Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yet, amazingly enough to me, you admit to God knowing everything. That WE don't know many things does not render them unknowable.
The topic is free will and determinism. My points are directly addressing the impetus or purpose and intent of what has been determined by the determiner; the term free will as posed in the op is not actually a will that determines anything but instead describes the event of making a choice between options which makes free will a circumstantial event, not a will. Hence what I'm saying is on topic.
We all can be quite thoroughly assured that Mr Sapolski does not know nor can he even conceive of his own gazillions of factors that play into his form of determinism which really is not determinism at all and is not in the least in the common Christian sense of the term, Determinism
Yes. The term, "fault", implies 'blame' and 'responsibility', to the mind of humans. "Fault" necessarily, then, cannot be applied to God, because morality is objectively not just what GOD says is sin, but is by definition, against God. It is self-contradictory to say, then, that God can be at fault, (unless man is stupid enough to blame God for what God does, thus making sin relative to man's fickle notions.)
Sin is often identified as 'missing the mark'; I think it refers to God's Character in this mode. Concerning who is to blame for sin, it would be a circumstantial cause in a Creator/creature dynamic. This is something I want you to see as pertains to what I call an 'innocence gap'-->
Not according to the cited author. Everything that has transpired in the schemes of life plays a potential role in "his" version of determinism. Gazillions of components was the general gist.
Unless you'd care to quantify counless gazillions of individually unique components, known and unknown and the possible detailed intricacies therein I'll stick with random unless you have a better solution?
Reality as assessed by whom and by what measures?
It could easily and rightfully appear that way to us because of complexities known, unknown and all the possible contributors therein.
What you just posted had absolutely nothing whatsoever with your claim that:
He has never made that observation. He has never associated that which is unknown with so called random events.
You'd prefer an ignorant unknowing God?
Well straying into the theological aspects of that is different than what Bradskii is proposing.
Irrelevant
Ok, so do think there is free will or not?
Thanks, at least you're understanding me about this--> I'm wanting to talk about stuff that just isn't being talked about here, and it should be.
I was told a quote from Einstein one time, and it became one of my faves that I always try to keep in mind now, and it goes something like this "If you can't explain it to a six year old, maybe you don't fully understand it yourself", etc, and I always try to keep that in mind now, especially on here, etc, because that can be a problem sometimes with intelligent people, or academics, or anyone who is now well versed about certain subjects, etc. Basically it boils down to that if you can make it simple, or very, very easy to read/understand in a way that other maybe not well versed in the subject can easily understand, then maybe you don't fully understand yourself yet, etc. Building a bridge between that gap that is created after a lot of study isn't easy, but it oftentimes does accurately reflect how much you truly understand it yourself, etc.
How's this more obvious statement: "Yet, strangely enough, you admit to God knowing everything" when you contradictingly state that there is such a thing as 'unknowable [facts]'.
Agreed. But what you answer thus, was not a theological statement, (although within theology the statement still is true).
Good. So, no such thing as uncaused will of the creature.
Not so! The point is, God does whatever he does, for his own sake, from his own motivation, by himself. Who do we think WE are?
My inability to do that does not mean it is actually random. Simple. That our thinking is done as if it was random is just one more demonstration of causation to our choices.
The statement is made according to fact. Whether we are even aware of a fact makes no difference as to whether that thing is a fact. (And don't start getting smart with quantum "realities" and evidences of our viewing a thing determining its outcome/state. That's not what I'm talking about, though we can go there, too.)
Easily?—yes, but so what? Rightfully?—no. It is a mistake, though it is convenient and works well for us in many uses.
Actually, it is simple logic, which logic is natural to rational thought, (though we shrug it off to avoid figuring out all the causes). Cause-and-effect. Pervasive and comprehensive, universal.
Okay, I get the message.
I'm of the belief/point of view that there is technically no free will for anyone, and also, for a more religious aspect of the discussion, that no being anywhere can ever be truly and fully omniscient if there is.
His definition is not the definition, so all you are doing here is defending a fallacious argument by insisting that it is true. It's not logic in any sense of the word.
While it's true that defining the position isn't explicit in the definition of a strawman, it is implied since the issue is the distortion that is built into the act of defining the position in the weakest possible form.
That's just more question begging, I was explicit about the argument form that both you and he have employed. You speak of "circular reasoning" while you are blatantly engaged in it. If your position cannot possibly fail, you aren't being convinced by aarguments or evidence. You have just locked yourself in a box where no one can touch you. Though to be fair, I was more referring to your "arguments" when I was speaking of affirming the consequent. So your response isn't a refutation, it's nothing but a rationalization.
I try to use objective terms. Subsequently, I don't know what you mean by free will in this sentence --> I'm of the belief/point of view that there is technically no free will for anyone. If you would qualify the terms 'free' and 'will' separately I could see where you're coming from. What is the will 'free' from when you say it? Does will mean desire when you use it, or the ability to choose?
Are you really prepared to state that Mr. Sapolsky (or any person of your choice) as any kind of definite grip on GAZILLIONS of unique components interacting with other unique compilations of GAZILLIONS of components?
The entire point of the observation my friend, is that it can not be as simple as Mr. Sapolsky claims.
My simple definition of free will is something that you do/choose completely on your own independent of any other causes that are making the choice for you, and my definition of having your own will is pretty much the same.
