Destiny and Free Will

[skye]

My personal opinion is that we all have free will, within certain parameters, here on earth. We can make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.


Then again... what do I know

I can't decide to fly without artificial aid, or breathe water, but those aren't really limits on my free will.

Don't be silly.... when I say that we all have free will within "certain parameters" I mean things like go back in time and space or live forever .... or fly without the need of any mechanical help...etc...

Within certain parameters we can live our lives and make our choices here on earth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My personal opinion is that we all have free will, within certain parameters, here on earth. We can make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.


Then again... what do I know

I can't decide to fly without artificial aid, or breathe water, but those aren't really limits on my free will.

at one time you did breath liquid...

Despite your lack of understanding of fetal development, babies do not breathe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and as I told you before..what you believe is based on a false premise..also given the right motivation you would be willing to blow yourself up, so your point is meaningless.

I bet you couldn't come up with a motivation for me to blow myself up, which proves that all you have is empty words and no idea how to express your ideas.

whatever you say dear..
try this one on...pretend you have a family and the only possible way to save them is blow yourself up.
it's a question of what's more important to you your life or the lives of your family ..
one life or several?
selfishness or unselfishness ?

What makes you think I would be willing to kill hypothetical innocent people to save my hypothetical family?

 

[pacer]

During the later stages of gestation, the fetus may "practice" breathing by inhaling and exhaling amniotic fluid. The fetal lungs do not process the amniotic fluid, the way fully formed lungs process air, but experts believe this "breathing" is important to fetal lung development. The fetus gets all of its oxygen and nutrients through the placenta and umbilical cord---a process called fetal circulation.
Want to lose baby weight? Learn more

Read more: How Do Babies Breathe In The Womb? | LIVESTRONG.COM

 

[daws101]

I can't decide to fly without artificial aid, or breathe water, but those aren't really limits on my free will.

at one time you did breath liquid...

Despite your lack of understanding of fetal development, babies do not breathe.

sorry chief they do..it's not breathing as such, but it's a working of those muscle groups . the lung expand and contract and expel amniotic fluid.
if they did not do this they would not be able to breath right after birth. so there!

 

[daws101]

I bet you couldn't come up with a motivation for me to blow myself up, which proves that all you have is empty words and no idea how to express your ideas.

whatever you say dear..
try this one on...pretend you have a family and the only possible way to save them is blow yourself up.
it's a question of what's more important to you your life or the lives of your family ..
one life or several?
selfishness or unselfishness ?

What makes you think I would be willing to kill hypothetical innocent people to save my hypothetical family?

where did I say kill innocent people ... nice attempt at a dodge..
so your family is not important enough to kill and die for?

 

[Intense]

God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;
man remains free, even under the action of grace;
the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo

I guess the extreme bias of those publications is not a problem for you.

Honestly, I'd rate them a 100%, and you a 1%. New Advent is pretty much the comprehensive Catholic Church perspective on pretty much any topic, with encyclopedic precision, detail, and follow up. You want to argue with that combined knowledge, fine, I have no problem with that, nor you making an ass out of yourself by trying to discredit the source. You have free will here, as you exhibit. I'd be searching things out more and asking questions, you know, opening some doors and windows, trying to gain in perspective from shared knowledge, that's be, though. There is a perspective, that in matters of salvation, for each of us, the worst battle is internal, not external. You need to search out your own conscience there, and maybe learn to feed it, rather than deny it, or try to enslave it. Just a thought.

 

[daws101]

God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;
man remains free, even under the action of grace;
the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo

I guess the extreme bias of those publications is not a problem for you.

Honestly, I'd rate them a 100%, and you a 1%. New Advent is pretty much the comprehensive Catholic Church perspective on pretty much any topic, with encyclopedic precision, detail, and follow up. You want to argue with that combined knowledge, fine, I have no problem with that, nor you making an ass out of yourself by trying to discredit the source. You have free will here, as you exhibit. I'd be searching things out more and asking questions, you know, opening some doors and windows, trying to gain in perspective from shared knowledge, that's be, though. There is a perspective, that in matters of salvation, for each of us, the worst battle is internal, not external. You need to search out your own conscience there, and maybe learn to feed it, rather than deny it, or try to enslave it. Just a thought.

fine bit of PR doesn't answer the question though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

at one time you did breath liquid...

