[quote]forlife wrote:
Mse2us, I appreciate your post. Your answer seems to be that god is benevolent, so he couldn’t possibly be omniscient and omnipotent. I agree they’re incompatible, but am surprised you believe this.
If god chooses not to know everything, he is by definition not omniscient.
[/quote]
Having it and using it are two different things. If I am naturally a talented basketball player, but I choose to be an accountant, it does not mean I am not a naturally talented basketball player…I just chose not to use it.
If I can shoot lightning bolts out of my asshole and I chose not to does not mean I cannot shoot lightening bolts out of my asshole. I just chose not to.
[quote]
So just to confirm: you believe god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent?[/quote]
Wouldn’t omnipotence be able to over come the inherent problems of omniscience?[/quote]
Having the potential to know everything is different from actually knowing everything.
Omniscience is actually knowing everything. Unless you know everything, you’re not omniscient.[/quote]
I am not talking about potential, I am talking about having it and not using it. If I choose not to drive my Ferarri, it doesn’t mean I don’t own one (I don’t BTW). Not shooting a gun doesn’t mean I do not posses it.
Just because he has the knowledge doesn’t mean he is using it.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< but I am not able to square it with my gut. >>>[/quote]Neither can I. Thank God my gut (or yours) is not the standard. God is the standard [quote]Cortes wrote:This has far less to do with my Catholicism, per se, as it does with my sense of right and wrong and what should and should not be. >>>[/quote]This right here is a strobing neon illustration of exactly one of the main points I’ve been making about Catholicism forever. You just declared your divorce of what you are calling your conviction of a supposedly infinite, holy and powerful God from “my sense of right and wrong and what should and should not be.” Don’t you see that? There is your catholicism AND “my sense of right and wrong and what should and should not be”.
For me it is unthinkable that those could ever be compartmentalized like that. My sense of right and wrong and what should and should not be is… IS my relationship with the living Word of God in my heart testifying to the written word in my hands. [quote]Cortes wrote: <<< but I am going to have to say that what Pat and Chris and yes, forlife, are saying seems far more likely to me than what you are suggesting. >>>[/quote]Here again. Two Catholics and an open Christ denying practicing homosexual in the same sentence as spiritual, intellectual and moral allies for you? This is what the God you believe in has for you? Think with me man. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. [quote]4-You adulterous people Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. [/quote]James 4:4 You don’t think that sharing the foundational governing world view of flaming pagans is spiritual adultery? [quote]Cortes wrote: At first I thought perhaps you were suggesting a paradox, >>>[/quote]Of course it’s a paradox. We are in this conversation, or at least I am, talking about the ultimate supremacy of God almighty. I wasn’t around in eternity when the Word clearly states I WAS CHOSEN BY HIM. How do you respond to my post in the other thread with the long quote from the book of Ephesians? [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< but on further exploration I am no longer even finding as much of that as I am the suggestion that we don’t have ANY control over ANY of this. No choice in the matter. Honestly to me your arguments as I understand them sound like theist determinism, a very complete, wholly uncompromising determinism. And I just can’t see the point in it all, if that is the case. Indeed, hearing such fatalism from the mouth of a Christian is practically outside the realm of my imagination. [/quote]Fatalism is the diametric opposite of the Christian doctrine of divine providence. What will be will be is a declaration of blind fate. Divine providence is the intelligent ordering of all that is by a blessed holy God to the praise of his awesome glory. Remember the declaration of independence? “with a firm reliance on divine providence?.” I don’t have all the answers and never will. This I absolutely DO know. Any view of the human will that credits to it the ability to thwart the ultimate will of God is an affront to His majesty and power. Any person He ultimately desires to save who winds up in hell is mightier than God. NO WAY!!![quote]Cortes wrote: Still thinking about this but unfortunately family from the states came today and it’s going to be very hard to get here over the next few days. Either way, I’m not leaving this time. Still interested in exploring this.
[/quote]fair enough.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mse2us, I appreciate your post. Your answer seems to be that god is benevolent, so he couldn’t possibly be omniscient and omnipotent. I agree they’re incompatible, but am surprised you believe this.
If god chooses not to know everything, he is by definition not omniscient.
[/quote]
Having it and using it are two different things. If I am naturally a talented basketball player, but I choose to be an accountant, it does not mean I am not a naturally talented basketball player…I just chose not to use it.
