A simple question. Can fate/destiny co-exist with free will? Is only one of the two possible, or can there be both?

I don't believe in fate. What do you mean by fate? Like some fortune teller says what will happen to you?

I mean the idea that your life is planned out already, your death, everything.

A bullet in a head can end all that. Unless you can argue maybe it's fate that cause you to kill yourself.

I do think you start to understand the concept of determinism (fate), Joeman. The problem is that no alternative can be proven.

But a possible co-existence is an interesting topic. Intersting, but I wait to see how the discussion develops.... is it going on at a theological, a psychological, or at a physical level?
("Ik kijk de kat nog even uit de boom")

Merlijn

There is no fate. Everything happens at random. Just like the letters in this next sentence

jafk ajafjsajf iwioroprpoabf poa aiauerf gwoslcy lpreqsi yendh 998 ppdhcauhe

Translation, life

Whether you describe your opinion in terms of theology, philosophy, or metereology, the question is one of pure logic.

A) You choose your own path.
B) You don't get to choose your own path.

Can they exist simultaneously?

I'm gonna say NO

Consider the possibility: even your so-called random processes are completely determined.
does there exsist true randomness? or is it just that we have no knowledge of what will happen next?

I have some knowledge of what is going to happen next. I'm gonna get a pizza:D

Merlijn


Consider the possibility: even your so-called random processes are completely determined.
does there exsist true randomness? or is it just that we have no knowledge of what will happen next?

I brought this topic up in a previous thread. I think that there is no randomness in the sense of disordered chaos. Random simply means we do not know what the outcome will be, or the means by which the outcome is acheived. The outcome is not independent from the event, simple enough.

Now apply that whole blurb to life and Adam, you have my opinion on your question; in a way, yes.

I would like to believe so. You know, I hate to admit it but there have been instances in my life that I could not figure out why these awfuls things kept happening to me - and they are still happening. But years later I can look back and say "Damn, Im glad that happened" Its like everything happens for a reason. I look at my aunt dying at a very young age and thinking maybe something more horrible would of happened to her years later so it was best that she went back then. But I dont believe in a god so I cant explain these things.

Adam , I hate to say this, but arguing with people who believe in fate is about as fruitful as arguing with a christian. No matter what you say, do, or feel... it's fate. or god's will, in their case.
Shouldn't have mentioned that G word, of course, but they amount to the same thing.

A) You choose your own path.
B) You don't get to choose your own path.

Just as in Minority Report, humans will always have the option to choose, free will. Although one may 'predict' the most likely outcome, but it may change.

It is not a question of fate, because there is no such thing. It's the things you do that lead to it, any type of 'fate.'

Nothing also happens randomly, it is all affected by chance, concerning with human life, chance is affected by what we do.

Let's say you are to flip a coin, prediction, or you could say fate possibly, would predict a 50/50 chance head and tails situation. But how you flip that coin, how high above the ground, the way you flick your thumb etc, is affecting the chances of it landing on either side.

Or another, let's say you are to come across a car crash because some idiot decides to run the light. Before the incident, you could've slowed down or go faster to not "crash." But many fate believers would say it happened by fate. But ONE cannot deny the fact that IF you slowed down you wouldn't be in the accident.

See it this way, If someone makes a game with two alternative endings. The story and possibilities are already determined, but the gamer still has a choice.

Now if the maker of the game knows before hand EXACTLY how the gamer thinks, so that he takes out all the choices he won't make, you end up with a beforehand determined story, In witch the gamer has a free will.

How is that?:eek:

I say free will. but I will say that I think it is the nature of certain things to fall into place togather, and that there are barriers that prevent our lives from taking certain courses. I'm also not against the idea of there being things that influence our lives that we don't understand. I don't necessarily mean god, but I do think that people, events and the movement thereof all have a certain nature that helps guide them...or maybe it's just a "bodies in motion" kind of thing, and once someone or starts moving in a certain "direction", it will be natural to continue on that path...which will, in turn, naturally intersect with other paths.

That's basically all bullshit. It's just basically the only way I can think of to explain the idea that we have free will, but not necessarily control, at least not all the time. Besides, who wants control?

of course, many people believe that god gave them free will. so take the hint guys: accept free will - accept god as your master... :cool:

See it this way, If someone makes a game with two alternative endings. The story and possibilities are already determined, but the gamer still has a choice.

Now if the maker of the game knows before hand EXACTLY how the gamer thinks, so that he takes out all the choices he won't make, you end up with a beforehand determined story, In witch the gamer has a free will.

How is that?

That is restricting it too much. You are saying as if God controlled certain elements so that you would meet that fate no matter "what" you choose, or what free will options you would have. Doesn't really work that way.

I am saying He gave us free will AND in his infinit wisdome and being outside Time, He knew the scenarios that were obsulete and erased them.
So in fact we choose and that wich we didn't choose was deleted.

