God wants us to love darkness and evil!

[thomas t]

This appears to be argument by assertion. I put forward and argument and you,

the thing that you call argument, is circular reasoning at best.
It goes like this: 1) there is nothing that can determine decisions except determinism and random
hence 2) there is no free will.

And then you hail your reasoning calling it "argument".
You rule out the existence of free will in 1) and then you conclude that, 2), there is no such thing as free will.
It's all circular.

I'm pointing that out. That's all.

Your idea that I have made up a contradiction and that "free will" can address it, is a presumption because you've produced no reasoning at all to back it up.

My idea is that you cannot back up your "contradiction" by anything. You did not (see post above). I'm pointing that out, that's all.
You came up with a bold claim that the notion of free will produces a contradiction. So far, all you did was resort to circular reasoning as an "argument" to back it up.

If we have a (closed) system that develops over time

the concept that everything develops ... and nothing is designed is the atheist mantra. I don't buy into it.

it doesn't address the problem unless you explain how a difference can come about that is not based on anything but isn't random, is purposeful, and has reasons.

as I pointed out in #56, I am entitled to use the dictionary and take a word from it. Even if you don't like the dictionary.
When using a dictionary word, the onus is not on me to explain anything and everything about it.

 

[1213]

God wanted early Christians to be decapitated, crucified, dismembered, raped, fed to wild animals, used as torches at the Olympic games, grilled alive, and be underground , living a nightmare for centuries...

Did God tell you this, or is this just your opinion?

I disagree with your opinion, because God's commandments are basically in "love your neighbor as yourself". God gave people freedom and also law, which means it is possible that people do all kind of evil things, but I think it is utterly wrong to claim the evil what people want is what God wants.

 

[Spiderman]

Did God tell you this, or is this just your opinion?

I disagree with your opinion, because God's commandments are basically in "love your neighbor as yourself". God gave people freedom and also law, which means it is possible that people do all kind of evil things, but I think it is utterly wrong to claim the evil what people want is what God wants.

I have strong suspicion God told me because God made Demons and gives them permission to do what they do.

God also cursed people in Genesis so that naturally they would be inclined to evil.

Isaiah also says " I create evil".

The Devil killed Jobs family only because God told him to essentially.

But the people that love people glorify God more than the people who kill people.

But both are doing God's will.

I have strong suspicion war and evil bad guys entertain God in the same way people like violent videos and supervillains.

I'm 99% sure God told me this on 03/03/2015 and multiple times since then.

 

[ratiocinator]

the thing that you call argument, is circular reasoning at best.
It goes like this: 1) there is nothing that can determine decisions except determinism and random
hence 2) there is no free will.

Total misunderstanding. The argument is either decisions are fully determined by causes or they aren't and therefore involve randomness (because to the extent they are not determined by causes, they are caused by nothing).

To overcome that argument you'd need to say how something can be uncaused and not random.

Are you actually saying that you think something without any cause can be non-random?

Edit: I'm still trying to get what it is you're missing. The argument is to establish that there is nothing but determinism or some some random element. That isn't its starting point.

the concept that everything develops ... and nothing is designed is the atheist mantra. I don't buy into it.

Again this looks like you haven't even begun to understand what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with design verses some sort of 'development'. Are you confusing 'development' with 'evolution'? The state of my computer develops over time but it was definitely designed. Perhaps try substituting 'develops over time' with 'changes over time' and try again?

I am entitled to use the dictionary and take a word from it.

Of course you can but a definition is not an argument for its existence and does not address my argument.

 

[thomas t]

I understand your point sperfectly well.
I don't understand why you are trying to make things look as I didn't understand anything you said on the subject level.

Let's start here:

Again this looks like you haven't even begun to understand what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with design verses some sort of 'development'.

development was the term that you used before, excluding design. This was your quote:

If we have a (closed) system that develops over time and it can have more than one future, then obviously the different outcomes cannot have anything to do with the state of the system. Therefore, since the system has no inputs, said differences can have no cause and are random. Do you really not understand that?