If I can shoot lightning bolts out of my asshole and I chose not to does not mean I cannot shoot lightening bolts out of my asshole. I just chose not to.
[quote]
So just to confirm: you believe god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent?[/quote]
Wouldn’t omnipotence be able to over come the inherent problems of omniscience?[/quote]
Having the potential to know everything is different from actually knowing everything.
Omniscience is actually knowing everything. Unless you know everything, you’re not omniscient.[/quote]
Pat was right on with his reply to your comment to me. Like I said in my first post, God has the power to know everything but scriptural evidence shows that he does not always choose to do so. Just because God chooses not to use this power does not mean he’s not omniscient. God has more than just potential which is something that is possible but may not be fully developed or realized. God has used this ability with the dozens of prophecies that are stated in the Bible, since the Bible shows that God has exercised this ability many times before shows that he is omniscient. But again there are dozens of clear examples that show God does not always choose to know the outcome of a situation. Again, if you look at what God said to Abraham when he was about to sacrifice Abraham the passage is clear that in this instance he chose not to foreknow what Abraham would do. God said “Now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son.” If God already knew the outcome, the above statement would be a lie. Another example that shows God doesn’t always exercise the power of foreknowledge is when God decided to destroy the wicked in Noah’s day. The passage at Genesis 6:6,7 states:
“Jehovah felt regrets that he had made men in the earth, and he felt hurt at his heart. So Jehovah said: ‘I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground. . . because I do regret that I have made them.’”
This indicates that man’s actions are not predestined by God and that he does not always use his power to foreknow. God felt regret, grief, and even hurt, not because his own actions were mistaken, but because man’s wickedness became so abundant. God regretted that it had become necessary to destroy all mankind except Noah and his family.
The only information about God is what’s stated in the Bible. The fact that there are numerous clear scriptures that shows God does not always choose to know the outcome trumps any speculation that God knows all of the future events of everything and every individual to the minutes of details. That view is not stated or taught in the Bible. Believing this is speculation at best.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:<<< least likely scenario >>>Contingent beings are subject to “likelihood” Pat. That’s Aquinas’s currency. I (and God) deal only in sovereign certainty. His.
[/quote]
How do you know this that the predetermination/ freewill paradox is THE sovereign certainty? This is an extra-scriptural tenet derived by the minds of men, none claiming divine inspiration.
Further, it is likely that Calvin stole this idea from Aquinas and took it a bit further in the sense of divine election and damnation. Where as Aquinas merely wrestled with the reconciliation between omniscience and freewill, Calvin developed it quite a bit, all the while never knowing if it was actually right.
It’s the least likely scenario because for freewill to count at all it has to be, well totally free. In the paradox, that is not the case. The paradox perpetuates and complicates the problem, it does nothing to solve it. The price of being wrong is to high to take such a chance.
Further, it is errant because you can only dissolve into paradoxes when no other solutions are available. There are many ways to solve the issue with out resorting to paradox.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mse2us, I appreciate your post. Your answer seems to be that god is benevolent, so he couldn’t possibly be omniscient and omnipotent. I agree they’re incompatible, but am surprised you believe this.
If god chooses not to know everything, he is by definition not omniscient.
[/quote]
Having it and using it are two different things. If I am naturally a talented basketball player, but I choose to be an accountant, it does not mean I am not a naturally talented basketball player…I just chose not to use it.
If I can shoot lightning bolts out of my asshole and I chose not to does not mean I cannot shoot lightening bolts out of my asshole. I just chose not to.
It’s also further evidenced by God finding the need to ‘pop in’ and correct course when things don’t go according to plan.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:<<< least likely scenario >>>Contingent beings are subject to “likelihood” Pat. That’s Aquinas’s currency. I (and God) deal only in sovereign certainty. His.
[/quote]
How do you know this that the predetermination/ freewill paradox is THE sovereign certainty? This is an extra-scriptural tenet derived by the minds of men, none claiming divine inspiration.
Further, it is likely that Calvin stole this idea from Aquinas and took it a bit further in the sense of divine election and damnation. Where as Aquinas merely wrestled with the reconciliation between omniscience and freewill, Calvin developed it quite a bit, all the while never knowing if it was actually right.
It’s the least likely scenario because for freewill to count at all it has to be, well totally free. In the paradox, that is not the case. The paradox perpetuates and complicates the problem, it does nothing to solve it. The price of being wrong is to high to take such a chance.
