Free Will

[_Molok]

[
First let me clarify I don't believe in the god of the Bible.
But it makes perfect sense to not reveal ones self if what you say will be followed without question , hence no exerciseing of self determinism ,understanding taking responsibility for ones own actions , or more to the point a difference between experience(wisdom) and knowledge.

If we can't experience a time line of learning , then what is the point to exist at all?
The sweet cannot be gauged without the sour.

Which obviously isn't the case. So, again, can you think of any rational reason why the God of the Bible wouldn't reveal himself?

[_Molok]

Exodus 3:6 notes God appearing as a burning bush, but Moses was too scared to look at His face.

In the Old Testament we see God appear in objects of His choosing - cloud, fire, tabernacle, etc..
In the New Testament we see God appear through His Son.

I do not think He hides from humanity, it seems that He manifests to humanity and all others are just unable to "see" Him.

Moses might have been too scared to look upon his appearance, but at least he was still there. As I recall, Joseph Smith got to meet him too.

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

...

[_Molok]

Hmmm ... Lets look at humanity as a Martini. Now god could reach in the glass and stir it up. But its always better if you shake the contents.
IDK Ill get back to ya on that one

No, I'm saying it doesn't make any sense that God wouldn't reveal himself because he thinks his will will be done without question because

A. Christian theology teaches that man is born with a sin nature, which is to say they will instinctively NOT do the will of God, and

B. If everyone did God's will without question, it would completely defeat the notion of free will

[_Themis]

I think an easy way to think about this argument ... would be to ask if a computer has free will to choose?
Or is it always going to rely on the parameters it was programed with? Even though it could have some complex algorithms and by these actually start to make what we could call informed decisions based on various combinations of input. It will never violate its programming laws , and say ... " Nahhh , I don't think so , not today anyways"

Or more simply put , would it ever make an evil decision , of its own volition.

I know many who would say their computers do make evil decisions.

My point in this discussion was not taking any position on free will, but to show that subby was making assumptions in his OP that he seemed to be saying were not assumptions. I see that he now says he was making certain assumptions in order to see where those assumptions lead. I am not sure I buy it, but at least I got him to admit they are assumptions.

[Guest]

...

[_PrickKicker]

fine, then consider the tree.

Consider my point with the leaf but now with the tree...the tree is either to choose otherwise about when it looses a single leaf...or not...whether to bend towards the sun or not...whether to resist the wind or sway to and fro...if it has this ability then that ability can not be from the natural laws of the universe.

No the tree will not work, along with the leaf, tyre and car.
I was using that as an example and prelude to progress with the evolutionary debate / discussion, I am using it to help build a picture without resorting to a damning analogy.

Ok, So we have established the tree is a living thing that has the ability to react to stimuli, pressure, temperature / sunlight, so they can 'sense' or 'feel'. they also reproduce through cross-pollination subtly evolving. The tree has intelligence. That intelligence and those senses are limited, whether or not it has a choice in how many branches, where and when branches form or how many roots or where they creep or how much fruit to produce I do not know... But it is limited in its ability to move.

I believe 'Free will', is nothing more than 'self propulsion / motivation'.
There are millions of organisms that posses the intelligence and ability to move independently.
choice is nothing more than limited ability to sense and react to your environment, the ability to control your body parts through neurological stimuli, recognising changes and adapting to effect your environment, it is the brains ability to understand that things aren't just a case of left or right, but using the senses and memory to predict outcomes, developing the the mind to better calculate, between different parts of the brain that are the source of reactive responses.

the example where you stated a conclusion of the church's policy being that "Sterile people should not marry" and i stated that you were wrong?
not sure, but me thinks you just made a simple error on that one....got any others?
sarcasm and facetiousness in reaction to homophobic comments, that they should not fall in love nor make love with one another.

You can try and turn it back on me if you wish, but you stated that you thought my idea that sexual stimulation because it felt good and as a bonus it can make babies! was amusing, you then post a piece saying that physical intimacy was it was not just for reproduction and for the expression of love...! Are you seriously unable to understand how you are being contradictory?

there is none that i know of aside from the implications discovered about the neo-cortex....it is the the nature of thinking that i have noted, not the ability or complexity of thought but, if thoughts are occurring, then how must those thoughts be occurring?
If there is no "magic" involved, then those thoughts are the products of various physical reactions...all of which would be bound to natural laws and thus would not be anything more than a complicated system of "bending towards the sun"....ergo- no ability to choose otherwise.

So are we talking inspiration or freewill? if we are talking inspiration then I don't believe in such a thing, I believe in versatility and adaptability in learning and creativity, but not in revelation, just comprehension, reason and understanding.

I believe that dreams are just malfunctions of the brain causing irrational sensations.

no matter how complex or simple, the brain as an organ is incapable of violating natural law. The brain can not choose otherwise amongst biochemical processes which are what would would be doing the choosing in the first place....ergo, not independent from itself.

