[quote]colleend78 wrote:
We use the King James version of the bible because we believe it’s the most correct version. [/quote]
Based on what evidence? I’m curious, I’ve never heard any reasons for why a particular version is more accurate than another.
Ravi Zacharias is the man…
and in regards to free will, Romans 9 takes care of that one.
I forgot who said it (athenasius maybe) but free will is only possible for someone who has the freedom to do anything he wills, thus making God the only being capable of free will. We as humans have choices, but not necessarily free will, and I would say that our choices are in line with God’s sovereign rule and knowledge.
If we see God as just another part of creation then his sovereignty won’t make sense, but if we see that he lives outside of time and creation yet with full access to it we can glimpse how his sovereignty works and how he can also be displeased with events within creation and yet have those events ultimately work towards his final purposes (ie the fall, sin, rebellion, Christs crucifixion).
Of course there’s also the hard and uncomfortable truth that life and existence is not about our happiness or comfort…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Thantophobia wrote:
To DoubleDeuce:
I think that the heart of the problem here is your use of X, rather than between X and -X. A house built of lego pieces that have a fixed variance would be askew, but one built out of lego pieces with random variances would not. A fixed variance is multiplied in complexity, but random variance is removed as it averages itself out of the equation. Think of one coin being flipped. It is not predictable at all. Now take a system of 1000. We can say that about 500 will be heads with a fair degree of regularity. Now take as many coin flips as exist in the difference between a quantum particle and a molecule. That results in a physical law.
Lol, sorry, by X I really meant delta X, I was not assuming it was always the same.
But I’m afraid you are thinking about the situation incorrectly. We are talking about countless indeterminable variables adding up to 1 exact isolated unrepeatable event. A choice is not an average.
Each flip of a coin is an isolated event of it’s own and has no bearing statistically or philosophically of any other. Knowing that close to 500 out of 1000 flips will be heads doesn’t in any way predict a single flip. Even if you add the knowledge that it has come up heads 15 times in a row. According to your statistics at that point tails should come up in the remaining flips more often. This is a false sense of predictability. This is a bound and discrete system with only 2 possible options that science can predict no better than a monkey. That is absolutely not a predestined event.
Every single electron and photon and proton in the system effect the outcome in such a way the outcome is entirely indeterminate. And that is an amazingly simple system in the scheme of the universe.
[/quote]
Yeah - I realized after posting that that it was an unlikely mistake for you to make. I think that part of the problem here is that we’re both assuming that the other is dumber than they are. But I digress. My first point here is that I wasn’t trying to insinuate that you could predict the next coin flip - but rather that at the system level - all the coin flips taken together - yield results predictable to a very high degree of accuracy. I think that we can both agree on that. The point at which we diverge, I believe, is not rooted in physics but rather neuroscience. The functional units of the brain - the smallest parts of it that affect our consciousness - are far larger than the truly quantum, or even atomic or molecular level. How complex the arrangement of these units are is irrelevant to how much they are affected by quantum randomness. By its very definition, quantum randomness is equally random in any system - whether or not it affects the system is a question of how close to the quantum level the functional units (the lowest unit that creates a pereceptable change in the output of the system) are and the sheer number of the these functional units. There is no more randomness in 1 trillion particles of the brain than in 1 trillion particles of a rock. If you’re maintaining that consciousness and free will are expressed at the quantum level - I don’t think any neuroscience backs that belief. We have no change in perception based even upon the abscence or change in position of any 1 molecule of dopamine - much less 1 quark or photon. Consequently, while quantum randomness is an inherent property of matter - it is not directly related to the level of matter which perceptibally affects our consciousness. Following this - while there may be some will that affects quantum randomness - it is not “our” will, it is not the will of our consciousness.
To be honest though - even if you do not accept my above reasoning - there is no reason to believe that quantum randomness is influenced by will. This topic has been dealt with by the prominent neursocientists in the field - and it is simply not accepted. It seems to me to be a case of “Consciousness is hard to understand and not fully explained. Quantum randomness is hard to understand and not fully explained. Ergo - consciousness must be linked to quantum randomness.” The burden of proof lies not on me to explain why quantum randomness is probably not related to either consciousness or will - but rather on you to explain the connection.
