On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:54:21PM -0800, Chris Olson - SunPS <Chrisf.Olson at Sun.COM> wrote: > > Can does not mean "actually does". > True. But when I hear the comment (and I've heard it quite > a bit) "Everything happens because it is Gods will", that > means, to me, he "actualy does". I used "can" as the overall. > To hear some say it, he can. To hear others, he does. Some background here on my position, which I have not yet elucidated in this thread (I've been playing devil's advocate by poking holes in statements on both sides). I do not believe in the biblical God. I reserve judgement on the Deist Watchmaker God; it's one way to answer the first-cause argument, but there's no real way to test the hypothesis. I have a gnostic belief in the supernatural, in the sense that there are things science does not understand or explain, (some of) which I feel I have experienced. I may or may not be hallucinating or fooling myself, and approach it with that in mind. I do not feel inclined to worship anything or any pantheon; were a God or gods exist, I would grant each whatever respect I felt it deserved, but fundamentally as an equal being rather than a supplicant. I have a strongly negative reaction to people trying to convert me. Bonus points to anyone who can identify my "religious practices" >from the above. (Note that this is something of a trick question; I don't have religious practices in the sense of worship). > > While an omnipotent God COULD control everything that happens, > > and doing so would in fact make him responsible for it, the > > whole "free will" argument is that he does not cause things to > > happen. It's "could intervene, does not" rather than "direct > > cause". > Then why the arguments that nothing happens without Gods say-so? I don't make those arguments. I agree that if EVERYTHING that happens is Gods Will, then God is damn well responsible for his actions. If God sent the earthquake to kill little Jimmy, then he's got little Jimmy's death on his soul, and if that was the case, it would be a black soul indeed. > If he *could* intervene, but doesn't, then some things happen > that are not his intention. If it's his intention, then he intervened. Agreed, but again, not my argument. > > You must ponder this, grasshopper. How can you become > > enlightened without proper pondering? > Believe me, I've pondered and debated this one quite a bit...:) > > The answer, in any case, is simple: think of all the things you > > do, day in and day out, to predict what happens next. Avoiding > > other cars while driving, avoiding other people while walking, > > even just knowing who you will see at work or school or home. > > Those are all knowing, to a certain degree, but not removing the > > choice of the participants. > This is different than predeterminism theory (in my mind). The > theory is that everything that happens is already planned out, > set in stone, is in "Gods Plan", etc. That being the case, one can > argue that my avoiding other cars while driving, other people while > walking (or driving:), knowing who I'll see at work, has already > been decided. That's not much of a choice, in my eyes... Well, there's a slight difference in viewpoint here. You're arguing that God planned it all out and set it in motion; if that view is valid than free will is rather reduced. If everything you do is God's plan, than you aren't choosing. However, that's not what I'm arguing (or really, pointing out -- I don't even believe in God). The argument is usually more along the lines of a Deistic God who created the universe, perhaps tinkered a bit to create humanity, and may or may not ever intervene in human affairs (aside from the instances documented in the Bible, which are usually taken as truth, but from a "different time" where more intervention was necessary). Human society is portrayed as "growing up", needing less and less protection/intervention/guidance from God as we mature. In this sense, if God does not intervene directly, then he can potentially predict what you will choose without actually determining what that choice would be. Another useful example -- suppose you are at point b. There are decision-points a and c both behind and ahead of you in time. At b, you know your decision at a, but knowing that decision in your past does not render a less of a choice; it's just a choice that's already happened. The same would apply to c, if you could look ahead and see what you would choose. > > The other answer is to postulate a God who is outside of time -- > > that is, the entirety of time is visible and accessible in a > > non-linear fashion. Again, no removal of choice; perception is > > not causation. > > Oh, sure. We can use that to cancel out this whole thing. And > then I can toss out that, if God created everything, he damn well > created time, too. Then I'd just have to have a talk with him about > that aspect and how it relates to everything else he's created. > > I still think that you cannot have free will and a predetermined fate > at the same time. If my actions have already been decided, and nothing > I do can change it, I can't make a concious choice (I may *think* I > make a choice, but I actualy don't). (And yes, I've seen too many > episodes of Red Dwarf to not have some understanding of what I'm > talking about...:) If you want to make a sensible counterargument, try one based on a universe with no random factors -- ie, with a big enough computer you could simulate the whole thing (down well below the atomic level) -- and combine the nature-vs-nurture arguments into one: if the initial state of my being (genetics, atomic energy levels, quantum fluctuations, etc) can be known, and all the interacting factors can be known, then you don't have any "choices" because everything you would use to make those choices is created by the environment. Science has postulated quantum uncertainty operating in the brain itself in order to preserve free will from the assault of developmental psych and gene mapping. I don't know if I buy a completely predictable universe in linear time by a non-supernatural being, but that argument would at least raise the shadow of a doubt regarding the existance of free will. ;) -- Matthew Hunter (matthew at infodancer.org) Public Key: http://matthew.infodancer.org/public_key.txt Homepage: http://matthew.infodancer.org/index.jsp Politics: http://www.triggerfinger.org/index.jsp