What's your level of willpower?

[morgantj]

the premise that physical things cannot create itself, makes the non-physical logically necessary, thats where i get the idea of the non-physical.

in order for purely physical determinism to be broken, there must be a non-physical factor. if not then we have no free will.

So you are just making this “non-physical” up to try to break physical determinism and to try to prevent not having free-will? If I were to even consider your “non-physical” for a moment, I might suggests that it would not even be necessary for this “non-physical” element to continue existing after it caused the first physical link in the chain. Also, after that, it is dominoes all the way. For the purpose and everyday usage in which we claim to have free-will, we are captive and subject to causality, and do not have free-will. It seems you are also suggesting that free-will can only exist if this non-physical hocus pocus exist as well, and our “free-will” ability that is free from causality comes from outside the physical realm. That is quite a claim. One hocus pocus to support another. There is evidence of causality, there isn’t evidence of this “non-physical” that somehow gives us freedom to act in opposition of causality.

Another large claim like yours that has no evidence to support it, but could just as easily be said to be “logically necessary” is that it could be said that it is just as plausable to say “nothing” is unstable and like a “bit” that has a value of either 0 or 1 was once 0, but because of its unstableness, it fluctuated into a 1. Nothing to something. A logical necessity, or just a theory with nothing to support it.

theologically, for these actions to determine that outcome, they must occur by free will, thats what defines a sin, something done under free will. if we lack free will than those actions arent sins and therefore cant affect the outcome.

but it is not possible for physically contingent “free will” to sin, so its not compatible with determining the destination of ones non-physical soul.

i.e. you cant sin without free will.

I don’t care if it is not compatible with sin. Sin is a biblical teaching. The idea that we don’t have free-will isn’t wrong just because it is not compatible with sin. Take that leap of faith that many theists are so fond of and consider that maybe the theists idea of sin is flawed. Consider that the bible is not infallible, and these contradictions are something to be concerned about.

 

[chris_molter]

Love is an act of the will. Without it, we cannot love. Love cannot be compelled. If we were automatons, then there would be no sin, but also no love. God desires that we freely choose to love Him and therefore gave us the ability to do so, or, if we choose, to reject Him.

 

[morgantj]

Love is an act of the will. Without it, we cannot love. Love cannot be compelled. If we were automatons, then there would be no sin, but also no love. God desires that we freely choose to love Him and therefore gave us the ability to do so, or, if we choose, to reject Him.

This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to conesequence. Just because it has consequences you find undesirable doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Such as:

It’s 95 degrees out.
I have icecream in an icrecream cone that will melt if I am outside in the heat.
But I don’t believe it is 95 degrees because if it is it will melt my ice cream, and I don’t want that, so it can’t be 95 degreees.
It’s still 95 degrees out.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So you are just making this “non-physical” up to try to break physical determinism and to try to prevent not having free-will?

no, the non-physical, is logically necessary, as the physical is cannot create itself. from my first cause arguments.

subatomic particles were only logically necessary until we had atom smashers, not much difference here.

If I were to even consider your “non-physical” for a moment, I might suggests that it would not even be necessary for this “non-physical” element to continue existing after it caused the first physical link in the chain.

and there would be no reason to believe that it did that.

Also, after that, it is dominoes all the way. For the purpose and everyday usage in which we claim to have free-will, we are captive and subject to causality, and do not have free-will.

except its a near mathematical impossiblility. we can reasonably exclude the possibility of no free will on that basis alone.

that said, it also just doesnt jibe with our experience. if it is a illusion of free will, then it is so perfect as to actually be free will

It seems you are also suggesting that free-will can only exist if this non-physical hocus pocus exist as well, and our “free-will” ability that is free from causality comes from outside the physical realm. That is quite a claim.

thats where my thinking is headed

One hocus pocus to support another. There is evidence of causality, there isn’t evidence of this “non-physical” that somehow gives us freedom to act in opposition of causality.

sure there is, as logical necessity. if we are only dealing in observational evidence than we have observational free will also.