Your arguments are all based on the assumtion that it is a closed system that develops.

So it's all circular. If the system is closed, a God could not have inserted some capacity of free will.
So this is how you exclude free will, however you have no reason whatsoever to exclude God from having initialized free will.

To overcome that argument you'd need to say how something can be uncaused and not random.

no. You are the one making the bold assertions here, so you need to back your point up that there is no other option than deterministic system or randomness.
You are the one needing to show how there can be no other option than these two.
As I said in #48.
You just stated the same exact argument as in your #46.
So this is going round in circles again. Can we get off this merry go round?

Total misunderstanding. The argument is either decisions are fully determined by causes or they aren't and therefore involve randomness (because to the extent they are not determined by causes, they are caused by nothing).

"causes" do not exclude free will.

-----------
I addressed all of your points.
There is none that I did not address.

 

[Marcion]

To have genuine unshakable happiness in every circumstance and always smile and love afflictions is truly a big secret to happier world.

That's the ideal of being a tantric. You can train it by not avoiding obstacles, taking on challenges and (as a male only) by dancing the tandava, the psycho-spiritual dance taught by Lord Shiva just over 7000 years ago. We are always balancing between good and bad (also choices), between life and death.
That is why you dance the tandava with a dagger or fire torch in your right hand (life) and a skull or live snake (death) in your left hand (you are the one in the middle leading the ongoing fight).

The Tantric Jesus also uses the images of fire and sword in his original sayings in Q-lite. He says with this that he is the bringer of light, of the power to overcome darkness.

 

[ratiocinator]

I understand your point sperfectly well.

Obviously not...

Your arguments are all based on the assumtion that it is a closed system that develops.

Of course it's closed because it's supposed to represent a human mind and absolutely every interaction it has with anything external to it.

So it's all circular. If the system is closed, a God could not have inserted some capacity of free will.

God can be one of the things the mind interacts with - so is not excluded. In any case, free will, if it were to exist, would surely be an innate part of the human mind - not something god has to intervene in during every choice. Even if you think the latter, it makes no difference to the logic.

I addressed all of your points.

You haven't so far addressed any of them. Bland assertions and misunderstandings do not address the points.

no. You are the one making the bold assertions here, so you need to back your point up that there is no other option than deterministic system or randomness.

I have made the argument multiple times and you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp it.

"causes" do not exclude free will.

Free will is about choice-making. It cannot in and of itself be a cause of a choice because it is (if it exists) a way of making choices. The link you referenced says as much: "Free will, in humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives..."

We make choices for reasons (or not entirely for reasons).

The fact is that every choice has inputs (all its antecedents, all the things internal or external to the mind that might influence it) and an output (the choice). Either all the inputs mean there can only be one output or not.

If you think there's a third option - what is it?

If there is only one possible output, then it's a deterministic system and if not, in must involve some randomness because something has gone on that is nothing at all to to with any reason for it to happen (all the inputs). That's why there is only determinism or randomness.

If you think there can be more than one output for the same inputs without it being causeless (nothing to do with the inputs) and hence random, then how?

Bear in mind that the inputs include the entire state of mind prior to the choice. Yet again, just saying "free will" doesn't make the logic go away - without answering the above questions "free will" is a meaningless phrase.

 

[thomas t]

If you think there can be more than one output for the same inputs without it being causeless (nothing to do with the inputs) and hence random, then how?

this is going round in circles.
I answered it in my last post.
I wrote:
no. You are the one making the bold assertions here, so you need to back your point up that there is no other option than deterministic system or randomness.
You are the one needing to show how there can be no other option than these two.
As I said in #48.
You just stated the same exact argument as in your #46.
So this is going round in circles again. Can we get off this merry go round?

just saying "free will" doesn't make the logic go away - without answering the above questions "free will" is a meaningless phrase.

I still will use free will as cited in the dictionary.

Of course it's closed because it's supposed to represent a human mind and absolutely every interaction it has with anything external to it.

