Heyo
Veteran Member
Maybe there would be fewer wars but historically there were enough women who could and would, at the drop of a hat, kick a mans donkey, personally or on the battle field.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Free will deniers
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Heyo
Veteran Member
You said:
I just explained how it is logical if we assume no free will - for anyone.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
In that case nobody would be responsible for their actions. That is logically untenable. It is also insane.
@Koldo @Debater Slayer
Your replies merit further response, but I'm a bit preoccupied in my personal life, it may take me a few days to get back to this thread. Thanks for the interesting chat so far!
Your replies merit further response, but I'm a bit preoccupied in my personal life, it may take me a few days to get back to this thread. Thanks for the interesting chat so far!
Why would I want a will denier at all.
It wouldn't matter if they're free.
I want my will uncontested.
It wouldn't matter if they're free.
I want my will uncontested.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Video doesn’t note anything that hasn’t already been discussed multiple times over in the various free will threads.
I would like to discuss the issue with her, she seems like an intelligent person.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Except you just stated that the “dream world is useful” and we should live in it, before stating that accepting reality is better than living it.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
@Koldo had no choice but to put that person on his ignore list, because there is something making him do things beyond his control.
Apologies for arriving at the discussion late, but what definition of "free will" are we using?I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
No problem at all!
No worries! Thanks for the chat too.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Very perceptive. I should have formulated that better. It is useful to act as if there is free will for practical purposes while remembering that it is only a tool.
You can, for most practical purposes, assume Newtons formulas to be correct, calculate with them and live as if only they exist while remembering that Einstein's formulas are more precise.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I have my own definition of free will, as noted below, but that is not the definition others are using on this thread.
Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these can be considered causes or reasons why we choose one thing or another.
How free our choices are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as ability and opportunity but we have volition as otherwise we could not choose anything.
I watched it all. Very interesting.
We cannot deny that it's a Physicist who is dealing with a topic that theologians and philosophers usually discuss.
Of course her view is pretty insightful.
But philosophy deals with metaphysics, not with physics. Metaphysics means beyond the nature. Beyond appearances.
If we go beyond appearances, we realize that this world is changeable.
We can change the world, because we have free will.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Well said.
*Optimistic*
---------
How do we know the things we are "changing" are in accordance with our own will? And not that of an overarching God(s)/Plan?
Thank you. I meant that we can undo the natural course of events.Well said.
We can undo the natural selection: in fact, biologists are bringing extinct animals like the dodo back to life.
Through free will.
There is nothing deterministic or random in that.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
We know by looking at God's Plan and comparing that to the things we are changing.
*Optimistic*
Very very very very very very few. Have ever grasped the Plan.
Most religious and secular leaders never taste of it's Fruit
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Absolutely. Everything we do to change the world is by our own volition. I call that free will since we are free to do it or not do it.Thank you. I meant that we can undo the natural course of events.
We can undo the natural selection: in fact, biologists are bringing extinct animals like the dodo back to life.
Through free will.
There is nothing deterministic or random in that.
There is nothing deterministic or random in that. It simply amazes me that people cannot see what is so obvious.