Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

Who can provide an accurate definition of "Free Will" and "Determinism"? In what sense are we talking about?

It might help if you read the OP.

 

[Jonaitis]

It might help if you read the OP.

I am talking to the opposing party.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I was asking for some learning without anyone experiencing it or understanding where we do not rely on prior experiences to render them sensible.

Could I summarize this position as....

"How do we learn about things we don't know that we don't know?"

Physical determinism is a model of the universe in which physical effects proceed from sufficient physical causes.

Yeah...but you don't understand it.

You seem to think the concept of emergence is magic.

You seem to think that because individual atoms don't hold properties like "intelligence" that it's completely impossible for them to hold properties like "intelligence".

Yet as I've pointed out, they don't hold the properties of photosynthesis either yet you seem to accept that as an emergent property of a certain configuration of atoms.

Or do you genuinely believe photosynthesis = magic?

His most recent message was "Now pray for the wisdom and discipline to maintain what you've manifested."

Well what exactly are you saying? Those are words you heard?

Given the general meaning of "manifested" do you believe you haven't misunderstood?

Would you be able to ask him something for me?

God's speech to me tends to be visual rather than auditory, I've only heard an audible word once.

Anyone can have auditory hallucinations. Our brains fill in gaps with evidence that doesn't exist.

My truth is a definition.

You just told me you only ever heard god speak.....once.

If you are basing anything off that...it's hard to imagine any consistency coming from it.

Sitting in His presence is a calmness and a warmth that feels like I'm melting into pure peace.

Ok...and if someone claims the same thing when they meditate upon the Buddha how do you reconcile that?

Any concerns I have

If you get that from it...I'm fine with that.

I am, but He speaks to me through written words not audible ones. When I say I see things others don't it's disembodied words I'm talking about generally.

When you say you see disembodied words...

Are you saying you see words floating by your eyes....visually?

Or are you saying you can see words in your mind while still engaging with your sense of vision?

Because of our difference in beliief I need to be a bit cagey. Try not to take it personally.

I promise you that won't be a problem. I'll be fine. I can understand and accept any opinions you have of me....just keep in mind, by sharing them, I will inevitably start forming opinions of you.

The first...for example, do you assume "objective reality" is self-sufficient?

I don't know what self sufficient means when you relate it to objective reality.

All I can say about objective reality itself (because it's such a broad concept) is that it's not dependent upon my perceptions of it. It doesn't become the way I want, hope, wish, desire, or beg it to be. I can therefore, only adjust my perceptions of what it is, when appropriate and within the limits of my understanding. It's not a fixed understanding, it's mostly incomplete, it's almost certainly impossible to complete, and emotionally I can get why people find that uncomfortable....because it's unsatisfying in some way.

That there is some fundamental particle or law that gives rise to everything we experience?

I don't know.

The question isn't about chemistry or biology, its a question about what "emergence" is supposed to add to our understanding other than sounding scientific?

Fire is an emergent property. Oxygen doesn't simply burst into flame by itself, neither does wood. I don't understand the difficulty in understanding this.

Why reasoning and the process of free will choices being emergent properties of organic structures doesn't seem at all like magic to me. Again, I understand that isn't emotionally satisfying because it's an incomplete description.

That's quite the boast.

Don't underestimate yourself.

Not really, we're in agreement on that point.

And isn't that nice? Agreement. Rational understanding.

It seems we're heading down a path where things could easily turn towards the uncivil, and I'd rather not follow down that path.

What's civility in discussion if not honesty?

I've accepted He is good, because I've recognized that I am not.

That is a judgment. It's a value description. Others would disagree. Nobody has evidence.

I am often not fit to make such judgments about other human beings because of what I am missing, how can I then aim to judge God?

Indeed.

It's a culmination of experiences.

Well so far all I've read is 1 audible word, and either floating text in your visual field or a mental image of text.

I'll wait for you to explain the text.

You wouldn't call it magic, but when people who are similarly inclined invoke "emergence" to explain

Describe things they cannot fully explain...

I don't see much explanation in there...because the difficulty of consciousness is not describing it,

Ok...try. Describe consciousness.

but explaining how we go from deterministic processes that follow predictable paths

I included memory in my model of consciousness that I threw together at the end of a previous post. It's very unpredictable.

