...and now for something completely different: Free Will!

[ppp]

The impetus is the mind.
The mind controls the body. The mind is the source of our choices.

It controls some of the body.. But even if it controlled all of the body, that would still be ability, not impetus to any given action.

 

[ppp]

The impetus is the mind.
The mind controls the body. The mind is the source of our choices.

It occurs to me belatedly, that we may be using impetus in two different ways. When I say impetus to action I am speaking of the motivation to a given action, not the mechanics. The reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way. If I was unclear, I apologize.

 

[stvdv]

Of course. In these philosophical definitions God and spirituality etc are missing in logical reasoning. But I am just saying its basically the same thing. The word spiritual and God is absent. And even in the inverse, with out taking the bottom up approach to definitions, it is still true.

I do think that is true, that we can do without "God" and "Spirituality", but it's usually much harder for people to work hard to get to the point of Self Realization (let go of all attachments), in which there is Free Will, as one is no longer chained to the wheel of Karma (past actions influencing us), hence one is really free, hence Free Will. But Self Effort, purifying from all attachments is essential to claim "I have Free Will"

If attachments increase one is never free, hence no Free Will
Buddha meditated and reached that state of freedom
If there is "no mind" then there is Free Will

@Policy did start a very interesting topic

Thank you for all your feedback, you got me get up, and think a bit deeper with all these terms. And I got myself reminded the importance and power of Self Effort. I like the term Self Effort, as it is very practical, urging us to purifiy our thoughts, words and deeds, and from there difficult concepts suddenly become simple, without even have to study about it. I experienced this many times, hence I usually don't busy myself with philosophical questions like "Free Will, do we have it or not?". But it was nice for a change

 

[ppp]

Many atheists believe in determinism. Determinism is the thesis that "there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future". The principle of sufficient reason states that “a thing cannot come to existence without a cause which produces it. That for everything that happens there must be a reason which determines why it is thus and not otherwise".
The fixing of one aspect of the system fixes some other. Well, some scientists went as far as trying to prove that even our actions are determined and we have no free-will over it. Free-will is only a perspective, but our actions are determined. You see a bird on the road and you think you should stop your car and save it from getting smashed in to pieces. You slow down. You are late for work. You pick work over a life. It's determined based on you and a whole lot of causes that caused it's outcome which causes another outcome that ultimately determined your action. Your thoughts are within your mind and you made a decision, that's right, but that was determined and you only think that you made a decision based on your free-will.

That's determinism from an atheistic perspective.

I thought that was just determinism, period. Specifically hard determinism. How does that significantly differ from all of the various types of theists who are and were hard determinists over the course of human history?

 

[ppp]

I don't pee in the swimming pool - If you're not familiar with the clip, it shows a monsignor speaking about a woman who was assaulted and not a single onlooker did anything, complete with two "angels" kissing the feet of a statue of crucified Jesus.

I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to make a cogent point.

 

[ppp]

Again, this world is the test... not the reward. Suffering has to be possible here, or there would be no test.

Then your god both intentionally created and allows suffering. Which makes him a moral monster.
Calling it a test does not justify the immoral actions taken in administering the test.

 

[KWED]

god cannot make logical absurdities such as making 1 + 1 = 3 or drawing a squared circle.

So god is constrained by a force external to him (in this case, logic).
Therefore logic is "god".

out of love toward creation he made us,

But that makes no sense because before humanity existed, how could he love us? That's like saying "I built that house because living in it has so many memories for me". Nonsensical.

 

[KWED]

Knowing and causing are very different things.

Not in this case, because the knowledge of the outcome caused by your actions necessitates responsibility.
I can read my map in the forest at night by using the light of the moon, a torch, or setting fire to a newspaper. I know that the last option will cause a devastating forest fire while the first two won't. If I choose to light the newspaper, I have caused the fire. Ignoring the knowledge of the inevitable outcome is the same as deliberately causing it.

God created the best of all possible worlds.

So god couldn't create a world where babies don't die in agony from congenital conditions? Or are you claiming that if god had eliminated those specific cases, the world would have been a worse place?
You will have to explain your reasoning there.

So then, two options were available: God could have not created anyone, knowing many would do evil, or he could create anyway, on account of the good that would also happen.

The former is obviously the best option. It is clearly better (to anyone in their right mind) to have no children at all than two have two and torture one but pamper the other. You are simply invoking the Jimmy Savile defence - which is quite a disgusting position.

I for one am glad he chose to create us anyway.

I'm sure the pampered child is quite happy. Not so sure about the one that is tortured on a daily basis. Still, religion is essentially all about self-interest so your attitude is not too surprising.

 

[Willamena]

Wait a minute. Are you saying that free will is just an attitude? A state of mind like optimism or enthusiasm?

No, I described the attitude of free will, as I might describe the attitude of optimism or enthusiasm.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So in your opinion there should only be one punishment action. Jaywalking and child murder both deserve the same penalty.
So which is it? A small fine for child murder, or death for jaywalking?

