- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,626
- 1,047
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
I can accept this, because to assume otherwise would be to assume that I can act as an uncaused cause. Is that what you're suggesting?
Upvote
0
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.
I can accept this, because to assume otherwise would be to assume that I can act as an uncaused cause. Is that what you're suggesting?Causality is assumed as a constraint in your hypothetical:
It seems as if most people believe that if reality is deterministic then there's no such thing as free will, which seems like a fairly straight forward assumption, but is it in fact true?
Does determinism mean that under the same circumstances you couldn't have made any other choice or does it simply mean that under the same circumstances you wouldn't have made any other choice? You would still have free will, it's just that given the same circumstances you would freely make the same choice, and this would hold true in every set of circumstances. So deterministic or not, you would always make the same choice.
To argue that determinism negates free will seems to suggest that there's some neurotic form of you that's never sure what it's going to do. That's totally unpredictable. Would you rather that that's the case, that your will is totally neurotic? Or would you prefer that determinism simply means that what you choose to do, would always be what you would choose to do.
So, then the question becomes even harder, how do you tell the difference between a reality in which you're forced to always make the same choice, and one in which you would always freely make the same choice, wouldn't they look the same?
That's true, there could be non-physical restrictions. But science can't study the non-physical, and philosophy can only speculate.But if we're talking about a mind/body dualism, then the lack of physical restrictions doesn't necessarily imply that the mind doesn't have its own restrictions.
From outward appearances, many people do do seemingly random things. Despite intensive investigation, there's never been a motive discovered for that otherwise normal guy who shot up that country music festival in Las Vegas some years ago.You wouldn't randomly kill someone for example, which means that your mind must be operating under some form of restrictions.
Depends on the circumstances. If I'm hungry and have no money, and you offer me a sandwich, I'll probably always make the same choice to accept the sandwich. But that's not determinism. I'd always still have the choice not to accept, for whatever reason, or lack of reason.So the question is, given the same set of circumstances, would you always make the same choice? If the answer is yes then isn't that simply another form of determinism? If the answer is no, then aren't your actions merely random?
What restriction did I introduce?But now you've introduced a restriction, while your actions may be unpredictable they will not be irrational nor neurotic. If you can introduce one restriction, then why not more? Just how unpredictable are you?
Causality is demonstrably (objectively) an inference formed by our minds. You are assuming it is 'a something' independent from our minds and that can be demonstrated (objectively) as being just another belief.I can accept this, because to assume otherwise would be to assume that I can act as an uncaused cause. Is that what you're suggesting?
Is any physical process truly deterministic? At the bottom are quantum processes which are modelled as truly random. So even those who believe consciousness is a chemical process cannot be assured of determinism.
yes a good work in this isCould anybody really understand tulip?
No it was to the quote that I responded... but I am a traditionalist or provisionist by soteriological study... Be glad to discuss with you on it!Could you specify who you’re writing to, @enoob57? I mentioned Calvinism, so I suspect it might be me.
While I can understand this viewpoint, I don't buy it at all. For an omnipresent God existing outside of time all knowledge can be considered as existing after the fact.
In other words, the fact that you know that Donald Trump chose to run for president in 2016 doesn't negate the fact that he exercised free will in doing so. Your knowledge concerning the outcome of that choice didn't predetermine that choice.
For God everything has already happened, but that knowledge didn't predetermine what happened.
It is illogical at it's core as the tulip teaches God does not wish everyone to be saved and yet it is writtenYes.It’s a thoroughly explained view.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)There is no evidence of a being existing outside time, is there?
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
As God began that which begins~ so by Him it is naturally known that He was before that which He began... the Bible say He exists in a plurality of Persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Their substance of eternality is Spirit...
More like its evidence of a belief .. so it is evidence .. just not evidence of what you're (understandably) looking for and not evidence for someone who doesn't distinguish beliefs by using the objective method.That's not evidence.
Your second sentence is not convincing.
Determinism and free will together is a flat out contradiction.
The argument is that the free will experience we have is illusory or mistaken. IOW, however we feel about them, the choices we make are determined by prior events (and if that wasn't the case, they'd be random).
You couldn’t argue if Calvinism was this unknowable thing..
Your sentence is also self-contradictory.While both true, they are not possible to comprehend as true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?