Despite your lack of understanding of fetal development, babies do not breathe.

sorry chief they do..it's not breathing as such, but it's a working of those muscle groups . the lung expand and contract and expel amniotic fluid.
if they did not do this they would not be able to breath right after birth. so there!

If it's not breathing 'per se' it ain't breathing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

whatever you say dear..
try this one on...pretend you have a family and the only possible way to save them is blow yourself up.
it's a question of what's more important to you your life or the lives of your family ..
one life or several?
selfishness or unselfishness ?

What makes you think I would be willing to kill hypothetical innocent people to save my hypothetical family?

where did I say kill innocent people ... nice attempt at a dodge..
so your family is not important enough to kill and die for?

Now you want to make a bomb that only kills one person?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess the extreme bias of those publications is not a problem for you.

Honestly, I'd rate them a 100%, and you a 1%. New Advent is pretty much the comprehensive Catholic Church perspective on pretty much any topic, with encyclopedic precision, detail, and follow up. You want to argue with that combined knowledge, fine, I have no problem with that, nor you making an ass out of yourself by trying to discredit the source. You have free will here, as you exhibit. I'd be searching things out more and asking questions, you know, opening some doors and windows, trying to gain in perspective from shared knowledge, that's be, though. There is a perspective, that in matters of salvation, for each of us, the worst battle is internal, not external. You need to search out your own conscience there, and maybe learn to feed it, rather than deny it, or try to enslave it. Just a thought.

fine bit of PR doesn't answer the question though.

Are they biased because they disagree with your total lack of expertise on the subject?

 

[Daktoria]

As far as Western religion's interpretation of free will and fate is concerned:

Universal reconciliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total depravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholics believe in the first.

Protestants believe in the second's various forms of election, but ultimately, they all depend on original sin being overcome from the predestination of grace and how this is revealed from "good works". It stems from Martin Luther's reintegration of the Hebrew Bible into the Old Testament, so it stands to merit that Jews believe in the same thing which they confirm in believing they're the chosen people as well as "bashert". Muslims also believe in "qadar".

The big problem with discussing fate is it's circular. It begs the question as to how people would know fate exists in the first place. Those who claim fate might as well not be fated, but are just claiming to be so. Even when they say they "feel it", that doesn't mean their feelings are reliable. They might as well just be spoiled brats or deluded nutcases who are brutally asserting their opinion as valuable.

On the other hand, the problem with discussing free will is opponents can default proponents into enduring them, and thereby say it's fate that they endure opposition. You see this especially when fatalists claim that free will advocates are simply stating their opinion, and manipulate context out of syntax while calling free will advocates dictators in their interpretation of words. Eventually, free will advocates claim their position is just blatantly obvious, and fatalists take those words to justify their own position as well.

Another thing with fate and free will is the "structure versus agency" debate. Some people believe that fate refers to an internal lack of agency to behave oneself. Others believe that fate refers to an external structure that can't be overcome.

There's also the randomness versus self-determination debate. Some people believe that free will refers to an external unpredictability. Other people believe that free will refers to an internal ability to determine oneself.

Anyway, a lot of the debate gets predisposed according to the direction that people approach it in "wanting" it to go.

That very "wanting" could be free willing in people thinking about which way to debate, or it could be fated in being emotionally overloaded toward a way.

Likewise, people approach the debate to represent what they want. Heck, you could have emotionally overloaded people wanting "free will" and thoughtful people wanting "fate" for the sake of their own self-interests in believing that those beliefs will encourage society to go in an interesting direction.

I believe in free will because it is who I am, but most people around me believe in fate because they enjoy getting me to do what they want without consent.

