Omniscience

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
OK then, you're clearly unable to meet my challenges, and all you have done is rather visibly sidestepped my invitations. At least tell me a religious joke if you are unable to be congruent with your arguments.

Once upon a time, there was a man who didn't believe in free will.

He kept asking others to respond to his questions, which was a ridiculous request if they had no free will to do so.

Do you really see no other alternative to how this scenario might unfold without invoking the supernatural? Open your mind a little.

0 Replies

On an internet thread at the invitation of Neo, Chumly successfully challenged the wholly unsubstantiated claims from both Neo and Real Life as to their dogmatic religionist beliefs in free will.

Both Neo and Real Life continuously sidestepped Chumly's rational and reasonable challenges to their dogmatic religionist beliefs in free will a number of times.

Both Neo and Real Life failed miserably in sidestepping Chumly's rational and reasonable challenges to demonstrate their dogmatic religionist beliefs in free will.

Both Neo and Real Life failed miserably in logically justifying their dogmatic religionist beliefs in free will.

Real Life even went as far as to claim (without one iota of evidence) that Chumly didn't believe in free and thus could not challenge Real Life's wholly unsubstantiated dogmatic religionist beliefs in free will, when in fact:

a) Chumly presented no personal beliefs for or against free will whatsoever.

b) Chumly holds no beliefs for or against free will.

c) Most humorously, if Real Life was right that Chumly had believed that there was no free will, Real Life would have had to make an argument that Chumly's lack of free will prohibited not impelled Chumly to challenge Real Life. Alas Real Life did not even try and demonstrate this weak circular argument.

d) Mega most humorously is the clear fact that Chumly did challenge Real Life repeatedly thus adding even more absurd circular illogic to Real Life's unsubstantiated claims that Chumly did not believe in free will and thus could not challenge Real Life.

Real Life is tapped out!

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
OK then, you're clearly unable to meet my challenges, and all you have done is rather visibly sidestepped my invitations. At least tell me a religious joke if you are unable to be congruent with your arguments.

Once upon a time, there was a man who didn't believe in free will.

He kept asking others to respond to his questions, which was a ridiculous request if they had no free will to do so.

Do you really see no other alternative to how this scenario might unfold without invoking the supernatural? Open your mind a little.

I didn't even reference the supernatural in this argument. Open your eyes a little and read it again.

One need not believe in the supernatural to recognize free will.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

c) Most humorously, if Real Life was right that Chumly had believed that there was no free will, Real Life would have had to make an argument that Chumly's lack of free will prohibited not impelled Chumly to challenge Real Life. Alas Real Life did not even try and demonstrate this weak circular argument.

Do you not see that whether or not you believe you have free will has no bearing on whether you actually have it?

If I had asserted that you did not believe in free will, that would not equate to you lacking a free will, would it?

Perhaps if you quit patting yourself on the back for imaginary occurences, then you would be able to figure that out.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do you not see that whether or not you believe you have free will has no bearing on whether you actually have it?

Go ahead argue your case that whether or not I believe I have free will has no bearing on whether I actually have free will or do not have free will. Your question with its presupposition is neither argument nor evidence.

real life wrote:

If I had asserted that you did not believe in free will, that would not equate to you lacking a free will, would it?

That depends on whether your potential belief or lack thereof would or would not affect the circumstances in question and you have made no merited case to demonstrate it one way or the other.

real life wrote:

Perhaps if you quit patting yourself on the back for imaginary occurences, then you would be able to figure that out.

Real Life goes sploosh into the deep end of the oblique.

0 Replies

Are you seriously suggesting that non-belief in something is the same as it's nonexistence?

If you do not believe you have a heart problem, does that mean you don't?

If you do not believe you have a freckle on the back of your head, does that mean you don't?

If you don't believe you have free will, does that mean you don't?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that non-belief in something is the same as it's nonexistence?

If you do not believe you have a heart problem, does that mean you don't?

If you do not believe you have a freckle on the back of your head, does that mean you don't?

If you don't believe you have free will, does that mean you don't?

Trying to slither away from the specifics of the dialogue again? Ho hum!

Hey Real Life the topic is "free will" not your vague and ill defined "something".

Hey Real Life the topic is "free will" not a "freckle on the back of your head".

Hey Real Life the topic is "free will" not a "heart problem".

So Real Life show me that your vague and ill defined "something" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".

So Real Life show me that a "freckle on the back of your head" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".

So Real Life show me that a "heart problem" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".

Entertain me.

Go ahead argue your case that whether or not I believe I have free will has no bearing on whether I actually have free will or do not have free will. You have made no case at all yet.

Entertain me some more.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that non-belief in something is the same as it's nonexistence?

If you do not believe you have a heart problem, does that mean you don't?

If you do not believe you have a freckle on the back of your head, does that mean you don't?

If you don't believe you have free will, does that mean you don't?
Trying to slither away from the specifics of the dialogue again? Ho hum!

Hey Real Life the topic is "free will" not your vague and ill defined "something".

Hey Real Life the topic is "free will" not a "freckle on the back of your head".

Hey Real Life the topic is "free will" not a "heart problem".

