God and his free will

[Skwim]

Either way....
If for a thoughtful cause the creation does exist....freewill.
If for a spontaneous desire the creation exists...freewill.

Nope.

If His thoughts or His feelings were induce by 'something else'...
then we can approach the notion of 'Something' greater than God.

All the "something else" is is a prior cause that led to a particular thought or feeling. Nothing more.

 

[Thief]

Nope.

A simple 'nope' is not much of a rebuttal.

All the "something else" is is a prior cause that led to a particular thought or feeling. Nothing more.

And if you go for that 'something else'....
Then did it have a will of it's own?....
only if it thought so...or felt like it.

 

[Skwim]

A simple 'nope' is not much of a rebuttal.

Just a reply-in-kind to your unsupported claims.

And if you go for that 'something else'....
Then did it have a will of it's own?....
only if it thought so...or felt like it.

That "something else" would be simply a cause, which itself was the effect of a previous cause(s), and back down the line. The only other way an effect could materialize is if it was uncaused, in which case it would have to be utterly random: it could just as well have materialized as not. There are no other processes. Either an event is caused or it is uncaused and completely and utterly random.

 

[Thief]

Just a reply-in-kind to your unsupported claims.

That "something else" would be simply a cause, which itself was the effect of a previous cause(s), and back down the line. The only other way an effect could materialize is if it was uncaused, in which case it would have to be utterly random: it could just as well have materialized as not. There are no other processes. Either an event is caused or it is uncaused and completely and utterly random.

For every cause there is an effect.
For every effect there is a cause.
The two cannot be separated.

Random is now a science called 'chaos'.
which does not take away the relation ship of cause AND effect.

Intellectually, it could be said there is no reason (cause) for the creation.
But you might have to wait for that hour...and ask God ...why?

 

[Skwim]

For every effect there is a cause.

Glad you see acknowledge this simple truth.

Random is now a science called 'chaos'.

Nice sounding and all, but hardly correct. random still means: without apparent governing design, method, or purpose. The science of chaos, or more properly, chaos theory, involves "a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions . . . ."
Source: Wikipedia

which does not take away the relation ship of cause AND effect.

Not common randomness; however, as I said utterly random, and prefaced it by explaining this form of randomness would be uncaused. To be sure it's my definition, but thats where I'm going with it. Either effects have a cause or they are uncaused (utterly random). So in as much as all events except perhaps some at the subatomic level, are caused, the will would be at the mercy of these causes, and therefore not free. And this is the only sense of freewill that merits discussion. No one is talking about the will being free from external pressures or influence.

 

[Thief]

Glad you see acknowledge this simple truth.

Nice sounding and all, but hardly correct. random still means: without apparent governing design, method, or purpose. The science of chaos, or more properly, chaos theory, involves "a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions . . . ."
Source: Wikipedia

Not common randomness; however, as I said utterly random, and prefaced it by explaining this form of randomness would be uncaused. To be sure it's my definition, but thats where I'm going with it. Either effects have a cause or they are uncaused (utterly random). So in as much as all events except perhaps some at the subatomic level, are caused, the will would be at the mercy of these causes, and therefore not free. And this is the only sense of freewill that merits discussion. No one is talking about the will being free from external pressures or influence.

As we might personalize a definition....
My definition for random is more like....'let there be light.'
Given your stance it fits quite well.
From total nothingness one random...'I AM'.
But the cause would still be there.
(We might have to ask God what that was.)

No effect without cause....no cause without effect.
You have agreed with this?
Therefore nothing is utterly random.

 

[Willamena]

Because in a way it is, at least if you look at the why of it. Why did you choose as you did. You may say because " I____fill in the blank____ ." Then I'll ask you, "why did this particular reason come to mind rather than a reason that would have you deciding differently?" And so on back down the line of causes and effects. So the fact is you did what you did because the line of causes and effects leading up to your decision was what it was. To come to any other decision the line of causes and effects would have to have been necessarily different. But it wasn't, hence the decision you made.

You've put your finger on it, but seem at the same time to ignore that same finger. Whether there "is free will" or "is no free will" is simply a matter of whether we include an agent of will "me" in the picture, or leave that agent out of the picture. That agent is as arbitrary a cause as any other cause we may determine to render the required effect.

It's not that there's no free will, or that free will is an illusion --it's just a matter selective painting. Paint it this way and there's free will, or paint it that way and there's none.

 

[Nakosis]

Because CarlinKnew is a bit reticent to discuss freewill I'll jump in here.

