Originally posted by twhitehead
What I am trying to achieve it to get you to realize that what you believe to be an experience of your free will is actually an experience of my concept of free will but you just wont accept it partly because you don't understand it as demonstrated in every one of the threads you have started on the subject.

[b]How about " have you ever chosen A over B Or have you changed your view of free will yet again and forgotten as usual to tell anyone?

The only real difference is that you believe that the random generator is supernatural and I do not. WHITEY

You can desperately missrepresent my position all you like in an attempt to try and make my conception and experience of free will similar or identical to yours but it won't work. I will freely act to draw the distinction once again. Anyway , what are you afraid of? What's so bad about admitting that we experience some choices (not all) as being open to more than one potential timeline that could happen but might not if we don't choose it. It won't defeat your argument , you would only be admitting that we have the occasional illusion of real free will.

At the beginning of all this you said "I still disagree, the experience doesn't back you up. It is your delusional interpretation that does." and in some senses I agree with this , I think it could be a delusional interpretation or a delusional experience (whatever) but it is one shared by countless billions.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Anyway , what are you afraid of? What's so bad about admitting that we experience some choices (not all) as being open to more than one potential timeline that could happen but might not if we don't choose it.

It is you that is desperately trying to misrepresent my position. Go back and read all my posts again and again. You will find that I do "experience some choices (not all) as being open to more than one potential timeline that could happen but might not if we don't choose it." and that that is fully compatible with determinism and my understanding of free will. The place we disagree is where the choice comes from.

And stop repeating your false claim that most of the world agrees with you because you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever for such a claim. Your questionnaire only showed that people agree with both of us.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is you that is desperately trying to misrepresent my position. Go back and read all my posts again and again. You will find that I do "experience some choices (not all) as being open to more than one potential timeline that could happen but might not if we don't choose it." and that that is fully compatible with determinism and my understanding of free ...[text shortened]... atsoever for such a claim. Your questionnaire only showed that people agree with both of us.

You will find that I do "experience some choices (not all) as being open to more than one potential timeline that could happen but might not if we don't choose it." and that that is fully compatible with determinism and my understanding of free will. WHITEY

How can it be logically compatible? With determinism only one timeline could ever be possible , namely the one that is determined to happen. If choice A is the determined choice that will happen then choice B can never happen and has no potential to happen. The only caveat to this would be if choice B happened by chance (in your view) , but then it would not be a meaningful choice would it? To use an example Hitler could never have chosen to not start WW2 , it was determined (but the cosmic dice might have stopped it).

I don't doubt that your experience is that you approach choice A or B with the sensation that either A or B could really happen , but do you look bac after you made the choice A and feel that you could have made a meaningful choice of B without being a different person?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't doubt that your experience is that you approach choice A or B with the sensation that either A or B could really happen , but do you look bac after you made the choice A and feel that you could have made a meaningful choice of B without being a different person?

Except for my acceptance of randomness in the universe then my answer is no. Unless I was a different person I could not possibly have made a different choice and I don't feel that I could and your questionaire did not include that clause and I think most people would answer differently if you include it.
Do you think that you could have chosen differently without being a different person? Doesn't that make you feel like you have no control over your life? After all it is just plain luck that you made each of those choices.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except for my acceptance of randomness in the universe then my answer is no. Unless I was a different person I could not possibly have made a different choice and I don't feel that I could and your questionaire did not include that clause and I think most people would answer differently if you include it.
Do you think that you could have chosen different ...[text shortened]... o control over your life? After all it is just plain luck that you made each of those choices.

No , I feel that there are quite a few potential characters I could be. I have within me someone who is potentially quite selfish and ego tistical. I also have a very sensitive side that is compassionate , I get to choose which character comes to the fore most often. I know I have a dark side that could potentially spell disaster for me if I don't work against it. Maybe this is your difficulty ---acknowledging the different aspects of yourself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No , I feel that there are quite a few potential characters I could be. I have within me someone who is potentially quite selfish and ego tistical. I also have a very sensitive side that is compassionate , I get to choose which character comes to the fore most often. I know I have a dark side that could potentially spell disaster for me if I don't work against it. Maybe this is your difficulty ---acknowledging the different aspects of yourself.