It can't be compared to a closed system such as in engineering.
In a closed system, every input is known, you can't possibly know all the inputs that come from God.

You haven't so far addressed any of them. Bland assertions and misunderstandings do not address the points.

I adressed every argument of yours and refuted them each using argumentation as opposed to bland assertions.
Of course I understood everything you said.

I have made the argument multiple times and you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp it.

see above.
Now lets assume God planted free will and is not going to engage into the decision making any further.
in this case free will is the third option.

If there is only one possible output, then it's a deterministic system and if not, in must involve some randomness

this is what you keep repeating again and again.
So I repeat myself again, too: Free will is the third option, as I see it, free will makes the difference in decision making, as I see it.
Again, free will is not meaningless, it has the meaning that you cited yourself. Free will enables man to decide. Even if all the inputs are the same, and even if randomness is excluded.
Even if you call free will "way of decision making", it is the reason the outcomes can differ, I guess.

edited to add last paragraph

 

[InChrist]

no,
I haven't.

God could heal people and leaves them confused and full of disorders.

Also, God in Scripture violates free will all the time.

God could protect a child without violating free will by simply giving pedophiles and murderers heart attacks or healing them psychologically.

God could also not have created the Devil or stop the devil from tempting people.

God also didn't have to curse everyone with original sin and curse all the descendants of Ham or curse all kinds of people.

You seem to have forgotten that God wants people to suffer. Have you read the Bible?

I think...
You seem to have forgotten that the Bible clearly reveals SIN is the cause of suffering in this fallen, temporal world.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you think there can be more than one output for the same inputs without it being causeless (nothing to do with the inputs) and hence random, then how?

no. You are the one making the bold assertions here, so you need to back your point up that there is no other option than deterministic system or randomness.
You are the one needing to show how there can be no other option than these two.

If you can't answer the question, then I have demonstrated that exact point.

I still will use free will as cited in the dictionary.

Which is ambiguous and doesn't constitute an argument for its existence or its logical self-consistency. I can look up a definition of (say) 'ghost' in a dictionary, but it doesn't mean they exist or even make sense.

It can't be compared to a closed system such as in engineering.
In a closed system, every input is known, you can't possibly know all the inputs that come from God.

This is another clear case of you not understanding the argument. It doesn't matter what we know (or even what we can possibly know) about the details, it's an argument about the principle. Human minds exists and they interact with their environments (which may include a god).

Even if you call free will "way of decision making", it is the reason the outcomes can differ, I guess.

Logically, if they can differ, it can't be because of anything (any cause or reason), and something that happens without any cause or reason is a good definition of random.

To summarise the argument again. When somebody makes a choice, we have:

Input A: Mind state pre-choice
Input B: The environment (everything external to the mind that its interacting with; possibly including a god).
Process: Choice-making or "free will".
Output C: Mind state post-choice

All four items are way too complex for us to fully understand or know the details of but we can ask a simple question: Give A and B, is there always only one possible C? Even if we can't know the answer, it must be either yes or no.

If yes, then we have determinism.

If no, then something has happened within the process that is not caused by anything in the choice-maker's mind, its environment, or anything else (there isn't anything else that can possibly be relevant) - which, as I said, is a good definition of random.

 

[thomas t]

This is another clear case of you not understanding the argument. It doesn't matter what we know (or even what we can possibly know) about the details, it's an argument about the principle. Human minds exists and they interact with their environments (which may include a god).

I did understand what you wrote.
"Closed system" is a term stemming from engineering.
Wikipedia says: In an engineering context, a closed system is a bound system, i.e. defined, in which every input is known and every resultant is known (or can be known) within a specific time.

Closed system is a well defined word. Also for physics and thermodynamics. However, the comparison would even make less sense if we take the meaning from that area, I'm afraid.

If you can't answer the question, then I have demonstrated that exact point.

no. In order for you to substanciate your claim, you cannot ask a question. A question never substanciates anything.
Like so.
- "You stole my money!"
- "Can you back this up by anything please ?"
- "Answer this: Why am I so poor?"
- "I don't know"
- "See? If you can't answer the question, then I have demonstrated that exact point."

