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

[Bradskii]

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.

It's a hypothetical. Not an assumption. Please don't treat it as an actual suggestion as to what might actually happen.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It's a hypothetical. Not an assumption. Please don't treat it as an actual suggestion as to what might actually happen.

As long as you don’t use it to support your position as to what you think is actually happening, that’s fine. You keep using Ground Hog Day to support your “we have no free will” position, you know.

 

[Bradskii]

As long as you don’t use it to support your position as to what you think is actually happening, that’s fine. You keep using Ground Hog Day to support your “we have no free will” position, you know.

You've never come across hypotheticals used as arguments before?

There are two types of will being exhibited in the film. Phil exhibits what I describe as free will. The townsfolk exhibit what I class as an example of not having free will. Do you agree or not?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You've never come across hypotheticals used as arguments before?

There are two types of will being exhibited in the film. Phil exhibits what I describe as free will. The townsfolk exhibit what I class as an example of not having free will. Do you agree or not?

I have a hard time seeing Phil as free when his choices are severely restricted to what can be done in a 24 hour period with nothing beyond that. He has less free choice than we do. The only differences is he is aware of what he did before.

Yes I’m aware of and use hypothetical to explain real truths. That movie cannot do so. It’s like saying if a man or woman doesn’t feel exactly like Cinderella and the Prince feel about each other as they sing “so this is love” then they are not at all in love. You are taking an impossible fictional story and making it the measure of real life. You will never understand real life if you use impossible fiction to explain it.

You have yet to explain, for example, how you can experience real joy in the thought that your wife freely chose you and at the same time believe she had and still has no free will to choose at all.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I have a hard time seeing Phil as free when his choices are severely restricted to what can be done in a 24 hour period with nothing beyond that. He has less free choice than we do. The only differences is he is aware of what he did before.

Yes I’m aware of and use hypothetical to explain real truths. That movie cannot do so. It’s like saying if a man or woman doesn’t feel exactly like Cinderella and the Prince feel about each other as they sing “so this is love” then they are not at all in love. You are taking an impossible fictional story and making it the measure of real life. You will never understand real life if you use impossible fiction to explain it.

You have yet to explain, for example, how you can experience real joy in the thought that your wife freely chose you and at the same time believe she had and still has no free will to choose at all.

Phil is no different to anyone else in the movie EXCEPT that he remembers each thing that happens each day. He has no more free will than anyone else does. But what it does showcase is that, unless something changed for the other folks, they behaved exactly the same way. Nobody watches that movie and asks why the other folks are repeating all their same actions again and again. That part is easy to accept because, intuitively, that's what we would expect.

My wife chose me and I appreciate that. I'm really thankful that she made that choice based on a series of events that lead up to it. It's funny how a deterministic reality receives so much pushback but if I was like "she's my soulmate, it was just meant to be. God made her specifically for me," a lot of those same folks would be like AAAW! :3

 

[RDKirk]

The question is if virtue is its own reward, basically. Jesus was the ideal man, and thus your best self would be in emulation of Him. Further, if we all followed Jesus in compassion, the world would largely be paradise.

So it makes sense to remain a Christian, to follow Christ, even if there was no afterlife. On an individual level, people may think to act psychopathically for your own ends in such a case, but their friendships would be empty and their social interactions lacking trust and empathy. In short, such a life would remain deficient. Besides, the ancient Jews never considered a Heaven until perhaps the Second Temple period and the development of the idea of Sheol divided and the bosom of Abraham; yet their worship was undiminished. It is natural to worship God, once one realises He is there. Everything isn't just carrot or stick, although our modern psychological and biological theorising would have us frame it in that way.

"Virtue as its own reward" existed as a widely known concept before Jesus and would exist as a concept without Jesus, so there would be no particular point to being a Christian. The fact that Jesus was crucified would make Him one of the least attractive symbols of the concept. The Buddha and Confucius are both more attractive.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Phil is no different to anyone else in the movie EXCEPT that he remembers each thing that happens each day. He has no more free will than anyone else does. But what it does showcase is that, unless something changed for the other folks, they behaved exactly the same way. Nobody watches that movie and asks why the other folks are repeating all their same actions again and again. That part is easy to accept because, intuitively, that's what we would expect.

