Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:14 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 12:31 PM

ركن المتحدثين هايد بارك ل...
by akay
October 30, 2025, 08:24 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
October 23, 2025, 06:54 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 23, 2025, 01:36 PM

New Britain
October 21, 2025, 01:10 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 07, 2025, 09:50 AM

What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM

Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM

Jesus mythicism
by zeca
September 13, 2025, 10:59 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Discussion on freewill with friends.

 (Read 22935 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #120 - November 19, 2010, 12:40 AM

    lol, abu, you're making progress. Soon you'll be making pedo jokes about Mo.   Tongue

    19:46   <zizo>: hugs could pimp u into sex

    Quote from: yeezevee
    well I am neither ex-Muslim nor absolute 100% Non-Muslim.. I am fucking Zebra

  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #121 - November 19, 2010, 11:26 AM

    If I remember correctly; Debunker said straight out free-will is more or less an illusion. But he explain further. He didn't have a problem with Hell. It's God's call, end of story.

  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #122 - November 19, 2010, 10:35 PM

    Quote
    Do you still think human free will can be reconciled with God's omniscience?

    I think its possible, but not in a rational sense i.e. within the realms of our current understanding.  Here we are talking about a the world incorporated by seven headed serpeants, farting Djinn, flying donkeys & moons that split in half, we dont ask about how they physically can happen, they just do.

    Here we are willing to accept an omnipotent & omnicient God exists, and is able to do anything in this magical world.  The only thing he cant do is contradict logic, and that is only what we are discussing here.



    How does the God that is bound by time come to predict the future with 100% accuracy? You asked, what is the mechanism behind it? Good question. He can make a prediction that is 100% correct if and only if he knows of a law governing all events and occurences and which is therefore guiding those events and occurences to take one and only one particular direction. If he can predict all of our future actions, then we must also be subject to some law of nature, just as all objects are subject to the law of gravity, for instance. God has therefore used that law to calculate what future actions we are going to commit. But if our actions, intentions and decisions are all subject to a law of nature, our direction has been determined and we have no free choice in the matter. Therefore, free will is incompatible with this type of divine omniscience.


    Agreed, if life is like a formula that he created, then we are unable to change the result, i.e. no free-will.  I admit the terminology I used '100% predict' may have been a little misleading, as it almost infers thats that everything behaves according to a certain pattern, which we can project and work out the final result.  What I mean by a 100% prediction is being able to see the future, a bit like a perfect crystal-ball reader. 

    Quote
    What about the God who can see all of time and space in front of him? Let's take the past: We can't change the past because it has already happened. Therefore, it's not within our power to change things that have already happened. If an event has been witnessed or observed, then it has already happened. God has witnessed and observed all of our actions. Therefore, all of our actions have already happened. But we have no free choice in the matter of changing things that have already happened. And so free will is incompatible with this type of divine omniscience, also.

    It hasnt already happened, its real time.  God was looking into the future in the past, so he knew what you would do in real time.  Whether they have already happened or not, it does not affect your free-will at the time and that is what you are being judged on. 

    Note: This clairvoyant doesnt warn you before you eat that ham sandwich so that you might want to change your destiny by using your free-will.  He is simply observing you from afar whilst looking into the future through his magical crystal ball.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #123 - November 20, 2010, 12:12 AM

    Quote
    I think its possible, but not in a rational sense i.e. within the realms of our current understanding.  Here we are talking about a the world incorporated by seven headed serpeants, farting Djinn, flying donkeys & moons that split in half, we dont ask about how they physically can happen, they just do.

    Here we are willing to accept an omnipotent & omnicient God exists, and is able to do anything in this magical world.  The only thing he cant do is contradict logic, and that is only what we are discussing here.


    I better not ever hear religious people bitch about transporters in Star Trek or being able to go into people's dreams for Inception. 

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #124 - November 20, 2010, 01:11 AM

    Agreed, if life is like a formula that he created, then we are unable to change the result, i.e. no free-will.  I admit the terminology I used '100% predict' may have been a little misleading, as it almost infers thats that everything behaves according to a certain pattern, which we can project and work out the final result.  What I mean by a 100% prediction is being able to see the future, a bit like a perfect crystal-ball reader. 


    But the concept of a crystal ball that knows the future is subject to the same criticisms that can be made of how God could know the future, and so the problem hasn't been solved, it's just been transported.

