A god can't logically judge you, not even if you have free will

[Just_me_Mike]

Not being malevolent. I'm trying to understand you. You say freewill has a demise, so you are a determinist, correct?

You say you defined free will but I honestly do not see a definition in your post. Treat me as if I'm slow. What is your definition of free will?

Why can't a god judge you according to determinism? Because you are simply a link in a causal chain.

I subscribe more to determinism than I can to any notion of freewill.
Freewill is an argument put forth that suggests we are free to choose what we want. However I simply state that the demise of such an idea is if we can prove our choices are governed by any host of other factors, our choice can never be reasoned as free, but rather guided and influenced. That is the short version.

Now, let's assume God is judging links in a casual chain, where is the error in that?

 

[CarlinKnew]

OK. What part of someone chooses to let go of all conscious desires?

What do you mean let go of all conscious desires? Do you mean to temporarily distract yourself from something you desire? Well, in order to choose to distract yourself, you would first want (desire) to distract yourself.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Freewill is an argument put forth that suggests we are free to choose what we want.

We choose what we want under determinism as well. The freewill argument is deeper than that. It says our choices are not determined, and the only way for this to be is if there is an uncaused element in our decision making process--namely, desire.

However I simply state that the demise of such an idea is if we can prove our choices are governed by any host of other factors, our choice can never be reasoned as free, but rather guided and influenced. That is the short version.

Agreed.

Now, let's assume God is judging links in a casual chain, where is the error in that?

How can a link be held responsible if it's doing the only thing it can possibly do? That's like designing a machine that is able to feel emotions, and when the machine does exactly what you designed it to do (it has no choice; it can't do anything else), you either reward or punish it. You don't see any error in that?

 

[tomato1236]

Well, this is a debate thread, so if you don't have an argument, kindly move on.

Ok. Moving on. I did not have an argument, but I had a point, and I feel that point has been expressed. Enjoy the rest of your debate.

 

[Walkntune]

What do you mean let go of all conscious desires? Do you mean to temporarily distract yourself from something you desire? Well, in order to choose to distract yourself, you would first want (desire) to distract yourself.

No not distract, completely let go.
You have the ability consciously to hold on or let go of all thoughts, feelings, and desires as you choose.
If I say something bad about you, you can either hold on to it consciously, which then triggers emotions which is the cause of thoughts or you can just let it roll off of your shoulders or in other words, not hold on to it consciously.
If you do hold on, then your consciousness will grip around the thoughts of what I said and it may bother you all day and continue until you choose to let it go consciously.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

We choose what we want under determinism as well. The freewill argument is deeper than that. It says our choices are not determined, and the only way for this to be is if there is an uncaused element in our decision making process--namely, desire.

I agree this is part of the definition to freewill put forth by many, but it is akin to making a square circle, we simply do not ever live in a vacuum that allows any free desire, because we belong to an environment and are designed as such that will never allow for such an occurrence. So, moving on...

How can a link be held responsible if it's doing the only thing it can possibly do? That's like designing a machine that is able to feel emotions, and when the machine does exactly what you designed it to do (it has no choice; it can't do anything else), you either reward or punish it. You don't see any error in that?

I see something worthy of discussion and thought, but error? Sorry no I don't. If I am honest I see that if God is real it is entirely reasonable to have God create in such a way to serve and end.

It really begs the discussion to move towards what kind of God would do this, more so than stating this is an error.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Furthermore if I created a machine and some of the parts acted in a way that led to their disposal, why am I in error for disposing of them? If other parts were acted contrary and I ended up rewarding them in some fashion, could I not do that?

This argument of yours ultimately goes back to questioning the nature of God, and much less about how God is not logical. Understand?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Which is interesting if you consider that a "master plan" and "free will" are mutually exclusive.

That is interesting. If you look forward, it would seem like everyone has free will about everything(because no one knows the future). If you look back, you could argue that there is a master plan for everything(i.e. the reason you were late for x, was so that you would experience y).

 

[JustAsking]

That is interesting. If you look forward, it would seem like everyone has free will about everything(because no one knows the future). If you look back, you could argue that there is a master plan for everything(i.e. the reason you were late for x, was so that you would experience y).

If that's the way you want to look at it, be my guest.

But memory of events past is not the same as a pre-determined future.

