Free will and determinism

[STT]

Yes.
First, one needs to assert a belief that immaterial entities exist. Do you?

I but that for the sake of argument.

Second, one should not attempt to describe immaterial functions with materialist mechanisms, as you have been doing.

I was not doing such a thing. I am interested to know how immaterial function could be possibly linked to material function.

If you can agree on those two steps, we can move further. Ok?

Lets see.

 

[STT]

Ok, you don’t agree with this statement?

P1 God is immaterial with absolute infinite knowledge, understanding, power and exists transcendent to the beginning of human life on earth.

Or are you saying that human beings have absolute infinite knowledge, such as the experiential knowledge of how the universe was created?

I am asking what do you mean with infinite knowledge.

The properties of the soul are found in the origin and design of the soul - so yes, we are talking about the creation of the soul.

You don’t seem to like this point that I’ve raised a couple of times in different ways:

You’re expecting human reason (without revelation from God) to understand that which only God could know.

We are cognitively open to understand reason. So there is a problem if we realize it.

 

[mkoopman]

The soul is still in the eternal garden which is veiled because of sin. This is the answer to your problem of dualism but your rejection of a Creator disallows this solution. The praxis depends wholly on this belief construct which you can not validate. How do you validate it except to deny that existence can extend beyond the material.
Your intent to deny that a person is a unique creation from conception to natural death is not bringing about good. Constructing an order of complexity that defines a “legal person” to identify a scientific basis for an ethical position for abortion and euthanasia is a corrupt pursuit. Praying to God for knowing the source of grace that comes not from the material goodness of creation over which He gave mankiind stewardship may be more fruitful.
A multiplicity of points added to a tree of cap model constructs within a blackboard system may be a fin e bit of humor but does not reduce the human consciousness to a material substance. Your unwillingness to allow for a spiritual element to creation in respect to God’s design for the human person is the same as the sorrow known by our mother, Mary. She watched her Son die on the cross for our sins. Her heart will win the world and Jesus will return in His Glorious risen body now at the right hand of God.
Would a human remain “alive” in your materialistic perception if frozen in cold storage at the age of this person’s prime? If we freeze a nineteen year old and all the synapses remain intact is this person then alive but just resting, like Mao in the frozen casket? How does this stage of human development fit into your test tube babies can be disposed of as they do not have enough complexity to comprehend consciousness viewpoint?

 

[STT]

The soul is still in the eternal garden which is veiled because of sin. This is the answer to your problem of dualism but your rejection of a Creator disallows this solution. The praxis depends wholly on this belief construct which you can not validate. How do you validate it except to deny that existence can extend beyond the material.

I am afraid that we are not talking about dualism here but the possibility of having free will in a deterministic framework. We are material and the evidences for this is overwhelming.

Your intent to deny that a person is a unique creation from conception to natural death is not bringing about good. Constructing an order of complexity that defines a “legal person” to identify a scientific basis for an ethical position for abortion and euthanasia is a corrupt pursuit. Praying to God for knowing the source of grace that comes not from the material goodness of creation over which He gave mankiind stewardship may be more fruitful.

I am afraid that I cannot understand how your question is related to subject of this thread.

A multiplicity of points added to a tree of cap model constructs within a blackboard system may be a fin e bit of humor but does not reduce the human consciousness to a material substance. Your unwillingness to allow for a spiritual element to creation in respect to God’s design for the human person is the same as the sorrow known by our mother, Mary. She watched her Son die on the cross for our sins. Her heart will win the world and Jesus will return in His Glorious risen body now at the right hand of God.

We have overwhelming evidences that there is a correlation between consciousness and brain activity.

Would a human remain “alive” in your materialistic perception if frozen in cold storage at the age of this person’s prime? If we freeze a nineteen year old and all the synapses remain intact is this person then alive but just resting, like Mao in the frozen casket?

We cannot stop metabolism.

How does this stage of human development fit into your test tube babies can be disposed of as they do not have enough complexity to comprehend consciousness viewpoint?