And to IQ - fuck you. That’s as valid an argument as you just put forth to me. Come back and talk to me when you have a basic grasp on how language and formal logic work and interact. Your arguments so far have consisted of nothing more than “I know that free will exists because I know that I made a choice.” If you can’t see the obvious fallacy of begging the question there you’re simply not thinking hard enough to engage in a complex discussion. But more importantly - accusing me of intellectual cowardice, ignorance, or laziness is simply immature. If you wish to engage in a discussion about this, drop the ad hominem bullshit and come up with cohesive, logical evidence that proves or even supports the existence of free will.
[quote]IQ wrote:
Thantophobia wrote:
As an atheist I realize this thread is not meant for me - but the topic does interest me. I do not believe in free will - but I do not believe that we are following a “script” either. Basically, for free will to exist, at some point the elementary particles composing your brain have to cease following the laws of physics - they must respond to some external force (let’s call it a soul) rather than to gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the like.
There is no reason to believe this - and the sense of free will that we experience is actually far more specious than we like to think. When you read this post - try to isolate the exact moment that you choose what to do with it - whether to respond, scroll down, or Ctrl+Tab back to redtube. You won’t be able to.
Being able to pinpoint the exact moment you make a decision is irrelevant as this reply shows that at some point I decided to reply (based on its existence).
So the point remains, am I responsible for the decision to reply or am I not? These are the only 2 logical answers as something either is or isn’t, there isn’t a third option.
I do believe in free will, however there is no way that I could conclusively prove that this opinion isn’t merely an illusion.
That said, you haven’t actually stated what you DO believe in so if you could expand on that we could discuss it further.[/quote]
Actually there is a third option, and it has nothing to do with anyone making a decision. Based on physics and chemistry, one could assume a verifiably complex reaction to your environment, based on your current state of brain chemistry, body chemistry, current level of nutrition, stored chemical memories in the brain, current enviromental stimulus, etc… It is possible that your decisions are no more than complex biological functions acting thier way out through what we call life. The complexity of these and lack of understanding of how they all work, let alone how they combine to shape our actions or rather re-actions. This would eliminate destiny and the need for gods will to be taken into account much less our own will. If you think about throwing a trillion bouncy balls into an very large enclosed container. To look at the movements as a whole would seem like pure random chaos, when in reality, each ball would be behaving exactly according the the laws of physics, and with a great enough computer, the entire thing could be mapped and predicted precicely. Doing that seems possible, and mapping a humans experience on the planet earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy with al those potential inputs and outputs would be a magnitude of a trillion, trillion harder to do than that. Or something like that.
V
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
would you kill God for $15,000?[/quote]
Thats an instant WIN Live.
V
[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thantophobia wrote:
To DoubleDeuce:
I think that the heart of the problem here is your use of X, rather than between X and -X. A house built of lego pieces that have a fixed variance would be askew, but one built out of lego pieces with random variances would not. A fixed variance is multiplied in complexity, but random variance is removed as it averages itself out of the equation. Think of one coin being flipped. It is not predictable at all. Now take a system of 1000. We can say that about 500 will be heads with a fair degree of regularity. Now take as many coin flips as exist in the difference between a quantum particle and a molecule. That results in a physical law.
Lol, sorry, by X I really meant delta X, I was not assuming it was always the same.
But I’m afraid you are thinking about the situation incorrectly. We are talking about countless indeterminable variables adding up to 1 exact isolated unrepeatable event. A choice is not an average.
Each flip of a coin is an isolated event of it’s own and has no bearing statistically or philosophically of any other. Knowing that close to 500 out of 1000 flips will be heads doesn’t in any way predict a single flip. Even if you add the knowledge that it has come up heads 15 times in a row. According to your statistics at that point tails should come up in the remaining flips more often. This is a false sense of predictability. This is a bound and discrete system with only 2 possible options that science can predict no better than a monkey. That is absolutely not a predestined event.
