The myth of Adam and Eve

[Vico]

What makes us rational are our brains. It is there that we memorize and process things.

The rational soul with will and intelligence attributes, survives death of the body, specific memory in the brain and brain functioning does not, of course.

 

[OneSheep]

Create all people in Heaven.

Okay, what is different about heaven, such that it would be a better universe? I’m hoping for a couple details. I’d be better able to address something with a little more detail.

Thanks, and have a great day.

 

[Gorgias]

Boy, this thread’s gotten away from me… so much written here!

Let’s say you have to decide whether to reply to this or not. You make a decision accordingly and start a reply. And you insist in your reply that you made the decision with free will. If that were to be the case, then in identical circumstances, you would choose NOT to reply.

No – free will only implies that you have the ability to choose differently. It does not require a different choice. (Oddly enough, you’re attempting to prove a sort of determinism by imposing a deterministic outcome on a (theoretical) alternative ‘run’ of the moment. That’s called ‘begging the question’… )

It is nonsensical to maintain that you have free will if you always would make the same choice.

Yesterday, the sun rose in the east. The day before that, it rose in the east. Every day for the past few million years, it rose in the east. It is therefore nonsensical to maintain that it will not rise in the east some day.

So what happens if we film you making that choice? Rerun the movie and you make the same one every time. Obviously. Nothing changes. Everything is exactly the same every time. Now we have the ability to go back in time and watch you choose. What happens? Exactly the same. Obviously. The circumstances which dictated your decision are exactly the same each time we watch you make it. It is nonsensical to suggest that we could go back into the past and watch you make a different call each time.

If you could prove strict determinism – that is, that we are fully conditioned – then you’d have a point. Since you cannot, then the best you can do is observe that we have certain predilections which make it possible to predict (with varying degrees of certainty) what choice we freely make. Still, though, it’s a free choice, not a pretermined outcome. You’re using the chosen selection in an attempt to prove there’s no choice. Again, begging the question.

The circumstances dictate what you decide. They dictate your reasoning, they dictate your emotions, they dictate your subconscious, they dictate literally everything about your decision. Repeat those circumstances and you cannot fail to repeat the choice.

It’s an enticing assertion. Can you prove it? I mean… you repeat it often enough that it’s clear that this is at the core of your philosophy – but can you demonstrate that it’s true?

Otherwise, what are your decisions based on? If they are arbitrary, then they are not made with free will. A decision to toss a coin appears to be a free will choice (although you would always make it in identical circumstances), but a decision made on a coin toss cannot be said to be made with free will.

You’ve tried this one in the past, too. I can flip a coin, but I have the choice to say (or not say) “I’ll have sushi if it comes up ‘heads’ and and steak if it comes up ‘tails’!”. You could always choose not to base your choice on the ‘arbitrary’ outcome.

(Unless, of course, you’re Daredevil, in which case you already know the outcome of the flip as it happens. In that case, you’ve still made a free will choice, but you’re attempting to couch it in a context that appears deterministic. In the case of Daredevil, Bradski, your assertions are spot on. For the rest of us? Not so much…)

 

[LethalMouse]

Priorities are list of our choices. We always pick up the top one.

Two different persons can have two different priority list if they are in the same situation.

So you are arguing if I understand you correct that subjective logic constrains free will?

So when a heroin junkie sees another shoot up some and die knowing it is 99.9999% likely to kill them too but decide that “it is probably good stuff” and they shoot it and die, that no matter how illogical, no matter how much pull they had to know how stupid it was, it was still a “logical” choice based on subjective priorities and therefore was as accurate and factual as Bahman’s logic.

Which this entire line of thinking would mean that eeryone who disagrees with your correct logic is default just as correct as you. Therefore someone whose logic says gravity is real is equally as correct as someone whose logic says it is not…

I am not sure that anyone could debate any point successfully with someone with such a belief…

 

[Bahman]

The rational soul with will and intelligence attributes, survives death of the body, specific memory in the brain and brain functioning does not, of course.

