Religious/Philosophical discussion, your thoughts Options

[Hartmann]

And i DO "get it" I fully understand what you are saying. I am merely saying that ya'll are DEFINING what something is and isn't. I am merely saying you aren't the defining source of what a god can and can't do for "free will" to exist. I personally don't think i was to jerk off at a point in time to a certain dirty thought (if god could see the future). Have you thought of the idea that perhaps its a mixed bowl? Sure we make our own decisions, but they are made within a rule bound world with limited variables. To you that means its not "free will" i would simply disagree. So YES i am saying we are agreeing do disagree, but why does that mean we can't speak about our views... is peon now the ruling master of what i can and can't say?

I think you hit the nail on the head. We are trying to declare the rules we play by and that's not how it works.

[Billy]

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 B) 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.

[Hartmann]

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.

Again, that's based on your "rules" of how it works.

Just because God knows does not mean you cannot change your choice, though He knows you are going to do that. His knowing does not change your ability to have free will.

[Trespass]

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.

Who are you to say something is 100% certain?....

Why does 100% take away free will? Just because something NEVER happens doesn't make the choice to have it happen suddenly disappear and destroy free will.

And furthermore, you state that because ONE THING has 100% certainty that it destroys ALL free will.

You make so many presumptions which are only YOUR beliefs.

I can appreciate that you think you know everything, and this is SO OBVIOUS and we are just morons or whatever. But you are plainly stating rules where you have no right to make them. And even by your own rules i wouldn't agree that because something is CHOSEN 100% of the time that takes away free will.

[Billy]

[quote]Who are you to say something is 100% certain?.... [/quote]

If I am given the choice between A and A, it is 100% certain I will choose A.

[quote]Why does 100% take away free will?[quote]

Because if free will means the ability to choose, and I am only given one choice, I cannot actually choose. If you cannot choose, you cannot have free will for that decision. You are dictated by the fact that there is only one choice.

[quote]And furthermore, you state that because ONE THING has 100% certainty that it destroys ALL free will. [/quote]

Quote it. Because I didn't say that. Please work on your literacy.

[quote]And even by your own rules i wouldn't agree that because something is CHOSEN 100% of the time that takes away free will.[/quote]

Why not?

[Trespass]

If I am given the choice between A and A, it is 100% certain I will choose A.
Quote it. Because I didn't say that. Please work on your literacy.
Why not?

sigh.....

You are stating you are only given A as a choice because thats all YOU CHOOSE... Which i honestly don't get where you are pulling that from. Im given door A and B, and since SO FAR 100% of the time i choose door A that means door B didn't exist and i NEVER COULD choose it?... god your out of left field and i can't understand why you don't see it.

You state that because of moral reasons of someones choice that takes away thier "free will" does that mean an insane person who does something completely out of his control is the closest person to making "choices"?

And sorry if they didn't teach you how to read into somebodys theories and re-state them... sorry my damn "literacy" getting at me again...

Oh and i answered the why not.... LITERACY OMGZ JEEZUS U STUPIDZ

ha ha

Anyway, i don't have time to beat the dead horse with you anymore.

Did i CHOOSE to hit submit here or was it willed to happen?

Ha ha, i hit preview post!

or did i? so many choices...

but not choices cuz in the future i will have already "chosen"

DAMN IT i can't beat that damn "time" thing taking away my free will

Im gonna make a time machine and choose door B

/end

[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]

Thank you Jared for keeping this thread intelligent. I'm done replying to Seth, until he grows up. I will reply to your post shortly.

[Trespass]

Thank you Jared for keeping this thread intelligent. I'm done replying to Seth, until he grows up. I will reply to your post shortly.

hahahahaha



Someone's view challenged, get defensive and cry victim... im cool with that

[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?

[TetraGrammaton C...]

for now, i will just ask isn't the option of choosing or not choosing in itself another choice. if you fall off a building, there is no choice, you are falling.

if you go to an ice cream place and there is one flavor of ice cream, you can choose not to choose and leave.

i would right something better, but i have to finish this semantics paper.

[The Fanatic]

Free choice is the ability to make a free choice without outside forces determining how a person makes a choice or decides not to choose.

Predestination can be thought of as a set list of people who will be saved and a list of those who will burn in hell for eternity. This list is compiled by god and controlled by his 'divine' will.

These two terms are not compatible. You can not have both. Calvinists traditionally held to the predestination theology, many churches today believe in free choice...

Is God all powerful and all knowing? Can god create a rock that he can not destroy? If the god head is all knowing, then how would free choice be possible? In believing in free choice, a christian is denying the almighty knowledge and divine will of god.

[Billy]

for now, i will just ask isn't the option of choosing or not choosing in itself another choice. if you fall off a building, there is no choice, you are falling.

if you go to an ice cream place and there is one flavor of ice cream, you can choose not to choose and leave.

i would right something better, but i have to finish this semantics paper.

That's exactly what I mean though. The falling off a building is excellent. Because you can't choose to stop falling. You just have to accept you are going to continue to fall until something else stops that fall. You are given the question "Do I continue falling?" and you are only given the option A, "yes". There are no other choices.

There is a 100% probability you will pick A as it is the only answer to pick. Anything that has both "yes" and "no", like in your ice cream example, is an example of choice. There must be atleast two options, to actually have a choice.

So, in conclusion, I am not debating what you just said. I am just applying what you said to my definition, in other words, I think we are saying the same thing; in agreement. Is this acceptable? Are we using the same definition of "choice" ? As in, in order to have choice, the parameter of having atleast two or more options to choose from must exist.

[The Fanatic]

Is God all loving?

[Throwdown]

my only complaint with religion is that it makes people even more weak minded and offended than they already are

then again, so does everything else, so maybe the point is moot