A conundrum of a question about free will

Symmetry is inherent in the nature of the universe. Opposites cannot exist without each other.
 
Not a single foundation in science?
Ever heard of supersymmetry? M-Theory? They're becoming the foundation of all science! I suggest you look them up before you continue further.
 
Ever considered that if there is just as much chaos as there is balance that would mean a 1:1 relationship - symmetrical. Does this means symmetry wins over chaos because there's a balance? How much chaos should there be for the balance to be broken, yet equilibrium be maintained? Or is symmetry just coincidences withing a larger chaos? Would that mean chaos leans towards symmetry, or vice versa?

If M-Theory and the theory of everything exists, then there will be people with the theory of nothing. Remember, the amount of subscribers to a theory isn't related to it's validity.
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena


My point was that god could give use freedom of choice and manipulate our environment so that all of us use that free choice to follow the path of good.

Then that wouldn’t be freedom of choice, can’t you see that?
Click to expand...

Then tell me. Why do so many christians believe otherwise?
If our environment has no affect on the choices we make then the work of priests is a waste of time. No matter what they say its not going to have any affect on anyone anyways.

Any and all christian pamphlets are also a waste. Since were going to end up the same no matter what is said to us or what we see or hear then those pamphlets are just a waste of paper.
As were all the prophets that ever were. Each one of them wasting there time in the name of god because no matter what they say or what miracles they show it will have no affect on the choices made by the people who see and here such things.

So answer me this
Why do preachers preach to the unconverted if nothing they ever say or do will change there choices?
As far as I know they honestly believe they are converting people.
But according to you those priests would then be taking away a persons free choice. That or there deluded.
 
Originally posted by Alpha
Not a single foundation in science?
Ever heard of supersymmetry? M-Theory? They're becoming the foundation of all science! I suggest you look them up before you continue further.

Supersymmetry is not proven. In fact, if it does exist it is a "broken" symmetry. The concept of duality can be quite useful but it does not play out to be the ultimate end you are suggesting.

One big problem with supersymmetry: in the particle physics that is observed in today's accelerators, every boson most definitely does NOT have a matching fermion with the same mass and charge. So if supersymmetry is a symmetry of Nature, it must somehow be broken. It's easy enough for an expert to construct a supersymmetric theory. It's breaking the symmetry, without destroying the beneficial effects of that symmetry, that has been the hardest part of the program to fulfill.
http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper4a.html
Click to expand...
http://physics.about.com/library/dict/bldefsupersymmetry.htm

~Raithere
 
Re: Re: A conundrum of a question about free will

*Originally posted by hobbes
I said it all in my first post. How could you have not seen it? *

I did see it.
Your initial questions were invalidated by specifying that you didn't want certain kinds of answers.

But I did discover one that you didn't invalidate...

*Why doesn't he just create the environment for each of us that we would need so that we can choose on our own the good path?*

He did.

*A omnipotent omniscient god would be able to make it so all people turn out good with 100% free will.*

That is a contradiction.
By doing that, he would be demonstrating that he was not able to make people who could choose evil.

*Only explanation left is that god isn't omnieverything.*

That is correct.

God is NOT omnipotent.
He cannot contradict his own nature.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
(Titus 1:2, KJV).

*Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
God alreadys knows which ones of us are going to hell and which ones to heaven*

To hell: everyone.
To heaven: after the first 1000 years, no one.

*Originally posted by hobbes
Id love to believe your pie in the sky head in the clouds christian platitudes.*

LOL!
JA isn't Christian.
JA is Hindu/Buddhist/New Age/random.

That's why they are platitudes.

*Semipoetic perhaps but without a single bit of foundation in either science or christianity. *

There is SOME foundation in Christianity.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

After all, a person is required to make a choice between two opposites, therefore the two opposites must exist.

*Originally posted by Raithere
The concept of duality can be quite useful but it does not play out to be the ultimate end you are suggesting.*

It would, if you consider that temporary/permanent is also a valid duality.
 
By doing that, he would be demonstrating that he was not able to make people who could choose evil.
Click to expand...

No it would mean god was unwilling to cause people to have a destiny of becoming evil(and by extension suffer from his wraith). What makes something a destiny is the destination. They became evil and in the scope of omniscients what you become you are destined to become even if you choice to become it.

*A omnipotent omniscient god would be able to make it so all people turn out good with 100% free will.*

That is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Ok now we get to the crux of the matter. Its not a contradiction.
You are a product of your environment. This is undeniable. That doesn't mean you dont have choice. It doesn't mean that at all. The control environment has over the choices you make and ones undeniable freedom to make there own choices are overlapping concepts not contradicting concepts

Think of world war two. Germans had some prejudice of jews but it wasn't all that bad. Thanks to the environment created by hitler this changed. Students and solders were taught that jews were a infestation. The reason for all life ill's. While I'm sure a handful refused to believe most did. & Think of the hard work of abolitionist's. Before they worked and sacrificed to force the change of environment people were beyond racists. They were slavers. But this changed when these brave people changed the environment of there fellows by there strong commitment to show how such hatred is bad and that "blacks" were really people.

