What God Wants

[Orang Jawa]

It has been people who did act on what they understood about God who have caused many of our biggest problems.
1. It's people who thought they knew what God wants who created the 200 years of the Christian Crussades and the horrors of the Inquisition, seeking to win the world for Christianity.
2. It's people who thught they knew What God Wants who told armies of Muslims to send marauders far and wide to conquer every land and culture and bring it under the Nation of Islam.
3. It's people who thought they knew What God Wants who called themsleves the Choosen people and reclaimed land they declared to be originally their own, ignoring the fact that history had caused it to be inhibited for thousands years by others, and telling those others to now leave portions of that land, to live where and how they are told to live, as second-class citizens without equal rights in their own house.
4. It's people who thought the knew What God Wants who hanged men and women in town squires, and burned others at the stake, holding up the Good Book and declaring them to be witches.
5. It's people who thought the knew What God Wants who passed laws making it illegal for humans of differing races to marry, or for consenting adults to engage in certain sexual practices.
6. It's people who thought they knew What God Wants who created cultural prohibitions forbidding people to sing or dance, draw pictures of any person, or play music or any kind except sacred song.
7. It's people who thought they knew What God Wants who said pro choice is a baby killers but its okay to drop a bomb and kills Young men, Young women, children, and the old in the name of God.
Ask yourselves, is all of this What God Wants?
Tristan

[dianhsuhe]

There is no question in there...

[BloodWolf806]

God wants you to be you. He wants you to have free will, otherwise he wouldn't have given it to you. Forget what hardlined religious fanatics tell you.

[Shrukin89]

I think that people in some cultures are frightened about God. That they think they could come up with a practice to preach upon to get good faith, wealth, well known all over, and etc all ways that come up with a positive outcome that they think that God wants it to be that way.


And BloodWolf806 is right. You are you. You have your free choices to make. Believe in what you want to be in. God didn't make us slaves in to what we are supposed to do, as in not forced.

So yeah... Just live life the way you are :) You'll carry onwards.

[Poop-Loops]

God wants you to be you. He wants you to have free will, otherwise he wouldn't have given it to you. Forget what hardlined religious fanatics tell you.

I guess I'll have to start posting this in every thread now...

1) God is omnipotent.

2) God gave humans free will.

Q: If God gave humans free will, can he see our futures?

A: If he can see our futures, then it is not free will. If he cannot see our futures, he is not omnipotent. Worshipping an omnipotent god? Sure, just don't keep saying you are omnipotent. Kinda "lying", you know.

3) God sents bad people to hell.

Q: If God knows who is bad befoe they are even born, does he knowingly create people just to send them to hell?

A: I don't see any other posibility. God lets people be born just so they fry when they die. Love? In BIZARRO WORLD!

[firecoins]

god wants an all beef kosher hot dog. with mustard and sourkraut

[Poop-Loops]

god wants an all beef kosher hot dog. with mustard and sourkraut

But he's on a diet.

[Capt Ann]

1) God is omnipotent.

2) God gave humans free will.

Q: If God gave humans free will, can he see our futures?Right so far!

A: If he can see our futures, then it is not free will. That last step is a nonsequitur. Here's the best example I've encountered to illustrate: suppose you want to watch the Superbowl, but know you have to work on Sunday evening. So you set TiVo to record it for you. You get back home to watch it. Every action of every player was freely chosen, but the outcome of that tape is completely foreseeable and unchangeable. If I saw the game already, then I can foresee the outcome of that recording, even though the humans in it have complete free will.

The ability to 'will' does not mean you have the ability to choose the consequences of your actions. (I may 'want' to fly, but I have little control over the consequences of choosing to jump off a tall building.) There are also things that you can 'will' to do (desire to do/want to do) that you are withheld from doing (by circumstance, opportunity, ability, divine intervention). To 'will' (desire and choose) are really the only complete freedoms you have. That is why the person who hates ('wills' harm to another) but is withheld from harming another (by lack of opportunity, sense of guilt, shame, inability) is just as guilty as the person who actually harms/murders another - lacking opportunity/ability may change the consequences of your choice, but certainly doesn't lessen the guilt of it.


3) God sents bad people to hell.Don't assume this is exactly so. There are several whole threads and miles of theological debate on this one sentence alone. I don't think you have this one fully 'tied down'.

Q: If God knows who is bad befoe they are even born, does he knowingly create people just to send them to hell?Not 'who is bad' but 'how they will choose'. Still, the end result is that God created some people knowing that they would refuse the opportunity to return to Him. I consider this the most difficult question in all Christianity. I think this question was what led Origin (3rd-4th century church writer) to his beliefs. At the very least, I would say the question shows that God values our free will far more than we do.

[Poop-Loops]

Right so far!

That last step is a nonsequitur. Here's the best example I've encountered to illustrate: suppose you want to watch the Superbowl, but know you have to work on Sunday evening. So you set TiVo to record it for you. You get back home to watch it. Every action of every player was freely chosen, but the outcome of that tape is completely foreseeable and unchangeable. If I saw the game already, then I can foresee the outcome of that recording, even though the humans in it have complete free will.

The ability to 'will' does not mean you have the ability to choose the consequences of your actions. (I may 'want' to fly, but I have little control over the consequences of choosing to jump off a tall building.) There are also things that you can 'will' to do (desire to do/want to do) that you are withheld from doing (by circumstance, opportunity, ability, divine intervention). To 'will' (desire and choose) are really the only complete freedoms you have. That is why the person who hates ('wills' harm to another) but is withheld from harming another (by lack of opportunity, sense of guilt, shame, inability) is just as guilty as the person who actually harms/murders another - lacking opportunity/ability may change the consequences of your choice, but certainly doesn't lessen the guilt of it.


It's not a non-sequitur. He can do EVERYTHING. He could be at work and watching the Superbowl. What you're saying is that our lives are "pre-taped" and God just hasn't seen it yet. Therefore not all-knowing/omnipotent.

Don't assume this is exactly so. There are several whole threads and miles of theological debate on this one sentence alone. I don't think you have this one fully 'tied down'.

Hey, all I hear from religious folk (not just Christians) is that I'm going to hell. I assume they know more than I do. But I see where you are coming from. If there is no hell, then I see no reason to believe in God in the first place, since he won't do me any harm at all. Sloth wins again!

Not 'who is bad' but 'how they will choose'. Still, the end result is that God created some people knowing that they would refuse the opportunity to return to Him. I consider this the most difficult question in all Christianity. I think this question was what led Origin (3rd-4th century church writer) to his beliefs. At the very least, I would say the question shows that God values our free will far more than we do.

You mean like when God said "Hey Moses, go tell Pharaoh to let you all go. But, I will make it so he is stubborn and that I have to slap his punk ass around a bit before he lets you go. It will be funny. What? All those people I'll kill? Well, it'll still be funny, you'll see. Zap you out of Egypt in a split-second? What are you crazy? Do you think I'm omni-... oh, right, I did create EVERYTHING in 7 days, huh?"

God is an evil bastard. He kills people. His own people. Then has the audacity to claim He loves us. That sounds like a drunken wife-beater to me.

EDIT:

Oh, and I haven't talked to you in a LONG time. I was the guy who asked about ROTC a few years back. Since the scholarship isn't guaranteed, I just decided to go the traditional route of leeching off my parents (well, not really, I have a job. :D). I'll get my B.S. in physics and then I think I'll go for a Ph.D. in applied physics. That seems to be what I'm interested in most for the moment. Thanks for all of your help. :D

[Capt Ann]

It's not a non-sequitur. He can do EVERYTHING. He could be at work and watching the Superbowl. What you're saying is that our lives are "pre-taped" and God just hasn't seen it yet. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm giving an example of how you or I could foreknow something, even if it is the result of pure free will. And considering neither one of us even claims to be omniscient or omnipotent, I think it would be a cinch for God to foreknow the results of our free choices.

I think this only appears to be a paradox because of our (limited) understanding of the nature of time.


Hey, all I hear from religious folk (not just Christians) is that I'm going to hell. I assume they know more than I do.I think you and your conscience would know more about whether or not you're going to hell than I would, since I can't get inside your head. But the more important fact is that, whether or not you're headed there now, you don't have to end up there. That is the message and purpose behind Jesus coming to this earth, living, dying on the cross, and rising again.

About the debate: it usually isn't a debate on whether or not hell exists (most but not all Christians believe hell exists). The debate is on whether God 'sends' people to hell, 'condemns' them to hell, or 'allows' them to go if they choose. This goes right back to the nature of free will.

You mean like when God said "Hey Moses, go tell Pharaoh to let you all go. But, I will make it so he is stubborn and that I have to slap his punk ass around a bit before he lets you go.Interesting that the whole story shows that Pharoah hardened his own heart (free will) and then God allowed it to go a step further (Not sure, but I think the Hebrew says that God 'made his heart stout'; or basically He increased Pharoah's resolve so he had the ability to carry out what he had already decided).

What? All those people I'll kill? 'All those people' in Egypt had now seen Moses call down boils, flies, gnats, locusts, hail, frogs, turn water to blood, and make the skies dark in the middle of the day. They all knew about Moses, and they all heard Moses warn about the Passover. All the Egyptians had the choice to take part in the Passover (put the blood on the doorposts and be spared) or not, because God loved the Egyptians, too. Apparently, a bunch of them did choose to participate in the Passover, because the Bible says that a huge 'mixed multitude' went out of Egypt with the Hebrews.

Looks like all your questions focus on this whole issue of 'free will'. You might want to take a look at that one subject in greater detail.

Oh, and I haven't talked to you in a LONG time. I was the guy who asked about ROTC a few years back. Of course I remember you!! As a matter of fact I was just thinking about you, and I checked this thread because I saw you had posted in it (see what you started?!?! :D ). Glad to hear you are doing well, and congrats on your progress towards the degrees!

[Poop-Loops]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm giving an example of how you or I could foreknow something, even if it is the result of pure free will. And considering neither one of us even claims to be omniscient or omnipotent, I think it would be a cinch for God to foreknow the results of our free choices.

I think this only appears to be a paradox because of our (limited) understanding of the nature of time.
[quote]

Cop out. Whenever I am in one of my classes and someone says "I don't understand such and such.", I don't say "Your mind is limited. When you die you will know.", I at least attempt to explain it to them. God could have easily made humans smarter. He didn't. Why not? Now, we are killing eachother and doing nasty things because we don't know any better.

[quote]
I think you and your conscience would know more about whether or not you're going to hell than I would, since I can't get inside your head. But the more important fact is that, whether or not you're headed there now, you don't have to end up there. That is the message and purpose behind Jesus coming to this earth, living, dying on the cross, and rising again.

About the debate: it usually isn't a debate on whether or not hell exists (most but not all Christians believe hell exists). The debate is on whether God 'sends' people to hell, 'condemns' them to hell, or 'allows' them to go if they choose. This goes right back to the nature of free will.


I would rather simply vanish from existance. Seriously. I'm not depressed or suicidal or anything, but I think I'd get bored with it.

My concscience tells me I am doing fine. I don't lie, steal, kill, etc. But according to the Bible, if you try to follow your own moral compass, God will zap your dumb ass.


Interesting that the whole story shows that Pharoah hardened his own heart (free will) and then God allowed it to go a step further (Not sure, but I think the Hebrew says that God 'made his heart stout'; or basically He increased Pharoah's resolve so he had the ability to carry out what he had already decided).