I think fate is only a useful idea if we ask the question 'what fate?', because then we would make a choice to accept or reject it. If we just 'let fate happen by itself' then it can't really be described as fate, just as 'what happened'. It cannot exist without looking back at it, so, like my 'patience principle', its existence depends on how we observe it.

The Bible doesn't differentiate between free will and predetermination. Since God knows everything, there can be no uncertaintly, and since He is not subjected to time, whether something has, is, or will happen is irrelevant to the outcome. According to the Bible the outcome is fixed. Our 'free will' consists of whether we choose accept that outcome or not, and our acceptance determines our inclusion or exclusion from that "fate".

Imagine you could avoid death. If everybody could avoid it, death wouldn't exist. Sin, as well: if everybody weren't able, willing, or wanting to sin, then sin would be scrapped from the dictionary. Does that mean death is predetermined, or sin is inevitable? So someone would have to 'choose' death, and 'conquer' sin, so that we were able to make the decision in the first place! People wouldn't have known this if Jesus didn't tell us this, so *even if* we could create God to fill voids and whatnot, we couldn't have expected what Jesus would do until after He'd done it, because we didn't have the choice. We had laws, why would anybody 'invent' Jesus? That is why the no-one can know God except through Jesus.

I am saying He gave us free will AND in his infinit wisdome and being outside Time, He knew the scenarios that were obsulete and erased them.
So in fact we choose and that wich we didn't choose was deleted.

Sorry dude, I don't believe in that kind of God. It's crap to me, we know nothing to even say that. Although I do believe in a type of creator, may be divine, may be not. But I know nothing to say anything solid about it. As Squid says, it's fruitless to debate if you're going to bring that into here. You actually came up with a good assumption Squid! :D

in what kind of god you believe, is your problem!

Originally posted by Dark Master
As Squid says, it's fruitless to debate if you're going to bring that into here. You actually came up with a good assumption Squid! :D

as if YOUR approval means anything to me?

Doesn't matter to me if it doesn't mean anything to you. :o
It was a good assumption plain as that.

I've had enough of this "Jesus" business. This isn't the forum for evangelism. The inevitable takes place because of decay, and because of momentum. To say that we die because that is what has been decreed by a higher power is ridiculous. And sin is way too nebulous to call it "inevitable". True, "everyone makes mistakes", but we don't typically know that they're mistakes until after they've taken place. To say that we were destined to make them just so that a deity could lump us into the "sinner" category and justify our damnation/redemption dilemma is utterly inane. Even if there were such a god, to endow us with free will would liberate us from such inevitability as "you are a sinner" in our own right, and to impose on us a need to change our nature or "face our fate" would be nothing short of sadistic. So this "god" of yours can only be either imaginary, or cruel.

I was trying to avoid the evangelistic approach by describing reality. Maybe I was too cryptic. Read my post again. Where did I say that God *imposed* change? You face your fate anyway.

I was also addressing Phrenetic and Bruce Wayne. I just hate to see a halfway serious thread get turned into an apocryphal gang-bang when there are actually people with things to say, instead of recanting that "jesus died for our sins" and "accept the lord as your savior".

And you do imply in your post that, were it not for the "will of god", death and "sin" would be optional, and people, with their high-falutin' "free will" would avoid them. I'm just disagreeing.

Alright. I'm going to work, and since they don't have internet in the salt mines, I'll have to pick this up later.

I am trying to provide an alternative to your view that God wants to oppress everybody in submission. I completely agree with you that everything decays and dies because of momentum. You can't argue with reality, and I'm not trying. I'm describing a different choice than accepting what is going to happen anyway, and under what circumstances we would hypothetically be able to avoid them.

Come one - don't just shoot me down. Give me some alternative solutions! Anybody!

Originally posted by Walker
I was also addressing Phrenetic and Bruce Wayne. I just hate to see a halfway serious thread get turned into an apocryphal gang-bang when there are actually people with things to say, instead of recanting that "jesus died for our sins" and "accept the lord as your savior".

And you do imply in your post that, were it not for the "will of god", death and "sin" would be optional, and people, with their high-falutin' "free will" would avoid them. I'm just disagreeing.


I donīt believe Jesus is god......
And fvck you, I have as much to say as you, eedjit!
And I am not implying anything of this kind.

The poeple who disagree with the idea of fate mostly do so. because they find it a reason to `logicaly`denouce the existence of a celestial plan, Hence they say fate and Free will cannot coexist. All I did is give an explanation of how they could coexist.

In any reaction if all variables are known the outcome can be calculated. If humans knew all variables concerning everything the future could be predicted ahead of time. This implys a sort of fate, this fate applys to humans as well, since human reactions are merely reactions to their environment and could be predicted with enough knowledge of brain chemistry/biology/etc and a full knowledge of the current state of the person whose actions you are trying to predict. There is no such thing as free will however, since your actions(or reactions I should say) are determined by genetics and environment, learning, etc.