The ablity to act with intention and drive this thing we call our body. The ghost in the machine, as it were. If it truly is nothing but physical processes, then there is no true agency...just like water doesn't "choose" where to flow when it is dropped on a rock even though we can't always predict the path it flows.

I think you mean a sense of "self".

I see this as a largely inaccessible idea too influenced by emotion. It's dynamic, always changing, and no longer of much concern to me. I am...is good enough for your god it would seem, and so it is for any other animal, I don't see the need for anything more to explain my self.

I am.

In other words, if consciousness is nothing more than a byproduct of physical processes in the brain then free will has to be an illusion.

Why? Because....?

Your parents had you through physical processes...yet life isn't an emergent process?

So bucking that claim requires either being inconsistent or reshaping the basic model of objective reality we're working with.

No it doesn't.

 

[CoreyD]

I get that you're emphasizing context, and I agree we need to be careful with how we interpret Scripture. But when we look at the full breadth of the Bible, I still think it's crystal clear that God is absolutely sovereign over everything, including evil, and that nothing happens outside of His divine will.

Habakkuk 1:13 does point out God’s purity and inability to tolerate evil, but let’s not overlook the fact that God allows evil to occur for His greater purposes. We can’t just cherry-pick verses that seem to suggest God is passive in the face of evil; we have to take the whole narrative into account. God is not in some reactive mode, responding to evil as if it catches Him by surprise. He uses evil to accomplish His will—whether it’s the betrayal of Jesus, the wickedness of Pharaoh, or the sinful choices of people throughout history.

I agree that God allows things, according to his will, but that is different to what you are saying next.

You mentioned context, but the context of passages like Romans 9 and Proverbs 16:33 clearly show that God is in full control of all things, including human decisions.

Do you believe that God controlled Abraham's decision?
You know that is not in the scriptures, right?

Genesis 22:10-12

10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.​

11 But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”​

So he said, “Here I am.”​

12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”​

The “evil” that happens in the world doesn’t surprise God or escape His control. It’s actually part of His plan. Take Romans 9:18: “He has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills.” God doesn’t just “allow” things to happen. He actively hardens hearts (like Pharaoh’s) and guides human decisions to serve His purpose. And let’s be honest—this isn’t an isolated case. The Bible is full of examples where God directly causes or uses evil actions to bring about His will, whether it’s through the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 2:23) or even the Assyrian invasion (Isaiah 10:5-7).

God allowed the evil, but did not plan it. Nor is God responsible for the evil, and suffering in the world.
The Bible tells us how sin and death entered into the world. Romans 5:12 It did not say by God, does it?

The Bible says Pharaoh hardened his heart Exodus 8:15, 32; 9:34; 1 Samuel 6:6, therefore, we need to understand the context. God allowed Pharaoh's heart to remain hardened.

And yes, God is pure, holy, and cannot tolerate sin, but that doesn’t mean He’s unable to work through it. Isaiah 45:7 is a key verse here: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.” God doesn't just allow evil to happen; He creates disaster for His purposes. This doesn’t make Him evil—on the contrary, it shows His absolute control over all things.

Yes, thank you. God doesn't just allow evil to happen, and evil is any calamity. God brings calamity, or evil upon persons.

Ultimately, God’s plan is not some passive response to human free will. It’s a determined, meticulously orchestrated purpose that includes everything—good, bad, and everything in between. And while we might struggle to reconcile God's holiness with His use of evil, the truth is that He is sovereign over all of it. He’s not just letting things happen and reacting; He’s determining everything in accordance with His will, to bring about His perfect plan.

You'll convince me only with scripture. Not opinions.

So, rather than viewing God's sovereignty as something that coexists with random human choices, we need to see it for what it is: His will, unfolding perfectly and irresistibly.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

There’s no wiggle room—God is in control of every detail. What do you make of verses like Isaiah 45:7 and Romans 9:18 in this context?

Calamity, as some Bibles render it, is necessary.
For example, destroying a person, or even placing them in captivity, is calamitous, or evil, but necessary at times.
That does not make the one doing this, evil.
The law is not evil when it punishes wrongdoers with prison, hard labor, or death.

