Free Will, Determinism, Indetrminism, Moral Responsibility, and Salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Counterpoint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually that’s not altogether true, I know you would like it to be.

We are talking predicamental relation an accident, this “excludes” transcendental. I say the relationship is transcendental since its not conceived as an accident, a created substance can be conceived without an accident, however, it cannot be conceived without the knowledge of the creator.

Example; Math is essentially and “transcendentally” referred to as knowledge.
 
Counterpoint said:
There are only two options here: either everything is determined or it is not. The former is called determinism; the latter is called indeterminism. Whether you “choose” to acknowledge this fact or not doesn’t change it.
Click to expand...
(Those were some pretty decent quotes about the different faiths and their wisdom)

with the question determinism and non determinism,

why not try an example,

for example,

tom at this time person A is now planning to have a treat cup of coffee.

that is 24 hours from now.

from now 1% chance, 99% indetermined,

until the treat cup of coffee is at the lips, now a 99% chance determined, in the mouth 99.999% chance determined,

but for that 99.9999999% chance ,

only the reality of another moment in existence a sure determined reality, for that moment relative to the plan and overall percentages and all potential interference, in that moment a full determined reality exists.

so its all relative, the 99.999999% chance, is but for a single moment in existence, a determined world for the plan…however,

it is also contributing to the many undetermined collective realities it once was, only.

so relative to man’s existing world, it is both all at once, determined, non determined , its a relative proposition and cannot be answered , and shouldn’t be a question because the meaning of it all has been hastily segregated by man and his questions to get at things shaping out the project from too close a range, for example…trying to carve out some facial features in a sculpt before shaping out the overall they need to be fixed to. ( maybe a crumby example but was the first that came to mind. Anyway if good wins out in the end , and there was no concept win’s out, how could it be any different.
 
I think so, the variable is time and no-time. Which leaves choice. Thus with transcendental there is a cause without being altogether the cause of the sequence of events.
 
Counterpoint said:
There are only two options here: either everything is determined or it is not. The former is called determinism; the latter is called indeterminism. Whether you “choose” to acknowledge this fact or not doesn’t change it.
Click to expand...
I would have to respectfully disagree with you that everything has to be one or the other.

It isn’t black or white, but also grey. Just because someone says it has to be black or white dosen’t make it so.

I can experience causes influencing me to make decisions, yet I also know from experience that I may override strong movements and choose other. I know that just because I am human and have done so. Noone is putting a gun to my head and making me choose, and even if they did, I could still go against the gun.

There is the reality of the undetermined, the grey.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Actually that’s not altogether true, I know you would like it to be.

We are talking predicamental relation an accident, this “excludes” transcendental. I say the relationship is transcendental since its not conceived as an accident, a created substance can be conceived without an accident, however, it cannot be conceived without the knowledge of the creator.

Example; Math is essentially and “transcendentally” referred to as knowledge.
Click to expand...
This is just gibberish.
 
orang said:
(Those were some pretty decent quotes about the different faiths and their wisdom)

with the question determinism and non determinism,

why not try an example,

for example,

tom at this time person A is now planning to have a treat cup of coffee.

that is 24 hours from now.

from now 1% chance, 99% indetermined,

until the treat cup of coffee is at the lips, now a 99% chance determined, in the mouth 99.999% chance determined,

but for that 99.9999999% chance ,

only the reality of another moment in existence a sure determined reality, for that moment relative to the plan and overall percentages and all potential interference, in that moment a full determined reality exists.

so its all relative, the 99.999999% chance, is but for a single moment in existence, a determined world for the plan…however,

it is also contributing to the many undetermined collective realities it once was, only.

so relative to man’s existing world, it is both all at once, determined, non determined , its a relative proposition and cannot be answered , and shouldn’t be a question because the meaning of it all has been hastily segregated by man and his questions to get at things shaping out the project from too close a range, for example…trying to carve out some facial features in a sculpt before shaping out the overall they need to be fixed to. ( maybe a crumby example but was the first that came to mind. Anyway if good wins out in the end , and there was no concept win’s out, how could it be any different.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, it’s me. But I find your posts to be unintelligible.
 
Well he made some good points, I still don’t see how everyone has to either live or die… And Kant-Aquinas and Scotus. I’m going with Scotus, the Catholic Church and my own better thinking. And we all admit we are universally attempting to obtain the highest good. So Faith, Hope, Love-Charity are in play. Obtain the highest good. Whats the highest good? Is this the first principle preceding the big-bang? So why is it we are not receiving and transmitting knowledge and thus cooperating in free-will to obtain, physically and transcendentally. What other way is there to understand time in the strictest sense but as a learning experience, some would suggest this transmitted knowledge from outside of time to inside of time is a miracle, and they occur more frequently than one would suspect.

catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/FAQ_Theo_Virtue.htm
 
Counterpoint said:
If something is “undetermined,” then it is “not determined.” So, you are simply making a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
The difference is freedom…the grey.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.
 
Counterpoint said:
If something is “undetermined,” then it is “not determined.” So, you are simply making a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
It is a generic fallacy to conclude that because one case is one way that all other cases are also the same way. This leads to the false dicotomy that of either determinism or not for everything.
 
fred_conty said:
The difference is freedom…the grey…
Click to expand...
Regardless of how you define free will, it must be either compatibe with determinism or indeterminsim (because those are the only two logical possibilities). That you refuse to acknowledge this truism doesn’t change it.
 
Counterpoint said:
Regardless of how you define free will, it must be either compatibe with determinism or indeterminsim (because those are the only two logical possibilities). That you refuse to acknowledge this truism doesn’t change it.
Click to expand...
But they are not the only logical possibilities. Because empirical sources say otherwise.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.
 
davidv said:
It is a generic fallacy to conclude that because one case is one way that all other cases are also the same way. This leads to the false dicotomy that of either determinism or not for everything.
Click to expand...
It makes no difference. If one case is predetermined by an all-knowing, all-powerful deity, then free will for mankind does not exist. It may exist for some, but not all…and that is arbitrary.
 
Counterpoint said:
This is just gibberish.
Click to expand...
That translates to your lack of understanding and no response, thus the fatal flaw of the nonsense you posted here. Now if you want have an “intelligent” conversation, you should read a little further about what you think you believe and are talking about. I posted Kant for you. this is “nothing” new.
 
And whats addressed is this point…

“The notions of responsibility, moral obligation, merit, and the like, as ordinarily understood, would be illusory if Determinism were true.”

Let alone how this cannot be quantified by your incredible double standard of the ego which in fact is illusion.

His flaw is here…

Reason tells us that there is a God, the supreme good, who arranges a future life in a moral world. If not, moral laws would be idle fantasies. Our happiness in that intelligible world will exactly depend on how we have made ourselves worthy of being happy. The union of speculative and practical reason occurs when we see God’s reason and purpose in nature’s unity of design or general system of ends. The speculative extension of reason is severely limited in the transcendental dialectics of the Critique of Pure Reason, which Kant would later fully explore in the Critique of Practical Reason.[50]

In the transcendental use of reason, there can be neither opinion nor knowledge. Reason results in a strong belief in the unity of design and purpose in nature. This unity requires a wise God who provides a future life for the human soul. Such a strong belief rests on moral certainty, not logical certainty. Even if a person has no moral beliefs, the fear of God and a future life acts as a deterrent to evil acts, because no one can prove the non-existence of God and an afterlife. Does all of this philosophy merely lead to two articles of faith, namely, God and the immortal soul? With regard to these essential interests of human nature, the highest philosophy can achieve no more than the guidance, which belongs to the pure understanding. Some would even go so far as to interpret the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason as a return to the Cartesian epistemological tradition and a search for truth through certainty

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

The explanation of the manner in which concepts can relate a priori to objects was given to you. The conversation proceeds from that point. Knowledge-Mathmatics-prior thus Faith and the theological virtues

There death or live of all in relation to the greater good is still awaiting a response from you Counterpoint. Let alone what you failed to read assume is right and didn’t bother to address.
 
Counterpoint said:
There are only two options: determinism or indeterminism (If anyone here believes that there are any other options, then please share it with us.)

If determinism holds true, then every decision I make and action I take was predetermined and could not have been otherwise.

If indeterminism holds true, then every decision I make and action I take could only have been otherwise due to some element of pure randomness or chance.

There are only two types of free will: compatibilism and libertarianism. (If anyone here believes that there are any other types of free will, then please share it with us.)

“Compatibilist free will” presupposes determinism.

“Libertarian free will” presupposes indeterminism.

Why does this all matter? It matters, because it has implications for both moral responsibility and salvation.

What are the implications for moral responsibility? The implications for moral responsibility are the same regardless of whether determinism or indeterminism holds true. Why? Because I can be held no more responsible for a decision I make or an action I take that reduces to pure randomness or chance than I can for a decision I make or an action I take that was completely predetermined.

What are the implications for salvation? The implications for salvation are the same regardless of whether determinism or indeterminism holds true. Why? Because the implications for salvation are the same as for moral responsibility. I can be held no more responsible for my salvation (or damnation) for a decision I make or an action I take that ultimately reduces to pure randomness or chance than I can for a decision I make or an action I take that was completely predetermined.

Incidentally, “final causality” does not change anything. It is simply another determining factor.
Click to expand...
First I suggest you to read the following article. There is a good discussion together with nice mathematical proof that why compatibilism is false, however there are objection from compatibilists. The debate is still on going.

Second, I have my own theory about the free will. But, first, what are “will” and “free”? The will is tendency to perform the action subjected to constraints, so called knowledge. The degree of freedom should be larger than number of constraints otherwise we cannot make free decision. We of course know why decision is made on based on which circumstances. The main question is however how the decision is made. This part we cannot understand as once we understand how, then we have complete knowledge over will hence our decision cannot be free.

Moreover, I would like to remark that we stay in state of doubt during the process of decision making prior to the time that a decision is made. The later is the time that we don’t know how we perform a decision and we cannot have any control on that since otherwise our decision wouldn’t be free.

Does this make sense?
 
Counterpoint said:
There are only two options here: either everything is determined or it is not. The former is called determinism; the latter is called indeterminism. Whether you “choose” to acknowledge this fact or not doesn’t change it.
Click to expand...
With respect it is only a “fact” in your opinion. You are determined to ignore self-determinism… 😉
 
Part of what free will is is that it looks random from a third-person perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top