 

[Midnight Pete]

So when God throws you into a lake of eternal Hellfire you're justified in calling him unreasonable? I guess that's some small comfort.

And are you yourself unreasoanable for choosing that lake of fire over what Jesus offers?

 

[CarlinKnew]

No not distract, completely let go.
You have the ability consciously to hold on or let go of all thoughts, feelings, and desires as you choose.
If I say something bad about you, you can either hold on to it consciously, which then triggers emotions which is the cause of thoughts or you can just let it roll off of your shoulders or in other words, not hold on to it consciously.
If you do hold on, then your consciousness will grip around the thoughts of what I said and it may bother you all day and continue until you choose to let it go consciously.

I'm feeling some deja vu. Yes, you can choose to focus on things. Why do you choose to focus on things?--because you want (desire) to.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If that's the way you want to look at it, be my guest.

But memory of events past is not the same as a pre-determined future.

Master plan exists in the past. Free will exists in the future. Does that mean both exist in the present? Or neither?
An even better question is why does it matter? One, the other, both. If we can't tell the difference, then does it have meaning? Are we all going to change our lives because we suddenly have the free will to do anything we want? Are we all going to bow down in submission to the executor of the master plan?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Furthermore if I created a machine and some of the parts acted in a way that led to their disposal, why am I in error for disposing of them?

Because you designed them that way in the first place... If you designed them to lead to their disposal, why did you do that in the first place? That's illogical: "I'm going to design something, and when it works as I intended, I'll throw it away!" or just sadistic if those "parts" feel emotions.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Master plan exists in the past. Free will exists in the future. Does that mean both exist in the present? Or neither?
An even better question is why does it matter? One, the other, both. If we can't tell the difference, then does it have meaning? Are we all going to change our lives because we suddenly have the free will to do anything we want? Are we all going to bow down in submission to the executor of the master plan?

When the executor of the master plan was among us, he insisted on washing people's feet. He insisted on being pierced and lashed for us. He insisted on dying for us.

 

[JustAsking]

Master plan exists in the past. Free will exists in the future. Does that mean both exist in the present? Or neither?
An even better question is why does it matter? One, the other, both. If we can't tell the difference, then does it have meaning? Are we all going to change our lives because we suddenly have the free will to do anything we want? Are we all going to bow down in submission to the executor of the master plan?

Free will and the concept of a "Master Plan" are mutually exclusive. One can't exist with the other. Either everything is pre-determined or you are free to choose your fate. You simply can't have it both ways.

Either you subscribe to one or the other.

Edit: I think I misinterpreted your point/question...

The only thing I can say to your question is, if everything is pre-determined, why don't we all just commit suicide? If we are all successful, that was the plan all along. I just don't see the point in continuing with this charade if it's all figured out already.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Free will and the concept of a "Master Plan" are mutually exclusive. One can't exist with the other. Either everything is pre-determined or you are free to choose your fate. You simply can't have it both ways.

Either you subscribe to one or the other.

Edit: I think I misinterpreted your point/question...

The only thing I can say to your question is, if everything is pre-determined, why don't we all just commit suicide? If we are all successful, that was the plan all along. I just don't see the point in continuing with this charade if it's all figured out already.

Ah yes, the giddy screeching descent into nihilism.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

When the executor of the master plan was among us, he insisted on washing people's feet. He insisted on being pierced and lashed for us. He insisted on dying for us.

Thou hast not answered my question. If we have a master plan, or free will, why does it matter? And now that you've brought it up, why does what Jesus did matter?

 

[tomato1236]

Thou hast not answered my question. If we have a master plan, or free will, why does it matter? And now that you've brought it up, why does what Jesus did matter?

Nothing really matters...to meeeeeeeeeee.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Thou hast not answered my question. If we have a master plan, or free will, why does it matter? And now that you've brought it up, why does what Jesus did matter?

Mel Gibson got to make a movie about him. That's something.

 

[JustAsking]

Ah yes, the giddy screeching descent into nihilism.

No, but that would prove one way or the other. The real point is, free will or master plan, we can't know. But the popular theory is, if we have a god that judges us on our actions, we better have free will. Otherwise, what's the point? If we are planned to go to hell, good luck stopping that.

A Master Plan basically takes the essence out of life and I refuse to subscribe to that theory.