Free Will

[_Themis]

You really do need a dictionary, because that is not the assumption...it may be your assumption (which would be wrong), but it most certainly is not mine. The "unknown" has no influence on my premise.

supernatural - "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe" - "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural

So when we say natural laws, are we referring to the ones we know, or all of them. If there are some we don't currently understand then we could easily incorrectly identify something as supernatural even though it adheres to natural law. I also said many, including many LDS, view supernatural just as God's power, but that this power still adheres to natural laws. I thought I even remember you suggesting God may be constrained by some laws.

not what we have observed or will observe...but beyond that...which has become obvious that you do not believe there is anyway to know anything beyond the "visible observable universe" - which is fine and easy enough to poke holes in.

I have never suggested that at all. I think it's just more honest to admit one does not really know.

Sure, there are plenty of things we don't "know" about the universe...but that does not negate the point i am making about biophysical laws.

It means you do not really know since you cannot take into account all natural law.

because the ability to choose otherwise has to be exclusive of any natural law, whether we know that law yet or not. So, you see, what we currently know and what we may know does not matter.


here is the simplest way i can put it:
The ability to choose otherwise is a violation of natural law and either natural law can be violated or it can not.

Here is one of your major assumptions. This is why I asked for evidence or proof, which is still lacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

[_Jason003]

I don't think that any benefits of faith would be more valueable to me than knowing, for certain, there is a God. Having faith in something that seems pretty certain to be false makes faith feel like an arbitrary hoop to jump through to me. Life seems hard enough without having to wonder if the God I'm serving is real.

why bother to wonder? Is serving God causing your life undue strife? Would not serving Him provide you with a life without strife? If you die and there is nothingness would it have mattered that you served Him? Would serving God be a better option or worse option in this life?
These are all simple questions and reason, logic, and sense all reveal that serving God is the better wager..see Pascal's Wager

Look at church history: RIgdon, Cowdery, Laman, Lemuel. They all had experiences that made their faith unnecessary. They had visitations by angels and resurrected beings, saw miracles, and yet they still chose to NOT believe in some way. Obviously, having proof beyond any doubt does no harm to agency.

I think Faith is God's way of hazing us all. He must have been made to live by faith so he makes us live by it as well.

As to Pascal's Wager, the odds aren't quite so clean cut.

[Guest]

...

[_Themis]

It appears your arguing over a grey area for defining supernatural from natural. When I think the most important question started here got left by the wayside.

Supernatural is a huge grey area. Since we cannot know what all the natural laws are, we can never know what supernatural is under the view that anything not natural is supernatural. I only bring up that there are other views as well, especially with LDS.

[_Themis]

As to Pascal's Wager, the odds aren't quite so clean cut.

True. LDS should never try and argue Pascals wager. Logically it would always lead to rejecting LDS for a religion with worse outcomes for non-believers. LDS have one of the best outcomes for non-believers.

[_Themis]

I think when ever someone asks this question , they'er just not thinking it through of why that is clearly not the best choice for god to make (asuming god is there and can make a choice)
Please think it through past living in a field of daisies and fluffy bunnies with God strolling around making sure everybody is on the same page.

It does bring up why God would show up for some and not everyone. It also creates the problem why religion has to promote blind faith in God's existence instead of faith in God.

[_LittleNipper]

Look at church history: RIgdon, Cowdery, Laman, Lemuel. They all had experiences that made their faith unnecessary. They had visitations by angels and resurrected beings, saw miracles, and yet they still chose to NOT believe in some way. Obviously, having proof beyond any doubt does no harm to agency.

I think Faith is God's way of hazing us all. He must have been made to live by faith so he makes us live by it as well.

As to Pascal's Wager, the odds aren't quite so clean cut.

I do take exception with Pascal's Wager. As I Christian I believe that there are very likley those who are among the Baptists, Evangelicals, and Catholics who will likely go to heaven. It is also possible that there are those among the Mormons who are in a state of moving from Mormonism to a Christian line of thought. And there are those among the Baptist, Evangelicals and Catholics --- who are actually lost wolves and not saved at all. This would distroy the value such a graph.