There are evidences that we lose our memories and can have malfunctions in the case of brain damage, Alzheimer for example. So I am wondering that how we could be functional upon death.

 

[SilverShadow22]

While in our mortal bodies, intelligence and function is dependent upon physical reality - the health of our physical brains.

At death, the connection is severed, and we are free to function in a purely spiritual state. We don’t understand how exactly that happens because we haven’t experienced it yet.

But it is entirely possible for our intellect to ‘transmute’ from physically dependent to incorporeally autonomous at the moment of death.

 

[LethalMouse]

There are evidences that we lose our memories and can have malfunctions in the case of brain damage, Alzheimer for example. So I am wondering that how we could be functional upon death.

Ever try to remember sonething and cannot?

Ever 3 years later remember it clear as day while simultaneously remembering that 3 yrs prior you couldn’t remember it?

Like a computer every time we figure out how to make the information disappear we find a new way to see it is still there. Inability to find something does not negate its existence.

 

[Bahman]

So you are arguing if I understand you correct that subjective logic constrains free will?

No, I am arguing that free will is an illusion since rationality rules always.

So when a heroin junkie sees another shoot up some and die knowing it is 99.9999% likely to kill them too but decide that “it is probably good stuff” and they shoot it and die, that no matter how illogical, no matter how much pull they had to know how stupid it was, it was still a “logical” choice based on subjective priorities and therefore was as accurate and factual as Bahman’s logic.

What is illogical/stupid to you could be logical to others.

Which this entire line of thinking would mean that everyone who disagrees with your correct logic is default just as correct as you. Therefore someone whose logic says gravity is real is equally as correct as someone whose logic says it is not…

People are different. It is very hard to change people’s minds unless you have solid evidence and persist to convince.

I am not sure that anyone could debate any point successfully with someone with such a belief…

Well, I think any debate is useful even if it is not completely fruitful.

 

[LethalMouse]

No, I am arguing that free will is an illusion since rationality rules always.

**What is illogical/stupid to you could be logical to others.
**

People are different. It is very hard to change people’s minds unless you have solid evidence and persist to convince.

Well, I think any debate is useful even if it is not completely fruitful.

If the bold was untrue, I might be able to agree an absence of free will, however the fact that your statement is true IS what makes will free. If logic/rationality is univeral your arguement against free will would hold more philosophical water. However if it is subjective then rationality cannot be successfully constraining to will.

 

[Bahman]

Okay, what is different about heaven, such that it would be a better universe? I’m hoping for a couple details. I’d be better able to address something with a little more detail.

Thanks, and have a great day.

There would be no war, conflict, …

 

[SilverShadow22]

This may be hard to say correctly, but I’ll just go for it.

Why don’t we read books and watch movies where everything goes right and everyone is perfectly happy?

Because it is BORING.

Heroes are not born of the easy life. Heroes are born of trial and struggle. They become more admirable the more they have to overcome.

DO NOT take from this that God is a cruel author who enjoys throwing tribulation at his characters. My point is, that without going through a difficult circumstance… There are no heroes OR villains. If we’re never tested, we’ll never know who we are.

A perfect existence by definition gives us no choice. How is there a choice when we were never given more than one option? How noble is a person who never stole, when they never had the slightest need for anything? It’s when they’re desperate that we admire them for their virtue in NOT stealing.

 

[OneSheep]

There would be no war, conflict, …

Well, we have war and conflict because we have an innate desire for territory, and we are also compelled by our nature to want what others have. In addition, we are compelled by our nature to punish what we see as wrongdoing. It’s all innate, right?

So, for starters, we can wish God would have given us a world with unlimited resources, right? Do you agree?

 

[o_mlly]

Lets put fact together to see if a God who is all wise allows this:

1. Fall of angles: It is mentioned that angels fall was because of sin of pride. It however doesn’t mentioned that how one can sin in blessed Heaven. State of mind is the state of love and harmony in haven. How then angels could fall?