OR
- the sun is 10 miles large
- can you back this up?
- answer this: how large is the sun?
- I don't know.
- See? If you can't answer the question, then I have demonstrated that exact point."

That's ridiculous.
I simply did not answer your question, that's all, but that does not prove your point right.
Again, if you come up with a bold assertion the onus is all on you.

Which is ambiguous and doesn't constitute an argument for its existence or its logical self-consistency. I can look up a definition of (say) 'ghost' in a dictionary, but it doesn't mean they exist or even make sense.

let's look up ghost in the dictionary. In Wikipedia, it says outspokenly "The overwhelming consensus of science is that there is no proof that ghosts exist"

Again: if you want to tell me the free will does not exist, it's on you to disprove the concept.

Logically, if they can differ, it can't be because of anything (any cause or reason), and something that happens without any cause or reason is a good definition of random.

To summarise the argument again. When somebody makes a choice, we have:

Input A: Mind state pre-choice
Input B: The environment (everything external to the mind that its interacting with; possibly including a god).
Process: Choice-making or "free will".
Output C: Mind state post-choice

All four items are way too complex for us to fully understand or know the details of but we can ask a simple question: Give A and B, is there always only one possible C? Even if we can't know the answer, it must be either yes or no.

If yes, then we have determinism.

If no, then something has happened within the process that is not caused by anything in the choice-maker's mind, its environment, or anything else (there isn't anything else that can possibly be relevant) - which, as I said, is a good definition of random.

I answered this already.
Concerning input A, I wrote in#51:
Let me put it that way:
1) IF free will is included in what you call state of mind, you did not preclude free will from being there. It's just included therein. In this case your argument boils down to a mere tautology: if everything is the same, including a potential free will deicision, then everything is the same. Yeah, obviously.
2) IF free will is not included in what you call "state of mind", this is the exact factor that causes a potentially different outcome (apart from random), I think. As I said last post.

So this is going round in circles again.

 

[ratiocinator]

In order for you to substanciate your claim, you cannot ask a question. A question never substanciates anything.

Again you completely misunderstand. I have presented an argument. The question is just your opportunity to refute it.

Let me put it that way:
1) IF free will is included in what you call state of mind, you did not preclude free will from being there. It's just included therein. In this case your argument boils down to a mere tautology: if everything is the same, including a potential free will deicision, then everything is the same. Yeah, obviously.
2) IF free will is not included in what you call "state of mind", this is the exact factor that causes a potentially different outcome (apart from random), I think. As I said last post.

Free will (according to your own source) is the "power or capacity to choose among alternatives" - in other words, it's an ability, it is something that the mind does, not part of its state at any given time. As such, if it exists, it must be (part of) the process of choice making. My question and the two possible answers, therefore rule it out (except in the compatibilist sense).

 

[thomas t]

Again you completely misunderstand. I have presented an argument. The question is just your opportunity to refute it.

in the last post you said that the mere question would prove you right, you said:

If you can't answer the question, then I have demonstrated that exact point.

You did not present any argument to bolster your point... that I left unrefuted.

[...] if [free will] exists, it must be (part of) the process of choice making.

the process in itself could perhaps alter the outcome.
For instance if you take the boat to get from A to B, the boat driver could perhaps change his mind mid-process and take you to C.
Humans could perhaps alter their choices mid-process.

Before you call this a bland statement... the onus is on you to rule a third answer out.
And no, asking question cannot rule anything out.

You simply assert that there only two answers possible. It's your assertion, you could not make an argument.
Later you called your assertion "argument" and said "you misunderstood" but I didn't misunderstand.

 

[ratiocinator]

You did not present any argument to bolster your point... that I left unrefuted.

I have presented the argument multiple times and in different ways.

the process in itself could perhaps alter the outcome.
For instance if you take the boat to get from A to B, the boat driver could perhaps change his mind mid-process and take you to C.
Humans could perhaps alter their choices mid-process.