I am afraid that I cannot understand how your question is related to subject of this thread.

 

[mkoopman]

You appear to be greatly overwhelmed and afraid? Perhaps Praxil would relieve your consciousness enough to climb down from the tree of good and evil built with AI logical constructs in which you reside. The Swiss Family Robinson would be your next neighbor?

Consider examining the fear of God as an alternative. You may find God is an awesome God if you avail yourself to this possibility.

Please identify the complexity measure of God and compare this with the value of the human soul. Then perhaps we can resolve the state conditions which you wish to measure concretely.

 

[STT]

You appear to be greatly overwhelmed and afraid? Perhaps Praxil would relieve your consciousness enough to climb down from the tree of good and evil built with AI logical constructs in which you reside. The Swiss Family Robinson would be your next neighbor?

I don’t understand how this could be related to our discussion.

Consider examining the fear of God as an alternative. You may find God is an awesome God if you avail yourself to this possibility.

Fear of God? Why should I be afraid of God? All I am doing is thinking.

Please identify the complexity measure of God and compare this with the value of the human soul. Then perhaps we can resolve the state conditions which you wish to measure concretely.

Dualism have logical problems.

 

[mkoopman]

mkoopman:

You appear to be greatly overwhelmed and afraid? Perhaps Praxil would relieve your consciousness enough to climb down from the tree of good and evil built with AI logical constructs in which you reside. The Swiss Family Robinson would be your next neighbor?

I don’t understand how this could be related to our discussion.

Your proposition is annihilation of creation based on logical praxis grounded in a world without God. The natural progression is to a moral relativism based on the complexity of an organism. Did you find that hard to understand from your own original posting? Your condescending approach is not a winning attitude, but it is fully aligned with Maoist argumentation and the CPP line. Would that just be coincidental?

mkoopman:

Consider examining the fear of God as an alternative. You may find God is an awesome God if you avail yourself to this possibility.

Fear of God? Why should I be afraid of God? All I am doing is thinking.

Again your attitude is stupefying in that you claim knowledge of Christian apologetics then ignore a huge reference to an awesome God in relationship to Fear of God, one of the seven gifts of The Holy Spirit. In terms of ignoring context you do realize that this is Catholic Answers, correct? Not that Maoists are not the primary revenue source since Catholics are held in contempt. It appears that form of contempt shows prominently in a global context with perhaps an exception in some of Africa. Mammon is the God of materialism.

mkoopman:

Please identify the complexity measure of God and compare this with the value of the human soul. Then perhaps we can resolve the state conditions which you wish to measure concretely.

Dualism have logical problems.

Your proposal has greater logical problems as cognition is a key of supernatural transcendence and you propose a material solution to this understanding. Complexity does not in of itself yield new dimensions to a problem. The dimensionality of a problem may introduce complexity. Not liking the idea of a transcendent nature does not make it untrue. Relativism relies heavily on feelings, cliche attachments and who one likes. Your condescending tone in all replies to my comments makes it clear I must speak untruth because you do not like it. I see no logical fallacy in that, it appears consistent with the other content of your proposal.
It’s all good.

 

[STT]

Your proposition is annihilation of creation based on logical praxis grounded in a world without God. The natural progression is to a moral relativism based on the complexity of an organism. Did you find that hard to understand from your own original posting? Your condescending approach is not a winning attitude, but it is fully aligned with Maoist argumentation and the CPP line. Would that just be coincidental?

Again your attitude is stupefying in that you claim knowledge of Christian apologetics then ignore a huge reference to an awesome God in relationship to Fear of God, one of the seven gifts of The Holy Spirit. In terms of ignoring context you do realize that this is Catholic Answers, correct? Not that Maoists are not the primary revenue source since Catholics are held in contempt. It appears that form of contempt shows prominently in a global context with perhaps an exception in some of Africa. Mammon is the God of materialism.

