|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 13, 2023 15:25:48 GMT
This creates a well established paradox. If god is all powerful, then god knows what we're going to do and therefore we don't have free will. Either god knows what we're going to do or doesn't and if they don't, then if god is not all powerful and if they do then there's no such thing as free will. But regardless of the existence of a god or not, every decision we make stems from something that comes before that we didn't determine. So, depending on what you consider free will to be, if you consider it to be the ability to determine fate solely through our actions, we can choose what we do but it all comes down to prior events, fully predetermined or random and we don't have the control of those. So while we have freedom to make decisions, everything we do stems from something beyond our control and thus we're not able to will things into being in the most fundamental sense because we're just a complex cog in the machine of the universe.
God knowing what we're going to do doesn't negate free will. The sun is not *caused* to rise in the east every morning by you *knowing* it's going to.
If only the Sun has free will this would this be a valid comparison.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 13, 2023 15:46:29 GMT
I think that the devil is an important scapegoat for religious people because it takes the blame for evil away from god. It doesn't exactly explain why an all knowing, all powerful god would let such an evil being come about but it muddies the waters enough by taking direct blame from god and gives people something else to blame and someone who can torture people for all eternity without god dirtying their proverbial hands. If it weren't for the devil then, crucially, there would be no one to blame for all the awful things that have happened and it would be impossible to imprint the idea of an omnibenevolent god onto our imperfect reality.
Because God gave people free will, and nobody is going to use free will to only do good things 100% of the time, not even the most sainted religious leaders.
1) How could you possibly know this? What are you basing this on OTHER than your indoctrinated religious beliefs (which makes this a begging the question fallacy) 2) Does God have free-will? Because if he does, then didn’t you just disprove your premise (unless you resort to special pleading)? 3) Do the 2/3 of angels who did NOT rebel against God (according to scripture) have “free-will”? Because if they do, then doesn’t that also invalidate your premise?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 13, 2023 17:17:19 GMT
Because God gave people free will, and nobody is going to use free will to only do good things 100% of the time, not even the most sainted religious leaders.
1) How could you possibly know this? What are you basing this on OTHER than your indoctrinated religious beliefs (which makes this a begging the question fallacy) 2) Does God have free-will? Because if he does, then didn’t you just disprove your premise (unless you resort to special pleading)? 3) Do the 2/3 of angels who did NOT rebel against God (according to scripture) have “free-will”? Because if they do, then doesn’t that also invalidate your premise?
The issue is PEOPLE having free will, people are not angels and they're not God. Some like to convince themselves they are, those are what we call egotistical narcissists.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jun 13, 2023 23:24:23 GMT
There wasn't one originally, at least not in the sense the average modern era Christian would comprehend it. Hell, being a state of eternal apartness from God, was a condition, not a place. Therefore it wasn't peopled with mythic creatures such as devils, demons, imps and the like. As Scholasticism kept pace with Roman Catholic doctrine, by the time of Aquinas the idea of Hell as a place of physical torment for the wicked populated by Satan and his minions had taken pretty firm root in the theology--but, as with a not minor amount of that doctrine, very little of this theological teaching can be found as deriving from actual scriptural content.
So originally there was no Lucifer, no fallen angel?
Here's an overview on that, the Scholastic viewpoint by the time of Aquinas: www.christianity.com/wiki/angels-and-demons/how-did-lucifer-fall-and-become-satan-11557519.html
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2023 19:46:48 GMT
1) How could you possibly know this? What are you basing this on OTHER than your indoctrinated religious beliefs (which makes this a begging the question fallacy) 2) Does God have free-will? Because if he does, then didn’t you just disprove your premise (unless you resort to special pleading)? 3) Do the 2/3 of angels who did NOT rebel against God (according to scripture) have “free-will”? Because if they do, then doesn’t that also invalidate your premise?
The issue is PEOPLE having free will, people are not angels and they're not God. Some like to convince themselves they are, those are what we call egotistical narcissists.
What would be the discernible day to day difference in someone who has free will from one who has not?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 14, 2023 20:20:14 GMT
The issue is PEOPLE having free will, people are not angels and they're not God. Some like to convince themselves they are, those are what we call egotistical narcissists.
What would be the discernible day to day difference in someone who has free will from one who has not?
Ask someone who doesn't have free will.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2023 20:42:51 GMT
What would be the discernible day to day difference in someone who has free will from one who has not?
Ask someone who doesn't have free will.
And how can one tell who that person is out of others? But I don't think, to all extents and purposes that they could say either. The point being that if one is unable to tell the difference as evidence for one or the other does not exist and therefore no one, outside of the claims of doctrine, can assert that either exists (and in fact the distinction may be a category mistake).
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 14, 2023 20:53:01 GMT
Ask someone who doesn't have free will.