Yes, God has mercy on whom he will, and allows those who are not deserving to go headlong into destruction.
For example, God lets those who hate the truth, believe the lie, so that they do not get life.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

All this is righteous, and just, since God is giving to persons their wages - what they deserve.
After all, we would not give a house to a child rapist, as a reward for what he did.
That would not be right and just.

These scriptures are good, but they do not support the idea that God predetermined evil.

 

[Jonaitis]

I agree that God allows things, according to his will, but that is different to what you are saying next.


Do you believe that God controlled Abraham's decision?
You know that is not in the scriptures, right?

Genesis 22:10-12

10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.​

11 But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”​

So he said, “Here I am.”​

12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”​

God allowed the evil, but did not plan it. Nor is God responsible for the evil, and suffering in the world.
The Bible tells us how sin and death entered into the world. Romans 5:12 It did not say by God, does it?

The Bible says Pharaoh hardened his heart Exodus 8:15, 32; 9:34; 1 Samuel 6:6, therefore, we need to understand the context. God allowed Pharaoh's heart to remain hardened.


Yes, thank you. God doesn't just allow evil to happen, and evil is any calamity. God brings calamity, or evil upon persons.


You'll convince me only with scripture. Not opinions.


Thanks for sharing your opinion.


Calamity, as some Bibles render it, is necessary.
For example, destroying a person, or even placing them in captivity, is calamitous, or evil, but necessary at times.
That does not make the one doing this, evil.
The law is not evil when it punishes wrongdoers with prison, hard labor, or death.

Yes, God has mercy on whom he will, and allows those who are not deserving to go headlong into destruction.
For example, God lets those who hate the truth, believe the lie, so that they do not get life.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

All this is righteous, and just, since God is giving to persons their wages - what they deserve.
After all, we would not give a house to a child rapist, as a reward for what he did.
That would not be right and just.

These scriptures are good, but they do not support the idea that God predetermined evil.

I see where you're coming from, but I don’t think the Scriptures you’ve pointed to disprove predeterminism. In fact, I think they actually reinforce the idea that God’s sovereignty extends over every aspect of human decision-making, including Abraham’s actions and Pharaoh’s hardening.

Let’s start with Abraham. You point to Genesis 22, and I agree that God didn’t directly make Abraham take the knife, but the test itself was part of God’s plan. God had already determined that Abraham would be tested in this way. The fact that Abraham chose to obey doesn’t negate God’s predetermined purpose in putting him in that situation. The whole event was part of God’s larger plan, and even Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac fulfilled God’s will. It’s like a chess game—God sets the pieces, and the players make moves, but the outcome is always His. The test was never about God learning something new about Abraham; it was about revealing Abraham’s faith to himself and to us.

You also brought up Pharaoh’s hardening. Yes, the Bible does say Pharaoh hardened his heart in some places (Exodus 8:15, 9:34), but let’s not ignore the full context of what Scripture says. In Exodus 9:12, it’s explicitly stated, “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” This is a recurring theme throughout Exodus (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 9:12), where God hardens Pharaoh’s heart to fulfill His purpose of displaying His power and delivering Israel. The hardening was part of God’s plan, and it was a direct, intentional action by God—not just something He “allowed” without involvement. Pharaoh’s free will didn’t override God’s sovereign control.

As for sin entering the world, I agree with Romans 5:12 that it wasn’t God who sinned, but it was through one man’s sin that death entered the world. However, even that falls under God’s predetermined plan. God allowed sin and death to enter the world for a greater purpose—ultimately to redeem humanity through Jesus Christ. God didn’t cause the Fall, but He knew it would happen and had a plan in place from before the foundation of the world to bring about redemption. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” meaning that even before Adam’s sin, God had already planned the means of our salvation.

You mentioned the “calamity” of destruction and captivity, and I agree that sometimes God allows what seems to be evil to occur, but that doesn’t mean it’s not part of His perfect plan. The Bible is clear that God works everything according to His will, even if it involves judgment and calamity. Isaiah 45:7, as I mentioned before, directly states that God “creates disaster” for His purposes. It’s not that God is evil in these acts; it’s that His actions, though sometimes severe, are always just and righteous because they’re part of His ultimate plan. God doesn’t do evil, but He allows it to happen for a reason, and He even uses it to fulfill His will.