So Real Life show me that a "some vague and ill defined "something" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".

So Real Life show me that a "freckle on the back of your head" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".

So Real Life show me that a "heart problem" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".

Entertain me.

Go ahead argue your case that whether or not I believe I have free will has no bearing on whether I actually have free will or do not have free will. You have made no case at all yet.

Entertain me some more.

You're stuck, so you are playing games.

If you don't like the two analogies, then just toss them and answer the last question:

If you don't believe you have free will, does that mean you don't?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

[You're stuck, so you are playing games.

I would never take what you say with anything but the utmost in seriousness, as can be aptly seen in my patient and thoughtful text.

real life wrote:

If you don't like the two analogies, then just toss them and answer the last question:

I like the two analogies in question very much indeed, and it's precisely why I patiently and thoughtfully ask you again to demonstrate their in context validity:

So Real Life show me that a "freckle on the back of your head" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".

So Real Life show me that a "heart problem" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".

real life wrote:

If you don't believe you have free will, does that mean you don't?

a) Chumly presented no personal beliefs for or against free will whatsoever.

b) Chumly holds no beliefs for or against free will.

So Real Life I know you have dogmatic religionist beliefs in free will and you have repeated them many times here; go ahead argue your case that whether or not I believe I have free will has no bearing on whether I actually have free will or do not have free will. You have made no case at all yet.

So Real Life, how can I reply to your last question when it presupposes free will but and yet you refuse to help me?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
[You're stuck, so you are playing games.
I would never take what you say with anything but the utmost in seriousness, as can be aptly seen in my patient and thoughtful text.
real life wrote:
If you don't like the two analogies, then just toss them and answer the last question:
I like the two analogies in question very much indeed, and it's precisely why I patiently and thoughtfully ask you again to demonstrate their in context validity:

So Real Life show me that a "freckle on the back of your head" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".

So Real Life show me that a "heart problem" has the equivalent factual realty to "free will".
real life wrote:
If you don't believe you have free will, does that mean you don't?
a) Chumly presented no personal beliefs for or against free will whatsoever.

b) Chumly holds no beliefs for or against free will.

So Real Life I know you have dogmatic religionist beliefs in free will and you have repeated them many times here; go ahead argue your case that whether or not I believe I have free will has no bearing on whether I actually have free will or do not have free will. You have made no case at all yet.

So Real Life, how can I give credence to your last question when it presupposes free will but and yet you refuse to help me define free will in demonstrable terms?

The question obviously does not presuppose free will.

So when you are willing to stop playing games, perhaps someone will be willing to discuss the issue further with you.

Also is there a reason that you have begun to refer to yourself in the third person?

Never mind. I don't want to know. You guys have a great day, hear?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The question obviously does not presuppose free will.

Well then, show me that free will exists or does not exist in demonstrable terms and the question will have meaning.

real life wrote:

So when you are willing to stop playing games, perhaps someone will be willing to discuss the issue further with you.

I would never take what you say with anything but the utmost in seriousness, as can be aptly seen in my patient and thoughtful text and yet you refuse to help me define free will in demonstrable terms.

real life wrote:

Also is there a reason that you have begun to refer to yourself in the third person?

It's a quote of my text to you in keeping with your parable humor.

0 Replies

Wow, this is really piling high.

Chumly, old chum, let me go back to a statement I made a while back. To which real life agreed:

The simple fact that the God of the bible offers choice is sufficient to demonstrate that said God offers free will.

I assert additionally that since we are made in God's image (according to the bible) God must also posess free will.

Infer from that whatever you want. I take it to mean that God is not bound by the necessity to use any of his powers except by his own design.

0 Replies

Once again the authority on free will has sidestepped the obvious. The only free will he'll every display is when he writes his own without the aid of an attorney.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Wow, this is really piling high.

Well, that's a deep subject.

neologist wrote:

The simple fact that the God of the bible offers choice is sufficient to demonstrate that said God offers free will.

Outside of what I would expect is your euphemistic use of the phrase "simple fact", how do you know that god's offering of choice is the realty of choice? Outside of any argument as per free will in demonstrable terms (which you have failed to provide any impetus for), and in keeping with your Biblical perspective only, you would need to be willing to assert that all of the bible's offerings demonstrate irrevocable "simple fact". You could not flip flop from literalism to allegorical/interpretive when it was convenient to do so. Are you willing to do this?

neologist wrote:

I assert additionally that since we are made in God's image (according to the bible) God must also posess free will.

Why does the Christian idealization of having been made in god's image mandate that the Christian god must posess free will? Can you demonstrate that the Christian god had the choice to not to make us in his image? Or not make us at all? Or not make anything at all?

While you're ruminating on all of the above here is some dessert:
Is the Christian god bound to do the most good at all times?

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Once again the authority on free will has sidestepped the obvious. The only free will he'll every display is when he writes his own without the aid of an attorney.

I'm not offering this as proof of the bible. You will have to judge that for yourself. All I am trying to do is underline what the bible actually teaches.

Chumly wrote:

. . .how do you know that god's offering of choice is the realty of choice?

The veracity of the bible is another subject. All I am trying to do is tell you what it says.