The freewill I'm talking about in the OP is a freedom that's in opposition to any cause that may make one do something. It's not a freedom in the face of external forces restricting one somehow, but the fact that because of the inevitable chain of cause/effect events in our life, both internal and external to us, we don't (actually, can't) do other than what this chain of events leads us to do. We can't do otherwise. If you buy a hot dog instead of a hamburger it's because you HAD to buy that hot dog, There was no real choice in the matter. To have bought a hamburger instead, the chain of cause/effect events that led up to the moment of buying would have to have been different. But they weren't, so you HAD to buy the hot dog. The freedom to choose is therefore an illusion. This freewill thing simply doesn't exist.

This type of freewill seems impossible to exist. It doesn't make any sense to think an intelligent being would act without reason. It's like asking if God can act independent of his will.

For example assuming God loves man, desires man to be happy. Can God act against that desire for no reason.

Or I suppose is God free to do evil?

 

[idav]

You've put your finger on it, but seem at the same time to ignore that same finger. Whether there "is free will" or "is no free will" is simply a matter of whether we include an agent of will "me" in the picture, or leave that agent out of the picture. That agent is as arbitrary a cause as any other cause we may determine to render the required effect.

It's not that there's no free will, or that free will is an illusion --it's just a matter selective painting. Paint it this way and there's free will, or paint it that way and there's none.

Your the direct cause of posting while Skwim is an indirect cause of you posting a response. There are degrees of free will the further away an action is from direct influence.

 

[Skwim]

As we might personalize a definition....
My definition for random is more like....'let there be light.'
Given your stance it fits quite well.
From total nothingness one random...'I AM'.
But the cause would still be there.
(We might have to ask God what that was.)

No effect without cause....no cause without effect.
You have agreed with this?
Therefore nothing is utterly random.

Well, outside of those who contend that such events do happen at the subatomic level, I've never heard of any, and can't begin to imagine such a creature. So I do contend that every effect has a cause, including our "decision." We do what we do because we can't do otherwise, and from what I understand about the Christian notion of god he would also do what he does because he can't do otherwise.

You've put your finger on it, but seem at the same time to ignore that same finger. Whether there "is free will" or "is no free will" is simply a matter of whether we include an agent of will "me" in the picture, or leave that agent out of the picture. That agent is as arbitrary a cause as any other cause we may determine to render the required effect.

It's not that there's no free will, or that free will is an illusion --it's just a matter selective painting. Paint it this way and there's free will, or paint it that way and there's none.

In any religious/philosophical discussion of freewill the point of contention is this particular "painting": Freewill vs. Determinism. If a person says freewill is a matter of being able to do as one wants unless someone/thing stops them, fine; however, that's not what is at issue. The issue is that it's impossible to do other than what one is caused to do. True "choosing" is meaningless. So the will, as I believe it's generally understood, can do no differently than it's caused to do. The will is not free. If you still claim that the will is free, I have to ask, what it's free of and how it then manifests itself.

This type of freewill seems impossible to exist. It doesn't make any sense to think an intelligent being would act without reason. It's like asking if God can act independent of his will.

For example assuming God loves man, desires man to be happy. Can God act against that desire for no reason.

Or I suppose is God free to do evil?

Only if prior events of cause/effect bring him to do so. Just like us, he's at the mercy of cause. Unless his acts are totally random: they have an equal chance of not happening as happening.

 

[idav]

In any religious/philosophical discussion of freewill the point of contention is this particular "painting": Freewill vs. Determinism. If a person says freewill is a matter of being able to do as one wants unless someone/thing stops them, fine; however, that's not what is at issue. The issue is that it's impossible to do other than what one is caused to do. True "choosing" is meaningless. So the will, as I believe it's generally understood, can do no differently than it's caused to do. The will is not free. If you still claim that the will is free, I have to ask, what it's free of and how it then manifests itself.

Systems are independent of each other. If you are really free you are free of the system. Just depends to what extent.

 

[Willamena]

In any religious/philosophical discussion of freewill the point of contention is this particular "painting": Freewill vs. Determinism. If a person says freewill is a matter of being able to do as one wants unless someone/thing stops them, fine; however, that's not what is at issue. The issue is that it's impossible to do other than what one is caused to do. True "choosing" is meaningless. So the will, as I believe it's generally understood, can do no differently than it's caused to do.

That an event is described in terms of "doing what one is caused to do" is just a repainting of "me having caused something." True choosing is the latter picture. It's not meaningless unless and until you choose one picture over the other.

