Pardon me, but is war not inherent to any creature living on this planet?
It always seems to boil down to a daily struggle amongst many over finite resources(females, food, light...etc.), trying to subdue the competition so there is less need to share...
As long as we are unable to conciously rise and consistently remain above that basic, instinctive level of existence, we will never extricate ourselves from 'war'.
As far as the topic of the thread goes. Well, the following assumes I could reasonably compare (a) (G/g)od with a human being. If I can't, then this entire discussion is moot, really. But how would you feel if the same person kept sending prayers, and offerings to you, without fail, hoping to gain something from this later? And said person, actually, many, many persons do this for a huge part of your life? I can't judge how you would feel, but I would probably grow to be either a) annoyed or b) indifferent to
such individuals. So I doubt he would care for our worship, really. We might be nothing more then entertainment to him/her, in which case the best thing you can do is to live an exceptional (which is not neccessarily exemplary) life.
And I am waaay too cynical to answer threads like this one
Cyracuz wrote:Too many people either still want war or don't care to make up their minds. Humans are not nearly so civilized as we tend to believe.
If, as you say, folks
want war. How does natural law explain the implied free will?
najmelliw wrote:Pardon me, but is war not inherent to any creature living on this planet?
It always seems to boil down to a daily struggle amongst many over finite resources(females, food, light...etc.), trying to subdue the competition so there is less need to share...
As long as we are unable to conciously rise and consistently remain above that basic, instinctive level of existence, we will never extricate ourselves from 'war'.. . .
HMM. Your explanation doesn't explain the suicide bomber, now does it?
I believe I posted earlier that God does not
need anything from us.
neo wrote:If, as you say, folks want war. How does natural law explain the implied free will?
Natural law reflects natural force. Try to think of humans as yet another natural force, and it might become clearer.
Cyracuz wrote:neo wrote:If, as you say, folks want war. How does natural law explain the implied free will?
Natural law reflects natural force. Try to think of humans as yet another natural force, and it might become clearer.
Yet the word 'want' implies volition/free will. Does free will have an explanation in natural law?
Yes.
What is natural law? It is an expression of how natural forces work on eachother, sustaining a balance from macro to micro scales, enabeling life to exist on our planet.
Wind is result of a natural force. Several, probably.
But more to the point, humans can also be considered a natural force, since we have an effect on our environment. That effect is what we experience as volition.
We seem to be splitting hairs between free will and determinism. I believe we have genuine free will. Is that what we are talking about?
Interesting thread here:
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1731496#1731496
Quote:We seem to be splitting hairs between free will and determinism. I believe we have genuine free will. Is that what we are talking about?
You are missing my point. Determinism is a concept featuring all forces working on eachother, determining how it will be. Since you
are one of those forces, you are a fraction of the total determinism. Your fraction of this whole, the link in the chain that you command, is what you refer to as free will.
Is free will free? I mean, other than subject to biological limitations.
I believe the answer to that can be found in my previous post. The answer I'd give, anyway...
Sorry if I butt in here, but isn't this a perspective issue?
Neologist... Seen from the perspective of an individual, free will is a given (except for the fact that society itself defines some boundaries)
Cyracuz - Seen from any other, broader, point of view, determinism and natural law contradict (or, at least, severely limit) free will.
Or, at least, this is how I see it...
I do believe I see the argument from all sides. But it is, nevertheless an important argument, if not from the perspective of criminal justice, then from the perspective of any sovereign creator, should one exist.
Er, or both.
Is there a way to step beyond those boundaries, to break through determinism or free will in a discussion or thought? I was just thinking about both of these and I know there have been topics before but it seems, despite the different scope involved between them (as noted above), both originate from the perceived static observer...or am I misunderstanding? I see I make this choice, I see my choice was pre-determined beyond my control. The only thing I could say with regards to a creator is the perceived relationship creators, all of them, are in with the created and relationships, as we see them, divide things and create walls and boundaries, don't they? I'm not sure where this leaves an infinite God, an infinite creator.
What about moral choice as compared to, lets say, our choice of pizza vs. enchiladas?
Re: why would god want us to worship him?
OGIONIK wrote:Doesnt that mean he has an ego? if he loved us wouldnt he rather have our respect and admiration? not our prostration?
Did god tell you he wanted you to worship him?.......or did another man tell you that god told him to worship god through him and that he will deliver the gospel to you through him self.
It is mans ego and god is beyond us.
najmelliw wrote:Cyracuz - Seen from any other, broader, point of view, determinism and natural law contradict (or, at least, severely limit) free will.
I think that you've reached this conclusion based on the assumption that man is not of nature. That the force known as human is something else entirely than other natural forces, when we are not. Humans are merely an expression of nature. You speak of determinism, but as soon as you are the one determining you call it free will. It's because of the notion of self. These contradictions are just small indications that some fundamental concept that lies beneath is flawed
Because of the notion of self we speak about determinism vs volition, linear time, all concepts of god or gods.
Cyracuz, congratulations on an enlightened perspective. Everyone: it's to your benefit to understand his perspective.
Understanding another's perspective does not alter the fact that it is just that - another's perspective.
And should that other perspective be valid in a million circumstances, it would not alter the fact that a wider or entirely different perspective may be reality.
The question is how may reality, or truth, be determined?
What is truth?
Interesting that Pilate reportedly spoke these same words to Jesus. . .
Of course, that is just another perspective.