Jenyar: I really don't have a problem with you or your post, but I would like to say that I never implied oppression on god's part, just my belief in his nonexistence. When I say that "god" is either cruel or absent, I don't necessarily mean that's true...I just believe that it must be true of a christian god.

Bruce Wayne: if, at some point, you stop swearing and namecalling, and maybe work on your spelling, I might have some respect for your opinions. Assuming I bother to read you next post. This last one didn't make sense.

Angelus: Hmmm.

Maybe I will stop that if you start using a more polite tone. As for my spelling English is my forth language and I donīt have to apologize for that.
Itīs toobad you couldnīt understand my last post. But as long as you are the only one not getting it, I donīt think it needs rephrasing.

In any reaction if all variables are known the outcome can be calculated. If humans knew all variables concerning everything the future could be predicted ahead of time. This implys a sort of fate, this fate applys to humans as well, since human reactions are merely reactions to their environment and could be predicted with enough knowledge of brain chemistry/biology/etc and a full knowledge of the current state of the person whose actions you are trying to predict. There is no such thing as free will however, since your actions(or reactions I should say) are determined by genetics and environment, learning, etc.

Nah, I doubt it, that would be impossible. Although you could make a very good prediction, but because of free will, it's hard to tell. That can never happen. Genetics and all that do influence it, but free will is what makes everything different and unique.

No, our inability to comprehend all the variables is what makes everything seem different and unique. But as I've said in a different post, I don't think Homo Sapiens will ever have the ability to comprehend that and so there will always be an element of chance in what we do. But all chance is is not knowing the outcome, the outcome will be the same anyway. Perhaps our successors? Machina Sapiens? Who knows?

I agree with Dark Master. Choice is a variable that we are able to enter into our own equations, at least part of the time. And I do not believe that this choice is always, or even usually, a predetermined product of our background, DNA, and longitute/latitude, etc. Humanity itself is what makes it possible to decide anything human. And I would argue that no machine, no matter how much data it was given, no matter how sophisticated, could ever predict a human "direction", or propose to understand a human heart. "Chance" isn't what propels us from one point in our lives to the next. Neither are paths that have been determined by our chemical origins, or a moth flapping it's wings in South America. It is our own cognition, our understanding of our natures, and our devotion (or lack thereof) to truth.

Incidentally, I do support the idea that we do gain direction and momentum in our lives as we make certain decisions, and increasingly denounce or embrace our natures and environments, which I talked about in my first post...

Bruce Wayne: The "spelling" thing wasn't meant to be a cheap shot (okay, maybe a little one), and it's great that you're well-versed in a bunch of languages...I doubt I could do it, and I have a lot of respect for people that can.

I didn't think that my tone was particularly offensive, just meant to speak out against attempts to subvert this conversation into some kind of evangelical campaign. We're having a discussion, without necessarily trying to force anyone into our own way of thinking. Christians can tend to do that. Sorry if I misinterpereted you or got snippy.

Damn, this is a long post.

Just out of curiousity, if you're not Christian, what makes you think there's more to human cognition than the biology of the human brain?

Originally posted by Dark Master


Nah, I doubt it, that would be impossible. Although you could make a very good prediction, but because of free will, it's hard to tell. That can never happen. Genetics and all that do influence it, but free will is what makes everything different and unique.

It may be impractical but not impossible. Twins growing up separately have common predispositions. The lives are separate because the environmental variables are different at the respective local system.

If one can separate twins to an identical environment, it is possible to find both free wills are same meaning they are governed by global variables.

It may be impractical but not impossible. Twins growing up separately have common predispositions. The lives are separate because the environmental variables are different at the respective local system.

If one can separate twins to an identical environment, it is possible to find both free wills are same meaning they are governed by global variables.

Heh, I myself am a twin. Here's some background info. I am more outgoing, my brother stays home more. I want to pursue a medicial career, my brother business. Many things are different between us. Global variables just influence one's decision, cannot govern. I used to be an atheist and he was a theist, but now I am a theist, maybe after a little discussion with him, although my theist views differ from him a bit. We choose want we want and believe in is best.

And yes it is almost impossible, although kmguru it could be possible but one may never know with the knowledge we posses now.

So what you two are implying (kmguru and Angelus) as Angelus stated, "If humans knew all variables concerning everything the future could be predicted ahead of time." The variables we humans possess is unlimited. (If you are just going to study one human) Although like i said, we can predict a most likely outcome, but with all that are we sure?

Chance is the main variable that is undetermined unless we monitor everything in the world (which I believe would make predictions very accurate). But even though, I guarantee the machine (whichever that calculates your variables) will be inaccurate on some predictions.

Once again, I agree with Dark Master.

And I don't believe that a sovereign god, or anything of the kind is necessary to justify the idea of the human spirit, or at least the independant human mind. Do we have an eternal soul? Heck if I know. But I don't think that human beings can be reduced to simple biology. Even if they can, I believe that we shape (or can shape) our brains and our environments as much as they shape us.