And how can one tell who that person is out of others? But I don't think, to all extents and purposes that they could say either. The point being that if one is unable to tell the difference then evidence for one or the other does not exist and therefore no one, outside of doctrine, can assert that either exists for sure.
The closest thing you'd actually find to someone without free will are the sheep who don't think, don't question, just blindly let other people tell them what to do, what to think, so actually most people churned out by public school, the unquestioning factory workers and button pushers who anybody says anything, it's good enough for them, they're not going to do any research of their own on the subject. Amazingly enough even those people have free will, they just don't think to use it. The only thing stopping them from doing anything different, is them.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2023 20:58:23 GMT
And how can one tell who that person is out of others? But I don't think, to all extents and purposes that they could say either. The point being that if one is unable to tell the difference then evidence for one or the other does not exist and therefore no one, outside of doctrine, can assert that either exists for sure.
The closest thing you'd actually find to someone without free will are the sheep who don't think, don't question, just blindly let other people tell them what to do, what to think, so actually most people churned out by public school, the unquestioning factory workers and button pushers who anybody says anything, it's good enough for them, they're not going to do any research of their own on the subject. Amazingly enough even those people have free will, they just don't think to use it. The only thing stopping them from doing anything different, is them.
(Sorry I think you just missed my edit) But I think it is easy to confuse a presumed lack of free will with a simple lack of critical thinking. Neither is it the case that those you mention lack free will in every aspect of their lives - which reinforces my point rather. Your examples are also a little bit different from the theological idea free will, I would say.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2023 20:59:28 GMT
And how can one tell who that person is out of others? But I don't think, to all extents and purposes that they could say either. The point being that if one is unable to tell the difference then evidence for one or the other does not exist and therefore no one, outside of doctrine, can assert that either exists for sure.
The closest thing you'd actually find to someone without free will are the sheep who don't think, don't question, just blindly let other people tell them what to do, what to think, so actually most people churned out by public school, the unquestioning factory workers and button pushers who anybody says anything, it's good enough for them, they're not going to do any research of their own on the subject. Amazingly enough even those people have free will, they just don't think to use it. The only thing stopping them from doing anything different, is them.
(Sorry I think you just missed my edit) But I think it is easy to confuse a presumed lack of free will with a simple lack of critical thinking. Neither is it the case that those you mention lack free will in every aspect of their lives - which reinforces my point rather. Your socio-political examples are also a little bit different from the theological idea of free will, I would say.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 15, 2023 19:18:27 GMT
1) How could you possibly know this? What are you basing this on OTHER than your indoctrinated religious beliefs (which makes this a begging the question fallacy) 2) Does God have free-will? Because if he does, then didn’t you just disprove your premise (unless you resort to special pleading)? 3) Do the 2/3 of angels who did NOT rebel against God (according to scripture) have “free-will”? Because if they do, then doesn’t that also invalidate your premise? The issue is PEOPLE having free will, people are not angels and they're not God. Some like to convince themselves they are, those are what we call egotistical narcissists.
Notice how you couldn’t answer a single question I posed. And the reason you couldn’t is because you have a subconscious awareness that your answer is a special pleading fallacy. You don’t know what that means on a conscious level, but you intuitively realize just how stupid your argument sounds when faced with those questions and cognitive dissonance now compels you to avoid them altogether with MORE unsubstantiated assertions. I already knew that people were not angels or God when I asked the question. So explaining to me that they are not as part of your answer is just avoiding the question. You say the issue is about people having free will, but I say the issue is about the concept of free-will and what you claim it must inevitably lead to. You have no rational justification for your conclusion! You’ve asserted it as though we should just take it for granted that it makes sense, but you haven’t even attempted to give a reason for why free-will must inevitably lead to sin, but only for humans. And that’s why your argument is not convincing.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 15, 2023 19:21:08 GMT
What would be the discernible day to day difference in someone who has free will from one who has not? Ask someone who doesn't have free will.
And who would that be (according to you)? Isn’t one of your premises that EVERYONE has free will? If that’s true, then who could one “ask”? And if there is no one to ask, then how did you arrive at your conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 15, 2023 22:29:21 GMT
Ask someone who doesn't have free will.
And who would that be (according to you)? Isn’t one of your premises that EVERYONE has free will? If that’s true, then who could one “ask”? And if there is no one to ask, then how did you arrive at your conclusion?
That's the point. Like the guy who says he doesn't believe anything he can't see for himself, and he's asked if he believes he has a brain.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 22, 2023 22:17:31 GMT
And who would that be (according to you)? Isn’t one of your premises that EVERYONE has free will? If that’s true, then who could one “ask”? And if there is no one to ask, then how did you arrive at your conclusion?
That's the point. Like the guy who says he doesn't believe anything he can't see for himself, and he's asked if he believes he has a brain.
