What Most People Fail to Understand about the Concept of Free Will

[jojom]

Doubt Gods Love or Power to get His message to them?

Whaaaaaaa? Care to rephrase?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Doubt Gods Love or Power to get His message to them?

What god? What message? What power? What love?

 

[jojom]

Determinism, to a large degree, happens for many reasons; cultural upbringing, genetic predispositions, environment, these things have a strong bearing on who we are.
But we are not slaves to those things, we can make choices, and we are not slated for a certain fate, and destiny is an illusion.

You don't seem to understand determinism. Perhaps this will help.

Determinism

a. Your actions (as with everything else in the universe) is determined by antecedent causes sufficient to bring about the effect and so you are not free to have acted differently
b. You could not have done otherwise
c. We do not have free will (as determinism is true)

i.The two are incompatible​

http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_Philosophy_SP_2011/Nagel_Free_Will.htm​

 

[LuisDantas]

If you take grammatical entities to be entirely abstract, then yes.

Grammatical entities are most useful.

As long as one does not have any trouble with things such as applicability in real life (TM) or pointing out deficiencies in such, apparently.

 

[Willamena]

As long as one does not have any trouble with things such as applicability in real life (TM) or pointing out deficiencies in such, apparently.

I can't imagine why anyone would have trouble with them (in English). We all use grammar.

 

[LuisDantas]

The more I see the concept of "free will" argued, the more I think we need to go back to drawing board.

Probably, although I have reasons to suspect that it is far more succesfull in its current state (as a contradictory, meaningless concept that is nonetheless treated otherwise) than it could ever be once fixed.

Also, were the concept to be made functional, it would be mistaken for the current mismatched understandings of same so often that it would be very advisable to give it a distinct name as well.

I think it's probably worth pointing out that any concept of free will cannot exist with an omniscient and omnipowerful deity when it is assumed that said deity takes any part in man's affairs because the only possible outcome of that knowledge set is a malicious deity who allows people to suffer, and leaves us to infer whether "need" exists and whether or not one can continue to define said deity as "good" when it's divine plan requires suffering.

That, unfortunately, is one of the main reasons why the concept survived so long and is used so often. Its internal contradictions mesh well enough with those of the all-omni deity as to appear to be a meaningful explanation for those.

As long as one does not care about things actually meaning something, that is. Which in practice happens depressingly often.

Or, free will simply isn't well enough understand as a concept outside of religion, and probably shouldn't be used by the religious until it is. I can choose whether or not to eat. But I cannot choose whether or not to be hungry.

Free will as a religious concept is useful largely because it is not understood, however. Were it, there would be little point in using it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't imagine why anyone would have trouble with them (in English). We all use grammar.

It is certainly interesting to see how such a simple (if basically useless) concept has attained such proeminence largely due to blatant misuse.

 

[Willamena]

It is certainly interesting to see how such a simple (if basically useless) concept has attained such proeminence largely due to blatant misuse.

Obviously it's not useless to some.

 

[LuisDantas]

Obviously it's not useless to some.

Which brings us to discuss the relevant matters of applicability, clarity, and the practical (if usually either accidental or unethical) uses of misguidance, ambiguity (intentional or otherwise - free will is a very rich subject matter here) and the tendency towards social conformity.

Or it should bring us there, anyway. It is a shame that all too often we end up falling short.

 

[Willamena]

Which brings us to discuss the relevant matters of applicability, clarity, and the practical (if usually either accidental or unethical) uses of misguidance, ambiguity (intentional or otherwise - free will is a very rich subject matter here) and the tendency towards social conformity.

Or it should bring us there, anyway. It is a shame that all too often we end up falling short.

Ahh... baiting.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't seem to understand determinism. Perhaps this will help.

Determinism

a. Your actions (as with everything else in the universe) is determined by antecedent causes sufficient to bring about the effect and so you are not free to have acted differently
b. You could not have done otherwise
c. We do not have free will (as determinism is true)

i.The two are incompatible​

http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_Philosophy_SP_2011/Nagel_Free_Will.htm​

I do understand determinism. Because I have Asperger's syndrome, many aspects of me are just because, and could not be any other way. Because I was born and raised in Mid West America, there are many things of me that just are and could not be any other way. Because I had a difficult childhood, there are many things of me that just are and could not be any other way.
But I can choose to learn how to socialize better and understand how certain things effect people, I can choose to gain understandings into how those from other places and cultures think and perceive the world and not be bound to Mid West norms, and I can choose to make efforts to get over past struggles and not dwell upon those pains.
Black-and-white approaches generally do not work, and they are almost always ill-fitted for approaches to life.

 

[Willamena]

Here. Something pretty to distract you.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ahh... baiting.

No, just clarification.

I respect your desire not to bother with those matters. I have accepted it for years now. But they are important nonetheless.

 

[Willamena]

No, just clarification.

I respect your desire not to bother with those matters. I have accepted it for years now. But they are important nonetheless.

I do bother with grammatical entities, I find them most useful.

It's those who don't whom I point at.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do bother with grammatical entities, I find them most useful.

I have no problem with that.

All the same, it would still be a shame not to address other, more relevant fields.

It's those who don't whom I point at.

If you say so. I stopped attempting to second guess your intents years ago. Whoever your target public is, I do not have more than accidental, occasional belonging to it.

 

[Willamena]

I have no problem with that.

All the same, it would still be a shame not to address other, more relevant fields.

What fields?

 

[LuisDantas]

What fields?

In this case, those would include religion, everyday language, and effective communication.

 

[Willamena]

In this case, those would include religion, everyday language, and effective communication.

Okay. You go ahead and address those.

 

[Thief]

Is your assumption that it is "God" merely speculatively based on your ignorance of other possibilities, whether they be spiritualistic or materialistic?

your post is empty rhetoric.

 

[leibowde84]

your post is empty rhetoric.

Alright, I'll rephrase it for you. Are you basing your evidence for God on an absence of an alternative explanation?