Even if they can, I believe that we shape (or can shape) our brains and our environments as much as they shape us.

Nice way of putting it Walker. I definitely agree with that.

Originally posted by Dark Master
Chance is the main variable that is undetermined unless we monitor everything in the world (which I believe would make predictions very accurate). But even though, I guarantee the machine (whichever that calculates your variables) will be inaccurate on some predictions.

Where does chance come from? When the universe began, the initial conditions created what we are today. Under an identical initial conditions at zero state, it universe probably unfold exactly the same (initial condition may not have the quantum fluctuation). It is analogus to running a random number from a seed. However if randomness or chance exists independent of the equation that describes the universe, then we have a bigger problem. The universe could constantly change and the time may not look linear. Life on the planet would be in flux day to day.

That is why, I think that while there could be local chance, it is an integral part of the global initial condition and that if the same condition is produced in a separate event, the events would flow the same unless there is a link between the two programs where the randomness will change based on the previous program.

I would even bet that if there is a machine that takes a DNA and produces a child, taking one DNA will produce or clone the exact replicate every time. If earth had a DNA and was injected 4 billion years ago with a new earth, at the exact spot where this earth was, you will have identical results including the same human activities.

By definition, Chance is not repeatable from one identical event to another, right? Unless, Chance comes from an external source or a separate event....

I may be wrong....

In response to your question: Yes, co-existance is possible.

Faith, in a broad sense, has determined that our life-form, with
regard to the individual, dies;

Free-will, if random occurance is not a factor, determines when,
and possibly how, we die.

Take care.

Faith, in a broad sense, has determined that our life-form, with
regard to the individual, dies;

True haha, unless we can stick ourselves in a computer :bugeye:

chance exists independent of the equation that describes the universe

Chance will always be influenced by other variables (explained in earlier posts) It's when they come together, it's then the chances% those occurences together occur.


That is why, I think that while there could be local chance, it is an integral part of the global initial condition and that if the same condition is produced in a separate event, the events would flow the same unless there is a link between the two programs where the randomness will change based on the previous program.

Huh? So are you implying that global initial condition, provided the same condition is produced in a separate event, would be the influencing both identical variables as long as those variables do not traverse each other?

So you are saying that if me and my twin (let's say scientists created two "Truman Show" worlds for both of us, everything is the same and we are influenced by super-human-like-robots who ALL do the same thing for both worlds, EVERYTHING is calculated and precisely the same in both worlds, sun rise, sun set; except me and my twin of course) lived in all the same conditions we would take the same path?

From that...I guarantee you me and my brother will take different paths due to human individuality. I mean even though if we are the same DNA, correct?


I would even bet that if there is a machine that takes a DNA and produces a child, taking one DNA will produce or clone the exact replicate every time. If earth had a DNA and was injected 4 billion years ago with a new earth, at the exact spot where this earth was, you will have identical results including the same human activities.

You really think so? Twins have the same DNA and yet it won't happen. But I see you're point. Replant the first human being, provided we know who it was, and all the other human beings; then we would see the same occurences happen all the same way. But sad to say, it will not happen. Free will will do 'free' things, to choose, make your mind, it will not follow a programmed course. They will differ from us in many ways, more advanced, or more medival, who knows. If there's no Hitler in that world, that's a big event there that has changed etc.


By definition, Chance is not repeatable from one identical event to another, right? Unless, Chance comes from an external source or a separate event....

Definition of chance is that it is always influenced by another variable. It is by what YOU do that either increases the chance, or decreases it, percentage% wise. It cannot just 'happen.'

Definition of chance is that it is always influenced by another variable.

From what domain? If the "another variable" came from the same domain, then what is the origin of that variable? If you go back long enough, you will end in one simple equation from which it all begat...

In the beginning.....

Anyway, the argument is moot because, we can not compare two identical earth with identical galaxy happenings and follow the time tracks...and see if in fact there is a change. And when earth dies due to no fault of man, then the fate business is for nothing to argue about anyway....

BTW, I was reading a fiction about how Venusians blew up their planet with greenhouse gases (98% CO2)....

From what domain? If the "another variable" came from the same domain, then what is the origin of that variable?

From my previous posts of explainations:

Let's say you are to flip a coin, prediction, or you could say fate possibly, would predict a 50/50 chance head and tails situation. But how you flip that coin, how high above the ground, the way you flick your thumb etc, is affecting the chances of it landing on either side.

Or another, let's say you are to come across a car crash because some idiot decides to run the light. Before the incident, you could've slowed down or go faster to not "crash." But many fate believers would say it happened by fate. But ONE cannot deny the fact that IF you slowed down you wouldn't be in the accident.

How you flip that coin will affect the chances of it, either increasing or decreasing the chances it will land on each side. And also with the crash. Therefore through observation, chance's percentage of happening % is influenced by what we do.

