| |
27-02-2008, 05:46 AM
| #41 |
| Akatsuki  |  Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will
some might view this as a cop-out answer but i think its really stupid and useless of you guys to pass judgement on god with human terms. if god is indeed 'god' then terms such as 'free will' and 'want' and 'thought' does not apply to god, it is paradoxical to think about god in human terms because he isn't in the same bracket as us. Its like a rock passing opinion on a human...makes no sense
__________________  |
|  |
|
27-02-2008, 07:13 AM
| #42 | |||||||||||
| Hunter-nin  | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will Quote:
Quote:
I should not be affected by any external force. Quote:
Quote:
Why not? Quote:
Free will is non-determinism, that is a rejection of cause and effect on a persons actions. Quote:
It violates the very part of the word 'free'. Quote:
Quote:
If i plunge a knife into someones head, ive constrained them. Quote:
Quote:
The reason why one should judge on humans even if there are other factors affecting them, is because it is more beneficial to do so. e.g. if i state religion is the cause of a persons actions, if i don't judge the person, then he is free to do bad things. Quote:
They believe in pseudo-free-will, something i said you believe in, but you said no. They basically believe in everything, from determinism, to non-determinism. They believe we can be forced to a certain type of action, they believe we also sometimes cannot be forced into a certain type of action, they also believe we can sort of be forced a bit but not completely into a certain type of action. And they do believe in determinism, compatibilism is the attempt to reconcile free-will and determinism (which gave rise to the word compatibilism from compatible). It is an interesting concept, and in fact i can see myself supporting it.
__________________ Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth, more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. ~Bertrand Russell | |||||||||||
|
| |
|
27-02-2008, 08:05 AM
| #43 |
| Hunter-nin | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will
The main finding: The lower the subjects’ brain MAO A activity levels, the more they answered “yes” to statements about taking advantage of others, causing them discomfort, having a short temper, vindictiveness, and enjoying violent movies. “Only aggressive personality was related to brain MAO A activity — not other personality dimensions,” Alia-Klein emphasized. -http://www.physorg.com/news100187677.html
__________________ Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth, more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. ~Bertrand Russell |
|
| |
|
27-02-2008, 08:12 AM
| #44 | ||||||||||||
| Banned  Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Your guess is about as good as mine.
Posts: 15,023
My Mood:
Rep Power: 0    | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will Quote:
Wrong, it can have an effect. There is nothing in the definition of free will that says it cant have an effect. Re-read my defintion carefully"Unconstrained by external forces" Meaning unforced. Influencing somthing, is not forcing somthing. Quote:
It's only not free will when you cant avoid influence. Quote:
The fact that he could before you killed him proves that he had freewill. You cant have freewill if your dead. The compabilist definition of freewill is someone capable of making a decision, while not being forced or coerced into one. Quote:
Quote:
And free will is a highly debated subject, even the definition does not support one philosophy over the other. All the definitions i read do not say"The ability to never be influenced by external sources" But "But ability to not be" Think of it this way, if i have the ability to hop on one foot.......does that mean i can never"Not" hop on one foot? No, to have ability means you possesa whats required and the will to do somthing, and the ability to do if it you so desired. But that does not mean you cannot be stopped from doing it, however being withheld from doing somthing is a situation of "Free will suppression" if your free will is being forcefully suppressed(being tied up for instance) then that act alone proves you have free will, becuase its somthing that can be temporarily stripped from you. If its taken from you, then you possesed it. It cant be taken, if you never had it. Quote:
if you can do somthing without influence, you have free will. Quote:
You're idea of free will is completly absurd. Somthing dead doesnt have free will. Plunging a knife into someones head is taking their free will away correct? Yes or no answer please. Quote:
Quote:
Now i say again, if i have the ability to kick a football into the net, does that mean i cant miss? Show me the definition of free will that states that free will is the state of being, in which you can never be controlled. Quote:
If no one is responsible for what they do, meaning it wasn their fault that they did it, and its all simply predetermined, then judging them for what they do is wrong. Which is why compatibilism makes more sense. Quote:
That there is a certian amount of determinism, while at the same time indetermined choices. "The compatibilist definition of free will states that free will is not the ability to choose as an agent independent of prior cause, but as an agent who is not forced to make a certain choice." " A compatibilist, or soft determinist, in contrast, will define a free act in a way that does not hinge on causal necessitation. For them, an act is free unless it involves compulsion by another person. Since the physical universe and the laws of nature are not persons, they argue that it is a category error to speak of our actions being forced on us by the laws of nature, and therefore it is wrong to conclude that universal determinism would mean we are never free." I responded no to your claims of "Psuedo-free will" becuase i dont appreciate the paticular way in you speak of compatibilism. its not "Psuedo" freewill, becuase in compabilism you have the ability to choose. Quote:
