Philosophy Now Forum

Gaffo, at least I can say on behalf of Immanuel and Henry Q that they understand how Free Will impacts on man's moral responsibility. Which I expect you agree matters a lot perhaps especially since moral responsibility morphs into political responsibility.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:50 pm "Being born as a natural human being would not in itself prevent your being an originator of events."

Then stop harpin' on it.

#

"Being begotten of parents is only one cause of who and what your are and what you do. Please think of the many happenings of pour life and how they were all caused by an immensely complex set of other events , some of them laws of nature. Can you honestly pick out any event in your life that was not caused by other events?"

Yeah, there are loads of influences, but only one determiner.

Me.

Who are you Henry ? Who am I?

What you wrote raises interesting questions of personal identity.

If the police were trying to identify a man they would often have to resort to dental records, utility bills, finger prints, DNA, and possession of legal certificates. Memory cannot be the ultimate identifier as there is dementia, and also there are false memories.

But let's not get sidetracked into the topic of personal identity !

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:24 pm "Micromanage the universe".. Jesus said that He knows when the sparrow falls, and that His kingdom is intimate. God created oceans, land masses, land animals , birds and goodness knows what else.

Well, more perspective theologians differentiate between foreknowledge and predestination. The former is what God "knows before" it happens, and the latter is allegedly "what God micromanages into happening." Jesus is speaking only about the former in that verse. He "knows" when the sparrow falls -- it does not say He killed it.

To give an illustration, if I foreknew accurately (as indeed, I did) that you would respond to this message, does that mean I predestined you to write back? Because I knew it, did you therefore lose your free will? Obviously, no.

If by "micromanage the universe" you mean that God the Creator does not intervene in history, then I agree.

There's no reason I would mean that. But I'd be interested in the explanation of anybody who said that God exists, but cannot intervene in history, for some reason. Do you have such a rationale, or are you just showing out a hypothetical there?

Regarding miracles, there are two main reasons for them.

This phrase instantly prepares me for a forced, false dichotomy. I was not disappointed. It came.

There is no "lots of gods" explanation that's relevant here, since we are dealing with Theism, not Polytheism -- Polytheism isn't even being posited by anyone here, I assume, and I see absolutely no reason why it's necessary -- or even on topic -- here. You'll also realize, if you think further for a moment, that you can't explain the existence of a belief by simply saying, "a lot of people believe it." That's circular.

So far from being the only possible alternatives, in truth, neither or those alternatives is a real explanation for the possibility of a miracle at all.

"Micromanage the universe".. Jesus said that He knows when the sparrow falls, and that His kingdom is intimate. God created oceans, land masses, land animals , birds and goodness knows what else.

Well, more perspective theologians differentiate between foreknowledge and predestination. The former is what God "knows before" it happens, and the latter is allegedly "what God micromanages into happening." Jesus is speaking only about the former in that verse. He "knows" when the sparrow falls -- it does not say He killed it.

If God is both omniscient and all powerful then he knew his holy word would kill the sparrow exactly as happened

To give an illustration, if I foreknew accurately (as indeed, I did) that you would respond to this message, does that mean I predestined you to write back? Because I knew it, did you therefore lose your free will? Obviously, no.

But God, unlike you and I, does not deal in probability. God absolutely knows. He also knows you and I are limited to empirical knowledge.

If by "micromanage the universe" you mean that God the Creator does not intervene in history, then I agree.

There's no reason I would mean that. But I'd be interested in the explanation of anybody who said that God exists, but cannot intervene in history, for some reason. Do you have such a rationale, or are you just showing out a hypothetical there?

The rationale is God's word is eternal. If God were to intervene in history, God would know exactly when , where, and under what precise circumstance He would be intervening.These conditions would render His intervention deterministic.

Regarding miracles, there are two main reasons for them.

This phrase instantly prepares me for a forced, false dichotomy. I was not disappointed. It came.

There is no "lots of gods" explanation that's relevant here, since we are dealing with Theism, not Polytheism -- Polytheism isn't even being posited by anyone here, I assume, and I see absolutely no reason why it's necessary -- or even on topic -- here. You'll also realize, if you think further for a moment, that you can't explain the existence of a belief by simply saying, "a lot of people believe it." That's circular.

So far from being the only possible alternatives, in truth, neither or those alternatives is a real explanation for the possibility of a miracle at all.

