Religious/Philosophical discussion, your thoughts Options

[TetraGrammaton C...]

this thread was inspired by the atheist video thread

we have not had one of these in a while. i thought it would be interesting if people wanted to have an ungoing discussion about what beliefs/morals/religious ideas/scruples they have and why they have them.

i will try to interject myself as a catalyst when i have time.

i would ask that no one is too inconsiderate of other people's ideas. however, i do not think their is anything wrong with light humor or logical criticism.



as for religious trends, it seems that our generation is having difficulties with Christianity, ranging from "I'm spiritual, not religious" to the casual "Christian" that does not really believe in Jesus, but believes in the Christian god. I have met several people who treat religion like a buffet, picking and choosing which particular characteristics of the ethos that seem most suitable. this seems to be indicative of a deterioration of religion in general, as if what was once considered dogmatic is now flexible and relative. aside from the particular personal relevance to our own lives, there also exists a greater societal relevance. what will change in our country if we are on a religious downslope? can religion die out or is it cyclical? who will win flying shark vs. flying crocodile? what about a flying spaghetti monster? does it come with breadsticks? when was the last time you ate at olive garden? etc. etc.

[TetraGrammaton C...]

Here are a set of statements:

1.) Free will is the ability to make choice given two or more options with the probability of each option being chosen greater than 0.

That is my definition of free will. What this means is if I have to choose between choice A or choice B, and choosing an infinite number of times, I will pick either of these choices atleast once. So in my example question, where I ask could you murder someone. There are two choices: A) Do not murder someone, or go murder someone. I would never choose B, and thus, in that situation, I do not have free will. By definition, since the probability of picking A is 100% and picking B is 0%, there is really only one option to pick, and that is A. In this case, I do not meet the definition of having free will. I go on to argue that all decisions are like this, as in you will always have one choice you would pick 100% of them, but you disagree and I'm not going to argue it here.

2.) In order to KNOW exactly what is going to happen, there must be a 100% probability of that event happening.

This is true because if you know something is going to happen, and it does not happen, you really didn't know it was going to happen.

3.) If God knows what you're going to do, you had a 100% probability of doing that.
I know you're intelligent and can put 2 and 2 together. You finish the rest.

Ok, this is something like what i was asking for, before we go throwing terms around we need some sort of basic definition, that we all agree upon. i would think it more suitable to define free will by stating that it is NOT predestination. i.e. things may be somewhat predictable, because people are predictable, but they have control over it.

i think you are confusing societal conditioning with free will.

you talked about the free will to go kill a person earlier. just because you, or anyone, has concerns about the repercussions of an act does not really make it a consideration of will. that is conditioning. if it were will, then no one would ever do anything that had obvious negative consequences.
another popular argument for free will is the intersection of free wills. applying billy's example, a person's will to kill another person and that second person's will to not be killed.

this often leads to social darwinism.

[Billy]

Ok, this is something like what i was asking for, before we go throwing terms around we need some sort of basic definition, that we all agree upon. i would think it more suitable to define free will by stating that it is NOT predestination. i.e. things may be somewhat predictable, because people are predictable, but they have control over it.

i think you are confusing societal conditioning with free will.

you talked about the free will to go kill a person earlier. just because you, or anyone, has concerns about the repercussions of an act does not really make it a consideration of will. that is conditioning. if it were will, then no one would ever do anything that had obvious negative consequences.
another popular argument for free will is the intersection of free wills. applying billy's example, a person's will to kill another person and that second person's will to not be killed.

this often leads to social darwinism.

Dictionary.com has this to say about free will:

Free will
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Free and independent choice. So let's start this conversation off with the debate of this definition. I claimed this:

1.) Free will is the ability to make choice given two or more options with the probability of each option being chosen greater than 0.

So what I have done with statement #1 is defined two things. I have defined free will with the ability to make a choice. And I have defined choice as having two or more options to actually choose from. ie. if you only have one option, option A for instance, you cannot choose A, but rather, you must accept A.

Do you agree?