The Non Creator God

The Paineful Truth wrote:

I understand, you had no choice but to say what you did. But I did.
Such is the irony of subjective objectivity.

I said there was no free will, but there's always freedom of choice.

It's just that what you choose out of any given set of options is a product of a myriad of factors and stimuli that are outside of your control.

For instance, that you so assiduously believe in free will is just as much, if not more, due to your physiology and genetic predispositions, as it is based on your own ideas. As well, the ideas you have, and the logical conclusions you come to, from your singular perspective, are affected by the knowledge you possess (which is limited), the vagaries of your unconscious self (which you cannot control), the basic psychological profile that you and you alone possess (which operates outside of your will), and finally your 'free will'. In effect, whatever the human will may be - whether soul or mind - if you were to make a pie chart of "What Controls The Self?", the 'will' would really only be in direct control of a very small portion of the self.

Therefore, free will - the classical concept - is wrong.

And saying that doesn't make me a hard determinist.

Uriah wrote:

The Paineful Truth wrote:

I understand, you had no choice but to say what you did. But I did.
Such is the irony of subjective objectivity.

I said there was no free will, but there's always freedom of choice.

It's just that what you choose out of any given set of options is a product of a myriad of factors and stimuli that are outside of your control.

For instance, that you so assiduously believe in free will is just as much, if not more, due to your physiology and genetic predispositions, as it is based on your own ideas. As well, the ideas you have, and the logical conclusions you come to, from your singular perspective, are affected by the knowledge you possess (which is limited), the vagaries of your unconscious self (which you cannot control), the basic psychological profile that you and you alone possess (which operates outside of your will), and finally your 'free will'. In effect, whatever the human will may be - whether soul or mind - if you were to make a pie chart of "What Controls The Self?", the 'will' would really only be in direct control of a very small portion of the self.

Therefore, free will - the classical concept - is wrong.

And saying that doesn't make me a hard determinist.

Yes, that's why I argue for limited free-will even though I haven't been able to nail down a slam dunk logical argument to back up that position.

I'll agree that our will doesn't control everything we think or do. But I think we disagree on proportion or the effects of concentrated effort to apply will to our mental limits.

When I became a deist, I had to overcome my fear of rejection by family and friends as well as to make a leap of reason against all the indoctrination I'd undergone to ignore reason. It was a choice as well as an act of free will--which I see no difference between. Given your own argument, how can you say there is no free will.

Aaron wrote:

Yes, that's why I argue for limited free-will even though I haven't been able to nail down a slam dunk logical argument to back up that position.

As you can see, I don't disagree. I always assumed it was understood that no claim has been made that free will could override nature, including some involuntary bodily functions. Overcoming indoctrination and genetic programming requires a wide range of the force of will to overcome them according to the strength of that indoctrination and programming. I can't think of any mental limit to the force of will in that application.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Doesn't non-intervention speak to maintaining free will as well as to the motivation behind creation in the first place? Why would God evolve creatures to know good from evil and to be able to think and act on our own?

I don't think the world was purposely created but is instead an epiphenomenon. I think free will evolved simply as a tool to allow an animal with few physical defenses to build and analyze mental models of the world in so it can choose between different scenarios and evaluate their possible consequences in order to survive. The only purpose I see to existence is that which we create for ourselves.

Can you name one purpose or pursuit that wouldn't be a form of the pursuit of Truth--other than evil?

Yes free will evolved but it only appears in sentient creatures (the rest living by instinct). And while this world may not have been purposely created, the universe would have been, if there is a God.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Can you name one purpose or pursuit that wouldn't be a form of the pursuit of Truth--other than evil?

My purpose is to enjoy the time I've got (don't see how thats evil ). I can't speak for anyone else.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

And while this world may not have been purposely created, the universe would have been, if there is a God.

Depends on how you define God.

Quote :

I said there was no free will, but there's always freedom of choice.

Ah, sounds like having your cake and eating it too.

I'm late in the game on this string but here's two flaws in Uriah's arugement. And one of them isn't a flaw.

1) one could be just a semantics game. I mean when he says there's always freedom of choice but no free will, I mean that's either a) a tad too clever for me; or, b) simply not explained well enough.

2) Uriah is absolutely correct IF AND ONLY IF you go backwards through the timeline. That is basically every affect has a logical cause, even among sentient creatures with choice.

But going forward through the time line Paineful is entirely correct that at the moment that is now we have a decision.

A fundy can pull himself away from his religion.

An alcoholic can stop himself from taking a drink

A man on a business trip can stop himself from having an affair.

Helium can choose not hit the enter button on an asinine post.

Okay three out of four ain't bad.

Again to reiterate, Uriah would be correct on the cause and effect thing if you go backwards.

But what Uriah is not thinking about is that at the moment of the present, there are often several possible future timelines that could take place.

Just for instance, let's take the alcoholic. If he did choose to take a drink then obviously there would be a complete cause and effect chain going backwards. If he didn't choose to take a drink then obviously there would be a complete cause and effect chain going backwards.

Having said that I do understand where Uriah is coming from in that our free will is not so free in that, as Uriah contends, it is inextricably linked with environment, upbringing, heritage, genetics, etc.

stretmediq wrote:

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Can you name one purpose or pursuit that wouldn't be a form of the pursuit of Truth--other than evil?

My purpose is to enjoy the time I've got (don't see how thats evil ). I can't speak for anyone else.

Depends on what you enjoy. If you enjoy being knee-walking stoned for your entire life, I don't think that would be a form of the pursuit of Truth and it would a waste. No, it wouldn't be evil either, but I think non-virtuous, but only you would be the judge of that.

Stretmediq wrote:

The Paineful Truth wrote:

And while this world may not have been purposely created, the universe would have been, if there is a God.

Depends on how you define God.

Well I define Him/It as Truth. But for the purposes of this discussion, as a minimum, the Creator.