    Even if you didn't mean God literally has a crystal ball, then all you would have stated above is that God knows the future because he has the ability to look into the future, which doesn't seem to explain the concept at all, it just repeats it with slightly different wording.


    Quote
    It hasnt already happened, its real time.  God was looking into the future in the past, so he knew what you would do in real time.  Whether they have already happened or not, it does not affect your free-will at the time and that is what you are being judged on. 

    Note: This clairvoyant doesnt warn you before you eat that ham sandwich so that you might want to change your destiny by using your free-will.  He is simply observing you from afar whilst looking into the future through his magical crystal ball.


    What is real time to the omniscient God that is not bound by time? If the God who is not bound by time were to ask the infinite number of us when in our opinion is the real time, each one of us would be telling him a different time, one for every moment of our existence.

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #125 - November 20, 2010, 01:16 AM

    Even if you didn't mean God literally has a crystal ball, then all you would have stated above is that God knows the future because he has the ability to look into the future, which doesn't seem to explain the concept at all, it just repeats it with slightly different wording.

    Agreed, but without the exact mechanism being detailed in the Quran it would be foolish to second guess how he actually does it

    What is real time to the omniscient God that is not bound by time? If the God who is not bound by time were to ask the infinite number of us when in our opinion is the real time, each one of us would be telling him a different time, one for every moment of our existence.

    Real time is the time on your clock at the moment of asking.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #126 - November 20, 2010, 02:12 AM

    Yes  Sci Fi writers take shortcuts as well. 

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #127 - November 20, 2010, 09:56 AM

    Agreed, but without the exact mechanism being detailed in the Quran it would be foolish to second guess how he actually does it


    But haven't we exhausted the different possible mechanisms? There isn't any other way God could be omniscient except if he was either bound or not bound by time, and in each case there is one and only one possible way in which God could be omniscient about the future, God using a law and a calculator to predict the future, and God seeing the future happen in front of him, both of which are incompatible with free will. Note that I'm not saying God can't be omniscient about the future in those ways, just that those are the only ways he could be omniscient about the future but free will is incompatible with them. And if we can't even imagine another way in which God could possibly be omniscient about the future, without having to resort to mystery, then can't we reasonably conclude that there isn't another way?

    Quote
    Real time is the time on your clock at the moment of asking.


    How can a God that isn't bound by time be in any moment at all? Even if such a God could somehow enter a specific time frame, he's not always going to enter this one. And every time frame he enters and asks us "What's the time?" we will give him a different answer. There is no real time and there is no present moment for the God that is not bound by time.

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #128 - November 20, 2010, 02:00 PM

    I actually got a very balanced and reasoned response to this from Richard Carrier, the author of Sense and Goodness Without God. Here is the email he sent me, together with the original post:-

    Quote
    I said:-

    “I was wondering if I could have your input or critique on a discussion I had last night on the topic of freewill and God’s omniscience. I just want to know if I’ve missed something, am I being misled, are they right to conclude in this manner? Is there any logical fallacies made on any side of the fence?

    Just to clarify, the term “law-hal-mahfuz” are the preserved tablets on which everything was written before anything else was bought into existence. The term “qayum” means to sustain.

    The discussion started off as someone asking an opinion as to what freewill actually is.

    My friend started and stated the position that Allah’s omniscience is completely compatable with our free choice and doesn’t negate the fact that we have a choice and are accountable. He said that it makes no difference that he knows, because that’s simply in virtue of his aforeknowledge. He is simply recording the choices “we” are going to make with our freewill.”

    Richard’s response:-

    “That is logically coherent if he adopts a compatibilist definition of freewill. But if he denies compatibilist freewill (and asserts instead some form of “libertarian” free will), then his statement above is self-contradictory (Plantinga’s “transworld depravity” argument notwithstanding).”

    I said:-

    “Needless to say, I found this justification rather trite and full of tautology. First I told him that the subject is still hotly debated today amongst theists and atheists and that he should owe it to himself to read some philosophy 101 on the subject.

    I explained to him that there are a few things that need to be kept in mind.

    First – Allah is omniscient and has aforeknowledge.

    Second – You can’t go “against” Allah’s will.”