Another large claim like yours that has no evidence to support it, but could just as easily be said to be “logically necessary” is that it could be said that it is just as plausable to say “nothing” is unstable and like a “bit” that has a value of either 0 or 1 was once 0, but because of its unstableness, it fluctuated into a 1. Nothing to something. A logical necessity, or just a theory with nothing to support it.

how can ‘nothing’ be unstable? your examples arent of logical necessity, but rather of theory, with no founding premise, i have a premise, nothing physical can cause itself to exist, im not claiming nothing to something,

im claiming the logical necessity of the non-physical, much like other phenomenon, say electrons, etc, until they were proven

I don’t care if it is not compatible with sin. Sin is a biblical teaching.

a soul, and predestination, etc, are also biblical teachings, and you just used that as a connection yourself, so i thought it was part of the subject

im happy to discuss these things without theism, you just used it as the connection, so i thought it was in play.

The idea that we don’t have free-will isn’t wrong just because it is not compatible with sin.

if you use it for a theological argument it is, but now you are saying thats not the case. i think, now im a little confused.

Take that leap of faith that many theists are so fond of and consider that maybe the theists idea of sin is flawed. Consider that the bible is not infallible, and these contradictions are something to be concerned about.

why would the idea of sin be flawed, why would the bible be fallible, and why are you concerned about it if your an atheist?

that said the souls destination is determined by sin, sin is based on free will, if you dont have free will you cant sin so then what is the connection now? or am i misunderstanding what you said in the below post?

If your souls destination is determined by your actions here on earth, by the good or bad deeds you have sown, etc… these are actions acted upon in the physical. These actions in effect would “determine” the destination of your “non-physical” soul. There is the connection.

 

[morgantj]

no, the non-physical, is logically necessary, as the physical is cannot create itself. from my first cause arguments.

Citations needed.

except its a near mathematical impossiblility. we can reasonably exclude the possibility of no free will on that basis alone. free will is all but a mathematical neccesity.

I have been in a good share of long free-will debates, and never has it been claimed that free-will is a mathematical certainty. Therefore, I would like to ask for citations and/or formula please.

how can ‘nothing’ be unstable? your examples arent of logical necessity, but rather of theory, with no founding premise, i have a premise, nothing physical can cause itself to exist, im not claiming nothing to something,

After your premise you present a false dilemna. As though your theory is the only other option. Just because we don’t know that something physical can’t cause “itself” into existence doesn’t mean that therefore it is necessary that something “non-physical” caused something. It could be that something didn’t cause “itself” but caused something else other then itself to exist, and that thing caused something else and so on. The first cause could be something natural that caused other things into existence. Or it could be that nothing caused something. We don’t know. But we have no good reason to believe it must have been something supernatural. If you want to fill in our gaps of knowledge with “god did it,” because you can’t think of anything better, then go for it.

Also how is your “non-physical” any different from “nothing?” You are basically saying that something came from nothing too, just you call “nothing” - non-physical.

a soul, and predestination, etc, are also biblical teachings, and you just used that as a connection yourself, so i thought it was part of the subject

im happy to discuss these things without theism, you just used it as the connection, so i thought it was in play.

if you use it for a theological argument it is, but now you are saying thats not the case. i think, now im a little confused.

I shared several verses from the bible that supported a deterministic environment in which we don’t have free-will. These verses came from the same bible that speaks of sin. The contradiction is in the bible. And even without the verses that speak of determinism, we can see from the laws of nature, physics, casuality, that it is a deterministic environment without the idea of god. But if you want to bring sin into it, a theistic concept, then you must address the deterministic theistic verses I listed that contradict the idea of sin and it’s dependancy on free-will.

why would the idea of sin be flawed, why would the bible be fallible

The bible was written by men. Why would it be infallible? Are men perfect? The can write a flawless book, and in this case, not just one man, but many.

that said the souls destination is determined by sin, sin is based on free will, if you dont have free will you cant sin so then what is the connection now? or am i misunderstanding what you said in the below post?