Further, it is errant because you can only dissolve into paradoxes when no other solutions are available. There are many ways to solve the issue with out resorting to paradox.[/quote]No, it is the inescapable (not that I would want to escape it) sum of the declaration of holy scripture when God is allowed to reign. That’s where Calvin Got it with some help from Augustine which he plainly declared. If only you could find time to read the “Institutes” Pat. Seriously. You may never agree with Calvin, but you would respect him. I promise you that. Or even his commentary on Romans. Your hair would stand on end witnessing his handling of holy writ.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.
So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:
Where does free will originate?
[/quote]
Originate? In a temporal sense it didn’t, it has always existed as it is a metaphysical entity. Running regression on it in a contingency line, as everything it originated with the Uncaused-cause. But freewill’s contingency lies with consciousness.
But I don’t know really.
Unless you are asking from a religious perspective then I can propose that the ultimate conscious being, God created it�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦
I see no paradox at all. Material determinism requires physical existence. Freewill, not having a physical countenance, is not bound by the rules and laws that govern physical matter. Choice is the master of freewill, not matter or physical laws.
Very happy to have you join this discussion, Pat, you were one of the posters I sincerely hoped would drop by.
Really good stuff here. I’m still digesting much of it. I’ve tried responding twice now and kept deleting and retyping and finally figured out that I need to let what you’ve said set in a bit before trying to work with it.
In the meantime, would you mind explaining your answer to question 2 just a bit further?
[/quote]
Crap, I don’t have a lot of time to dive into it…I’ll get back to you.
[quote]talldude wrote:
This argument is based on the premise that you cannot think. We have logic and reasoning ability. We have the ability to choose from a variety of responses. You have to have lived in a bubble if there’s never been a situation in which you DOUBTED yourself and what you should do. If every action was simply the result of “the way you are” then there would be no doubt, and no choice.[/quote]
You’re not getting it.
Determinism means that all the choices & actions that you make (including doubting yourself) are part of a causal chain of events. You might experience the subjective feeling of free will in the decisions you make, but this doesn’t mean that free will actually exists.
For free will to exist, your decision to make a particular action must be separate from the chain of cause & effect.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.
So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:
Where does free will originate?
How does one resolve the paradox of free will within a seemingly deterministic universe (if one is atheist), or its existence in a universe every subatomic particle of which has been created by an omniscient, omnipotent God?
And as a bonus, related offshoots and issues as well as attempts to answer why it exists at all are more than welcome.
I understand the question has been touched upon in this thread and that, and I apologize if I missed it, but at the time of this writing I cannot find a dedicated thread covering this particular topic.
So, have at it. [/quote]
I think it was Hume who summed up all the arguments best: “All reason in favor of it, all experience against it.”
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Tirib, at the risk of muddying up our own discussion, would you agree with what is written here? >>>[/quote]Absolutely not. There is a hermeneutics issue here I went over a while back that I’ll see if I can find. If not I’ll type it again as soon as I can. In short? God interprets man and not vice versa. What this guy just said is a classic example of forcing God into conformity to man. The absolute theocentric God statements of the bible govern the contingent anthrocentric man statements, never the other way around.
Example: It is crystal clear that the Word of God says that God predestines and is in control of everything. I can post a wall demonstrating that very thing. Old and new testament. That is an absolute statement of eternal divine truth that governs all else we may find. So when a passage is found that seemingly states that God wants everybody to be saved for instance, we already know that whatever that means the absolute description of God we already have cannot be compromised. Every statement describing man is seen in the light of what we assume beforehand about God from what we’ve seen the bible say about Him.
The alternative is to make the man centered statements and hence man Himself interpret God. That is “No matter what it says God cannot predestine because of what some passage says about man”. I reject that. I reject it with my whole heart and mind while there’s breath in my lungs and light in my eyes. God interprets EVERYTHING and especially man. Not the other way around.
[/quote]Your wrong when you say that man can’t interprete God. No where in the Bible is anything like this stated. It’s the exact opposite, the bible is the only thing we have available to us so that we can get to know God. His thoughts, feeling, likes and dislikes are recorded in the bible so that we can have a better understanding of God and get to know him. James 4:8 states that we should “draw close to Jehovah.” How could we possible draw close to Jehovah if we can’t understand him? At Psalm 25:14 and Proverbs 32:3 we’re even encouraged to gain intimacy with God. Furthermore, we have the mind of Jesus who is the image of God that we’re are supposed to get to know and imitate. The only thing the bible states in regards to understanding God is that we will never be able to fully understand God because his thinking is so much higher than ours.