'All those people' in Egypt had now seen Moses call down boils, flies, gnats, locusts, hail, frogs, turn water to blood, and make the skies dark in the middle of the day. They all knew about Moses, and they all heard Moses warn about the Passover. All the Egyptians had the choice to take part in the Passover (put the blood on the doorposts and be spared) or not, because God loved the Egyptians, too. Apparently, a bunch of them did choose to participate in the Passover, because the Bible says that a huge 'mixed multitude' went out of Egypt with the Hebrews.

Looks like all your questions focus on this whole issue of 'free will'. You might want to take a look at that one subject in greater detail.


Could be my translation of the Bible. I know it says God will make Pharaoh refuse.

The first plagues no doubt killed some people, also. I just find it weird how God lets people slaughter each other for almost no reason (Samson, for example)

I don't see how you can know everything, but still not know what people will do. That is the whole idea behind it: God doesn't know what you'll do, it's up to you.


Of course I remember you!! As a matter of fact I was just thinking about you, and I checked this thread because I saw you had posted in it (see what you started?!?! :D ). Glad to hear you are doing well, and congrats on your progress towards the degrees!

It's going pretty well. Just taking it one step at a time. I have about... 9 years left. :D

[Angelus]

Does god even care about people? If he is the all powerful being... why the hell would he care?
He is like the kid watching ants carry food to the anthill. He watched ... occasionally throws in crumbs from his cookie.. Then goes on stepping on the ants to amuse himself.. But he doesnt care about what happens to the ants... what he does is just to pass the time. After spending a couple minutes with these ants he will go home and never think of the ants again.

[BendzR]

Capt Ann is correct in her logic. Not that I neccessarily agree with what she believes in, but there is no flaw in her reasoning.

Omipotent does not equate to "HE CAN DO EVERYTHING" because that is a contradicting premises for any definition. God cannot lift a stone that he made unliftable. That does not mean he isn't Omnipotent.

a) God is All Knowing, and all Powerful. This means he has the potential to do anything he wants, and knows everything. This does not mean he literally HAS to do everything that is do-able. He can control anything if he wants, but does not neccessarily always do so.

b) God is All Knowing, and thus knows your ultimate destiny before it occurs.

c) Your final destiny occurs because of your free will.

If something is predictable it does not mean it wasn't chosen by an individual. I know my dog will eat a piece of steak if I put it in her bowl. The predictability of it does not mean my Dog has no will, or that the Dog is powerless.

Free will can coexist with predictability quite harmonically.

[Sparkle]

god wants an all beef kosher hot dog. with mustard and sourkraut

Me and God both man, me and God both.

[Poop-Loops]

Capt Ann is correct in her logic. Not that I neccessarily agree with what she believes in, but there is no flaw in her reasoning.

Omipotent does not equate to "HE CAN DO EVERYTHING" because that is a contradicting premises for any definition. God cannot lift a stone that he made unliftable. That does not mean he isn't Omnipotent.



That is another paradox which I don't want to get into.



a) God is All Knowing, and all Powerful. This means he has the potential to do anything he wants, and knows everything. This does not mean he literally HAS to do everything that is do-able. He can control anything if he wants, but does not neccessarily always do so.



Being able to know the outcome of something before it happens makes it destiny. I can calculate where a ball will land if I throw it, without actually throwing it. Humans are a bit more complex, but that's the jist of it. Once I can find out what will happen in the future, nothing will change that "destiny" and simply "not looking" and claiming it's not decided yet is a sham.


b) God is All Knowing, and thus knows your ultimate destiny before it occurs.

c) Your final destiny occurs because of your free will.


That's irrelevent. God still know whether you go to Hell or Heaven before you decide it. That's still destiny, since you WILL pick it.



If something is predictable it does not mean it wasn't chosen by an individual. I know my dog will eat a piece of steak if I put it in her bowl. The predictability of it does not mean my Dog has no will, or that the Dog is powerless.

Free will can coexist with predictability quite harmonically.

Yeah, but will you put a piece of steak in her bowl, tell yourself (or even her) that you will hit her if she takes it, but still know that she will take it anyway?

[BendzR]

Being able to know the outcome of something before it happens makes it destiny. I can calculate where a ball will land if I throw it, without actually throwing it.

"Before it happens" is where your argument breaks down.

If someone is All Powerful, they are not restricted by the laws of time. They are beyond time. So it no longer is a matter of "knowing before it happens" but knowing everything that happens in all space and time, all at once.

God may know you throw the ball, after you have thrown it. Then he goes back in time, and then he knows you are going to throw it before it has happened in that position in time.

I guess you could say that is Destiny. But destiny is a result of the causes. Cause and Effect. Now, what are all the causes ? Some are out of the individuals control, so you could say they are Random, or God, etc. But some of those causes are within your control.

So even if you are entirely predictable, you still have a say in the matter on how you want to do things. Your will is still part of the equation that forms your destiny.

God will be able to predict your destiny based on knowing all factors, including your free will, and because he is outside of time. Not because you haven't a choice.

That does not mean you aren't responsible for your actions.

The universe undoubtedly functions on cause and effect, but that does not mean Hitler is justified in his actions. He cannot simply say that because all the factors were predictable, that the factor of his will was justified. He still made the decision to do what he did.

You are trying to put the concept of Omnipotent and Omnipresent, on Human terms. Which is why it seems contradictory, since we do not function on those terms.

[Poop-Loops]

"Before it happens" is where your argument breaks down.

If someone is All Powerful, they are not restricted by the laws of time. They are beyond time. So it no longer is a matter of "knowing before it happens" but knowing everything that happens in all space and time, all at once.

God may know you throw the ball, after you have thrown it. Then he goes back in time, and then he knows you are going to throw it before it has happened in that position in time.


That's irrelevent. Even if He were to go back in time and such, he could change the past. He could say "Oh, Timmy tripping over that rock will make him kill 50 people in the future. I can just make him not trip over that rock." Or whatever. My point is: He knows he will sentence people to Hell before they are even created, but still creates those people anyway. That's like a woman giving birth to a child, knowing that she will just throw it in the trashcan when she leaves the hospital.

I guess you could say that is Destiny. But destiny is a result of the causes. Cause and Effect. Now, what are all the causes ? Some are out of the individuals control, so you could say they are Random, or God, etc. But some of those causes are within your control.

So even if you are entirely predictable, you still have a say in the matter on how you want to do things. Your will is still part of the equation that forms your destiny.

God will be able to predict your destiny based on knowing all factors, including your free will, and because he is outside of time. Not because you haven't a choice.

That does not mean you aren't responsible for your actions.



Once again, that is irrelevant. Whether or not you get to choose it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. God knows that he will sentence someone to Hell before that person is even born, yet God lets that person be born anyway. That is my whole point. Whether or not the person chooses it is irrelevent, God knows it will happen and allows it to happen.


The universe undoubtedly functions on cause and effect, but that does not mean Hitler is justified in his actions. He cannot simply say that because all the factors were predictable, that the factor of his will was justified. He still made the decision to do what he did.

You are trying to put the concept of Omnipotent and Omnipresent, on Human terms. Which is why it seems contradictory, since we do not function on those terms.

Where did I say that people shouldn't be held responsible? I don't believe in God, I believe WE are the only thing that can be held responsible and can actually do anything on Earth.

"It doesn't make sense, therefore I'm not smart enough to understand it." is a cop out.

[dori_kin_86]

I really don't want to get into the debate right now, but I do want to throw in this concept that C.S. Lewis would sometimes talk about.

It basically stated that if God is truly God (all-everything good, powerful, etc.) Then he can see an action we are about to make, and at the same time see the other possible choices we could make. At the same time he can see every possible consequence to our actions. Overall, he can see all of this before we are even born, and then some. In all, one should remember that God is beyond time and space, yet still cares about us enough to send a savior for humanity.

[tcgohan]

Huh? to the first post. God most certainly did not cause all that to happen or even wanted it to happen. There are always people who do what they want and say it's what their god wants just so idiots will go along with them. Tell you what if you see an angel give 'em a good firm hand shake :D. God basically wants you to be happy, live well, find an eternal companion, and help others do the same thing, hoping one day you can be like Him. The living well part is where most people have different views.

[Poop-Loops]

I really don't want to get into the debate right now, but I do want to throw in this concept that C.S. Lewis would sometimes talk about.

It basically stated that if God is truly God (all-everything good, powerful, etc.) Then he can see an action we are about to make, and at the same time see the other possible choices we could make. At the same time he can see every possible consequence to our actions. Overall, he can see all of this before we are even born, and then some. In all, one should remember that God is beyond time and space, yet still cares about us enough to send a savior for humanity.

*sigh* This is like talking to a wall.

Saviour for humanity? What about condemning people to hell before they are even born, since he knows we will make "bad" choices anyway, like you said?

[dori_kin_86]

Our salvation is our choice. We choose whether or not we end up in heaven or hell. Right now you could choose the gift of salvation and love right now, or you could choose not to. The option of salvation is open at anytime.

"...since he knows we will make "bad" choices anyway, like you said?"

I may have articulated my statement in a confusing way, my point is that He sees all of the choices, all of the reactions, all of the possibilities etc. He allows us chances to make good choices, in a place called life. My "before we were born" statement was there just to show the possibilities of God's power, but it appears that God judges based off of the choices as they happen.

[Poop-Loops]

Our salvation is our choice. We choose whether or not we end up in heaven or hell. Right now you could choose the gift of salvation and love right now, or you could choose not to. The option of salvation is open at anytime.

"...since he knows we will make "bad" choices anyway, like you said?"

I may have articulated my statement in a confusing way, my point is that He sees all of the choices, all of the reactions, all of the possibilities etc. He allows us chances to make good choices, in a place called life. My "before we were born" statement was there just to show the possibilities of God's power, but it appears that God judges based off of the choices as they happen.

Please re-word all of what you just said. I only understand plain English. :(

So I have the choice to choose salvation, right? But didn't God know before I was even born that I would reject Him?

[BendzR]

Okay, I understand your point then.

I was trying to argue a compatibilist view, but that isn't what you're trying to argue against. Gotcha ;)

Well, Christians do not look at it in the sense that "God throws you into hell" but more "Hell is a result of where you end up, if you choose to not accept God".

If you assume that is true, then it would be wrong for someone to be denied existance, because they end up choosing against God.

I get what you're saying now, but it doesn't change much.

Within the Christian viewpoint, they are still being consistant regarding free will and their God being all-powerful. That was my original point.

Maybe not so consistant about his all-loving characteristic though. But that's not what I was trying to say.

Only need to read the Bible to confirm that God isn't exactly always a nice guy. No need to go into debates regarding destiny and choice.

[Orang Jawa]

The overriding desire of humankind is peace...But our current beliefs do not render us very peaceful. Peaceful is NOT something you do. Peaceful is something you are!
Many so called devoted or religious leaders which we count on to teach tolerance, have not learned how to practice it, and so, teach just the opposite.
Organized religions by their nature exclude as many as they include. This would be non-problematics if religions were tolerant of those they exclude, yet far too often this is not the case.
The problem confronting humanity today is spiritual.
We do not understand who we are, we do not understand who God is, We do not understand how the world works. We do not understand that love is the basic of all of life, nor can we comprehend a love that is unconditional.
If you claim that you are striving to be God-like in your lives....and if this the God you are striving to be like, you have succeeded briliantly. You may thank organized religion for teaching you how.
Peace and Be Well,
Tristan

[Poop-Loops]

I have a question that's bugged me for a while. In my version of the Bible, it always says "I am your Lord." and such. Almost as if it were hinting that there were more gods around. Like, it never says "I am the only God." but "I am your God.", you see?