Christianity is a syncretic religion? The ancients in Palestine as The Bible itself tells us had struggles with gods that were peculiar to places and to other tribes. Even Jahweh was for a time associated with mountain tops and the Chosen People. Indeed polytheism was much practised at the beginning of God's history. The history of God is relevant to how He is the sort of god Who can give mankind Free Will. You can bet old Baal or Ashtoreth did not give men Free Will!

Your arguments fail when you aren't sceptical about the influential weight of church teaching as a human quest and endeavour. Indeed belief in miracles is kept alive by some church authorities because the belief suits them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:39 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:42 pm Totally missin' my point, Mannie.

I guess so. Fire away.

As I say...

Belinda is tryin' to divide & conquer, clever girl that she is.

The matter at hand: is man imbued with (or is he a) free will(?), and does free will comes from the Creator?

What's not at hand: differences between deists and theists.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:14 am freewill is overrated egoism.

i do not affirm it nor care about the whole debate, it bores me as much as guns and feotus.

And yet, here you are, in a thread about free will, wagglin' your tail end, makin' sure everyone knows how little you care about the topic.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:32 pm If God is both omniscient and all powerful then he knew his holy word would kill the sparrow exactly as happened

Your view there is too narrow. If the Supreme Being can make creatures, what reasoning would lead us to be convinced that for some reason He couldn't grant them free will? He'd be less than "supreme" if He could not.

To give an illustration, if I foreknew accurately (as indeed, I did) that you would respond to this message, does that mean I predestined you to write back? Because I knew it, did you therefore lose your free will? Obviously, no.

But God, unlike you and I, does not deal in probability. God absolutely knows. He also knows you and I are limited to empirical knowledge.

You're missing the point.

It has nothing to do with probability. Even if I knew with 100% certainty that you would respond to this message (which, it seems, I did), it would have nothing at all to say about the freedom you exercised in responding. I didn't "make" you do anything, even though I fully and correctly knew you would.

Foreknowledge is not a problem for freedom, rationally speaking. But Predeterminism would be the death of freedom.

If God were to intervene in history, God would know exactly when , where, and under what precise circumstance He would be intervening.These conditions would render His intervention deterministic.

Here's the same mistake again. It doesn't matter what anybody "foreknows." Knowing things doesn't make them happen. Only making them happen makes them happen.

Christianity is a syncretic religion?

Catholicism is. It's Roman Catholicism, which puts syncretism in its name. But I'm not a Catholic.

Indeed polytheism was much practised at the beginning of God's history.

You don't understand the concept "God" if you think this is true. There was no "beginning of God's history." God is eternal.

But historically, human beings have often been idolatrous, polytheistic, wicked, and all kinds of things. That says nothing about God, of course.

Indeed belief in miracles is kept alive by some church authorities because the belief suits them.

An irrelevant comment, either way. That some people believe a thing makes it neither more nor less likely. Maybe those authorities are wrong, and maybe they're right -- either way, you'd have to settle it on historical grounds, not on your personal dislike of clergy. A belief does not become right or wrong because of the person or people holding it -- that's simply an ad hominem fallacy again.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:52 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:50 pm "Being born as a natural human being would not in itself prevent your being an originator of events."

Then stop harpin' on it.

#

"Being begotten of parents is only one cause of who and what your are and what you do. Please think of the many happenings of pour life and how they were all caused by an immensely complex set of other events , some of them laws of nature. Can you honestly pick out any event in your life that was not caused by other events?"

Yeah, there are loads of influences, but only one determiner.

Me.

Who are you Henry ? Who am I?

What you wrote raises interesting questions of personal identity.

If the police were trying to identify a man they would often have to resort to dental records, utility bills, finger prints, DNA, and possession of legal certificates. Memory cannot be the ultimate identifier as there is dementia, and also there are false memories.

But let's not get sidetracked into the topic of personal identity !

Not my intent.

I simply point out: all those determiners you allude to, aren't, they're influences. The determiner is the individual, the free will.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:48 pm Belinda is tryin' to divide & conquer, clever girl that she is.

I am not concerned. My respect for you as a person does not depend on you being in perfect harmony with me on all questions. I prefer you as you are...blunt, honest, direct and willing to take me on when you feel you want to. And I'm straight with you.

So "divided"? Naw. We're good, so far as I'm concerned. And I don't mind acknowledging the residual differences between our positions.

The matter at hand: is man imbued with (or is he a) free will(?), and does free will comes from the Creator?

That is so. The OP reflects that. Fair enough.

If the Supreme Being can make creatures, what reasoning would lead us to be convinced that for some reason He couldn't grant them free will? He'd be less than "supreme" if He could not.

I have claimed and now claim God granted Free Will to men. My claim is of course within the superior claim that the God myth is true. I don't claim that.