Yes - but that is just another choice. You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind and the question and its only two answers still apply and hence rule out free will except in the compatibilist sense.

You simply assert that there only two answers possible. It's your assertion, you could not make an argument.

You keep on asserting this and it simply isn't true. The argument is that if something happens that isn't due to a state of mind or something in the environment, then it must be due to nothing, and something that happens for no reason must be random. You can say you don't agree or you can say that it's invalid or that the conclusion doesn't follow or point out any other flaw you like but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop saying that I haven't produced an argument, because it isn't true.

There are a number of principles:

1. The only things that can cause an event are those that are its logical antecedents.
2. Specifically in the case of human choices the only possible antecedents are the previous state of mind and the environment.
   
3. To the extent an event is not caused by something it is caused by nothing.
4. Something without a cause must be random.

So where do you think the flaw is? Which do you think is just an assertion?

 

[thomas t]

You keep on asserting this and it simply isn't true. The argument is that if something happens that isn't due to a state of mind or something in the environment, then it must be due to nothing, and something that happens for no reason must be random. You can say you don't agree or you can say that it's invalid or that the conclusion doesn't follow or point out any other flaw you like but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop saying that I haven't produced an argument, because it isn't true.

but this is the same old argument:
I refuted it here, #71:
I answered this already.
Concerning input A, I wrote in#51:
Let me put it that way:
1) IF free will is included in what you call state of mind, you did not preclude free will from being there. It's just included therein. In this case your argument boils down to a mere tautology: if everything is the same, including a potential free will deicision, then everything is the same. Yeah, obviously.
2) IF free will is not included in what you call "state of mind", this is the exact factor that causes a potentially different outcome (apart from random), I think. As I said last post.

So this is going round in circles again.

So this is going round and round in circles again.
You claimed that free will can only be the process of how a decision is made.
However, I answered this in the last post saying that the process could alter the choice.
Now you say:

Yes - but that is just another choice. You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind

remember: the process is what you assigned the free will to, according to the dictionary definition. In doing so, you're including free will in what you call state of mind.

The principles that you laid out don't change anything in your argumentation, since they include state of mind (see 2) and this is what you assign the free will to, as I just showed.

So it get's circular again, since state of mind is what you want to keep unchanged as an input for a certain output.

So your argument goes like this:
IF the state of mind is exactly the same (including the process/ free will to get to the decision .... ) then the outout can only be the same, too.
yeah sure. If you keep free will constant the output will be the same (if it isn't random or conpatibility). But this does not rule out the existence of free will, of course. You conveniently included it in the inputs that you want to keep the same.

Our whole discussion did not get one inch further, it keeps going round and round in circles. Can we finally get off this merry go round, here?
I do understand everything you say. You said everything. Lets stop it here, I suggest.

 

[ratiocinator]

but this is the same old argument:
I refuted it here, #71:
...
So this is going round in circles again.

It's going round in circles because you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp the argument I've made and attempt to refute it. I gave a list of principles I've used that you've edited out and ignored. Which do you think is wrong?

remember: the process is what you assigned the free will to, according to the dictionary definition. In doing so, you're including free will in what you call state of mind.

No - I explicitly said that it wasn't part of the state of mind but part of the process that changes the state of mind - the choice-making is the 'free will' (if it exists). This is exactly what your cited definition implies.

It makes no sense at all to say that 'free will' is part of a state of mind. It's a way (if it exists) in which a state of mind can change (from not having made a choice to having made one), which is exactly why we can ask the question I did, that only has two possible answers and which you seem to be so keen on totally ignoring.

 

[thomas t]

It's going round in circles because you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp the argument I've made and attempt to refute it. I gave a list of principles I've used that you've edited out and ignored. Which do you think is wrong?

I commented on it in my last post. I grasped that. I wrote:
The principles that you laid out don't change anything in your argumentation, since they include state of mind (see 2) and this is what you assign the free will to, as I just showed.
It going round in circles because you repeat.