Phil is caught in a world where he only has each day repeated over and over. None of us ever go back in time and can change what we did. None of us. None of us can even begin to experience going back in time to remember what we did and do differently. Phil has very much less free will because he cannot even have a second day. He can choose no woman for a wife to have children and share life. He knows no one and each morning no one in the whole world calls him "friend." No one. Since no one has gone back in time to see what others did, we cannot say, intuitively or otherwise anything real about the film. It is a fantasy. We can know nothing about the real world from that film. It is hard to see what he has free choice. You know, there are people who do know why they choose as they do. In fact, the wise know what the options are and why they choose as they do and they choose purposely.

My wife chose me and I appreciate that. I'm really thankful that she made that choice based on a series of events that lead up to it. It's funny how a deterministic reality receives so much pushback but if I was like "she's my soulmate, it was just meant to be. God made her specifically for me," a lot of those same folks would be like AAAW! :3

But don't you see you cannot actually live with the philosophy you believe? You repeat we have no choice and are grateful she chose you exercising choice. There is no evidence that we make all choices based on previous choices. It is what you assume.

Now you totally reverse your position destroying it with the God part. You leap into God making her for you when you don't believe that. But yes, there are a lot of very foolish and naive Christians for whom just saying the words they like to hear works. They don't care if it is true, just that you said it. Sorry, I am not one of those. I love truth.

This sounds a bit harsh perhaps and please know that I am not emotional. I see that your philosophy in the mind is one you cannot really live. It is not unusual. The only ones who actually do this and are nice people are Christians. So unbelievers always have that problem. It is a tension between the world view in the mind and the actual world view. You are not unusual although very intelligent which is unusual.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

But don't you see you cannot actually live with the philosophy you believe? You repeat we have no choice and are grateful she chose you exercising choice.

Dorothy, the thing I have actually repeated is that we do, in fact choose! I've been trying to make that point in all our conversations. We go through a process that we might refer to as choosing. My distinction is that in the exact moment where we have acted on our choice, that's simply the only conclusion we were going to come to based on everything that lead up until that very moment.

There is no evidence that we make all choices based on previous choices. It is what you assume.

If things happen independent of prior causes then evidence is a concept that wouldn't exist.

You are not unusual although very intelligent which is unusual.

Stop! I am very prone to blushing.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy, the thing I have actually repeated is that we do, in fact choose! I've been trying to make that point in all our conversations. We go through a process that we might refer to as choosing. My distinction is that in the exact moment where we have acted on our choice, that's simply the only conclusion we were going to come to based on everything that lead up until that very moment.

Then by definition, we had no choice. The process is immaterial actually although the wise know exactly how that process is developing and encouraging some directions, with full knowledge, and refusing others. THe wise know the process they go through to come to the conclusion that is correct or wise or beneficial to the most people. There is no evidence for there is only one choice in the end. There is ample internal evidence that the person can be fully cognizant of this and actually chooses along the way. We can simply disagree, I guess. But again, you cannot live with your theory.

If things happen independent of prior causes then evidence is a concept that wouldn't exist.

Stop! I am very prone to blushing.

Logically, there has to be a first choice that was not caused by prior events. You cannot have all conclusions be hung upon former conclusions because there has to be a first event with no prior influence. THere are things that happen independent of prior causes. This in no way means there is no such thing as evidence. Those are not dependant.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Then by definition, we had no choice. The process is immaterial actually although the wise know exactly how that process is developing and encouraging some directions, with full knowledge, and refusing others. THe wise know the process they go through to come to the conclusion that is correct or wise or beneficial to the most people. There is no evidence for there is only one choice in the end. There is ample internal evidence that the person can be fully cognizant of this and actually chooses along the way. We can simply disagree, I guess. But again, you cannot live with your theory.

Actually, we need to define choice. To me, choice is simply the act of deliberating between multiple options. Even if an outcome is determined, the process still occurs. But I'd like for you define what you mean when you say choice. And if you could throw in your definition for free will, I'd love that too.

Logically, there has to be a first choice that was not caused by prior events. You cannot have all conclusions be hung upon former conclusions because there has to be a first event with no prior influence. THere are things that happen independent of prior causes. This in no way means there is no such thing as evidence. Those are not dependant.