| ||||||||||||
|
| |
|
27-02-2008, 08:26 AM
| #45 | ||||||||
| Hunter-nin | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That is against free-will. Quote:
That is illogical. Quote:
It is still deterministic that you may hop the other foot after, due to whatever nueral processes made it so. Quote:
Terms and Definitions used in Atheism in contrast with determinism, the doctrine of free will asserts that man is able to make choices according to his own will. ... Apologetics.org - Philosophy Glossary by William J. Tsamis - from C.S. Lewis Society and Apologetics.org Quote:
And no, the justice system also recognizes determinism, that is why we have 'duress'. You also fail to realize that moral responsibility is an arbitrary thing for humans, it in fact has no concrete logical basis, this is why we don't put it on animals, but we do on humans. Quote:
I will ask you a simple question Cane, don't respond to any of the above because it will inevitably all follow from this question. Question Do you believe our 'choices' are determined by the neural processes of our brain? There is abundant evidence of that being true, hence no free will (as my post above). If not, then you advocate that we can make a choice without the neural processes of our brain, do you believe this is so? And provide evidence supporting free will, you disregarded this request earlier.
__________________ Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth, more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. ~Bertrand Russell Last edited by Majin; 27-02-2008 at 08:31 AM. | ||||||||
|
| |
|
27-02-2008, 08:45 AM
| #46 | ||||||||||
| Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Your guess is about as good as mine.
Posts: 15,023
My Mood:
Rep Power: 0 | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will Quote:
No, its not forcing anything. Quote:
Quote:
The reason someone dead can no longer make a choice is because they are DEAD!!! Quote:
You have the ability to choose not to be influenced, but if stronger forces prevail you ofcourse fail. But that doesnt mean you werent capable, you simply were overpowered. If i fail at somthing, does that mean i am not capable of doing it? Quote:
You are rewinding and rewatching a choice past made. And you didnt answer my question. "If i have the ability to hop on one foot, does that mean i can never "Not" hop on one foot" Quote:
I asked you to provide me with a defintion that claimed free will was the state of existance in which you can never be controlled. "the doctrine of free will asserts that man is able to make choices according to his own will. ...[/quote] This says able, not will and always will, as i asked. Quote:
According to determinism, its not their fault. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Choice doesnt exist, only causality blah blah blah" What are you a fucking machine or a human? | ||||||||||
|
| |
|
27-02-2008, 09:12 AM
| #47 | |
| Donator  | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will
Wow, wasn't expecting this topic to pop up again and get it's own thread even. Quote:
I send a nerve impulse from my brain, that reaches tendons in my forearm, causing my finger to convulse around the trigger of a gun, which unlocks the springloaded hammer within, impacting a container of explosive powder, the concussive force of which expels a projectile, which is then acted upon simultaneously by about 10^80 distinct gravitational forces which somehow combine into a trajectory which ultimately leads into the chest of an individual, allowing a large amount of blood to escape over time, eventually starving his brain of oxygen and resulting in his death. Did I kill him? Of course I did. There was a huge chain of actions in between the action directly performed by my conscious and the death of the individual, but I knew full well that the beginning of that chain which I initiated would end in his death. And god knows full well what the ultimate consequences are to all his actions, and is intelligent enough to simultaneously comprehend all of them and manipulate both the starting conditions and the rules of physics in whatever way he wishes to create any outcome he desires. If you are omnipotent, omniscient, and possess the mental faculties to fully process all of the information that comes with it, then you are responsible for everything. Last edited by MuKen; 27-02-2008 at 09:16 AM. | |
| |
|
27-02-2008, 10:15 AM
| #48 | ||||||||
| Hunter-nin | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will Quote:
You need to prove you can 'choose' not simply state it as fact. Give me evidence that under the exact same situation with everything the same, one can make another choice. Quote:
Quote:
Can you detail with physical evidence this limit of force before we can 'choose'? Quote:
Quote:
Use logic. Quote:
If a man did harmful acts because his family was taken hostage, we do not consider him to have done something wrong. Quote:
Quote:
I'll repost the question. Question Do you believe our 'choices' are determined by the neural processes of our brain? There is abundant evidence of that being true, hence no free will (as my post above). If not, then you advocate that we can make a choice without the neural processes of our brain, do you believe this is so? And provide evidence supporting free will, you disregarded this request earlier.