    Richard’s response:-

    “If that (second) proposition is affirmed as true, then any free will debate is a red herring, for regardless of whether free will exists, if “you can’t go against God’s will” then by definition God is co-responsible for all evil (even *if* you have libertarian free will). This is actually just “the problem of evil” in and of itself: regardless of what God foreknows, he still permits all evil despite having the means to prevent it, thus free will isn’t the issue. God’s depravity is the issue, full stop. This then devolves into the convoluted apologetic arguments against the Argument from Evil. But when this “second” proposition is actually affirmed, you get a direct route to their defeat: “you can’t go against God’s will” logically entails that everything we do, God willed. Therefore all evil is a product of God’s will. When evil is willed, the one who wills the evil is by definition the one who is evil. Therefore God is evil. There is no defense to be made.”

    I said:-

    “Third – Everything is recorded on the law-hal-mahfuz “before” everything is brought into existence.

    Fourth – Everything is contingent upon Allah’s sustaining power, his “qayumiya” as it were and that things don’t happen sequencially for him.

    I then went on to say that if everything is already written down in the law-hal-mahfuz “before” he brings you into existence. Let’s say six billion years before you are willed into existence, are you able to go against what has been written down “before” Allah willed you into existence? You had no choice about coming into existence. All you are doing is simply acting out the choice you will make with your freewill, which don’t forget was written down before your existence. It’s a done deal. What choice you think you have is simply illusory.

    I said that absolute freewill would only work if there was no recording in the law-hal-mahfuz before your existence. You can only be held accountable if Allah doesn’t know the outcome before he wills you into existence. But then that would certainly lead to a negation of the attribute of omniscience and that’s something the theist doesn’t want.”

    Richard’s response:-

    “That’s not strictly true. Since it ignores co-responsibility (just because God is also responsible for any evil you do, that does not strictly entail you are not responsible also; it’s more akin to the mafia hit man and the mob boss who orders the hit: it’s not as if one being responsible entails the other is not and you are forced to decide between them whom to blame–rather, both are responsible), and it ignores the variable ramification of the word “accountable” (i.e. what exactly do you mean by “responsibility” in this context? See my discussion of how this is defined in American law, in Sense and Goodness without God; by that definition, being caused to do something does not negate responsibility, because responsibility is defined as an attribute of a malicious will, which one can have regardless of what [or who] caused you to have that malicious will–a malicious will is a malicious will, regardless of what created it).

    So your point above only works in a very narrow sense; one that, in fact, might be too trivial to bother arguing.”

    I said:-

    “Another one of my friends made the ridiculous assertion to imagine the scenario as though you were a time traveller going forward in time to record what Mr X would be doing on a certain date and then logging it in the law-hal-mahfuz ahead of time!

    I said, Allah doesn’t need to traverse anything because it’s absolutely clear, it’s recorded in the law-hal-mahfuz “before” anything is brought into existence. If Allah has recorded what you are going to do with your freewill, can you do otherwise?

    To me this is simple commonsense and doesn’t need any deep thinking and it certainly doesn’t need any linguistic gymnastics. But as always their adherence to dogma blinded them to the obvious fallacy in their reasoning.

    What I want to ask you my dear contributors is whether I have missed something?

    Richard’s response:-

    “Only the nuances I noted above. First, if your opponents embrace compatibilist free will, then you are wrong and they are right (as then “can you do otherwise” means only “can you do otherwise if the circumstances [e.g. if God's will] were different” to which the answer is always yes, even if total causal determinism holds). But if they reject that concept of free will, then you are right and they are wrong. Second, you have to distinguish the question of “free will” from the question of “responsibility” [or "accountability" or what have you]. They are too often conflated, even by professional philosophers who ought to know better (see my discussion of Moreland on this point, in Sense and Goodness without God). Just as “free will” can be defined in different ways (e.g. compatibilist vs. libertarian) so can “responsibility” (et al.). It’s entirely possible that “responsibility” in one sense doesn’t exist at all, or can never be identified even when it does; but even then it would still be the case that “responsibility” in another sense does exist, and can be shared by multiple parties for one and the same choice. And in that latter case, it will obtain for a given agent (a man) even if that agent’s will was deterministically caused by another agent (God).”