Absolutely. I can grant you that there would need to be a first cause. You can call the first cause God, or The Big Bang, or Gary the Universe Building Top Hat. Doesn't really matter to me.

But yes. Evidence requires a universe that is structured. Where causation means something. If actions aren't based on prior causes, then we can't extrapolate from anything.

 

[Bradskii]

I have a hard time seeing Phil as free when his choices are severely restricted to what can be done in a 24 hour period with nothing beyond that. He has less free choice than we do. The only differences is he is aware of what he did before.

Yes I’m aware of and use hypothetical to explain real truths. That movie cannot do so. It’s like saying if a man or woman doesn’t feel exactly like Cinderella and the Prince feel about each other as they sing “so this is love” then they are not at all in love. You are taking an impossible fictional story and making it the measure of real life. You will never understand real life if you use impossible fiction to explain it.

You have yet to explain, for example, how you can experience real joy in the thought that your wife freely chose you and at the same time believe she had and still has no free will to choose at all.

We're all restricted in what we do to some extent. I can't decide to fly to the uk this morning. That in itself doesn't discount free will.

The point of this exercise to to show that if we had exactly the same conditions pertaining then we'd make the same choice as we did at any other time under exactly tbe same conditions. That would indicate that the choices we make wouldn't be any other. In my view, that shows that free will is seriously in doubt. And obviously we can't actually run a Groundhog Day scenario to check that out. So do we simply say that because it's not actually possible then it's not conceivable either?

And making a genuine choice - such as deciding to choose a partner, doesn't contradict what I'm saying because I'm not saying that genuine choices are impossible. It's that under the same circumstances we'd make the same ones. And yet again, I don't consider that to be free will.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

We're all restricted in what we do to some extent. I can't decide to fly to the uk this morning. That in itself doesn't discount free will.

In one sense you’re although you could do if you had no other duties and had sufficient funds. But you assume the others in the film had no free will because of lack of knowledge. The film assumes that they made the same choices because the past is fixed. This is actually true. It is. Doesn’t mean we have no free will because the past is fixed. We had free will then.

The point of this exercise to to show that if we had exactly the same conditions pertaining then we'd make the same choice as we did at any other time under exactly tbe same conditions.

Life teaches that this is not true. To ensure your position on this you up the anti, that is, you require everything including the sun and the moon to be exactly the same.

That would indicate that the choices we make wouldn't be any other. In my view, that shows that free will is seriously in doubt. And obviously we can't actually run a Groundhog Day scenario to check that out. So do we simply say that because it's not actually possible then it's not conceivable either?

The past is fixed. Present life tells us we have choices to make. Man and God hold us responsible for those choices. Your position makes that absurd.

And making a genuine choice - such as deciding to choose a partner, doesn't contradict what I'm saying because I'm not saying that genuine choices are impossible. It's that under the same circumstances we'd make the same ones. And yet again, I don't consider that to be free will.

Under the exact same conditions we might choose differently.

You know, all of scientific experiments with human choice assume that the exact opposite. Under the exact same conditions with the exact same people no one expects 100% same choices. We expect variance.

 

[Bradskii]

The past is fixed. Present life tells us we have choices to make. Man and God hold us responsible for those choices. Your position makes that absurd.
Under the exact same conditions we might choose differently.

You know, all of scientific experiments with human choice assume that the exact opposite. Under the exact same conditions with the exact same people no one expects 100% same choices. We expect variance.

I keep emphasising that if the scenario was exactly the same we'd make the same choice. I don't mean similar. I don't mean pretty much identical. I mean
exactly the same. And I've used an example from popular entertainement as an example where life repeats itself. I have to use such an example or propose hypotheticals because there is never an ocassion when a scenario is exactly the same.

Any decision you make is either based on reasons OR is random. So you choose chocolate because it's your favourite or you choose it for no reason at all. If the latter, then it makes no sense to invoke free will for something that isn't chosen but is selected at random.

But if you choose chocolate and you then rerun that episode of your life (and you're not aware that it's a second bite of the apple - or ice cream cone in this case), then what has changed for you to make a different decision? Absolutely nothing.