Every single electron and photon and proton in the system effect the outcome in such a way the outcome is entirely indeterminate. And that is an amazingly simple system in the scheme of the universe.
Yeah - I realized after posting that that it was an unlikely mistake for you to make. I think that part of the problem here is that we’re both assuming that the other is dumber than they are. But I digress. My first point here is that I wasn’t trying to insinuate that you could predict the next coin flip - but rather that at the system level - all the coin flips taken together - yield results predictable to a very high degree of accuracy. I think that we can both agree on that. The point at which we diverge, I believe, is not rooted in physics but rather neuroscience. The functional units of the brain - the smallest parts of it that affect our consciousness - are far larger than the truly quantum, or even atomic or molecular level. How complex the arrangement of these units are is irrelevant to how much they are affected by quantum randomness. By its very definition, quantum randomness is equally random in any system - whether or not it affects the system is a question of how close to the quantum level the functional units (the lowest unit that creates a pereceptable change in the output of the system) are and the sheer number of the these functional units. There is no more randomness in 1 trillion particles of the brain than in 1 trillion particles of a rock. If you’re maintaining that consciousness and free will are expressed at the quantum level - I don’t think any neuroscience backs that belief. We have no change in perception based even upon the abscence or change in position of any 1 molecule of dopamine - much less 1 quark or photon. Consequently, while quantum randomness is an inherent property of matter - it is not directly related to the level of matter which perceptibally affects our consciousness. Following this - while there may be some will that affects quantum randomness - it is not “our” will, it is not the will of our consciousness.
To be honest though - even if you do not accept my above reasoning - there is no reason to believe that quantum randomness is influenced by will. This topic has been dealt with by the prominent neursocientists in the field - and it is simply not accepted. It seems to me to be a case of “Consciousness is hard to understand and not fully explained. Quantum randomness is hard to understand and not fully explained. Ergo - consciousness must be linked to quantum randomness.” The burden of proof lies not on me to explain why quantum randomness is probably not related to either consciousness or will - but rather on you to explain the connection.
And to IQ - fuck you. That’s as valid an argument as you just put forth to me. Come back and talk to me when you have a basic grasp on how language and formal logic work and interact. Your arguments so far have consisted of nothing more than “I know that free will exists because I know that I made a choice.” If you can’t see the obvious fallacy of begging the question there you’re simply not thinking hard enough to engage in a complex discussion. But more importantly - accusing me of intellectual cowardice, ignorance, or laziness is simply immature. If you wish to engage in a discussion about this, drop the ad hominem bullshit and come up with cohesive, logical evidence that proves or even supports the existence of free will. [/quote]
Okay, you got me to laugh a little about the mechanics of consciousness and how quantum physics does or doesnâ??t affect it. No one has any idea. We also have to remember that there are holes in quantum theory which means that the actual mechanics of anything may not be fully knowable until (or if) there is ever a unified theory.
However quantum is much more applicable to the physical universe than you give it credit. Atomic computers, magnetism, nuclear reactors, electricity, light, chemistry, astronomy (I would probably through in gravity and nuclear force too) are all based on quantum. Even things like friction and energy itself are quantum based.
I due think you need a refresher in error propagation through complex dynamic systems though. =0)
The point is, the laws of physics as we understand them today forbid the analytical solution of any physical system. Every actual system is essentially a numerical one. Not the analysis or the solution, but the system itself. It precludes errorless calculations. It is simply not possible to predict ANY system to 100% accuracy. So what I am saying is that scientific predestination doesnâ??t exist and cannot exist. The systems themselves (not the limits of our knowledge or calculations) seem to forbid it.
It essentially disproves the negative of free will (not proves the positive).