You referenced 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, which is a strong passage showing that God actively allows those who reject the truth to be deceived. This is a perfect example of God directly ensuring that His plan unfolds, even through people’s rejection of Him. It’s not just that God “lets” people believe lies; He sends them strong delusion as part of His righteous judgment. This is a hard reality, but it shows that God’s sovereignty is never passive. He is actively involved in every aspect of history, including the deception of those who reject Him.

In the end, none of these Scriptures you’ve pointed to disprove God’s absolute sovereignty and the idea that He predetermines all things, including the actions of individuals. What we’re seeing is God’s active involvement in the world, using both good and evil to accomplish His perfect plan. Romans 11:36 says, “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen.” God is the ultimate author of all things, and nothing happens outside of His will.

So, while I get that it’s tough to reconcile the existence of evil with God’s goodness, I believe the Bible consistently teaches that God is sovereign over all things—good, bad, and everything in between—and that His plan is unfolding exactly as He intended, with no surprises or accidents.

 

[Fervent]

You seem to think the concept of emergence is magic.

I think "emergence" is just a fall-back word to have a sciency term for "we don't know how it happens"...especially when it is strong emergence that is meant. It is nothing but a statement of faith in a metaphysical understanding of the world as supervenience upon the physical.

Care to explain what you mean by "emergence" that amounts to more than a profession of faith and a sciencey sounding buzzword?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Could you explain?

An "event" is a human interpretation of a cause. What may be an "event" to one person may not be for another person. It is a construct of the mind in making sense of something that occurs.

No need for explanation. I think you understood.

The concept of time, also, doesn't exist outside of the mind. The past, you could say, no longer exists; and the future has not happened. So there is only the present.

Well....our specific concept of time...sure. I'm not writing off time entirely. Apparently the idea that time existed before the universe is quickly becoming an issue of agreement so your god may need to move again.

Definitions are subjective, so whether you think I don't understand doesn't hold any meaning.

I'll grant a degree of subjectivity. However, if a definition fails to express meaning that can be understood, not merely pretending to be understood....then it fails as a definition.

Again, that is only a subjective opinion.

And? If you think cause and effect are useful for describing things...do try.

You simplify what makes sense to you for emotional satisfaction, so does it really hold any weight?

Oh no...nope. I believe truths that I don't like at all. I believe truths I recoil from in disgust. I believe truths you would never accept. I believe truths I think are too dangerous to risk convincing anyone of.

I won't pretend that sometimes I believe things for the emotional satisfaction...it's hard to tell. Emotional satisfaction doesn't completely limit my understanding though.

Yes, that's the principle of impermanent in this world, but every cause is from another cause, and there is no escaping it.

Uh huh...again, I agree things happen. That sums up your entire position.

Your present circumstances followed previous conditions; therefore you are a product of past occurrences that influenced this moment.

Yup...things happen.

You think you have free will

How can you claim I don't?

 

[CoreyD]

...the choice not having been determined by antecedent conditions.

What dictionary are you using?
Free will is not defined based on a philosophical view, or doctrine.
Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.

Yes. You want to go to the pub, but you have a reason to go to the gym. There's no need for us to keep repeating this.

Determinism is simple cause and effect. Nothing happens without it being caused. Literally nothing. Our good friends antecedent conditions determine what happens. Else things happen without being caused. Which is nonsensical. Reason is why you did something. You make a sandwich, you know why you did it so you can give me the reasons why you did it. What you won't know, or at least won't be aware of are most of the antecedent conditions.

We can skip the biblical quotes. I won't be reading them.

That's okay. You can skip them.
I'll quote what I am referencing.
Freedom of speech is a human right.

What has been determined are all the antecedent conditions. How can you make a decision if you ignore the current conditions? You can't act in a vacuum.

I'm pretty sure they don't. Nobody wants to risk their life. But people prefer to join up and go to war rather than do nothing and rely on others to do the fighting. Rather obviously I would have thought. That said, I'm a little concerned that you don't understand the point I am making. Being the difference between wanting something yet preferring something else.