You still don't get it. It's not about what the penalty we decide on should be. That's just humans deciding the fine, and it's based usually on the amount of harm an action causes. But that's not how God determines what is good or evil.
In regards to what is offensive to God, you have to understand that he is perfect. There's no little sins. Eating a forbidden fruit doesn't seem that bad to us, because we measure by our own flawed system, but God looks at the heart and understands the motivation.

 

[ppp]

No, I described the attitude of free will, as I might describe the attitude of optimism or enthusiasm.

I am confused. You said, No. But then you seemed to agree with me. What am I missing?

 

[Balthazzar]

I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to make a cogent point.

I don't blame you - policy is ... I guess.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So god couldn't create a world where babies don't die in agony from congenital conditions? Or are you claiming that if god had eliminated those specific cases, the world would have been a worse place?
You will have to explain your reasoning there.

I'm saying we have the best possible world given the parameters God chose. He couldn't have created a more perfect world and still allowed for freedom of the will.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The former is obviously the best option. It is clearly better (to anyone in their right mind) to have no children at all than two have two and torture one but pamper the other. You are simply invoking the Jimmy Savile defence - which is quite a disgusting position.

I'm sure the pampered child is quite happy. Not so sure about the one that is tortured on a daily basis. Still, religion is essentially all about self-interest so your attitude is not too surprising.

You have a very myoptic view of reality then.
Suffering is the human condition. The fact that someone suffers more or less doesn't change the fact that all can experience eternal bliss.
In reality we don't even really know who suffers the most because one person can come through horrific experiences and take steps to recover while another can suffer less and choose to remain in his sadness.
You want to focus solely on children for some unknown reason. Well, if I had died at ten years of age I would have had an nearly perfect existence. I would have experienced very little grief or emotional stress. Should I wish for that? No, I don't think so, because life is a gift, even for the suffering.

We look around and we say " That horrible person! How evil he is to hurt others.".. usually when we have hurt others too, just in less obvious ways. If you want to do something about evil in the world, the only place to start is inside yourself, by giving God permission to work on your own evil. We all have that option.

 

[paradox]

So god is constrained by a force external to him (in this case, logic).
Therefore logic is "god".

lol, therefore stop saying god doesn't exist

But that makes no sense because before humanity existed, how could he love us? That's like saying "I built that house because living in it has so many memories for me". Nonsensical.

nice analogy, I'm sure your new god (logic) will answer this

 

[firedragon]

I do think that is true, that we can do without "God" and "Spirituality", but it's usually much harder for people to work hard to get to the point of Self Realization (let go of all attachments), in which there is Free Will, as one is no longer chained to the wheel of Karma (past actions influencing us), hence one is really free, hence Free Will. But Self Effort, purifying from all attachments is essential to claim "I have Free Will"

If attachments increase one is never free, hence no Free Will
Buddha meditated and reached that state of freedom
If there is "no mind" then there is Free Will

@Policy did start a very interesting topic

Thank you for all your feedback, you got me get up, and think a bit deeper with all these terms. And I got myself reminded the importance and power of Self Effort. I like the term Self Effort, as it is very practical, urging us to purifiy our thoughts, words and deeds, and from there difficult concepts suddenly become simple, without even have to study about it. I experienced this many times, hence I usually don't busy myself with philosophical questions like "Free Will, do we have it or not?". But it was nice for a change

I didn't mean we could do without God. I just said that Determinism, Free-will, etc are explained without God and Spirituality in them. I mean atheists are probably the biggest group of scholarship and science in the world at the moment who discuss this. Not that their model is correct.

Hope you understand.

But yes bro. It's a good topic. Naturalistically, it's a mind boggling topic. Leaned a lot.

 

[firedragon]

I thought that was just determinism, period. Specifically hard determinism. How does that significantly differ from all of the various types of theists who are and were hard determinists over the course of human history?

I think that was a reply to someone who asked what determinism is from atheist point of view.

 

[ppp]

I think that was a reply to someone who asked what determinism is from atheist point of view.

Fair enough. Though I tend to reject the claim that we have free will, as well as the claim that the universe is deterministic.

 

[stvdv]

I didn't mean we could do without God. I just said that Determinism, Free-will, etc are explained without God and Spirituality in them

Your previous post was clear to me, that you did not mean "we could do without God". My reply also was just to these concepts (Determinism, Free Will).

I mean atheists are probably the biggest group of scholarship and science in the world at the moment who discuss this.

Not that their model is correct.

God provides the perfect "existential riddles" to solve, keeping both Theists and Atheists intrigued, which is a miracle "an sich". When I start thinking about all the marvels in the universe, it just blows me away, I have no clue how and why all this, I just call it God or Consciousness. This Consciousness is amazing. I gave up understanding it with the mind, but it does leave me with a feeling of awe and wonder. Tiny ants, with even more tiny legs, running around, even at reasonable speed (compared to their size).

So much more advanced than the robots the scientists can make nowadays. How could their model about this ever be correct?

 

[firedragon]

Fair enough. Though I tend to reject the claim that we have free will, as well as the claim that the universe is deterministic.

See Policy. In this world, it could be that, you are on to the truth. I don't know. Just because the whole world cannot fathom what you have in mind does not mean you don't have something no scientist or philosopher has come up with. So put your model into words and justify it. Maybe one day it will be a new stream of thought. A new school of thought.