is it free will or consequential will?

[Senior NevaLes X]

We are intellectual beings.

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

Your design is for greater than you may ever understand.

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

Free will is a gift of choice. The power is in the process of your decision making. You know what is good you know what is bad.

 

[waitasec]

When's eternity?

life ends... there is nothing everlasting about that
eternity is a concept we can only interpret through our finite understanding
jesus manipulated this limited understanding of eternity through a condition based on the consequence of fear
or
the believers freedom of will was traded in for comfort...

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

In science there is a thing called "Cause and Effect" relationship.

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

What is the meaning of life? Why are we hear?

 

[waitasec]

In science there is a thing called "Cause and Effect" relationship.

the cause is fear
the effect is "being saved"
any choice based on fear is not a choice made with free will

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

Why are we here?

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

ofcourse. But who is afraid

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

Religion: is that a trick ?

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

What I meant in the cause and effect scenario was this. What you put into the situations of your life is pretty much what you will get back. The bad things that seem to just happen out of your control can be countered with good.

 

[Skwim]

"Unless, of course, you know of some that don't and are willing to share with us. So, whatcha got?"

I'll just cut and paste what I just said a few post up....

We don't know how much of it is random, if it is random, if it is cause and effect, how much is cause and effect, or if it a combination of both. Or if it is something completely else, that at this point is unfathomable to us.

At this point, we don't really know if freewill is possible or not; we don't understand enough about the physics, or the human mind, to make that determination.

Okay then, I can point any number of events that support the validity of determinism and make it a reasonable explanation of why things happen. The only other explanation for something happening is that it is uncaused; in other words, an absolutely, completely random occurrence. Got any evidence this is an explanation worth considering? If not, then it' s as worthless as the claim that green imps are manipulating the laws of the universe.
So, we're left with one reasonable explanation: things happen because they're caused. That you choose to leave the door open to randomness in case something comes down the pike to suggest it's worth considering is up to you, but for me it's likelihood is on par with the green imps. A person can posit all kinds of possible explanations for X, but unless they have some basis in reality they 're no better than late night fantasies. Imagination can't compete with evidence, and so far utter randomness only resides in the imagination.

As for free will, one that has no determinants--is uncaused--it would be a will that is completely random. A person would have absolutely no control over what he willed. Actions, what is willed, would simply pop into existence from nowhere. Is this the alternative you seek to promote?

 

[Jeremiah]

Okay then, I can point any number of events that support the validity of determinism and make it a reasonable explanation of why things happen. The only other explanation for something happening is that it is uncaused; in other words, an absolutely, completely random occurrence. Got any evidence this is an explanation worth considering? If not, then it' s as worthless as the claim that green imps are manipulating the laws of the universe.
So, we're left with one reasonable explanation: things happen because they're caused. That you choose to leave the door open to randomness in case something comes down the pike to suggest it's worth considering is up to you, but for me it's likelihood is on par with the green imps. A person can posit all kinds of possible explanations for X, but unless they have some basis in reality they 're no better than late night fantasies. Imagination can't compete with evidence, and so far utter randomness only resides in the imagination.

As for free will, one that's has no determinants--is uncaused--it would be a will that is completely random . A person would have absolutely no control over what he willed. Actions, what is willed, would simply pop into existence from nowhere. Is this the alternative you seek to promote?

"So, we're left with one reasonable explanation:"

We don't know.

You sound like those people who argue the existence god, because they see no other explanations. Simply because we can't fully explain something that does not validate an unfalsifiable claim. You are assuming knowledge beyond what we have. You are saying, because it superficially appears this way, then it must necessarily always be this way. It's like when they claimed all swans are white; only because all the swans they encountered were white. But low and behold black swans exist.

But, hey, if you want to believe in an unfalsifiable claim then that is fine; people do it all the time.

Although, you know, it still does not explain the infinite regression; nor address the concept of a self starting cause. Can an agent be its own motion (like perhaps humans) or is it necessarily, always borrowed motion? But then if it is always borrowed motion, then we fall back into the infinite regression.


" Is this the alternative you seek to promote?"

I am not suggesting "alternatives"; I am suggesting a lack of understanding.

 

[Copernicus]

i would say, in the context of john 3:16, anything that is not motivated by fear...

I'm really looking for a positive example of something that would be "free will" and not "consequential will". You have given me a negative answer. Can you come up with a simple scenario to differentiate the two? Thanks in advance.

 

[waitasec]

I'm really looking for a positive example of something that would be "free will" and not "consequential will". You have given me a negative answer. Can you come up with a simple scenario to differentiate the two? Thanks in advance.

a positive example; the person you marry or commit to...

 

[Copernicus]

a positive example; the person you marry or commit to...

I have no idea how this differentiates free will from consequential will. Could you please elaborate? I'm beginning to get the uncomfortable idea that you have no greater clue than I do as to what the difference is.

 

[Skwim]

"So, we're left with one reasonable explanation:"

We don't know.

You sound like those people who argue the existence god, because they see no other explanations.

Then give me something to work with---how many times do I have to ask? Give me an explanation that goes beyond your claim that "We don't know." If that's your modus operandi in regard to evidence, "Hey, we don't dare say X is Y because maybe something else is Y," then I don't know how you're able to leave the safety of your home. Outside of mathematics and logic functions all knowledge is implicitly provisional to some extent or another. That you insist it be an overt guiding principle of acceptance, "because some possible unknown may exist we can never make any claims of fact," which is exactly what you're saying, is, in my opinion, either an irrational timidity or in this case simply a smoke screen to cover up your distaste for the conclusion.