There are thousands of people who go into the battle field, because of various reasons.
There are thousands who prefer to be with their family, rather than out there facing death, and killing, and seeing dead bodies, and exploding limbs.
People do not always do what they prefer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think "emergence" is just a fall-back word to have a sciency term for "we don't know how it happens"...especially when it is strong emergence that is meant. It is nothing but a statement of faith in a metaphysical understanding of the world as supervenience upon the physical.

Care to explain what you mean by "emergence" that amounts to more than a profession of faith and a sciencey sounding buzzword?

Ok...

Oxygen I think enters a solid state at sub 300 degrees Celsius. Hydrogen even lower....sub 400 degrees Celsius. I'm not going to look it up. Hopefully you understand this much....

But bonded together in a specific way H2O becomes water and that solid state jumps all the way up to 0 degrees Celsius. That would be the simplest emergent property I can think of that I can think of. Neither atom can do it alone...yet together, they can.

Ta-da.

That's an emergent property.

 

[Jonaitis]

Oh no...nope. I believe truths that I don't like at all. I believe truths I recoil from in disgust. I believe truths you would never accept. I believe truths I think are too dangerous to risk convincing anyone of.

I believe truths you would be too afraid to admit or quickly dismiss. I believe in truths that a majority of people cannot tolerate, let alone other Christians. I have no desire to convince anyone, and the idea of a "risk" is nothing more than a mental construct. Discussing matters as this thread's topic is merely for fun, but it has no actual value or meaning. The mind is a powerful tool, even giving people a sense of being something when they are nothing.

How can you claim I don't?

I don't have to claim it, it is an obvious truth you are not comforable agreeing with. I am not sure if you are opposed to it based on past experiences or people you have encountered with that have had bad experiences, and it can be difficult to believe that they were predetermined without any free agency involved.

 

[CoreyD]

I see where you're coming from, but I don’t think the Scriptures you’ve pointed to disprove predeterminism. In fact, I think they actually reinforce the idea that God’s sovereignty extends over every aspect of human decision-making, including Abraham’s actions and Pharaoh’s hardening.

Let’s start with Abraham. You point to Genesis 22, and I agree that God didn’t directly make Abraham take the knife, but the test itself was part of God’s plan. God had already determined that Abraham would be tested in this way. The fact that Abraham chose to obey doesn’t negate God’s predetermined purpose in putting him in that situation. The whole event was part of God’s larger plan, and even Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac fulfilled God’s will. It’s like a chess game—God sets the pieces, and the players make moves, but the outcome is always His. The test was never about God learning something new about Abraham; it was about revealing Abraham’s faith to himself and to us.

Would God not have known about Abraham's faith, if all that was predetermined by God?

You also brought up Pharaoh’s hardening. Yes, the Bible does say Pharaoh hardened his heart in some places (Exodus 8:15, 9:34), but let’s not ignore the full context of what Scripture says. In Exodus 9:12, it’s explicitly stated, “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” This is a recurring theme throughout Exodus (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 9:12), where God hardens Pharaoh’s heart to fulfill His purpose of displaying His power and delivering Israel. The hardening was part of God’s plan, and it was a direct, intentional action by God—not just something He “allowed” without involvement. Pharaoh’s free will didn’t override God’s sovereign control.

So Pharaoh did not harden his heart?

As for sin entering the world, I agree with Romans 5:12 that it wasn’t God who sinned, but it was through one man’s sin that death entered the world. However, even that falls under God’s predetermined plan.

What do you mean by "that falls under God’s predetermined plan"?
To allow something does not mean to cause it, but to let it be, as it unfolds.

God allowed sin and death to enter the world for a greater purpose—ultimately to redeem humanity through Jesus Christ.

I like that you use the word allowed.
Yes, Romans 8:20-23, says this.

God didn’t cause the Fall, but He knew it would happen and had a plan in place from before the foundation of the world to bring about redemption. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” meaning that even before Adam’s sin, God had already planned the means of our salvation.

Many believe this, but the Greek word used in that passage, does not refer to the formation of the earth, as most people believe.
Please see here.

