If there was no heaven, would you still want to be a Christian?

[hedrick]

Simply asserting this is true does not make it true. Repeating your position does not strengthen it.

Take a look at the end of the Revelation. The New Jerusalem comes down from heaven.

But most of the NT doesn't mention location. It talks about resurrection. Paul is 1 Cor 15 says that we will all be changed. He doesn't specifically say we'll still be on earth, but there's no sign that the people who are changed are also relocated. Similarly, Mat 8:11 has people come from east and west into the Kingdom, with no indication of relocation.

I wonder, however, what of this matters. The new heavens and earth are obviously different from the current one. The current universe will eventually die. And resurrection bodies seem to have different properties. I'm not sure that there's much difference between thinking that the earth will be transformed to a new reality and thinking that we go to a new reality with a transformed earth. The big issue I think is with the concept that heaven has disembodied souls.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I don't agree that 'do not murder' is an absolute in the sense in which I believe we are discussing it. If it is then any statement is an absolute. You can add as many individual and specific conditions to any event and include as many conditionals and qualifications as you want to make it so. But the definition of absolute is that it contains no qualifications. Do not murder does. It means 'Do not intentionally kill someone in a premeditated and unlawfull fashion'. It is not an absolute by definition.

Interesting definiton of a moral absolute. I looked up the standard definition and yours is not it. Mine is closer. A moral absolute, like do not murder, means it is a standard by which everyone can be judged as to whether they live up to it or not. ONe can go on and say an absolute means it is independent of whether one knows or acknowledges this or not. It is independent of our thinking.

Conditions as far as the definition goes, play no role. That is why do not murder is an absolute and do not kill is not. One is never allowed to murder. But one is allowed to kill under some circumstances and still be morally right. That is why I see do not murder as the absolute. It is always wrong. What do you think?

And you can learn from past experiences. From making mistakes. Your past experiences make up the conditions under which you make decisions. They form part of the new conditions under which you make them. If I walked across the room and made a crude joke to the girl and got a drink thrown over me, then the next time the situation arises in almost exactly the same circumstances then I will have that past experience as part of the new conditions and won't make the same mistake again.

But the moment of learning is not dependent upon past but present choices. The whole ability to learn sets us as independent from those conditions outside of us and gives us, perhaps, the ability to actually rise above and even master them. If there is no choice, we cannot learn. Learn requires the ability to really choose.

The only way we could truly make a free will choice would be if we were aware we were reliving a moment and thought we'd try for a different outcome.

I think you are imposing a requirement that is not at all necessary. Self-awareness of freedom to choose is not necessary to have freedom to choose.

Think Phil in Groundhog Day. He was the only person who had free will available to him. Everyone else made exactly the same choices under the same circumstances.

He had no free will at all. That is the point. He was confined in a repeating sequence from which he could not free himself. He could not choose to be elsewhere or do differently outside of a restricted field over which he had no choice or control. Freedom also means abiltiy at least within ourselves to move and change our conditions. Groundhog day is anything but.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Take a look at the end of the Revelation. The New Jerusalem comes down from heaven.

We are the new Jerusalem.

But most of the NT doesn't mention location. It talks about resurrection. Paul is 1 Cor 15 says that we will all be changed. He doesn't specifically say we'll still be on earth, but there's no sign that the people who are changed are also relocated. Similarly, Mat 8:11 has people come from east and west into the Kingdom, with no indication of relocation.

That is what is happening. The people are coming into the church (Jerusalem) from the east and the west.

I wonder, however, what of this matters. The new heavens and earth are obviously different from the current one. The current universe will eventually die. And resurrection bodies seem to have different properties. I'm not sure that there's much difference between thinking that the earth will be transformed to a new reality and thinking that we go to a new reality with a transformed earth. The big issue I think is with the concept that heaven has disembodied souls.

Samuel came to Saul as a disembodied soul. From whence did he come? Angels have totally different bodies than ours. Does that mean them disembodied because their bodies are not subject to the physical laws ours are? I do find it difficult to believe that people do not believe that God can have a host of Heaven around him and some of them are as described in Revelation, the souls of those who were martyred. A host unable to be counted it says. The Resurrection has not taken place. So they are in those words, disembodied souls, and no one there seems to be upset about it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I said what I mean. It just seems that you misunderstood what I meant.