But like I said, I donâ??t really â??believeâ?? in any measure so questions about predestination in regards to free will are nonsensical.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
IQ wrote:
Thantophobia wrote:
As an atheist I realize this thread is not meant for me - but the topic does interest me. I do not believe in free will - but I do not believe that we are following a “script” either. Basically, for free will to exist, at some point the elementary particles composing your brain have to cease following the laws of physics - they must respond to some external force (let’s call it a soul) rather than to gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the like.
There is no reason to believe this - and the sense of free will that we experience is actually far more specious than we like to think. When you read this post - try to isolate the exact moment that you choose what to do with it - whether to respond, scroll down, or Ctrl+Tab back to redtube. You won’t be able to.
Being able to pinpoint the exact moment you make a decision is irrelevant as this reply shows that at some point I decided to reply (based on its existence).
So the point remains, am I responsible for the decision to reply or am I not? These are the only 2 logical answers as something either is or isn’t, there isn’t a third option.
I do believe in free will, however there is no way that I could conclusively prove that this opinion isn’t merely an illusion.
That said, you haven’t actually stated what you DO believe in so if you could expand on that we could discuss it further.
Actually there is a third option, and it has nothing to do with anyone making a decision. Based on physics and chemistry, one could assume a verifiably complex reaction to your environment, based on your current state of brain chemistry, body chemistry, current level of nutrition, stored chemical memories in the brain, current enviromental stimulus, etc… It is possible that your decisions are no more than complex biological functions acting thier way out through what we call life. The complexity of these and lack of understanding of how they all work, let alone how they combine to shape our actions or rather re-actions. This would eliminate destiny and the need for gods will to be taken into account much less our own will. If you think about throwing a trillion bouncy balls into an very large enclosed container. To look at the movements as a whole would seem like pure random chaos, when in reality, each ball would be behaving exactly according the the laws of physics, and with a great enough computer, the entire thing could be mapped and predicted precicely. Doing that seems possible, and mapping a humans experience on the planet earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy with al those potential inputs and outputs would be a magnitude of a trillion, trillion harder to do than that. Or something like that.
V [/quote]
My point exactly - although I must concede that assuming the premise that at the very base level of the universe randomness occurs one will never be able to map or predict an event with 100% accuracy. This concession is somewhat misleading though - as it deals with infinitisemal probabilities that humans are simply not capable of easily comprehending. Our inability to reach 100% accuracy is about as relevant to brain chemistry as it is to simple addition. Given the above premise the statement “If I take one apple and set it next to another apple there will be two apples next to each other” is not 100% accurate either. While the incomprehensible difference in order of magnitude between the quantum level and the “apple level” makes it in any reasonable sense of the word impossible that quantum randomness will cause one apple to disappear, move, or change into something other than an apple, it is not truly impossible.
This relates to the argument here in that in order for free will - in any sense of the word that defines our consciousness as the prime mover - to be couched in quantum randomness, at some point in the system a critical mass of “random” or as Double Deuce would probably put it “willed” quantum occurance must be reached that would influence a functional level of the brain in a way that was not predictable through the current laws of physic.
For example, take the movement of one’s hand 6 inches to the right. In order for the movement to be accomplished the brain must send an nerve impulse down to the proper muscles. This nerve impulse is created by the depolarization of an axon hillock from -70 mV to around +40 (this ignores the threshold of the event, but the vast majority of nerve impulses are caused with significant excess voltage difference). If one maintains that your consciousness initiated this occurance - and that its method of doing so was to somehow control “quantum randomness” to cease being truly random and align itself with its will - at some point in between whatever sensory input led to the desire to move your hand and the movement of the hand there must have been enough non-random (because randomness is inherently not harnessable - if the quantum randomness remain truly random your will would have had no affect on it. This is a key distinction - if your will is influencing an event it is not random, nor is it unpredicatable. In order for a consciousness to affect changes in the environment consistent with its goals, it must be able to influence its environment in a consistent manner. Given enough study, we would be able to predict which conscious decisions affected which changes at the quantum level) quantum events to lead to the firing of the nerve cell. This is not achievable at the atomic level, i.e. enough quantum influence to “control” on full atom could not lead to it. It’s like a piston in an engine - no single molecule can be changed in such a way to cause the piston to rise fully when it would not have risen within an imperceptable level of fully without the change in the molecule. Just like a single molecule in a piston, a single atom in the brain may determine whether or not a nerve reaches its threshold point, but it may not initiate a firing of the nerve where there would have been none without it.
