why so angry?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, in my view the source is nature. You are a part of nature. I still blame you and trace your choices back to you.

[b]You see you might as well "blame" the cat for chasing the mouse (which would be silly) .
Not silly at all. If the cat chases my pet mouse then the cat gets a spank. My mums cat knows what it is allowed to chase and what it isn't ...[text shortened]... ent required. Just don't claim that it is logical because it isn't.[/b]

Why don't you just admit that your concept of God is irrational and illogical and accept that you believe in an irrational and illogical universe instead of trying to constantly rationalize everything with "Goddunit". WHITEY

I think on the uncaused cause thread I did admit that it is ultimately irrational in a way. I think though beyond the rational is a better way of putting it. God is ultimately an impenetrable mystery but that does not mean that we cannot say anything rational about him or the way he enables men to make free choices. I think it's illogical to think that rationality doesn't have limits. It's rational to think that not everything can be explained.

Originally posted by dottewell
No you weren't, because you can't. Patently, you don't grasp what compatibilism is; you simply can't explain what it means, on your "account", to say you could have acted differently in strictly identical circumstances; you can't articulate what this mysterious god-given unbound volition is, or where or how it figures in an explanation of your having chose ...[text shortened]... tellectual wasteland.

But perhaps that's the (unthinking) Christian way.

You had a golden opportunity to engage in a civilised and informative exchange with someone who knows far more than you or I about these issues, DOTTEWELL

Did it ever occur to you that barr might be the one to learn something from me or was it just a given in your mind that I was some uneducated sap? The fact is I don't understand compatabilism and it's nothing to do with education it's to do with it being a crock and a kop out. It makes no sense to me , not because I can't understand but because it doesn't add up.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think it's illogical to think that rationality doesn't have limits. It's rational to think that not everything can be explained.

It irrational to think that your irrational solution is more rational than any other irrational solution.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I agree in a way , it would be just passing the buck. It's like saying God created the universe which just begs the question who created God? The thing is to recognise that the definition of God is that he is not created but always existing. He has no cause and no explanation. With God you have got to the point where explanations stop because you can't ...[text shortened]... deeper into reality. God is like existence's prime number , you can't divide him any more.

Definitions do not create reality. The fact that you accept that there can be an entity that fits your definition for God which allows an entity not to have a cause, means that the initial problem of requiring a cause for everything is invalid. And thus there is no need for God as an explanation.

One thing I have realised is that if one could explain how a free will decision was made then it would prove that it was not infact a free will decision. If I could explain how we have this ability then I would give that choice a cause which would not make it a free choice.
You are essentially saying that your decisions are random.
Your real problem is you do not in fact understand what constitutes 'you' and thus do not see free will in the same way as I do.
In my opinion, if my decisions are based on my brains machineries ability to reason utilizing both memories from my past and logical deductions made within my mind, and possibly even influenced by hormones etc as long as my decision is not made by an external entity then I still call it free will.
You however seem to feel shackled by your own brain thinking that if your brain were to make a decision then you would not be free so you must conjour up some supernatural entity to make the decisions. If that supernatural entity is influenced even by itself into making a decision then again you are shackled (ad infinitum) etc etc

It's like if I was able to explain how God got there. It would prove that God was not God at all but was dependent on something else to exist. I should then have to call that thing God instead and then you would ask me how that got there (ad infinitum) etc etc
Which just shows the fallacy in taking the first step of claiming that there is a need for God in order to explain the universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Definitions do not create reality. The fact that you accept that there can be an entity that fits your definition for God which allows an entity not to have a cause, means that the initial problem of requiring a cause for everything is invalid. And thus there is no need for God as an explanation.

[b]One thing I have realised is that if one could explai ...[text shortened]... ing the first step of claiming that there is a need for God in order to explain the universe.

Which just shows the fallacy in taking the first step of claiming that there is a need for God in order to explain the universe. WHITEY

Which is a claim others make but I do not make. I only say that there must be something uncaused in existence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Which is a claim others make but I do not make. I only say that there must be something uncaused in existence.