You are trying to circumvent probability. If all variables could be known, then no such thing would exist. You can't wish away the world to prove your point. The fact is - life is one big variable. There's no getting around it. Therefore the concepts fate/predeterminism/free will are a natural (although nebulous) part of our reality. The only thing we can argue is their manifestations or lack thereof.

You just can't prove love doesn't exist because you don't believe in it. It's a matter of perspective. Looking back at the past, some things seem too specific to be arbitrary, or too improbable to be chance. The key word is chance. If you genuinely believe that anything is possible or probable, then nothing would surprise you because nothing would seem out of the 'ordinary'.

Life is one big free will, or one big meaningless plan, depending on what makes you happy. It's how you use that knowledge - how you live it - that counts.

Just something else - does anybody have any ideas on the nature of 'wisdom'? It might be unrelated to the topic, but would wisdom be possible if free will doesn't count/exist?

You are trying to circumvent probability. If all variables could be known, then no such thing would exist.

The thing is, it's almost impossible to know all the variables.


Therefore the concepts fate/predeterminism/free will are a natural (although nebulous) part of our reality. The only thing we can argue is their manifestations or lack thereof.

No such thing as fate or predeterminism, because all the variables can never be known. Variables would be infinite. Fate in a broad sense yes. If we can predict what a human would think and do 100% accurately in everything one does, we would be somewhat artificial in thoughts.


Just something else - does anybody have any ideas on the nature of 'wisdom'? It might be unrelated to the topic, but would wisdom be possible if free will doesn't count/exist?

You have an interesting point, wisdom is learned through the years in the things you do. It is related to free will in a way because you choose the things you do, therefore the experiences you learn from, is the wisdom you gain from those events. If free will did not exist...wisdom would be gained through determined events. And therefore since you know the wisdom you will gain, you can read and learn about it... It won't really be wisdom anymore.

Well said, O Dark Master! I want to use the same way of thinking about fate. Wisdom only exist because there is an infinite number of variables, all of which can never be known. I think "fate/determinism" is the same - it's a natural end of the choices we make - the final knowledge, i.e. the end of wisdom. Everything comes to a point (I think wisdom is the ability to pull past experiences - knowledge gained - into a single usable thread).

Only after all choices possible have been made, i.e. there are no more choices/possibilities left (at the 'end of time'), can you know everything and will you be able to 'see fate'. As it is now, we an only speculate about it in the future, because there always is a future. If you stood outside time, you would be able to see everything at once, and it will look like you determine the future of those inside.

Variables are not infinite, they are merely beyond human comprehension. Just because humans can never know all the variables or predict the future doesn't mean it will not follow the same path, that is the type of determinism I'm talking about. If everything, including all human actions, is going to play out the same no matter what, I believe this defeats the idea of a free will. On another note, there will never be an "end of time", time is infinite in span.

On the original question (yeah, I know I'm late:rolleyes: ):

Sure fate and free will can coexist, but it depends on what you mean by fate: Now, if fate is some complete and detailed script to which we must play, then maybe not (could there still be room for improvization?), but fate could be something else....

I was born in a democratic, industrialized country in a time of peace and economical growth, so my fate has been to get an education, never be unemployed, and in general have a good life. If I had been born 10 years earlier (that would be 1938), a few hundred kilometers more to the south (Germany) and my parents had happend to be jews, my fate would surely have been much different. But in both cases, I would have been able to influence the course of my life by my own decisions.

Hans

Variables are not infinite

Our human ability to make decisions are unlimited.


If everything, including all human actions, is going to play out the same no matter what, I believe this defeats the idea of a free will.

So you believe that if everything is known, one will know when others will die? So that will mean we will know the great leaders or any other "Hitlers" that come into our world... Nothing can be quite accurate as that. If the time does come for that, we will be playing God ourselves.

Originally posted by Dark Master

Our human ability to make decisions are unlimited.

Where's you're proof for this?


Originally posted by Dark Master

So you believe that if everything is known, one will know when others will die? So that will mean we will know the great leaders or any other "Hitlers" that come into our world... Nothing can be quite accurate as that. If the time does come for that, we will be playing God ourselves.

I never said I thought a time would come when humans would be able to do this. I merely said that since there is only one path, whether we can see it ahead of us or not, then it kind of destroys the idea of a free will. Besides you can't play at being something that doesn't exist.

Where's you're proof for this?

One can conclude the possibilites are infinite. You can go on and on and on...unless one is given a decision to choose only between a certain amount of variables.


I never said I thought a time would come when humans would be able to do this.

So your type of fate is fate in a broad sense? Even if it is in a broad sense, if that person's fate is to become something, then that person, in your scenario, will become that person. That is why it will be inaccurate, you may predict most likely what a person will become, but are you certain of that?

