[Pants-of-dog]

How do you define ''Free Will'', as the ancients did, a 'mere' freedom from external compulsion, or libertarian freedom, total freedom including apparently from any necessity that comes from within? The latter is the freedom which God possesses, not those things including us which He created.

I know it's all the rage these modern days to vainly strive for freedom from any constraint including biology, morality, or even sanity it seems, but the facts remain what they are. The 'Free Will' you are looking for doesn't exist, never did, never will. As a Christian and as Material Monist separately, I believe in a Compatibilist determinism. You are moved to will what you will, but you want freely what is willed and do not go against your own will. Grace of the lack thereof of God's presence within you, modifies what is willed.

The very striving for liberation from any constraint, is actually a sign that one is being pulled into an irrational love of mere things and moments.

My explanation is simpler: god is not omniscient.

[One Degree]

My explanation is simpler: god is not omniscient.

Very succinct and logical. You are saying God built the road and supplied the car, but put us in the driver’s seat? Just because he is capable of creating does not require he be capable of controlling the creation?

[Pants-of-dog]

Very succinct and logical. You are saying God built the road and supplied the car, but put us in the driver’s seat? Just because he is capable of creating does not require he be capable of controlling the creation?

No, it does not require that god be capable of controlling creation.

[One Degree]

We often fight it and deny it, but humans progress through the same stages as we age. It is as if our thoughts are predetermined by our genetic structure. We can vary in degree, but not avoid the basic path.

[Zamuel]

We often fight it and deny it, but humans progress through the same stages as we age. It is as if our thoughts are predetermined by our genetic structure. We can vary in degree, but not avoid the basic path.

There you go, inductive reasoning inspired by a minor pattern of certainty.

Zam

[One Degree]

There you go, inductive reasoning inspired by a minor pattern of certainty.

Zam

Yes, but you are disregarding my remarkable ability to discern certainty from much less observation than 70 years.

Edit: I am certain nothing is certain therefore I must be wrong. However my logic can not be certain therefore I must be right. This is a good stopping place because I always end up right.

[Zamuel]

Yes, but you are disregarding my remarkable ability to discern certainty from much less observation than 70 years.

Not disregarding it ... You are the Rasta "I and I" ... your first - I - is your self awareness as an individual that relates to your 70 years experience. Your second - I - is your subconscious (in most cases) connection to certainty. You, like everything else contained in the pattern (our universe,) are an integral part. Anything you want to know is readily available to you, if your brain is able to comprehend.

Many brains need some sort of ritual to explain, and substantiate the experience. The Rasta just lights a spliff and talks to the smoke. The artist often submerges himself creating a void for the pattern to fill ... then seeks to express whatever turns up.

I could go on but it's more fun if you find your own way to your own certainty.

Zam

[One Degree]

Not disregarding it ... You are the Rasta "I and I" ... your first - I - is your self awareness as an individual that relates to your 70 years experience. Your second - I - is your subconscious (in most cases) connection to certainty. You, like everything else contained in the pattern (our universe,) are an integral part. Anything you want to know is readily available to you, if your brain is able to comprehend.

Many brains need some sort of ritual to explain, and substantiate the experience. The Rasta just lights a spliff and talks to the smoke. The artist often submerges himself creating a void for the pattern to fill ... then seeks to express whatever turns up.

I could go on but it's more fun if you find your own way to your own certainty.

Zam

Even though I have read very little on the religion, it sounds very close to what I believe.
I wonder how long before we figure out how to increase the bandwidth between our subconscious and conscious? That will be something. Will it turn us all into geniuses or madmen?

[Besoeker]

No, it does not require that god be capable of controlling creation.

Or anything. There is a simpler explanation.

[Zamuel]

Even though I have read very little on the religion, it sounds very close to what I believe. I wonder how long before we figure out how to increase the bandwidth between our subconscious and conscious? That will be something. Will it turn us all into geniuses or madmen?

It may be happening right now, with the current generation (teens) if nothing else they are moving towards their epiphany. I think the last raise in general consciousness was the counter culture that flourished during the 60s-70s. It's precursor was the "beat" generation. WWII also qualifies, I think.

Genius and madness are both part of the pattern... they are buoys that mark the channel.

Zam

[annatar1914]

My explanation is simpler: god is not omniscient.

''Simpler'' isn't more logical, it just avoids thinking about it. The ''God'' Who isn't Omniscient isn't God at all.

[Verv]

Yeah, I don’t buy it.

If god knows exactly what I will do in the future and there is no possibility that god is wrong, then my future is pre-ordained, free will is an illusion, and a whole bunch of quantum physics is wrong.

Could you explain how that would mean why Quantum physics is wrong.

I have never heard that Quantum Physics totally affirms free will or something.

[Pants-of-dog]

''Simpler'' isn't more logical, it just avoids thinking about it. The ''God'' Who isn't Omniscient isn't God at all.

Simpler is not necessarily more logical, but in this case, it is.

Yes, many people who believe in the Platonic/Aquinas model of God as a perfectly omniscient, omnipotent, omni-everything being deny the possibility that god is not omni-everything.