Kind of reminds me of the game Black and White.

[dori_kin_86]

The "I am your God", is a bit more personal to me, implying a relationship with God. There are also versus pertaining to God being the only God though, such as John 5:44- "How can you believe if you accept praise from one another,yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?", just an example. I recommend if you have a Bible, whos articulation is sometimes confusing, I recommend getting a translation that is easier to read, such as the Living Bible translation, or the NIV (I use this.)

Keep in mind that any Bible in the English language is a translation from Greek and Hebrew. There are certain words in Greek and Hebrew that are absent from English, and vise-versa. There are also words that are used in a different context than how we use them. Knowing this, and knowing the true meaning behind certain phrases make the scriptures a lot easier to understand. Like how one person can "know" another.

[dori_kin_86]

The overriding desire of humankind is peace...But our current beliefs do not render us very peaceful. Peaceful is NOT something you do. Peaceful is something you are!
Many so called devoted or religious leaders which we count on to teach tolerance, have not learned how to practice it, and so, teach just the opposite.

There is a difference between true tolerance- the acknowledgement of differences between each other, yet looking beyond them to work together, and acceptance-the inclusion of a difference. For some reason, people like to get acceptance and tolerance mixed up.

[Capt Ann]

The other nations around Israel had other things they worshipped as god(s). "I AM the LORD your God" doesn't imply that any of these others are 'real', but I think (my opinion) that it shows the special relationship that God wanted for those called 'His' people - they would be 'His' in a unique way, just like God would be 'theirs' in a very unique way.

Still, I know exactly what you mean. I have often wondered about the second part of that same first commandment: I AM the LORD your God......; you shall have no other gods before me. If I were God, I would have commanded that we have no other gods at all. Perhaps we all have other 'gods', in the sense that we have other people/things that we honor with our time, money, effort, praise (like our jobs, hobbies, martial arts, families, husbands/wives, sports teams and heroes, etc.). Maybe this is saying that it's OK to honor and enjoy those types of things, as long as they don't come before the one God.

Your thoughts?

[Orang Jawa]

If you believe that God is some omnipotent being who hears all prayers, say "yes" to some, "no" to others, and "maybe", but not "now" to the rest, your are mistaken!
If you believe that God is the creator and decider of all things in your life, you are mistaken.
God the observer, not the creator and God stands ready to assist you in living your life, but not in the way you might expect.
It is not God's function to create, or uncreate, the circumstances or conditions of your life.
God created you, in the image and likenes of GOd. You have created the rest, throught the power of God has given you.
God created the process of life and life itself as you know it. Yet God gave you free choice, to do with life as you will. In that sense, your will for you is God's will for you. You are living your life the way you are living your life, and God have no preferrence in that matter.
Peace and Be Well,
Tristan

[Maverick]

This is a moot thread as God doesn't exist.

[dori_kin_86]

If you believe that God is some omnipotent being who hears all prayers, say "yes" to some, "no" to others, and "maybe", but not "now" to the rest, your are mistaken!
If you believe that God is the creator and decider of all things in your life, you are mistaken.
God the observer, not the creator and God stands ready to assist you in living your life, but not in the way you might expect.
It is not God's function to create, or uncreate, the circumstances or conditions of your life.
God created you, in the image and likenes of GOd. You have created the rest, throught the power of God has given you.
God created the process of life and life itself as you know it. Yet God gave you free choice, to do with life as you will. In that sense, your will for you is God's will for you. You are living your life the way you are living your life, and God have no preferrence in that matter.
Peace and Be Well,
Tristan

What you say is only true to a certain point. Yes God gives us free will to do what we wish, but He does have preference in the matter. If God truly loves us and created us in one form or another (how he did this is a debate in itself), the obviously he would have preferences in the matter. He would not want us to harm ourselves by living certain ways, or practicing certain practices. Much like how a good father approves or disapproves of his child's behavior. Like a good father, He can protect us from certain things, yet can allow us to make certain mistakes, so we can help others not make the same mistakes.

[dori_kin_86]

This is a moot thread as God doesn't exist. Prove it.

[Orang Jawa]

Yes God gives us free will to do what we wish, but He does have preference in the matter.
*****************
Very interesting, Indeed! However, I respectfully disagree.
It two soldiers from bothside of the field, both pray to their God for victory or to survive... The outcomes is one soldier will survive, regardless he represented the good guys or the the bad guys. In your theory then God have something to do with it?
Peace and Be Well,
Tristan

[dori_kin_86]

Yes God gives us free will to do what we wish, but He does have preference in the matter.
*****************
Very interesting, Indeed! However, I respectfully disagree.
It two soldiers from bothside of the field, both pray to their God for victory or to survive... The outcomes is one soldier will survive, regardless he represented the good guys or the the bad guys. In your theory then God have something to do with it?
Peace and Be Well,
Tristan

It seems that you define preference as an actual interventive action. Preference is merely desiring something to be a certain way. It all goes back to the issure of free will.

As for your analogy: I do believe God answers prayers according to if they are in line with his will. Your analogy left many possibilities open. The soldier that died and prayed for victory, could've still gained ultimate victory in dying while being saved, thus having eternal life in heaven. He could've been a forced conscript for Mussolini's Italy- he didn't want to fight, but suddenly hes given a gun and forced to fight. (this was the situation of some conscripts for the Axis nations.) By reaching heaven, he gained ultimate victory, and at the same time, there was one less man with the potential to fight for an evil regime. The man who survived, could've been an Allied soldier, who was fighting so that an evil regime could be thrown out of power. Of coarce, this leads to the question of why God would allow events such as World War 2. This again, stems from the fact that we have free will, and now raises another issue- the fact that man is not perfect, and whos natural tendency towards selfish desire leads to a fallen world. (the fall of man, so to speak). This only proves that we ultimately need some sort of savior to help us try to attain perfection. This savior is Jesus Christ.

[Maverick]

Prove it.

Prove that Muhammed Ali isn't my mother.

[Poop-Loops]

The other nations around Israel had other things they worshipped as god(s). "I AM the LORD your God" doesn't imply that any of these others are 'real', but I think (my opinion) that it shows the special relationship that God wanted for those called 'His' people - they would be 'His' in a unique way, just like God would be 'theirs' in a very unique way.

Still, I know exactly what you mean. I have often wondered about the second part of that same first commandment: I AM the LORD your God......; you shall have no other gods before me. If I were God, I would have commanded that we have no other gods at all. Perhaps we all have other 'gods', in the sense that we have other people/things that we honor with our time, money, effort, praise (like our jobs, hobbies, martial arts, families, husbands/wives, sports teams and heroes, etc.). Maybe this is saying that it's OK to honor and enjoy those types of things, as long as they don't come before the one God.

Your thoughts?

No clue. Like I said, this really reminds me of the game Black and White, where you were a new god and had to gain followers, destroy rival gods (although some helped you out), and you had a giant frickin' animal as your pet.

[dori_kin_86]

Prove that Muhammed Ali isn't my mother.

Is your mother's maiden name Ali? Is she muslim? Is her first name Muhammed? Was she ever a boxer? Is she a man?

[Blevunly]

What you say is only true to a certain point. Yes God gives us free will to do what we wish, but He does have preference in the matter. If God truly loves us and created us in one form or another (how he did this is a debate in itself), the obviously he would have preferences in the matter. He would not want us to harm ourselves by living certain ways, or practicing certain practices. Much like how a good father approves or disapproves of his child's behavior. Like a good father, He can protect us from certain things, yet can allow us to make certain mistakes, so we can help others not make the same mistakes.

Would a good father allow their children to be burnt alive?

What God wants happens because he is all powerful so if someone burns in Hell it is because God wanted them to. God does not wnat everyone in Heaven otherwsie they'd go there. He also doesn't TRY to get everyone to get there because by trying one of two things happens you either succeed or fail and an all powerful all knowing being can't fail.

Also you talk about Free Will but I wonder if you could tell me why oene person chooses one thing and another chooses something different.

[BendzR]

Is your mother's maiden name Ali? Is she muslim? Is her first name Muhammed? Was she ever a boxer? Is she a man?

You are missing his point.

Proving a negative is a logical fallacy. To ask someone to prove something that doesnt exist, is ridiculous.

His point, was that in the discussion of Gods' existance, the burden of proof lies on the affirmative action, in which the proving is up to the person who believes he does exist.

So to your original post, "Prove it." is insane and - no offense - incredibly stupid. If you want someone to believe in God, it is up to you to prove it. NOT up to them to disprove it.

Things are not true by default. They are false.

So instead of saying "Prove it." you must instead, prove his existance and that will make your side look more respectable. Not the other way around.

[Poop-Loops]

It's kind of the opposite in science, though. You first have to provide some evidence for your theory, and then others have to disprove it, or else it is taken as true, even though no amount of evidence can technically "prove" it. Weird...

[BendzR]

Yeah, but before it becomes a theory - that may be disproven - it still needs some evidence. It doesn't go from hypothesis to theory by default.

Intially, when there is no evidence supporting an idea - or none displayed at the time - it is both false in science as well as logical debating.

Thing are never true by default.

[Matthew Barnes]

It has been people who did act on what they understood about God who have caused many of our biggest problems.
1. It's people who thought they knew what God wants who created the 200 years of the Christian Crussades and the horrors of the Inquisition, seeking to win the world for Christianity.
2. It's people who thught they knew What God Wants who told armies of Muslims to send marauders far and wide to conquer every land and culture and bring it under the Nation of Islam.
3. It's people who thought they knew What God Wants who called themsleves the Choosen people and reclaimed land they declared to be originally their own, ignoring the fact that history had caused it to be inhibited for thousands years by others, and telling those others to now leave portions of that land, to live where and how they are told to live, as second-class citizens without equal rights in their own house.
4. It's people who thought the knew What God Wants who hanged men and women in town squires, and burned others at the stake, holding up the Good Book and declaring them to be witches.
5. It's people who thought the knew What God Wants who passed laws making it illegal for humans of differing races to marry, or for consenting adults to engage in certain sexual practices.
6. It's people who thought they knew What God Wants who created cultural prohibitions forbidding people to sing or dance, draw pictures of any person, or play music or any kind except sacred song.
7. It's people who thought they knew What God Wants who said pro choice is a baby killers but its okay to drop a bomb and kills Young men, Young women, children, and the old in the name of God.
Ask yourselves, is all of this What God Wants?
Tristan

He apparently held a press conference, as reported here (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28151) to clarify a few things.


I'm pretty sure I can think of a few things he doesn't want.

[dori_kin_86]

Would a good father allow their children to be burnt alive?

What God wants happens because he is all powerful so if someone burns in Hell it is because God wanted them to. God does not wnat everyone in Heaven otherwsie they'd go there. He also doesn't TRY to get everyone to get there because by trying one of two things happens you either succeed or fail and an all powerful all knowing being can't fail.

Also you talk about Free Will but I wonder if you could tell me why oene person chooses one thing and another chooses something different.

Thats what free will is, your natural freedom to choose one thing over another, without being hindered by some form of mind control.

[thepunisher]

Prove it.

Prove he does ! (enough said !)

