The Futile Arguments Thread

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

Quite the contrary, this in fact suggests more on the line that God foresees and yet allows.  Case in point, sin/evil.  If God was "fixing the game" using "loaded dice", we wouldn't be discussing freewill at all, but instead living in a pseudo-utopia where everything seems of our choice, but when we are not allowed FULL freewill, we are then nothing but robots programmed to run a certain course.  In fact, He knows our course before we take it...however it remains our chosen course.  Could we choose otherwise?  Yes.  The choices are there and we ponder them all.  Our choice is not forced.

So once again, the premise that God's foreknowledge removes absolute freewill must be proven before the conclusion is made that there is no human freedom/freewill.

[BadPoison]

It seems there are two arguments.
The first states that because god knows your action doesn't mean that you didn't make a choice. Your choice is ultimately yours to make and god's knowledge doesn't take it away from you. In this argument free-will is simply defined as your ability to choose. You make an action and choose; therefore you have free-will.


The second argument says:
If god knows what choice I will make then I will be destined to make that choice. Ultimately the choice I make will be the one known to the god that knows. This argument must define free-will as more than just the ability to make a choice.


Incidentally, it's my opinion there is no god and there is no free-will.


Let's get this thread back on topic. Who here can prove god doesn't exist?  

[Stevil]

but when we are not allowed FULL freewill, we are then nothing but robots programmed to run a certain course

I am not sure how anyone can believe in FULL freewill.
I feel it must come down to a definition of FULL.

For me FULL freewill would imply that a person is objectively able to make any decision and has no external bias.
However it is blatently obvious to me that everyone has bias. If you put a pair of chicken's feet in front of a european they will screw up their face, if you put them in front of a Chinese they will lick their lips and pick up a pair of chopsticks. Put a potatoe in front of a Chinese and likely they will push it aside and demand some rice.

My mother believes it is bad luck to put new shoes on a table, I have no such superstition. Hence I have choice whilst my mother does not.

I don't have a superstition that suicide leads to hell, yet Christians do, hence I can choose Euthanasia yet a Christian cannot.

I can choose to run where as a person without legs cannot. However I cannot choose to float on a cloud as my physicallity limits my choices.

The Christian scriptures and teachings reduce the amount of free will that Christians have. One could surmise that these scriptures are contrary to God's plan as these are contrary to FULL freewill which seems to be God's desire.

Many, many things preprogram us and hence constrain our abilities to make decisions. Culture, traditions, religion, upbringing, laws, peers, schooling, parents, physical limitations, superstitions, scientific understandings the list goes on.

[defendor]

How does the foreknowledge of Free will disqualify free will?

Bad Poison- Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?"

By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This would mean that whatever the strongest impulse in us is we ought to follow it. The problem with this is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. Morality is more than just our physical nature. It seems absurdly false that the sermon on the mount came from primordial ooze. You cannot get something like morality from something like nature, herd instinct, or evolution.

Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention?

We often learn morality through social convention, but that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We learn things also like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. It is strange that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality, but not individuals. It is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, this would also lead to other problems like all societies being morally equal (hence Nazi society is as equally moral as Mother Theresa), and moral progress within a society would be impossible to measure. How could we say society improved, if the standard is set by society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are evil, since they oppose what is acceptable according to social convention. Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention.

Is the Moral Law My Will Itself?

Some suppose that the moral law is something we must impose upon ourself. Many believe Immanuel Kant proposed morality in this function. Yet, this too cannot fully account for the nature of morality. This would make the one being held responsible to the rules as the same person giving the rules. It seems rather pointless to have morality on one's own terms. Why even bother with morality at all? Even if one puts tough restrictions on oneself, one can change them as it becomes convenient. It is like a jailor who locks himself in a cell, but keeps the key. The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law.

Could There Be No Moral Law?

Perhaps we have these moral intuitions, but they are all just our own fancy. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could just cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot just cast it off. Also, we cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. Ultimately this would lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa).

[AnimatedDirt]

but when we are not allowed FULL freewill, we are then nothing but robots programmed to run a certain course

I am not sure how anyone can believe in FULL freewill.
I feel it must come down to a definition of FULL.

For me FULL freewill would imply that a person is objectively able to make any decision and has no external bias.
However it is blatently obvious to me that everyone has bias. If you put a pair of chicken's feet in front of a european they will screw up their face, if you put them in front of a Chinese they will lick their lips and pick up a pair of chopsticks. Put a potatoe in front of a Chinese and likely they will push it aside and demand some rice.

My mother believes it is bad luck to put new shoes on a table, I have no such superstition. Hence I have choice whilst my mother does not.

I don't have a superstition that suicide leads to hell, yet Christians do, hence I can choose Euthanasia yet a Christian cannot.