On the side, I guess that explains why I believe most people are stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As far as Western religion's interpretation of free will and fate is concerned:

Universal reconciliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total depravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholics believe in the first.

Protestants believe in the second's various forms of election, but ultimately, they all depend on original sin being overcome from the predestination of grace and how this is revealed from "good works". It stems from Martin Luther's reintegration of the Hebrew Bible into the Old Testament, so it stands to merit that Jews believe in the same thing which they confirm in believing they're the chosen people as well as "bashert". Muslims also believe in "qadar".

The big problem with discussing fate is it's circular. It begs the question as to how people would know fate exists in the first place. Those who claim fate might as well not be fated, but are just claiming to be so. Even when they say they "feel it", that doesn't mean their feelings are reliable. They might as well just be spoiled brats or deluded nutcases who are brutally asserting their opinion as valuable.

On the other hand, the problem with discussing free will is opponents can default proponents into enduring them, and thereby say it's fate that they endure opposition. You see this especially when fatalists claim that free will advocates are simply stating their opinion, and manipulate context out of syntax while calling free will advocates dictators in their interpretation of words. Eventually, free will advocates claim their position is just blatantly obvious, and fatalists take those words to justify their own position as well.

Another thing with fate and free will is the "structure versus agency" debate. Some people believe that fate refers to an internal lack of agency to behave oneself. Others believe that fate refers to an external structure that can't be overcome.

There's also the randomness versus self-determination debate. Some people believe that free will refers to an external unpredictability. Other people believe that free will refers to an internal ability to determine oneself.

Anyway, a lot of the debate gets predisposed according to the direction that people approach it in "wanting" it to go.

That very "wanting" could be free willing in people thinking about which way to debate, or it could be fated in being emotionally overloaded toward a way.

Likewise, people approach the debate to represent what they want. Heck, you could have emotionally overloaded people wanting "free will" and thoughtful people wanting "fate" for the sake of their own self-interests in believing that those beliefs will encourage society to go in an interesting direction.

I believe in free will because it is who I am, but most people around me believe in fate because they enjoy getting me to do what they want without consent.

On the side, I guess that explains why I believe most people are stupid.

Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.

 

[Newby]

I understand, Connery, but if even our choice to believe or not to believe is pre-determined by God, how can we say we have free will?

Where do you get that notion from?

Theological Determinism

Theological determinism comes in two varieties. The first is based on the notion of foreknowledge: if God is an omniscient being, and if omniscience applies to the future (as well as to the past and present), then the future is known by God. But in that case, the future can only be what God knows it to be. No alternatives are possible. If God knows that it is going to rain tomorrow, then, regardless of what the weather forecast might be, it will definitely rain tomorrow. And if God knows that Jerry Falwell will decide to become an atheist sometime next week, then that is what inevitably must happen.

The second kind of theological determinism follows from the concept of divine preordination: if God is the ultimate cause behind everything, then He has preordained all that will ever occur, and once again there can be no deviation from the future's pre-set pattern. The preordination of the future is by definition a kind of determinism, so there is no arguing against it if one accepts the premise. (This is a type of causal determinism; the first kind of theological determinism is not.)

Theological determinism depends, of course, on whether or not God exists. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, this kind of determinism is not logically compelling. And even if one accepts God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained the future, or that He his omniscient, or that omniscience applies to the future. But for those with orthodox religious views things are not so simple. The notion of foreknowledge, at least, is essential to the orthodox concept of a supreme being. And yet the orthodox also wish to maintain the existence of free will, and thus reject determinism (though there are exceptions which are "orthodox" enough, e.g. Calvinism).

Now, some argue that knowledge of the future does not necessitate the future in any way: I may know that you are going to do x tomorrow, but that does not mean that you aren't freely choosing to do it. Whether or not this is right depends on how strongly we interpret what it means to have knowledge. If knowledge is supposed to imply certainty, then I cannot know that you are going to do x tomorrow unless I can somehow foretell the future. I may have very good reasons to believe that you will do x, and it may turn out that you will do x. But if it was the case that you might not have done x, then I did not really know.