Again what natural law? electro-chemical reactions are grey areas and not always perfect, so there is mass variation which is why we all have different personalities. but the majority of us have very similar physical and mental capabilities statistically we become the norm.

nope..."it" is not controlling, it is simply reacting in an inescapable manner to the external stimuli within its perceptive range. Conscious and unconscious do not exist, they are products of the processes within the brain organ serving whatever purpose you would like to speculate. There is no autonomous "you"..only a collection of biochemical reactions which produce thoughts of you for the brain organ, by the brain organ's reaction to stimuli.

Which is it? "Nope... It is not controlling",... or "There is no autonomous you"... You can't have it both ways or you'd be thinking like me.

Good, then you concur with my premise, that there can be no free-will for a being that is completely bound to the natural laws of the universe, and thus no cause for a person to believe the have self-responsibility, original thoughts, or individuality as those are chemically induced perception generated by a brain organ as it has reacted to external environmental stimuli. Thus everything you are, you think, and you feel, are truly "products' of your environment.

No, I do not concur. It seems to me that although you communicate several ideas, you cannot visualise your own dichotomise. I believe the two can coexist in harmony, without several paths there would only be one.

Good thing you are not selling, because i do not buy it...you were "recalling" a specific concept with that movie reference?..there are countless movies about the human mind, surely somehting about that one struck a chord...in your own mind...causing a specific reaction?


I saw the movie with my eyes, my eyes relayed that information to my brain and my brain was able to recognise and compartmentalise certain elements of the fim, whether that was images, ideas, or feelings, my brain was then able to compare similarities in the film and compare them with my own images, ideas and feelings, ultimately there were certain parts that in my own mind, I can sympathise, empathise or relate to... DeCaprio's wife was Deluded by the world that she imagined to be, rather than the real one she had. In my mind I can compare or apply that to me, I see deluded people focusing so much on things of the imagination that they lose touch with reality, they live their lives longing to be some where they have created in their mind rather than living life right here right now. they can also cling to information that may or may not be real because they live their lives according to what people tell them and do not use their own mind to reason, every now and then we need a reality check, hence the spinning top.

I understand, you are serious then

I can be... When I choose.

Tell me your thoughts on these loving spirit daughters of our heavenly father?...Search them...they are conjoined twins Abigal and Brittany.
Are there 2 spirits or 1?
Did they embrace as spirit beings just as God Zapped one of them into their earthly body?

[_subgenius]

Exodus 3:6 notes God appearing as a burning bush, but Moses was too scared to look at His face.

In the Old Testament we see God appear in objects of His choosing - cloud, fire, tabernacle, etc..
In the New Testament we see God appear through His Son.

I do not think He hides from humanity, it seems that He manifests to humanity and all others are just unable to "see" Him.

Moses might have been too scared to look upon his appearance, but at least he was still there. As I recall, Joseph Smith got to meet him too.

So, it would seem contrary to your inquiry, God has revealed Himself - albeit limited - which is reasonable, is it not?

[_subgenius]

fine, then consider the tree.

Consider my point with the leaf but now with the tree...the tree is either to choose otherwise about when it looses a single leaf...or not...whether to bend towards the sun or not...whether to resist the wind or sway to and fro...if it has this ability then that ability can not be from the natural laws of the universe.

No the tree will not work, along with the leaf, tyre and car.
I was using that as an example and prelude to progress with the evolutionary debate / discussion, I am using it to help build a picture without resorting to a damning analogy.

Ok, So we have established the tree is a living thing that has the ability to react to stimuli, pressure, temperature / sunlight, so they can 'sense' or 'feel'. they also reproduce through cross-pollination subtly evolving. The tree has intelligence. That intelligence and those senses are limited, whether or not it has a choice in how many branches, where and when branches form or how many roots or where they creep or how much fruit to produce I do not know... But it is limited in its ability to move.

I believe 'Free will', is nothing more than 'self propulsion / motivation'.
There are millions of organisms that posses the intelligence and ability to move independently.
choice is nothing more than limited ability to sense and react to your environment, the ability to control your body parts through neurological stimuli, recognising changes and adapting to effect your environment, it is the brains ability to understand that things aren't just a case of left or right, but using the senses and memory to predict outcomes, developing the the mind to better calculate, between different parts of the brain that are the source of reactive responses.

i have seen no evidence that would reliably conclude that any tree is "intelligent" as you describe above.
Its reactions to sunlight and water are not cognitive and i disagree with your assumption that they are. There is no evidence that the tree could choose otherwise in how it photosynthesizes sunlight.

the example where you stated a conclusion of the church's policy being that "Sterile people should not marry" and i stated that you were wrong?

not sure, but me thinks you just made a simple error on that one....got any others?

sarcasm and facetiousness in reaction to homophobic comments, that they should not fall in love nor make love with one another.

You can try and turn it back on me if you wish, but you stated that you thought my idea that sexual stimulation because it felt good and as a bonus it can make babies! was amusing, you then post a piece saying that physical intimacy was it was not just for reproduction and for the expression of love...! Are you seriously unable to understand how you are being contradictory?[/quote]
No contradiction for myself.
i was clear about what my position was, what the position of the church is, and what the position of science is based on the evidence available.
I clearly stated that with a purely scientific view of the world, sexual activity is intended for procreation....i never stated that this was "my" position, i was simply illustrating the difficult argument a typical "atheist" would have difficulty making without conceding "self-interest, self-centeredness, and selfishness".

there is none that i know of aside from the implications discovered about the neo-cortex....it is the the nature of thinking that i have noted, not the ability or complexity of thought but, if thoughts are occurring, then how must those thoughts be occurring?
If there is no "magic" involved, then those thoughts are the products of various physical reactions...all of which would be bound to natural laws and thus would not be anything more than a complicated system of "bending towards the sun"....ergo- no ability to choose otherwise.

