3 ms·

> ... then I would find fault with the theory that you have sufficient "observable data". That is the entire problem. i agree, and i think then it comes down t

by noodle 16y ago

> ... then I would find fault with the theory that you have sufficient "observable data". That is the entire problem. i agree, and i think then it comes down to each of our own personal opinions, unless you have some hard facts to provide (i surely don't, as you say, this is basically coffee talk for me, here). sub-question: what do you feel like is the alternative to free will? predestination? do you feel that by disproving free will, it will lead to greater empirical evidence of god or gods (a la "god's plan")? or that proving free will somehow reduces the odds of the existence of god or gods?

Xurinos 16y ago
> what do you feel like is the alternative to free will? predestination? I would propose that the alternative is manipulation, and the most extreme form of manipulation is predestination. Less extreme forms are environmental manipulation, our bacterial collective, and so forth. Was it predestined by God or by some initial atomic movement or potential energy? We do not have evidence either way, but it is fair to point out the possibilities. I have my personal belief, which is compatible with both and leaves space for the truth. I see the topic of free will orthogonal to the topic of gods. We have to be careful here; there are religious beliefs that we humans were granted free will by God. Within that context, if we learn conclusively that free will does not exist, then there was no gift, and it is a blow towards God, although not necessarily disproving God. After all, if we are capable of deceit, isn't it possible that God is also capable of deceit? So what we think we understand from Him might only be what He wants us to see. We also may not be capable of understanding His reasons. In the same vein, HE may simply be a purely creative force with no reasoning other than to make a bunch of stuff and let what sticks stick. So I think we can erode belief systems -- and our minds are generally frail enough to sway -- but it will be pretty difficult to disprove a god. On the other hand, opportunity may arise where a god can be proven. Perhaps He did reveal himself (several times), and time gave us an easy excuse to forget and deny, to beg for fresh evidence. Today, what could God possibly do that we cannot do that would conclusively prove His existence? And why should He bother?
- noodle 16y ago
  so, it seems to me that we have different viewpoints. i would say that you have free will until it is completely gone. if you're being manipulated, you have free will but are being externally influenced, and you only have no free will when you are completely predestined. looks to me like you are the opposite, that you only have free will if you are completely influence-free. thoughts?
  - Xurinos 16y ago
    Hm. I think we are mostly the same. I would say that you have free will if, after you have removed all possible influences, you are still able to choose. Many things in life reduce your choices, but reduced choices are still choices. We often have choices we ignore or neglect, too. When I mentioned the manipulation, I meant that it was to be complete manipulation, whatever the source(s). My point was to differentiate it from predestiny, where the manipulator is a fundamental force (God or the movement of the structure of the universe).
    - noodle 16y ago
      you don't think that manipulation on the level of being able to fully remove free will would have to originate from a fundamental force?
      - Xurinos 16y ago
        I can make my computer output the number 42, and we can argue that there is a force behind me that resulted in that program to output 42 (as well as in Scott Adams's choice of the number and my inevitable reading of his books, etc etc). But it is easier to identify that I manipulated my computer to output 42. Similarly, our environment may be affected by any number of forces, and we may be entirely pattern-matching, reacting machines who learned how to react from experiences in our environment.
        noodle 16y ago

by noodle 16y ago

Xurinos 16y ago

> what do you feel like is the alternative to free will? predestination? I would propose that the alternative is manipulation, and the most extreme form of manipulation is predestination. Less extreme forms are environmental manipulation, our bacterial collective, and so forth. Was it predestined by God or by some initial atomic movement or potential energy? We do not have evidence either way, but it is fair to point out the possibilities. I have my personal belief, which is compatible with both and leaves space for the truth. I see the topic of free will orthogonal to the topic of gods. We have to be careful here; there are religious beliefs that we humans were granted free will by God. Within that context, if we learn conclusively that free will does not exist, then there was no gift, and it is a blow towards God, although not necessarily disproving God. After all, if we are capable of deceit, isn't it possible that God is also capable of deceit? So what we think we understand from Him might only be what He wants us to see. We also may not be capable of understanding His reasons. In the same vein, HE may simply be a purely creative force with no reasoning other than to make a bunch of stuff and let what sticks stick. So I think we can erode belief systems -- and our minds are generally frail enough to sway -- but it will be pretty difficult to disprove a god. On the other hand, opportunity may arise where a god can be proven. Perhaps He did reveal himself (several times), and time gave us an easy excuse to forget and deny, to beg for fresh evidence. Today, what could God possibly do that we cannot do that would conclusively prove His existence? And why should He bother?

noodle 16y ago
so, it seems to me that we have different viewpoints. i would say that you have free will until it is completely gone. if you're being manipulated, you have free will but are being externally influenced, and you only have no free will when you are completely predestined. looks to me like you are the opposite, that you only have free will if you are completely influence-free. thoughts?
- Xurinos 16y ago
  Hm. I think we are mostly the same. I would say that you have free will if, after you have removed all possible influences, you are still able to choose. Many things in life reduce your choices, but reduced choices are still choices. We often have choices we ignore or neglect, too. When I mentioned the manipulation, I meant that it was to be complete manipulation, whatever the source(s). My point was to differentiate it from predestiny, where the manipulator is a fundamental force (God or the movement of the structure of the universe).
  - noodle 16y ago
    you don't think that manipulation on the level of being able to fully remove free will would have to originate from a fundamental force?
    - Xurinos 16y ago
      I can make my computer output the number 42, and we can argue that there is a force behind me that resulted in that program to output 42 (as well as in Scott Adams's choice of the number and my inevitable reading of his books, etc etc). But it is easier to identify that I manipulated my computer to output 42. Similarly, our environment may be affected by any number of forces, and we may be entirely pattern-matching, reacting machines who learned how to react from experiences in our environment.
      - noodle 16y ago