E
empther
Guest
A violinist chooses which notes to play, but it’s the violin that makes the music.
A soul’s free will makes choices, but God enables it to do so.
- Status
A soul’s free will makes choices, but God enables it to do so.
B
Bahman
Guest
And what makes violinist to choose? Either is self caused or it is caused by something else. In first case you are free but have no control over your action and you need a cause for the later case hence you are not free since that is God that makes the choice for you.
E
empther
Guest
The usual Bahman :hey_bud:'ing
He might decide to drop the violin and go fishing,
or watch television,
or lie on the floor and do nothing at all.
So the rest of you “argument” (
? ) falls apart.
Let’s look at the first sentence…And what makes violinist to choose?Either is self caused or it is caused by something else. In first case you are free but have no control over your action and you need a cause for the later case hence you are not free since that is God that makes the choice for you.
Nothing makes him choose.
He might decide to drop the violin and go fishing,
or watch television,
or lie on the floor and do nothing at all.
So the rest of you “argument” (
? ) falls apart.
B
Bahman
Guest
Free will is either self caused or it is caused by something else. In first case you are free but have no control over your action and you need a cause for the later case hence you are not free.The usual Bahman :hey_bud:'ing
Let’s look at the first sentence…
Nothing makes him choose.
He might decide to drop the violin and go fishing,
or watch television,
or lie on the floor and do nothing at all.
So the rest of you “argument” (
E
empther
Guest
Is there anybody** out there who still believes a word Bahman says?
]
or it is caused by something else. In first case
** the impossible self-caused case
] **
you are free but have no control over your action
** Hunh? Why not? 
Where did that come from? 
]**
and you need a cause for the later case hence you are not free.**
How to keep a losing argument going:
— just blatantly says the opposite of the truth or the opposite of anything that makes sense and hope nobody notices.
:bigyikes: nothing can cause its own existence
]or it is caused by something else. In first case
** the impossible self-caused case
] **you are free but have no control over your action
** Hunh?
Why not? Where did that come from? ]**and you need a cause for the later case hence you are not free.**
How to keep a losing argument going:
— just blatantly says the opposite of the truth or the opposite of anything that makes sense and hope nobody notices.
S
seagal
Guest
Isn’t that self-contradictory? Having the free will to do something but being unable to act means your will is not free at all.
Your second case makes no sense either because as a Catholic I believe free will is a gift from God to use as I see fit. If I couldn’t freely use this gift then it isn’t really a gift.
B
Bahman
Guest
By free I meant there is not another cause enforcing our state of being hence it is not self-contradictory and sorry for not being clear. It is simple, if you believe in causality then current state of affair is either caused which means you are not free or it is self-caused which means that you are free. You however cannot have control on a self-caused entity either since otherwise is not self-cause.
S
seagal
Guest
That is definitely self-contradictory and requires clarification. Also, please explain the use of the word “entity” in this instance. Better yet, how about simplifying the question: “What is the nature of free will?” Would that do it?
E
empther
Guest
It is simple. If I take an AK-47 into a school and shoot 28 kids, that will change the state of affairs for a lot of people who never heard of me, and myself too since the cops will shoot me.
Or, if I’m a volunteer vigilante watching the school and see a nut approach it with an AK-47 and run him over with my car, I will preserve the current state of affairs for a lot of people.
In either case I have free will which was created by God who wanted me to use it according to my own free choice.
B
Bahman
Guest
Consider entity to be free will. Then the sentence can be read in the following form “One however cannot have control on a self-caused will, namely free will, either since otherwise is not self-caused and it caused by other thing.”
One of the most important thing in nature of free will is that it is not determined until the spot when decision is made.
That is the best shoot you can have namely free will is self-caused will when the situation is marginal.
S
seagal
Guest
I had to look up the definition of “entity” to see if there was a meaning by which free will could be described. This is what I found (from dictionary.com):
- Doesn’t apply since will (free or otherwise) doesn’t exist outside of the mind of the being or creature.
- Doesn’t apply since will is not a being, creature, or life form of any kind.
- Might apply if you accept that free will is the essence of being human. But from what I gather from your various threads you don’t hold that concept.
I don’t agree with the way you phrased that. It would be more accurate to say that the result of using your free will is not determined until you make the decision. To repeat myself, free will is simply having the ability to freely make a choice. It is not the result of that choice.
I’m sorry, I can’t make heads or tails of that sentence.
- Status