It might make sense to you if we use major life-changing decisions. Would you still marry the same person if your life was rerun? Of course. The reasons you decided to marry would be exactly the same. You would always make that decision. And that's not how I see free will. Free will would be having the ability to see how it turned out (like our hero Phil) and then changing our decision based on that outcome. He was free to change the direction of his life because he was able to live it again and again. We are not.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Actually, we need to define choice. To me, choice is simply the act of deliberating between multiple options. Even if an outcome is determined, the process still occurs. But I'd like for you define what you mean when you say choice. And if you could throw in your definition for free will, I'd love that too.

Ah, this is very interesting. Can I digress and say how how I really enjoy this exchange. You make me think hard. I love it!! Back to the regularly scheduled discussion...

So for you the deliberation=choice. That explains a great deal. Let’s test that definition in real life. You’re in a restaurant looking at the menu. Time passes. Your wife is hungry. “Have you chosen yet?”
“Yes, my dear, I am choosing.”
“What have you chosen?”
“By reading and deliberating, I am choosing.”
“But what is your choice?”
“Whatever it is, it is a foregone conclusion and could not have been different.”
“Could you next time come to your foregone conclusion in less than 20 minutes bypassing choosing then please?”

So you have redefined the word to suit your personal position.

My definition is the dictionary one:

1.pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

Choosing is the act of selection, not the process.

Free will is the recognized ability to do so.

Absolutely. I can grant you that there would need to be a first cause. You can call the first cause God, or The Big Bang, or Gary the Universe Building Top Hat. Doesn't really matter to me.

We are talking a first human choice, not the physics of creation.

But yes. Evidence requires a universe that is structured. Where causation means something. If actions aren't based on prior causes, then we can't extrapolate from anything.

Some actions are based on prior causes but it all. And experiments will have slightly different outcomes under the exact same conditions. That’s why we do a statistical analysis.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I keep emphasising that if the scenario was exactly the same we'd make the same choice. I don't mean similar. I don't mean pretty much identical. I mean
exactly the same. And I've used an example from popular entertainement as an example where life repeats itself. I have to use such an example or propose hypotheticals because there is never an ocassion when a scenario is exactly the same.

Then you cannot say your position is true.When we test it in real life, it fails on all accounts. Don’t you want a worldview that matches real life?

Any decision you make is either based on reasons OR is random. So you choose chocolate because it's your favourite or you choose it for no reason at all. If the latter, then it makes no sense to invoke free will for something that isn't chosen but is selected at random.

Freewill comes when I decide to refuse chocolate today.
Experience has taught me it’s fattening. That’s learning, not a lack of free will.

But if you choose chocolate and you then rerun that episode of your life (and you're not aware that it's a second bite of the apple - or ice cream cone in this case), then what has changed for you to make a different decision? Absolutely nothing.

But this cannot happen so you have no idea if your theory is true.

It might make sense to you if we use major life-changing decisions. Would you still marry the same person if your life was rerun? Of course. The reasons you decided to marry would be exactly the same. You would always make that decision.

This cannot be tested to see if it is true.The closest example shows it’s not.

And that's not how I see free will. Free will would be having the ability to see how it turned out (like our hero Phil) and then changing our decision based on that outcome. He was free to change the direction of his life because he was able to live it again and again. We are not.

You define words differently than their general meaning or, in the case of free will, require circumstances impossible to have.

Man holds you responsible for the decisions you make, the choices. You hold others equally responsible. This shows that your theory fails real life. I repeat, don’t you want thinking that matches real life?

 

[Bradskii]

But this cannot happen so you have no idea if your theory is true.
This cannot be tested to see if it is true.

So thinking about things in the abstract and posing hypotheticals and discussing scenarios which are not actual real life events you feel is a waste of everyone's time.

I think we've reached the end of the discussion.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So thinking about things in the abstract and posing hypotheticals and discussing scenarios which are not actual real life events you feel is a waste of everyone's time.

I think we've reached the end of the discussion.

I didn’t say it was a waste of time. I said actually your thoughts are interesting. It teaches me how people sometimes think. Actually it’s fascinating.

I have come to see, for example, it’s quite common for people to hold to theories or philosophies they cannot actual live with it apply to real life. These are the ones who never arrive at understanding the world. But how this works out is quite different in different people.

The question is where do they make a logical mistake. If a world view doesn’t match real life, usually a logical mistake is involved. There also other mistakes.

