|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:23 am
Kalorn Mechanism 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) 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. I want to take a symbolic logic class someday. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the '=' symbol. 1, 2a and 2b are all conditional statements. So, using the symbols -> as conditional (implies) ~ as negation (not) V as disjunction (or) My argument takes the form: 1. ~A -> ~B 2. A -> C 3. C -> ~D 4. ~A V A ----------------------------------------------------- 5. A -> ~D [From 2, 3, Hypothetical syllogism (This step was hidden)] 6. ~B V ~D [From 1, 5, 4, Constructive dilemma] You were suggesting that ~(~A -> ~B), which is a contradiction of (1), but I don't exactly understand how you derived that. =============================================== Anyway, I had another argument: For a choice to have been free-willed, you must:
1. Intend for that particular choice to be made.
2. Have a non-random and self-caused intention.
For a choice to be intended, it must be chosen (intended).
For that choice to be intended, it too must be chosen.
This regresses infinitely, so none of the choices can be free-willed.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:15 pm
[quote="MechanismI want to take a symbolic logic class someday.
Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the '=' symbol.
1, 2a and 2b are all conditional statements.
So, using the symbols
-> as conditional (implies)
~ as negation (not)
V as disjunction (or)
My argument takes the form:
1. ~A -> ~B
2. A -> C
3. C -> ~D
4. ~A V A
-----------------------------------------------------
5. A -> ~D [From 2, 3, Hypothetical syllogism (This step was hidden)]
6. ~B V ~D [From 1, 5, 4, Constructive dilemma]
You were suggesting that ~(~A -> ~B), which is a contradiction of (1), but I don't exactly understand how you derived that.
===============================================
Anyway, I had another argument:
For a choice to have been free-willed, you must:
1. Intend for that particular choice to be made.
2. Have a non-random and self-caused intention.
For a choice to be intended, it must be chosen (intended).
For that choice to be intended, it too must be chosen.
This regresses infinitely, so none of the choices can be free-willed.i see, i stand corrected as far as the symbolic logic goes. But one point, by the definition of free, do you mean random in the first argument? I ask because this doesn’t seem to be the same definition in the second argument. Also, for the second argument, why must something that regresses infinitely mean it can not exist?
PS, sorry for the slow reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:48 pm
Well, I have disproved freewill inside of christianity.
It comes from the simple logic that God knows all. He knows all my actions, and what the results of said actions will be. He knew this for an infinite amount of time before my creation. As such, it can be said that I am predestined. If I am predestined, I cannot have freewill. In God's case, his omniscience combined with the idea that he created us make it so our every action is predetermined. If it is predetermined, we have no freewill, as we will commit that action. In other words, with an omniscient creator, we cannot have freewill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:50 am
Kalorn But one point, by the definition of free, do you mean random in the first argument? By free, I meant "not entirely restricted". Note, though, that in the case that an event is partially variable but not truly random, any part of that event which is willed cannot be free, because being willed is a determining factor; determined [parts of] events aren't free. Quote: Also, for the second argument, why must something that regresses infinitely mean it can not exist? Because a person cannot actually intend to intend to intend to intend to ... intend to intend to perform an action. A person has only a finite number of... uh, "meta-intentions". Quote: In God's case, his omniscience combined with the idea that he created us make it so our every action is predetermined. If it is predetermined, we have no freewill, as we will commit that action. In other words, with an omniscient creator, we cannot have freewill. Assuming our actions are variable and God is omniscient, God knows every single possible outcome of every single possible decision that every single person could make. God could still be omniscient by just knowing all the possible future events, even if they're not determined, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:44 pm
Mechanism Assuming our actions are variable and God is omniscient, God knows every single possible outcome of every single possible decision that every single person could make. First, God has no need to know every single decision I could make, he merely needs to know only the decision I will make (this is only for the case of predestination, not necessarily so for omniscience). Secondly, it is not enough that God knows the actions I will take at each choice, he knows the result of those actions, and has known for an infinite amount of time into the past. Lastly, assuming God is omniscient, he must know which actions I will take and which I will not at a given choice. Furthermore, he must know what the outcome of the action I take will be. If he does not know those, he is not omniscient, as there is something he doesn't know. Furthermore, he must have known them for an infinite amount of time before the choice took place, otherwise, he is not perfect. Perfection requires never being wrong and never not knowing something. Therefore, God must know every single action I will take, the consequences of those actions, as well as every single action I will not take, and the consequences of not taking them. He must also have known this for an infinite amount of time. Since he is also the creator, he cannot give us freewill if he is to have omniscience. It is the combinataion of creator and omniscience that do not allow for freewill. If he were not the creator, or if he is not omniscient, we may have freewill. Quote: God could still be omniscient by just knowing all the possible future events, even if they're not determined, right? No. If he does not know my which actions I will take, he does not know everything. He then becomes not only not perfect, but his omnipotence and his omniscience come greatly into question. Especially his omniscience, for how could he know everything, but not know one thing? If he does not know one thing, he does not know everything. Therefore he is no longer omniscient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:00 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:22 am
Kalorn So if something isn�t ENTIRELY restricted, then can�t it be willed as well? The part of the event which is variable (not restricted) cannot be willed, because, as I said, a will is a determining factor. For any one intention, if there is a variable effect, then the actual effect itself is unwilled. Quote: Why? Assuming a soul is immortal and has existed and will continue to exist, and assuming that is has input in choices, wouldn�t it be conceivable that there can be an infinite number of meta-intentions? Because you cannot reach an infinity by adding to a number. It must've started as an infinity. However, that cannot be, because each intention is a decision, which takes time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:10 am
