God and "Free Will"

[Polgara]

Regarding not being able to link:

I am fairly confident that by 35 posts you should be. Read through the Help section up top. You may just need to activate the links.

 

[bruto]

Ok. These are words to describe. (These are words that I happen to like.)

My question is this: Is there a physical entity with whom you are attributing those words? Or, is there a physical entity with which you are attributing those words?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Asked for what is conventionally meant when one describes the attributes of God, I stated what I understand it to be. I am not describing anything that is real, since I do not believe anything real possesses or can logically possess those attributes. If I did believe this, however, the entity I'd be referring would almost certainly not be considered a physical entity. It would be God.

Have I misunderstood your question, or can you put it a different way?

 

[bruto]

Made a bit of a ****ing mess of it, hasn't he? I mean, look around you, does it look like the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent and unbounded Creator? It sure doesn't to me.

Nick

I think it's a pretty nifty little universe, and if I were a god I'd consider it a pretty creditable effort, but I don't think it is the work of an omni...etc. creator at all. That's never been my contention. I thought this thread was about free will, not about whether or not there's a God who created the universe.

 

[Polgara]

Explaining the view of this argument:
"Foreknowledge equals foreordination, simply by knowing something will happen, that thing is foreordained to happen, and therefore human freedom is effectively removed. On this basis even the fall of man into sin was foreordained by God, it was necessary and pre-destined. Now, this view, however, not only removes human freedom but also rests very uncomfortably with the idea that God is not the author of sin, God is not the evil and yet on this view it would seem that by foreknowing Adam's fall into sin that God, in effect, foreordained it, that really, sin is the result of not Adam's choice, but God's choice, which I think ought to make all of us somewhat uncomfortable with this view."
Alex.

I was uncomfortable once.

Foreknowledge equals foreordination.

Previous knowledge equals predestination.

My definitions reference: www.merriam-webster.com

If I know I am about to head up to the 7/11 and grab a slurpee. I know where that 7/11 is located by previous knowledge of having learned where that store is. I know how to drive because I learned the information on the driving tests. I get in the car and drive to that 7/11 that I have chosen as predetermined coordinate that I wish to visit.

I choose to get off of this site for a while. I choose to get a slurpee at 7/11. I've learned the information necessary to facilitate this choice. I get the slurpee.

Who or what is God? Then we can look at the rest of the information. Let's define God, please.

 

[Polgara]

Theorist, William Lane Craig has put it this way and this is the point that I'm trying to make when trying to convey the apparent flaws in this argument:

Another example, which I can't be bothered transcribing is the idea of an infallible barometer. He says that "whatever the barometer says, because it's infallible, you know what the weather will be like." It's exactly in line with his arguments, the barometer does not determine the weather, it's the weather that determines the barometer.

If it's confusing, I understand but read it, it took me ages to transcribe.

Replies?
Alex.

Don't jump to considering or concluding anything about the infallible barometer yet. Start at your understanding of the first paragraph. By the time you reach the infallible barometer, you won't be so terrified.

 

[rocketdodger]

Although he exists in a world with other human beings and elements, his choices are not solely controlled by those other human beings and elements.

What else controls his choices?

 

[Polgara]

What else controls his choices?

He controls his choices.

Sometimes outside elements present possible barriers to those choices.

-------------------------------

If I choose to go get a slurpee, and I am still living in Philadelphia on a day that there was a blizzard. The blizzard would present a possible barrier to my choice to go get a slurpee.

I would find a way to get the slurpee. Maybe I couldn't drive my car because it was buried in 3 feet of snow... But I could use the knowledge that I've learned and come up with various alternative methods to reach the store that was holding my slurpee for me. e.g. walking, walking with snow shoes on, chatting up a snow plow driver to hook me up with a ride.

 

[Polgara]

Pardon me, I was too caught up with the slurpee notion.

There are elements that can alter your choice.

-----------------------------------

I was born with deformed feet. Envision Forrest Gump. There existed no knowledge that could have changed the genetic or environmental elements that could have been reasons for the birth defect. There was no knowledge at that time concerning how to alter variables like genetics or environmental elements like toxins.. That knowledge did not exist -yet. The knowledge to test a fetus or an embryo for defects was not established.

I did not have the choice, nor did my parents, to control the formation of my feet while I was an embryo or a fetus. What I know to have been possible factors for taking away the lack of choice not to be born with deformed feet, were elements regarding genetics or environment.

What we did to combat the problem of having deformed feet was:

a) purchasing and using technology like special shoes to form the arches that were missing in my foot structure,

and metal bars to keep my legs developing in proper positions;

b) continue to purchase and use shoes designed to form arches;

c) making a choice to continue to learn about what we could do to correct the problem.

 

[Polgara]

No.

The meta-behavior of a nondeterministic state machine is either deterministic or random. There is no "free will" involved.

Oh, where to begin? Meta statements are my favorite.

Correct. If you base a behavior built upon an undefined previous behavior, you have an undefined behavior with an undefined result.

Random is a result of a haphazard equation.

I decide that I want a slurpee. I don't know where to get one. What are my options? Do I blindfold myself and start walking with the hopes of finding slurpee in my hand at some point? Or do I find a source that tells me where the nearest slurpee store is, and then find a viable means to get to that slurpee store?

Will can be freely used if you learn what it is, how to use it, and choose to use it, and understand the definition(s).

You can exercise the free will to not exercise free will. -Thompsonesque Koan

 

[cyborg]

I decide that I want a slurpee.

Why?

The question is not how you plan to enact your desires, the question is why you desire something in the first place.

I don't think you really get a free choice over wanting to eat, drink or screw.

 

[Polgara]

Why?

