"Free will?" WTF?

[Bowyn Aerrow]

but you do one thing. Did god not forsee that that one thing is what you would actualy do? And by the way neither string theory or multiple universes is science as neither postulate is testable. They are both 'what-ifs' starting from a basis of science. They are speculative fiction, however.

The theory of gravity was speculative fiction at one time as well...

[Bowyn Aerrow]

but you do one thing. Did god not forsee that that one thing is what you would actualy do? And by the way neither string theory or multiple universes is science as neither postulate is testable. They are both 'what-ifs' starting from a basis of science. They are speculative fiction, however.

Thinking on this a bit more.

The fundamentalist Christian believes the following:

6500 years ago (approximately) God took 6 days to create the earth and the heavens. He had to rest at the end of each night and took a seventh day because He was exhausted.

On the 6th day God created man in His own image, gave the creature a bit of curiosity and placed in the middle of a garden two trees, a tree of life and tree of knowledge. God Said 'Now Adam, I don't want you eating of these two trees, on the day you do you shall surely die.'

God might as well have told Adam, Go, eat - because God just didn't seem to understand the reverse effect His Command would have on His creation. Eve and then Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge. God found out, instead of carrying through with the punishment, it was down graded to just a threat level, demonstrating to the Adam that hell we can do anything we want, there is no consequences.

Then God spends the rest of the next several thousand years mucking about, making one mistake after another trying to perfect His creation.

He still hasn't hit upon success.
=====================================
The God of Science.

In the beginning there was nothing but a singular point of everything. No time, No space. Suddenly, for no reason everything sprang into being, we call it the Big Bang.

We don't know what caused the Big Bang, science being science they can't just say 'Oh God did it' but we all are pretty certain that yep, God did it.... it will take a few thousand years before we can prove that.

Anyway. From one instant moment God created the universe. From that split second everything in the universe was set into motion. Gassed formed into stars which ignited and burned, planets from from stellar dust, and life sprang up on at least one (Earth) and over the course of billions of years events took place, forming and reforming and pushing the evolutionary processes to lead to a hominid smart enough to use tools and form thoughts complicated enough to say 'Gee, I wonder who started all of this'.

The God of Science, the Big Bang, Evolution is by far the most interesting and awesome God we have. Without needing to tweak or muck about with the machinery, He has created a whole universe from a single moment that has unfailingly lead to us and leads to the universe. So smart is this particular God, he hasn't left so much as a smudged thumbprint of His existence. However billions of humans know that this Supreme Entity exists, they speak of His whispering in their hearts, they talk of the 'coincidences' that look like miracles to them, they are convinced without a single object of proof that this God Person is actually out there.

Unfortunately, the greed of a few humans has worked hard to Cash in on this God Concept and has enslaved billions to religion while forcing people to be blind to the true miracles that take place around them day to day... such as the small fact that they are alive to wonder at all.

[nullnaught]

Thinking on this a bit more.

The fundamentalist Christian believes the following:

6500 years ago (approximately) God took 6 days to create the earth and the heavens. He had to rest at the end of each night and took a seventh day because He was exhausted.

On the 6th day God created man in His own image, gave the creature a bit of curiosity and placed in the middle of a garden two trees, a tree of life and tree of knowledge. God Said 'Now Adam, I don't want you eating of these two trees, on the day you do you shall surely die.'

God might as well have told Adam, Go, eat - because God just didn't seem to understand the reverse effect His Command would have on His creation. Eve and then Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge. God found out, instead of carrying through with the punishment, it was down graded to just a threat level, demonstrating to the Adam that hell we can do anything we want, there is no consequences.

Then God spends the rest of the next several thousand years mucking about, making one mistake after another trying to perfect His creation.

He still hasn't hit upon success.
=====================================
The God of Science.

In the beginning there was nothing but a singular point of everything. No time, No space. Suddenly, for no reason everything sprang into being, we call it the Big Bang.

We don't know what caused the Big Bang, science being science they can't just say 'Oh God did it' but we all are pretty certain that yep, God did it.... it will take a few thousand years before we can prove that.

Anyway. From one instant moment God created the universe. From that split second everything in the universe was set into motion. Gassed formed into stars which ignited and burned, planets from from stellar dust, and life sprang up on at least one (Earth) and over the course of billions of years events took place, forming and reforming and pushing the evolutionary processes to lead to a hominid smart enough to use tools and form thoughts complicated enough to say 'Gee, I wonder who started all of this'.

The God of Science, the Big Bang, Evolution is by far the most interesting and awesome God we have. Without needing to tweak or muck about with the machinery, He has created a whole universe from a single moment that has unfailingly lead to us and leads to the universe. So smart is this particular God, he hasn't left so much as a smudged thumbprint of His existence. However billions of humans know that this Supreme Entity exists, they speak of His whispering in their hearts, they talk of the 'coincidences' that look like miracles to them, they are convinced without a single object of proof that this God Person is actually out there.