I can choose to run where as a person without legs cannot. However I cannot choose to float on a cloud as my physicallity limits my choices.

The simple fact remains.  Your mother CAN put shoes on a table.  The fact that she chooses not to does not remove the fact that she can.

Legs vs no legs.  You can run...and a person with no legs, given prosthetic legs CAN also run.

Floating on a cloud?  You are correct.  Our physical nature does not allow us to do "anything" we want.

I disagree with most Christianity...all suicide does not lead to "hell"...I digress.

The Christian scriptures and teachings reduce the amount of free will that Christians have. One could surmise that these scriptures are contrary to God's plan as these are contrary to FULL freewill which seems to be God's desire.

All are free to do as they please.  All are free to choose Evil over Good.  The problem comes when the natural consequences of choosing Evil over Good are realized.  Leave your finger long enough over a flame and you will burn and experience pain.  It's a fact of fire.  Choosing Evil over Good doesn't come without all that comes with Evil.  We are warned of the "limitations" Evil brings and likewise the limitation believing God, but not kept from choosing and acting on our choices.

Many, many things preprogram us and hence constrain our abilities to make decisions. Culture, traditions, religion, upbringing, laws, peers, schooling, parents, physical limitations, superstitions, scientific understandings the list goes on.

Yes, however none of these FORCE our choice.  Holding to a culture, tradition, religion, law...directs our choice, but we always retain the full ability to choose otherwise.

[Stevil]

If God was "fixing the game" using "loaded dice", we wouldn't be discussing freewill at all, but instead living in a pseudo-utopia where everything seems of our choice, but when we are not allowed FULL freewill, we are then nothing but robots programmed to run a certain course.

This is exactly the case that alot of people here are assuming it to be.
We are assuming that if a thing such as GOD knows the outcome then that thing will create the world in a way that acheives its desired outcome, hence GOD is playing all the cards, we are simply following a script. The big assumption here is that GOD wants some of us to make the right choices and wants some of us to make the wrong choices and is playing the cards accordingly.

My question is if God know how everything will play out ahead of time then why bother with our time on earth. Once God makes a soul, god already knows the choices that soul will make, God can instantly know if that sould is good or a reject and then throw the rejects out without having to wait for them to actually make the mistakes that god already knows they will make.

Another question, why does god make reject souls, seems that god is not perfect. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.

So once again, the premise that God's foreknowledge removes absolute freewill must be proven before the conclusion is made that there is no human freedom/freewill.

Ahhh, the burdon of proof, where does it lie? God forbid we need to prove that there is free will, Let's just assert such a stance and then state that the contrary "must be proven"

[Stevil]

The simple fact remains.  Your mother CAN put shoes on a table.  The fact that she chooses not to does not remove the fact that she can.

So we come down to definitions of can and can't.
My mother is simply incapable of making a decision of putting new shoes on a table. She cannot make this decision, her superstition excludes this decision, her decisiton is predestined.

[defendor]

How does the foreknowledge of Free Will, violate the principles of Free Will?  

To an extent, don't you foreknow the decisions you're going to make.  So if you have free will, and you know what you're going to do with that free will, doesn't that mean you don't have free will according to this logic?

[Stevil]

Many, many things preprogram us and hence constrain our abilities to make decisions. Culture, traditions, religion, upbringing, laws, peers, schooling, parents, physical limitations, superstitions, scientific understandings the list goes on.

Yes, however none of these FORCE our choice.  Holding to a culture, tradition, religion, law...directs our choice, but we always retain the full ability to choose otherwise.

No, a simple look at statistics pertaining to choices made will prove you wrong, people are making choices based on the situation they are in. Choices are not freely made, there is no FREE will. Essentially, we are predictible as if we were programmed robots.

[Tank]

Let's do a little test on free will shall we.

I am going to set you all a little task, it is uncomfortable, bordering on painful, you don't have to do it, but if you don't then I will consider you a wuss.

Take a small bowl of wet ice cubes and a towel. Place the towel on the table and place either hand palm down on the towel. Take an ice cube in the other hand and circle it around on the back of the hand on the towel. Continue until you can not stand the discomfort using multiple ice cubes if needed.

Answer one of the following questions:

1) If you didn't take the test why didn't you?
2) If you did take the test why did you?
3) If you did take the test why did you stop when you did?

Now that I have planted this idea in your mind what are you going to do?
Which element of your behaviour constitutes, or not, you exercising free will?

[AnimatedDirt]

This is exactly the case that alot of people here are assuming it to be.
We are assuming that if a thing such as GOD knows the outcome then that thing will create the world in a way that acheives its desired outcome,

His desired outcome is that He gain His created being's love by their own freewill choice.  That is His desired outcome.  The only way to get true love is to create a being that is capable of choosing.  The risk, then, is that some will choose not to.

hence GOD is playing all the cards, we are simply following a script. The big assumption here is that GOD wants some of us to make the right choices and wants some of us to make the wrong choices and is playing the cards accordingly.