If you find we’ve reached an end in this point, that’s fine. You needn’t agree with me but it’s nice if you understand the one you don’t agree with.

My pursuit is truth. Part of course is the truth that you think a certain way. But otherwise I want to know the truth.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Ah, this is very interesting. Can I digress and say how how I really enjoy this exchange. You make me think hard. I love it!! Back to the regularly scheduled discussion...

Indeed!

So for you the deliberation=choice. That explains a great deal. Let’s test that definition in real life. You’re in a restaurant looking at the menu. Time passes. Your wife is hungry. “Have you chosen yet?”
“Yes, my dear, I am choosing.”
“What have you chosen?”
“By reading and deliberating, I am choosing.”
“But what is your choice?”
“Whatever it is, it is a foregone conclusion and could not have been different.”
“Could you next time come to your foregone conclusion in less than 20 minutes bypassing choosing then please?”

This actually describes me pretty well. I am VERY indecisive so I always look at a menu prior to going to a restaurant. What stinks is when they hit me with a special that was not on the online menu and I have to contend with that for a while.

So you have redefined the word to suit your personal position.
My definition is the dictionary one:
1.pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.
Choosing is the act of selection, not the process.

You just said choosing is not a process and I just want to give you an opportunity to reflect on that and see if that's really what you meant to say.

Free will is the recognized ability to do so.
We are talking a first human choice, not the physics of creation.

Can you give me an example of an action that is not at least influenced in part by prior causes?

Some actions are based on prior causes but it all. And experiments will have slightly different outcomes under the exact same conditions. That’s why we do a statistical analysis.

If we define free will as simply the ability to recognize that we go through a selective process when making deliberate decisions, then we have free will. I recognize that we go through that process and I also recognize that the end of that process is determined by a series of prior causes that we are both aware of and unaware of.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This actually describes me pretty well. I am VERY indecisive so I always look at a menu prior to going to a restaurant. What stinks is when they hit me with a special that was not on the online menu and I have to contend with that for a while.

You just said choosing is not a process and I just want to give you an opportunity to reflect on that and see if that's really what you meant to say.

The dictionary says the moment of decision is choosing. The deliberation is not choosing per se. If, for example, a person refuses to make a decision, he has failed to choose. He can deliberate all he wants but if there is no decision, he hasn’t chosen. That’s why choosing is the decision among options. I can deliberate and not choose. I can choose and not deliberate. They aren’t the same.

Can you give me an example of an action that is not at least influenced in part by prior causes?

The first time I tasted particular foods. The first time I experienced certain events with no prior choosing or action.

If we define free will as simply the ability to recognize that we go through a selective process when making deliberate decisions, then we have free will. I recognize that we go through that process and I also recognize that the end of that process is determined by a series of prior causes that we are both aware of and unaware of.

I don’t see that freedom is dependent upon understanding. It is dependent upon a lack of outside coercion whether we understand it or not. There is also the freedom to let previous events influence you or not. Unknown events really cannot be a part of the discussion because by definition they are unknown.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

The dictionary says the moment of decision is choosing. The deliberation is not choosing per se. If, for example, a person refuses to make a decision, he has failed to choose. He can deliberate all he wants but if there is no decision, he hasn’t chosen. That’s why choosing is the decision among options. I can deliberate and not choose. I can choose and not deliberate. They aren’t the same.

I think we can say that someone can spend 20 minutes choosing between two options. But for the sake of progress, I'll grant you that definition. We can still arrive at a choice at the end of deliberating and that choice is still determined. At the very least, that's what I mean when I say I still have the ability to choose.

The first time I tasted particular foods. The first time I experienced certain events with no prior choosing or action.

You are describing the first time you experienced something, which doesn't mean there was no influence to encourage you to choose to experience that thing. Let's talk about the first time you tasted something in specific. I'd like a very specific example of your choosing. Yes, I believe you have the ability to choose.

I don’t see that freedom is dependent upon understanding. It is dependent upon a lack of outside coercion whether we understand it or not. There is also the freedom to let previous events influence you or not. Unknown events really cannot be a part of the discussion because by definition they are unknown.

That's important. I include within the description of "outside coercion" things like brain tumors, chemical imbalances, and other internal processes we aren't directly selecting for ourselves.