You implied it, you stated if all human actions are going to play out the same no matter what, it defeats free will. And fate is what will happen. Therefore you should know what the person will become am I correct? Only in a broad sense, we can say for example, he is going to be a doctor. But I do not believe it to be much more specific then that. Therefore free will cannot be defeated, in this case.


I merely said that since there is only one path, whether we can see it ahead of us or not, then it kind of destroys the idea of a free will.

If we can't see it ahead of us what makes you believe we will choose it? Because it is one path? When did it become one path?


Besides you can't play at being something that doesn't exist.

I think you knew what I meant by that. Let's say 'true' prophets then.

It is one path because it can only be one path. As I've said I believe that all human actions are determined by their genetics and environment. Just like everything else is determined by it's current state and environment. Therefore history can only take it's one path, as no other paths are possible.

It is one path because it can only be one path. As I've said I believe that all human actions are determined by their genetics and environment. Just like everything else is determined by it's current state and environment. Therefore history can only take it's one path, as no other paths are possible.

Ah I see where you are coming from. Not necessarily one path. It is one path because it was recorded into history. But we humans have many paths to choose, and whichever path we choose will be recorded as the one.

No, it is one path because it will be recorded into history. Think about cause and effect for one second, i mean truly understand the ramification of the words "For every effect their is a cause, and that cause is itself the effect of another cause." Everything you do is an effect of a cause, because that cause was there, you produced that effect, given the same cause you would produce the same effect. Since Our Universe has existed there is only one path it could take, because the first cause(of OUR UNIVERSE, not THE UNIVERSE) caused the second caused the third, our actions are merely links in that one chain that goes straight, unbranching, into the future.

No, it is one path because it will be recorded into history.

But the future happens the way we choose. It sounds like you are saying we have that path which was already chosen for us, in which I believe we can choose amongst all the avaliable paths. Of course one path will be recorded in history, but that is what happened. You cannot simply put it as one path. We humans have a conscious, a free-thinking ability. You may look at it that way but I prefer to differ. It's seems from your view we are programmed to do so, through all the variables, environment, effects, etc. of our surroundings.


Think about cause and effect for one second, i mean truly understand the ramification of the words "For every effect their is a cause, and that cause is itself the effect of another cause."

Yes I've thought about that. But for each cause (with the other countless causes) we choose will result in another effect (for each countless causes), whichever we choose. It's seems to me your point of view is that our world works in a line. No, I don't think so. Yeah it happened or will happen, because we chose so.


Since Our Universe has existed there is only one path it could take, because the first cause(of OUR UNIVERSE, not THE UNIVERSE) caused the second caused the third, our actions are merely links in that one chain that goes straight, unbranching, into the future.

You are not making sense, we do not have "one path it could take." You should rephrase it as:


"Since Our Universe has existed there is only one path it will choose."


But we are granted the decision to choose which path.

You are thinking like a typical Korean trained here, too mathematical. Meaning one is given a question, and one is trained to only answer it but not clearly know why or ask questions. Yes Korea is one of the best country's in math, but their students think in only one direction. Get a question they give the answer. But slowly Korea's education system is changing, more in the way of the US's because we promote more free-thinking, which equal ideas and prove to be more effective.

Well this may have little to do with the discussion, but even math has it's flaws.

You fail to see that what I'm trying to point out is that we have no choice. Our actions are merely effects of causes. Our world is a line, we appear to make decisions but appearances are decieving. Truly there is no "choice" as such involved because the variables leading up to the choice will determine what the choice will be. You seem to think we humans have some power to act outside that which our physical bodies allow, and i see no reason to accept that. There is no proof that I have this "free will" which if you think about it would be a most peculiar and singular phenomenon. But this banter seems to not be getting us anywhere, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

If you're not making your own choices, then who is? Do you mean that you don't have to take responsibility for your actions because you have no control over yourself? Self-control is the only way in which free will can be applied constructively, and the only way to maturity. Children don't have any limits - but they have fears and needs. That is what stays the same, but getting to know our own limits and learn how to choose one decision over another, THAT is the basis of free will. It's not something in itself. If we were robots then what would be the use of existing? People ask why wars happen if God existed and were in control, but the problem is that people don't believe in God, so they create their own world and their own wills (or lack of it).

IMHO
JR

You fail to see that what I'm trying to point out is that we have no choice.

The means of this? Everything is already chosen for us??? Now you sound like those religious people that believe God has plans for them.


Our actions are merely effects of causes. Our world is a line, we appear to make decisions but appearances are decieving.

Yes as I said. I see your point.

I stated, "You cannot simply put it as one path. We humans have a conscious, a free-thinking ability. You may look at it that way but I prefer to differ."

As you can see, we disagree.

We make decisions to choose the effect we want. Our actions WE choose are "merely" the effects of causes, but we desire it to happen that way through our actions.


Truly there is no "choice" as such involved because the variables leading up to the choice will determine what the choice will be.

I would have to say you are wrong, there is a choice. You are just looking at it in one direction. But that one direction is the direction we choose to take, because there can only be one direction to choose.