Again, you must address the contradictory verses in the bible, some that reflect determinism and a lack of free-will, and others that speak of sin and its dependancy on having free-will.

How do you handle these contradictions?

 

[chris_molter]

This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to conesequence. Just because it has consequences you find undesirable doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Not really. If love is an act of the will, then without the will we are incapable of love, yes?

 

[morgantj]

Not really. If love is an act of the will, then without the will we are incapable of love, yes?

“will” and “free-will” are not the same. Is love an act of will or free-will? Also, define love.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Citations needed.

here is the premise.

physical things cannot create themselves. making a non-physical cause logically necessary

if you have something that disproves that, let me know.

I have been in a good share of long free-will debates, and never has it been claimed that free-will is a mathematical certainty. Therefore, I would like to ask for citations and/or formula please.

i dont think isaid mathematical certainty did i? i can tsay it much better than i already have here below

in order for purely physical determinism to be broken, there must be a non-physical factor. if not then we have no free will. and this is all an illusion contingent every particle interaction occuring in just the right way. which is nearly mathematically impossible. every single interaction between the first cause and this post had to go exactly right in order for this post to exist, as impossible as that sounds, now multiply that by every decision made by every person that has ever lived, or will ever live.

i know its a restatement, but you just asked for citations or formula, you didn’t make a counter argument.

After your premise you present a false dilemna. As though your theory is the only other option

it is, if you have another let me know, but ive been doing this for a while and i havent heard of one.

Just because we don’t know that something physical can’t cause “itself” into existence doesn’t mean that therefore it is necessary that something “non-physical” caused something.

we know that nothing physical can pre-exist itself. therefore nothing can cause itself.

It could be that something didn’t cause “itself” but caused something else other then itself to exist, and that thing caused something else and so on.

if that thing didn’t exist, it couldn’t cause something else either.

The first cause could be something natural that caused other things into existence.

what caused this thing? is this thing physical? (in metaphysics ‘natural’ means ‘physical’, ‘supernatural’ means ‘non-physical’)

Or it could be that nothing caused something. We don’t know.

we absolutely do know that something cannot come from nothing. you know 0+0=0

But we have no good reason to believe it must have been something supernatural.

i assume here that by supernatural you mean like ghosts and goblins, etc

if you mean non-physical, than that would be the only other option, as the physical cannot cause itself

If you want to fill in our gaps of knowledge with “god did it,” because you can’t think of anything better, then go for it.

i start with a simple premise, and from that draw the logical necessity of the non-physical, when did i ever mention G-d?

Also how is your “non-physical” any different from “nothing?” You are basically saying that something came from nothing too, just you call “nothing” - non-physical.

no thing would be no thing, or no thing of any kind.

non-physical is a thing that does not possess the physical qualities, i.e. mass, dimension, etc.

I shared several verses from the bible that supported a deterministic environment in which we don’t have free-will.

you think they support determinism, which is kind of funny, because Catholics dont believe that, its generall a cavinist, protestant viewpoint.

These verses came from the same bible that speaks of sin. The contradiction is in the bible.

thats the point im making about sin, you cant have sin without free will. no sin, no predestination.

in order to have predestination, you must have free will.

And even without the verses that speak of determinism, we can see from the laws of nature, physics, casuality, that it is a deterministic environment without the idea of god. But if you want to bring sin into it, a theistic concept, then you must address the deterministic theistic verses I listed that contradict the idea of sin and it’s dependancy on free-will.

sorry, you need a theological apologist for that. Catholics dont believe in predestination, so its a non-starter here.

though there are some protestants on the board you should ask them.

The bible was written by men. Why would it be infallible? Are men perfect? The can write a flawless book, and in this case, not just one man, but many.

we believe the Holy Spirit guided the writers, but thats a whole other subject.

Again, you must address the contradictory verses in the bible, some that reflect determinism and a lack of free-will, and others that speak of sin and its dependancy on having free-will.

How do you handle these contradictions?

i dont, we dont believe in predestination, i assume you are simpply misinterpreting the verses out of context. for a better answer than that, you should use the “ask an apologist feature” or search the scripture boards for the subject of ‘predestination’

if you care to discuss the metaphysics of free will or first cause thats my bag, comparative theology is not.