One may of course use the term "knowledge" in a less strict sense in which the above would no longer apply. But when it comes to God's knowledge, as usually understood, there seems no doubt that it ought to be absolutely certain knowledge. God is after all supposed to be infallible.

Another common attempt to resolve the problem of foreknowledge is to claim that God exists outside of time. From this extra-temporal vantage point, God does not know the future beforehand. There is no "before" or "after" for God. Instead, He observes all of existence — past, present and future — as we observe the present. And as a result, His knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge, and so does not conflict with human freedom.

The "outside of time" argument is not easy to analyze because, so far as I can tell, no one knows what it really means to be outside of time. I believe the best way to tackle the argument is to consider how our situation is changed, if at all, on the supposition that God is in fact extra-temporal. God may be outside of time, but we're not. Now, for us the important thing is whether our future is something which is known. Wherever God is, if He knows our future, then from the vantage point of our present selves the future is in fact known. Our situation therefore has not changed in any way. The important thing is not how God possesses knowledge of the future, but that there is such knowledge. And if the future is in fact known, the conclusion that it is determined is unavoidable.

If the foregoing is not completely satisfactory (for as already mentioned the notion of extra-temporality is rather mysterious, so any discussion involving it is open to varying interpretations), there is another argument along the same lines. God, at least on most orthodox views, supposedly interacts with the world. But if there is such interaction with the world, then it must occur at particular points in time. And at those times, from our perspective, God certainly appears to have knowledge of our future.

Since I reject its premises, I do not accept theological determinism (the argument is valid, but not sound). Theological determinism is nevertheless important in that it reveals an inconsistency between the orthodox notions of foreknowledge and free will.
Theological Determinism

I was speaking from a theological standpoint, not the opinion of some 'philsospher' or professor who no doubt hasn't any belief in God. I wouldn't expect you to be able to make the argument from a biblical standpoint, or you can google search and try again if you wish.

 

[Newby]

I understand, Connery, but if even our choice to believe or not to believe is pre-determined by God, how can we say we have free will?

I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.

Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes all your choices. The entire book of Job is the story of a man who rebelled against the destiny God laid out for him, yet idiots continue to argue that people are not responsible for their choices because God knows everything before it happens.

If God knows what people will do before they do it, He had no need to test Abraham's faith. The only way to defend that as anything other than us not having free will is to conclude that God lied to Abraham when He stopped him from sacrificing Isaac and told him "Now I know that you fear God."

You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.

Exactly! Great post..

 

[Daktoria]

Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.

Do you want to construct consensus instead of just obstructively saying, "No"?

For all intents and purposes, what I said could have been right and you're just being contrarian.

 

[PainefulTruth]

I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.

Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes all your choices.......

You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.

The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology. Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved. If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?

The theology doesn't work. Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.

What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will? God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.

 

[Newby]

I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.

Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes all your choices.......

You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.

The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology. Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved. If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?

The theology doesn't work. Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.

What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will? God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.

Can you identify specifically which theology you're referring to?

 

[PainefulTruth]

Can you identify specifically which theology you're referring to?

Theology, 1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world.

Specific issues are: moral free will; God's possible existence and interaction/non-interaction in the universe and human affairs and the effect that might have on our free will; the Book of Life written from the foundation of the world (universe?) and its implications for free will. The issue of free will is about as theological as it gets. It deals with the source of our moral code (God or our self-awareness), whether God exists, and if so, whether It's interactive or laissez faire.

 

[Newby]

Can you identify specifically which theology you're referring to?

Theology, 1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world.

Specific issues are: moral free will; God's possible existence and interaction/non-interaction in the universe and human affairs and the effect that might have on our free will; the Book of Life written from the foundation of the world (universe?) and its implications for free will. The issue of free will is about as theological as it gets. It deals with the source of our moral code (God or our self-awareness), whether God exists, and if so, whether It's interactive or laissez faire.

Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?