And for IQ - if you wish to understand why I say that the ability to perceive choice is important, and why I say that you cannot actually perceive your choice, read this - Free will - Wikipedia. When you read it, remember two things - A) Try to comprehend what they are saying. This is different from how they are saying it. Don’t just read their words - internalize the concepts. And B) I don’t really care how different you think my presentation of this argument is from theirs. An attempt to show how I appear inconsistent in my reasoning is an avoidance of the argument. If you ever want to reach valid conclusions on any complex topics you can’t argue by parroting back single words or phrases from whoever you’re arguing with. You have to be able to create a comprehensive summary of their argument - this means to be able to identify their premises, their intemediary logic, and their conclusion. This isn’t as easy as you think it is. The logic of an argument is seperate from the language used to express it. You have to tear it down to its base, and then rebuild it.
(removed)
[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
Vegita wrote:
IQ wrote:
Thantophobia wrote:
As an atheist I realize this thread is not meant for me - but the topic does interest me. I do not believe in free will - but I do not believe that we are following a “script” either. Basically, for free will to exist, at some point the elementary particles composing your brain have to cease following the laws of physics - they must respond to some external force (let’s call it a soul) rather than to gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the like.
There is no reason to believe this - and the sense of free will that we experience is actually far more specious than we like to think. When you read this post - try to isolate the exact moment that you choose what to do with it - whether to respond, scroll down, or Ctrl+Tab back to redtube. You won’t be able to.
Being able to pinpoint the exact moment you make a decision is irrelevant as this reply shows that at some point I decided to reply (based on its existence).
So the point remains, am I responsible for the decision to reply or am I not? These are the only 2 logical answers as something either is or isn’t, there isn’t a third option.
I do believe in free will, however there is no way that I could conclusively prove that this opinion isn’t merely an illusion.
That said, you haven’t actually stated what you DO believe in so if you could expand on that we could discuss it further.
Actually there is a third option, and it has nothing to do with anyone making a decision. Based on physics and chemistry, one could assume a verifiably complex reaction to your environment, based on your current state of brain chemistry, body chemistry, current level of nutrition, stored chemical memories in the brain, current enviromental stimulus, etc… It is possible that your decisions are no more than complex biological functions acting thier way out through what we call life. The complexity of these and lack of understanding of how they all work, let alone how they combine to shape our actions or rather re-actions. This would eliminate destiny and the need for gods will to be taken into account much less our own will. If you think about throwing a trillion bouncy balls into an very large enclosed container. To look at the movements as a whole would seem like pure random chaos, when in reality, each ball would be behaving exactly according the the laws of physics, and with a great enough computer, the entire thing could be mapped and predicted precicely. Doing that seems possible, and mapping a humans experience on the planet earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy with al those potential inputs and outputs would be a magnitude of a trillion, trillion harder to do than that. Or something like that.
V
My point exactly - although I must concede that assuming the premise that at the very base level of the universe randomness occurs one will never be able to map or predict an event with 100% accuracy. This concession is somewhat misleading though - as it deals with infinitisemal probabilities that humans are simply not capable of easily comprehending. Our inability to reach 100% accuracy is about as relevant to brain chemistry as it is to simple addition. Given the above premise the statement “If I take one apple and set it next to another apple there will be two apples next to each other” is not 100% accurate either. While the incomprehensible difference in order of magnitude between the quantum level and the “apple level” makes it in any reasonable sense of the word impossible that quantum randomness will cause one apple to disappear, move, or change into something other than an apple, it is not truly impossible.