-CryptoLutheran

I think you use words you don't really believe. Maybe you think of them as a metaphor like the saints are here with us but you don't believe the spirits of the dead are here with us.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Angels have totally different bodies than ours.

Angels don't have bodies at all.

Does that mean them disembodied because their bodies are not subject to the physical laws ours are?

They aren't disembodied--because they never had bodies to begin with. The Scriptures call angels "ministering spirits", they are not physical, material creatures. They don't have bodies at all.

I do find it difficult to believe that people do not believe that God can have a host of Heaven around him and some of them are as described in Revelation, the souls of those who were martyred. A host unable to be counted it says. The Resurrection has not taken place. So they are in those words, disembodied souls, and no one there seems to be upset about it.

And one should remember that this is a vision in a visionary, apocalyptic text literally called "The Apocalypse" or "The Revelation" when translated. It is the apocalypse--the revelation--given to St. John which he wrote down on Patmos. And the things he sees should not be taken literally.

That the martyrs are with the Lord in His presence is affirmed here in the Apocalypse--but taking this to mean there is a literal place where the souls of the martyrs are hanging out, under a literal celestial altar is on par with taking St. John's vision of Christ as a Lamb seated on a throne to mean that Jesus is a wooly ungulate sitting on a giant chair somewhere.

Jesus isn't a literal lamb.
Neither is there a literal altar.
There are no literal human-faced locust monsters hidden in a literal bottomless pit.
There isn't a literal prostitute riding on a purple hydra.

It is visionary, apocalyptic language, and should be read and understood as such.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting definiton of a moral absolute. I looked up the standard definition and yours is not it. Mine is closer. A moral absolute, like do not murder, means it is a standard by which everyone can be judged as to whether they live up to it or not. ONe can go on and say an absolute means it is independent of whether one knows or acknowledges this or not. It is independent of our thinking.

Conditions as far as the definition goes, play no role. That is why do not murder is an absolute and do not kill is not. One is never allowed to murder. But one is allowed to kill under some circumstances and still be morally right. That is why I see do not murder as the absolute. It is always wrong. What do you think?

Then moral absolutes become relative to the person who holds to them. You could say that surely there are moral actions to which everyone would agree. But then you are just voting on the matter. If everyone on the planet died except a few dozen people who thought that stoning people to death for adultery was morally correct then it becomes an absolute. Younreach a point where you can attach any number of conditions to an act and then say it's an absolute. Which means there is no relatavism at all. That appears to be a nonsensical position.

Maybe it's a command from God. Or should I say one's interpretation of the desires of one's deity. There are enough arguments in this forum between people who consider themselves true Christians as to exactly what God might want. Which one has the right answer?

There are absolutes. Not just as far as morality is concerned.

And re Groundhog Day, there is obviously a huge difference in how decisions are made by Phil and by everyone else. Is it possible to say that he makes free will decisions in that he changes his mind under exactly the same circumstances every time and that everyone else is making free will decisions when they make exactly the same ones every time? It makes nonsense of the meaning of free will. You can't call both free will. So who has it? Obviously not the townsfolk. We rerun the sequence of events and we see them making the same choices time after time. Why would they make a different choice if the conditions are exactly the same?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Angels don't have bodies at all.
They aren't disembodied--because they never had bodies to begin with. The Scriptures call angels "ministering spirits", they are not physical, material creatures. They don't have bodies at all.


And one should remember that this is a vision in a visionary, apocalyptic text literally called "The Apocalypse" or "The Revelation" when translated. It is the apocalypse--the revelation--given to St. John which he wrote down on Patmos. And the things he sees should not be taken literally.

That the martyrs are with the Lord in His presence is affirmed here in the Apocalypse--but taking this to mean there is a literal place where the souls of the martyrs are hanging out, under a literal celestial altar is on par with taking St. John's vision of Christ as a Lamb seated on a throne to mean that Jesus is a wooly ungulate sitting on a giant chair somewhere.

Jesus isn't a literal lamb.
Neither is there a literal altar.
There are no literal human-faced locust monsters hidden in a literal bottomless pit.
There isn't a literal prostitute riding on a purple hydra.

It is visionary, apocalyptic language, and should be read and understood as such.