That does not mean that god is omniscient, omnipotent, etc.

———————————

Could you explain how that would mean why Quantum physics is wrong.

I have never heard that Quantum Physics totally affirms free will or something.

Quantum physics disproves the deterministic model of the universe.

[annatar1914]

POD, you said;

Simpler is not necessarily more logical, but in this case, it is.

Hardly, you haven't even shown how that could be the case...

Yes, many people who believe in the Platonic/Aquinas model of God as a perfectly omniscient, omnipotent, omni-everything being deny the possibility that god is not omni-everything.

They don't get it from Aquinas or Plato, but from what God Himself says of Himself in Scripture and the teachings passed down through the Apostles.

That does not mean that god is omniscient, omnipotent, etc.

As I said, you haven't shown that.

Quantum physics disproves the deterministic model of the universe.

Something that itself has not been proven beyond a theory is hardly something that has the capacity to disprove something else.

[Pants-of-dog]

POD, you said;

Hardly, you haven't even shown how that could be the case...

Again, omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

Free will exists.

Therefore omniscience does not.

They don't get it from Aquinas or Plato, but from what God Himself says of Himself in Scripture and the teachings passed down through the Apostles.

The Bible on god’s omniscience:

And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord, amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Genesis 3:8-9

Look, people can hide from god!

Genesis 18 has a similar tale, where god visits Abraham, and Abraham had to tell god where Sarah was.

Or when god has to actually visit Sodom in order to see what is going on there:

And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and, if not, I will know.
Genesis 18:20-21

Or the famous passage where he tests Abraham. Because omniscient gods need to do that. Or when he asks Jacob his name after wrestling with him.

And this is just the book of Genesis.

As I said, you haven't shown that.

I have to show that things are not necessarily true just because some people believe them?

Something that itself has not been proven beyond a theory is hardly something that has the capacity to disprove something else.

If you want to believe that the universe is deterministic, go ahead.

I do not really care about your religious beliefs. If you want to believe mine are wrong, go ahead.

[annatar1914]

Again, omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

You're right, in a qualified sense. I guess you didn't read where I said I was a Compatibilist-Determinist. People are moved to will what they will, but in their willing, they do so freely, without resistance.

Free will exists.

Does it? Remains to be proven. I believe that ''free will'' is a quality that strictly speaking belongs to God alone. What we can have is a certain freedom from external compulsion, but inside, our wills ultimately are drawn to material desires, fears, and pleasures, to love of created things, unless we are moved from within to will and to love the Uncreated. Our intellects follow our wills and rationalize ''reasons'' for wanting this or that, or not wanting this or that, and this gives us the illusion that we ourselves are as gods.

Therefore omniscience does not.

Not so.

And I won't comment on dime store skepticism. As a parent to a child, I frequently use figures of speech to accomodate my children in their relative lack of understanding.

If you want to believe that the universe is deterministic, go ahead.

I do not really care about your religious beliefs. If you want to believe mine are wrong, go ahead.

What I care about is that while you are entitled to your opinions, you aren't entitled to your own facts. I remember watching you for years now, and people similar to your style of ''debate'' are such tiresome sophists that it's hardly worth the effort to talk to you, as you don't engage anyone in good faith to begin with.

Carry on, you'll figure it out eventually one way or another. No need to reply, it would be a waste of our time.

[Besoeker]

They don't get it from Aquinas or Plato, but from what God Himself says of Himself in Scripture

When did god himself actually say anything?

[Rancid]

Quantum physics disproves the deterministic model of the universe.

Indeed, but I have faith that we will eventually complete our understanding of Quantum Physics in such a way that will prove the Universe is indeed deterministic!!

Call it a kind of faith in determinism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Do tell. You're the one who posited fallacious assumptions.

No, I pointed out the fallacies involved in scientific reasoning.

You have now mentioned "fallacious assumptions" that I have allegedly made.

Do tell, what fallacies were involved in my reasoning?

Thanks.

There actually exists a method of finding the true inductive inference from a finite set of observations in a finite amount of time. By the true inductive inference, I mean one that is guaranteed to not be contradicted by any further observations.

I am highly skeptical of this claim, the problem with induction has been that to attribute logical certainty to such a method would require a knowledge of all possible outcomes in connection to all antecedent events.

One simply lists all possible statements from shortest to longest and goes through them one by one checking for consistency with each element in the set of observations as it comes in.

Would this require a knowledge of "all possible statements?"

This guarantees that the correct explanation of the observations will be found eventually provided that it exists.

This argument basically confirms the critique made by Berkeley and Hume on the matter, that inductive inferences require a infinite knowledge of all possibilities in order for such to obtain with any level of certainty that could approximate a deductive inference in propositional logic.

That is the whole point. The only being that could make inductive inferences with a deductive-level of certainty, would be God.

I can't wait to hear this argument.

Ah yes, sarcasm with a touch of cynical presumption. The preferred cocktail of the incorrigible skeptic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@annatar1914,

As an Augustinian Monergist, I too would define myself as a compatibilist-determinist regarding Divine providence and its relation to the human will (which is itself bound to its own sinful disposition). This is the position of the Immaterialists as well.