Actually I thought your claim in previous threads was that existence was infinite and thus there was no need for an uncaused entity.

And applying similar logic to free will you need only for a choice method that has no causally sufficient influences external to 'you' for free choice to be possible. It is unnecessary to resort to the supernatural and in fact resorting to the supernatural has no impact whatsoever on the problem.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Definitions do not create reality. The fact that you accept that there can be an entity that fits your definition for God which allows an entity not to have a cause, means that the initial problem of requiring a cause for everything is invalid. And thus there is no need for God as an explanation.

[b]One thing I have realised is that if one could explai ...[text shortened]... ing the first step of claiming that there is a need for God in order to explain the universe.

In my opinion, if my decisions are based on my brains machineries ability to reason utilizing both memories from my past and logical deductions made within my mind, and possibly even influenced by hormones etc as long as my decision is not made by an external entity then I still call it free will. WHITEY

I see what you are saying . You are saying that as long as it is you that is doing the choosing it is free will to you. I'm honestly curious about this though. Even though it is superficially "you" that is making the decision how do you then say it is free. ? The worm makes a decision to turn this way or that and the source of the worms decision is the worm. However , we do not say that the worm has free will because we see the worm as being subject to biological / natrual /instinctive forces that it cannot be free from. Neither do we see the worm as having any real choice , it is determined by natures forces (some of which we don't understand) to do what it does.

Given that (for the materialist) the human brain and body is nothing more than a far more complex form of the worm's make up , how do you go about claiming that we have a will that is free from determinism and that we really do have other alternative options to choose? The processes we go through are far more complex but ultimately they can be traced back to evolution/biology etc etc. How can they be free if there is nothing more than mechanistic , determined nature to this life.

You may call it free will but is it? How can it be if there is only one outcome possible?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I thought your claim in previous threads was that existence was infinite and thus there was no need for an uncaused entity.

And applying similar logic to free will you need only for a choice method that has no causally sufficient influences external to 'you' for free choice to be possible. It is unnecessary to resort to the supernatural and in fact resorting to the supernatural has no impact whatsoever on the problem.

And applying similar logic to free will you need only for a choice method that has no causally sufficient influences external to 'you' for free choice to be possibleWHITEY

...and what might that choice method be? What does it mean to say there is nothing causally sufficient within me to force me to make this decision? How does one then make that decision if it is not caused?

BTW- Do you think the worm is forced by nature to turn this way or that? If not why not? If so , then how are we not similarly forced?

Originally posted by knightmeister
...and what might that choice method be? What does it mean to say there is nothing causally sufficient within me to force me to make this decision? How does one then make that decision if it is not caused?

I did not say within you I said external to you.

BTW- Do you think the worm is forced by nature to turn this way or that? If not why not? If so , then how are we not similarly forced?
No, the worm is not forced by nature external to itself (unless it bumps into a rock.) But the worm is part of nature and made up of nature and so are we and the piece of nature within us makes the choices. There is no significant difference between our decision making and that of worms. Our ability to process (reason) the information is far greater but the fundamentals are the same.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did not say within you I said external to you.

[b]BTW- Do you think the worm is forced by nature to turn this way or that? If not why not? If so , then how are we not similarly forced?
No, the worm is not forced by nature external to itself (unless it bumps into a rock.) But the worm is part of nature and made up of nature and so are we and the ...[text shortened]... ur ability to process (reason) the information is far greater but the fundamentals are the same.[/b]

I did not say within you I said external to you.

BTW- Do you think the worm is forced by nature to turn this way or that? If not why not? If so , then how are we not similarly forced?KM

No, the worm is not forced by nature external to itself (unless it bumps into a rock.) But the worm is part of nature and made up of nature and so are we and the piece of nature within us makes the choices. There is no significant difference between our decision making and that of worms. Our ability to process (reason) the information is far greater but the fundamentals are the same.WHITEY

Hang on though , why do you call them "choices"? Certainly the choice cannot be free because it is not the worm or you that's in control ultimately. There is only one outcome possible (except for pot luck) You see it makes no difference if its external/internal the important question is WHY does the worm do what it does. You can locate the "how" within the worm (or a man) but the why needs more than just the worm. One must understand biology, nature, evolution etc . to explain why . And all whys get traced back to determined nature or randomness in your view.