It's the variables, which are choices also, that we do that lead up to that choice. Anyways we can only take one choice. Maybe because you only recognize our physical world and the courses it has taken, because there can only be one course we CAN take. But you fail to see that there exists a multitude of choices, of that only one we can choose. I have emphasized this too much.

I believe you look at it from a closed-view because only one choice can happen, therefore since there is one choice, we have no choice.


[You seem to think we humans have some power to act outside that which our physical bodies allow, and i see no reason to accept that.

What do you mean by that? Elaborate more on this for me please.


There is no proof that I have this "free will" which if you think about it would be a most peculiar and singular phenomenon.

Inventions, creations, intelligence, the human-like conscious to which we know, as of now, as the strongest force in the universe. The more intelligence and power we attain, the stronger our free will becomes. Free will is the means of choices. The more free will, the more power we have to make choices.

And if you know why our human-conscious is the strongest force that we know of so far, then you would see my point of view, and a strong free will that exists within us. Do you know why?


But this banter seems to not be getting us anywhere, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

We disagree. We may just keep it as that.

You must keep in mind the difference in the nature of 'free will' and 'fate/predestination/whatever'.

Each individual makes his own decisions in his own mind, nobody can argue that. But there are millions of people, and and countless possibilities of circumstance, of which we have NO control - in that sense control is an illusion. You think you control your position in a company by being good at what you do, the next day you lose your job. You think you made it big in the world, you're CEO of a company you created or inherited - by choice or without choice, you have an office at the top floor of the world trade centre! It doesn't matter whether you think that you chose to be there or not - other people are deciding your life. Some people choose to call this destiny or fate... because you are subjected to other people's free will.

One person - free will. More than one - fate. Like I said before, since only a god who created all people can know all their fates, all the variables, to us it may seem like predestination, but to Him it would just be knowledge.

Who was that post directed to? Me? Or Angelus?

Well, both - I just wanted to add my two cents' worth. You are arguing that free will is a choice between multiple futures, and Angelus is looking from the other side saying there is just one path if you look back at it. Both make sense (by the way: have any of you read Asimov's Foundation series? Brilliant exploration of of history as a science...)- I'm saying that nobody should ignore that "no man is an island": your decisions affect others and vice versa. There's more to free will than decisions based on projected outcomes. And there's more to fate than a predetermined path of historical events. Both only make sense from an outside perspective. I'm having trouble not mentioning the word "God" at this point, but that's not the issue so I won't take it there.

Well, both - I just wanted to add my two cents' worth. You are arguing that free will is a choice between multiple futures, and Angelus is looking from the other side saying there is just one path if you look back at it. Both make sense

Our thoughts differ tremendously on the main issue, so therefore you can only choose one side. We are debating about free will and fate as a whole for humanity.

Angelus states the path is chosen for us because we only have one path, so there is no free will, correct me if I'm wrong.

My argument in changing his: There is only one path to take, but there is free will also.

My point is there is free will because we choose that path amongst the many other paths we did not take. And that is not thinking small at all. You bust in with individuality, while Angelus and I are debating free will and fate as a whole.

But as I stand, there is no such thing as a fate that cannot be altered. Fate, in my term, is an event that is destined to happen no matter what you do. There is fate in a sense, but we can change and ultimately alter it.

And as I stated, with more knowledge and power we attain, the more free will we will achieve. Absolute free will would be defined as god-like, meaning fate can do nothing to you along with any external circumstance, for you may do whatever you choose with absolute free will.

Free will is the ability to make free choices unconstrained by external circumstances.

For example a comet is to hit earth. It is earth's fate to be demolished. BUT with knowledge and power and our free will that ultimately gives us the free choice unconstrained by the external circumstance, we humans may alter our fate and survive.

But fate will be there in a sense because we may have only three, maybe five choices in which we may stop the comet.

Do you see where I am going? Free will can override fate and change it


(by the way: have any of you read Asimov's Foundation series? Brilliant exploration of of history as a science...)-

Nope.


I'm saying that nobody should ignore that "no man is an island": your decisions affect others and vice versa. There's more to free will than decisions based on projected outcomes.

I agree.

Since all choices are possible, nothing can be uncertain? Bad things happen even if we devote our lives trying to change them, even when whole countries invest tons of resources into changing them. I agree - free will = choices = change. We do create our destinies, but fate is something else - it is what is left after we have done what we can to get what we want.

Nobody wants to die, but you can do all you want to avoid it - it's a sort of fate, unless you find a choice big enough to circumvent that. The whole problem with 'fate' and 'God' is that it eludes certainty. As you say: there's always a way - but only if you know what the fate consists of. If you knew HOW you were going to die, you could avoid it - but you can't avoid death.

Angelus is right that we can't choose the big scheme - the things that are 'predetermined', and you are right that we can make a difference. If belief in God is a choice, an answer to the problem of death, why doesn't people readily accept his solution? I agree with you, but I say that some choices are not considered even when the conditions are known, and therefore fate still has a place in human thought.