Its not clear which question you are answering so please answer again"
1. Do you think that you could have chosen differently without being a different person?
2. If yes to 1.: Doesn't that render your choices as random?
3. If yes to 1.: Doesn't that make you feel like you have no control over your life?

And stop trying to hide behind layers as usual. You split your self up into characters then still say "I choose which one to be". Who is the "I" here? Do you take a vote? You are playing the old game of:
Q: Who makes the choice?
A: God
Q: but wheres' the free will?
A: I choose to give God the decision.
Q: so how do you choose?
A: which ever character I choose makes the choice.
Q: so how do you choose which character?
A: ...silence... Start a new thread and repeat process.

Doesnt it look rather like the old first cause argument or the where does evil come from argument:
Q: Where does evil come from
A: It part of the world
Q: but how did it get here.
A: Adam did it
Q: but why did adam do it?
A: Eve made him.
Q:but why did eve make him?
A: the devil made her do it.
Q: who made the devil evil?
A: Its a necesary part of free will.
Q: please explain.
silence..... start a new thread and repeat...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not clear which question you are answering so please answer again"
1. Do you think that you could have chosen differently without being a different person?
2. If yes to 1.: Doesn't that render your choices as random?
3. If yes to 1.: Doesn't that make you feel like you have no control over your life?

And stop trying to hide behind layers as usua ...[text shortened]... ry part of free will.
Q: please explain.
silence..... start a new thread and repeat...

1. Do you think that you could have chosen differently without being a different person?
2. If yes to 1.: Doesn't that render your choices as random?

KM-- No , because I believe there are 3 aspects to existence , determinism , randomness , and God's nature

3. If yes to 1.: Doesn't that make you feel like you have no control over your life?

KM- No , because I have the power to make the right choices that will lead to spiritual growth and God will be with me all the way. It's heck of a lot better than being at the mercy of causal factors or cosmic dice. At least I get to decide my own destiny and shape it myself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No , because I have the power to make the right choices that will lead to spiritual growth and God will be with me all the way. It's heck of a lot better than being at the mercy of causal factors or cosmic dice. At least I get to decide my own destiny and shape it myself.

You are at the 'mercy' of causal factors. Your diet, your culture,
your interests, your personality was formed by the experiences you had
with those authority figures who provided formative training to you when
you were young -- at first and primarily, your parents; secondarily, close
relatives who participated in your development; tertiarily, teachers and
friends; &c. Had you had different parents, different family, and different
teachers, you would have been a different person entirely.

Do you deny this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
KM- No , because I have the power to make the right choices that will lead to spiritual growth and God will be with me all the way. It's heck of a lot better than being at the mercy of causal factors or cosmic dice. At least I get to decide my own destiny and shape it myself.

You just keep on contradicting yourself and cant seem to see it. You do not get to decide your own destiny. You are at the mercy of 'Gods nature' which by the way you are yet to give any definition for that doesn't fit my definition of randomness. If you a put in a situation and choose A and then the same situation is repeated with no changes to anything including you and you choose B then you cant possibly be claiming to be 'in control'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You just keep on contradicting yourself and cant seem to see it. You do not get to decide your own destiny. You are at the mercy of 'Gods nature' which by the way you are yet to give any definition for that doesn't fit my definition of randomness. If you a put in a situation and choose A and then the same situation is repeated with no changes to anything including you and you choose B then you cant possibly be claiming to be 'in control'.

Yes , I am claiming control. To a certain extent my choice is limited to the options God places before me if that's what you mean. I am not at the mercy of God's nature as such because serving God does require our consent all the way along (eg the cartwheel guy did not have to do what he did , he was prompted but not forced)

Why is this? It's because God is not some blind force of nature , he is personal and also the Uncaused cause of all creation with a self determining will of his own. You are going to hate this ..but God is a special case because he is not within the universe , not caused by anything and not random. You might as well argue that God doesn't exist really , because if he does then something distinct from determinism or randomness becomes possible.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes , I am claiming control. To a certain extent my choice is limited to the options God places before me if that's what you mean. I am not at the mercy of God's nature as such because serving God does require our consent all the way along (eg the cartwheel guy did not have to do what he did , he was prompted but not forced)

As I said - contradicting yourself. You said that your choice was caused by Gods nature now you are denying it. Make up your mind and stick with it or announce every time you change it or we are simply wasting our time.

