'Free Will' Is Inherently Polytheistic

[jonathan180iq]

So you make a statement, " 'Free Will' Is Inherently Polytheistic" and don't even know what you're talking about. Gotcha.

.

He's equating the elevation of self to the worship of deity. Adding a self-derived deity to the equation makes even the monotheistic view include more than one god. Thus, it's polytheistic.

(I think)

 

[Perditus]

Free Will Is Inherently Polytheistic

There is no such thing as free will and religion doesn't enter into it. There is no such thing as coincidence either.

Shakespeare nailed it -

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts . . .

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

This assumes that deciding is possible. And to do that, to decide, to choose among options, one must already posit free will. In effect you would be saying that the freedom do decide must be free, which is kind of a tautology

Its an observation of the thinking process, not an argument from logic.
Whenever we try apply logical analysis to observations, it appears as tautology.

Why? Just because everything that happens, including our thoughts, is, in a sense, predetermine in no way insures we know them.

My point being, that IF they were totally predetermined we would not have decisions.
Consider a path that diverges in a fork.
We can always try and look a little bit further down each of the two paths,
but we never can see all the way down.
Somewhere we have to decide to stop looking down the two paths
and make a decision based on limited information as to which way to go.
We can always try and look a bit further down both.
Get binoculars, a telescope, or wait for someone else to come past.
We could procrastinate forever, the longer we wait, the more information we gather.

By analogy, we can always think about two options forever.
We are largely free to think or not to think.
But somewhere, we just decide to stop,
and we take a path.
We never have all the info, so we can never be 100% certain.

If we were 100% certain, we would have no decision,
we would be unfree.

 

[Skwim]

Its an observation of the thinking process, not an argument from logic.

But that's the problem with relying on observation rather than processing it through reason, it can be illogical and therefore false..

Whenever we try apply logical analysis to observations, it appears as tautology.

Not at all. At most it would be an equivalency.

My point being, that IF they were totally predetermined we would not have decisions.

Exactly!

Consider a path that diverges in a fork.
We can always try and look a little bit further down each of the two paths,
but we never can see all the way down.
Somewhere we have to decide to stop looking down the two paths
and make a decision based on limited information as to which way to go.

If there was such a thing as actually deciding (choosing), but there isn't. We have no say in what we do.

If we were 100% certain, we would have no decision,
we would be unfree.

And to be truly certain one would need to be almost omnipotent.


.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't think "everything" is intended to be disrespectful. I don't know what you intend, only what it seems like from what's been said. And regardless of what you intend or not, yeah, it's disrespectful to people to relabel them as something they don't identify as.



Thank you for clarifying that. Still a confused by your choice of words, though, as I see no reason not to simply call them "monotheists" without the commonly pejorative "self-proclaimed" in front of it.

That's what this entire 'debate' is about. I'm attacking proclamations that say 'Free Will' and Monotheism are compatible.

 

[Quintessence]

That's what this entire 'debate' is about. I'm attacking proclamations that say 'Free Will' and Monotheism are compatible.

That's fair, and framing it this way makes it a bit clearer what you were aiming to get at here. I think your argument follows, provided that the limitations of the argument are understood. In other words, while I think it is fair to say that from a certain point of view there is a conflict, it is equally fair to say that from a certain point of view there is not a conflict. It depends on the premises and assumptions that one is making, and particularly the type of monotheism we are talking about.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

But that's the problem with relying on observation rather than processing it through reason, it can be illogical and therefore false..

Observation is never illogical. Only theories about the claims can be illogical.
There are plenty of logical claims that are not real.

If there was such a thing as actually deciding (choosing), but there isn't. We have no say in what we do..

You merely say this is true, and make no logical claim as to why.

And to be truly certain one would need to be almost omnipotent.

Perhaps.
But, because we can often never know which of the two paths is certainly best,
our decision in these instances, is therefore not determined.

In some situations, we do know which path is better,
so in some instances our decisions are determined.

But how do we decide whether we have enough info to choose?
Do we choose when 51% certain, or 90%, or 99.9%?

That decision cannot be determined because it is only a choice of a probability.
If it were totally determined, we would always be 100% certain.

When we are 99.9% certain, we normally spend no time choosing to think.
But we CAN still choose to make that 99.9% into a 99.999%, if we choose.

And to be truly certain one would need to be almost omnipotent.

So if our actions were 100% determined, then we would be 100% omnipotent.
We would have 100% knowledge. But never do we observe 100% knowledge.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

'Free Will', as it pertains to any self-proclaimed monotheistic religion, describes a counter-intuitive worship of self, to the extent that individual desires become gods themselves, occasionally subverting each respective monotheistic God's intent.

What do you believe God's Intent to be?

 

[Sleeppy]

What do you believe God's Intent to be?

Insurmountable.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Insurmountable.

I can't argue with that. But what I meant was, what does God want us to do/will that we do?

 

[Sleeppy]

I can't argue with that. But what I meant was, what does God want us to do/will that we do?

Everything that is done.

We are witnesses and messengers of the reign of God; children of all-knowledge and power, nothing more.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Again, I largely agree with what you say here. I believe that when I exercise my free will I am doing what God wants me to do, whatever I wind up doing (because God wants me to exercise free will). So in that sense I can never subvert God's Will. Whatever I do, ultimately I serve God (whether I intend to or not).

 

[Willamena]

'Free Will', as it pertains to any self-proclaimed monotheistic religion, describes a counter-intuitive worship of self, to the extent that individual desires become gods themselves, occasionally subverting each respective monotheistic God's intent.

Free will is inherently monotheistic, because it is the god with a will that you surrender your will to that is going to stand in contrast to a free will, which is yours.

It's not about worship, but about will*.


*Well, technically, about ownership, but that's another discussion.

 

[Desert Snake]

'Free Will', as it pertains to any self-proclaimed monotheistic religion, describes a counter-intuitive worship of self, to the extent that individual desires become gods themselves, occasionally subverting each respective monotheistic God's intent.

If your premise is correct, then you have to have freewill.

Your argument contradicts it's own premise.

 

[Sleeppy]

If your premise is correct, then you have to have freewill.

Your argument contradicts it's own premise.

Seems that way. It's an 'if, then' question.

 

[Desert Snake]

Seems that way. It's an 'if, then' question.

Don;'t you think that the 'non-freewill'answer would be strange? And if theres no freewill, then who cares if someone is polytheistic?

 

[Sleeppy]

Free will is inherently monotheistic, because it is the god with a will that you surrender your will to that is going to stand in contrast to a free will, which is yours.

It's not about worship, but about will*.


*Well, technically, about ownership, but that's another discussion.

How does a Monotheist surrender anything to God? Both withholding, and giving to God, are blasphemies. They suggest that you are at times, God's adversary; that you engage in business with, and influence God's dealings and welfare.

Withholding power from any supposed, Supreme Power, is an untenable idea on it's face.

 

[Sleeppy]

Don;'t you think that the 'non-freewill'answer would be strange? And if theres no freewill, then who cares if someone is polytheistic?

Answer to what?

Everything, including emotional development, action, and reaction, are within Supreme, i.e. God's determination. That's less strange than the counterargument.

 

[Desert Snake]

Answer to what?

Everything, including emotional development, action, and reaction, are within Supreme, i.e. God's determination. That's less strange than the counterargument.

I guess we just disagree. But why would it matter if one were polytheistic, if that's just pre-determined anyway?

 

[Sleeppy]

I guess we just disagree. But why would it matter if one were polytheistic, if that's just pre-determined anyway?

Things don't lose value because they are determined.