Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[Stranger]

Firstly, your fixation with everything having to have an external cause.

I'm seriously struggling to relate this comment to anything I said in the post you quoted. Maybe you're on about the free will argument? But that doesn't make much sense either. No idea what you're on about.

Secondly, the contradiction between that and the suspension of the principle of sufficient reason it actually entails...

What!? Nothing of what I said here relates to the PSR.

...and thirdly your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".

From the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator, what't the difference? It would be faced with the choice of making the world like X, in which case everybody's choices would be the fully understood and known consequences, or making it another way with a different set of people and their choices.

The act of creation would directly cause all the consequences.

Even if it introduced randomness, it would know the outcomes, and you can hardly hold people responsible for randomness any more than you can for making the world in such and such a way.

[Stranger]

"Allowing" suggests granting freedom which Stranger is actually arguing doesn't exist.

In any sense that would make a choice not determined and not random, it's logically self-contradictory.

[Maeght]

No I think the proposal is God Knows so he causes. That is problematic.
"Allowing" suggests granting freedom which Stranger is actually arguing doesn't exist.

Okay. Alternatively then, creating a world where God knows that the 'events' will happen when he could have created it differently.

[Alan Burns]

The act of creation would directly cause all the consequences.

Not if the creator creates the gift of free will.

[Stranger]

Not if the creator creates the gift of free will.

Along with a few square circles, maybe?

As I'm sure I've said to you countless times before, if you want to claim your God can do things that are logically impossible (self-contradictory), then there can be 'free will' in the way you want, otherwise not.

[Alan Burns]

Along with a few square circles, maybe?

As I'm sure I've said to you countless times before, if you want to claim your God can do things that are logically impossible (self-contradictory), then there can be 'free will' in the way you want, otherwise not.

It is your claim that the human ability to have conscious freedom to have control of their own thought processes is a logical impossibility.  I claim it is the reality which defines us as a human being, the reality which allows us to contemplate and try to make sense of our own existence, the reality which allows us to consciously accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, or the reality which enables us to think of reasons to reject Jesus and try to convince ourselves that we are all just an unavoidable consequence of reactions to past events.

[Gordon]

It is your claim that the human ability to have conscious freedom to have control of their own thought processes is a logical impossibility.  I claim it is the reality which defines us as a human being, the reality which allows us to contemplate and try to make sense of our own existence, the reality which allows us to consciously accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, or the reality which enables us to think of reasons to reject Jesus and try to convince ourselves that we are all just an unavoidable consequence of reactions to past events.

I need no convincing that Christianly, as it stands, is theobollocks - and you have just very ably demonstrated why I think that.

[Stranger]

It is your claim that the human ability to have conscious freedom to have control of their own thought processes is a logical impossibility.

It's not a claim, it's a logical argument. One that you have never once managed to find a flaw in, despite your numerous unjustified (and hence somewhat dishonest) accusations that it is actually flawed.

I claim it is the reality which defines us as a human being, the reality which allows us to contemplate and try to make sense of our own existence, the reality which allows us to consciously accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, or the reality which enables us to think of reasons to reject Jesus and try to convince ourselves that we are all just an unavoidable consequence of reactions to past events.

And this is just some empty unjustified claims that you have never once managed to get close to supporting with reasoning or evidence...   

It also has bugger all to do with 'rejecting Jesus'. For all practical purposes, we have free will in the sense we ca do as we wish. The reason for rejecting your Jesus fairytale is that it's absurd (some examples in #86).

[Free Willy]

Along with a few square circles, maybe?

Category Error. Can you spot why free will is not in the same category as square circles. Poor analogy. Secondly although there is universal agreement that you can’t have Squarecircles. This is not settled i  n the case of Freewill and determinism. Freewill on something’s part, Whether it’s God or some overarching law of nature removes the infinite regress of reasons.

As I'm sure I've said to you countless times before, if you want to claim your God can do things that are logically impossible (self-contradictory), then there can be 'free will' in the way you want, otherwise not.

Theologically speaking, Free Will is granted in the moral choice and ultimately the choice of whether to accept God or reject him. In conclusion, it has not been concluded that there is only determinism and randomness since in the context of something or nothing there can be no randomness and in determinism an infinite regress never answers the question of what is it which ultimately determines.