What humans shouldn’t do is judge God by human standards based on specific things he does in the Bible like when he killed Uzzah for touching the Ark. That’s because as humans we don’t have the complete picture nor can we read hearts like God can. And as imperfect humans we have a limited view and understanding.
Forcing God into the conformity of man? I can say the exact same thing about what you believe. Your view is that since God is omnipotent then he must know all events including past, present and future and be in control of these events down to the minutest detail. And to not know all events past, present and future and to not be in control of these events down to the minutest detail would mean that he is not omnipotent and evidence of imperfection on God’s part. This thinking is an arbitrary view of perfection and omnipotence. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect. There’s no denying that God’s almightiness is perfect and infinite in capacity. Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; because if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been destroyed long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy. God uses his power to foresee, foreordain and to foreknow where he sees fit.
You say that predestination is crystal clear in the Bible. If it is, provide scriptures to prove this. It doesn’t have to be a wall of text either.
I see that you quoted Ephesians chapter 1 in one of your post. I’ll respond directly to that reply.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:<<< least likely scenario >>>Contingent beings are subject to “likelihood” Pat. That’s Aquinas’s currency. I (and God) deal only in sovereign certainty. His.
[/quote]
How do you know this that the predetermination/ freewill paradox is THE sovereign certainty? This is an extra-scriptural tenet derived by the minds of men, none claiming divine inspiration.
Further, it is likely that Calvin stole this idea from Aquinas and took it a bit further in the sense of divine election and damnation. Where as Aquinas merely wrestled with the reconciliation between omniscience and freewill, Calvin developed it quite a bit, all the while never knowing if it was actually right.
It’s the least likely scenario because for freewill to count at all it has to be, well totally free. In the paradox, that is not the case. The paradox perpetuates and complicates the problem, it does nothing to solve it. The price of being wrong is to high to take such a chance.
Further, it is errant because you can only dissolve into paradoxes when no other solutions are available. There are many ways to solve the issue with out resorting to paradox.[/quote]No, it is the inescapable (not that I would want to escape it) sum of the declaration of holy scripture when God is allowed to reign. That’s where Calvin Got it with some help from Augustine which he plainly declared. If only you could find time to read the “Institutes” Pat. Seriously. You may never agree with Calvin, but you would respect him. I promise you that. Or even his commentary on Romans. Your hair would stand on end witnessing his handling of holy writ.
[/quote]
I seriously doubt that I would find any affinity towards Calvin since I find his tenets so inescapably flawed and dissolved by the scripture he claimed to get it from. I read the same book, with out bias or agenda and I saw nothing of what Calvin speaks. Divine election? No. Does not exist.
With in the context in which the scripture is written, predetermination is not declared, at all.
This idea came from man, not God.
Where does Calvin go wrong? He simply assumed to much. He claims to know something about God that was not revealed and built a faith modus with out the benefit of divine revelation. Plain and simple.
Can God do anything? Sure. Could there be other factors involved besides omniscience and freewill that we haven’t though of? An infinite amount of possibilities exist here.
As for Romans, I really, really don’t see how he got that from that epistle. As far as I saw, it did more to damage his tenets than support them.
Pick some and we can discuss.
I wounld expect me to read the ‘Institutes’ any time soon, any more that you’d pick up the ‘City of God’.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.
So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:
Where does free will originate?
How does one resolve the paradox of free will within a seemingly deterministic universe (if one is atheist), or its existence in a universe every subatomic particle of which has been created by an omniscient, omnipotent God?
And as a bonus, related offshoots and issues as well as attempts to answer why it exists at all are more than welcome.
I understand the question has been touched upon in this thread and that, and I apologize if I missed it, but at the time of this writing I cannot find a dedicated thread covering this particular topic.