It has nothing to do with probability. Even if I knew with 100% certainty that you would respond to this message (which, it seems, I did), it would have nothing at all to say about the freedom you exercised in responding. I didn't "make" you do anything, even though I fully and correctly knew you would.

But nobody can predict with absolute certainty . We predict empirically that's to say we remember past connections and decide what's probably going to happen. God and only God knows without any recourse to probability.

If God were to intervene in history, God would know exactly when , where, and under what precise circumstance He would be intervening.These conditions would render His intervention deterministic.

Here's the same mistake again. It doesn't matter what anybody "foreknows." Knowing things doesn't make them happen. Only making them happen makes them happen.

True "knowing things doesn't make them happen". God however not only knows what He created but also the Creation is all His own work;He made it happen.

Christianity is a syncretic religion?

Catholicism is. It's Roman Catholicism, which puts syncretism in its name. But I'm not a Catholic.

Protestantism grew out of RC . Proestantism did not arise miraculously de novo.

Indeed polytheism was much practised at the beginning of God's history.

You don't understand the concept "God" if you think this is true. There was no "beginning of God's history." God is eternal.

As I have repeatedly said "God is eternal". This conversation like we are presuming for the sake of argument that God exists.

But historically, human beings have often been idolatrous, polytheistic, wicked, and all kinds of things. That says nothing about God, of course.

The idea of monotheism arose at a time and place , notably in ancient Egypt. Some people today and formerly during man's past like polytheism, idolatry,"wicked"and "all sorts of things" ; however monotheism, and indeed Christianity, has been and is very influential .

Indeed belief in miracles is kept alive by some church authorities because the belief suits them.

An irrelevant comment, either way. That some people believe a thing makes it neither more nor less likely. Maybe those authorities are wrong, and maybe they're right -- either way, you'd have to settle it on historical grounds, not on your personal dislike of clergy. A belief does not become right or wrong because of the person or people holding it -- that's simply an ad hominem fallacy again.

True. But they would say that wouldn't they! Confirmation bias, and plain cynicism, have to be considered when we are looking at how reliable witnesses are.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:00 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:48 pm Belinda is tryin' to divide & conquer, clever girl that she is.

I am not concerned. My respect for you as a person does not depend on you being in perfect harmony with me on all questions. I prefer you as you are...blunt, honest, direct and willing to take me on when you feel you want to. And I'm straight with you.

So "divided"? Naw. We're good, so far as I'm concerned. And I don't mind acknowledging the residual differences between our positions.

The matter at hand: is man imbued with (or is he a) free will(?), and does free will comes from the Creator?

That is so. The OP reflects that. Fair enough.

Yeah, we're good.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:36 pm I have claimed and now claim God granted Free Will to men. My claim is of course within the superior claim that the God myth is true. I don't claim that.

Then your claim is, nobody granted nothing to no one. That's all. Not a very spectacular claim, to be sure.

It has nothing to do with probability. Even if I knew with 100% certainty that you would respond to this message (which, it seems, I did), it would have nothing at all to say about the freedom you exercised in responding. I didn't "make" you do anything, even though I fully and correctly knew you would.

But nobody can predict with absolute certainty .

You're missing the point again. It doesn't matter what anybody "knows." That's an epistemological question. And people fail to "know" all kinds of things that are true, such as when people all believed the Earth was flat. So what anybody "predicts" floats no boats.

God and only God knows without any recourse to probability.

Sure. But that doesn't suggest he "makes" what he knows to come about, any more than I just made you reply again.

True "knowing things doesn't make them happen". God however not only knows what He created but also the Creation is all His own work;He made it happen.

Only in the ultimate sense that he set all things into motion in the first place. But if, as I maintain, he also created human volition in HIs own image, such that man has libertarian freedom to choose, then it's of no consequence to the question.

Protestantism grew out of RC . Proestantism did not arise miraculously de novo.

Non-Catholic Christianity predated Catholicism. It wasn't until after Constantine that the Roman Catholic Church even existed. You can debate whether Protestantism is a new thing, or whether it represents a better continuity with early Christianity; but you can't say the RC's were the first on scene, for sure.

The idea of monotheism arose at a time and place , notably in ancient Egypt.

That's your guess. It's not true, but you can have it.

Indeed belief in miracles is kept alive by some church authorities because the belief suits them.

An irrelevant comment, either way. That some people believe a thing makes it neither more nor less likely. Maybe those authorities are wrong, and maybe they're right -- either way, you'd have to settle it on historical grounds, not on your personal dislike of clergy. A belief does not become right or wrong because of the person or people holding it -- that's simply an ad hominem fallacy again.