We believe God created the angels absent the Beatific Vision. In the trial, the angels did not know God completely.
Bahman;13853652 2):

Fall of Adam and Eve: Fall of Adam and Eve was because of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Why God should keep the tree in the garden knowing the fact Adam and Eve would eat it? Moreover why God give access to the garden to Satan knowing the fact that he can manage to tempt Adam and Eve?

We believe one can only be a saint if they can also be a sinner.
Bahman;13853652 3):

It is obvious that a God who is all wise wouldn’t allow to this happen. The only option which is available is that all these were part of God plan. But how a God who is all good can allow that evil happen?

Shakespeare could have had King Lear take a sedative after Act I but then where would be the drama? God’s play is still in progress. Hold the reviews until His last act is completed.

 

[clem456]

This may be hard to say correctly, but I’ll just go for it.

Why don’t we read books and watch movies where everything goes right and everyone is perfectly happy?

Because it is BORING.

Heroes are not born of the easy life. Heroes are born of trial and struggle. They become more admirable the more they have to overcome.

DO NOT take from this that God is a cruel author who enjoys throwing tribulation at his characters. My point is, that without going through a difficult circumstance… There are no heroes OR villains. If we’re never tested, we’ll never know who we are.

A perfect existence by definition gives us no choice. How is there a choice when we were never given more than one option? How noble is a person who never stole, when they never had the slightest need for anything? It’s when they’re desperate that we admire them for their virtue in NOT stealing.

This is a brilliant observation.

These stories are captivating because they are truthful. They give a real appraisal of the human condition. The human condition is a drama played out in free will. The tension and drama reflect the struggle between good and evil. As the drama between good and evil is lived and man chooses for the good, we become more free.

St John Paul 2 understood this drama very well and knew the value of culture in truthfully portraying it.

 

[Bahman]

While in our mortal bodies, intelligence and function is dependent upon physical reality - the health of our physical brains.

At death, the connection is severed, and we are free to function in a purely spiritual state. We don’t understand how exactly that happens because we haven’t experienced it yet.

But it is entirely possible for our intellect to ‘transmute’ from physically dependent to incorporeally autonomous at the moment of death.

We know that soul is not functional under hylomorphic dualism which is Catholic belief.

 

[Bahman]

Ever try to remember sonething and cannot?

Ever 3 years later remember it clear as day while simultaneously remembering that 3 yrs prior you couldn’t remember it?

Like a computer every time we figure out how to make the information disappear we find a new way to see it is still there. Inability to find something does not negate its existence.

I don’t understand how your answer is related to the argument.

 

[LethalMouse]

I don’t understand how your answer is related to the argument.

That has eventually been your answer to every thread when presented with simething that makes your arguement invalid…

 

[LethalMouse]

We know that soul is not functional under hylomorphic dualism which is Catholic belief.

Not exactly true on several counts

1. It is an allowed belief not an actual teaching ergo a catholic does not have to accept or reject it persay.
2. There are different forms of hylomorphism and the most catholic one would be saint thomas not aristotle or the former I cant think of who…
3. Again this is as much a catholic teaching as evolution or young earth theory, either is allowed so it depends on which catholic you are talking to if you want to use it as a fact

 

[guanophore]

Well, we have war and conflict because we have an innate desire for territory, and we are also compelled by our nature to want what others have. In addition, we are compelled by our nature to punish what we see as wrongdoing. It’s all innate, right?

So, for starters, we can wish God would have given us a world with unlimited resources, right? Do you agree?

Are you saying that God created us to be this way?

 

[Bahman]

If the bold was untrue, I might be able to agree an absence of free will, however the fact that your statement is true IS what makes will free.

How? The fact that we are rational make us unfree.

If logic/rationality is univeral your arguement against free will would hold more philosophical water. However if it is subjective then rationality cannot be successfully constraining to will.

I cannot understand you. Could you please elaborate?