So, have at it. [/quote]
I think it was Hume who summed up all the arguments best: “All reason in favor of it, all experience against it.”[/quote]
Awesome quote…Hume was always one of my favorites. He always seems to paint himself in to a corner, but he was always honest about it. He let the logic lead, which is why I like him.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Tirib, at the risk of muddying up our own discussion, would you agree with what is written here? >>>[/quote]Absolutely not. There is a hermeneutics issue here I went over a while back that I’ll see if I can find. If not I’ll type it again as soon as I can. In short? God interprets man and not vice versa. What this guy just said is a classic example of forcing God into conformity to man. The absolute theocentric God statements of the bible govern the contingent anthrocentric man statements, never the other way around.
Example: It is crystal clear that the Word of God says that God predestines and is in control of everything. I can post a wall demonstrating that very thing. Old and new testament. That is an absolute statement of eternal divine truth that governs all else we may find. So when a passage is found that seemingly states that God wants everybody to be saved for instance, we already know that whatever that means the absolute description of God we already have cannot be compromised. Every statement describing man is seen in the light of what we assume beforehand about God from what we’ve seen the bible say about Him.
The alternative is to make the man centered statements and hence man Himself interpret God. That is “No matter what it says God cannot predestine because of what some passage says about man”. I reject that. I reject it with my whole heart and mind while there’s breath in my lungs and light in my eyes. God interprets EVERYTHING and especially man. Not the other way around.
[/quote]Your wrong when you say that man can’t interprete God. No where in the Bible is anything like this stated. It’s the exact opposite, the bible is the only thing we have available to us so that we can get to know God. His thoughts, feeling, likes and dislikes are recorded in the bible so that we can have a better understanding of God and get to know him. James 4:8 states that we should “draw close to Jehovah.” How could we possible draw close to Jehovah if we can’t understand him? At Psalm 25:14 and Proverbs 32:3 we’re even encouraged to gain intimacy with God. Furthermore, we have the mind of Jesus who is the image of God that we’re are supposed to get to know and imitate. The only thing the bible states in regards to understanding God is that we will never be able to fully understand God because his thinking is so much higher than ours.
What humans shouldn’t do is judge God by human standards based on specific things he does in the Bible like when he killed Uzzah for touching the Ark. That’s because as humans we don’t have the complete picture nor can we read hearts like God can. And as imperfect humans we have a limited view and understanding.
Forcing God into the conformity of man? I can say the exact same thing about what you believe. Your view is that since God is omnipotent then he must know all events including past, present and future and be in control of these events down to the minutest detail. And to not know all events past, present and future and to not be in control of these events down to the minutest detail would mean that he is not omnipotent and evidence of imperfection on God’s part. This thinking is an arbitrary view of perfection and omnipotence. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect. There’s no denying that God’s almightiness is perfect and infinite in capacity. Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; because if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been destroyed long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy. God uses his power to foresee, foreordain and to foreknow where he sees fit.
You say that predestination is crystal clear in the Bible. If it is, provide scriptures to prove this. It doesn’t have to be a wall of text either.
I see that you quoted Ephesians chapter 1 in one of your post. I’ll respond directly to that reply.
[/quote]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.
So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:
Where does free will originate?
[/quote]
Originate? In a temporal sense it didn’t, it has always existed as it is a metaphysical entity. Running regression on it in a contingency line, as everything it originated with the Uncaused-cause. But freewill’s contingency lies with consciousness.
But I don’t know really.
Unless you are asking from a religious perspective then I can propose that the ultimate conscious being, God created it�??�??�?�¢?�??�??�?�¦
I see no paradox at all. Material determinism requires physical existence. Freewill, not having a physical countenance, is not bound by the rules and laws that govern physical matter. Choice is the master of freewill, not matter or physical laws.
Very happy to have you join this discussion, Pat, you were one of the posters I sincerely hoped would drop by.
Really good stuff here. I’m still digesting much of it. I’ve tried responding twice now and kept deleting and retyping and finally figured out that I need to let what you’ve said set in a bit before trying to work with it.
In the meantime, would you mind explaining your answer to question 2 just a bit further?
[/quote]
Crap, I don’t have a lot of time to dive into it…I’ll get back to you.
[/quote]
Ok, so now I can answer this.
Our freewill does not have the capacity to change anything about the physical universe. I am not saying that we cannot move things, burn them, melt them, etc. What I mean is we cannot change the way matter and energy work. We cannot will electrons to stop moving or lose their charge. Our will is limited by the power to execute. Our ability to execute our will cannot does not change the way things are. We only have the power to choose in a limited space.