Simply because we can't fully explain something that does not validate an unfalsifiable claim.

But it IS falsifiable. Simply produce proof of a super-atomic event that is not caused, most likely utterly random, and BINGO my claim is falsified.

You are assuming knowledge beyond what we have.

No. Your assuming knowledge beyond what we have is so likely to exist that our present evidence is not strong enough to support the claim I make. Evidence that has not been successfully challenged in all of recorded history.

You are saying, because it superficially appears this way, then it must necessarily always be this way.

Superficially? When have I ever said that?

It's like when they claimed all swans are white; only because all the swans they encountered were white. But low and behold black swans exist.

But knowing how variable the animal kingdom can be black swans are a reasonable possibility, which isn't true of your cautionary "Maybe there's something else." That "maybe," lacking even a scintilla of evidence, not even a black feather, sinks to the level unacceptability. It is simply unwarranted.

But, hey, if you want to believe in an unfalsifiable claim then that is fine; people do it all the time.

But it IS falsifiable. Simply produce proof of a super-atomic event that is not caused, most likely utterly random, and BINGO my claim is falsified. Or did I already say this.

Although, you know, it still does not explain the infinite regression; nor address the concept of a self starting cause.

Nope. Just like evolution, which doesn't address the origin of life, neither does the operation of cause-effect. My guess is it would go back to some primordial subatomic event just after the Big Bang where perhaps random quantum fluctuations produced a series of continuing cause-effect events. But, of course, I really don't know.

" Is this the alternative you seek to promote?"
I am not suggesting "alternatives"; I am suggesting a lack of understanding.

A lack that is not suggested by anything but your hesitancy to accept what ALL the evidence points to: all events have a cause.

 

[Jeremiah]

Then give me something to work with---how many times do I have to ask? Give me an explanation that goes beyond your claim that "We don't know." If that's your modus operandi in regard to evidence, "Hey, we don't dare say X is Y because maybe something else is Y," then I don't know how you're able to leave the safety of your home. Outside of mathematics and logic functions all knowledge is implicitly provisional to some extent or another. That you insist it be an overt guiding principle of acceptance, "because some possible unknown may exist we can never make any claims of fact," which is exactly what you're saying, is, in my opinion, either an irrational timidity or in this case simply a smoke screen to cover up your distaste for the conclusion.

But it IS falsifiable. Simply produce proof of a super-atomic event that is not caused, most likely utterly random, and BINGO my claim is falsified.

No. Your assuming knowledge beyond what we have is so likely to exist that our present evidence is not strong enough to support the claim I make. Evidence that has not been successfully challenged in all of recorded history.

Superficially? When have I ever said that?

But knowing how variable the animal kingdom can be black swans are a reasonable possibility, which isn't true of your cautionary "Maybe there's something else." That "maybe," lacking even a scintilla of evidence, not even a black feather, sinks to the level unacceptability. It is simply unwarranted.

But it IS falsifiable. Simply produce proof of a super-atomic event that is not caused, most likely utterly random, and BINGO my claim is falsified. Or did I already say this.


Nope. Just like evolution, which doesn't address the origin of life, neither does the operation of cause-effect. My guess is it would go back to some primordial subatomic event just after the Big Bang where perhaps random quantum fluctuations produced a series of continuing cause-effect events. But, of course, I really don't know.

A lack that is not suggested by anything but your hesitancy to accept what ALL the evidence points to: all events have a cause.

"simply a smoke screen to cover up your distaste for the conclusion."

If you are gonna pull this nonsense again, then this conversation is over.

It seems every time I disagree with you, you conclude that I am shamefully hiding from the truth. So I am sorry, but I am not doing this with you again.

 

[Skwim]

"simply a smoke screen to cover up your distaste for the conclusion."

If you are gonna pull this nonsense again, then this conversation is over.

interesting that you take exception to a personal opinion, and one that is the back half of an "or" option.

It seems every time I disagree with you, you conclude that I am shamefully hiding from the truth. So I am sorry, but I am not doing this with you again.

And I'm sorry, but I truly don't remember doing this before, which is probably because it wasn't a significant disagreement and therefore not worth remembering. At least to me. But what is significant is the importance you attach to it. I can only wonder why the fact that someone may feel you're "shamefully [your hyperbolic characterization] hiding the truth" is so upsetting. This is so thin-skinned that it's almost as if your posing it as an excuse to extricate yourself from a discussion. One that perhaps has become too uncomfortable (read "indefensible" if it fits) to deal with. But whatever the case, yours was an interesting defense of free will. One I've never encountered before.

 

[Jeremiah]

interesting that you take exception to a personal opinion, and one that is the back half of an "or" option.

And I'm sorry, but I truly don't remember doing this before, which is probably because it wasn't a significant disagreement and therefore not worth remembering. At least to me. But what is significant is the importance you attach to it. I can only wonder why the fact that someone may feel you're "shamefully [your hyperbolic characterization] hiding the truth" is so upsetting. This is so thin-skinned that it's almost as if your posing it as an excuse to extricate yourself from a discussion. One that perhaps has become too uncomfortable (read "indefensible" if it fits) to deal with. But whatever the case, yours was an interesting defense of free will. One I've never encountered before.

"And I'm sorry, but I truly don't remember doing this before,"

Maybe you just have a poor memory and I have a good memory. But instead of concluding that, you come up this weird, off the wall explanation. Why do you do that? It is so strange.