Door 20 (a vision of christian free will)

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 c ...[text shortened]... ing about free will and how can you even claim that it is different from my understanding?

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? WHITEY

PRECISELY!!!! If God exists then I am not going to be able to expalin how he got there am I. However , if one takes the view that something that cannot be explained in terms of anything else cannot exist then God cannot exist. If one does not take that view then God can exist.

Of course I cannot possibly explain free will in the context of causal explanations because that would be paradoxical. The moment I explain the cause of a free choice (if all causes are assumed to be forced) then I am shooting myself in the foot. I understood this weeks ago.

One thing to consider here is the premise "all things that cannot be explained causally must be random" . This is a premise that I reject since I do not consider that God himself is random (in the sense that he lacks rationale , reason amd meaning). God acts to create the universe but what causes him to act? He causes himself to act out of his own volition. If something were to cause him to act then he would not be God. Therefore any discussion on free will has to trace itself back to the nature of God and the nature of God by definition cannot be causally explained.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 c ing about free will and how can you even claim that it is different from my understanding?

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? WHITEY

The "why?" in free will is connected to the choice itself. In normal deterministic circumstances there is the "why" (cause) followed by the choice (effect). It can be said then that the "why" is driving the choice (cause forcing an effect) . In free will there are two "why's" not one (for two course of action) and I have to select via choice . The immediate question is what is the "why?" for the choice.? The basic answer is that in free will the choice comes BEFORE the "why?" . The "why?" for my choice is the choice I select. If I choose A then the reason why I choose A is the reasons attached to A , if I choose B then the reason for choosing B is B. In free will the causal chain is subverted and the choice drives the process rather than the reason ("why" ) driving the choice. Basically , in my view the cart does come before the horse but just because the cart and the horse are not the conventional way round does not mean there is no horse.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 c ...[text shortened]... ing about free will and how can you even claim that it is different from my understanding?

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. WHITEY

This is true but what do you think I am being dishonest about? I may be re-defining a word for the purpose of my line of argument but any "dishonesty" is mind reading. I'm not one for looking back on threads to see what the rules are about what you are supposed to say or not say. If you want we can agree that caused means causally forced if you like and then re-trace from there.

The point I am making about the influence of the Holy Spirit is that God by his nature is the cause of all causality and is not "within" the world of forced , deterministic causality. When God influences a person to a course of action it is not in a forced way . In a loose way one could say that the Holy Spirit is the "cause" of someone converting (for example) but this is really as you say an influence rather than a cause. are we not getting stuck in semantics here though? Whether I call it cause or influence or prompting the principle is the same. The choice to convert (for example) is intiated or prompted by the Holy Spirit in a non- forced fashion. You will then say that because it is not forced it can't be a the cause and ask me to explain what causes someone to choose God. You will then not allow me to say "the Holy Spirit" because you will say all causation has to be forced or else it is a random choice. But I say again it's this premise that I am challenging.

I don't think either you or I are being dishonest. I just think it's a very complex and thorny issue.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If I choose A then the reason why I choose A is the reasons attached to A , if I choose B then the reason for choosing B is B. In free will the causal chain is subverted and the choice drives the process rather than the reason ("why" ) driving the choice.

As it pertains to your second sentence, what are the constituent parts of a 'choice?'

It would seem that the 'choice' causes the choosing, and that the 'choice' is arrived at from the reasons.

You are trying to divide the two, and I see one as inextricably linked to the other.

Nemesio

Edit: I take it that you've given up on trying to make sense in the other thread. It's too bad you
couldn't be an adult about it and concede that you were making no sense.

Originally posted by Nemesio
As it pertains to your second sentence, what are the constituent parts of a 'choice?'

It would seem that the 'choice' causes the choosing, and that the 'choice' is arrived at from the reasons.

You are trying to divide the two, and I see one as inextricably linked to the other.

Nemesio

Edit: I take it that you've given up on trying to make sense ...[text shortened]... s too bad you
couldn't be an adult about it and concede that you were making no sense.

What I am saying is that the choosing is based on deliberations of the options available to us but neither one of these options "drives" the choice so that it becomes inevitable.

Originally posted by Nemesio
As it pertains to your second sentence, what are the constituent parts of a 'choice?'

It would seem that the 'choice' causes the choosing, and that the 'choice' is arrived at from the reasons.

You are trying to divide the two, and I see one as inextricably linked to the other.

Nemesio

Edit: I take it that you've given up on trying to make sense ...[text shortened]... s too bad you
couldn't be an adult about it and concede that you were making no sense.

Edit: I take it that you've given up on trying to make sense in the other thread. It's too bad you
couldn't be an adult about it and concede that you were making no sense. NEME

The whole point of the other thread was that it didn't make sense because a computer (meat or otherwise) could never make responsible choices due to the fact that a computer is a machine governed by deterministic/mechanistic principles and therefore simply does whatever it is built to do. The whole idea was supposed to be that it didn't make sense.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The whole point of the other thread was that it didn't make sense because a computer (meat or otherwise) could never make responsible choices due to the fact that a computer is a machine governed by deterministic/mechanistic principles and therefore simply does whatever it is built to do. The whole idea was supposed to be that it didn't make sense.

But you gave up trying to prove that point because you had no valid argument. Talking nonsense about something does not constitute proof that it does not make sense.