I never believe. I either know or I don't know.
That being said, I'm only as free as the chemicals in my brain.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26578567]Considering how fervently anti-religion and pro-science FP generally is I am frankly amazed at what a majority believe in free will.[/QUOTE]
Determinism doesn't necessarily imply you don't have free will.
[editline]10th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26593352]Even in terms of ancient philosophers, Epicurus had the trilemma argument. There has never been a consensus, nor is there, but omnipotence and omniscience, two traits almost universally attributed to gods, are logically inconsistent. Well, omnipotence is logically inconsistent in itself and omniscience is at least logically inconsistent with free will.[/QUOTE]
How is omnipotence logically inconsistent?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;26596852]Determinism doesn't necessarily imply you don't have free will.[/QUOTE]
Why not?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;26596852]How is omnipotence logically inconsistent?[/QUOTE]
The whole question of "Can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?"
I believe in Free Will to its full extent, but its like karma, if someone wastes their free will on being fat and lazy then their free will is limited to some choices as is someone who is fit and stressed.
There are those who are sheep, blindly following all matter of choices their leader makes.
There are those who are loners, a form of sheep that in recent years has become more prevelent where depending on yourself somehow makes you independent.
Then there are the outsiders, people who follow the sheep but just observe, record and take note of the movements one makes. They are the highest of free will because they know how to exercise it correctly.
Free will exists, but few know the true responsibility we all bear, so they either relinquish it or use it chaotically.
That sounds like a badly written fantasy novel.
and I don't think omniscience is logically inconsistent with free will.
Just because someone is always going to do something, it doesn't [I]necessarily[/I] follow they don't have the choice.
I'm as much a physicalist as the next person: I believe there's only one way the whole universe can play out. But the idea of free will is a very human concept, and although our whole minds and bodies consist purely in a symphony of electromagnetism, we have freedom in as much as we don't understand the universe. [I]In a sense[/I] I believe free will is just illusionary. I don't believe we have complete metaphysical freedom (or any kind of metaphysical freedom for that matter).
In a sense I believe our ignorance creates free will. We can't change the outcome of the universe, but I think as a concept it's perfectly logically consistent.
How exactly does knowledge or the lack thereof create free will for us?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26596909]Why not?
The whole question of "Can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?"[/QUOTE]
@first part [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism[/url]
and secondly, I don't think omnipotence implies the ability to do things that are logically inconsistent. But rather the ability to do anything that can be done. Which is very logically consistent.
I can create an object so large that I cannot lift it, so omnipotence would actually be limiting the things that god could do.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
I'm gonna have to agree with the criticisms of compatibilism on that page, creating the notion of freedom of action seems like an irrelevant idea outside of human perception. Either something will happen or it won't.
I don't really understand your definition of omnipotence. If I take it to mean 'Can do X, if X is logically consistent,' then it has to be logically cohesive, right?
The ability to create something you cannot lift is a logically consistent action.
although i'm not sure you even need to qualify it with 'if X is logically consistent' seeing as that's already built into the word 'can'.
[editline]10th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26597213]The ability to create something you cannot lift is a logically consistent action.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
I'm not disputing this.
but if we consider 'S can do X (lift something you cannot lift), if X is logically consistent', then it becomes obvious omnipotence isn't logically inconsistent because S can't do X. Because it's logically inconsistent.
I use the absolute definition of omnipotence, however. Why should a supposedly all-powerful being that created the entirety of existence and the laws of nature be bound by something like logic? I should be saying my prayers to syllogisms.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
HOWEVER, as far as we can tell the universe operates in an entirely logically consistent way, and any god that allows for contradictions to exist can be proven not to exist via logic.
Does omnipotence really suggest defying logic? (this is a genuine question)
Obviously if I knew it did I wouldn't be arguing for the rationality of omnipotence. ;D
To assert omnipotence suggests defying logic is surely just a null sentence, devoid of all rational meaning?
I would argue it does imply it and that's part of the reason omnipotence is an absurd idea.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
If god has to be bound by something greater than him (the laws of logic) why take any notice of him at all? He's not an all-powerful source of everything, he's just another cog in a greater thing, one directed by the laws of good inference. Clergy should all become logicians.
[editline]9th December 2010[/editline]
Well they should anyway, but that's not the point.
I don't think there's anything to meaningfully discuss if you believe something can defy logic. Even if it's possible on some higher, godly plane of existence (I'm just entertaining the distant possibility here), it still wouldn't be incomprehensible to humans, purely by principle. I'm intrigued to learn if omnipotence actually does imply that though. Any sources saying it does?
All depends on how you define it and that's up to personal interpretation.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox[/url]
That has a couple different potential definitions used by various philosophers on it.
I quite liked this, that CS Lewis said about the matter. Basically my own thoughts, but expressed infinitely more eloquently.
"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying [I]anything[/I] about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."
[editline]10th December 2010[/editline]
One thing that studying philosophy has made me realise is that all disputes seem to occur basically over variation in definition, rather than any intrinsic belief to contrary ideas. In a way it's hopeful, but in other ways it's massively irritating :frown:
My Psychology degree disagrees with everyone who believes in free will. :smug:
Perhaps God is an artist and creates his art by creating laws of the physical world that will result in a certain manner? Really, this thread points out, to me, how little we truly know about such things.
Also, part of the reason not to give prophets credibility is because they have very contradicting visions and conversations with God. Either most of them are lying, or God cannot phrase things in such a way where we are interpreting his word correctly.
Bunch of chemical reactions and shit in our brain tell us what to do, that ain't free will.
So no.
Maybe a little bit.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26597004]That sounds like a badly written fantasy novel.[/QUOTE]
It does, its philosophy for a reason there Pally!
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26596909]
The whole question of "Can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?"[/QUOTE]
Imaginary things can't lift [I]anything[/I]
Well, we kind of do, but our will is defined by various things which conform to certain natural desires/instincts/whatever. People are no less animals than a cat or a dog, remember :P
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26555431]No. All of your actions are preordained by the state of the universe at any given time. Your reactions to stimuli are all encoded into the arrangement of molecules that make up your body and brain. Free will is no more scientific a concept than ghosts.[/QUOTE]
I thought this way for a very long time, I'm not sure if I still do. The thing is, with true quantum randomness, the universe isn't predeterminable as previously thought, so if the free will exists, who knows what it is, but if it could influence the otherwise causeless quantum fluctuations, it could manifest as true free will.
[QUOTE=Lord_Skellig;26605612]I thought this way for a very long time, I'm not sure if I still do. The thing is, with true quantum randomness, the universe isn't predeterminable as previously thought, so if the free will exists, who knows what it is, but if it could influence the otherwise causeless quantum fluctuations, it could manifest as true free will.[/QUOTE]
There's still no reason whatsoever to believe that we can affect the outcome of those events in some metaphysical way and quantum fluctuations play next to no part how our body works because of decoherence.
Nope :downs:
I'll post now and then I'll complete my idea.
"A human mind could never imagine something infinite except if something that is eternal put that idea in the human mind" [b]De Cart[/B]
Descartes. Also, the human mind can't appropriately imagine something infinite. Also, that statement is unjustified.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.