Christian

[Blevunly]

Thats what free will is, your natural freedom to choose one thing over another, without being hindered by some form of mind control.

You can chose to go lift weights but why did you choose to do that? maybe to gain msucle for sex appeal, maybe to do better at sports theres always some kind fo reason why people do things and where theres a reason there is something that caused that reason.

Free is just a bunch of variables that when applied to each other reach a destination that you would call choice or "free will".

The variables would be your environment which is anything that effects you (ex. parents, nature, some kid stealing your lunch money etc.). Your body is another variable this would be not just physcial but mental as well. The last variable would be the soul now there are two things souls can be they are either all the same or different.

Now the whole process of "free will" can be broken down into a math problem

x+9+8=y

The 9 represents your body and the 8 represent your environment(the things that effect you or happen to you). The (y) represents your choice and the (x) represents your soul. Now lets say that all souls are the same so lets say all souls equal 0. So lets say we put your soul in my body and let you live my life. 0+9+8=17 agian lets take my brothers soul and swap it in 0+9+8=17 . No matter whoevers soul is switched in they will always make the same choices, because the souls are all the same and the body and environemtn are always the same. So if souls are all the same then our environment and body will choose our fates.

The other solution is if souls are different so lets say my soul equals 2 and yours equals 6 (the numbers are just to show difference). We'll also say that by reaching above 20 you will make the choice to become a christian and below 20 you wont. so my equation would look like 2+9+8=19 and yours would look like 6+9+8=23. Now if souls are different and God makes souls then he knows by putting this soul in this body in this environment that it will either pass his test or that it will fail his test. Since the environment and body dont change the deciding factor in your "free will" would be your soul and since God made it he either made it so you would succeed or made it for you to fail.

So if all souls are the same then your body and environment choose your fate and anyone would choose the same thing because all the variables are the same. But if souls are different then God chooses your fate because he knows by sticking this oul in this body and environment what will happen to it and he knows if he would've sticken this one instead you would've passed his test but instead for some people he sticks in souls that will make them fail, because he is incharge of souls and that is beyond our ability to control so in this case he would choose our fates.

[ryanTKD]

More foolish is the man that believes in religion, than in himself.

[Maverick]

Is your mother's maiden name Ali? Is she muslim? Is her first name Muhammed? Was she ever a boxer? Is she a man?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I know that all 5 statements are utterly absurd, but I'm telling you it's true.

If I write it down will you believe me then?

What if I tell your parents to tell you when you're 5?

[Blevunly]

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I know that all 5 statements are utterly absurd, but I'm telling you it's true.

If I write it down will you believe me then?

What if I tell your parents to tell you when you're 5?

You forgot the punishment for nonbelievers.

[Topher]

"Before it happens" is where your argument breaks down.

If someone is All Powerful, they are not restricted by the laws of time. They are beyond time. So it no longer is a matter of "knowing before it happens" but knowing everything that happens in all space and time, all at once.

God may know you throw the ball, after you have thrown it. Then he goes back in time, and then he knows you are going to throw it before it has happened in that position in time.

I guess you could say that is Destiny. But destiny is a result of the causes. Cause and Effect. Now, what are all the causes ? Some are out of the individuals control, so you could say they are Random, or God, etc. But some of those causes are within your control.

So even if you are entirely predictable, you still have a say in the matter on how you want to do things. Your will is still part of the equation that forms your destiny.

God will be able to predict your destiny based on knowing all factors, including your free will, and because he is outside of time. Not because you haven't a choice.

That does not mean you aren't responsible for your actions.

The universe undoubtedly functions on cause and effect, but that does not mean Hitler is justified in his actions. He cannot simply say that because all the factors were predictable, that the factor of his will was justified. He still made the decision to do what he did.

You are trying to put the concept of Omnipotent and Omnipresent, on Human terms. Which is why it seems contradictory, since we do not function on those terms.

Compatibilists argue that free will isn’t absolute, but rather caused by our choices as determined by our beliefs, desires, and characters, which are themselves a produce of our upbringing and environment etc. “Free will” therefore can only exist within them. And we don’t really have free will, and therefore control, in what our beliefs, desires and character actually are because they are influenced by such things as upbringing and environment, which we don’t have a choice over. Even if you have a major change in belief in your life, it itself would have been caused and therefore determined by an experience/event of something which triggered/influenced the change in belief.

Compatibilists maintain that determinism isn’t just compatible with free will, it necessary for it. If my actions aren't determined by my beliefs, my desires, and my character, then it seems that they aren't really my actions.

The point being is that even free will is out of our complete control. Our actions are determined and influences by other attributes. If God created us, he would have also created the conditions which we would live in and would have known how they would effect my life. Absolute free will dosn't really exist.

[BendzR]

I don't believe in Absolute Free Will. I do believe in Will though.

[BendzR]

Prove he does ! (enough said !)

Christian

Exactly.

[Capt Ann]

BendzR, considering we come to such different conclusions, we sure think a lot a like! Some of your posts explaining Christianity have been very insightful. Thank you! :D

I don't believe in Absolute Free Will.Believe-it-or-not, this is one place were I greatly disagree with you. Maybe it's just that we're using the same words to mean different things. I strongly believe in absolute free will. In fact, I believe it is the only real 'freedom' I have. I've tried to make this point before, but I'm not sure how well or on which Philosophy thread.

I believe my ability to carry out my choices is very limited. I am limited by my physical capabilities, by time, and by opportunity. I believe that God will withhold me from acting on some of my choices, for my own good and for the good of others around me. But there are no limits on what I can desire or want (i.e., will) to do.

Go back to 'cogito ergo sum'. The one-and-only thing Descartes could assure himself of was his own existence, because he could say, "I am thinking". This showed him that "I exist". Adapt this to 'escogito ergo sum' (forgive my fractured Latin), and I know I exist because I am the one choosing. This is what defines my character. It defines who I am. And if I choose then I have free will, because I am the one making the choice, not my environment, culture, or upbringing.

Maybe Strafio or CKava could chime in on how this parallels and/or contrasts with Buddhism. My understanding is that Buddhism sees desire as the source of all suffering, so desires are to be eliminated. At the same time, Buddhism seeks the loss of individual identity into the community. Both my view and this view see desires and the ability to will as intimately linked with personal identity, but Buddhism apparently sees them both as bad and to be eliminated, and I see them both as good and to be harnessed/directed. Your thoughts?

[MarioBro]

BendzR, considering we come to such different conclusions, we sure think a lot a like! Some of your posts explaining Christianity have been very insightful. Thank you! :D

Believe-it-or-not, this is one place were I greatly disagree with you. Maybe it's just that we're using the same words to mean different things. I strongly believe in absolute free will. In fact, I believe it is the only real 'freedom' I have. I've tried to make this point before, but I'm not sure how well or on which Philosophy thread.

I believe my ability to carry out my choices is very limited. I am limited by my physical capabilities, by time, and by opportunity. I believe that God will withhold me from acting on some of my choices, for my own good and for the good of others around me. But there are no limits on what I can desire or want (i.e., will) to do.

Go back to 'cogito ergo sum'. The one-and-only thing Descartes could assure himself of was his own existence, because he could say, "I am thinking". This showed him that "I exist". Adapt this to 'escogito ergo sum' (forgive my fractured Latin), and I know I exist because I am the one choosing. This is what defines my character. It defines who I am. And if I choose then I have free will, because I am the one making the choice, not my environment, culture, or upbringing.

Maybe Strafio or CKava could chime in on how this parallels and/or contrasts with Buddhism. My understanding is that Buddhism sees desire as the source of all suffering, so desires are to be eliminated. At the same time, Buddhism seeks the loss of individual identity into the community. Both my view and this view see desires and the ability to will as intimately linked with personal identity, but Buddhism apparently sees them both as bad and to be eliminated, and I see them both as good and to be harnessed/directed. Your thoughts?

How do you know that you are thinking as opposed to a pre-programmed series of events in your brain?

If it is free-will, then how can we be punished? What is the measuring stick for one to have enough intelligence to be held responsible for their decisions during their life? If God is all knowing then we are total idiots in comparison...why would someone so smart leave such naive people to their own devices? Why would he assume that if it is written, they will 'get it'?

I don't leave little notes lying around for my 6 year old to read, deem him free to make his own choices and then at the end of the day send him to the basement for not making the right choices. We never stop trying to guide our children with every bit of available resources, because we are smart enough to know that it will take more than a note here and there with nothing else to back them up. Why is this? Because we are smart enough and have enough reason to know that the notes are not enough.

So apparently, we as good parents are smarter or care more than God does. We do not play games with our children's lives to amuse ourselves. We do not leave cryptic notes around just to see if they can actually decipher what the hell it is we want them to do. We talk to them (and not through their imagination either. Not through people who tell them that they should get together to worship their absent parents).

[BendzR]

Descartes is well known for the one thing he said, that was moronic. No one focuses on the other things he stated. Instead they focus on a logical fallacy.

"I think, therefore I am." is totally incorrect.

As soon as he states the first word "I" he makes a personal reference to his existance. Which means he assumes he exists, before he states that he thinks.

So basically, he is saying;

I assume I exist. So when I am thinking, my assumption of my existance, draws me to the conclusion that my thinking is a result of my existance.

Therefore, I exist.

I hate when people quote that well-known phrase, because it is ridiculous.

Same could be applied for "I choose, therefore I am"

How do you know that you are thinking as opposed to a pre-programmed series of events in your brain?

That pretty much sums it up.

I do believe in Will, and responsibility on actions. I'm not even sure how Absolute Free Will could function, since you would only achieve that if you were God. All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Seeing. You cannot be in absolute control any other way.

So, since I cannot grasp the idea of Absolute Free Will, I think maybe we disagree on a definition here or there.

[Capt Ann]

If it is free-will, then how can we be punished? What is the measuring stick for one to have enough intelligence to be held responsible for their decisions during their life? You answer this question yourself with your next statement: If God is all knowing then .... God is all-knowing; therefore, He knows exactly the level of responsibility that we should bear for exactly the level of information that He knows we have.

why would someone so smart leave such naive people to their own devices? He wouldn't. And He didn't. Remember, that is the unique feature of Christianity: God who is eternal stepped into history and walked with us, talked with us, taught us, showed us, demonstrated what Christianity should look like, then rose. Then, He didn't leave us alone or leave everything to our memories, but came to take up residence, inside anyone willing to receive Him on His terms. He is not the 'disinterested clockmaker'. He is here and alive and speaking and interacting with us.

We never stop trying to guide our children with every bit of available resources, because we are smart enough to know that it will take more than a note here and there with nothing else to back them up.What makes you think for a second that God is any different?

[Maverick]

God who is eternal stepped into history and walked with us, talked with us, taught us, showed us, demonstrated what Christianity should look like, then rose.

Yeah, he did all this, conveniently 2000 years before video cameras were invented. LOL

[Blevunly]

You answer this question yourself with your next statement: If God is all knowing then .... God is all-knowing; therefore, He knows exactly the level of responsibility that we should bear for exactly the level of information that He knows we have.

So if someone never knew about God they would either get a free pass into heaven or be damned because they never found him. Well if they get a free pass that doesn't seem fair I mean why can't I get that pass I didn't choose to be born where I was God put me there. If their damned then how is that fair because they never knew about him so they would have no information about him and had no chance of finding him cause they never knew what they were looking for. They both seem unjust either to everyone else or to the person depending on which option you choose.

What makes you think for a second that God is any different?

