Pix Wrote: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 in debate:
I disagree. The fact we are having the debate means it is inevitable. That we have no freewill doesn't dispell the illusion of freewill. The illusion is absolutely necessary to the process. The purpose of this is not to persuade. I will not persuade Browyn and he will not persuade me.mile::confused: The purpose is the debate itself. To come to a better understanding of our positions on these points by having our positions examined by an outside perspective. To expose people not used to this sort of conversation to these ideas. Simply to broaden our minds. But then, perhaps we will be persuaded. I never said we don't make decisions and our minds up about things. I said that the idea of freewill is meaningless as far as I can tell, in the face of causation.
If there is cause and effect, if for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction, if matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then all our actions, decisions, brain states are predetermined and the notion of freewill looses all meaning.
If not, then there is magic, and Ghostes [sic], and medieval superstition rules because there is not the basis for science any longer. As I understand it.mile:
Do I believe God's nature is infinite? Yes.
Can I "wrap my mind" around that idea? No.
To me, God is unknowable. I don't believe in some old bearded white guy sitting on a throne if that's your question.
No, my question was centered around the idea that an all knowing god is not compatable with the idea of freewill. If you do not believe in an all knowing god, then that one question is not applicable.
nullnaught Wrote:No, my question was centered around the idea that an all knowing god is not compatable with the idea of freewill. If you do not believe in an all knowing god, then that one question is not applicable.
I can't presume to know what God knows. I can't CONCEIVE of it, nor of what God wills.
LateBloomer Wrote:I can't presume to know what God knows. I can't CONCEIVE of it, nor of what God wills.
There but for the grace of God go I.
I wasn't asking what you knew, actually about what god knows. I was wondering if you believed in an all knowing god only so far as it touches the subject of freewill; not so much your humility which you are going to great pains to demonstrate why exactly? this thread isn't really about a given man's humility. It is an abstract discussion about wether the term freewill means anything in the face of causation.
nullnaught Wrote:I wasn't asking what you knew, actually about what god knows. I was wondering if you believed in an all knowing god only so far as it touches the subject of freewill; not so much your humility which you are going to great pains to demonstrate why exactly? this thread isn't really about a given man's humility. It is an abstract discussion about wether the term freewill means anything in the face of causation.
Then this line of reasoning won't apeal to you. But it does illustrate the problem of freewill. You see I am an Athiest, so this line of reasoning doesn't actually require a belief in god. If you read what I've written so far, perhaps you can understand what it is I'm driving at, or ask me a clarifying question.mile:
nullnaught Wrote:Then this line of reasoning won't apeal to you. But it does illustrate the problem of freewill. You see I am an Athiest, so this line of reasoning doesn't actually require a belief in god. If you read what I've written so far, perhaps you can understand what it is I'm driving at, or ask me a clarifying question.mile:
Well, to be honest, I actually don't get what you're driving at.
Just say it straight out loud. Remember, I like things to be simple.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
mile::confused: The purpose is the debate itself. To come to a better understanding of our positions on these points by having our positions examined by an outside perspective. To expose people not used to this sort of conversation to these ideas. Simply to broaden our minds. But then, perhaps we will be persuaded. I never said we don't make decisions and our minds up about things. I said that the idea of freewill is meaningless as far as I can tell, in the face of causation. 