Parents worry about there kids falling into the wrong crowd. Why? Because they know the negative environment that certain kids can create for there kid can lead them astray. & Preachers preach to unconverted with the strong belief that there actions will lead people to god. According to your argument there just deluded

Speaking of such you never answered this post at all

Originally posted by hobbes
Then tell me. Why do so many christians believe otherwise?
If our environment has no affect on the choices we make then the work of priests is a waste of time. No matter what they say its not going to have any affect on anyone anyways.

Any and all christian pamphlets are also a waste. Since were going to end up the same no matter what is said to us or what we see or hear then those pamphlets are just a waste of paper.
As were all the prophets that ever were. Each one of them wasting there time in the name of god because no matter what they say or what miracles they show it will have no affect on the choices made by the people who see and here such things.

So answer me this
Why do preachers preach to the unconverted if nothing they ever say or do will change there choices?
As far as I know they honestly believe they are converting people.
But according to you those priests would then be taking away a persons free choice. That or there deluded.
Click to expand...
 
Noone up to my challenge?

Environment influences the choices we make. It is still our choice. So Environment controlling our choices and the choices we make being ours to make are both 100%. Its not one or the other they overlap each other.


Originally posted by tony1
did see it.
Your initial questions were invalidated by specifying that you didn't want certain kinds of answers.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? All I specified is these questions were for those who thought there was at least a chance of a god existing.

If environment does not affect the choices we make then why do so many people try to convert people? Including priests who are supposed to know the most about god. If environment has no affect on peoples choices then you could never ever convert someone. sized extra large because i've asked this same question countless times (along with other ignored questions and points) and noones answered.

The only conclusion i see is that christians inherently realize like everyone else that environment really does affect our choices. But when faced with such a conundrum as I have expressed they deny this because it challenges there beliefs. And of course the more something challenges a chritians currently held beliefs the more indirect, offtopic, and/or nonresponsive they get. That many could never admit there wrong on such a central issue.
 
Last edited:
Hobbes, first of all, let me state that my modest knowledge is not capable to answer nor challenge what you put up in your first post. However, I would like to explore the issues that you brought up further and would appreciate it very much if you can bear with my questions.

By manipulating the environment, do you mean a manipulation that could produce only ONE result - that is the eventual choice of the good path?

Using the example of the cookies and kids. If there is no note, the kids may or may not take the cookies. If by leaving a note, is the manipulation (the nth degree if the reference is an omni being) such that it can only lead to one eventual outcome - the kids choose not to take any of the cookies?

The reason I ask this is that if the manipulation of environment is so well designed that it leaves no room for other results except the eventual choice of a good path, doesn't it mean that free will under this condition is not in its absolute form, but rather an illusion of free will?

My apologies if I did not get what you are asking right.
 
Originally posted by aseedrain
Hobbes, first of all, let me state that my modest knowledge is not capable to answer nor challenge what you put up in your first post. However, I would like to explore the issues that you brought up further and would appreciate it very much if you can bear with my questions.

By manipulating the environment, do you mean a manipulation that could produce only ONE result - that is the eventual choice of the good path?

Using the example of the cookies and kids. If there is no note, the kids may or may not take the cookies. If by leaving a note, is the manipulation (the nth degree if the reference is an omni being) such that it can only lead to one eventual outcome - the kids choose not to take any of the cookies?

The reason I ask this is that if the manipulation of environment is so well designed that it leaves no room for other results except the eventual choice of a good path, doesn't it mean that free will under this condition is not in its absolute form, but rather an illusion of free will?

My apologies if I did not get what you are asking right.
Click to expand...

Your questions are superb and cut right down to the heart of the matter.

If there is no note, the kids may or may not take the cookies.
Click to expand...

It would not be a maybe maybe not. A omniscient being would already know if the kid would take the cookie or not. In this case would take the cookies if no note. Would also know if a note was placed that the kid would choice not to take the cookies without any doubt(cause your omniscient). But even human parents can sometimes predict there kids actions with almost absolute certainty

let me ask you this.
Lets say you were god watching someone flip a coin. Since your god and omniscient you can calculate the force exerted on the coin. Where and how the force is exerted, wind and air density and all the other variables that make up whether a coin is a head or a tails. Does knowing the final outcome of the flip make the flip any less random?

Whos to say the illusion can't be real enough?

Environment as a whole does choose your choices. Do you think hitler would have been the same man making the choices he made if he grew up in a small town in in Canada with a loving but firm mother who taught him right from wrong?* In the end influence and choice are the same thing. If something influences you to make a different choice then you would have otherwise then in one sense it/he/she choice your actions. Thats not to say the choice wasn't yours as well.

Lets say you have a choice between staying in your home town or moving to newyork because of a job offer for more money then you get now. Your all set to go but your friend insists that newyork is a terrible place and convinces you to stay put. So you do. * It was your choice but it was also your friends choice to try to convince you to stay. Your friends words were a influence/environment factor and in a sense that influence/environment factor choose whether or not you moved to NY even though it was always your choice. Also by not moving to new york your probably going to be a different person in the end then if you had moved there.
_____________________

Same variables equals same out come. God can calculate all variables and know which ones will produce which outcome.
Given this god could choose the variables for you that he knows will cause you to choice to be a good person. This would not in any way negate your free choice just like knowing the outcome of the coin toss doesn't make it any less random.

Also if god doesn't choose which variables affect you (and by extension what chooses you make) then randomness chooses which variables affect you(and by extension what chooses you make)
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: A conundrum of a question about free will

Originally posted by tony1
It would, if you consider that temporary/permanent is also a valid duality.
Click to expand...
Sure. Why don't you give me an example of something... nay anything that is permanent.
To the best of human knowledge, the Universe itself as well as everything within are subject to change... even the laws of physics.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by hobbes
Lets say you were god watching someone flip a coin. Since your god and omniscient you can calculate the force exerted on the coin. Where and how the force is exerted, wind and air density and all the other variables that make up whether a coin is a head or a tails. Does knowing the final outcome of the flip make the flip any less random?
Click to expand...

Would you agree that a random outcome is not one that is programmed?

In the flip coin example, the omniscient being would manipulate the relevant variables (wind, air pressure etc) so that the final outcome of the coin flip is the desired outcome. To a non-omniscient being watching, it would appear that the coin flip is very much random. To the omniscient being, the final outcome is one that he programmed it to be, knowing well in advance the reaction of the coin towards the manipulation of variables.

Let's try to illustrate with another example. Take a puppet show, for example. But in this show, the puppets have no strings attached, therefore they are free to will themselve on stage (but not beyond, not backstage). The puppet master designed and constructed the stage such that no matter how the puppets will themselves, they can only end up choosing one path. Do you agree that the puppets in this case has 100% free will?

Do you think we should first define absolute free will within the context of this thread? Does absolute free will also include the possibility of making the wrong choice - despite the manipulation of environment? I think this has bearing on responsibility. Who is ultimately responsible for the final choice - the puppets or the puppet master.
 
John Milton: Free will. It's like butterfly
wings: once touched, they never get off the
ground. No, I only set the stage. You pull your
own strings. -The Devil's Advocate
 
In the flip coin example, the omniscient being would manipulate the relevant variables (wind, air pressure etc) so that the final outcome of the coin flip is the desired outcome. To a non-omniscient being watching, it would appear that the coin flip is very much random. To the omniscient being, the final outcome is one that he programmed it to be, knowing well in advance the reaction of the coin towards the manipulation of variables.
Click to expand...

Your distorting my analogy. I said to know what the outcome of the coin toss would be, not manipulate it. What makes something random and what makes something a choice are not the same thing. Randomness and choice have very different definitions and should not be confused.

Does absolute free will also include the possibility of making the wrong choice - despite the manipulation of environment?
Click to expand...

Only if god was capable of failure in anticipating outcome. In other words not omniscient.

Probability is only a issue for those not omniscient. There can only be one outcome with anything.
 
Last edited:
that no matter how the puppets will themselves,
Click to expand...

The variables of our environment control the choices we make but we still make those choices of our own accord. So it matters very much "how we will ourselves".

What makes it a loaded question is the fact that the analogy is of a puppet and a puppet master which implies a lack of choice before you even tell the analogy.

Who is ultimately responsible for the final choice - the puppets or the puppet master.
Click to expand...

Who bears the responsibility of a assassin. The person who did the killing or the person who paid him/her to kill?

The answer is they both do 100% Its not a one or the other thing.These concepts are not mutually exclusive and neither is the variables of our environment controlling our actions but us still having free choice.

If god doesn't control the variables that decide the choices we make then randomness does.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by hobbes
Who bears the responsibility of a assassin. The person who did the killing or the person who paid him/her to kill?
Click to expand...

**edited** - forget what I posted here earlier. It was irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Hobbes, I think I understand now what you are trying to put forward.

But I believe if an environment is manipulated in such a way it can only lead to ONE outcome, then free-will within this environment is not in its absolute form. Given this belief, it is unlikely that I will come to the conclusion that omniscience and 100% free-will is not mutually exclusive (I suppose this is where we disagree).

Does this by extension mean that I believe god is omniscient? No, I do not have any arguement to make any conclusion yet on that one.

Thank you anyway for answering my questions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top