|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 4:23 pm
I was just reading excerpts from Augustine of Hippo, and he seems to be saying that God predestined us to have free will!
ugh! how confusing!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:29 pm
I always saw the world as set in freewill and I related everything to evidence and science. Seeing truly is believing for some. I started seeing glimpses of future events in my dreams. Now, I cant help but think that some things have been pre-planned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:17 pm
but isn't there a difference between foreknowledge or prescience on the one hand, and foreordination or predestination on the other?
i mean, it's not as if you're making those things happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:13 pm
Marjuari_the_elemental I always saw the world as set in freewill and I related everything to evidence and science. Seeing truly is believing for some. I started seeing glimpses of future events in my dreams. Now, I cant help but think that some things have been pre-planned. Ahh, but is it really that you are seeing certain things of the future, or imagining, and when it happens, it is merely a coincidence. More so, when you dream of future events, are you letting yourself be guided by the dream, and if you are letting the dream guide you, why are letting it do so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:53 am
I wish I could say something useful here...but since I can't I'll just say this. There's a verse in my bible, 2 Peter...cant remember the verse number. Anyway in my bible (NIV) the word destined is used. In the KJV a word that is synonim (gah! cant spell it so deal with it! scream ) to destined is used. This confused me so I asked the person I know who knows the Bible the best. She says I should ask someone else. Here's the way I take it though:
Free will is kinda hard to believe we have since God knows ahead of time what we're gonna do/choose anyway. Therefore free will seems like a very loose phrase for our choices imo. I mean, our choices are already known. Free will is a lack thereof if the choice is known. Kinda like when Neo questions the Oracle in the park in the second movie. Talking about choice, destiny, will....everything that makes a human tick. What are their motives, what are they running from, why do we insist we control our own lives?
Destiny, is also kinda hard to figure out. God knows what we will choose. So does that mean he formulates things to happen when we finally come to the choice? Since he already knows what we'll do he can easily put a consequence right after the event. Some people say they're destined to be together. Could they be? Did God put that person in their life specifically so that they could be together? He knew if you didn't have that one guy from the cafe that you'd go back to your ex and he'd beat you and sell drugs and you'd have a terrible life, so because he didn't want that for you he gave you this great guy who knows exactly how you like your coffee?
In my opinion, free will isn't "free". We have will, but because the choices are known it's not free. Destiny is a possiblity. God hands something over to people all the time, it's just a matter of whether we accept it or not. He knows if we will or won't, but he'll let us choose anyway.
I like to think I'm destined to be with my boyfriend but I'm not sure yet. We'll see how that goes.
And that is my conclusion to all this cuz I already spent more time writing than I thought I would. You wanna comment me on it (good or bad) go ahead and PM me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:58 pm
That may be the case, but, what if god is deistic in the sense that he doesn't interfere with our lives? Or, when one uses Cartesian Skepticism, the only thing they are absolutley certain about is that they exist. Now, following the guidelines of Cartesian Skepticism, we do not know what we are, we could be physical, mental, or anything; what then is to stop the possibility of me being god? So, now, if I am god, does that mean that I have freewill?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:54 am
chaoticpuppet Now science takes the approach that everything is predestined. Your brain is all chemicals and electricity. The electricity and chemicals react a certain way in your brain when one does something or has something done to them by another. Quantum physics allows a loophole in that. Some of the behaviours of particles are apparently random. Hypomanic Poet I believe in Freewill, because without freewill, we wouldn't have Karma, and I strongly believe in Karma. I believe that the Universe responds to everything we do, whether we're aware of it or not. What caused you to believe this so strongly that it automatically invalidates any belief in determinism? So, uh, here's my argument against free will: Constructive Dilemma Argument.
1. Every event that is uncaused is not willed.
2a. Every event that is caused is determined by the cause.
2b. Every event which is determined is not free.
3. Every event* is caused** or uncaused***.
Conclusion: Every event is either not free or not willed.