  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #129 - November 20, 2010, 02:01 PM

    I then sent Richard a reply back clarifying the orthodox Sunni position:-

    Quote
    “Thanks for your input on this issue. Regardless of whether God exists or not the issue of free will etc still stands. As far as the orthodox Sunni Muslim position is concerned though, I found the following question and answer on this website:-

    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=131&CATE=24

    Here is the text, which includes the question asked and the supporting text from Islamic sources.

    “Question:
    If Allah wills everything, then can we say that Allah willed me to do x and y sins, and Allah is responsible for my not repenting, and Allah willed that I am a bad Muslim?
    Answer:
    Walaikum assalam

    Yes, we can say that Allah Willed me to do x, y, and also z. Nothing moves or is brought to rest, except by the Power of Allah, in accordance with that which His Will specified and what He knew with His Knowledge.

    Realizing this is key to the perfection of ones faith.

    This is why the Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) asked one of the Companions, Shall I not guide you to words that are a treasure from the treasures of Paradise? He said, Indeed, O Messenger of Allah!

    The Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) said, There is no ability or power except through Allah (la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah). [Bukhari (3883); Muslim (4873), and others]

    Allah tells us this clearly in the Quran:

    Allah hath created you and what you do. [Quran, 37.96]

    And:

    Lo! this is an Admonishment, that whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord. Yet you will not, unless Allah wills. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise. He makes whom He will to enter His mercy, and for evil-doers hath prepared a painful doom. [Quran, 76.29-31]

    Moral Responsibility

    However, it is at the same time true that Allah has made us morally responsible for our acts and it is we who shall be questioned about the choices we made.

    Allah tells us that,

    We shall question, every one, of what they used to do. [Quran, 15.92-93]

    And:

    He will not be questioned as to that which He does, but they will be questioned. [Quran, 21.23]

    Great Islamic theologians said: Allah has willed that you act based on choice.

    As for how this works, it is beyond the understanding of the intellect. Shaykh Butis explanation of this, ably translated by Sidi Gibril Haddad, is attached

    It is important to understand, too, that Allah is as unconditioned by time as He is unconditioned by space: both are His creation, and He is beyond both. As such, Allahs Knowledge, Will, and Power relate to things beyond time. He knows the result from before the match ever happened.

    As such, Allahs Knowledge relates to all things necessary, possible, and impossible from pre-eternality. Allahs Will specified some of that which is possible with particulars in pre-eternality, in accordance with His Knowledge. His Power brings things into temporal existence, in accordance to that which His Will specified

    The way to understand this is to enlighten ones heart, mind, and soul with remembrance of Allah and recital of His Book with contemplation. Allah tells us,

    Is not the time ripe for the hearts of those who believe to submit to Allahs reminder and to the truth which is revealed, that they become not as those who received the scripture of old but the term was prolonged for them and so their hearts were hardened, and many of them are evil-livers. Know that Allah quickens the earth after its death. We have made clear Our revelations for you, that haply you may understand. Lo! those who give alms, both men and women, and lend unto Allah a goodly loan, it will be doubled for them, and theirs will be a rich reward.

    And those who believe in Allah and His messengers, they are the loyal, and the martyrs are with their Lord; they have their reward and their light; while as for those who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, they are owners of hell-fire. [Quran, 57.16-19]

    And Allah alone gives success.

    Wassalam,”

    The above is the basic understanding in a nutshell. As far as I can tell, it sounds like a compatibilist position, although I could be wrong?
    Many Thanks ”

    To which he responded with:-

    “Yes, they are describing a compatibilist position. It’s thus comparable to (or at least what used to be) the Christian Calvinist position, although it amusingly sounds closer to Game Theory (which is to Islam’s credit, actually). For a good analysis of a Game Theoretic argument for the same conclusion (albeit sans god), see Drescher’s _Good and Real_, the second half of which is a secular treatment of the foreknowledge vs. free will problem (centered around Newcomb’s Problem). In short, you should will to do good in order to reassure yourself that you are good and deserve what that entails, because if you choose evil you will thus be affirming that you are evil and thus deserve everything that entails; in effect, this knowledge (that your actions reveal what you were determined to suffer) deterministically causes you to be good (i.e. once you understand the argument, that understanding causes you to refrain from evil). So in fact, it’s one of the best arguments for being moral–that we should be moral precisely *because* we don’t have free will (of the libertarian type).

