The Futile Arguments Thread

[Whitney]

But if I am unable to choose otherwise it was never a choice...it doesn't matter that I don't want to do otherwise; it matters whether I have the freedom to.

[AnimatedDirt]

But if I am unable to choose otherwise it was never a choice...it doesn't matter that I don't want to do otherwise; it matters whether I have the freedom to.

You must prove, however, that your choice was really not your choice.  If YOU chose Cheerios over everything else, it remains YOUR choice.  It's not that you're "unable" to choose otherwise, it's that you didn't choose otherwise.  You could have, but you didn't.

Can the portions of this thread dealing with freewill be cut and put into its own thread discussing Freewill?

[Tokage]

[/quote]
If He is God, He cannot be wrong.
If He knows you will have a bagel or not DOES NOT REMOVE THE FACT THAT THE BAGEL WAS YOUR CHOICE!
[/quote]

I rest my freaking case. Finally I get a straight answer.
You have just admitted that your God cannot be wrong about what he forsee's. If you are too primitive to figure out that this means that you can not do anything but what he see's, thus removing your free will, then I can't help you.

[AnimatedDirt]

I rest my freaking case. Finally I get a straight answer.
You have just admitted that your God cannot be wrong about what he forsee's. If you are too primitive to figure out that this means that you can not do anything but what he see's, thus removing your free will, then I can't help you.

It does nothing of the sort.  It simply means God knows our choice(s).  It doesn't mean God forces our choice(s).

Your freaking case, is based on a false premise.  If you can't see THAT...then I can't help you either.  It's quite a simple notion really.

BTW...that "straight answer" has been the basis of my point all along.

[Tokage]

I rest my freaking case. Finally I get a straight answer.
You have just admitted that your God cannot be wrong about what he forsee's. If you are too primitive to figure out that this means that you can not do anything but what he see's, thus removing your free will, then I can't help you.

It does nothing of the sort.  It simply means God knows our choice(s).  It doesn't mean God forces our choice(s).

Your freaking case, is based on a false premise.  If you can't see THAT...then I can't help you either.  It's quite simple.

Wow, this guy is really thick. I'm sorry about the condecending tone, but there's no other way to get through to you.

Let me try to help you out yet again, even though I've run the point into the ground but you're still missing it  

If God knows, what you will do, and he can't be wrong, you can not do anything but that.
If God knows, I will be hit by a car tomorrow, I can not do anything but be hit by a car tomorrow.
What is so difficult for you to understand? If God can not be wrong, we can not do anything but what he's seen.

You're making yourself look silly by continuing to miss the simple point where all trying to get across to you, Animated. You can not do anything but what God has already seen, thus you are restricted to what he has seen. How in the world can you make a choice, if you are only doing what God has seen? That's not a choice.

This kind of lack of critical thinking skills is really hard to understand. It's such a simple concept. You continue to miss the point that God cannot be wrong as you've already admitted, and with a system like that you can only do what has been foreseen, nothing else.
This is kind of funny though.

[Whitney]

But if I am unable to choose otherwise it was never a choice...it doesn't matter that I don't want to do otherwise; it matters whether I have the freedom to.

You must prove, however, that your choice was really not your choice.  If YOU chose Cheerios over everything else, it remains YOUR choice.  It's not that you're "unable" to choose otherwise, it's that you didn't choose otherwise.  You could have, but you didn't.

Yes...and I partially agree...but that can only be the case if God's Foreknowledge does not prevent my choice.  If God knows what I'm going to do before I do it I can't do otherwise when the time comes as it would make God a liar.  So where does free choice come into play when god knows what I will do before I do it?

Can the portions of this thread dealing with freewill be cut and put into its own thread discussing Freewill?

Yes, I'll have to go figure out where and what to split.

[Whitney]

Wow, this guy is really thick. I'm sorry about the condecending tone, but there's no other way to get through to you.

I don't see how a change of tone is going to magically make someone change their mind...please refrain from comments like the above in the future.

[AnimatedDirt]

If God knows, what you will do, and he can't be wrong, you can not do anything but that.
If God knows, I will be hit by a car tomorrow, I can not do anything but be hit by a car tomorrow.
What is so difficult for you to understand? If God can not be wrong, we can not do anything but what he's seen.

His knowledge does not force your choice(s).  It simply makes your choice(s) known.