Chumly wrote:

Outside of any argument as per free will in demonstrable terms (which you have failed to provide any impetus for), and in keeping with your Biblical perspective only, you would need to be willing to assert that all of the bible's offerings demonstrate irrevocable "simple fact".

Why?

Chumly wrote:

You could not flip flop from literalism to allegorical/interpretive when it was convenient to do so. Are you willing to do this?

Do you wish a complete discussion of all literal/allegorical/metaphorical parts of the bible or could you just understand the plain meaning of the word 'repent'?

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
I assert additionally that since we are made in God's image (according to the bible) God must also posess free will.
Why does the Christian idealization of having been made in god's image mandate that the Christian god must posess free will? Can you demonstrate that the Christian god had the choice to not to make us in his image? Or not make us at all? Or not make anything at all?

Speculation on my part. I thought I made that clear parenthetically.

Chumly wrote:

While you're ruminating on all of the above here is some dessert:
Is the Christian god bound to do the most good at all times?

'Good' question! I suppose you should define 'good'.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

. . .how do you know that god's offering of choice is the realty of choice?

neologist wrote:

The veracity of the bible is another subject. All I am trying to do is tell you what it says.

You have not answered my question, you only dodged it by inferring the question is not germane. In fact however the question is pivotal because what the bible says and bible's veracity are two sides of the same coin. Don't dodge!

Chumly wrote:

Outside of any argument as per free will in demonstrable terms (which you have failed to provide any impetus for), and in keeping with your Biblical perspective only, you would need to be willing to assert that all of the bible's offerings demonstrate irrevocable "simple fact".

neologist wrote:

Why?

You claim "The simple fact that the God of the bible offers choice is sufficient", you therefore have established the Biblical pretext as per the "simple fact". Given that you have established this pretext, where is it scripturally confirmed that you can, when convenient, claim the bible's offerings as irrevocable "simple fact" but at other times flip flop to allegorical/interpretive?

Chumly wrote:

You could not flip flop from literalism to allegorical/interpretive when it was convenient to do so. Are you willing to do this?

neologist wrote:

Do you wish a complete discussion of all literal/allegorical/metaphorical parts of the bible or could you just understand the plain meaning of the word 'repent'?

See above about as per your biblical pretext, you established it not me.

neologist wrote:

I assert additionally that since we are made in God's image (according to the bible) God must also posess free will.

Chumly wrote:

Why does the Christian idealization of having been made in god's image mandate that the Christian god must posess free will? Can you demonstrate that the Christian god had the choice to not to make us in his image? Or not make us at all? Or not make anything at all?

neologist wrote:

Speculation on my part. I thought I made that clear parenthetically.

Remember my question to you:
So which is more important in terms of Christianity:

a) Don't get drunk?
b) God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively?

Chumly wrote:

While you're ruminating on all of the above here is some dessert:
Is the Christian god bound to do the most good at all times?

neologist wrote:

'Good' question! I suppose you should define 'good'.

By good in this context I mean the Christian god's actions or inactions are bound so as to facilitate the highest net benefit in the eyes of said Christian god. So do you agree the Christian god is bound to do the most good under this pretext?

0 Replies

Real life wrote:

Quote:

One need not believe in the supernatural to recognize free will.

Oh? This is one I will be truely impressed if you can support.

Freewill implies freedom from causality, which is freedom from naturalism.

Please explain how freewill can exist without invoking the supernatural.

0 Replies

Hey Doc,

Can you explain a bit more about how and why freewill implies freedom from causality / naturalism?

0 Replies

Sure.
Lets start with the premise that everything when seen in retrospect has a cause, or a wide variety of influences that constitutes a cause. Nothing 'just happens' that we know of. (free of quantum theory, which is really just philosophy..)
In order to have true free will, ie be able to arrive at a 'choice' and have the freedom to go either direction implies freedom from the causes that lead to that 'decision'. But we are not free from causes, everything we do is backed by myriads of causes. Again, this becomes blatantly clear when events are examined in retrospect.
So it seems to me, freewill and causality are incompatible, even paradoxical. Causality is demonstrable. Freewill is not.
Since it seems that they can't co-exist it seems logical to conclude freewill is an illusion at best.
But, perhaps I am mistaken about everything. Someone demonstrate how freewill and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural?

0 Replies

Don't expect me to demonstrate how free will and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural that's fer damn sure!

By free wall as applied to people do you mean: "the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance"? http://www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm

I take it you believe there will come a time when a new scientific theory supplants Quantum Theory, and the proposition of causation will once again reign supreme in the subatomic world, or are you only referring to the philosophical implications of Quantum Theory as applied to people?

Staying with the Quantum premise for a bit, assuming I built a thinking machine that used a random number generator to guide its actions, could that machine be in some sense considered to have free will?

How do you explain the individual's objective perceptions that a least to some degree, under certain circumstances, it appears to said induvual that at least in some sense, a decision was reached based on freedom of choice? Is it simply that the individual has neither the time nor ability to assess the underlying causation in its entirety? Is it hubris?

Do you see any difference between the free will arguments one might make as per the individual, and the free will arguments one might make as per mankind as a whole?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know