If God really wanted to guide his children to him it would be done because he is all powerful and with the snap of his hypothetical fingers we could all realize he exists and realize his purpose for us. But yet he chooses not to try and get us all into heaven some come some don't it obviously doesn't bother him to much otherwise he would do something about it.

[Strafio]

Believe-it-or-not, this is one place were I greatly disagree with you. Maybe it's just that we're using the same words to mean different things. I strongly believe in absolute free will. In fact, I believe it is the only real 'freedom' I have. I've tried to make this point before, but I'm not sure how well or on which Philosophy thread.
In those threads you seemed to mistake determinism for fatalism. (I would've said so at the time but I didn't know these fancy words back then! :))

I will either die of lung cancer or not.
If I am determined to die then I might as well keep smoking.
If I am determined not to die then I can carry on smoking.

It assumes that the determined future is independent of the choices/causes leading up to it. The determinist argues that our will has causes (like everything else in the world) so it must be determined by chain of events. Ofcourse, as we have no way of tracing the infinite amount causes it's impossible for us to treat is as determined. So it's "free will" as far as practicality is concerned. Homer probably explained this compatabilism better than I did.

I think that compabilism suits Christianity well. As far as we're concerned it's free will, but behind our will is the causal chain of events that allows God to work out what will happen before it actually does. It also makes me thing he's made a world that'll "all work out" that's impossible for us to screw up. It would also mean that everyone's part of his plan rather than just the people who guessed the correct theology! ;)


I believe my ability to carry out my choices is very limited. I am limited by my physical capabilities, by time, and by opportunity. I believe that God will withhold me from acting on some of my choices, for my own good and for the good of others around me. But there are no limits on what I can desire or want (i.e., will) to do.
Could you ever bring yourself to desire a little kitten get put in the meat mincer? :Angel:

Maybe Strafio or CKava could chime in on how this parallels and/or contrasts with Buddhism. My understanding is that Buddhism sees desire as the source of all suffering, so desires are to be eliminated.
Only excessive desires. If I had no desire then I wouldn't do anything, and fulfilling desires is enjoyable even when you're enlightened. It's only when your happiness depends upon a desire being fulfilled that you've got a problem. If you can overcome that then it'll be physically impossible to be disappointed again! :)

"I've got an eternity in hell ahead of me? Meh! C'est la vie!" :Angel:

At the same time, Buddhism seeks the loss of individual identity into the community.
I think it's not to get "too attached" to your identity.
Spend less time thinking about yourself from the third person and spend more time living life from the first person.

Both my view and this view see desires and the ability to will as intimately linked with personal identity, but Buddhism apparently sees them both as bad and to be eliminated, and I see them both as good and to be harnessed/directed. Your thoughts?
Seems that you and I agree. I think that I'm Buddhist and that other Buddhists agree with me... The Buddhist ideal is basically enlightenment. I reckon you have a fair idea of enlightenment from your Christianity, so if Buddhist teachings seem to contradict it then there's probably been a misunderstand somewhere down the line.

[Topher]

BendzR, considering we come to such different conclusions, we sure think a lot a like! Some of your posts explaining Christianity have been very insightful. Thank you! :D

Believe-it-or-not, this is one place were I greatly disagree with you. Maybe it's just that we're using the same words to mean different things. I strongly believe in absolute free will. In fact, I believe it is the only real 'freedom' I have. I've tried to make this point before, but I'm not sure how well or on which Philosophy thread.

I believe my ability to carry out my choices is very limited. I am limited by my physical capabilities, by time, and by opportunity. I believe that God will withhold me from acting on some of my choices, for my own good and for the good of others around me. But there are no limits on what I can desire or want (i.e., will) to do.

Go back to 'cogito ergo sum'. The one-and-only thing Descartes could assure himself of was his own existence, because he could say, "I am thinking". This showed him that "I exist". Adapt this to 'escogito ergo sum' (forgive my fractured Latin), and I know I exist because I am the one choosing. This is what defines my character. It defines who I am. And if I choose then I have free will, because I am the one making the choice, not my environment, culture, or upbringing.

Maybe Strafio or CKava could chime in on how this parallels and/or contrasts with Buddhism. My understanding is that Buddhism sees desire as the source of all suffering, so desires are to be eliminated. At the same time, Buddhism seeks the loss of individual identity into the community. Both my view and this view see desires and the ability to will as intimately linked with personal identity, but Buddhism apparently sees them both as bad and to be eliminated, and I see them both as good and to be harnessed/directed. Your thoughts?
As i said in my post, free will is caused/determined by our beliefs, desires, and characters, which are themselves a product of our upbringing and environment. For you to have control over your free will you would need to control your beliefs/desires/character, which means you would have to control, upbringing, environment and any major events in your life.

Free will has a cause, which is usually not even controlled by us, including past events. Some events which we have no control over will invoke beliefs and emotions which will affect our free will and choices.

Can explain just how you can control all the conditions which free will exist under? Until you can, 'free will' will be out of our complete control.

Free will is merely a consequence of other attributes. It doesn’t mean i don't have choice, i just understand that there are influences - sometimes beyond me - that are involved.

:)

[Topher]

I don't leave little notes lying around for my 6 year old to read, deem him free to make his own choices and then at the end of the day send him to the basement for not making the right choices. We never stop trying to guide our children with every bit of available resources, because we are smart enough to know that it will take more than a note here and there with nothing else to back them up. Why is this? Because we are smart enough and have enough reason to know that the notes are not enough.
Exactly, and it is this which will begin to shape the beliefs, character and opinions of a child. Their free will and choices are ultimately be determined by this.

[Topher]

Anyone interested in free will, determinism and compabilism should check out David Hume. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume) Who was one of the main proponents of compabilism.

This sums it up:

Free will versus determinism
Just about everyone has noticed the apparent conflict between free will and determinism – if your actions were determined to happen billions of years ago, then how can they be up to you? But Hume noted another conflict, one that turned the problem of free will into a full-fledged dilemma: free will is incompatible with indeterminism. Imagine that your actions are not determined by what events came before. Then your actions are, it seems, completely random. Moreover, and most importantly for Hume, they are not determined by your character – your desires, your preferences, your values, etc. How can we hold someone responsible for an action that did not result from his character? How can we hold someone responsible for an action that randomly occurred? Free will seems to require determinism, because otherwise, the agent and the action wouldn't be connected in the way required of freely chosen actions. So now, nearly everyone believes in free will, free will seems inconsistent with determinism, and free will seems to require determinism. Hume's view is that human behavior, like everything else, is caused, and therefore holding people responsible for their actions should focus on rewarding them or punishing them in such a way that they will try to do what is morally desirable and will try to avoid doing what is morally reprehensible.

[Strafio]

I've been meaning to get onto Hume's moral philosophy.
I've only been over the first Treatise, the one about understanding.
I came across Compatibilism in my philosophy lectures.
It had never occured to me that there could be a half way between both extremes, even though I kind of believed in both of them. :)

[Poop-Loops]

Believe-it-or-not, this is one place were I greatly disagree with you. Maybe it's just that we're using the same words to mean different things. I strongly believe in absolute free will. In fact, I believe it is the only real 'freedom' I have. I've tried to make this point before, but I'm not sure how well or on which Philosophy thread.

I believe my ability to carry out my choices is very limited. I am limited by my physical capabilities, by time, and by opportunity. I believe that God will withhold me from acting on some of my choices, for my own good and for the good of others around me. But there are no limits on what I can desire or want (i.e., will) to do.

"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will"

- Rush

That about sums up my opinion.

[tekkengod]

even after all this conversation and at times getting so close to the real problem. we still sit here like this, when will we accept that religion itself is the issue at hand

[Strafio]

What do you mean by religion?
That people are being told what to believe by an organisation?
I think we all agree that would be a problem.

Thing is, I don't think real religion is like that.
When I say religion, I mean a belief system shared by lots of people.
For instance, lots of Jedi all believe they can use the force. ;)

[thepunisher]

For instance, lots of Jedi all believe they can use the force. ;)

Maybe we can ask Yogurt about that. He knows what the Schwartz can do and how effective it is.
;) :D

Christian

[tekkengod]

What do you mean by religion?
That people are being told what to believe by an organisation?
I think we all agree that would be a problem.

Thing is, I don't think real religion is like that.
When I say religion, I mean a belief system shared by lots of people.
For instance, lots of Jedi all believe they can use the force. ;)

Yeah, thats about right.
ok, but also in affect is what the jedi's ability to do so has on the things they do. if you can agree that organized belief is a problem than you can agree that the affects of such belief could be a problem.

[Strafio]

You mean if the effects of a belief are a problem then the organisation that believes them will be a bigger problem?

Most religions around don't have these problems, and when they do it's a cult within the religion that's problematic rather than the religion as a whole. For instance, out of the billions of Muslims in the world, it's only a small minority who reckon non-Muslims should die.

I think some of the more hardcore christians (who I'm sure are the minority) believing that non-Christians will burn in hell is a problem. It kind of leaves an "us and them". A "we're right and they're wrong, and we can't let them be wrong" (wheras if I think someone has gotten it wrong then it doesn't matter too much). Aikimac and Capn Ann respect my beliefs, but can't really accept them (i.e. to say "that's fine to believe that.") because it would lead me to eternal damnation.
Likewise, I find the theory of judgement hard to accept as a belief as it means they haven't accepted my beliefs and there'll probably be a silent tension there... I also think that 99% of cases where people get wound up at Christians is because they've been told to believe or burn in hell. So I we talk it over, see if one of us has gotten something mixed up...

Religion, like everything else, has got it's problems but I reckon they're all solvable in some form or other. Some people say "get rid of all religion would solve it", but I can't see how? Wouldn't the law of "having no religion" be a religious dogma? It would just replace all the old religions with a new religion.

The more obvious answer let people believe what they want, but there'd bound to be some screwball cult that came up with beliefs that no one in their right mind could tolerate... meh! :D

[tekkengod]

You mean if the effects of a belief are a problem then the organisation that believes them will be a bigger problem?

Most religions around don't have these problems, and when they do it's a cult within the religion that's problematic rather than the religion as a whole. For instance, out of the billions of Muslims in the world, it's only a small minority who reckon non-Muslims should die.
I think some of the more hardcore christians (who I'm sure are the minority) believing that non-Christians will burn in hell is a problem. It kind of leaves an "us and them". A "we're right and they're wrong, and we can't let them be wrong" (wheras if I think someone has gotten it wrong then it doesn't matter too much). Aikimac and Capn Ann respect my beliefs, but can't really accept them (i.e. to say "that's fine to believe that.") because it would lead me to eternal damnation.
Likewise, I find the theory of judgement hard to accept as a belief as it means they haven't accepted my beliefs and there'll probably be a silent tension there... I also think that 99% of cases where people get wound up at Christians is because they've been told to believe or burn in hell. So I we talk it over, see if one of us has gotten something mixed up...

Religion, like everything else, has got it's problems but I reckon they're all solvable in some form or other. Some people say "get rid of all religion would solve it", but I can't see how? Wouldn't the law of "having no religion" be a religious dogma? It would just replace all the old religions with a new religion.