The will is not free. If you still claim that the will is free, I have to ask, what it's free of and how it then manifests itself.

It's not "free of" will, it's "free" will. It's freely yours.

 

[Thief]

Well, outside of those who contend that such events do happen at the subatomic level, I've never heard of any, and can't begin to imagine such a creature. So I do contend that every effect has a cause, including our "decision." We do what we do because we can't do otherwise, and from what I understand about the Christian notion of god he would also do what he does because he can't do otherwise.

So the Creator of the atomic and subatomic has no will?
You inability to imagine such a creature is no one's fault but your own.

In any religious/philosophical discussion of freewill the point of contention is this particular "painting": Freewill vs. Determinism. If a person says freewill is a matter of being able to do as one wants unless someone/thing stops them, fine; however, that's not what is at issue. The issue is that it's impossible to do other than what one is caused to do. True "choosing" is meaningless. So the will, as I believe it's generally understood, can do no differently than it's caused to do. The will is not free. If you still claim that the will is free, I have to ask, what it's free of and how it then manifests itself.

That you ask is a demonstration of freewill.
Your contention is further proof.

Only if prior events of cause/effect bring him to do so. Just like us, he's at the mercy of cause. Unless his acts are totally random: they have an equal chance of not happening as happening.

There's a lot of universe out there to say it might not happen.
Saw a documentary just last night....
a lot of very intelligent people are looking for the proof of God....
at the subatomic level.
They really believe the 'proof' could happen.

That they endeavor as such, is a testimony of freewill.

(If all will could be attributed to chemistry, creativity in thought...
cannot happen....neither will your next response. Or maybe Someone is twisting your arm?)

 

[uss_bigd]

Because in a way it is, at least if you look at the why of it. Why did you choose as you did. You may say because " I____fill in the blank____ ." Then I'll ask you, "why did this particular reason come to mind rather than a reason that would have you deciding differently?" And so on back down the line of causes and effects. So the fact is you did what you did because the line of causes and effects leading up to your decision was what it was. To come to any other decision the line of causes and effects would have to have been necessarily different. But it wasn't, hence the decision you made.

I made a decision to reply because i wish to express the answer that my personal unique orientation has taught me. which may not have been the same from the beginning. I change my perception when new information is presented...

That is not too different from everyone else, as human beings conclude according to he background that they have and according to new information that they had or will have.


there isn't any determinant that would have made the decision as not valid. you decide according to what you learn. you can not decide to choose a color if you have not seen any kind of color.

 

[Willamena]

That "something else" would be simply a cause, which itself was the effect of a previous cause(s), and back down the line. The only other way an effect could materialize is if it was uncaused, in which case it would have to be utterly random: it could just as well have materialized as not. There are no other processes. Either an event is caused or it is uncaused and completely and utterly random.

(The picture painted as) Randomness would deny one of free will as much as determination does. "Free will" is causation by an agent.

 

[Nakosis]

(The picture painted as) Randomness would deny one of free will as much as determination does. "Free will" is causation by an agent.

We choose according to the evaluation of which of our many desires we wish to fulfill.
Right?

We choose to behave in a manner we believe most probably will achieve the desired outcome.

So there is a lot of apparent choosing we do.

However for this type of libertarian freewill we'd need to arbitrarily/independent of any cause, determine what we desire. We'd have to determine what makes us happy without having a reason for that determination.

You'd have to be able to decided that a pile of crap sitting on a log is the most desirable thing in the universe. While having no reason for that desire. Then you can go about deciding how to obtain it.

I don't see humans capable of independently determining for themselves what they desire most.

God would have to independently determine what is desirable. Love, hate, fear, joy. Wealth, poverty. God would determine what is desirable in the universe for no other reason then God's say so.

 

[Willamena]

We choose according to the evaluation of which of our many desires we wish to fulfill.
Right?

...

However for this type of libertarian freewill we'd need to arbitrarily/independent of any cause, determine what we desire. We'd have to determine what makes us happy without having a reason for that determination.

You'd have to be able to decided that a pile of crap sitting on a log is the most desirable thing in the universe. While having no reason for that desire. Then you can go about deciding how to obtain it.

I don't see humans capable of independently determining for themselves what they desire most.

God would have to independently determine what is desirable. Love, hate, fear, joy. Wealth, poverty. God would determine what is desirable in the universe for no other reason then God's say so.

We choose. Regardless of what we might allocate as an influence of that choice, the significant part is "we."