What makes freewill a free will, is that given the choice between two or more options, that no matter what we choose, we could have always chosen different. But it still makes no difference in the larger scheme of all existence. That shit still goes on despite our choices.
If you think about it, we don’t have a lot of control and most of our ‘choices’ tend to be moral /ethical things. It isn’t that material things aren’t involved, but the reason for said choices aren’t material. For instance, you have a family, you can buy a motorcycle or a minivan and you pick one…Technically, one is the ‘right’ thing to do, one is not. The choice is material, the impact is ethical. BUT no matter what you choose it does not change the way the universe works, nor the function of a single subatomic particle.
I have been flirting with a far fetched idea based on String Theory and it’s variants. Most posit 10/ 11 dimensional space /time. This has caused some theoretical physicists to postulate multi-verses sitting side by side, being near copies of what we recognize as ‘the universe’. And when I mean side by side, we’re talking a tiny shift in atomic subspace. What they can’t figure is how to ‘get to’ these alternate universes.
So this is already pretty crazy stuff, but my far fetched idea is based on this being right. Instead of getting ‘there’ through some scientific experiment, what if we shift universe based on our choices?
For instance, you have a choice between ‘a’ and ‘b’ Choosing ‘a’ keeps you in your current, uh, ‘verse’ (say verse a) and choosing ‘b’ shifts you to another (verse b). In this scenario, both universes actually keep on trucking and both play out the respective decision you made, but you are only aware of the one ‘verse’ you chose, based on the decision you made. So if you chose ‘b’ your only aware of ‘verse b’, but ‘verse a’ still exists, but you are not aware of it anymore. So, in short, its not a decision between two things, but a rather a choice of conscious awareness, which ‘verse’ you decided to be conscious of.
I don’t know, really. It’s another way of looking at things and melding the stuff of theoretical physics with the metaphysical consequences of choice.
[quote]talldude wrote:
This argument is based on the premise that you cannot think. We have logic and reasoning ability. We have the ability to choose from a variety of responses. You have to have lived in a bubble if there’s never been a situation in which you DOUBTED yourself and what you should do. If every action was simply the result of “the way you are” then there would be no doubt, and no choice.[/quote]
You’re not getting it.
Determinism means that all the choices & actions that you make (including doubting yourself) are part of a causal chain of events. You might experience the subjective feeling of free will in the decisions you make, but this doesn’t mean that free will actually exists.
For free will to exist, your decision to make a particular action must be separate from the chain of cause & effect.[/quote]
Actually I see choices as causal events and that leading up to them aseffects in the causal chain. Like a fork in the road of causation…
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Where does Calvin go wrong? He simply assumed to much. He claims to know something about God that was not revealed and built a faith modus with out the benefit of divine revelation. Plain and simple. >>>[/quote]Precisely the opposite. Calvin let the scriptures talk to him under the influence of the Holy Spirit so as to uncover the purest expression of the gospel of the grace of the living Christ seen in a millennium and a half. It was the most accepted in the American colonies and all the way up until the decline of the country in the 20th century.[quote]pat wrote:<<< I wounld expect me to read the ‘Institutes’ any time soon, any more that you’d pick up the ‘City of God’.[/quote]I once owned and read Augustine’s “City of God”, along with his confessions and several of his shorter works. I have read Aquinas’s “Summa Theologica” as I’ve told you along with more Watchtower literature than this young man ever dreamed on seeing in his life. Actually you would be quite disappointed if you saw what Augustine said about predestination, election and depravity. You’d think you were reading me.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.
So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:
Where does free will originate?
[/quote]
Originate? In a temporal sense it didn’t, it has always existed as it is a metaphysical entity. Running regression on it in a contingency line, as everything it originated with the Uncaused-cause. But freewill’s contingency lies with consciousness.
But I don’t know really.
Unless you are asking from a religious perspective then I can propose that the ultimate conscious being, God created it�??�??�??�?�¢?�??�??�??�?�¦
I see no paradox at all. Material determinism requires physical existence. Freewill, not having a physical countenance, is not bound by the rules and laws that govern physical matter. Choice is the master of freewill, not matter or physical laws.
Very happy to have you join this discussion, Pat, you were one of the posters I sincerely hoped would drop by.
Really good stuff here. I’m still digesting much of it. I’ve tried responding twice now and kept deleting and retyping and finally figured out that I need to let what you’ve said set in a bit before trying to work with it.