 

[morgantj]

here is the premise.

physical things cannot create themselves. making a non-physical cause logically necessary

if you have something that disproves that, let me know.

I understand your premise, but I would like to see some citations, some supporting material to back it up.

i dont think isaid mathematical certainty did i? i can tsay it much better than i already have here below

Is sounded like you did when said, “free will being a reasonable mathematical certainty then that physical determinism, is broken by a non-physical cause, i.e. free will is…”

in order for purely physical determinism to be broken, there must be a non-physical factor. if not then we have no free will. and this is all an illusion contingent every particle interaction occuring in just the right way. which is nearly mathematically impossible. every single interaction between the first cause and this post had to go exactly right in order for this post to exist, as impossible as that sounds, now multiply that by every decision made by every person that has ever lived, or will ever live.

i know its a restatement, but you just asked for citations or formula, you didn’t make a counter argument.

Yea, I wasn’t about to argue it further unless you have any citations or material to support your claim.

if that thing didn’t exist, it couldn’t cause something else either.

how do you know the first thing hadn’t always existed?

we absolutely do know that something cannot come from nothing. you know 0+0=0

But this excludes god right? God came from nothing. How come this also couldn’t exlude something entirely natural?

i assume here that by supernatural you mean like ghosts and goblins, etc

if you mean non-physical, than that would be the only other option, as the physical cannot cause itself

Please give me some examples of things that are non-physical. thanks.

you think they support determinism, which is kind of funny, because Catholics dont believe that, its generall a cavinist, protestant viewpoint.

So how does a Catholic interpret the specific verses I shared?

in order to have predestination, you must have free will.

Please explain this.

sorry, you need a theological apologist for that. Catholics dont believe in predestination, so its a non-starter here.

They can’t change their mind? They all believe the same thing? According the bible or to reality?

 

[Oreoracle]

we absolutely do know that something cannot come from nothing. you know 0+0=0

Actually, the identity property is axiomatic; you don’t know it, you assume it.

Infinite regression and an uncaused cause both lead to conclusions equally invalid. I don’t see why you all are debating which we should prefer.

 

[morgantj]

Actually, the identity property is axiomatic; you don’t know it, you assume it.

Infinite regression and an uncaused cause both lead to conclusions equally invalid. I don’t see why you all are debating which we should prefer.

I was arguing against free-will, but some how the topic was misdirected towards the first cause debate.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I understand your premise, but I would like to see some citations, some supporting material to back it up.

ok, St. Aquinas, though i dont see why you need a citation for that.

Is sounded like you did when said, “free will being a reasonable mathematical certainty then that physical determinism, is broken by a non-physical cause, i.e. free will is…”

oh. sorry there. i meant the adjective ‘reasonable’ to imply all but mathematically certain. i misspoke

Yea, I wasn’t about to argue it further unless you have any citations or material to support your claim.

why not? i don’t know of anyone else making the specific argument. that doesn’t change its seeming validity

do you have counter argument to propose?

how do you know the first thing hadn’t always existed?

if it is physical it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

But this excludes god right? God came from nothing. How come this also couldn’t exlude something entirely natural?

first cause, is non-physical. non-physical things have no physical qualities and are subject to no physical laws, including causality.

Please give me some examples of things that are non-physical. thanks.

empirical evidence of the non-physical? you want a picture of something with no physical qualities? how would one do that?

if it has no physical qualities, how could i as a physical being sense it?

So how does a Catholic interpret the specific verses I shared?

like i said, “ask an apologist”, for the churches interpretation. im not much of a theologist, you can look it up the same as me.

Please explain this.

in order to sin you must have free will, you cant sin against your will. if you dont sin then you cant sin, you cant be predestined to any particular fate. thats my understanding. once again, theology aint my bag, metaphysics is.