You mentioned the “calamity” of destruction and captivity, and I agree that sometimes God allows what seems to be evil to occur, but that doesn’t mean it’s not part of His perfect plan. The Bible is clear that God works everything according to His will, even if it involves judgment and calamity. Isaiah 45:7, as I mentioned before, directly states that God “creates disaster” for His purposes. It’s not that God is evil in these acts; it’s that His actions, though sometimes severe, are always just and righteous because they’re part of His ultimate plan. God doesn’t do evil, but He allows it to happen for a reason, and He even uses it to fulfill His will.

You referenced 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, which is a strong passage showing that God actively allows those who reject the truth to be deceived. This is a perfect example of God directly ensuring that His plan unfolds, even through people’s rejection of Him. It’s not just that God “lets” people believe lies; He sends them strong delusion as part of His righteous judgment. This is a hard reality, but it shows that God’s sovereignty is never passive. He is actively involved in every aspect of history, including the deception of those who reject Him.

In the end, none of these Scriptures you’ve pointed to disprove God’s absolute sovereignty and the idea that He predetermines all things, including the actions of individuals. What we’re seeing is God’s active involvement in the world, using both good and evil to accomplish His perfect plan. Romans 11:36 says, “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen.” God is the ultimate author of all things, and nothing happens outside of His will.

So, while I get that it’s tough to reconcile the existence of evil with God’s goodness, I believe the Bible consistently teaches that God is sovereign over all things—good, bad, and everything in between—and that His plan is unfolding exactly as He intended, with no surprises or accidents.

The fact that you keep using the words "allow", and "allowed", tells me that you agree that God did not cause, or predetermine anything, but rather, allowed things to take their course... all the while, exercising his sovereign power, in order to fulfil his divine will... which was not evil, but good.
This ultimately is what God purposed, and what will be. Ephesians 1:10

To allow something, that thing has to occur first, before it can be allowed.
If on the other hand, God put it into motion, it was not allowed, but caused.
We see from scripture though, that God did not cause the evil and suffering we see in the world, but man's actions - moving away from God - did. Romans 5:12, 14, 17;

 

[Jonaitis]

Would God not have known about Abraham's faith, if all that was predetermined by God?

The test wasn’t for God to learn about Abraham’s faith but to demonstrate it for His glory.

So Pharaoh did not harden his heart?

God's hand kept him hardened, thus there was no participation on Pharaoh's end.

What do you mean by "that falls under God’s predetermined plan"?
To allow something does not mean to cause it, but to let it be, as it unfolds.

God unfolds creation, otherwise it isn't His creation.

The fact that you keep using the words "allow", and "allowed", tells me that you agree that God did not cause, or predetermine anything, but rather, allowed things to take their course... all the while, exercising his sovereign power, in order to fulfil his divine will... which was not evil, but good.

God is the only cause in creation, otherwise it isn't His creation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I believe truths you would be too afraid to admit or quickly dismiss.

But you find them emotionally satisfying.

I believe in truths that a majority of people cannot tolerate

Let's hear one. You've got my interest.

I have no desire to convince anyone, and the idea of a "risk" is nothing more than a mental construct.

Well it's more of a description of possible consequences...but whatever.

Discussing matters as this thread's topic is merely for fun, but it has no actual value or meaning.

I wouldn't say that. It appears to be of value to the determinist because it appears to give them the belief they understand things they don't, in a way that's complete.

I don't have to claim it

You did though.

it is an obvious

It's not obvious.

I am not sure if you are opposed to it

I'm opposed to it because it's a worse description. As I said, even worse would be Happenism....which states that things happen. Determinism says things happen over time.

How you get from that to "you aren't making any choices" is pure ego.

 

[Fervent]

Ok...

Oxygen I think enters a solid state at sub 300 degrees Celsius. Hydrogen even lower....sub 400 degrees Celsius. I'm not going to look it up. Hopefully you understand this much....

But bonded together in a specific way H2O becomes water and that solid state jumps all the way up to 0 degrees Celsius. That would be the simplest emergent property I can think of that I can think of. Neither atom can do it alone...yet together, they can.

Ta-da.

That's an emergent property.

That's not really emergence, at least not as it tends to be used in the consciousness conversation. Those properties can still be explained in terms of lower order behaviors and things like geometric structures and electricity. "Emergence" in the consciousness conversation tends to be trotted out as a fall back that tends to amount to "it's really complicated." It's not explanatory, it's just a statement that consciousness exists and there are physical correlates. It's just a buzz word and a statement of faith in the metaphysical assumption that everything supervenes on the physical.