Unfortunately, the greed of a few humans has worked hard to Cash in on this God Concept and has enslaved billions to religion while forcing people to be blind to the true miracles that take place around them day to day... such as the small fact that they are alive to wonder at all.

You have said a lot here. You have failed to answer the only question I put before you. You are at decision point. You have many ways you may go. But you will choose one and only one. Can you surprise god?

[nullnaught]

The theory of gravity was speculative fiction at one time as well...

When was this ever true? I don't believe you are correct about this.

[Pix]

If there's no room for free will at all, then is there a point to this thread?

[nullnaught]

If there's no room for free will at all, then is there a point to this thread?

I don't understand, in the light of cause and effect, what freewill is even supposed to mean, but on the 'should we deamonize catholics...' thread the concept came up more than once and so I wanted an explaination what could it mean. That would be the purpose of the thread; explain it or please don't refer to it in your arguements elsewhere. As I don't recall you refering to it elsewhere, your only purpose in following it is you might be interested in why somebody would be confused by the prospect. Perhaps you hadn't had it as well thought out as you thought you had. I don't know.
I am glad however that you choose to follow it and add your viewpoint because I personally find your thoughts intrigueing and helpful here.mile:

[nullnaught]

When you put it like that, it sounds like you're saying we're ultimately not in control of any decision we make. Every decision is already predetermined by our genetics, environment, experience.

Basically that sounds like a big excuse to me that one could use to explain why they did something they ought not do, or for behaving a certain way. "I can't help it, it's just a part of me"

And to that, I say bullshit. I would never deny that we all get some pretty damn strong impulses to do whatever, but they are not unbeatable and they have a multitude of different ways we can react to them.

Part of your arguement is that there's subconscious factors going in to play that we're not even aware of. Maybe so, but how exactly are we supposed to gauge how big a factor these subconscious weights actually play? You can't. It may range from completely swaying our decision one way, to still not being enough to change our minds.

Course, this is me talking about shit I don't really know for sure. Just guess-work, saying stuff that makes sense to me. And I think that for most people, free-will is just an idea and that it's generally a lot easier to go with the flow of life around you. But I still maintain that we do always have a choice and some people will make unusual choices, despite their consequences (good or bad).

I have a two part response to this. As far as the being responsible for our actions part goes; well if I wanted to say for example "I'm sorry I tried to shoot the elf; I'm not responsible however because there is no such thing as free will." The police would say back to me "We're sorry we're putting you in jail, but we don't have free will." It doesn't really matter directly wether we have free will or not as far as the practacle side of things go. It isn't a useful arguement to dodge punishment. Nobody would be satisfied by that arguement, and not surprisingly.
As to the part about having a sub-conscience wich is affecting us, I used that as a specific example of what goes into our decisions. We don't decide things from anything but our genes and our experience. In other words, if you are not useing your genes and your experience only to make your decisions what else have you? Decisions are determined by the laws of cause and effect. That is inescapable. And even if you said a decision was made wich was even in part not caused, you are just saying it is random, aren't you? And randomness does not imply will; it implies a lack of will.
What do you think?

[Pix]

Just for the record I gave up on the "demonize Catholics" thread after the first 3 pages or so as it was just too much to wade through, especially with a lot of it simply going in circles.

But for what it's worth here's what the Catholic ency has to say on the subject of free will:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

[nullnaught]

Just for the record I gave up on the "demonize Catholics" thread after the first 3 pages or so as it was just too much to wade through, especially with a lot of it simply going in circles.

But for what it's worth here's what the Catholic ency has to say on the subject of free will:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

I have tried to wade through stuff like that before, and although I haven't read this piece in particular I'm willing to bet it has the same flaw. It assumes an all knowing god and yet insists on 'freewill' wich is a concept that an all knowing god does particular violence to. The idea doesn't make sense in any event, but I am expecting Browyn to bring up any points the Catholics make which he deems to the point.
This is really a discusion for the benefit of people like Zack who haven't decided the issue from faith or thinking it through yet. I will not budge Browyn and he will not budge me. It doesn't mean we aren't doing good by having the debate. I think it is valuable to revisit these ideas regularly, if just for the practice of airing the arguements.
Don't you agree?

[Pix]

I'm totally ok with this thread. It's just that if there's no free will (as opposed to limited free will) then debate is pointless because you are believing and acting on notions that are beyond your control and so are those who happen to take part in it, so there is no real debate as the point of debate is to persuade others to your point of view. And if they can't be persuaded (as they don't have the ability to evaluate the points brought up and choose to view it another way) then there's no real point in trying. It all becomes pointless because the issue and the response is already decided EVEN BEFORE IT BEGINS. Even pinball has less futility than that.

Anyway, that's what went through my mind when I posted that.

And btw, 2 robots/programs (without free will) in debate (and if we humans have zero free will then our debates are just as pointless):