So are we talking inspiration or freewill? if we are talking inspiration then I don't believe in such a thing, I believe in versatility and adaptability in learning and creativity, but not in revelation, just comprehension, reason and understanding.

I believe that dreams are just malfunctions of the brain causing irrational sensations.

exactly what is an "irrational sensation"?
and though you may try to dress it up with terms like "understanding", how can you support an idea that "understanding" is nothing more than a complex sequence of chemical reactions in the brain organ which could result in no other product? It is not as if "you" have made any actual achievement, it would just be a coincidence of reactions. There is no "you" pulling switches behind a curtain, the switches operate independent of "you" and, in fact of your position, these switches are what tell you there is a "you".

no matter how complex or simple, the brain as an organ is incapable of violating natural law. The brain can not choose otherwise amongst biochemical processes which are what would would be doing the choosing in the first place....ergo, not independent from itself.

Again what natural law? electro-chemical reactions are grey areas and not always perfect, so there is mass variation which is why we all have different personalities. but the majority of us have very similar physical and mental capabilities statistically we become the norm.

i have stated examples relative to this position. The laws of the universe, like gravity...atomic physics...that electrons are negative and protons are positive...etc.....these laws are in no way "grey".
Different personalities, by your admitted position, are simply coincidence with environmental influences. "You" can not violate the biochemical processes which define and sustain "you". Your "mind" is nothing more than a product of bio-mechanics according to your stance...evolutionary influences are completely reliant on external influences - so there is no "control"- no "direction" by the illusory "you".

nope..."it" is not controlling, it is simply reacting in an inescapable manner to the external stimuli within its perceptive range. Conscious and unconscious do not exist, they are products of the processes within the brain organ serving whatever purpose you would like to speculate. There is no autonomous "you"..only a collection of biochemical reactions which produce thoughts of you for the brain organ, by the brain organ's reaction to stimuli.

Which is it? "Nope... It is not controlling",... or "There is no autonomous you"... You can't have it both ways or you'd be thinking like me.

"it is not controlling" BECAUSE "There is no autonomous you"....because there is no "it".
that is just one way...not both ways...whatever that means.

Good, then you concur with my premise, that there can be no free-will for a being that is completely bound to the natural laws of the universe, and thus no cause for a person to believe the have self-responsibility, original thoughts, or individuality as those are chemically induced perception generated by a brain organ as it has reacted to external environmental stimuli. Thus everything you are, you think, and you feel, are truly "products' of your environment.

No, I do not concur. It seems to me that although you communicate several ideas, you cannot visualise your own dichotomise. I believe the two can coexist in harmony, without several paths there would only be one.

Your premise is that a complex system of chemical reactions can produce "something" which in turn can control the very chemical reactions which sustain and create this same "something"....all the while the manner by which it "controls" is by the same method (chemical reactions)....but somehow (magically?) these new chemical reactions are able to subvert the natural law which governs their reactions...so the chemistry creates a chemistry which creates a chemistry that is supernatural, thus making it not-chemistry.
So, the natural law about how matter can neither be created nor destroyed is rather "grey" and "not perfect"....got it!
quite simply, your premise is absurd and illogical.

Good thing you are not selling, because i do not buy it...you were "recalling" a specific concept with that movie reference?..there are countless movies about the human mind, surely somehting about that one struck a chord...in your own mind...causing a specific reaction?

I saw the movie with my eyes, my eyes relayed that information to my brain and my brain was able to recognise and compartmentalise certain elements of the fim, whether that was images, ideas, or feelings, my brain was then able to compare similarities in the film and compare them with my own images, ideas and feelings, ultimately there were certain parts that in my own mind, I can sympathise, empathise or relate to... DeCaprio's wife was Deluded by the world that she imagined to be, rather than the real one she had. In my mind I can compare or apply that to me, I see deluded people focusing so much on things of the imagination that they lose touch with reality, they live their lives longing to be some where they have created in their mind rather than living life right here right now. they can also cling to information that may or may not be real because they live their lives according to what people tell them and do not use their own mind to reason, every now and then we need a reality check, hence the spinning top.

So, your own mind told your own mind that your own mind is not real, and your own mind believed it........got it!
(or did you mean that your own mind told your own mind that your own mind is real, and your own mind believed it?)

I understand, you are serious then

I can be... When I choose.

which clearly you believe you are unable to ever actually choose.

Tell me your thoughts on these loving spirit daughters of our heavenly father?...Search them...they are conjoined twins Abigal and Brittany.
Are there 2 spirits or 1?
Did they embrace as spirit beings just as God Zapped one of them into their earthly body?

embrace?
not sure i follow your logic there...is there a problem with Abigail and/or Brittany?