The question is not how you plan to enact your desires, the question is why you desire something in the first place.

I don't think you really get a free choice over wanting to eat, drink or screw.

-chuckle. I am the Queen of Why. I happen to focus more now on what I am going to do.

Because I was thirsty, wanted something cold, wanted something with sugar, probably because I associate slurpees with good times, and because the store that has them is right up the street.

I wanted a slurpee. I didn't have to procure a slurpee. That is where a difference is.

Free Will: Look at the 'not solely' part in the definition.

I could have removed the desire to want a slurpee. I could have removed the decision to get a slurpee. I can reprogram myself not to want a slurpee if I think there is a want or need to not desire a slurpee.

I wanted a slurpee, because I wanted a slurpee.

 

[Polgara]

What else controls his choices?

Nothing else controls his choices. There are things that could impede his choices.

 

[Polgara]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Asked for what is conventionally meant when one describes the attributes of God, I stated what I understand it to be. I am not describing anything that is real, since I do not believe anything real possesses or can logically possess those attributes. If I did believe this, however, the entity I'd be referring would almost certainly not be considered a physical entity. It would be God.

Have I misunderstood your question, or can you put it a different way?

There is no misunderstanding regarding my question.

Attributes without a physical person or thing associated with them is an idea or a concept, not a real thing.

 

[bruto]

There is no misunderstanding regarding my question.

Attributes without a physical person or thing associated with them is an idea or a concept, not a real thing.[/QUOTE

This part of the discussion stems from the question of how God is defined. There are certain qualities, attributes, or whatever you want to call them, that most people who believe in God consider a part of the definition. The fact that there is no God or that those attributes are logically impossible does not change that, does it?

I don't happen to think that there is a God, at least in the sense usually thought of, nor that the attributes usually associated with that sort of God are possible or logically tenable, but I don't see why that should make the discussion impossible as well. Is there some catch 22 that says that a transcendent being cannot have attributes, or, to put it another way, that an imagined being cannot have imagined attributes that we can define and understand enough to discuss meaningfully? If that is the case, then the entire discussion should not be entered, because you have determined its outcome in advance, and you'll be unable to grant even meaning, much less actual consideration, to any response but your own.

 

[porch]

I agree with regards to a string of deterministic processes. I also agree that we have free will with regards to the directions those incremental processes take.

Let's play a game. You name any action a human could make. Then I ask, "What caused that?" For any answer you give, I'll ask, "And what caused that?" I'll just keep repeating that question for every subsequent response. You can just play it out in your head. Tell me when you get to the point that the string of deterministic processes has been broken.

 

[Polgara]

Let's play a game. You name any action a human could make. Then I ask, "What caused that?" For any answer you give, I'll ask, "And what caused that?" I'll just keep repeating that question for every subsequent response. You can just play it out in your head. Tell me when you get to the point that the string of deterministic processes has been broken.

I played that game. I no longer play it. I work with what I know at a given point in time. I test what I know whether it is verifiable or not. I then make decisions based upon what I know.

I happen to be an agnostic-athiest. I do not 'know' that a god exists because I have no evidence of a god.

The Tooth Fairy has not presented himself upon my lap.

 

[Polgara]

There is no misunderstanding regarding my question.

Attributes without a physical person or thing associated with them is an idea or a concept, not a real thing.[/QUOTE

This part of the discussion stems from the question of how God is defined. There are certain qualities, attributes, or whatever you want to call them, that most people who believe in God consider a part of the definition. The fact that there is no God or that those attributes are logically impossible does not change that, does it?

Nope. It apparently does not for some people.

[I don't happen to think that there is a God, at least in the sense usually thought of, nor that the attributes usually associated with that sort of God are possible or logically tenable, but I don't see why that should make the discussion impossible as well. Is there some catch 22 that says that a transcendent being cannot have attributes, or, to put it another way, that an imagined being cannot have imagined attributes that we can define and understand enough to discuss meaningfully? If that is the case, then the entire discussion should not be entered, because you have determined its outcome in advance, and you'll be unable to grant even meaning, much less actual consideration, to any response but your own.

I don't care what the definition of god is to whomever. A point here is that if you are trying to figure out an equation you have to define a starting point. If the starting point is god, in that god does or does not allow someone to have free will, one has to define god and present god as tangible.

 

[porch]

I played that game. I no longer play it. I work with what I know at a given point in time. I test what I know whether it is verifiable or not. I then make decisions based upon what I know.

I happen to be an agnostic-athiest. I do not 'know' that a god exists because I have no evidence of a god.

The Tooth Fairy has not presented himself upon my lap.

You likewise don't know "that we have free will with regards to the directions those incremental [deterministic] processes take".

Enjoy your slurpee.

 

[Polgara]

You likewise don't know "that we have free will with regards to the directions those incremental [deterministic] processes take".

Enjoy your slurpee.

In the words of Britney Spears: 'Ding dang.'

 

[Polgara]

You likewise don't know "that we have free will with regards to the directions those incremental [deterministic] processes take".

Enjoy your slurpee.

What I know is that each thought that I have is based upon the experiences that I have had. There is no entity outside of my 'self' that is inserting those thoughts or experiences.

If I think I want a slurpee, it is because I had experiences involving slurpees and because I have reasons for wanting the slurpee. It is not because an artificial thing or someone put the want of the slurpee in my head.

I can prove this on a daily basis, by keeping records of my experiences. I can keep records by writing them down, incorporating witnesses and by recording images like pictures.

Even if there were an entity, say a little green man, telling me to 'go get a slurpee', I do not have to do it. I would not have to listen to the little green man telling me to go get a slurpee, even if the little green man had a big ray gun pointed at me.

:The slurpee was enjoyed thoroughly. heh.: