Do You Believe In Free Will?
- Thread starter Dillinger
- Start date
MunchinMark
You int seen me, right?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Posts
- 6,148
No I don't believe in free will, except maybe as an excuse.
Fleshmachine
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2001
- Posts
- 678
I have free will. My destiny is entirely my own.
Svedish_Chef
On Walkabout
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2000
- Posts
- 9,942
Dillinger said:
Dill, the word have is just plain wrong.
I have free will, god I even use it. As for the choice, well I make one every day, and every time I use my free will.
However and interesting concept.
rambling man
Somewhat Deadly
- Joined
- May 16, 2001
- Posts
- 1,558
Our entire society is built on the premise of free will, especially the criminal justice system. If there is no free will, we are in deep shit.
TN_Vixen
Rear Window
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2000
- Posts
- 7,710
Dill
I think it is somewhere in between. I believe that I have the free will to make my own choices but I also believe those choices result in a pre-determined end.. that end can change based upon whatever choice I make at any given time, but the end-result of that choice is always predetermined.
Ex: I choose to fly to Miami. I get on the plane - the plane crashes. I choose to not fly to Miami, I don't get a tan, the plane still crashes but I'm not on it.
I think it is somewhere in between. I believe that I have the free will to make my own choices but I also believe those choices result in a pre-determined end.. that end can change based upon whatever choice I make at any given time, but the end-result of that choice is always predetermined.
Ex: I choose to fly to Miami. I get on the plane - the plane crashes. I choose to not fly to Miami, I don't get a tan, the plane still crashes but I'm not on it.
I await your flames
... in a rigidly controlled universe, is there any room for free or independant action on the part of a finite creature?
To allow man such a measure of self determination is something which only a great and omnipotent God would do.
Dr. Henry C. Thiessen declared: "Godd. . .can foresee how men will act without efficiently decreeing how they shall act.
Let us imagine two horsemen. One sits on a horse every movement of which he controlls absolutely. The Horse does not move a fraction of an inch in any part unless the rider decides it shall so move and sees to it that the movement is made. Here we see absolute control. Another man sits on another horse. This Horse makes various movements which the rider does not command, does not initiate, cannot even predict in detail. But the rider is in control. The first horse is a hobbyhorse; the second is a spirited five-gaited show horse.
Dr. H.H. Hobbs wrote: "God . . . can do as He wills, said will being in accord with His nature which invovles such attributes as His truth, Holines, righteousness and love. He has willed not to violate the free will of man Gen.3. He does not act contrary to His own nature Gen 18:25. Furthermore, man, made in God's image, possesses free will.
Dr. E.C. Dargan, said: "God is to great to be placed in opposition to man, as though they were equals; He includes man's choice in His choosing, man's work in His Workings. Man can be very comfortably free within the overwhelming purpose and operation of God."
IBID: "Human freedom is denied by fatalist and materialist; but surely, while we recognize the limits of human freedom, we yet are conscious of power to choose within limits our own way, and conscious, to, of the responsibility of choice"
Dr. A.H. Strong : "The man who carries a vase of goldfish does not prevent the fish from moving unrestrained within the vase. The man, the superior being in this case, keeps for the moment the goldfish bowl in a state of being moved."
A.W. Tozer: "A ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it . . . On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains; niether are thier activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined prot. Both freedom and soveriegnity are presented here, and they do not contradict each other. so it is, I believe, with man's freedom and the soveriegnity of God. The Mighty liner of God's soveriegn design keeps its steady course over the sea of histiry, God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfillment of those eternal purposes, which He purposed in christ Jesus before the world Began.
... in a rigidly controlled universe, is there any room for free or independant action on the part of a finite creature?
To allow man such a measure of self determination is something which only a great and omnipotent God would do.
Dr. Henry C. Thiessen declared: "Godd. . .can foresee how men will act without efficiently decreeing how they shall act.
Let us imagine two horsemen. One sits on a horse every movement of which he controlls absolutely. The Horse does not move a fraction of an inch in any part unless the rider decides it shall so move and sees to it that the movement is made. Here we see absolute control. Another man sits on another horse. This Horse makes various movements which the rider does not command, does not initiate, cannot even predict in detail. But the rider is in control. The first horse is a hobbyhorse; the second is a spirited five-gaited show horse.
Dr. H.H. Hobbs wrote: "God . . . can do as He wills, said will being in accord with His nature which invovles such attributes as His truth, Holines, righteousness and love. He has willed not to violate the free will of man Gen.3. He does not act contrary to His own nature Gen 18:25. Furthermore, man, made in God's image, possesses free will.
Dr. E.C. Dargan, said: "God is to great to be placed in opposition to man, as though they were equals; He includes man's choice in His choosing, man's work in His Workings. Man can be very comfortably free within the overwhelming purpose and operation of God."
IBID: "Human freedom is denied by fatalist and materialist; but surely, while we recognize the limits of human freedom, we yet are conscious of power to choose within limits our own way, and conscious, to, of the responsibility of choice"
Dr. A.H. Strong : "The man who carries a vase of goldfish does not prevent the fish from moving unrestrained within the vase. The man, the superior being in this case, keeps for the moment the goldfish bowl in a state of being moved."
A.W. Tozer: "A ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it . . . On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains; niether are thier activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined prot. Both freedom and soveriegnity are presented here, and they do not contradict each other. so it is, I believe, with man's freedom and the soveriegnity of God. The Mighty liner of God's soveriegn design keeps its steady course over the sea of histiry, God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfillment of those eternal purposes, which He purposed in christ Jesus before the world Began.
willywanker
just one man's opinion
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2000
- Posts
- 3,620
Pyper said:
Well, I don't know about free, but I'm cheap, pyper. Oh, wait must be another Will, pyper hasn't bought me,,, yet!!
On subject, yes, I have free will. If a greater being (and I believe there is)controled my life completely, I couldn't screw up this much.
Dillinger
Guerrilla Ontologist
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 26,152
Svedish_Chef said:
Have is a very determinate word. As is "is" for that matter. Have implies a necessity. Is implies a set value.
Examples:
"You have to go to work." or "You have to mow the lawn." Hmmm... not much free will granted in those statements.
and
"Opera is bad" Really? Then why does it still thrive? A better statement would be "I think Opera is bad." Now that is an opinion where as the first statemen is an absolute.
Because our language allows absolute statements (however inaccurate they may be) - statements that include words like "have" and "are" and "is" - we are forever doomed to the results of such statements such as "The bible IS the word of God" "I believe that the bible is the word of God" - there would be a lot less arguments in this world if we are clear about what is an opinion and what is a statement of fact.
Words like "everyone" and "all" and "should" are dangerous. "All women are…" "All black people are…" "All men are…" "Everyone should…" "Everyone knows…"
The word ALL really should be vanquished from the language. A better word would be SOMBUNALL (coined by Robert Anton Wilson). Sombunall means some-but-not-all. We never know "all"; we know, at best, sombunall.
But - back to the word "is" again - and its relationship to free will. It is a very questionable word. And using it, and its variations, kind of limit free will. Yes?
It's useful mathematically, because the members of a mathematical set exist abstractly. But when we apply it non-mathematically - to life, to people. Oh man, that is TROUBLE. For example: "This is a great work of art," "This is meaningless drivel." It would be more correct to say "This seems like a great work of art to me," "This seems like meaningless drivel to me." We may generously assume that people mean, "this seems like… to me" when they use the word "is" BUT language does tend to have hypnotic effects on people ("Language is a Virus" - Laurie Anderson)
------------------------
Free will is acknowledged by many to exist. It appears to live in the manifold between the unchangable, inaccessible past, and the undetermined, unpredictable future. The physics of free will is somehow inexorably tied into the physics of time, viz, why time flows, and why there is a past and future.
The real problem is to correctly interpret our experience of freedom, our sense of freedom, or the dynamics of that which
we call 'freedom', in such a way as to reconcile it with the logic of determinism.
Neither determinism nor free will have been convincingly reconciled in a way that rings true to all of our experience in its fullness.
-----------------------------------
So think about this...
Imagine we have a chess computer, a cheap one that always uses the same strategy. Now if playing against it we win a game, then we always can win by repeating our successful strategy. It is clear that this machine is deterministic and does not have a free will. Now imagine that we have a more expensive chess computer, one that learns from its mistakes. After winning from it in a game, we cannot win again with our previous strategy. The machine will remember that it is not good to repeat its moves. We can state that this second machine has a rudimentary form of a free will: it reacts differently under similar circumstances. But since the machine is programmed its behavior is deterministic. So determinism and free will are compatible.
-----------------------
The fact that we may have a free will and are at the same time completely determined is related to a fundamental characteristic of our existence: we are selfless.
Dillinger
Guerrilla Ontologist
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 26,152
Re: But ...
So tell me - If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Humanity has often used this question, among an arsenal of other longstanding weapons of mass-construction (such as religion), to place itself at the center of the universe.
If a tree doesn't make a sound unless someone is there to hear it, doesn't that mean that sound happens for us?
If the existence of sound depends on us, isn't reality itself dependent on people?
Would the plane still crash without her on it? Doesn't that mean, whether the answer is yes or no, that reality itself is dependent on her presence?
Truth is - these are not contradictions but can exist side by side. For its about how we define things. Its about Language (see my previous post).
"If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" If sound is defined as "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing," then the answer is, "yes, it does make a sound." If sound is defined as "the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing; a particular auditory impression," then the answer is, "no, it does not make a sound."
Would the plane crash without her on it? Well - if you define this in terms as a physical probability dependent on malfunctioning of the planes engines then yes, it would crash. If you define it in terms of TN_Vixens knowledge or experience of the event in question and she is not there, then no - for her, it does not crash.
TN_Vixen said:
Ally C said:... would the plane still crash without you on it? That's the beginning (and end) of the question ... you never know what the 'answer' is until after the event ...
So tell me - If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Humanity has often used this question, among an arsenal of other longstanding weapons of mass-construction (such as religion), to place itself at the center of the universe.
If a tree doesn't make a sound unless someone is there to hear it, doesn't that mean that sound happens for us?
If the existence of sound depends on us, isn't reality itself dependent on people?
Would the plane still crash without her on it? Doesn't that mean, whether the answer is yes or no, that reality itself is dependent on her presence?
Truth is - these are not contradictions but can exist side by side. For its about how we define things. Its about Language (see my previous post).
"If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" If sound is defined as "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing," then the answer is, "yes, it does make a sound." If sound is defined as "the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing; a particular auditory impression," then the answer is, "no, it does not make a sound."
Would the plane crash without her on it? Well - if you define this in terms as a physical probability dependent on malfunctioning of the planes engines then yes, it would crash. If you define it in terms of TN_Vixens knowledge or experience of the event in question and she is not there, then no - for her, it does not crash.
Dillinger
Guerrilla Ontologist
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 26,152
Re: I await your flames
Why are you assuming the universe is rigidly controlled? By stating that as your first point you a limiting your argument to that as the starting point. What if the universe isn't rigidly controlled?
Perhaps the nature of the Universe is change and process? Thus existence is open to creativity and differentiation and opportunities and possibilities and accidents and excitement.
What of the Bohm theory in Quantum Mechanics?
http://www.phys.port.ac.uk/research/quantum/paper1/img2.gif
Really? You know this for a fact? How so? God told you herself?
So you are referring to the Westminster Shorter Catechism. "The decree of God is His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His own will whereby for His own glory He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass."
Thiessen also says, in "Lectures on Theology" page 100 - "We, therefore, can know only by a special revelation from God whether or not he has purposed anything."
So, by default, you are saying that God granted you a special revelation so that you can empirically state "God... can foresee how men will act without efficeintly decreeing how they shall act." Yes?
By the way - Thiessen also spells God with one "d" - or, is it that by spelling it "Godd" you are associating it with "Todd" and therefore declaring yourself to be God? If so, that would be the most sense you've ever made on the subject of religion.
Cool!
H.H. Hobbs - ROMANS A Verse by Verse Study, Word Books, 1977, pages 110 & 112
"While God is sovereign in history, this in no way violates the free will of either good or evil men."
Yes. Interesting points. Also sounds like you're saying Man is God... yes? "... man, made in God's image, possesses free will." If man is in God's image and also possesses the same free will as God. Then you are God. I am God. Each person is God. So that's twice in one posting that we agree! *smile*
Perhaps you feel free will is in opposition to determinism? Though it is my belief, as expressed in my two previous posts that they can exist side by side. And perhaps that is sort of what you and Dargan are stating when you place Man's free will within the larger determinism of God's operation? Which seems, to me, that Dargan is ultimately saying there really is no free will because it is encompassed by God's greater purpose. Even though he, and you, choose not to word it that way.
Again... freedom within limits is not really freedom is it? And if we have a responsibility of choice within this context what is truly being said is that we can choose one path or the other but the consequences of either choice are predetermined. ie. Heaven or Hell.
More of the same but within an an analogy. We are the goldfish in God's bowl?
Why? No storm? No radio call to return to shore? No being turned away because of proper identification? NOTHING can change it? That in itself is very deterministic.
I really don't see this as a very good example of freedom and sovereignty.
You know - when I brought up the subject of free will I did not intend it to become a religious discussion - though I should have guessed that would be inevitable.
I also think that, to an extent, you've contradicted yourself with these various quotes you've shared but...
In essense I think we basically agree with each other though you choose to couch your understanding within the wrappings of your religion. And I choose to do so under the umbrella of science (with a bit of Zen thrown in). In this case it seems that both religion and science agree on some of the most basic points if not on how one defines those points.
[Edited by Dillinger on 05-18-2001 at 10:30 AM]
Todd said:
Why are you assuming the universe is rigidly controlled? By stating that as your first point you a limiting your argument to that as the starting point. What if the universe isn't rigidly controlled?
Perhaps the nature of the Universe is change and process? Thus existence is open to creativity and differentiation and opportunities and possibilities and accidents and excitement.
What of the Bohm theory in Quantum Mechanics?
http://www.phys.port.ac.uk/research/quantum/paper1/img2.gif
Really? You know this for a fact? How so? God told you herself?
So you are referring to the Westminster Shorter Catechism. "The decree of God is His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His own will whereby for His own glory He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass."
Thiessen also says, in "Lectures on Theology" page 100 - "We, therefore, can know only by a special revelation from God whether or not he has purposed anything."
So, by default, you are saying that God granted you a special revelation so that you can empirically state "God... can foresee how men will act without efficeintly decreeing how they shall act." Yes?
By the way - Thiessen also spells God with one "d" - or, is it that by spelling it "Godd" you are associating it with "Todd" and therefore declaring yourself to be God? If so, that would be the most sense you've ever made on the subject of religion.
Cool!
H.H. Hobbs - ROMANS A Verse by Verse Study, Word Books, 1977, pages 110 & 112
"While God is sovereign in history, this in no way violates the free will of either good or evil men."
Yes. Interesting points. Also sounds like you're saying Man is God... yes? "... man, made in God's image, possesses free will." If man is in God's image and also possesses the same free will as God. Then you are God. I am God. Each person is God. So that's twice in one posting that we agree! *smile*
Perhaps you feel free will is in opposition to determinism? Though it is my belief, as expressed in my two previous posts that they can exist side by side. And perhaps that is sort of what you and Dargan are stating when you place Man's free will within the larger determinism of God's operation? Which seems, to me, that Dargan is ultimately saying there really is no free will because it is encompassed by God's greater purpose. Even though he, and you, choose not to word it that way.
Again... freedom within limits is not really freedom is it? And if we have a responsibility of choice within this context what is truly being said is that we can choose one path or the other but the consequences of either choice are predetermined. ie. Heaven or Hell.
More of the same but within an an analogy. We are the goldfish in God's bowl?
Why? No storm? No radio call to return to shore? No being turned away because of proper identification? NOTHING can change it? That in itself is very deterministic.
I really don't see this as a very good example of freedom and sovereignty.
You know - when I brought up the subject of free will I did not intend it to become a religious discussion - though I should have guessed that would be inevitable.
I also think that, to an extent, you've contradicted yourself with these various quotes you've shared but...
In essense I think we basically agree with each other though you choose to couch your understanding within the wrappings of your religion. And I choose to do so under the umbrella of science (with a bit of Zen thrown in). In this case it seems that both religion and science agree on some of the most basic points if not on how one defines those points.
[Edited by Dillinger on 05-18-2001 at 10:30 AM]
Sparky Kronkite
Spam Eater Extraordinare'
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 8,921
I believe......
in Free Willy.
in Free Willy.
Similar threads