This relates to the argument here in that in order for free will - in any sense of the word that defines our consciousness as the prime mover - to be couched in quantum randomness, at some point in the system a critical mass of “random” or as Double Deuce would probably put it “willed” quantum occurance must be reached that would influence a functional level of the brain in a way that was not predictable through the current laws of physic.
For example, take the movement of one’s hand 6 inches to the right. In order for the movement to be accomplished the brain must send an nerve impulse down to the proper muscles. This nerve impulse is created by the depolarization of an axon hillock from -70 mV to around +40 (this ignores the threshold of the event, but the vast majority of nerve impulses are caused with significant excess voltage difference). If one maintains that your consciousness initiated this occurance - and that its method of doing so was to somehow control “quantum randomness” to cease being truly random and align itself with its will - at some point in between whatever sensory input led to the desire to move your hand and the movement of the hand there must have been enough non-random (because randomness is inherently not harnessable - if the quantum randomness remain truly random your will would have had no affect on it. This is a key distinction - if your will is influencing an event it is not random, nor is it unpredicatable. In order for a consciousness to affect changes in the environment consistent with its goals, it must be able to influence its environment in a consistent manner. Given enough study, we would be able to predict which conscious decisions affected which changes at the quantum level) quantum events to lead to the firing of the nerve cell. This is not achievable at the atomic level, i.e. enough quantum influence to “control” on full atom could not lead to it. It’s like a piston in an engine - no single molecule can be changed in such a way to cause the piston to rise fully when it would not have risen within an imperceptable level of fully without the change in the molecule. Just like a single molecule in a piston, a single atom in the brain may determine whether or not a nerve reaches its threshold point, but it may not initiate a firing of the nerve where there would have been none without it.
And for IQ - if you wish to understand why I say that the ability to perceive choice is important, and why I say that you cannot actually perceive your choice, read this - Free will - Wikipedia. When you read it, remember two things - A) Try to comprehend what they are saying. This is different from how they are saying it. Don’t just read their words - internalize the concepts. And B) I don’t really care how different you think my presentation of this argument is from theirs. An attempt to show how I appear inconsistent in my reasoning is an avoidance of the argument. If you ever want to reach valid conclusions on any complex topics you can’t argue by parroting back single words or phrases from whoever you’re arguing with. You have to be able to create a comprehensive summary of their argument - this means to be able to identify their premises, their intemediary logic, and their conclusion. This isn’t as easy as you think it is. The logic of an argument is seperate from the language used to express it. You have to tear it down to its base, and then rebuild it. [/quote]
Let me see if I get what you’re saying. If a “soul” or whatever you want to call it, can control your own molecules via consious thought, then it would also make sense for it to control any other molecule regardless of what form it is or where it is in space? To the extent that they can be controlled? I may have lost you somewhere in there.
V
It is because the christian god of those specific circumstances is not real. Conscious beings have the ability to manipulate their surroundings via choice, where are their surroundings manipulate them by probability. The combination of the two is fate, or destiny.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote
Regarding Free Will, yes, God knows all, sees all, etc yet He chooses to allow us our free will.[/quote]
Impossible contradiction. Believe in one or the other, you can’t have your cake an eat it too. If God had made Adam slightly differently, would we not all be entirely different today?
Hence, no free will. God decided everything. No way around that.
Free will and omnipotence OR omniscience are totally incapable of existing together. I have no problems with people believing in one or the other, they’re both equally plausible, but putting them together is just illogical.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote
Regarding Free Will, yes, God knows all, sees all, etc yet He chooses to allow us our free will.
Impossible contradiction. Believe in one or the other, you can’t have your cake an eat it too. If God had made Adam slightly differently, would we not all be entirely different today?
Hence, no free will. God decided everything. No way around that.
Free will and omnipotence OR omniscience are totally incapable of existing together. I have no problems with people believing in one or the other, they’re both equally plausible, but putting them together is just illogical.[/quote]
Can an all powerful being make a system he does not control? If he does not control it, is he all powerful?