Your proposal has greater logical problems as cognition is a key of supernatural transcendence and you propose a material solution to this understanding. Complexity does not in of itself yield new dimensions to a problem. The dimensionality of a problem may introduce complexity. Not liking the idea of a transcendent nature does not make it untrue. Relativism relies heavily on feelings, cliche attachments and who one likes. Your condescending tone in all replies to my comments makes it clear I must speak untruth because you do not like it. I see no logical fallacy in that, it appears consistent with the other content of your proposal.

It’s all good.

Do you seriously want to discuss each of three problems, as noted in the three paragraph? We can start with the problems I have with concept of God if you wish?

 

[mkoopman]

Thank you for asking and I hope to reply with alacrity. Time is limited and I hope toadd to the understanding of god as that in which we store up our treasure in relation with a materialistic view of cognition. Again yes I hope to respond with a better relation to your original posting soon.

 

[franklinstower]

What is wrong with this argument? If God created everything and us and knows everything we will ever do then free will cannot exist. I know that God having foreknowledge of all things is not a problem for free will but if God made us out of nothing then He also made us the way we are and that determined how we would behave. How is that not deterministic.

I am having trouble countering this argument because God set it all up a certain way and knows the outcome. Where is free will?

 

[Bradskii]

If God created everything and us and knows everything we will ever do then free will cannot exist.

To play the Devil’s Advocate, I don’t see this as a problem. If God determined how we would act, then it would be.

Imagine you have your own Tardis and travel into the future to see if your wife has steak or chicken for dinner. Knowing that she is going to choose chicken does not restrict her free will in the matter.

 

[franklinstower]

Yes but the point is that if God made a being the way it is that also determines the outcomes and choices that being would make. Also FYI I am looking for Catholic perspective on this and not just philosophical but anything is appreciated.

 

[Benadam]

God is omnipotent. He is able to create us according to His purpose without creating an obstacle that prevents Him from making us self determined creatures.

Do you really believe that God is unable to make a self determined creature? Unable to create a person with free will?

 

[franklinstower]

Of course not but I want to understand it logically also. Faith and reason.

 

[Benadam]

He also made us the way we are

the way He made us includes the ability to determine our own end.

that determined how we would behave.

This part of what you are saying implies that all God’s creatures are automatons. That if God makes something it will not have free will because God made it. That’s why I say your argument requires that God be unable to create a self determined creature.

 

[franklinstower]

The complaint is not that God didn’t give us free will, its that God programmed us to want what God wanted us to want and do what God wanted us to do and so that really isn’t free will. This is not my position by the way but just what has been proposed to me and I cant counter it well.

 

[Benadam]

The complaint is not that God didn’t give us free will,

So your presenter maintains that God did give us free will?

its that God programmed us to want what God wanted us to want

franklinstower:

and do what God wanted us to do

and do what God wanted us to do and so that really isn’t free will.

I believe that is true about our wants. I don’t know how that becomes an obstacle to free will.

I know there are things I want that God wants me to want. Some of those wants are willfully ignored, buried and even forgotten.

I don’t see why a want God plants in me hinders me from being unwilling to pursue it.

God didn’t progam me to do what he wants me to do. I so rarely do it. ok maybe He did but…I don’t will it myself so I don’t do it

 

[STT]

Thank you for asking and I hope to reply with alacrity. Time is limited and I hope toadd to the understanding of god as that in which we store up our treasure in relation with a materialistic view of cognition. Again yes I hope to respond with a better relation to your original posting soon.

Thanks for your time.

 

[AlNg]

We don’t have any evidence that the brain is the cause of the sense of self.

If you cut off a foot, you will still have the sense of self. If you cut off a hand, you will still have the sense of self. Similarly, with the ear, the eye, the nose, a kidney, etc. But if you cut out the brain, the person will not have the sense of self. That is evidence.

 

[davidv]

If you cut off a foot, you will still have the sense of self. If you cut off a hand, you will still have the sense of self. Similarly, with the ear, the eye, the nose, a kidney, etc. But if you cut out the brain, the person will not have the sense of self. That is evidence.

How could you possibly know this? Do you have direct experience? Has anyone communicated their direct experience with this?