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

[Storm]

Choice follows from desire. This is a fact you cannot escape. You choose according to what you desire. Yes, this means when a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his comrades, his desire to be altruistic was stronger than his desire to live, and when you skip the ice cream to go exercise, your desire to be healthy was stronger than your desire to have some sweets.

Desire follows from _____. Fill in the blank. Depending on your worldview -- free will or determinism -- you might believe that your desires arise freely, because they appear in your soul without cause. On the other hand, you might believe that your desires are the result of your genetically programmed body deterministically interacting with the environment.

Neither of these worldviews justifies a god holding you accountable for your actions. Regarding determinism, the reasons are obvious and I won't list them. A god can't logically deem you responsible for your actions if you have free will either, and the reasoning is just as obvious to me as in the case of determinism. According to free will:

Choice follows from desire.
Desire arises in the soul without cause.

Therefore, you are choosing according to desires that you did not cause. How can a god reasonably hold you accountable for that?

.......

I don't think you really get the whole "free will" concept. :sorry1:

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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.

But both exist at the same time!
Unless you're saying that a quadratic equation has only one root (place where f(x)=0). Then the fundamental theorem on Algebra would like to have a word with you. Or Gauss would...he proved that f(x) with degree n has n roots. (so a quadratic (degree two) has two roots). You only use one at a time, yes, but both exist.

I just don't see the point in continuing with this charade if it's all figured out already.

I wouldn't either. I just saw a perfect opportunity to use a math theorem in explaining faith.

 

[JustAsking]

But both exist at the same time!
Unless you're saying that a quadratic equation has only one root (place where f(x)=0). Then the fundamental theorem on Algebra would like to have a word with you. Or Gauss would...he proved that f(x) with degree n has n roots. (so a quadratic (degree two) has two roots). You only use one at a time, yes, but both exist.

I wouldn't either. I just saw a perfect opportunity to use a math theorem in explaining faith.

Eeek. I don't mean any disrespect, but if you're saying that math problem proves a religious point, you're deluded.

If you want to believe that a Master Plan and Free Will coexist. Be my guest!

 

[Midnight Pete]

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.

Okay, don't subscribe to it.

You don't have to subscribe to The Movie Channel either.

 

[JustAsking]

Okay, don't subscribe to it.

You don't have to subscribe to The Movie Channel either.

What would your point be?

 

[CarlinKnew]

.......

I don't think you really get the whole "free will" concept. :sorry1:

Go on...

 

[Storm]

Go on...

Well, what you described was just determinism, only you labelled it "free will" for no reason I can see.

Free will is the capacity to choose. If it's pre-determined, it's not free will.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Well, what you described was just determinism, only you labelled it "free will" for no reason I can see.

Free will is the capacity to choose. If it's pre-determined, it's not free will.

No, uncaused events result in indeterminism. An uncaused component of the decision-making process--namely, desire--is necessary for free will.

 

[Storm]

No, uncaused events result in indeterminism. An uncaused component of the decision-making process--namely, desire--is necessary for free will.

I disagree. Free will is defined by free choice. You're just slapping a theological label onto your native position, namely that we have no real control over our actions. That's not free will.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Eeek. I don't mean any disrespect, but if you're saying that math problem proves a religious point, you're deluded.

If you want to believe that a Master Plan and Free Will coexist. Be my guest!

Einstein said that science and religion are two branches of the same tree.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I disagree. Free will is defined by free choice.

Free will states that our choices are not determined; you could call it free choice. This requires an uncaused component in the decision-making process.

You're just slapping a theological label onto your native position,...

My stance is determinism, which is completely different.

...namely that we have no real control over our actions. That's not free will.

You have a different understanding, so what is your clear and comprehensive definition of free will?

 

[Zadok]

So we are the products of our experiences? Are you arguing for determinism?

Wrong - we are a product of our choices and our intelligence to learn from our choices and alter our behavior.

Yes, and the desire to change your behavior, from where did it arise? Is it the result of your biological-machine-of-a-body interacting with the environment deterministically, or did it arise uncaused as in the free will argument?

You seem to be stuck in determinism. That is that all things are preset including our will to learn and alter our behavior. By your definitions there is nothing for us to determine. Your definitions rely on all things being predetermined. If we exclude all external to self things you are arguing that our will is predetermined.

I am suggesting the possibility of intelligence which would imply that as we learn the more intelligent we may become allowing us to make different choices. However, we must also realize that even though one may see advantage in new choices they may revert and not alter behavior. Thus will is at risk of being overrun by habit.

I have posted on this forum that the first step to freedom is discipline. Discipline is the first choice we make. It has been said that the lack of discipline is what deceives us into sacrificing what we want most for what we want right now.

Zadok

 

[Storm]

Free will states that our choices are not determined; you could call it free choice.

Yes. But your op states that our choices are determined by our desires. If they're determined by _____, they're not free.

This requires an uncaused component in the decision-making process.

The very idea that there is an unwavering process making our choic3es for us is anathema to the concept of free will.

My stance is determinism, which is completely different.

What do you see as the difference?

You have a different understanding, so what is your clear and comprehensive definition of free will?

Your first sentence hit the nail on the head.

 

[JustAsking]

Einstein said that science and religion are two branches of the same tree.

And I once said that potatoes are natures tasty rocks..

Neither are relevant to this conversation.

But, lets say that somewhere some math equation proves some religious point. It's interesting that you not only think you found the right equation but you know exactly which part of which religion it proves.

Or, you could just be taking random things from random places, saying they prove something when glued together and call it an argument.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Yes. But your op states that our choices are determined by our desires. If they're determined by _____, they're not free.

Choices are necessarily based on desires. You choose what you want; that is the very nature of choice.

What do you see as the difference?

One is subject to determinism; the other isn't.

The very idea that there is an unwavering process making our choic3es for us is anathema to the concept of free will.

Your first sentence hit the nail on the head.

...so what is your clear and comprehensive definition of free will?

 

[Storm]

Choices are necessarily based on desires. You choose what you want; that is the very nature of choice.

Wait, your argument is that we choose our desires?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Wait, your argument is that we choose our desires?

Part of my argument is that choice is a matter of selecting what you want.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

And I once said that potatoes are natures tasty rocks..

Neither are relevant to this conversation.

But, lets say that somewhere some math equation proves some religious point. It's interesting that you not only think you found the right equation but you know exactly which part of which religion it proves.

Or, you could just be taking random things from random places, saying they prove something when glued together and call it an argument.

I found a relation, not a proof. I think its a pretty cool relation, but that's just me.

 

[Erebus]

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

No offence, but I've been down this road far too many times already. In the end, we're unlikely to ever agree with each other on this, so I'm not going to start a conversation on it.

 

[JustAsking]

I found a relation, not a proof. I think its a pretty cool relation, but that's just me.

If you want to say you found a math equation that you believe relates to religion, that's cool with me. I must admit I'm a little jealous though, I wish I still had that much of an imagination at times!