    The problem it creates for theology is simply the problem of evil–i.e. if there is anything God could tell you that would cause you to refrain from evil, he is responsible for the evil you do if he doesn’t tell you (since that is a sin of omission: he willed the evil you did by choosing to allow it and by having similarly chosen all the things that caused you to do it), whereas if there is nothing (even in principle) that God could tell you that would cause you to refrain from evil, he is responsible for having made you in such a defective way and thus is still responsible for the evil you do; and therefore God wills all evil; and therefore God is evil. That the agent is *also* responsible (i.e. they are evil and deserve what that entails) makes no difference to this conclusion: both the agent and the God who made him are evil. Thus the cognitive dissonance doesn’t arise from any conflict between God willing all things and people still being responsible; the cognitive dissonance arises from the fact that you must acknowledge that God is evil, which should entail that it is immoral to worship him.”

  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #130 - November 20, 2010, 02:03 PM

    I have since sent him this reply:-

    Quote
    “Hmm.. That’s exactly what I learnt as a Muslim. Basically, your actions stand against you and prove that you are evil. So, if you are destined for hell or heaven, the actions that you do will attest to the destination you are going to. So am I right in saying that, in this argument, the whole issue of omniscience is a red herring, and even under the compatibilist version of determinism (as described in your book), the choice is still there? If that’s the case, then I’m comfortable with the position.

    I follow what you are saying. However, in Islamic theology, the understanding is that God creates your actions, no matter what they are. What you are rewarded or punished for, is the will or the desire to carry out the action. Basically, God is simply facilitating your desire. I think the word for it is occasionalism? No matter what anybody does, any act or creating. It’s God that is doing it through His power. Now, the Muslim would reject the problem of evil argument out of hand, simply because they would say that the intention and will was yours. The problem it creates might not have any bearing on the omniscience, but it might call in to question two very important attributes in Islam theology. Those attributes are Ar-Rahman and Ar-Raheem. Which are the “compassionate” and “merciful”. I think two points can be made. First, the whole notion of a test conducted by the Al-Alim (The omniscient), really doesn’t make any sense. Secondly, which relates closely to this. Granted, we have the choice. But then we are put to task by an omniscient being, who is well aware that I’m going to fail, no matter how hard I try. Don’t get me wrong, the choice is all mine. To what end does this serve God? And so much for these two attributes. However, the Muslim could make two replies and say either, the test is for you, God isn’t the one on trial and not the one who is going to be questionned. Or, they could say that he isn’t restricted by simply those attributes and has the following:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Rahim

    Any of which could be made manifest. This is the way the Muslim could get out of the problem of evil?”

    I am still awaiting his reply. From what I can guage, the issue of omniscience is a red herring as far as our responsibility is concerned?

  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #131 - November 20, 2010, 02:45 PM

    Good conversation.

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #132 - November 20, 2010, 04:35 PM

    Quote
    How can a God that isn't bound by time be in any moment at all? Even if such a God could somehow enter a specific time frame, he's not always going to enter this one. And every time frame he enters and asks us "What's the time?" we will give him a different answer. There is no real time and there is no present moment for the God that is not bound by time.

    Agreed, God is not bound by time.  I was only clarifying what I meant by real time within the context of my argument.

    And if we can't even imagine another way in which God could possibly be omniscient about the future, without having to resort to mystery, then can't we reasonably conclude that there isn't another way?..But haven't we exhausted the different possible mechanisms?


    I think you're right, but tbh I am not as bothered about the mechanisms nor am I convinced an omnicient & omnipotent being even needs a mechanism - I can quite easily accept an omnicient being is not bound by time & can see into the future. I believe we have already made this leap of faith by accepting he is omnicient & omnipotent. 

    The question we are asking here is if omnicience is theoretically compatible with free-will.  If you believe omnicient beings must have boundaries to their knowledge, well thats another discussion.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #133 - November 20, 2010, 10:51 PM

    Agreed, God is not bound by time.  I was only clarifying what I meant by real time within the context of my argument.


    So we agree that, in the case of the omniscient God that is not bound by time, our future actions have already happened? You can't say the future hasn't happened yet because God is in real time, because that would be simply false: God isn't in a particular time at all.

    Quote
    I think you're right, but tbh I am not as bothered about the mechanisms nor am I convinced an omnicient & omnipotent being even needs a mechanism - I can quite easily accept an omnicient being is not bound by time & can see into the future. I believe we have already made this leap of faith by accepting he is omnicient & omnipotent. 