They can’t change their mind? They all believe the same thing? According the bible or to reality?

no they cant, we aren’t protestants, we dont individually decide doctrine as they do, doctrine comes from the magisterium.

though i have no idea what you are asking when you say “according to the bible or reality”
we dont follow sola scriptura, the idea that the bible is the entirety of our faith.

is it possible your confusing theological doctrine for metaphysical philosophy?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually, the identity property is axiomatic; you don’t know it, you assume it.

unless physics is wrong, something pre-existing itself is an impossible temporal paradox. it must exist first, to pre-exist itself…

that doesn’t seem like an assumption, it seems like a logical impossibility.

Infinite regression and an uncaused cause both lead to conclusions equally invalid

what makes you think that? infinite regression of physical things violates causality, an uncaused non-physical cause doesn’t.

I don’t see why you all are debating which we should prefer.

its what we do.

 

[Oreoracle]

unless physics is wrong, something pre-existing itself is an impossible temporal paradox. it must exist first, to pre-exist itself…

that doesn’t seem like an assumption, it seems like a logical impossibility.

Go ahead, then; give me a mathematical proof of the identity property that does not assume itself.

what makes you think that? infinite regression of physical things violates causality, an uncaused non-physical cause doesn’t.

Why does it matter if it’s physical or non-physical?

If we accept that everything must have a cause, neither an uncaused cause nor infinite regression give us a satisfactory answer. “It has to be that way, regardless of logical structures” is not an appropriate argument. If God precedes logic, then neither of us can address his existence in logical terms, which means that this discussion is over.

its what we do.

Fair enough.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Go ahead, then; give me a mathematical proof of the identity property that does not assume itself.

are you saying that something comes from nothing? id need some pretty good evidence of that.

Why does it matter if it’s physical or non-physical?

causality as we know it, is from physical determinism based on physical laws. thats why it matters whether or not we are dealing with the physical or the non-physical

we have an observational reason to assign causality to the physical, those same physical laws dont apply to something lacking physical qualities, nor is there any reason to assume that they do, as far as i know.

If we accept that everything must have a cause, neither an uncaused cause nor infinite regression give us a satisfactory answer.

we dont accept that everything must have a cause, only that physical things must have a cause as a matter of physical determinism. the non-physical need not have causation.

“It has to be that way, regardless of logical structures” is not an appropriate argument.

who made that argument? can you post what you are refering to?

If God precedes logic, then neither of us can address his existence in logical terms

who said that G-d precedes logic? you seemt o be assuming arguments that im not making.

which means that this discussion is over.

then why did you bother to post, if you dont wish to defend your position?

 

[morgantj]

are you saying that something comes from nothing? id need some pretty good evidence of that.

Then I am sure you understand why atheists ask for some “pretty good evidence” of a gods existence. He and his all powerful omniscience and omnipotence is claimed to have come from absolutely nothing!

 

[Benadam]

Then I am sure you understand why atheists ask for some “pretty good evidence” of a gods existence. He and his all powerful omniscience and omnipotence is claimed to have come from absolutely nothing!

The claim of faith is that God has ‘always been’.

 

[morgantj]

The claim of faith is that God has ‘always been’.

Exactly, which means that god and his “always has been-ness” came from absolutely nothing.

 

[Benadam]

Exactly, which means that god and his “always has been-ness” came from absolutely nothing.

The eternal state is better defined by the concept of ‘changeless’ rather than the concept of linear time that goes on an on in both directions past and future. Absolutely nothing would be an eternal state wouldn’t it? How would you propose that a state of absolute nothingness seized to be an eternal state?

 

[morgantj]

The eternal state is better defined by the concept of ‘changeless’ rather than the concept of linear time that goes on an on in both directions past and future. Absolutely nothing would be an eternal state wouldn’t it? How would you propose that a state of absolute nothingness seized to be an eternal state?

So are you now saying that god is “nothing” and therefore god is eternal?

God is claimed to be the prime mover, the uncaused cuase. God IS claimed to have come from absolutely nothing. Applynig this attribute of god being eternal is just the theists way of trying to avoid admitting that god is claimed to have come from absolutely nothing.