(No event is free and willed)* Event: This refers to all actions and occurances, and absences of actions occurances. This means whatever something in the universe is doing, is an 'event'. This also includes thoughts, decisions, and creations of worlds. ** Caused: One could argue that "the soul" is a cause for decisions, which, one might say, allows free will. However, in that case, the events caused by the soul are determined by the nature of the soul, and this is either random or determined by something else. *** Uncaused: For the sake of this argument, it's possible that nothing is uncaused. But these hypothetical events are included so that the argument includes "every event."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:05 am
Contingent, as I have stated before in LTFF, the only problem I have with your argument is that very first cause. We have brought up the idea of a time loop, or the idea of it going back for an infinite amount of time. Now, with both of those, I still see a need for a first cause that was both free and willed. The only option that I can see where it was not possible for it to be both free and willed, is if the cause of that first cause rested solely on future events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:37 pm
chaoticpuppet Contingent, as I have stated before in LTFF, the only problem I have with your argument is that very first cause. We have brought up the idea of a time loop, or the idea of it going back for an infinite amount of time. Now, with both of those, I still see a need for a first cause that was both free and willed. The only option that I can see where it was not possible for it to be both free and willed, is if the cause of that first cause rested solely on future events. Having only contradictory conclusions from the implication of the argument about the cause of the universe's existence does not itself invalidate the argument. It suggests that either the argument is flawed, or that there is simply something we do not understand about the path of time, or the universe. Frankly, I'm betting on the latter. In fact, the problem of the cause of the universe remains, disregarding the argument. There is no answer to why anything at all exists, in the first place. This would have to be a cause of causes, which doesn't make sense, because before causes, nothing can be a cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:24 pm
no offense to anyone who who disagrees, but i see denying the fact that people have at least some free will is just an excuse to not take responsibility for what you do. i know with a lot of people that isnt true, but that just the way i see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 3:44 pm
Tigress Dawn Live forever eh? Actually, you might have something going there. I mean, there are people in the most hopeless situations that still manage to live. I think its more a matter of will power than anything else. However, if someone put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger, I don't think any sort of death refusal would save you, nor would it enable you to live longer. There is this interesting story though. There were these two disallusioned kids who thought they were vampires, so they would kill people for their blood and run around claiming they were immortal. But, when they got caught, they kept that claim, and they were given life sentence. So because they were given a life sentence instead of the death penalty, they think it to be more true. But the point is..they still lived when under normal circumstances they would have gotten the death penalty. there is a flaw in the logic here. One of the problems with capital punishment is that whether someone gets life in prison or the death penalty is arbitrary in the US. This has been shown over and over. If you want, I?ll look up a source. Lazy now. Meachanism So, uh, here's my argument against free will: Constructive Dilemma Argument.
1. Every event that is uncaused is not willed.
2a. Every event that is caused is determined by the cause.
2b. Every event which is determined is not free.
3. Every event* is caused** or uncaused***.
Conclusion: Every event is either not free or not willed.
(No event is free and willed)* Event: This refers to all actions and occurances, and absences of actions occurances. This means whatever something in the universe is doing, is an 'event'. This also includes thoughts, decisions, and creations of worlds. ** Caused: One could argue that "the soul" is a cause for decisions, which, one might say, allows free will. However, in that case, the events caused by the soul are determined by the nature of the soul, and this is either random or determined by something else. *** Uncaused: For the sake of this argument, it's possible that nothing is uncaused. But these hypothetical events are included so that the argument includes "every event." I think there is a flaw in this logic. I took a symbolic logic class so, translating it I got: 1. If not(A) then not(B) 2a. A=C 2b. C=D 3. A or not(A) Conclusion: A=D and not(A)=B The problem is that (If not(A) then not(B)) does not equal (not(A)=B). so basically what I?m saying in English is that just because something is uncaused does not mean it is not willed. Therefore it is possible to want to do something and choose not to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:18 pm
I think people saying something is destiny is an excuse. God knows everything that will happen in my life, aka destiny, so why should I try? Well, what that means is that God knows what you will choose, and of course he'll send good things your way, you just have the choice to accept them, panic and think it's something bad, or let it pass by with your what's the point attitude.
In a unreligious viewpoint, say you think you are destined to be with someone. What if they think they are destined to be with something else. And what if that person is destined to be with someone else. You make your own decisions, you take the rewards, and you take the responsibility.
Predestination: Another basher of responsibility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:55 pm
Mercution I think people saying something is destiny is an excuse. God knows everything that will happen in my life, aka destiny, so why should I try? Well, what that means is that God knows what you will choose, and of course he'll send good things your way, you just have the choice to accept them, panic and think it's something bad, or let it pass by with your what's the point attitude. In a unreligious viewpoint, say you think you are destined to be with someone. What if they think they are destined to be with something else. And what if that person is destined to be with someone else. You make your own decisions, you take the rewards, and you take the responsibility. Predestination: Another basher of responsibility i feel that way often too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:12 pm
Mercution In a unreligious viewpoint, say you think you are destined to be with someone. What if they think they are destined to be with something else. And what if that person is destined to be with someone else. You make your own decisions, you take the rewards, and you take the responsibility. Predestination: Another basher of responsibility If that person is destined to be with someone else, they will be with someone else. As for predestination bashing responsibility, remember that it also takes away rewards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 11:24 pm
wow can't believe I havn't posted here?!
I believe in a mix of the two, you choose whatever you want to do but your choise is your destiny. There is this story I got in an e-mail a couple years ago that I think shows this.
A farmer that works on a farm sees a kid drowning on his land, he goes and saves the kid and the kids dad happens to be the richest man in the area. The farmer was poor and couldn't afford to send his son to school. In return for saving the life of his son the rich man insists on sendign the farmers son to the best schools available. The son, with his high education, goes on to discover insilin which he then uses to save the rich man later on.
This story shows that destiny had come upon the farmer to save this rich mans son, but it was the free will of the man to send him to school and destiny once again that saved the man. As you can see a mix of the two. (No I don't know if it's a true story.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