The more obvious answer let people believe what they want, but there'd bound to be some screwball cult that came up with beliefs that no one in their right mind could tolerate... meh! :D

The bold is the main point, doing away with those beliefs would solve the problem. But to do so in an instant, absolute fashion wouldn't help, its grip is too tight for that, but in a slow methodical fashon, will work fine, its already on its way out. My lifetime has seen the beginning of the end for religion and the beginnings of socially acceptable atheism. although to hope it do be destroyed within my life time is a little too much to hope for. You're right, religion, like everything has problems, BUT not this many, nothing else is so contradictiry, or so unnessecarily destructive.
even if it were true that that only small percents are accounted for those extreme beliefs, we've already seen hope infinately deadly those minorities are, and in the long run, Religious moderation is more worriesom than relgious extremeism because they aren't cast into the same bin and are allowed to run rampant with the same lethal lunacy. as you said, the slient tension is ever prevalent, and ever growing. i know this might sound extreme, but to quote Erick Lyncher "A war is coming"

[Scarlet Mist]

The bold is the main point, doing away with those beliefs would solve the problem. But to do so in an instant, absolute fashion wouldn't help, its grip is too tight for that, but in a slow methodical fashon, will work fine, its already on its way out. My lifetime has seen the beginning of the end for religion and the beginnings of socially acceptable atheism. although to hope it do be destroyed within my life time is a little too much to hope for. You're right, religion, like everything has problems, BUT not this many, nothing else is so contradictiry, or so unnessecarily destructive.
even if it were true that that only small percents are accounted for those extreme beliefs, we've already seen hope infinately deadly those minorities are, and in the long run, Religious moderation is more worriesom than relgious extremeism because they aren't cast into the same bin and are allowed to run rampant with the same lethal lunacy. as you said, the slient tension is ever prevalent, and ever growing. i know this might sound extreme, but to quote Erick Lyncher "A war is coming"

It's not too late you know. To accept Jesus as your lord and saviour.

[tekkengod]

and i intend to win.

[Scarlet Mist]

and i intend to win.

First of all, no one is interested in fighting a war with you. Does a cannon ball care about all the particles of air it brushes aside en route to delivering destruction. No, but the little insignificant air particles get all fiesty trying to rebel and whatnot, only to get brushed aside again, and embarassingly for the air particles, this happens without the cannon ball's knowledge!

[tekkengod]

First of all, no one is interested in fighting a war with you. Does a cannon ball care about all the particles of air it brushes aside en route to delivering destruction. No, but the little insignificant air particles get all fiesty trying to rebel and whatnot, only to get brushed aside again, and embarassingly for the air particles, this happens without the cannon ball's knowledge!

i don't really see the point of that, wasn't really what i was getting at but sure, what ever floats your boat.

[Scarlet Mist]

i don't really see the point of that, wasn't really what i was getting at but sure, what ever floats your boat.

Consider the boat floated :D

[thepunisher]

It's not too late you know. To accept Jesus as your lord and saviour.

I don't have to accept anything ScarletMist. Nor does tekkengod or any other non-believer. Especially not having a person preaching to me about what will prevent me from going to hell. A hell I don't believe in. So how about you quit it ScarletMist ?
:bang:

Christian

[Yohan]

The bold is the main point, doing away with those beliefs would solve the problem.

No it wouldn't.

But to do so in an instant, absolute fashion wouldn't help, its grip is too tight for that, but in a slow methodical fashon, will work fine, its already on its way out.

If you really look at it from a logical, intelligent, educated perspective, you would realize that religion was "on it's way out" during the rennaisance period. During this time, western civilization began to take a more secular approach to life. Instead of constantly relying on the church for everything, people and governments began to have lives outside of religious control. However, religion and spirituality are still as strong as they ever were, just in a different way. Religion and spirituality have evolved, not faded. Religion is just "getting put in it's place." In western civilizations, this means that religious infrastructure becomes less involved with secular stuff like government, justice, food production, etc. This is not so much the case in middle easter societies.

My lifetime has seen the beginning of the end for religion and the beginnings of socially acceptable atheism.

No it hasn't brother, it's been coming since the rennaisance. It's not the beginning of the end, it's just one more step in spiritual evolution. Oh yeah, by the way, your brand of atheism is still a religion.

although to hope it do be destroyed within my life time is a little too much to hope for.

Or ANY lifetime for that matter.

You're right, religion, like everything has problems, BUT not this many, nothing else is so contradictiry, or so unnessecarily destructive.

How about science? The laws that governed physics, thermodynamics, physiology, and chemistry 600 years ago are totally contradictory to what we know now. Similarly, Christianity was COMPLETELY different 600 years ago. Just like science, religion has come a long way.

Unnessecarily destructive? That's retarded. You haven't mentioned the atomic bomb, machine guns, cannons, artillery, cruise missiles, biological weapons, designer drugs, corrosive acid, or any of the other destructive forces that technology have created.

If a Judo guy beats up a TKD guy, its not because of Judo.
If some guy shoots another guy, it's not the guns fault.
If a christian kills a muslim, it's not christianities fault.

even if it were true that that only small percents are accounted for those extreme beliefs, we've already seen hope infinately deadly those minorities are, and in the long run, Religious moderation is more worriesom than relgious extremeism because they aren't cast into the same bin and are allowed to run rampant with the same lethal lunacy.

Thats TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.

as you said, the slient tension is ever prevalent, and ever growing. i know this might sound extreme, but to quote Erick Lyncher "A war is coming"

No it's not.

I don't have to accept anything ScarletMist.

Yes you do. If you don't, you'll go to hell. :eek:

[Yohan]

I'd also like to offer a serios theological viewpoint on the question.

I see god as an amalgamation of all the physical matter in the universe, along with the non-physical stuff like thoughts, creativity, "spirit," energy, and a myriad of things we don't understand or know about. As such, "god" doesn't really have the conciousness that many like to attribute to it. If it does, god is sort of a "hive mind" that doesn't have individual emotions or thoughts on subjects, but has "macroemotions" or "macrothoughts" for lack of a better term.

If you are hanging out with all of your friends, and you are thinking about girls, your friend jack is thinking about fried chicken, and betsy is thinking about the n'sync concert next week, then what, on the whole, are you all thinking about? What is your "hive mind" thinking about? Now think about that idea in terms of the entire world, where everyone in the world has many surface thoughts racing around, and even more unconcious thoughts racing around. Combine all of that together with all the emotions, the energy, and the physical matter in the world, and you effectively have one atom in god's pinky toe.

As such, god doesn't "want" anything because on that level, god doesn't have individual emotions.

However, each one of us is a representative part of god. In understanding ourselves and the world around us, we can come to have an understanding of a larger representative part of god. If you want to find out what god wants, get to know the people around you and find out what they *really* want and need. Examine yourself and find out what you *really* want and need. Then you will have a better understanding of what god "wants." Although I think describing it in such a simplified term borders on blasphemy. :D :D

Examine yourself and the things around you and you will come to understand things.

[CKava]

I don't have to accept anything ScarletMist. Nor does tekkengod or any other non-believer. Especially not having a person preaching to me about what will prevent me from going to hell. A hell I don't believe in. So how about you quit it ScarletMist ?
Christian turn your 'tongue in cheek' sensor on... Scarlet's post was clearly not meant seriously I mean tekkengod had just went of on one of his patented 'future war against religion' diatribes and he responded with "It's not too late you know. To accept Jesus as your lord and saviour." Seriously how could you manage to find offense in such an intentionally silly comment!

Maybe Strafio or CKava could chime in on how this parallels and/or contrasts with Buddhism. My understanding is that Buddhism sees desire as the source of all suffering, so desires are to be eliminated.
Bit late but seeing as you called ;). Here you are correct. First noble truth Life is suffering, second noble truth suffering is caused by desire. Fairly unambiguous. The theory goes ridding oneself of desires does not rob you of your motivation for action but simply provides you with a new motivation beyond the indulgence of personal gratification. This is however the end goal of the practice and pretty much all Buddhist traditions begin with a practice aimed at promoting the more 'positive' desires.

At the same time, Buddhism seeks the loss of individual identity into the community.
Depends what you mean by this. Loss of individual identity sounds a bit borg-ish a more Buddhist friendly description of what your getting at would be loss of ego. But even then calling it a loss would also be fairly inaccurate in Buddhist terms considering thats the very reason people are encouraged to rid themselves of it is that according to Buddhism it doesn't actually exist and is barrier preventing them from realising their true nature (at least in most mahayana traditions). As for the merging into the community bit if you mean encourages them to become a desireless drone then no but if you mean encourages people to think of everyone elses happiness of equal significance to their own then yes. Bodhissatva's in particular highlight this ideal as basically their own transcendence is put on hold while they come back and take care of everyone else.

Both my view and this view see desires and the ability to will as intimately linked with personal identity, but Buddhism apparently sees them both as bad and to be eliminated, and I see them both as good and to be harnessed/directed. Your thoughts?
Buddhism does not regard will and desires to be one in the same so losing one's desires is not analogous to losing ones will to act. In fact as I mentioned above Buddhism teaches that our desires are frequently obstacles preventing our true will from asserting itself. As for harnessing the power of desires Buddhism is not above this and there are many meditation techniques and teachings revolving around using emotional responses to develop certain qualities and mental states. Buddhism also ultimately teaches that our material life is an illusion and good and bad and other dichotomies and concepts are thus ultimately empty of any real meaning so you can't even really say Buddhism teaches anything is bad :P. Of course thats getting a bit scriptural but in summary Ann Id say Buddhism is so wide and varied its hard to make accurate comments on what it does and doesn't promote. Coupled to this there are proximate and ultimate goals in all the various forms of Buddhism but its the often misunderstood ultimate goal that most Western discourse ever mentions... so it just depends on what perspective your looking from as to how different Buddhist values are compared to Christian values.

[Knight_Errant]

God wants what every white, ageing upper class conservative male wants- Recognition, tax cuts and money for israel.
an all beef kosher hot dog. with mustard and sourkraut
Most sensible thing I've read all night. Good man.

[Topher]

It's not too late you know. To accept Jesus as your lord and saviour.
Surely you should accept it because you believe in it, not to be saved.

I wonder how many people grew up believing it to be the only way to be saved as the reason for them "believing" in it.

[Poop-Loops]

I'm running a fever today and I am probably delusional. But I just had a vision of a bunch of people gathered outside back in the day just discussing what God wants.

It hit me: We are all trying to figure out what an imaginary being wants.

We made up our own being and now are trying to please it. It's funny, really.

It's even funnier if he DOES exist. It's like he's training us as dogs. Doesn't tell us what he wants, but smacks us if we do something wrong.

[BendzR]

Surely you should accept it because you believe in it, not to be saved.

I wonder how many people grew up believing it to be the only way to be saved as the reason for them "believing" in it.

Short, yet excellent post.

Surely one cannot be judged for something they believe in.

Belief is not a choice. You have no control over what you believe.

You do have some control over what DO. (Let's not bring up determinism debates into this, for now please)

I wonder which is more significant in the bigger picture. I would have to go with the latter. I would also imagine, that if God does exist, he cares about that which you DO (subjectively and/or relatively).

Unless of course you believe in the jackass "God" in the Bible that suffers from lack of self-esteem and penis-envy... but who would want to hang out with that loser for eternity ? No thanks.

[Strafio]

Some Christians say that you have the choice to investigate further or take that leap of faith that'll lead to belief, but don't you need to have a the belief already for you to choose Christianity over other religions/faiths that also ask your faith/interest?

So I don't think that holds.
This "salvation" theory implies that life is one big game of russian roullette, except there's only one empty clip rather than one bullet, and rather than a clean sharp bullet through the head you get an eternity of intense suffering.