 

[CoreyD]

The test wasn’t for God to learn about Abraham’s faith but to demonstrate it for His glory.

Perhaps you sincerely believe this, but the Bible says... Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Why do you say that, when the Bible says something else?
You do believe the Bible, don't you, and what the Bible says is more important than what we think, is it not?

God's hand kept him hardened, thus there was no participation on Pharaoh's end.

You said God's hand kept him hardened.
If his heart was not hardened, how could God's hand keep him hardened?

The Bible says Pharaoh hardened his heart, so it must be, you are saying that God kept him under that. In other words, God did not allow him to soften his heart.
I think that would be more in line with your statement.

God unfolds creation, otherwise it isn't His creation.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
What point are you trying to make? Or, can you elaborate, please.

God is the only cause in creation, otherwise it isn't His creation.

The Bible does say that God "made from one man every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth", so that proves what Romans 5:12, 14, 17 says.
It was through that one man, that evil came upon all of creation.
God did not cause the evil.

Do you believe God created defective people. Deuteronomy 32:5 - “They have acted corruptly against Him, They are not His children, because of their defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation.

 

[Jonaitis]

But you find them emotionally satisfying.

I don't, really. I learn to accept things as they are, but they are not emotionally satisfying. As Ecclesiastes states, "I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with."

Let's hear one. You've got my interest.

Most of them doesn't serve me in any way but to be banned on this forum. The more "softer" views I have deal with the idea of a personal self, which is nothing more than a mental projection based on thoughts, experiences, memories, narratives, judgments and attachments, with everything related to it. I know that free will is an illusion because there is no such thing as an objective doer, ultimately speaking. Humanity is a fluid collective expression of processes.

I wouldn't say that. It appears to be of value to the determinist because it appears to give them the belief they understand things they don't, in a way that's complete.

At least the determinist is attempting to use logic to explain the unexplainable. Free will is too simplistic and psychologically appealing; it offends the perceived offended.

How you get from that to "you aren't making any choices" is pure ego.

Of course it is, and my ego is a persistent drag.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not really emergence, at least not as it tends to be used in the consciousness conversation.

The change in property emerges from the configuration of the bonded atoms.

Now...maybe you understand that, maybe you don't.

It's exactly what is meant by "the mind or consciousness is an emergent property of the organic structure of a brain."

Now...I agree that we cannot fully explain it, nor prove it. That doesn't mean that there's no evidence. If you were to be lobotomized....much of who you are would be gone forever.

Those properties can still be explained in terms of lower order behaviors and things like geometric structures and electricity. "Emergence" in the consciousness conversation tends to be trotted out as a fall back that tends to amount to "it's really complicated."

It is really complicated.

It's not explanatory, it's just a statement that consciousness exists and there are physical correlates. It's just a buzz word and a statement of faith in the metaphysical assumption that everything supervenes on the physical.

If the point you are making is the concept of emergence is false....you're clearly wrong. If the point you're making is that the notion that consciousness (which you told me was easy to describe....yet you failed to) cannot be an emergent property of the brain...I don't know why. The fact that we don't fully understand how doesn't discard the possibility.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most of them doesn't serve me in any way but to be banned on this forum.

I don't see the problem of simply choosing one and stating it carefully as something you believe to be true, so long as you make no argument for it.

I won't ask you to either.

Lets hear one.

At least the determinist is attempting to use logic to explain the unexplainable.

No...he's not.

He's simply asserting what he doesn't know. He's declaring certainty through vagueness.

Note that I can do the same with my elegant theory of Happenism....which states that things happen.

Which is true...I dare you to deny it.

If we were in the habit of adopting worse descriptions of things then why not declare yourself a proud Happenist?

Probably because you can recognize just how stupid that description is. It doesn't matter if it's complete and true.

For whatever reason, I can see the same stupidity in determinism. It's a worse description of human behavior. I don't know why you can't see it too.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let me put it this way....

A friend or loved one comes to you seeking advice. She's been making decisions that haven't been turning out well for her and she's asking for help.

Would you....