You're making yourself look silly by continuing to miss the simple point where all trying to get across to you, Animated. You can not do anything but what God has already seen, thus you are restricted to what he has seen. How in the world can you make a choice, if you are only doing what God has seen? That's not a choice.

What God has seen is what I HAVE CHOSEN TO DO.  Simple.  It is my choice(s) that God sees.

This kind of lack of critical thinking skills is really hard to understand. It's such a simple concept. You continue to miss the point that God cannot be wrong as you've already admitted, and with a system like that you can only do what has been foreseen, nothing else.
This is kind of funny though.

What's funny is that you can't see that simply knowing the choice doesn't force the choice.  His foreknowledge is not wrong, because He knows what you will choose.  It's more a lack of critical thinking on your part.

Prove the premise rather than simply stating it.  Prove that knowledge forces choice.

[AnimatedDirt]

So where does free choice come into play when god knows what I will do before I do it?

Free choice comes in that you have chosen.  God simply knows what you will choose.  He has not, by His knowledge, forced your choice.
If this be the point, then one must prove that knowledge forces choice.

[LegendarySandwich]

If there is no moral law, there is no evil.  If there is truly no evil, then you cannot disclaim God on moral boundaries.

You sound like a broken record.

But now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.

What you have done here, like you have done many times before, is simply asserted some word salad concerning abstract concepts such as morality and free will and then claimed that without God, X could not be.

I have morals because I do. It's that simple.

So you value people enough to set a moral standard, but yet you can't claim why you value people as a whole.

I value people as a whole because I do.

[defendor]

I have morals because I do. It's that simple.

I believe in God because I do. Why is that good enough for you but not good enough for people that believe in a God?

This doesn't answer why for either of us.  Why do you have morals?  

On the question of foreknowledge and free will- You say that foreknowledge discredits free will.  How?

[BadPoison]

I'm just going to jump in here, I hope no one minds...

I have morals because I do. It's that simple.

I believe in God because I do. Why is that good enough for you but not good enough for people that believe in a God?

It may be good enough for him personally, and it may be good enough for a believer. I don't have a problem with that as long as it doesn't affect my life for the worse.

This doesn't answer why for either of us.  Why do you have morals?  

Agreed, it doesn't answer anything as far as explaining one's stance on a subject, and as far as justifying a position to one's self it seems borish and lacking of forethought. I believe there should be solid, definable reasons why one believes in god, and also why one chooses to have morals. Having faith for faith's sake or being good for goodness sake sounds silly.

To me morality means behaving in a way that minimizes suffering and hardship on others. Ask me why that's important to me and why I'm not simply just concerned with my own wellbeing. The simple answer is that I believe being kind, courteous, and helpful to others promotes a better world to live in. It feels good to do good.

There's probably a biological reason the majority of people feel a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment when being altruistic. It's not hard to see why natural selection would take this trait and shape stronger cultures rewarding groups that help each other.It's easier for a group to pass on its genes to the next generation when the group works together. Groups that have individuals that feel some sort of pleasure or satisfaction in being altruistic are more likely to exhibit this behavior and survive, ect.

None of those possible biological reasons or social evolution matter so much today since we've evolved to a point where we are able to think intellectually and override any of our previous dispositions. We're now capable of reason and rational thought., Thankfully because of this other 'instincts' that may have served our species in the past can now be discarded. Our propensity to dehumanize outside groups, go to war because of our fear of what's different, is one of these things. Our species now has all the tools needed to move beyond this.

So why am I 'moral' today? It goes back to the desire to move our species forward. That making decisions that make life easier on others makes your own life easier. There is so much to be experienced in life, and each day is an opportunity. We're only here for such a fraction of the life of our universe, yet around every corner is another surprise. My life has been pretty great - the tragedy is knowing that for others it hasn't been. The small agonies and pain I've experienced is enough to know it's only humane to try to lesson the anguish of other's. All it takes is the realization that your fellow human's capacity to be happy is equal to your own, as is their capacity to suffer.

[Stevil]

So where does free choice come into play when god knows what I will do before I do it?

Free choice comes in that you have chosen.  God simply knows what you will choose.  He has not, by His knowledge, forced your choice.
If this be the point, then one must prove that knowledge forces choice.