Not at all correct.  God died that ALL may choose Him.  The fact that He knows not all will choose does not take away the point that ALL CAN by their own choice.

My question is if God know how everything will play out ahead of time then why bother with our time on earth. Once God makes a soul, god already knows the choices that soul will make, God can instantly know if that sould is good or a reject and then throw the rejects out without having to wait for them to actually make the mistakes that god already knows they will make.

And you would agree with this?  He created us (forgive me for making a point on an assumption by your reckoning) with the ability to choose and the ability to procreate.  You're saying it would be better to smite all newborns in the womb because they will not choose Him?  Seems a bit harsh and dictatorish, doesn't it?  How would this JUDGE, then, rightly show that they CHOSE against God?  Remember, God is Love...and JUDGE (among other traits)  He must be fair.  To smite the soul before it actually makes the choice is not fair.  Just because HE KNOWS their choice, doesn't mean He should act on it before it is seen to be so.

Another question, why does god make reject souls, seems that god is not perfect. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.

God doesn't create "reject" souls.  The first two were created perfect.  Without Sin/Evil.  They chose Evil and thus they and their offspring were tainted.  It is Evil that makes the perfect imperfect.

So once again, the premise that God's foreknowledge removes absolute freewill must be proven before the conclusion is made that there is no human freedom/freewill.

Ahhh, the burdon of proof where does it lie? God forbid we need to proof that there is free will, Let's just assert such a stance and then state that the contrary "must be proven"

You don't need to prove there is freewill...the premise needs to be proven prior to the conclusion, else the conclusion is not proven.

The Premise is;

• 1.  God knows, before we are born, everything we will do.  (Diving Foreknowledge)
• 2.  If God knows, before we are born, everything we will do, then it is never in our power to do otherwise.  (Premise)
• 3.  If it is never in our power to do otherwise, then there is no human freedom.  (Doctrine of Freewill)
• 4.  Therefore there is no human freedom.  (Conclusion)

Point number 2 must be proven for 3 to be true and 4 to stand.

[Davin]

The simple fact remains.  Your mother CAN put shoes on a table.  The fact that she chooses not to does not remove the fact that she can.

Can she if god knew beforehand that she didn't?

[defendor]

Let's do a little test on free will shall we.

I am going to set you all a little task, it is uncomfortable, bordering on painful, you don't have to do it, but if you don't then I will consider you a wuss.

Take a small bowl of wet ice cubes and a towel. Place the towel on the table and place either hand palm down on the towel. Take an ice cube in the other hand and circle it around on the back of the hand on the towel. Continue until you can not stand the discomfort using multiple ice cubes if needed.

Answer one of the following questions:

1) If you didn't take the test why didn't you?
2) If you did take the test why did you?
3) If you did take the test why did you stop when you did?

Now that I have planted this idea in your mind what are you going to do?
Which element of your behaviour constitutes, or not, you exercising free will?

All of them require free will.  But also, I would have to think before hand what I am going to do, before I do it, do I not?  I couldn't take the test if I didn't want to, or I would take the test because I wanted to, or I would stop the test at a certain time because I wanted to (although this decision may have been influenced or compelling).  So I would have to make the decision before I acted out on it right?  So if I knew what I was going to do before I did it, then by the logic supposed,that the foreknowledge of Free Will disqualifies Free will, I don't have free will.

[Tank]

Duplicate post.

[Tank]

Let's do a little test on free will shall we.

I am going to set you all a little task, it is uncomfortable, bordering on painful, you don't have to do it, but if you don't then I will consider you a wuss.

Take a small bowl of wet ice cubes and a towel. Place the towel on the table and place either hand palm down on the towel. Take an ice cube in the other hand and circle it around on the back of the hand on the towel. Continue until you can not stand the discomfort using multiple ice cubes if needed.

Answer one of the following questions:

1) If you didn't take the test why didn't you?
2) If you did take the test why did you?
3) If you did take the test why did you stop when you did?

Now that I have planted this idea in your mind what are you going to do?
Which element of your behaviour constitutes, or not, you exercising free will?

All of them require free will.  But also, I would have to think before hand what I am going to do, before I do it, do I not?  I couldn't take the test if I didn't want to, or I would take the test because I wanted to, or I would stop the test at a certain time because I wanted to (although this decision may have been influenced or compelling).  So I would have to make the decision before I acted out on it right?  So if I knew what I was going to do before I did it, then by the logic supposed,that the foreknowledge of Free Will disqualifies Free will, I don't have free will.

So are you going to take the test or not?