-CryptoLutheran

My position is that all of the symbols and metaphors express a truth that is better seen by using that method. It was the Lord's way to give a clearer idea of important matters. It is not wise to dismiss them as not telling us anything true because it is in the rich Hebrew metaphor style. You will find that a great deal of true passes you by.

Your position on angles reaches a difficulty when Jesus said that after the resurrection of the body, we will be like the angles who you say have no body. So your position does not match the teaching of Jesus on this matter.

The people who received the revelation of John knew what it meant and did not dismiss it as you do. It was extremely important to them because it was about to happen to them. When Jesus warned the churches if they do not take his words literally and change, something unpleasant would happen. "Come and take away your lampstand" did not mean a changing of lighting fixtures in the houses but it was a real warning never theless. It would be better not to dismiss these pieces of information because they are written in metaphoric or symbolic form. The warnings in the OT to the Hebrews were also in metaphoric style and nevertheless happened in real space and time.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Then moral absolutes become relative to the person who holds to them. You could say that surely there are moral actions to which everyone would agree. But then you are just voting on the matter. If everyone on the planet died except a few dozen people who thought that stoning people to death for adultery was morally correct then it becomes an absolute. Younreach a point where you can attach any number of conditions to an act and then say it's an absolute. Which means there is no relatavism at all. That appears to be a nonsensical position.

Maybe it's a command from God. Or should I say one's interpretation of the desires of one's deity. There are enough arguments in this forum between people who consider themselves true Christians as to exactly what God might want. Which one has the right answer?

There are absolutes. Not just as far as morality is concerned.

Your thinking here is based on two factors. One, that there is no God. If there is no God, then there are no moral absolutes because there is nothing upon which they stand. Moral absolutes are merely a matter of the vote of who is strongest or more powerful among people in that case. This is how cultures were run for millennia. Rex Lex. The king is law. The second assumption is that we have to know these or they bear no weight in our lives. So from your position on God and we have to understand these absolutes, this is a logical conclusion. You are being completely consistant.

But I assume you talk to me because I do not share that basic starting point and so can offer something different for your intellectual consideration. My position is that there are moral absolutes that are independent of man being willing to live consistantly with them or that they exist. In Hinduism it is sometimes called "Karma" and it is a kind of justice or "reaping what you sow" in the Bible. Hindus call the force behind it the universe which makes no sense as the universe is not an intelligence and can inact no justice. God, however, is an intelligence and can and I believe does render to people according to their deeds from time to time (although complex.)

With the knowledge of God being there, I have a basis for knowing that there are moral absolutes and I can pursue them because I know that they are there whether I know of them or not. It is similar to why science exploded in the Christian west and no where else. Scientists, most of whom were Christians, pursued understanding the natural world because they knew there was a law giver who made that world and he is consistant and logical and the patterns of matters in the natural world would be consistant and able to be found out. Doesn't mean that everyone understands either the moral absolutes or the patterns in the natural world. Knowing this knowledge is there doesn't mean we have it. That is why there are differences in the thinking of those who call themselves Christians.

And re Groundhog Day, there is obviously a huge difference in how decisions are made by Phil and by everyone else. Is it possible to say that he makes free will decisions in that he changes his mind under exactly the same circumstances every time and that everyone else is making free will decisions when they make exactly the same ones every time? It makes nonsense of the meaning of free will. You can't call both free will. So who has it? Obviously not the townsfolk. We rerun the sequence of events and we see them making the same choices time after time. Why would they make a different choice if the conditions are exactly the same?

Phil in Ground hog day cannot leave his repeated life. He has very limited choices. That is actually a cage not freedom to choose. He actually cannot live his life. He has no friends who walk through life with him as there is only one day relived. Life is over for him as life consists in going through the various stages with its accomplishments and joys and challenges. He knows what is going to happen around him every single day with no change whatsoever of change or newness. THat is not living and it is not free. It is a cage of the worst kind.

You ask the question why people would make different choices under the same conditions as though this is impossible. But people do this every day. They go to the same restaurant and eat different food. I can come up with 100s of examples of people making different choices under exactly the same conditions and you retreat to conditions change that they are unaware of that force them into the decision they make. But this is an argument from ignorance as no one knows of these assumed hidden conditions.