This argument is quite amusing, because I know that each person involved can see both sides. But each of you has choosen your outcome and are going down a path which suits your outcome and simply ignoring the other side of the argument.

I liken this God knows everything before anything happens thing to Visualisation.

When I am underpressure, say , at a pool tournament, I often find myself using visualisation. I play my shots mentally several times before I take the shot for real. Visualising I can easily see the errors in my aim, I can see where the ball goes and how far off I am. If my will bends the ball into the right spot then also being the audience of my mental shot I can see that I have changed the laws of physics for my shot to go in. Thus i know that it is not a valid shot. I essentially know what is going to happen before it happens. However, having a level of intelligence and a will for a desired outcome, I adjust my shot, in a way that is beneficial and much more likely for me to win.

If I was perfect at this, like some suggest the Christian God is then I would know the outcome of everything at the point that I made any decision and action. e.g. the creation of the Universe and the creation of the laws of physics and the creation of life. At any of these key points where I (as God) intervened I could foresee all outcomes for all eternity and hence I would know perfectly well, exactly how to make my move. My move would be perfect and the result would be exactly as I knew it would be given the actions that I had taken. Although people are making choices, I know exactly what they will choose given the environment and situation that they are in. I could alter this by making different interventions at the point that I created the universe and in essence I am in control of the outcome although the person believes they have free will and are making a personal choice.

The game is fixed, the dices are loaded and the cards are stacked. I've made my move and for the next 14 billion years I know exactly how it will play out. It is a great thing that I am transient to time otherwise those 14 billion years would be incredibly boring.

This could be termed the illusion of free will. Although even without a god there is also the possibility of illusion of free will.

[LegendarySandwich]

It may be good enough for him personally, and it may be good enough for a believer. I don't have a problem with that as long as it doesn't affect my life for the worse.

Yep.

Agreed, it doesn't answer anything as far as explaining one's stance on a subject, and as far as justifying a position to one's self it seems borish and lacking of forethought. I believe there should be solid, definable reasons why one believes in god, and also why one chooses to have morals. Having faith for faith's sake or being good for goodness sake sounds silly.

When it comes down to the fundamental level, sometimes the only reason to be good is for goodness sake. I could give a lot of justifications and explanations of my reasoning behind my own moral code, and I do, but, ultimately, the only real justification can be "I want to".

Really, what I'm trying to say here is that there needs to be major underlying assumptions that can only be justified with opinion beneath any and all morals.

To me morality means behaving in a way that minimizes suffering and hardship on others. Ask me why that's important to me and why I'm not simply just concerned with my own wellbeing. The simple answer is that I believe being kind, courteous, and helpful to others promotes a better world to live in. It feels good to do good.

So, you do it because you want to -- which is what I'm saying.

There's probably a biological reason the majority of people feel a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment when being altruistic. It's not hard to see why natural selection would take this trait and shape stronger cultures rewarding groups that help each other.It's easier for a group to pass on its genes to the next generation when the group works together. Groups that have individuals that feel some sort of pleasure or satisfaction in being altruistic are more likely to exhibit this behavior and survive, ect.

None of those possible biological reasons or social evolution matter so much today since we've evolved to a point where we are able to think intellectually and override any of our previous dispositions. We're now capable of reason and rational thought., Thankfully because of this other 'instincts' that may have served our species in the past can now be discarded. Our propensity to dehumanize outside groups, go to war because of our fear of what's different, is one of these things. Our species now has all the tools needed to move beyond this.

So why am I 'moral' today? It goes back to the desire to move our species forward. That making decisions that make life easier on others makes your own life easier. There is so much to be experienced in life, and each day is an opportunity. We're only here for such a fraction of the life of our universe, yet around every corner is another surprise. My life has been pretty great - the tragedy is knowing that for others it hasn't been. The small agonies and pain I've experienced is enough to know it's only humane to try to lesson the anguish of other's. All it takes is the realization that your fellow human's capacity to be happy is equal to your own, as is their capacity to suffer.

I agree.

[LegendarySandwich]

I have morals because I do. It's that simple.

I believe in God because I do. Why is that good enough for you but not good enough for people that believe in a God?

This doesn't answer why for either of us.  Why do you have morals?  

On the question of foreknowledge and free will- You say that foreknowledge discredits free will.  How?

Let me ask you, Defendor -- why do you believe in God?