believe in free will, but that God’s will is freer.
Again, the Westminster Confession of 1646 concerning God’s Eternal Decree. In my view the most solidly biblical systematic expression of the Christian Faith outside the bible itself:
Chapter III
[quote]Of God’s Eternal Decree
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.
VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
your definition of modern subjectivity as a “path to enlightenment” is very interresting.
i see very well why you can say that.
but i’m sorry, i will side with the Christians here. and i will even borrow their words :
in my eyes, the “light” of this enlightenment is an extremely dangerous one. it’s a Luciferian light.
or at least, it’s a promethean one, to say that in more pagan terms
it’s a light of the “mind” directly opposed to the light of life.
with very concrete and tragic consequences. [/quote]
I can only tell you where it led me kamui:
The human mind, our personhood, ego, has no separate existence outside of the brain. Thought, and the subsequent thinker, is in- and of itself the distraction from NOW; this very moment.
Being present in this very moment, beit through thoughtlessness or through constant awareness of the distraction, that is living in the light of life. Everything is obvious and clear, especially the illusory nature of the sensuous self.
No thing in existence is objective. Existence is itself.
[/quote]
I’m not going to pretend like I understood a word you said.[/quote]
x2[/quote]
In short:
Our “self” is a construct of the senses and can’t exist independent of them [no soul].
Objectivety does not exist because perception is pure subjectivety.
[/quote]
I tend to agree with this, although I also have to point out that the inherent subjectivity in every person doesn’t imply the inexistence of an objective physical universe.[/quote]
As soon the universe is perceived by someone it’s subjective. The only way a “thing” can exist is through [sensory] perception. This is also true for ideas, or memes: they cannot exist independant of their source and are always “tainted” by their source.
Obviously all of this is as subjective as anything, but the thing is though that within the sphere of general subjectivity conditions exist that are equally true for all of us.
By following these ‘objective’ conditions back to its roots one discovers the nature of self, and how its illusory state is inferred from that which surrounds him.
or maybe it’s the contrary …
as soon as someone is informed by the universe, he becomes objective…