Talk about a grim view of life! :confused:

[wrydolphin]

God wants.....


aluminum!

Its true! God designed humans so that He could have aliminum. Proof, you ask? Here it is, tornados and aliens most often affect trailor parks which are full of, as anyone in Alabama knows- aluminum beer cans. Everyone knows that people in houses drink beer out of bottles- no aluminum, therefore, fewer tornados and aliens. See? Perfectly logical. :D

[Martial Mark]

There is so many Christian - religion - God related posts popping up on this forum now, some of which seems to be genuine people looking for answers, but there is so much confusion, I think most of the questions and problems people have is covered on this website http://gbible.org/printed_doctrine.htm

The teacher from this site gives out all his material for free, there is loads of stuff to read and download, including live streams, he has been teaching for over 30 years and goes back to the original language to ensure accurate teaching, and he is 1 of the few people that actually exposes it for what it is.

If anyone has a genuine interest in what its all about I would definately recommend visiting the above site.

[Capt Ann]

God wants.....


aluminum!

Its true! God designed humans so that He could have aliminum. Proof, you ask? Here it is, tornados and aliens most often affect trailor parks which are full of, as anyone in Alabama knows- aluminum beer cans. Everyone knows that people in houses drink beer out of bottles- no aluminum, therefore, fewer tornados and aliens. See? Perfectly logical. :D....and I thought it was because of the bowling balls and the wall-plaques with the Billy-Bob Singing Bass Fish!!!

[wrydolphin]

A common misconception, Capt Ann- but no, it's completely true. God wants aluminum.

[tekkengod]

1. No it wouldn't.

If you really look at it from a logical, intelligent, educated perspective, you would realize that religion was "on it's way out" during the rennaisance period. During this time, western civilization began to take a more secular approach to life. Instead of constantly relying on the church for everything, people and governments began to have lives outside of religious control. However, religion and spirituality are still as strong as they ever were, just in a different way. Religion and spirituality have evolved, not faded. Religion is just "getting put in it's place." In western civilizations, this means that religious infrastructure becomes less involved with secular stuff like government, justice, food production, etc. This is not so much the case in middle easter societies.

No it hasn't brother, it's been coming since the rennaisance. It's not the beginning of the end, it's just one more step in spiritual evolution. Oh yeah, by the way, your brand of atheism is still a religion.

2. Or ANY lifetime for that matter.

3. How about science? The laws that governed physics, thermodynamics, physiology, and chemistry 600 years ago are totally contradictory to what we know now. Similarly, Christianity was COMPLETELY different 600 years ago. Just like science, religion has come a long way.

4. Unnessecarily destructive? That's retarded. You haven't mentioned the atomic bomb, machine guns, cannons, artillery, cruise missiles, biological weapons, designer drugs, corrosive acid, or any of the other destructive forces that technology have created.

5.If a Judo guy beats up a TKD guy, its not because of Judo.
If some guy shoots another guy, it's not the guns fault.
If a christian kills a muslim, it's not christianities fault.

6.Thats TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.

7.No it's not.

1. Yes it would, but not in fashion i assume you're thinking.
2. (the bold) You're right, kinda overshot that one.! :D
3. we've changed because we choose to espouse fact. Religion changed to ensure its strangle hold. but it did change none the less.
4. Those are WEAPONS and DRUGS, DESIGNED to be destructive. But religion is a leash, not a knife. its destructive and it dosen't HAVE to be. apples and oranges man.
5.no, its the fault of the abilites and meathods/stratgies
no, its the fault of the person holding the gun
no, its the fault of RELIGIOUS prejuduce and hatred, which is the fault of lack of inductive reasoning.
6. no, it makes perfect sense. They're the sleeper cells of religion. and if you don't ackowladge how destructive they both are, you're blind, or insane.
7. In the immediate future? no, in our lifetime, doubtful. But in the longrun, 100 percent guarranteed. We'll pull full circle and end up where we where 400 years ago.



A common misconception, Capt Ann- but no, it's completely true. God wants aluminum.

actually its plastic, wouldn't be any plastic if we wern't around! :D

[wrydolphin]

actually its plastic, wouldn't be any plastic if we wern't around! :D


Blasphemer! Unclean! UNCLEAN! :p

[Orang Jawa]

As we all know, any difference thought about God is discouraged by many people. These are people who say they know all there is to know about this. They pick and choose the word of God and interpreted it as their own. They will tell you the last thing God wants is new thought about What God Wants. Any new thoughts about God is demonized. The New Thought Movement is considered the work of Satan.
If humanity had taken the same position with regard to new thoughts in science, technology, or medicine, it would have made virtually no progress in the past 300 years. It's true that even those fields new ideas were often slow in being accepted, but at least they were allowed. At least they could be introduced and eventually discussed. Not so in theology. Serious discussion of any possibility regarding God and life that is not in agreement with the notions commonly accepted within particular culture is not only discouraged, in some place it is labeled an Offense against the faith and punishable accordingly. Remember Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan?
When it comes to its most sacred belief, our society will not tolerate new ideas that violate doctrine-or even question it. NDW

[Infrazael]

God wants you to be you. He wants you to have free will, otherwise he wouldn't have given it to you. Forget what hardlined religious fanatics tell you.

Free Will doesn't exist. You are the result of chemical and neurological reactions, environmental factors, and the end of a chain of events.

Furthermore, it's a logical paradox for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent simultaneously.

[Shrukin89]

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto,
Mata ah-oo hima de
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto,
Himitsu wo shiri tai...


Freewill apparently is here with us. Why would we have done such stupid things, as we have noticed that war and fighting is going on? God is playing Risk with us again tisk tisk.

We aren't robots or puppets exactly but somewhat, we are here with a mind, but not controlled as like a computer or a robots processor, to do a specific task. Choice is freewill. Freewill is choice.

But there's an exception, we could let ourselves being slaved into what we are supposed to do. Ex: A job. To do a specific or assigned job until completed to avoid getting fired or whatever. Some of us are not as grateful to have as much freewill. But for some who are free from their chains could do whatever they want cause they are free.

People with no or little money have to work, to get paid to live.
People with lots of money could retire, and live on their accumulated amount of money with a lot more choices to choose from, and what to do later on.

[Shrukin89]

There are limits to Freewill, but most of us are not capable to exceed the limits of freewill.

CLF Devil
You do notice that you have freewill to write anything you want on this site to some extent right?

So how can you explain of all the threads that you have posted on this site is not contributed to freewill? ;)

When something ammuses, angers, excites, etc people in someway. You could either choose to reply or not to reply. You wouldn't have been making a choice or a decision if there wasn't any freewill.


I know CLF Devil that if you read my comment you would either
1. Make a defending statement of yours, against my statement.
2. Agree and follow along with my statement.
3. Ignore and follow along with your own statement or have no interest of anything of what's being said at all.

Also with my acknowledgement.

You can choose to be either:
A. Angry
B. Happy
C. Confused
D: Sad
E: Normal

With option 1 your emotion would express as being maybe option A, B, C, D or and E (in regards to my statement). Depending on how you are feeling I guess.

With 2 you could express as being A (As a hidden or showing attitude of a long or short discussion of who was right to of who is wrong.) B (Show of trust, and respect, in the opinion of which they think would be true enough.) C (To show signs of curiousity to help make sure they understand.) D (To know what they did or explained what was wrong, or unaccurately described as to what's false.) E (To go along with the flow to anything, showing basically no care what so ever, to a given topic or whatever)

With 3 you could express as being A (Which you don't want to be talked to or to look at what doesn't please you) B (To which you feel confident and proud with your own statement to which you think is true period.) C (To show a lack of understanding, by not replying, or to not get of what's being said) D (To not really take part in discussion but to only rely either on your own statement, or to know what you think is true, and etc that triggers sadness) E (To not really care of what's going on, or to smile and nod, or to hang and shake your head in disapproval, I guess it varies in a normal behaviour.)

I mean they're are other kinds of behaviours as well, i'm pointing our some common ones that us humans respond to from a post that I did :D, and what the result is for what we do, that makes our behaviour when making choices and such.

[Infrazael]

My argument?

I'm too lazy to type up one, but I have done so in the past and will do so again in the future, but I feel like arguing on an internet forum regarding philoosphical questions is a little redundant.

3 words:

Determinism Logically Necesitated

[Infrazael]

There are limits to Freewill, but most of us are not capable to exceed the limits of freewill.

CLF Devil
You do notice that you have freewill to write anything you want on this site to some extent right?

So how can you explain of all the threads that you have posted on this site is not contributed to freewill? ;)

When something ammuses, angers, excites, etc people in someway. You could either choose to reply or not to reply. You wouldn't have been making a choice or a decision if there wasn't any freewill.


I know CLF Devil that if you read my comment you would either
1. Make a defending statement of yours, against my statement.
2. Agree and follow along with my statement.
3. Ignore and follow along with your own statement or have no interest of anything of what's being said at all.

Also with my acknowledgement.

You can choose to be either:
A. Angry
B. Happy
C. Confused
D: Sad
E: Normal

With option 1 your emotion would express as being maybe option A, B, C, D or and E (in regards to my statement). Depending on how you are feeling I guess.

With 2 you could express as being A (As a hidden or showing attitude of a long or short discussion of who was right to of who is wrong.) B (Show of trust, and respect, in the opinion of which they think would be true enough.) C (To show signs of curiousity to help make sure they understand.) D (To know what they did or explained what was wrong, or unaccurately described as to what's false.) E (To go along with the flow to anything, showing basically no care what so ever, to a given topic or whatever)

With 3 you could express as being A (Which you don't want to be talked to or to look at what doesn't please you) B (To which you feel confident and proud with your own statement to which you think is true period.) C (To show a lack of understanding, by not replying, or to not get of what's being said) D (To not really take part in discussion but to only rely either on your own statement, or to know what you think is true, and etc that triggers sadness) E (To not really care of what's going on, or to smile and nod, or to hang and shake your head in disapproval, I guess it varies in a normal behaviour.)

I mean they're are other kinds of behaviours as well, i'm pointing our some common ones that us humans respond to from a post that I did :D, and what the result is for what we do, that makes our behaviour when making choices and such.

None of these "choices" are in any way free. They are the consequences of events that happened in the past, which will affect the way you think, act, choose in the present.

The very term of "free will" is flawed, as there is nothing intrisincally free to begin with. Humans have this ideology that we can "simply choose" based upon absolutely nothing. . . . when the truth is, every choice is based upon a previous actions, decision or event (to put things in layman's terms).

And because your "choices" are dependent upon past variables, they are not free, and never will be free.

[Capt Ann]

I think I can sum up my thoughts on the 'free will debate' like this: all you arm-chair philosophers who don't believe that free will exists, go ahead and sit there as a prisoner of your circumstances, past choices, environment, and upbringing. Me? Since I don't believe in all that rat-trap, I'm going to go use my free will to enjoy life and make a difference in the world.

:D

[Infrazael]

I think I can sum up my thoughts on the 'free will debate' like this: all you arm-chair philosophers who don't believe that free will exists, go ahead and sit there as a prisoner of your circumstances, past choices, environment, and upbringing. Me? Since I don't believe in all that rat-trap, I'm going to go use my free will to enjoy life and make a difference in the world.

:D

Stop being an idiot, and start listening. And please, what do you mean by "arm-chair philosophers?" Philosophy isn't a sport; it doesn't revolve around physical action.