You might as well argue that God doesn't exist really , because if he does then something distinct from determinism or randomness becomes possible.
I know God doesn't exist but for the sake of understanding your argument we are supposing that he does. But no, something distinct from determinism or randomness does not become possible because the two are complementary you just don't like it so skirt around the issue but refuse to address it.
Once again, provide a definition for 'random' that does not include Gods actions or admit that Gods actions (and yours) are random.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said - contradicting yourself. You said that your choice was caused by Gods nature now you are denying it. Make up your mind and stick with it or announce every time you change it or we are simply wasting our time.

[b]You might as well argue that God doesn't exist really , because if he does then something distinct from determinism or randomness ...[text shortened]... ndom' that does not include Gods actions or admit that Gods actions (and yours) are random.

As I said - contradicting yourself. You said that your choice was caused by Gods nature now you are denying it. Make up your mind and stick with it or announce every time you change it or we are simply wasting our time. WHITEY

But "caused" in what way? Causally forced? Influenced? Prompted? Encouraged? The power to choose made available but not co-erced upon us? Of course in determinism one only knows one kind of causality , but then God is something quite different. Why do you insist on making out I believe something that I don't?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But "caused" in what way? Causally forced? Influenced? Prompted? Encouraged? The power to choose made available but not co-erced upon us? Of course in determinism one only knows one kind of causality , but then God is something quite different. Why do you insist on making out I believe something that I don't?

Because quite simply you said you did. If you say "caused" without any qualifier it means "Causally forced". If you meant Influenced, Prompted, or Encouraged then say so, don't say caused.
But I am tired of you going round and round in circles mostly denying belief in anything in particular. Why not simply say what you do believe? Or don't you believe in anything? You only know how it isn't but not how it is? But that fits the definition of random.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because quite simply you said you did. If you say "caused" without any qualifier it means "Causally forced". If you meant Influenced, Prompted, or Encouraged then say so, don't say caused.
But I am tired of you going round and round in circles mostly denying belief in anything in particular. Why not simply say what you do believe? Or don't you believe i ...[text shortened]... ng? You only know how it isn't but not how it is? But that fits the definition of random.

I think the assumption that caused means causally forced by neccessity is precisely that an assumption.

The problem of course is that you are asking me to define the nature of the eternal immutable God who is without beginning or end and radically different from our natural universe. I can do this but not in the way you expect me to just in the same way as if you ask me to explain why God is eternal , how he got there etc I'm going to struggle. This might be because it's not true or it might be because actually it is true but just difficult. I can however explain to you how in personal terms God allows me to have free will but I will need to do it in terms of my personal experience so it won't be that scientific.

I know very much how this whole thing works because I understand it in the most meaningful way possible to any man in the intimate depths of my being. I know it in the same way as I know what the smell of cut grass in summer means to me , in a deeply personal way.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think the assumption that caused means causally forced by neccessity is precisely that an assumption.

And I think that you are deliberately trying to create unnecessary misunderstanding in order to hide the fact that you are either wrong or just don't have an answer. I think it is abundantly clear in all the threads on free will that we have had that when we talked about caused we meant 'casually forced'. I think you know that and are being dishonest to claim otherwise.

I can do this but not in the way you expect me to just in the same way as if you ask me to explain why God is eternal , how he got there etc I'm going to struggle.
You are not only going to struggle but you cannot possibly succeed. Are you actually implying that there is a possibility that you can explain how God got there? What will we call that? A pre-first cause?


Its quite simple. When you make a choice, at the heart of that choice after taking into account all the possible influences of your experiences and God etc you have stated that there is a choice made by you and only you that is the ultimate determining factor. So when you choose A rather than B why did you choose A? If you do not know then how can you possibly be claiming responsibility for it? And why do you refuse to accept that it was random? If you do know then that is the cause (and not you). And why when the experiment is repeated with no changes do you sometimes choose B? What happened to the reason why you chose A?
Blab all you want about the 'intimate depths of your being', if you cant answer the above questions then how can you claim to understand anything about free will and how can you even claim that it is different from my understanding?