In the meantime, would you mind explaining your answer to question 2 just a bit further?
[/quote]
Crap, I don’t have a lot of time to dive into it…I’ll get back to you.
[/quote]
Ok, so now I can answer this.
Our freewill does not have the capacity to change anything about the physical universe. I am not saying that we cannot move things, burn them, melt them, etc. What I mean is we cannot change the way matter and energy work. We cannot will electrons to stop moving or lose their charge. Our will is limited by the power to execute. Our ability to execute our will cannot does not change the way things are. We only have the power to choose in a limited space.
What makes freewill a free will, is that given the choice between two or more options, that no matter what we choose, we could have always chosen different. But it still makes no difference in the larger scheme of all existence. That shit still goes on despite our choices.
If you think about it, we don’t have a lot of control and most of our ‘choices’ tend to be moral /ethical things. It isn’t that material things aren’t involved, but the reason for said choices aren’t material. For instance, you have a family, you can buy a motorcycle or a minivan and you pick one…Technically, one is the ‘right’ thing to do, one is not. The choice is material, the impact is ethical. BUT no matter what you choose it does not change the way the universe works, nor the function of a single subatomic particle.
I have been flirting with a far fetched idea based on String Theory and it’s variants. Most posit 10/ 11 dimensional space /time. This has caused some theoretical physicists to postulate multi-verses sitting side by side, being near copies of what we recognize as ‘the universe’. And when I mean side by side, we’re talking a tiny shift in atomic subspace. What they can’t figure is how to ‘get to’ these alternate universes.
So this is already pretty crazy stuff, but my far fetched idea is based on this being right. Instead of getting ‘there’ through some scientific experiment, what if we shift universe based on our choices?
For instance, you have a choice between ‘a’ and ‘b’ Choosing ‘a’ keeps you in your current, uh, ‘verse’ (say verse a) and choosing ‘b’ shifts you to another (verse b). In this scenario, both universes actually keep on trucking and both play out the respective decision you made, but you are only aware of the one ‘verse’ you chose, based on the decision you made. So if you chose ‘b’ your only aware of ‘verse b’, but ‘verse a’ still exists, but you are not aware of it anymore. So, in short, its not a decision between two things, but a rather a choice of conscious awareness, which ‘verse’ you decided to be conscious of.
I don’t know, really. It’s another way of looking at things and melding the stuff of theoretical physics with the metaphysical consequences of choice.[/quote]
If multiple universes exist, reflecting every choice that could have been made, there is no free will. That reality would mean all choices were made, rather than one choice being made and another choice not being made. By your own definition, free will would only be an illusion carried by the consciousness in that particular choice universe.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Where does Calvin go wrong? He simply assumed to much. He claims to know something about God that was not revealed and built a faith modus with out the benefit of divine revelation. Plain and simple. >>>[/quote]Precisely the opposite. Calvin let the scriptures talk to him under the influence of the Holy Spirit so as to uncover the purest expression of the gospel of the grace of the living Christ seen in a millennium and a half. It was the most accepted in the American colonies and all the way up until the decline of the country in the 20th century.[quote]pat wrote:<<< I wounld expect me to read the ‘Institutes’ any time soon, any more that you’d pick up the ‘City of God’.[/quote]I once owned and read Augustine’s “City of God”, along with his confessions and several of his shorter works. I have read Aquinas’s “Summa Theologica” as I’ve told you along with more Watchtower literature than this young man ever dreamed on seeing in his life. Actually you would be quite disappointed if you saw what Augustine said about predestination, election and depravity. You’d think you were reading me.
[/quote]
Which begs the question why it took the Holy Spirit 1500 years to reveal such a pivotal doctrine, rather than allowing men to wallow in ignorance all that time. Maybe he was taking a well deserved vacation?
Nah, Augustine taught it back in the 4th century and Jesus told us all about it. Paul had it all over his writings as did Isaiah, Ezekiel, Solomon and David among others.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Nah, Augustine taught it back in the 4th century and Jesus told us all about it. Paul had it all over his writings as did Isaiah, Ezekiel, Solomon and David among others. [/quote]
As opposed to the hundreds of scriptures calling all men to repentance, freely offering the grace of god to all, and expressing god’s will that all would accept his grace and live, which collectively swamp Calvin’s cherry picked citations on predestination, completely out of context from this ocean of god’s infinite grace?