    We haven't accepted that he's omniscient; all we're saying is: if God is omniscient about everything, including our future, then we can't have free will. Likewise, if we have free will, God isn't omniscient.

    Quote
    The question we are asking here is if omnicience is theoretically compatible with free-will.  If you believe omnicient beings must have boundaries to their knowledge, well thats another discussion.



    No, omniscient beings can't have boundaries to their knowledge, that would be a self-contradiction. What boundaries do you mean? Also, mechanism is of the utmost importance. Afterall, our argument that God's omniscience is incompatible with human free will rests upon the mechanism behind God's omnisicence being incompatible with free will. So we can't have the discussion about God's omniscience being compatible with free will if you are going to outlaw discussion of how omniscience works to begin with.

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #134 - November 21, 2010, 01:56 AM

    So we agree that, in the case of the omniscient God that is not bound by time, our future actions have already happened?

    Depends which relative time frame you are talking about.  If you are talking about now, then our future actions havent happened.   The future is in the future, not the past, so how could it already have happened?

    Quote
    Also, mechanism is of the utmost importance. Afterall, our argument that God's omniscience is incompatible with human free will rests upon the mechanism behind God's omnisicence being incompatible with free will. So we can't have the discussion about God's omniscience being compatible with free will if you are going to outlaw discussion of how omniscience works to begin with.

    I'm not outlawing it, but I could see the direction you were headed, and wanted to nip it in the bud before you went down the route of what I saw as a red herring.  I just dont see it as a crucial part of the discussion because I dont know how omnicience works.

    These are all mystical & magical concepts that have no alignment with modern science, so am not sure what you expect me to do, I cant break magic down into a group of simple steps - we just accept them as is, just like all other theists do.

    Even when it comes to something as logical as science,  I cant tell you what the first living organism was, but that doesnt mean to say evolution is false.  However if its contradictory, it then becomes blatantly false, as in the example that you gave where Allah projects on the basis of the environment/genes he has given us - as they determine our actions, then free-will cant exist.

    We are debating whether whether something that can watch you in the future will inhibit your actions.  I dont believe this necessarily holds true.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #135 - November 21, 2010, 03:24 AM

    I really don't see the point of this... you are creating impossible conditions to justify a made up concept.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #136 - November 21, 2010, 09:28 AM

    Depends which relative time frame you are talking about.  If you are talking about now, then our future actions havent happened.   The future is in the future, not the past, so how could it already have happened?


    But the point is, that if God is omniscient and not bound by time, then that means time is reduced to a dimension similar to that of space. By that I mean, just as events happen across all of space, events happens across all of time too. You're still speaking in terms of future and past but to the omniscient God, talking about future and past is like telling the omnipresent God to look here and then look there, or go here and then go there; the omnipresent God isn't looking at anything in partiuclar and isn't in a particular location. So the omniscient God isn't in any particular time either, and therefore what we in this time frame think of as "future" in God's eyes has the same status as what we in this time frame think of as "present".

    Quote
    I'm not outlawing it, but I could see the direction you were headed, and wanted to nip it in the bud before you went down the route of what I saw as a red herring.  I just dont see it as a crucial part of the discussion because I dont know how omnicience works.


    How is talking about how omniscience works distracting from the main issue of how omniscience is compatible with free will? I would have thought such a discourse was not complete without reference to it.

    Quote
    These are all mystical & magical concepts that have no alignment with modern science, so am not sure what you expect me to do, I cant break magic down into a group of simple steps - we just accept them as is, just like all other theists do.


    Omniscience isn't, in my opinion, a mystical and magical concept. The Newtonian vision of physics wanted to head in the direction of omniscience. If we live in a determined world and all the laws of nature were discovered, then omniscience isn't that farfetched.

    Quote
    Even when it comes to something as logical as science,  I cant tell you what the first living organism was, but that doesnt mean to say evolution is false.  However if its contradictory, it then becomes blatantly false, as in the example that you gave where Allah projects on the basis of the environment/genes he has given us - as they determine our actions, then free-will cant exist.

    We are debating whether whether something that can watch you in the future will inhibit your actions.  I dont believe this necessarily holds true.