The difference between someone who has none, against one who has free will is not discernible. The difference between one without a physical brain and one who has is very clear.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 23, 2023 11:59:43 GMT
And who would that be (according to you)? Isn’t one of your premises that EVERYONE has free will? If that’s true, then who could one “ask”? And if there is no one to ask, then how did you arrive at your conclusion? That's the point. Like the guy who says he doesn't believe anything he can't see for himself, and he's asked if he believes he has a brain.
Faulty analogy. You’re contrasting facts with beliefs about facts. We can determine whether a person has a brain irrespective of their belief about whether they have a brain. You are asserting that free will exists, but how did you reach that conclusion? How can that hypothesis be tested?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 23, 2023 17:45:09 GMT
That's the point. Like the guy who says he doesn't believe anything he can't see for himself, and he's asked if he believes he has a brain.
Faulty analogy. You’re contrasting facts with beliefs about facts. We can determine whether a person has a brain irrespective of their belief about whether they have a brain. You are asserting that free will exists, but how did you reach that conclusion? How can that hypothesis be tested?
Because if free will didn't exist, evil wouldn't exist. People do evil because they CHOOSE to, just like people do good because they choose to. Kids have to have right and wrong taught to them, it's not inborn, it's learned, it's practiced, a conscience is instilled, and if it isn't, it can't be grown.
To argue there is no free will is to say that Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, bin Laden, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Richard Speck, Dennis Rader, John Meehan, Ken Rex McElroy, the Pulse shooter, the Uvalde shooter, Parkland, Sandy Hook, the Las Vegas shooter, all the good ol' boys down south who lynched all those blacks during and after slavery, they had NO CHOICE but to do the things they did, they could not possibly have lived their lives any different way. If you want to argue the absence of free will, we need to stop demonizing racists, transphobes, rapists, murderers, child abusers and wife beaters, because IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT! They're not responsible for their own actions. We shouldn't have jails because we shouldn't be punishing people for things they were programmed to do and couldn't change the outcome of their decisions whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 23, 2023 21:01:14 GMT
Because if free will didn't exist, evil wouldn't exist. That is not strictly true since natural evil (earthquakes, illness, tidal waves etc) would still exist. This is also not entirely true; for instance there may be unintended consequences of one's actions which are evil. The fact still remains that free will cannot be distinguished from the workings of predestination within anyone. It is, arguably, possible to go further: since no one can tell either way, either from others or their own experience for sure, then no one strictly speaking can meaningfully say what free will really is, since we are not equipped to discern it. Ultimately this is not an argument that free will must exist, more that you much prefer thinking it does. Although it does not disprove free will, it is worth knowing that several seconds before we consciously make a decision, its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. This is shown in a well known study by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, in collaboration with the Charité University Hospital and the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin. www.mpg.de/research/unconscious-decisions-in-the-brain
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 23, 2023 21:27:52 GMT
People often need a physical symbol for things to understand an abstract issue like evil. They need to create a devil to comprehend evil; much like saying "it wasn't me, it was the devil who made me do it". The original Scholastic notion of 'hell' was simply the condition of the soul's eternal separation from God. Since an idea as abstract as that wasn't apt to strike much terror into the heart of the average illiterate peasant, it became necessary for the church to recast the concept with a full range of fiery tortures and hideous punishments as inducement for the peasants to behave themselves and show proper submission to church authority (backing up those putative afterlife tortures with grisly real-world ones inflicted on sundry backsliders and heretics didn't hurt, either). That said, plenty of believers accept this illusion of this Hell as an actual place without much in the way of biblical context to support that belief; and many of them can also quote mouthfuls of scripture out of context to make their own points, perverse or otherwise. Indeed we can... Psalm 139:8 - If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jun 24, 2023 13:42:11 GMT
The original Scholastic notion of 'hell' was simply the condition of the soul's eternal separation from God. Since an idea as abstract as that wasn't apt to strike much terror into the heart of the average illiterate peasant, it became necessary for the church to recast the concept with a full range of fiery tortures and hideous punishments as inducement for the peasants to behave themselves and show proper submission to church authority (backing up those putative afterlife tortures with grisly real-world ones inflicted on sundry backsliders and heretics didn't hurt, either). That said, plenty of believers accept this illusion of this Hell as an actual place without much in the way of biblical context to support that belief; and many of them can also quote mouthfuls of scripture out of context to make their own points, perverse or otherwise. Indeed we can... Psalm 139:8 - If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. However, OT writings give no indication of Hell as being an actual, physical place where one goes after death. This notion also does not exist in the teachings of Christ, no matter what modern theology chooses to claim. www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824479587/heaven-and-hell-are-not-what-jesus-preached-religion-scholar-says#:~:text=Our%20view%20that%20you%20die,it's%20not%20what%20Jesus%20preached.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 28, 2023 23:55:19 GMT
Yet it's always indicated as literally a fate worse than death. It doesn't say 'it's fine there', 'it's neutral there', 'it might be boring', etc.
|
|