1. Explain that she shouldn't be so concerned, her choices are illusions, and as everything is merely a chain of causal events, there's no meaning, moral, or value which can be considered rational.

Or...

2. Treat her as a free will agent, try to understand her reasoning, and see if you can find some sort of perceptual patterns that she's stuck in before trying to explain a way out of that pattern of behavior?

One of these descriptions of human behavior seems very useful and also....accurate....the other, devoid of anything other than mechanistic cause and effect.

So, what's the problem? Why must the truth be seen as an impediment to good advice? We do choose, and our choices have real (and in my opinion, eternal) consequences. That does not preclude that they are all determined by antecedent causes. My advice might even be a strong influence in that decision.

You propose two choices, as though your (1) represents what I would tell her. I would not tell her that she shouldn't be so concerned. I would tell her she needs to make the best choice.

But what I don't understand here is why you insist on your thesis, as though this discussion is about the best way to speak of human behavior, rather than the truth of determinism. Read the OP again.

I don't know what the absolute "prevalence of cause and effect" means.

If you think you can explain....please do.

I believe that cause-and-effect is the principle that applies to all fact. Ever since first cause, all else is effect which is further cause of further effects. Nothing happens, except for first cause, that is not effect of antecedent cause(s).

Determinism is ultimately a description human behavior....nothing more.

Cause-and-effect determines all things subsequent to first cause. Scientific reasoning and investigation assumes it as necessary to fact. If something exists, science reasons, something caused it to be. Human behavior is one of the least of the applications of the principle.

That's certainly a part of human behavior isn't it? Determinists claim that people don't make choices.

From what I think of as "determinists" and what I have heard described as such, and having been called one, myself, I disagree. Determinists only claim that choices are caused. Now, if you want to argue that what determinists describe as choice is not after all choice if it is determined, that is a different matter. But (IMHO) it is a strawman to argue that determinists claim that people don't make choices.

It should be. Because then I'll ask if you can use your senses while thinking rationally and ask how you would hope to disentangle which one is going to ultimately cause behavior?

Off topic bait.

 

[Fervent]

The change in property emerges from the configuration of the bonded atoms.

What you have described is, at best, weak emergence(the phenomenon reduce)...that's not how it is typically used in the conversation about consciousness.

Now...maybe you understand that, maybe you don't.

I understand what you mean, but you're conflating a couple of different concepts.

It's exactly what is meant my the mind or consciousness is an emergent property of the organic structure of a brain.

What does "emergent" add to our understanding beyond a statement of faith in a metaphysical understandiing of reality? All "emegence" seems to do is give it a sciencey feeling to a metaphysical commitment, rather than providing any conceptual content. It seems to me that I can replace "emergent property" with "arises by magic" and the semantic value doesn't really change other than to feel less scientific.

Now...I agree that we cannot fully explain it, nor prove it. That doesn't mean that there's no evidence. If you were to be lobotomized....much of who you are would be gone forever.

There's a difference between an interplay between consciousness and the physical structures of the bran, and the brain being solely responsible for consciousness. Calling it emergent while admittiing it can't be explained or proven is just an admission of faith. Your "evidence" is a case of circular reasoning since you look to a process that models the universe as physical to support the notion that the physical(i.e. the brain) is the reality and consciousness merely a product of the physical structures.

It is really complicated.

Certainly is, and if all you mean to say is that it is complicated then "emergence" doesn't provide an explanation it only identifies where you place your faith.

If the point you are making is the concept of emergence is false....you're clearly wrong. If the point you're making is that the notion that consciousness (which you told me was easy to describe....yet you failed to) cannot be an emergent property of the brain...I don't know why. The fact that we don't fully understand how doesn't discard the possibility.

Not at all, the point I'm makng is that "emergence" is a meaningless fall back that feels like it's scientific. When it comes to the consciousness conversation it's a statement of faith, and nothing more. Can't be proven true or false, but it locks you into a metaphysical belief.

And you seem to have misunderstood my claim about defining it. I don't mean I can deliniate it, but that I can describe it ostensively in the same fashion I ostensively define "physical". Not in terms of abstract concepts, but by "pointing" at its operation. I assume you recogniz yourself as conscious, even if you can't divide it neatly the way you would divide a cell or a strand of DNA.