You say that the worm is not forced to do what it does , but how can this be? Forced , determined , it's all the same. What difference does it make if an action is forced or determined , the outcome is just the same, the outcome is inevitable either way. If I am determined by natures forces to choose A then I am forced to choose A because I have no choice in the matter. If this force is within or without it makes no difference , I will ALWAYS choose A , so I might as well be forced. A computer is forced to make a certain outcome by its programming. How are we different? I know , do you?

This makes an illusion of our experience of making free reasonable choices of our own volition . If one took it to it's logical extreme one could argue that no-one is really rationally responsible for their actions. We could only say that men do what nature's laws force them to do (via their brains) OR that men also do random stuff.

The strange thing is you seem to think that men are morally responsible for their actions (are worms?) . I agree that they are but I have an intellectual base for saying that they are responsible and accountable , you apparently do not , unless you want to take Mr Wormy to court one day.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Definitions do not create reality. The fact that you accept that there can be an entity that fits your definition for God which allows an entity not to have a cause, means that the initial problem of requiring a cause for everything is invalid. And thus there is no need for God as an explanation.

[b]One thing I have realised is that if one could explai ...[text shortened]... ing the first step of claiming that there is a need for God in order to explain the universe.

In my opinion, if my decisions are based on my brains machineries ability to reason utilizing both memories from my past and logical deductions made within my mind, and possibly even influenced by hormones etc as long as my decision is not made by an external entity then I still call it free will. WHITEY

But it would make no sense to call it free will because your brain is the way it is because of natural laws and forces not you. They are still your decisions but they are not free because there can be only one outcome. According to your world view you are nothing more than an incredibly advanced biological computer on two legs. why does it matter whether an external entity is involved or not , this is a side issue. Everything you decide could be explained via natural laws not you. Do you think the sun has free will because no external entity forces it to shine? How about trees? No external entity makes them grow. Do trees have free will? Do worms?

Originally posted by knightmeister
In my opinion, if my decisions are based on my brains machineries ability to reason utilizing both memories from my past and logical deductions made within my mind, and possibly even influenced by hormones etc as long as my decision is not made by an external entity then I still call it free will. WHITEY

But it would make no sense to call it free wi ...[text shortened]... o shine? How about trees? No external entity makes them grow. Do trees have free will? Do worms?

What exactly does 'free' in 'free will' mean?

Free from what?

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
According to your world view you are nothing more than an incredibly advanced biological computer on two legs. why does it matter whether an external entity is involved or not , this is a side issue. Everything you decide could be explained via natural laws not you.

Now you are contradiction yourself. First you say that I am natural laws then you say that naturals laws are not me. That is where your fundamental confusion is coming in. You have failed to understand what you or I are. Think about it for a bit.

Also realize that it does not matter whether the laws are natural or supernatural.

I understand free to mean 'no external causally sufficient influences'. If you have a different definition then lets here it. So far you have hinted that you see it as something different but you have failed to articulate it.

In my opinion, any decision I make is based on:
1. Information stored in my memory or gathered at the time.
2. A processing engine that processes that information. Note that my processing engine is influenced by both genetic design and environment such as hormones.
3. A random component.
I am very comfortable with this system.

You however appear to:
1. Shy away from the possibility that your decisions are directly due to information in your head.
2. Shy away from the possibility that you have a non-random processing engine.
3. Shy away from the possibility that you have random inputs to your decision making
4. Shy away from the possibility that there is an external source of your decision.
But so far you have given no explanation for where they do come from.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The strange thing is you seem to think that men are morally responsible for their actions (are worms?).

I think my views are much more consistent with holding someone morally responsible for their actions than your views as you have so far failed to articulate where you decision comes from.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think my views are much more consistent with holding someone morally responsible for their actions than your views as you have so far failed to articulate where you decision comes from.

I got bored of clicking the yellow triangle and moved the thread to why so angry part 2