    Aren't you finding it difficult to hold an opinion on the implications of a magical and mysterious concept? If it is magical and mysterious then I shouldn't hold an opinion on it, at least not an informed one. Or have I misunderstood what you mean by magical?

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #137 - November 22, 2010, 12:39 AM

    Sounds like quackery to me.  Can you explain what you mean by 'conscious' - are you saying the particle fibres in my socks are aware?

    I'd also like to know what z10 thoughts on particle consciousness is..


    particles are an abstraction from scientific models. The only things that we know to exist for fact are units of experience - the panpsychist view that PS is proposing above states that these units are the basic entities of the universe, from what I can tell.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #138 - November 22, 2010, 12:58 AM

    with experiments to do with physical reality i.e. quantum mechanics, we can't and don't reproduce experimental results. If we performed exactly the same experiment under the exact same conditions - we end up getting different answers. The only thing we can do is use schrodingers wavefunction to predict the probability of a certain outcome - and it appears that only when an observation is made that one of these outcomes is randomly selected.


    ...is correct

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #139 - November 22, 2010, 01:14 AM



    When looked at this way it becomes apparent that all (caused) events have a will. A ball being dropped has a will to reach to the ground. Will cannot be acted against, it is just causality. For a being to have free will (or more accurately, imo, to be free of will), it has to be uncaused, uninfluenced, random - and it must only be a single event/interaction/experience. We are, very clearly, a collection of such interactions.

    The problem, as ever, seems to be conciousness. A sense of self, that encompasses more than one event. I'd love to know how it arised, how our brains managed to build a me/not-me boundary, or an object/not-object view. (I think now, more than ever, I can relate to the idea that everything is concious, and our sense of self is just an illusion. Though I'm not yet convinced.)




    I agree that every event that we can conceive of has a cause. However, just because an event has a cause does not mean that the cause must be external to that event - for example, I might choose a certain item off a menu with good cause but must that cause be something external to myself? I think it is perfectly acceptable that I, myself, caused my own decision.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #140 - November 22, 2010, 01:24 AM

    Without any external influence? I don't deny that is possible (in fact, I think I made it clear that I consider it a possibility), but the 'I' seems arbitrary to me. 'I' as in, the whole of you, or a part of you (is ultimately responsible)?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #141 - November 22, 2010, 01:26 AM

    Perhaps I worded that wrong, yes there are external influences but the final cause is me, myself, making the choice.
    By me, I mean the unit of experience that I was at that moment in time.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #142 - November 22, 2010, 01:30 AM

    And you are a different monad of experience in every instant of time?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #143 - November 22, 2010, 01:32 AM

    I don't know that there is a direct one-to-one relationship between time and experience. Perhaps certain experiences take longer than others.
    I also don't know if dividing experience into atomic monads is merely conceptual or actually ontological - but yes, every experience is a new monad of subjectivity.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #144 - November 22, 2010, 01:33 AM

    And you aren't a collections of these monads?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #145 - November 22, 2010, 01:37 AM

    Those monads that I was before have become objects for me to be influenced by in this new subject of experience that I am passing through. They were me, but are not me now.
    I think that is fairly uncontroversial, seeing as not many people identify fully with their historical selves.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #146 - November 22, 2010, 01:38 AM

    I don't see how from that point of view you can differentiate between 'your body' and the rest of the world.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #147 - November 22, 2010, 01:46 AM

    I don't - my body and the rest of the world are all monads in and of themselves that affect me causally. There is a slight difference between the rest of the world and my body because my body has a greater causal influence over me than the rest, but I am not my body, I am just one monad.
    This is an imperfect analogy but you can think of it like a pyramid - the rest of the world is at the bottom, my body is the middle layer, and 'I' am the single monad that sits atop of this pyramid. The rest of the world affects me through my body and thus my body acts as a conduit of causality. For example, when I see the sun, an image of something round and yellow is presented to my experience - this image passes through my body (my eyes) into my consciousness and thus I have awareness of it. It could well be that it is my body that creates the image of the sun, for I know not what happens to the image as it passes through my body into my single monad but what I do know is that my body plays an active part in delivering the outside world to me.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #148 - November 22, 2010, 01:50 AM

    Is your body made up of monads too? If so, what makes them different from the monad that is you?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #149 - November 22, 2010, 01:50 AM

    Yes. What makes them different is that I don't experience them - I only get affected by them once they complete their own process of experience.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »