S
Sair
Guest
Then it would be your defiant determination prompting you to refuse gratitude!
- Status
R
ReapReason
Guest
So? The point is “I” would be refusing, in recognition of a more suitable response.
S
Sair
Guest
Well, that is ultimately my point, although it may not have been clear from my posts on this particular thread - regardless of whether it is the electrochemical responses in my brain that prompts my choices and actions, it’s still me choosing and acting as I do. I don’t subscribe to the belief that the true seat of the self lies beyond physical reality!
R
ReapReason
Guest
No it is not you making a choice if your actions are merely the inevitable result of blind undirected chemical reactions. The idea of “me” choosing something is necessarily an illusion and an impossibility given metaphysical naturalism. “I choose”, means my choice is not the result of blind physical circumstance, but rather it is self knowledge and the knowledge that I can choose between various possibilities which allows for the goal directed manifestations of choice.
S
Sair
Guest
That assumes - without foundation - that consciousness is somehow separate from physical reality. It’s true that we don’t yet understand exactly how consciousness arises from particular arrangements of matter and energy - such as those found in complex brains - but this knife cuts both ways. We don’t have a basis upon which to suppose that consciousness is necessarily separate from the electrochemical processes of the brain.
Since it is the conscious ‘self’ that is supposed to exercise free will, if the self is manifested physically, then free will is a matter of physical processes as well. If ‘I’ am the processes of my brain, then ‘my’ will is a manifestation of those processes - they’re hardly ‘blind’ if they give rise to consciousness, after all.
As Daniel Dennett said, if you make yourself small enough, you can externalise anything. If you imagine that the processes that go on inside your own brain are not ‘you’, then you are making yourself very small indeed.
R
ReapReason
Guest
I have not assumed anything. All I have done is show you that the impossibility and meaninglessness of freewill/personal-identity necessarily follows as a logical results of saying that all things are fundamentally blind undirected physical actions and reactions.
It is you that is assuming that metaphysical naturalism is true and that therefore the idea that you are choosing something is somehow consistent with that belief a-prior.
All honest metaphysical naturalists simply reject the holistic idea of an “i” identity which makes choices. Its just another fantasy you seem desperate to cling on to despite its irreconcilability with your unproven world-view
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
But if you are talking about the “sincerity of saying “thank you”” post, then if that is your thinking, then you are not being sincere about being thankful.
And AGAIN totally missing the point. Who cares if gratitude is totally voluntary or not? That is like someone saying “To write something is voluntary” and someone else then saying “I disagree, reading is involuntary”.
But if you are talking about the “sincerity of saying “thank you”” post, then if that is your thinking, then you are not being sincere about being thankful.
M
Michael19682
Guest
S
Stephen_Parry
Guest
I do not believe (and I wouldn’t like to try) that we can ever totally understand the omnipotence of God. All I know is that it is self-evident.
However, people I know often ask me about how you reconcile free will and God’s omnipotence. Personally, I don’t have that much trouble with the concept, but I do use a comparison or two now and again. It did baffle me as a youngster, but nowadays I get to grips with it, thanks to the wisdom of others.
One analogy that worked for me - and I can’t recall where I heard it - was something like this: A man predicted the results of every NFL game and he always proved correct. Time after time, whatever he predicted came to pass. So eventually the NFL decided to cancel one game as they thought it was not worth risking player injuries if this man could keep predicting results. They then asked the man who the winner would have been, had the game gone ahead. His reply was something like, “I cannot say because no match was played. You chose to cancel the match. If you had gone ahead and played the match, I would have predicted the result beforehand, like I did every other time.”
I guess whoever came up with this was saying that whilst God is omnipotent, it doesn’t diminish our free will. The NFL teams had the free will to play games, which they did to the best of their ability. This hypothetical man knew the result, but only because the teams chose to play, due to their free will to put on a football game. He cannot predict something that would never have happened.
I am probably doing a lousy job of explaining this. I guess I have to choose my own frame of reference. Today I chose to go out and buy a different newspaper for a change. I believe I had the free will to do that. God knew what newspaper I would decide to buy before I did it, but that doesn’t diminish my free will in any way. I may just have opted for my usual newspaper and had I done that, well God would have known about that beforehand, too. So I was free to buy whatever newspaper I desired. God would always have known beforehand what newspaper I would buy, but only because I actually chose to go out and buy a different newspaper.
I’d wager I’m still explaining this in a lousy way. I make choices every day and believe in free will. God knowing the future and knowing what I am going to do doesn’t, in my view, make my decisions any “less free”. I may choose to go and change my career next week, a free and conscious decision. God knows it about beforehand, but only because I will choose to do it myself.
I can’t help but think there is someone out there who can articulate this better than I can. Thing is, as a Christian, I do come up against this in discussion. It’s questions like, “How can you be free if God knows what you’re going to do before you do it?” Yet using the comparisons/analogies above (which are far from perfect analogies), I have no trouble reconciling free will with God’s omnipotence.
Anyone have any better comparisons/analogies or their own way of dealing with it/responding to questions?
However, people I know often ask me about how you reconcile free will and God’s omnipotence. Personally, I don’t have that much trouble with the concept, but I do use a comparison or two now and again. It did baffle me as a youngster, but nowadays I get to grips with it, thanks to the wisdom of others.
One analogy that worked for me - and I can’t recall where I heard it - was something like this: A man predicted the results of every NFL game and he always proved correct. Time after time, whatever he predicted came to pass. So eventually the NFL decided to cancel one game as they thought it was not worth risking player injuries if this man could keep predicting results. They then asked the man who the winner would have been, had the game gone ahead. His reply was something like, “I cannot say because no match was played. You chose to cancel the match. If you had gone ahead and played the match, I would have predicted the result beforehand, like I did every other time.”
I guess whoever came up with this was saying that whilst God is omnipotent, it doesn’t diminish our free will. The NFL teams had the free will to play games, which they did to the best of their ability. This hypothetical man knew the result, but only because the teams chose to play, due to their free will to put on a football game. He cannot predict something that would never have happened.
I am probably doing a lousy job of explaining this. I guess I have to choose my own frame of reference. Today I chose to go out and buy a different newspaper for a change. I believe I had the free will to do that. God knew what newspaper I would decide to buy before I did it, but that doesn’t diminish my free will in any way. I may just have opted for my usual newspaper and had I done that, well God would have known about that beforehand, too. So I was free to buy whatever newspaper I desired. God would always have known beforehand what newspaper I would buy, but only because I actually chose to go out and buy a different newspaper.
I’d wager I’m still explaining this in a lousy way. I make choices every day and believe in free will. God knowing the future and knowing what I am going to do doesn’t, in my view, make my decisions any “less free”. I may choose to go and change my career next week, a free and conscious decision. God knows it about beforehand, but only because I will choose to do it myself.
I can’t help but think there is someone out there who can articulate this better than I can. Thing is, as a Christian, I do come up against this in discussion. It’s questions like, “How can you be free if God knows what you’re going to do before you do it?” Yet using the comparisons/analogies above (which are far from perfect analogies), I have no trouble reconciling free will with God’s omnipotence.
Anyone have any better comparisons/analogies or their own way of dealing with it/responding to questions?
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
The way most Catholic theologians think this is done is by what is called “The theory of predestination post prævisa merita” (which translates to predestination “after foreseen merits”).
This theory states that, by virtue of His Omniscience, God knows, before time, the response of each and every man to grace. Therefore, to those He knows will respond favorably to His grace, He gives them the graces they need in order to cooperate with His Will and thus in the end reach Heaven. To those He knows will NOT respond favorably to His grace, He will still give (arguably even more) graces that they need to get to Heaven, but He knows they will reject those graces and thus they will make themselves go to hell.
Catholics believe in the predestination of the elect, but not in the predestination of the damned, and the former in a way that does not negate man’s free will.
The way most Catholic theologians think this is done is by what is called “The theory of predestination post prævisa merita” (which translates to predestination “after foreseen merits”).
This theory states that, by virtue of His Omniscience, God knows, before time, the response of each and every man to grace. Therefore, to those He knows will respond favorably to His grace, He gives them the graces they need in order to cooperate with His Will and thus in the end reach Heaven. To those He knows will NOT respond favorably to His grace, He will still give (arguably even more) graces that they need to get to Heaven, but He knows they will reject those graces and thus they will make themselves go to hell.
G
grannymh
Guest
Perhaps the key is to first understand one’s own human nature.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
- Status