When I apply your position on choice to real life, it does not bear the weight. Again, you rejoice that your wife chose you (something you have in common with Gene, whom I know you are not) and yet if you were to be consistant, you could not do so as you believe she had no choice in those circumstances where she chose. It is an illusion to you and so your joy in her loving you is really an illusion. Do you see that your position is not one you can live with? No one ever choosing freely to love anyone else and all joy is thereby destroyed. You can hold this in your head and theory but you cannot live it.

 

[Bradskii]

Your thinking here is based on two factors. One, that there is no God. If there is no God, then there are no moral absolutes because there is nothing upon which they stand. Moral absolutes are merely a matter of the vote of who is strongest or more powerful among people in that case. This is how cultures were run for millennia. Rex Lex. The king is law. The second assumption is that we have to know these or they bear no weight in our lives. So from your position on God and we have to understand these absolutes, this is a logical conclusion. You are being completely consistant.

But I assume you talk to me because I do not share that basic starting point and so can offer something different for your intellectual consideration. My position is that there are moral absolutes that are independent of man being willing to live consistantly with them or that they exist. In Hinduism it is sometimes called "Karma" and it is a kind of justice or "reaping what you sow" in the Bible. Hindus call the force behind it the universe which makes no sense as the universe is not an intelligence and can inact no justice. God, however, is an intelligence and can and I believe does render to people according to their deeds from time to time (although complex.)

With the knowledge of God being there, I have a basis for knowing that there are moral absolutes and I can pursue them because I know that they are there whether I know of them or not. It is similar to why science exploded in the Christian west and no where else. Scientists, most of whom were Christians, pursued understanding the natural world because they knew there was a law giver who made that world and he is consistant and logical and the patterns of matters in the natural world would be consistant and able to be found out. Doesn't mean that everyone understands either the moral absolutes or the patterns in the natural world. Knowing this knowledge is there doesn't mean we have it. That is why there are differences in the thinking of those who call themselves Christians.
Phil in Ground hog day cannot leave his repeated life. He has very limited choices. That is actually a cage not freedom to choose. He actually cannot live his life. He has no friends who walk through life with him as there is only one day relived. Life is over for him as life consists in going through the various stages with its accomplishments and joys and challenges. He knows what is going to happen around him every single day with no change whatsoever of change or newness. THat is not living and it is not free. It is a cage of the worst kind.

We will likely have to at some point reach an agreement to acknowledge our differences. You ask the question why people would make different choices under the same conditions as though this is impossible. But people do this every day. They go to the same restaurant and eat different food. I can come up with 100s of examples of people making different choices under exactly the same conditions and you retreat to conditions change that they are unaware of that force them into the decision they make. But this is an argument from ignorance as no one knows of these assumed hidden conditions. When I apply your position on choice to real life, it does not bear the weight. Again, you rejoice that your wife chose you (something you have in common with Gene, whom I know you are not) and yet if you were to be consistant, you could not do so as you believe she had no choice in those circumstances where she chose. It is an illusion to you and so your joy in her loving you is really an illusion. Do you see that your position is not one you can live with? No one ever choosing freely to love anyone else and all joy is thereby destroyed. You can hold this in your head and theory but you cannot live it.

The discussion on absolute morality generally reaches one of two points. The first being where someone declares that they know what the absolute moral truths are because God gives them to us. At which point I say that in that case, there's no need to wait for an answer to a moral problem from God. I can simply ask that person. They can arbitrate between right and wrong as they appear to know what the answers are.

That obviously didn't happen here. Because you say that you know they exist (because of God) - it's just that you don't know what they are (apart from His specific commandments like 'do not murder' - as if we couldn't work that out ourselves...). At which point I propose that having absolute morality is a waste of time if we don't know what it comprises. And those who do say that they have been told by God have different interpretations. Why is my view no less valid then theirs?

And let's get back to Phil. People are obviously making decisions in that scenario. So who is making free will decisions? The townspeople or Phil?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The discussion on absolute morality generally reaches one of two points. The first being where someone declares that they know what the absolute moral truths are because God gives them to us. At which point I say that in that case, there's no need to wait for an answer to a moral problem from God. I can simply ask that person. They can arbitrate between right and wrong as they appear to know what the answers are.

That obviously didn't happen here. Because you say that you know they exist (because of God) - it's just that you don't know what they are (apart from His specific commandments like 'do not murder' - as if we couldn't work that out ourselves...). At which point I propose that having absolute morality is a waste of time if we don't know what it comprises. And those who do say that they have been told by God have different interpretations. Why is my view no less valid then theirs?