To me, if he were all powerful he could indeed create free will. Once again, is being the Omega the same as controlling everything between now and then? Not in my book. Knowing what someone will choose and choosing it for them are 2 different things.
If the two can not coincide, why would one choose to believe in an omnipotent being, for where there is no evidence for, opposed to the ability of humans to make choices, choices which we witness every day?
[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
And to IQ - fuck you. That’s as valid an argument as you just put forth to me. Come back and talk to me when you have a basic grasp on how language and formal logic work and interact. Your arguments so far have consisted of nothing more than “I know that free will exists because I know that I made a choice.” If you can’t see the obvious fallacy of begging the question there you’re simply not thinking hard enough to engage in a complex discussion. But more importantly - accusing me of intellectual cowardice, ignorance, or laziness is simply immature. If you wish to engage in a discussion about this, drop the ad hominem bullshit and come up with cohesive, logical evidence that proves or even supports the existence of free will. [/quote]
Well that’s nice isn’t it?
Skipping the insults for now I think the only way we could hope to get this discussion back on track is if we first clarify our definitions of “free will”.
My understanding is as follows (copied dictionary definition)
[quote]
I get the feeling that you have a different definition, if so I’d be interested to hear what it is. Once we’ve done that we can continue, if you so wish.
Edit: I’ve just seen that you’ve made another reply, I’ll take a look at your link and check back.
Due to my short attention span this may take a while.
[quote]
IQ wrote:
…am I responsible for the decision to reply or am I not? These are the only 2 logical answers as something either is or isn’t, there isn’t a third option.
Vegita wrote:
Actually there is a third option, and it has nothing to do with anyone making a decision. Based on physics and chemistry, one could assume a verifiably complex reaction to your environment, based on your current state of brain chemistry, body chemistry, current level of nutrition, stored chemical memories in the brain, current enviromental stimulus, etc… It is possible that your decisions are no more than complex biological functions acting thier way out through what we call life. The complexity of these and lack of understanding of how they all work, let alone how they combine to shape our actions or rather re-actions. This would eliminate destiny and the need for gods will to be taken into account much less our own will. If you think about throwing a trillion bouncy balls into an very large enclosed container. To look at the movements as a whole would seem like pure random chaos, when in reality, each ball would be behaving exactly according the the laws of physics, and with a great enough computer, the entire thing could be mapped and predicted precicely. Doing that seems possible, and mapping a humans experience on the planet earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy with al those potential inputs and outputs would be a magnitude of a trillion, trillion harder to do than that. Or something like that.
V [/quote]
The 2 options I was referring to were making conscious decisions or not making conscious decisions (which would include everything that isn’t making conscious decisions, such as the explanation you provided above).
The explanation you provided is possible which is why I wouldn’t go as far as saying I know free will exists but I still believe it does.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote
Regarding Free Will, yes, God knows all, sees all, etc yet He chooses to allow us our free will.
Impossible contradiction. Believe in one or the other, you can’t have your cake an eat it too. If God had made Adam slightly differently, would we not all be entirely different today?
Hence, no free will. God decided everything. No way around that.
Free will and omnipotence OR omniscience are totally incapable of existing together. I have no problems with people believing in one or the other, they’re both equally plausible, but putting them together is just illogical.
Can an all powerful being make a system he does not control? If he does not control it, is he all powerful?
To me, if he were all powerful he could indeed create free will. Once again, is being the Omega the same as controlling everything between now and then? Not in my book. Knowing what someone will choose and choosing it for them are 2 different things.
[/quote]
Thats the mystery and beauty and simplicity of the whole equation. All Knowing does not equal All Controlling. I can know 100% what choice X is going to make, but it is still X’s choice to make. My knowledge of his thought process does not interfere with his actual decision making.
In the same way, God (being outside of time as man understands it) sees all of our choices, knows our choices, and lets us make them. He knows what we will do, but He is “outside” of the decision: the choice is ours.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Let me see if I get what you’re saying. If a “soul” or whatever you want to call it, can control your own molecules via consious thought, then it would also make sense for it to control any other molecule regardless of what form it is or where it is in space? To the extent that they can be controlled? I may have lost you somewhere in there.