__________________ Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth, more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. ~Bertrand Russell Last edited by Majin; 27-02-2008 at 10:52 AM. | ||||||||
|
| |
|
27-02-2008, 04:00 PM
| #49 | |||||||
| Gomu Gomu no Baka  Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Miami, Florida [305-"Wade" County]
Posts: 21,311
Rep Power: 100   | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
First of all, I'm not arguing against god being able to change the moral laws he set. I'm arguing that if he does, he is not trustworthy--and believing anything he says is foolish. Second, God turning the earth into saturn is not illogical. Its extraordinary, but does not bend the rules of logic. So yes, I'm willing to accept for this debate that god is omnipotent, thus able to do such things as turning the earth into Saturn. Things like making a square circle are illogical, I will not accept that because it makes no sense. There is no sense in debating things that make no logical sense. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________ Last edited by Apoo; 27-02-2008 at 04:03 PM. | |||||||
|
| |
|
28-02-2008, 03:05 AM
| #50 |
| Jounin  | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will
Ok, Majin, don't be a retard Free Will by your definition could never exist, because We are the product of our genes and our environments. Your genes are influenced by your family, and your environment is influenced by everything that happens to you. Free-will is being able to make real choices for yourself. External influence is much more direct in this context. Without external influence, we are nothing. Total Independence is a sham. Human being rely on interdependence. Unless someone is forcing you to choose something, or all other options are fake options that you can't choose, you are free to choose what you want. If what you want is to compromise with someone else who wants you to choose something else, you will choose that something else or a middle ground, based on your free will. Just as if you would rather do what you want regardless of someone saying otherwise, its freewill. If you feel obligated to compromise, and do so although you would rather not, THAT is force. And its a fine line. Going from willing compromise to unwilling compromise. As for religion, free will doesn't occur with a omnipotent God for the other reason. False choices. If you can pick a number between 1 and 100, but if the only real number you can possibly choose is 27, you don't really HAVE a choice, just an illusion of choice. And if God can read your life like a book, knowing everything you will do, then it's like a maze thats already been done with pen. There may be many options to get to the center, but the lines been drawn in advance, so you can't really take any other route. So under an all knowing God, while it feels like you're making choices everyday, you're all following God's script. And its funny, how delusional(read:religious) people will always say everything is God's Will, until someone disagrees with them, then they are going against God's Will, which is pretty amazing, being able to outdo an omnipotent being, who should have already known, and planned in advance, for them to do whatever it was the delusional people think they shouldn't be doing.
__________________  "vaccinations enable human beings to live at the socially and ecologically destructive densities that make infectious disease a problem." Last edited by AnarchoElk; 28-02-2008 at 03:09 AM. |
|
| |
|
28-02-2008, 03:33 AM
| #51 | |||
| Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Your guess is about as good as mine.
Posts: 15,023
My Mood:
Rep Power: 0 | Re: Omnipotence Negates Free Will Quote:
You are asking me to prove a choice, yet you disagree with my view on free will to begin with and challenge my definition of free choice. Basically nothing i can provide will matter if you challenge the very essence of what i call free and a choice. You are trying to derail this into a debate of semantics. Quote:
Quote:
|
............it doesnt need to be stated, its plain fucking clear.