And let's get back to Phil. People are obviously making decisions in that scenario. So who is making free will decisions? The townspeople or Phil?

I did not say I don't know what the moral absolutes are. I said I can pursue knowing them. This is my philosophical position. As to the real state of matters, I do know some but is that important to the discussion? When one finds them, one finds that they match an internal moral standard we wished others lived by as regards to their behaviour of us (which is often different than the moral standard we allow ourselves to engage in.)

And I agree, if I would tell you matters God has explained to me, of what good is that UNLESS they resonate with you. When Jesus taught the words he spoke resonated with many. They were different. That is because the source of information was different. But the listeners were the judges of this so if I told you what God told me, you are right to judge the words and they ought to stand on their own, not just because you are fond of me, if you were to be, that is.

The problem with Ground Hog Day is that all of the people are limited to a script. This is just not real life. There is no one writing a script for us. There is no one determining choices. Even you have to say that the source of the controlling our decisions is unknown. This, by the way, you take on faith. ANd it is a pretty big faith because you have no evidence of this (which you admit) but the thinking inside your own head. If I test your theory in real life, that is, what happens outside of your head, it fails. Your only resort is to appeal to ignorance, that is, a source we know nothing about. That, my dear Braskil, is blind faith.

 

[Bradskii]

I did not say I don't know what the moral absolutes are. I said I can pursue knowing them. This is my philosophical position. As to the real state of matters, I do know some but is that important to the discussion? When one finds them, one finds that they match an internal moral standard we wished others lived by as regards to their behaviour of us (which is often different than the moral standard we allow ourselves to engage in.)

And I agree, if I would tell you matters God has explained to me, of what good is that UNLESS they resonate with you. When Jesus taught the words he spoke resonated with many. They were different. That is because the source of information was different. But the listeners were the judges of this so if I told you what God told me, you are right to judge the words and they ought to stand on their own, not just because you are fond of me, if you were to be, that is.

The problem with Ground Hog Day is that all of the people are limited to a script. This is just not real life. There is no one writing a script for us. There is no one determining choices. Even you have to say that the source of the controlling our decisions is unknown. This, by the way, you take on faith. ANd it is a pretty big faith because you have no evidence of this (which you admit) but the thinking inside your own head. If I test your theory in real life, that is, what happens outside of your head, it fails. Your only resort is to appeal to ignorance, that is, a source we know nothing about. That, my dear Braskil, is blind faith.

Let's say that the first time we see Groundhog day it's a documentary. So all the people are reacting as they would in real life and making choices throughout the day. It could be a scene from any small town. Are the decisions they make free will decisions?

Now we get to see the day again. And we see all the people reacting and making choices exactly the same way. Are they still free will decisions?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Let's say that the first time we see Groundhog day it's a documentary. So all the people are reacting as they would in real life and making choices throughout the day. It could be a scene from any small town. Are the decisions they make free will decisions?

Now we get to see the day again. And we see all the people reacting and making choices exactly the same way. Are they still free will decisions?

I would rather say let's say we are standing at a street corner in any town watching the people reacting to real life and making choices thoughout the day. Yes, the decisions they make are free will decisions unless someone is pointing a gun at another demanding something. That response is not a free will choice since the choice is comply or die. We no longer consider that free will although they do technically freely choose to comply rather than die. We still call that coersion.

I could ask why you think these are not free will choices but I think I now know the answer. There are unknown factors that determine their choice, right?

 

[Bradskii]

I would rather say let's say we are standing at a street corner in any town watching the people reacting to real life and making choices thoughout the day. Yes, the decisions they make are free will decisions unless someone is pointing a gun at another demanding something. That response is not a free will choice since the choice is comply or die. We no longer consider that free will although they do technically freely choose to comply rather than die. We still call that coersion.

I could ask why you think these are not free will choices but I think I now know the answer. There are unknown factors that determine their choice, right?

OK. You believe that they are free will decisions. Now we see the exact scene again. Almost as if it was recorded. Literally nothing has changed. Everything that led to the scene as we first saw it has led to the scene the second time we see it. Absolutely nothing has changed.