[_subgenius]

As to Pascal's Wager, the odds aren't quite so clean cut.

[img]dissection%20of%20Pascal%20Wager%20images[/img]

they actually are clean cut.
As i noted before, the sure-fire fail is to not believe at all, in other words to assume that you are not making the wager at all.
"In Pascal's assessment, participation in this Wager is not optional because Mankind is already thrust into existence. So even if God's existence cannot be independently confirmed or denied, nevertheless the Wager is necessary and the possible scenarios must be considered and decided upon pragmatically"

ironically, Atheism is not really applicable, because atheism is amoral by its nature.
So ,the charts could simply be, as the wager states, non-belief...which according to the charts provided is the guaranteed loss should God exists, what capacity that existence is.
And if it turns out that there is no God, then what does one lose? Living a Gospel life based on charity, faith, love, and hope for fellow man and earth....hmmm, not really sure the non-believer has a good counter-argument.
colorful charts are nice but they state the obvious as to how one should wager.

[_subgenius]

Can you explain why you are using a man made object that is made by man for man, to describe US as biological beings, I would understand where you were coming from if you used a example of something biological, But you can't because it doesn't portray your analogies.
CFR?

i used a car because it is a simple example, one that seemed appropriate for how you were viewing the situation.
However, if it makes you feel better, note how the point does not change:
Being a car is not a restriction on being a car
.....compare with.....
Being a fish is not a restriction on being a fish
...or better...
Being a complex system of biological processes is not a restriction on being a complex system of biological processes
...and best...
Being a human being is not a restriction on being a human being.

This one AGAIN? I provided one earlier, are you going to ask every time you wish to dichotomise my posts?

i looked and could not find it...sorry for the inconvenience, but again if there are so many examples is it too much trouble for you highlight one for me?

Park your man made from minerals inanimate object / car out of the sun shine for a second... and think about life.
Does a seed control where it falls? does a tree control where it ROOTs? or where its branches grow, do other animals have free will?
yes I believe in living creatures and reality and free will. Do I believe in Ghosts no not since I started to think for myself instead of believing the vain and foolish traditions of my father

you are unable to provide any evidence, support, or reason for your belief in "free-will", especially as it contradicts your belief that "We are biological / chemical creatures".
Biological/chemical creatures can not possibly violate natural law..and choosing otherwise is a clear violation of natural law.

Know what? I am not challenging ones ability to think. I challenge the fact that the mind exists prior to the brains formation

at least you recognize it as a fact, and it is a valid challenge to make.
which is why i have tried to demonstrate the logical conclusion should our "minds" not be distinct from the biological processes of the brain - ergo - sans free-will.

[img]INCEPTION[/img]

using a movie to affirm your position is rather amusing...actually very amusing.......you do realize that movies are written and constructed and are "not real", correct?
(the real ones we call "documentary").
Can we use any movie to justify our position? and does gross box office receipts determine which movie is "more true" than another?

[_subgenius]

Sure, there are plenty of things we don't "know" about the universe...but that does not negate the point i am making about biophysical laws.

It means you do not really know since you cannot take into account all natural law.

Again, i have assumed all natural law, known to date and whatever may or may not be known.
Your position of "anything may be possible" is absurd and useless.

In other words, what does it matter what natural laws we do not know yet? They are still laws and we would still be bound to them...The laws of the universe are simply that, and either they are capable of being violated or they are not.
That is the simple question which you are unable to answer with reason.
Your position of "lets wait and see" is....well.....is one of obvious intellectual cowardice....which is often the cause of why a person actually "never knows" (ironically).

My argument does, in fact, take into account all natural law....but i am willing to entertain your argument that one of these "yet to be known" natural laws is that natural law can be violated...or put simply, that a natural law is not a natural law.

and yes, i have stated that God is bound by Law as well, what of it?.....He has no ability to lie and He can not subvert justice, etc...
all of which has no influence on the human ability to choose otherwise.