No - I explicitly said that it wasn't part of the state of mind but part of the process that changes the state of mind

Here you are contradicting yourself. ONly one post earlier you also wrote this:

You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind

so this is exactly where you included "the process" as you say to.... the state of mind.
This is where it gets circular, as I see it. It's allcircular.

It makes no sense at all to say that 'free will' is part of a state of mind. It's a way (if it exists) in which a state of mind can change (from not having made a choice to having made one), which is exactly why we can ask the question I did, that only has two possible answers and which you seem to be so keen on totally ignoring.

See above.
I did not ignore anything.

 

[ratiocinator]

I commented on it in my last post. I grasped that. I wrote:
The principles that you laid out don't change anything in your argumentation, since they include state of mind (see 2) and this is what you assign the free will to, as I just showed.
It going round in circles because you repeat.

Free will cannot possibly be part of a state of mind - it is (if it exists) a process by which one state of mind transforms into another.

Here you are contradicting yourself. ONly one post earlier you also wrote this:

There is no contradiction - each time the state of mind changes (no matter how small the change) it has to go through a process of change (obviously).

so this is exactly where you included "the process" as you say to.... the state of mind.

Once again you have failed to understand the point. A state of mind is just a static 'snapshot'. If 'free will' exists it has to be about how one state of mind changes into another. At one point in time you have a state of mind that is undecided between some different options and at some later time you have decided on one of them. You will also be in an environment of which you are aware. We then have the situation I outlined before:

Input A: Mind state pre-choice
Input B: The environment (everything external to the mind that its interacting with; possibly including a god).
Process: Choice-making or "free will".
Output C: Mind state post-choice

We can then ask the question of whether A and B can only lead to one C. "Free will", if it exists, is the process, not part of the states of mind. This is what your own source stated, it's the capacity to make a choice, so we will only see it in action when a choice is actually made. My argument is an analysis of what is logically possible during that process of change. The question is a simple yes/no one and the implications of each are determinism or some randomness.

If a choice involves many smaller "sub-choices" then the argument applies equally to each one. In fact you could apply it to every single thought and feeling and everything that changes subconsciously as well.

 

[thomas t]

Once again you have failed to understand the point. A state of mind is just a static 'snapshot'. If 'free will' exists it has to be about how one state of mind changes into another.

+

Free will cannot possibly be part of a state of mind - it is (if it exists) a process by which one state of mind transforms into another.

+

There is no contradiction - each time the state of mind changes (no matter how small the change) it has to go through a process of change (obviously).

ok, no contradiction then,
but it gets circular.
Since for you the process is where you put the free will into.
So if you say "all inputs (including the process leading to a certain state of mind) being equal...", free will is included!
So when you define free will as part of (the process) which is constant it's a tautology to conclude that free will is meaningless after. Because you already used it as one of your constant variables in your example!

Input A: Mind state pre-choice
Input B: The environment (everything external to the mind that its interacting with; possibly including a god).
Process: Choice-making or "free will".
Output C: Mind state post-choice

see above.

I don't know how often I have to repeat myself again and again here!

 

[1213]

I have strong suspicion God told me because God made Demons and gives them permission to do what they do....

By what I know, demons are fallen angels who speak against God and His will.

...God also cursed people in Genesis so that naturally they would be inclined to evil....

The “curse” meant the man had to work for food and woman had labor pain. I don’t think there is anything inclining to evil, especially when God’s commandments are against evil.

...Isaiah also says " I create evil"....

Evil is like darkness, or emptiness, it is what is left when good is not present. So, evil is formed when people are left alone without God (good). Still, God is not doing evil, it is something that comes possible, when God allows people to be without Him.

...The Devil killed Jobs family only because God told him to essentially.....

God didn’t say devil should kill the family. It was devil’s choice and tells a lot about him.
What do you think about a person who in attempt to prove all knowing wrong, kills and tortures and fails in his evil plan?