Do they make the same choices? If you think not, can you explain why? Bearing in mind that nothing has changed. The weather, the people, their moods...everything remains exactly the same.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

OK. You believe that they are free will decisions. Now we see the exact scene again. Almost as if it was recorded. Literally nothing has changed. Everything that led to the scene as we first saw it has led to the scene the second time we see it. Absolutely nothing has changed.

Do they make the same choices? If you think not, can you explain why? Bearing in mind that nothing has changed. The weather, the people, their moods...everything remains exactly the same.

Maybe they do and maybe they do not. Why not? Explaining this so it conveys understanding requires you to look inside for the information. If a space alien were watching, he (or she) would have no idea how decisions are formed. Or better yet, a dog watching would have no idea at how decisions are arrived it. This requires inside information and that is exactly what I am appealing to. The weather is repeatable and still we make different decisions. Everything else is repeatable and still we make different decisions.

We make difference decisions BECAUSE we are free agents who can choose which of the factors facing us are to be given importance at the moment. This springs from value systems but also from the joy of having the freedom to choose. We love being on vacation because we are so free to choose activites for a time. This you either recognize in yourself or you refuse to do so. If I followed you around for a time and heard what you said to others about their choices, I am very sure I would not hear what you tell me is your theory on free will. Very sure. No one lives like that. If a man steals your car in front on you, you would not tell the police that it is ok because that man had no free will. If your neighbor purposely let his dog run into your yard so he poops on your front lawn instead of his, you would not simply and calmly pick up the dog poop thinking the neighbor had no free will in the matter.

This disparity between your account of free will and how you actually live you either see or do not. But we have probably reached a point of understanding, perhaps. You will likely want to continue your line of "we have no free will because of forces we cannot see and unless we live in the ground hog movie narrative, we can never be free" and I will continue to see that these outside matters might or might not influence our inside choices believing that the "ghost running the ship" is the captain steering it through various oceans. PAX?

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe they do and maybe they do not. Why not?

Why not? I want you to tell me. If everything was exactly the same a second time around then there's nothing that's changed. Whatever reason we had making the choice in the first instance would be the same the second time. And I'm not talking about the same decision on Tuesday as you made on Wednesday when you're in the same place in the same mood and the weather is the same etc. I mean rerunning the event exactly.

The only way I see free will existing is for there to be some sort of Cartesian dualism where there's a homunculus somewhere viewing the situation separately from 'you' controlling our decisions. And changing his mind for us even when the conditions are exactly the same.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why not? I want you to tell me. If everything was exactly the same a second time around then there's nothing that's changed. Whatever reason we had making the choice in the first instance would be the same the second time. And I'm not talking about the same decision on Tuesday as you made on Wednesday when you're in the same place in the same mood and the weather is the same etc. I mean rerunning the event exactly.

The only way I see free will existing is for there to be some sort of Cartesian dualism where there's a homunculus somewhere viewing the situation separately from 'you' controlling our decisions. And changing his mind for us even when the conditions are exactly the same.

Why can’t WE be the homunculus doing this? Why must this be external? Someone said “the human body is something a ghost can run.” Why can’t we be the ghost running it?

 

[Bradskii]

Why can’t WE be the homunculus doing this? Why must this be external? Someone said “the human body is something a ghost can run.” Why can’t we be the ghost running it?

If you're a materialist then we can run with the fact that everything is materially governed. In which case, whence free will? Or you're not and we have some form of dualism.

Which was the point I was making about Phil in Groundhog Day. Everyone appeared to be materialists, making the same decisions governed by the situation. But he was, as you say, his own homunculus. He was able to view things one step removed. And make decisions based on that. He was Phil in the any given scenario and governed by the conditions. But....he was able to view outcomes. And not possible outcomes, as we do. But actual outcomes. And then make decisions based on that. True free will.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If you're a materialist then we can run with the fact that everything is materially governed. In which case, whence free will? Or you're not and we have some form of dualism.

I’m a christian and therefore cannot be a materialist. But for the materialist, there is no free will whatsoever which means there is no love either, unless they have one philosophy they think divorced from how they live.

Why is the only alternative dualism? Why can’t humans be as it appears, free to choose among choices?