Mechanism The part of the event which is variable (not restricted) cannot be willed, because, as I said, a will is a determining factor. For any one intention, if there is a variable effect, then the actual effect itself is unwilled. so the variable part, whether i want to do something or not, i can not will to do? wouldn't it be undetermined (free) until i decide (willed)? freewilled doesn't mean something must be free and willed at the same time, but that something that was free can becomed willed by us. Mechanism Because you cannot reach an infinity by adding to a number. It must've started as an infinity. However, that cannot be, because each intention is a decision, which takes time. well, time is infinite, isn't it? and we mark our passage along that, touching, or accessing it if you will, which takes time to do. couldn't we touch or access our infinite intention, to make a decision too? also, what if it is random whether we decide to do something or not decide (not consider) it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:54 pm
chaoticpuppet Well, I have disproved freewill inside of christianity. It comes from the simple logic that God knows all. He knows all my actions, and what the results of said actions will be. He knew this for an infinite amount of time before my creation. As such, it can be said that I am predestined. If I am predestined, I cannot have freewill. In God's case, his omniscience combined with the idea that he created us make it so our every action is predetermined. If it is predetermined, we have no freewill, as we will commit that action. In other words, with an omniscient creator, we cannot have freewill. Is it possible that God knows every detail about past and present and can, using that information, predict the future to such precision that he is never wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:36 pm
SyphaBelnades chaoticpuppet Well, I have disproved freewill inside of christianity. It comes from the simple logic that God knows all. He knows all my actions, and what the results of said actions will be. He knew this for an infinite amount of time before my creation. As such, it can be said that I am predestined. If I am predestined, I cannot have freewill. In God's case, his omniscience combined with the idea that he created us make it so our every action is predetermined. If it is predetermined, we have no freewill, as we will commit that action. In other words, with an omniscient creator, we cannot have freewill. Is it possible that God knows every detail about past and present and can, using that information, predict the future to such precision that he is never wrong? No, predicting implies he doesn't know all, if he doesn't know all, he cannot be perfect, let alone, all knowing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:16 pm
chaoticpuppet Well, I have disproved freewill inside of christianity. It comes from the simple logic that God knows all. He knows all my actions, and what the results of said actions will be. He knew this for an infinite amount of time before my creation. As such, it can be said that I am predestined. If I am predestined, I cannot have freewill. In God's case, his omniscience combined with the idea that he created us make it so our every action is predetermined. If it is predetermined, we have no freewill, as we will commit that action. In other words, with an omniscient creator, we cannot have freewill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:04 am
Tigress Dawn chaoticpuppet Well, I have disproved freewill inside of christianity. It comes from the simple logic that God knows all. He knows all my actions, and what the results of said actions will be. He knew this for an infinite amount of time before my creation. As such, it can be said that I am predestined. If I am predestined, I cannot have freewill. In God's case, his omniscience combined with the idea that he created us make it so our every action is predetermined. If it is predetermined, we have no freewill, as we will commit that action. In other words, with an omniscient creator, we cannot have freewill. That argument does not work with an omniscient creator. It would work with an omniscient being who is not the creator or a creator who is not omniscient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:37 am
chaoticpuppet Tigress Dawn chaoticpuppet Well, I have disproved freewill inside of christianity. It comes from the simple logic that God knows all. He knows all my actions, and what the results of said actions will be. He knew this for an infinite amount of time before my creation. As such, it can be said that I am predestined. If I am predestined, I cannot have freewill. In God's case, his omniscience combined with the idea that he created us make it so our every action is predetermined. If it is predetermined, we have no freewill, as we will commit that action. In other words, with an omniscient creator, we cannot have freewill. That argument does not work with an omniscient creator. It would work with an omniscient being who is not the creator or a creator who is not omniscient. this is going to be a funny post because i'm going argue two things simultaneousy. in response to Tigress Dawn, that helicopter example is still not omniscient, because the helicopter can guess, predict, that a car might crash, but still not know. but now a point for chaoticpuppet, i was thinking about this on a 10 hour drive from Montreal: what if an omniscient creator chooses not to know. the creator can know how things will turn out, but chooses not to find out, only predicting, thus granting us free will. then the creator would have the power of omniscience, but does not excercise it. i have to go see Howl's Moving Castle, so i am not putting in the time to really flesh out the idea and see if i can counter it myself before posting, sorry for my laziness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:55 pm
Kalorn but now a point for chaoticpuppet, i was thinking about this on a 10 hour drive from Montreal: what if an omniscient creator chooses not to know. the creator can know how things will turn out, but chooses not to find out, only predicting, thus granting us free will. then the creator would have the power of omniscience, but does not excercise it. i have to go see Howl's Moving Castle, so i am not putting in the time to really flesh out the idea and see if i can counter it myself before posting, sorry for my laziness. That is an interesting point, though, I find that it would be a completely useless option. Furthermore, I would say, one can only truly have something like omniscience when they are using it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:27 am
chaoticpuppet Kalorn but now a point for chaoticpuppet, i was thinking about this on a 10 hour drive from Montreal: what if an omniscient creator chooses not to know. the creator can know how things will turn out, but chooses not to find out, only predicting, thus granting us free will. then the creator would have the power of omniscience, but does not excercise it. i have to go see Howl's Moving Castle, so i am not putting in the time to really flesh out the idea and see if i can counter it myself before posting, sorry for my laziness. That is an interesting point, though, I find that it would be a completely useless option. Furthermore, I would say, one can only truly have something like omniscience when they are using it. *nods* that's true. i mean i can say i have all the knowledge of the internet, but unless i actually look it up and learn it, do i really have it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