And simply because I follow a logical discourse on Determinism does not mean I do not enjoy life. All these idiots who are "fearful" of determinism -- as well as the true nature of existence (lack of free will, meaninglessness of life), fear things that have little consequence to their own lives.

Just because I don't believe that Free Will exists on an intrinsic and fundamental level, does not mean that I can't enjoy life.

Where your logic stems from, I really have no idea. But since your logic is based around no conclusive evidence, I don't really give a crap.

[Infrazael]

I think I can sum up my thoughts on the 'free will debate' like this: all you arm-chair philosophers who don't believe that free will exists, go ahead and sit there as a prisoner of your circumstances, past choices, environment, and upbringing. Me? Since I don't believe in all that rat-trap, I'm going to go use my free will to enjoy life and make a difference in the world.

:D

And btw, the matter is not "belief" in anything. You can disbelieve in the logic of determinism, yet still be governed by it. All you're doing is choosing to ignore it, and ignorance is bliss, right? So be it, live like the herd that is humanity.

[Poop-Loops]

Capt Ann, it is destined that you go out, enjoy life, and make a difference in the world. DESTINED. Discuss.

[Topher]

And btw, the matter is not "belief" in anything. You can disbelieve in the logic of determinism, yet still be governed by it. All you're doing is choosing to ignore it, and ignorance is bliss, right? So be it, live like the herd that is humanity.
Ironically, her ignoring it is still determinism. Her disbelieving in determinism is determined by her existing beliefs.

[Zamfoo]

Guys calm down, we can never know if we have free will. Does it really matter? Did I just choose to write that or has it always been so? If anyone can answer that with any proof then so be it but it APPEARS that we do have free will. There's no accurate prediction mechanism for humans yet so free will hasn't been destroyed by any science. Clearly a ball will fall if dropped, several theories predict it's motion with great accuracy. NOTHING can do that with a human so we must have free will or haven't figured it out so it still looks like we do.

Another thing: what's with trying to justify deities with logic? (I'd blame St. Anselm) Who knows what God can or can't do? Who can even conceive of the God "described" in the Bible, Torah or Koran? It'd be like seeing the entire universe, you can't picture that.

[Strafio]

I think I can sum up my thoughts on the 'free will debate' like this: all you arm-chair philosophers who don't believe that free will exists, go ahead and sit there as a prisoner of your circumstances, past choices, environment, and upbringing. Me? Since I don't believe in all that rat-trap, I'm going to go use my free will to enjoy life and make a difference in the world.

:D
I'm going to make my choices, just acknowledge that I was always going to make them. Personally, I believe in compatibilism - that Free Will as we recognise it is still determined. Ann, no one who believes in determinism lets it affect their life. They make their decisions as they were always going to, just knowing that whatever decision they made it was part of a chain of events.

Ofcourse, it might be wrong.
Apparently Quantum physics shows that at a quantum level things are specifically random, doesn't have definate causes. Although I don't understand any of it personally. :)

[Capt Ann]

Capt Ann, it is destined that you go out, enjoy life, and make a difference in the world. DESTINED. Discuss.THIS is why I like talking to you guys! :D :love: :D :love:

[Capt Ann]

Ann, no one who believes in determinism lets it affect their life. I agree, which is why I can't believe in determinism as a workable life philosophy. If no one actually applies it and lets it affect their life, then of what practical use is it, as a philosophy? At most, we're relegated to being a bunch of hypocrites - people who claim to believe something, yet act in a way contrary to that belief. A workable life philosophy should offer us something more than the ability to pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves for 'being right'.

[Zamfoo]

Quantum physics is a poor excuse for an argument on free will. I imagine the idea would be based on the uncertainty principle which has to do with the velocity and location of an electron(I'm sure Azeitung knows the actual physics). If you'd like to think that the uncertainty in the placement of an electron in your body gives you free will, I can't stop you. It just seems ridiculous to me.

The complexity of the human nervous system on the other hand, added in with the lack of definition for consciousness, that might give you free will.

[Shrukin89]

None of these "choices" are in any way free. They are the consequences of events that happened in the past, which will affect the way you think, act, choose in the present.

The very term of "free will" is flawed, as there is nothing intrisincally free to begin with. Humans have this ideology that we can "simply choose" based upon absolutely nothing. . . . when the truth is, every choice is based upon a previous actions, decision or event (to put things in layman's terms).

And because your "choices" are dependent upon past variables, they are not free, and never will be free.

So what are your comments that you've made in the past that made them a consequence?

A consequence is usually a result of a decision that you have made from free will that you have made previously or from before.

If you think that then maybe you won't become free, as positive thinkers are free. Not to knock your ego down or anything. But they way you think that's true, is true in your own eyes of what you are experiencing.

"every choice is based upon a previous actions, decision or event."

Like of what the quote says: Every choice that you make, is the resultant from a previous action that you made.

All of us have different understanding points. Karma is indeed not free will, but that doesn't stop us from making our current decisions doesn't it?

Maybe to discuss of what Karma is. Karma is from my point of view is different, from free will, dude. Karma doesn't come in all consequences of punishment for doing good. Yes some bad days will occur when it comes back to haunt us from what we did in the past of what our choices were, and that we would have to live through that yes. But you have the free will to believe into what you want to believe, and think what's right.

Karma= the result of what action or choice is done in the past as being a consequence in the future
Free will= the current thought or decision is followed through an action without one's descretion or one's fate.

That's when Karma is followed through after our decision making. So we are in a bit of a tight circle. But only one to tell of what started it.

The choices trigger the cycle.

There is a link between the two but they are different. Only that punishment or reward is added in Karma.

Take a vacation and maybe you'll think that it's nice that you have decided to take one.

Don't bother of what you think is gonna happen with consequences with the decisions that you made previously, enjoy your life as it is, to it's fullest.

Only negativeness will show as a consequence later on in life when making your own decision.


If you know what I mean. I thought of what I could come up with. This isn't science nor demonstrated as facts. These are roles of what life is...

You set your own career, you set your own life by choices: To have a family, having children, finding someone you like, getting a job and etc.

Most of all of us don't know what has happened in the past when we were in a different lifetime. If you know what you have been through in the past lifetime that you think that you have experienced please tell us if you want. The choice you make isn't bounded by a consequence, we won't punish you, we swear.

[Strafio]

I agree, which is why I can't believe in determinism as a workable life philosophy. If no one actually applies it and lets it affect their life, then of what practical use is it, as a philosophy? At most, we're relegated to being a bunch of hypocrites - people who claim to believe something, yet act in a way contrary to that belief. A workable life philosophy should offer us something more than the ability to pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves for 'being right'.
Well not really. Derterminism is just recognising that everything is down to cause an effect. Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect. (The Quantum argument is about showing that "cause and effect" doesn't apply to some cases and determined will might be one of them). A bit like once you find out that your body is made up billions of little atoms, you don't treat it differently compared to before. You just recognise it as a fact.

I'm probably a compatabilist.
They believe that everything is determined because of the "cause and effect" metaphysics but that doesn't contradict free will. Free will is us acting on our desires, so even if our desires are technically determined, because we can't trace what determines them then they aren't determined to us.
A bit like how it's technically determined what you're getting for your birthday on the day the present is bought, but until the day you open it and find out what it is, you feel like it could be anything...

Some compatabilists go as far as to say that free will is impossible without determinism because then it becomes completely random rather than an "intelligent" will that makes "informed" choices. That's the best I can give you at the moment. I'll come back to you when I'm more familiar with the subject. :)

[BendzR]

I'm probably a compatabilist.
They believe that everything is determined because of the "cause and effect" metaphysics but that doesn't contradict free will. Free will is us acting on our desires, so even if our desires are technically determined, because we can't trace what determines them then they aren't determined to us.
A bit like how it's technically determined what you're getting for your birthday on the day the present is bought, but until the day you open it and find out what it is, you feel like it could be anything...

Some compatabilists go as far as to say that free will is impossible without determinism because then it becomes completely random rather than an "intelligent" will that makes "informed" choices. That's the best I can give you at the moment. I'll come back to you when I'm more familiar with the subject. :)

Very good summary of compatabilist. Being one myself, I would say you nailed the description of the viewpoint.

Good post.

[tekkengod]

go ahead and sit there as a prisoner of your circumstances

And you are a prisoner of your beliefs. :)

[Taiji Butterfly]

"God - the imaginary friend your parents want you to have...." :rolleyes: lol
:Angel:

[Topher]

Well not really. Derterminism is just recognising that everything is down to cause an effect. Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect. (The Quantum argument is about showing that "cause and effect" doesn't apply to some cases and determined will might be one of them). A bit like once you find out that your body is made up billions of little atoms, you don't treat it differently compared to before. You just recognise it as a fact.

I'm probably a compatabilist.
They believe that everything is determined because of the "cause and effect" metaphysics but that doesn't contradict free will. Free will is us acting on our desires, so even if our desires are technically determined, because we can't trace what determines them then they aren't determined to us.
A bit like how it's technically determined what you're getting for your birthday on the day the present is bought, but until the day you open it and find out what it is, you feel like it could be anything...

Some compatabilists go as far as to say that free will is impossible without determinism because then it becomes completely random rather than an "intelligent" will that makes "informed" choices. That's the best I can give you at the moment. I'll come back to you when I'm more familiar with the subject. :)
Good post.

With regard to the last point, all compatalists would say that without determinism, free will would simply be random actions and therefore not our own. That's that basis of the compatalist view. (Although i don't think they say it's impossible, just that it wouldn't make sense.) They argue that while the determinists say free will incompatible with determinism, free will also conflicts with non-determinism. If there is no determinism, free will is totally random. Therefore determinism requires free will, hence compatalism (or weak/soft determinism).

Hume summed up free will nicely as a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. For example, I could either delete my MAP account or keep it. However, both choices are not compatible with the current state of the world as it exists now. If I had the desire to delete it, I would have deleted it, but I actually desire to keep it, and therefore that is what will happen.

[Infrazael]

I agree, which is why I can't believe in determinism as a workable life philosophy. If no one actually applies it and lets it affect their life, then of what practical use is it, as a philosophy? At most, we're relegated to being a bunch of hypocrites - people who claim to believe something, yet act in a way contrary to that belief. A workable life philosophy should offer us something more than the ability to pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves for 'being right'.

Do you have NO LOGIC? Definte "workable." What makes determinism somehow "unworkable?" How does letting the fact we have no free will NOT affect us make determinism into a "non-working philosophy?"

The fact is simple. Everything is deterministic. Intelligent people will logically dissect this philosophy, or a different one such as compatabilitism, and use logic to verify its level of truth or feasibility.

For determinists such as myself, I could care less that we actually have no free will. Why should I care? The model is so complex that I wouldn't recognize the fact that we had no free will had I not logically necessitated determinism.

The reality is, we're too stupid to realize all of the factors and previous events triggering momentary events, and as such, simply ignoring it, we are able to live as if nothing had changed (well, nothing actually has to begin with).

On another note. . . . . .

I find one post regarding compatibilitism amusing, saying that they believe determinism and free will are non-contradictory because we can't trace backwards all possible factors leading to a "cause."

However, speaking deterministically, we SHOULD be able to trace back and across all factors.

It's not an impossibility, and I might even stretch to say that it's not an improbability. It's simply an imfeasibility.

[shaolin_hendrix]

I think everyone needs to calm down.