Which was the point I was making about Phil in Groundhog Day. Everyone appeared to be materialists, making the same decisions governed by the situation. But he was, as you say, his own homunculus. He was able to view things one step removed. And make decisions based on that. He was Phil in the any given scenario and governed by the conditions. But....he was able to view outcomes. And not possible outcomes, as we do. But actual outcomes. And then make decisions based on that. True free will.

But he was stuck in one repeating day. How can you say he was free? He couldn’t marry and have children. He couldn’t accomplish a task in a job. He couldn’t see anyone from his family. He was in a kind of prison from the outside. He was forced to live one day over and over. And this guy you think is free. Could there be a worse prison?

Would you like to visit a town and wake up stuck there forever relieving one day with no continuing relationships whatsoever? Everyone you knew is lost to you? Every pleasure in life that takes more than 24 hours is eliminated.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m a christian and therefore cannot be a materialist. But for the materialist, there is no free will whatsoever which means there is no love either, unless they have one philosophy they think divorced from how they live.

Why is the only alternative dualism? Why can’t humans be as it appears, free to choose among choices?

But he was stuck in one repeating day. How can you say he was free? He couldn’t marry and have children. He couldn’t accomplish a task in a job. He couldn’t see anyone from his family. He was in a kind of prison from the outside. He was forced to live one day over and over. And this guy you think is free. Could there be a worse prison?

Would you like to visit a town and wake up stuck there forever relieving one day with no continuing relationships whatsoever? Everyone you knew is lost to you? Every pleasure in life that takes more than 24 hours is eliminated.

As you're not a materialist then there must be something else other than the chemical, electrical and physical operation of the brain which is making your decisions. It's an either/or situation. If there isn't 'something else' then you're a materialist.

And yes, Phil was trapped in that one day. In that sense he wasn't free. But he was still making decisions. And they were totally unlike the decisions that everyone around him were making. He could change his decisions each new day. But nobody else could. Now that surely indicates that one was a free will - able to make different choices given the same circumstances, and the other was not.

Here's a paragraph from a philosophy article which says pretty much the same thing (emphasis added): Groundhog Day | Issue 93 | Philosophy Now

"However, Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence is logically problematic, because if an individual’s life is an exact repeat of previous lives he would appear to have no free choice; yet at the same time Nietzsche seems to want us to alter our attitude to life in the face of the realisation of the stark truth of eternal recurrence. However, if we accept his scenario in its strictest sense, then ultimately our response to the concept of eternal recurrence is nothing over which we can have any control: our reaction, whatever it may be, will be the one we have exhibited an infinite number of times before, and will do so an infinite number of times in the future.

For Connors, this objection is removed. He can change; he has complete free will. "

 

[Dorothy Mae]

As you're not a materialist then there must be something else other than the chemical, electrical and physical operation of the brain which is making your decisions. It's an either/or situation. If there isn't 'something else' then you're a materialist.

Correct.[/quote]
And yes, Phil was trapped in that one day. In that sense he wasn't free. But he was still making decisions. And they were totally unlike the decisions that everyone around him were making. He could change his decisions each new day. But nobody else could. Now that surely indicates that one was a free will - able to make different choices given the same circumstances, and the other was not.[/quote]His decisions were severly limited to what can be done and never continued the next day. There is no next day. Now you cannot look at the people around him and say they were not free because they were doing what they had chosen in the past and it was fixed. This is not true the next day but for all of those characters, there is no next day. You and cannot change what we did in the past. Phil could but in reality, no one can.

Here's a paragraph from a philosophy article which says pretty much the same thing (emphasis added): Groundhog Day | Issue 93 | Philosophy Now

"However, Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence is logically problematic, because if an individual’s life is an exact repeat of previous lives he would appear to have no free choice; yet at the same time Nietzsche seems to want us to alter our attitude to life in the face of the realisation of the stark truth of eternal recurrence. However, if we accept his scenario in its strictest sense, then ultimately our response to the concept of eternal recurrence is nothing over which we can have any control: our reaction, whatever it may be, will be the one we have exhibited an infinite number of times before, and will do so an infinite number of times in the future.

For Connors, this objection is removed. He can change; he has complete free will. "

I would have to give this more thought, but the whole of the paragraph seems to stand on the first sentence which is a conditional one."If and indivudal's life is an exact repeat..." must be assumed for the rest of the discussion. This is the assumption that I say is just not true so the rest of the paragraph falls. But maybe I do not understand it correctly. I just got up.