If we accept that there is something that is the ultimate determiner then we cannot safely deny the free ability to determine in something else.

[Free Willy]

Okay. Alternatively then, creating a world where God knows that the 'events' will happen when he could have created it differently.

First of all, We partially are in control of the way the world is, so although we can imagine better alternative worlds, I think there is a proven shortfall about what we envisage and how it always seems to turn out down the line. It looks like “we know better than God” isn’t actually a thing.

[Maeght]

First of all, We partially are in control of the way the world is, so although we can imagine better alternative worlds, I think there is a proven shortfall about what we envisage and how it always seems to turn out down the line. It looks like “we know better than God” isn’t actually a thing.

Can't see that that has anything to do with what I  said. Can you explain how it does?

[Free Willy]

Can't see that that has anything to do with what I  said. Can you explain how it does?

You seem assume in what you wrote that God could have made a better world. That’s how I read it. Further, God might well have made universes with different outcomes but the same laws or even other universes with different laws. His will would be free to do so and if he has Freewill, by what process could he be denied giving freedoms to anything in his ambit?

[Maeght]

You seem assume in what you wrote that God could have made a better world. That’s how I read it. Further, God might well have made universes with different outcomes but the same laws or even other universes with different laws. His will would be free to and if he has Freewill, by what process could he be denied giving freedoms to anything in his a,bit?

Did you read that back to yourself before you posted?

This is about you saying 'your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".'

The point is that if God created a world knowing that certain things would happen in that world then is that really different from creating those things/making them happen?

[Free Willy]

Did you read that back to yourself before you posted?

This is about you saying 'your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".'

The point is that if God created a world knowing that certain things would happen in that world then is that really different from creating those things/making them happen?

Yes, because he’s not actually causing it. Theologically free will is a moral thing, the ultimate purpose of which is to freely love.

Stranger argues determination and randomness, I argue determinism, Freewill and randomness(a type of freedom) but others would disagree with both of us and argue pure determinism.

[Maeght]

Yes, because he’s not actually causing it. Theologically free will is a moral thing, the ultimate purpose of which is to freely love.

Stranger argues determination and randomness, I argue determinism, Freewill and randomness(a type of freedom) but others would disagree with both of us and argue pure determinism.

Setting up a situation where you know something will happen sounds like causing something to me.

If a world is created where God knows someone will do a certain thing, and God could have created a different world where that person wouldn't have done that thing, is that really free will?

[Free Willy]

Setting up a situation where you know something will happen sounds like causing something to me.

If a world is created where God knows someone will do a certain thing, and God could have created a different world where that person wouldn't have done that thing, is that really free will?

I’m with Frankie Boyle here in saying that this type of argument is like getting a bad bit of Chicken at KFC and blaming Colonel Sanders.....or blaming your parents.

[Maeght]

I’m with Frankie Boyle here in saying that this type of argument is like getting a bad bit of Chicken at KFC and blaming Colonel Sanders.....or blaming your parents.

That doesn't answer the point at all.

[Gonnagle]

I need no convincing that Christianly, as it stands, is theobollocks - and you have just very ably demonstrated why I think that.

Dear Gordon, Good Morning Sir,

Theobollocks, nice, very nice

And here was me having a little pang of regret when a poster on this very thread accused me of, well! not being a very nice chap, now I may be wrong but my impression of this forum is gloves off, but that is just my own personal opinion, but theobollocks when describing a mans faith, probably me just being slightly precious again❤️

Anyway onwards and upwards or in this case just slightly left at the God Dodgers corner ( not nice Gonnagle, not nice at all ) this free will debate has me all of a tizzy, why is it so important, my Christianity ( theobllocks ) is built on words such as Faith, Trust, Belief and yes I will admit sometimes doubt, so lets talk free will, what's the big issue.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/

Now here is a man telling me that the whole debate is still not decided, the question of free will is not such a open and shut case, me personally I think I have freewill ( think ) will I have a nice healthy breakfast, bollocks there is a lovely fry up with my name on it just waiting, so quite obviously I don't have freewill, no just me pandering to my more basic instincts.