V[/quote]
I guess that may have been implied in what I wrote - kudos for extracting it from that wall of text - but it wasn’t actually my primary point. What I was trying to express was what must occur in order for your “soul” to initiate physical movement - actually, let me just put this shit into a list.
Question: Can quantum randomness allow for a “soul” to be the cause of a living organism’s behavior?
Example of a behavior: Moving your hand.
What must occur for your hand to move: The appropriate nerve axons must change their charge from their resting potential (around -70 mV) to whatever their threshold is (usually around -30 mV). To put it more simply, the appropriate nerves must fire.
Restatement of the question with behavior replaced by the more accurate specifics:
Can quantum randomness allow for a “soul” to be the cause of a living organism’s nerves firing in the appropriate manner to affect a specific movement?
What must occur in order for a “soul” operating through quantum randomness to be responsible for an action:
The action must not be predictable through our current natural laws. This is the complex part - the action is not what happens, but rather or not something happens that falls within our range of definition for the action. For example, if you drop an apple off a roof you would not say that its falling was due to a “soul” operating through quantum randomness - as we could consistently predict that it would fall. The very, very minute ways in which it falls become less and less predictable, eventually reaching a level where quantum randomness would make that prediction worthless (i.e. whether or not a specific particle of the apple falls in exact accordance with it’s neighbor).
This distinction is key - we are not trying to determine whether or not your “soul” controls exactly where your hand moves to an atomic level, nor exactly how much polarization the nerve axon undergoes. We are looking at whether or not your hand moves when without the intervention of your “soul” it would otherwise not have.
So given all this the final question, stripped of unspecific words, becomes:
Can your “soul” cause the appropriate firing of the nerves necessary for hand movement where given all the system information we would not be able to predict the firing of these nerves.
For that to be the case, the brain would have to function in a way that separates it from all other systems of its size - as quantum randomness does not affect in a significant way our ability to predict whether or not an electrical system the size of a nerve axon changes its charge from -70 to -30 mV.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Impossible contradiction. Believe in one or the other, you can’t have your cake an eat it too. If God had made Adam slightly differently, would we not all be entirely different today?
Hence, no free will. God decided everything. No way around that.
Free will and omnipotence OR omniscience are totally incapable of existing together. I have no problems with people believing in one or the other, they’re both equally plausible, but putting them together is just illogical.[/quote]
Actually - that’s slightly misinterpreting omnipotence. You are still binding god by the laws of logic. An omnipotent being, is by definition, outside any constraints on what it can or cannot do. Basically, an omnipotent being could make a rock so big he couldn’t lift it, and then he could lift it. He could control every single part of the universe, and yet have no control at the same time. Once you set the premise that a being is omnipotent, you can’t make any statements about what it could or could not do.
Read Martin Luther’s “Bondage of the Will”. Good stuff.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote
Regarding Free Will, yes, God knows all, sees all, etc yet He chooses to allow us our free will.
Impossible contradiction. Believe in one or the other, you can’t have your cake an eat it too. If God had made Adam slightly differently, would we not all be entirely different today?
Hence, no free will. God decided everything. No way around that.
Free will and omnipotence OR omniscience are totally incapable of existing together. I have no problems with people believing in one or the other, they’re both equally plausible, but putting them together is just illogical.
Can an all powerful being make a system he does not control? If he does not control it, is he all powerful?
To me, if he were all powerful he could indeed create free will. Once again, is being the Omega the same as controlling everything between now and then? Not in my book. Knowing what someone will choose and choosing it for them are 2 different things.
[/quote]
If God knows what I’m going to do, than he could have made me differently. God made Adam, therefore, if he made Adam differently, we’d all be different. When he made Adam, he knew the course of my life. Therefore, if God mad Adam and God is all knowing, I have no free will because God could have set me and everyone else on a different course if he so chose.