True. But they would say that wouldn't they!

I don't think so. These "authorities" of yours would likely claim they were right. Why else would they claim to be "authorities"? What I'm saying is that they, and their beliefs, are irrelevant to the question. They wouldn't like that, perhaps, but their objection would also be ad hominem.

I have claimed and now claim God granted Free Will to men. My claim is of course within the superior claim that the God myth is true. I don't claim that.

Then your claim is, nobody granted nothing to no one. That's all. Not a very spectacular claim, to be sure.

it's not customary to write a foreword to every post explaining the grounds of the argument The title of this thread ( "Free will was given to man by god.") makes it clear the God story for the sake of argument is presumed to be true.

Only in the ultimate sense that he set all things into motion in the first place. But if, as I maintain, he also created human volition in HIs own image, such that man has libertarian freedom to choose, then it's of no consequence to the question.

If God did give Free Will to men that is of great importance to moral and political stances.

Protestantism grew out of RC . Proestantism did not arise miraculously de novo.

Non-Catholic Christianity predated Catholicism. It wasn't until after Constantine that the Roman Catholic Church even existed. You can debate whether Protestantism is a new thing, or whether it represents a better continuity with early Christianity; but you can't say the RC's were the first on scene, for sure.

The idea of monotheism arose at a time and place , notably in ancient Egypt.

That's your guess. It's not true, but you can have it.

Debating the history of God requires history-based education in the humanities, in particular philosophy of history.

But they would say that wouldn't they!

I don't think so. These "authorities" of yours would likely claim they were right. Why else would they claim to be "authorities"? What I'm saying is that they, and their beliefs, are irrelevant to the question. They wouldn't like that, perhaps, but their objection would also be ad hominem.

'Ad hominem' may be claimed of evidence of facts, however 'ad hominem' may not be claimed of ideas. For instance if the RCC authority proclaimed it thought women priests was a good idea it would be silly to accuse it of ad hominem. Similarly if Immanuel Can were to claim socialism has a lot of good about it he could not be accused of ad hominem, as these are ideas not claims about facts.

Similarly in a court of law a witness may be deemed unreliable. However if said witness claimed God was protecting her her unreliability as a witness would be irrelevant.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:55 pm

I have claimed and now claim God granted Free Will to men. My claim is of course within the superior claim that the God myth is true. I don't claim that.

Then your claim is, nobody granted nothing to no one. That's all. Not a very spectacular claim, to be sure.

it's not customary to write a foreword to every post explaining the grounds of the argument The title of this thread ( "Free will was given to man by god.") makes it clear the God story for the sake of argument is presumed to be true.

In fact it is not even relevant since the bible contains the idea that we have free will and the idea that we do not. Likewise there are theists in both camps.

ADDendum

Actually - I looked back. The original post asks specifically where in the Bible it appears. The phrase itself does not.
And it is clear that whoever penned the bible, none of them had a clear idea of the free will/determinism argument to discuss it; until after the Gospels.

Passages that seem to promote either argument are ambiguous.

However in the NT there are verses that make a clear case for determinism.
Nothing promoting free will is evident, and seems to be a complete invention of later Xians.

ROMANS
8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Ephesians 1
1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein h

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:55 pm

I have claimed and now claim God granted Free Will to men. My claim is of course within the superior claim that the God myth is true. I don't claim that.

Then your claim is, nobody granted nothing to no one. That's all. Not a very spectacular claim, to be sure.

it's not customary to write a foreword to every post explaining the grounds of the argument The title of this thread ( "Free will was given to man by god.") makes it clear the God story for the sake of argument is presumed to be true.

Not at all necessarily. The OP statement is offered for debate. You are not obligated to agree with the phrase.

Only in the ultimate sense that he set all things into motion in the first place. But if, as I maintain, he also created human volition in HIs own image, such that man has libertarian freedom to choose, then it's of no consequence to the question.

If God did give Free Will to men that is of great importance to moral and political stances.

I did not say it wasn't. I only pointed out that it did not create an argument in favour of Determinism, if He did.

'Ad hominem' may be claimed of evidence of facts, however 'ad hominem' may not be claimed of ideas.

Ad hominem does not apply to facts. It applies only to propositions...that is, of ideas in which the value of the idea is predicated on some critique of the character or identity of the speaker.

And except in cases in which the character of the speaker is introduced as specific evidence for some proposition, all propositions using ad hominem reasoning are fallacious.