So lets talk freewill, to end, if I am part of Gods master plan then so be it, I have Faith, trust and belief, unsure about this freewill, enlighten me✝️

Gonnagle.

[Free Willy]

That doesn't answer the point at all.

I think you are suggesting it’s like someone building a bridge knowing it will fall down but I’m saying it’s like someone building a bridge knowing someone could knock it down.

[Free Willy]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

A must read for people on this thread

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon, Good Morning Sir,

Theobollocks, nice, very nice

And here was me having a little pang of regret when a poster on this very thread accused me of, well! not being a very nice chap, now I may be wrong but my impression of this forum is gloves off, but that is just my own personal opinion, but theobollocks when describing a mans faith, probably me just being slightly precious again❤️

Anyway onwards and upwards or in this case just slightly left at the God Dodgers corner ( not nice Gonnagle, not nice at all ) this free will debate has me all of a tizzy, why is it so important, my Christianity ( theobllocks ) is built on words such as Faith, Trust, Belief and yes I will admit sometimes doubt, so lets talk free will, what's the big issue.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/

Now here is a man telling me that the whole debate is still not decided, the question of free will is not such a open and shut case, me personally I think I have freewill ( think ) will I have a nice healthy breakfast, bollocks there is a lovely fry up with my name on it just waiting, so quite obviously I don't have freewill, no just me pandering to my more basic instincts.

So lets talk freewill, to end, if I am part of Gods master plan then so be it, I have Faith, trust and belief, unsure about this freewill, enlighten me✝️

Gonnagle.

Have just had a quick look at that link (don't have much time at present - moving house in just over 2 weeks) - and I think he is conflating determinism and predeterminism.

I'd say that we have agency, and in everyday terms it feels like 'free will', but it isn't since we are not even free from our own biases, experiences or prevailing circumstances. If I truly had 'free will' then I would be free to either become an Christian, decide that mayonnaise was lovely stuff or that dancing was truly entertaining - but no matter how 'free' I think I am, I can't simply 'choose' to change my outlook as regards these matters.

Schopenhauer famously said along the lines of 'A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants', which sounds about right to me: I can't choose my own inherent inclinations at will: all I can really do is react (by avoiding what I reject and enacting what I want) so I'm not truly 'free' even if most of the time it feels that I am.

[Gonnagle]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

A must read for people on this thread

Dear Vlad,

A must read that's a hell of a lot of must read but thank you, I will peruse at my leisure ( and what's with the new name, Free Willy ) anyway God has miraculously sent Glasgow a beautiful sunny day, so I am off out to enjoy it, oh and I think Mr Burns will like who I am going to visit, an auld Tim who scholars think our Wallace and Bruce would just have been a footnote in history without this man, The Warrior Bishop.

And my advice to others on this forum, get aff this stupid forum and get out and enjoy Gods wonderful gift✝️

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gordon,

Moving house, at your age, you are a glutton for punishment

Gonnagle.

[Maeght]

I think you are suggesting it’s like someone building a bridge knowing it will fall down but I’m saying it’s like someone building a bridge knowing someone could knock it down.

But I thought God was supposed to know everything that is going to happen. No? If so then there is no 'could'.

[Stranger]

Category Error. Can you spot why free will is not in the same category as square circles.

The only relevant category is 'things that are self-contradictory'.

Secondly although there is universal agreement that you can’t have Squarecircles. This is not settled i  n the case of Freewill and determinism.

Then argue the case.

Freewill on something’s part, Whether it’s God or some overarching law of nature removes the infinite regress of reasons.

What infinite regress of reasons are you speaking of? Just saying "Freewill on something’s part" is just a phrase with no logical significance.

In conclusion, it has not been concluded that there is only determinism and randomness...

Conclusion? Where was the substance? What else can there be but determinism and randomness?

...since in the context of something or nothing there can be no randomness and in determinism an infinite regress never answers the question of what is it which ultimately determines.

If we accept that there is something that is the ultimate determiner then we cannot safely deny the free ability to determine in something else.

You seem to be off at some sort of tangent about why stuff exists again. No idea why you think it relevant.