Question about free will and determinism

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dave
I don't think the HUP absolutly disreguards determinism. If God exists, he could have made the universe and determined everything and also made the HUP.
God knows everything even if we can't?

Be careful not to religiously side-track this thread. I'd hate to lose it to the Religion sub-forum, where I can't participate.

But, while we're discussing it, you should recognize that, while God (or "the gods" or whatever other form of deity(ies) you believe in) could have made the HUP, He can nonetheless only know probabilities, because He would have made it indeterminate.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Which leads to the whole faulty premise of religion: There are so many takes on him, what he can do, and his reasoning, that about the only thing everyone agrees on is that he's good and omnipotent. Hell I could say God was elvis and you couldn't prove me wrong. In fact there's a few million elvis fans that would back me up. The contradictions in religion are infinite, but since that's not what this topic is about, I'll leave it at that.

EDIT: ok well maybe one glaring contradiction to tide me over.. hehehe

Ok there are a multitude of religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taosim,Juddaism, etc. Though they all have commonalities, They vastly differ. Even the difference between sects in a religions, such as Catholicism vs Baptism has fundamental differences in beliefs.

So how do you reconcile these differences in faith? Do you just say "mine belief is the right one, and all those other religions are false?" Or do you claim that there is truth in all of them? Certainly Islam and Christianity can't be reconciled with each other, as in one faith, Jesus plays only a minor role as a disciple, and the other he's a prophet.

Just curious on that.. Maybe someone could pose a response to this ?

I'm sorry, but this has definitely gotten too religious, and I think that many Christians would be insulted on reading these kinds of posts (thought they must frequent the sub-forum, from what I've heard). Could we just drop the religious discussion, and get back on-topic, please?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
LOL! That's the point. Don't you see?! You think that, "if you'd felt like it", you could have chosen differently than you did, but that's just because you believe you have free will. You can never prove this (as I've already shown), but you do believe it.

Talk about straining credibility! And then I could say: I just want you to think that you think that I think I have free will.

[QOUTE]Yeah, but I don't support determinism unless someone thinks they can disprove it.[/QOUTE]

Free will is like breathing, we just have it. Proof isn't necessary, free will is inferred.

[QOUTE]No, no, no, determinism doesn't allow you to read people's minds, it allows you to control everything that they will do in the future (or, at least, to know everything that they will do in the future). The majority of (if not all of) humanity believes, within themselves, that they have some choice in what they do; that "if they'd felt like it" they could have "chosen" otherwise. However, this cannot be proven, any more than it can be proven that they don't have a choice.

Any attempt you make to prove one, could just further validate the other. It is a sad state, but I don't see any way out of it (though I guess it's possible, in principle, for someone to find a way out).

If you go based on logic, then you can't disprove free will. Saying that our actions are predetermined is contradictory to everything we know about ourselves. Any attempt to prove that we're being "controlled" reeks of mysticism.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra



If you go based on logic, then you can't disprove free will. Saying that our actions are predetermined is contradictory to everything we know about ourselves. Any attempt to prove that we're being "controlled" reeks of mysticism.

Pfft! It goes against "everything we know about ourselves"?! Puh-lease!

Humans, for the most part, have a tendency toward spirituality, and the appeal to something higher than themselves. Does that mean that you are going to accept that there must be a God, since to say otherwise goes against our natural tendency?

The scientists in the days of Darwin rejected his theory, because it went against everything they knew about themselves.

Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to show you that Science and progressive knowledge continues on, whether the majority of humans like it or not.

 

[Izzle]

Originally posted by Mentat
Pfft! It goes against "everything we know about ourselves"?! Puh-lease!

Humans, for the most part, have a tendency toward spirituality, and the appeal to something higher than themselves. Does that mean that you are going to accept that there must be a God, since to say otherwise goes against our natural tendency?

The scientists in the days of Darwin rejected his theory, because it went against everything they knew about themselves.

Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to show you that Science and progressive knowledge continues on, whether the majority of humans like it or not.

Exactly. He doesn't know what he's talkin about.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
Pfft! It goes against "everything we know about ourselves"?! Puh-lease!

Humans, for the most part, have a tendency toward spirituality, and the appeal to something higher than themselves. Does that mean that you are going to accept that there must be a God, since to say otherwise goes against our natural tendency?

The scientists in the days of Darwin rejected his theory, because it went against everything they knew about themselves.

Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to show you that Science and progressive knowledge continues on, whether the majority of humans like it or not.

Hey I thought we were keeping religion out of this?
Anyhow, that was a poor way to phrase it, so I'll rephrase.It's generally accepted that free will is inherent in human nature, so the burden of proof actually lies on you my man And actually, I agree with you about progressiveness, I just don't see determinism as a progressive theory. It's funny you should mention God, because that's all determinism is, masked by a scientific premise. You can predict the future if you know all the variables invo lved? For the universe that WOULD require nearly omnipotence. So it's really an argument for God controlling our actions. Again, I refuse to accept that I'm not in control of my own fate. If you can, prove that I'm not, using logic.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm sorry, but this has definitely gotten too religious, and I think that many Christians would be insulted on reading these kinds of posts (thought they must frequent the sub-forum, from what I've heard). Could we just drop the religious discussion, and get back on-topic, please?

I don't see where anything I've said is offensive. I'm simply questioning how the different religions relate to each other.

But you're right, this is going too religious.. so back on topic we go!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Hey I thought we were keeping religion out of this?
Anyhow, that was a poor way to phrase it, so I'll rephrase.It's generally accepted that free will is inherent in human nature, so the burden of proof actually lies on you my man And actually, I agree with you about progressiveness, I just don't see determinism as a progressive theory. It's funny you should mention God, because that's all determinism is, masked by a scientific premise. You can predict the future if you know all the variables invo lved? For the universe that WOULD require nearly omnipotence. So it's really an argument for God controlling our actions. Again, I refuse to accept that I'm not in control of my own fate. If you can, prove that I'm not, using logic.

I already told you, by it's very nature, the debate is irresolvable. You cannot prove that you are predestined, and you cannot prove that you are not. I already explained why, but I'm just restating the conclusion. Therefore, it would be of absolutely no merit for me to attempt to convince you that you are predestined, and it would be to absolutely no effect for me to try to convince someone else that we have free will.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
I already told you, by it's very nature, the debate is irresolvable. You cannot prove that you are predestined, and you cannot prove that you are not. I already explained why, but I'm just restating the conclusion. Therefore, it would be of absolutely no merit for me to attempt to convince you that you are predestined, and it would be to absolutely no effect for me to try to convince someone else that we have free will.

You're right Mentat, it's not a resolvable issue, and I guess it's at a standstill. Ahh well.. such is life.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
You're right Mentat, it's not a resolvable issue, and I guess it's at a standstill. Ahh well.. such is life.

Yeah, kind of like Wuliheron's take on the "paradox of existence": it won't affect our lives at all, if it is resolved, or if it can never be resolved, so complacent acceptance is the only intelligent course.