> 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). <snipage> > 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). I play the devils advocate myself; my whole argument (position?:) stems from a belief in God which I do not hold. I'd toss the whole thing out the 3rd floor window of my building, but I'm having fun, and that's important to me...<grin> > > 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. My question wasn't directed at you or the list, but to the people who make such arguments... That being the case, the people who believe that everything happens because God willed it to happen, I argue, can't also fit free will into their plan. > 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. And that's my point! <grin> Free will and predetermined destiny (redundent, but oh well:) cannot coexist. > However, that's not what I'm arguing (or really, pointing out -- > I don't even believe in God). Heh. Me, too... > 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. I'm still unsure of this (though it's not as strict a viewpoint). Mankind (and, in particular, men:) created the atomic bomb. We, as a species, are responsible for its use. It was our creation, thus, we must be charged with its use or misuse. No, it doesn't make alot of sense, perhaps, but it is what I feel. If we have nuclear war, I'll feel, at least partialy, responsible. Why? Because it's my race that ultimately led to our destruction. I'll grant that procreation, creationism, and the building of atomic weapons are three seperate things. But hey, I like drawing lines... (I make great stick-figures!!:) > 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. Sure. He can create a playground, and create the little kiddies, and then say "Go! Have fun!" He's then only partialy responsible for his creations going askew... > 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. OK, I can see this one. > 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. Oh, sure. But our universe does contain random factors, and they, too, must be accounted for. Heck, if we're going to fantasize anyway... <grin> > 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. ;) I dunno. I'm a major free-will advocate. I hate the idea that my destiny is already laid out, and I don't have much choice in the matter. I'd prefer to not think of the universe as a play that's already been completed, and all we are are actors playing a part and reading lines... :0 Chris "Life is the nightmare that leaves its mark upon you in order to prove that it is, in fact, real." -Thomas Ligotti- 'The Sect of the Idiot'