This question seems unanswerable to me. I suppose whatever you believe is just as correct as whatever anyone else believes. I believe that I have free will, just like everyone else. Destiny is what happens when your choices combine with the choices of others.

I believe that even in the small picture we have nothing you could rightly call "free will," genetics and environment make your choices. If we ever get enough knowledge to alter some comet hitting us it will be because we were "fated" to have that knowledge. The comet was never going to hit us in the first place because it was predetermined we would have the knowledge and capacity to stop it in whatever way we do. Gaining of knowledge is part of fate, not an altering of it.

I believe that even in the small picture we have nothing you could rightly call "free will," genetics and environment make your choices.

If you say so. I believe genetics and environment either increases or decreases the chance of a certain event to occur, and along with one's choices, it will make, again, the chance of them increase or decrease. But there may be some cases you may have almost no control over.


If we ever get enough knowledge to alter some comet hitting us it will be because we were "fated" to have that knowledge. The comet was never going to hit us in the first place because it was predetermined we would have the knowledge and capacity to stop it in whatever way we do. Gaining of knowledge is part of fate, not an altering of it.

Dude, your definition of fate is overlapping free will, it is too broad. As Phrenetic stated, it is a argument over beliefs, a case of semantics. Here we go again with the argument of one path... Fate is something you cannot change no matter what you do. If we were "destined" to divert to comet, what if we fail? Then you going to bust in saying it was fated that we "fail." Doesn't make sense to me, fate is something that cannot be changed, that is why I do not believe in fate. Maybe only fate in a broad sense, your sense...but you cannot simply rule out free will. That is where I must disagree, although you do carry a good point. So under the circumstances, your fate will "follow" any given circumstance, so you may say whatever you want to. But with the given, it does not rule out free will.

Free will is the ability to make free choices unconstrained by external circumstances. The only "fate" I actually see of as now is death. It is something we cannot change so far, but you may never know, with enough knowledge and power, the ability to makes choices, to elude death is possible. But then your going to say "it is our fate then to elude death," which is a case of semantics, we can go on continuously... Therefore we must disagree as it is Angelus. I agree somewhat of your fate in a broad sense, but you need to agree that free will does exist.

I agree with you, but I say that some choices are not considered even when the conditions are known, and therefore fate still has a place in human thought.

Note I did not completely rule out fate, I even stated fate in a sense always has a place in human thought. I believe fate can be altered with free will. Then it is our fate to choose another fate...heh, that makes sense too (from Angelus). That is why I believe in fate in a broad sense, because our world has chosen that path.

But Angelus over here completely rules out free will, that is certainly the main issue we disagree on.

Good debate Dark Master, it certainly helped me refine how i think about my ideas. It looks like we both understand where the other's coming from, we're just not going to budge :D .

I'd like to ask Angelus something. Don't you think it's possible to defy our 'genetic programming'? Since the human genome has been mapped, and lots of genes identified, by your own reason someone else (a geneticist), could change enough of a human being to make him another human being with a different 'fate'. I'm referring to the Gattaca hypothesis.

If you could 'program' the course of someone's life, whose life would he be leading - yours or his? I guess this depends on whether you believe in people having a soul. Do you?

You could change how he would react to his environment from then on but that action in and of itself is part of the overall "fate"(for lack of a better word). You wouldn't be changing "fate" only his temperment, but that action would be caused by your temperment, which is taken into account by the overall fate.

Oh, and no, I don't believe in a soul. All human cognition is a result of the physical processes of the brain, nothing more.

A simple question. Can fate/destiny co-exist with free will? Is only one of the two possible, or can there be both?

What would be the purpose of free will if at some point one could not say that THIS is what has happened. That THIS is bigger than myself. That THIS is immutable, therefore time is linear. That since time is linear, it must be unattached to my choices. Free will is knowing that no matter what, time WILL unfold. Of course, I am probably wrong. But I did not have to be.......

A simple question. Can fate/destiny co-exist with free will?

The answer is yes.

Oh, and no, I don't believe in a soul. All human cognition is a result of the physical processes of the brain, nothing more.

Yes I totally agree. No such thing as love from the heart either. When I was taking physics notes, a long time ago to which I can't remember, my professor stated that a scientist, Copernicus (or some other scientist), thought of a really brillant idea of how an atom functions. My professor stated that his theory of the atom was so brillant it may have been true. But unfortunately, what can be brillant can be completely wrong. Like many other "ideas" in this world.

Ther's no freedom without destiny.

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Adam , I hate to say this, but arguing with people who believe in fate is about as fruitful as arguing with a christian. No matter what you say, do, or feel... it's fate. or god's will, in their case.
Shouldn't have mentioned that G word, of course, but they amount to the same thing.

NEWS FLASH: Most people keep their opinions. It is in no way restricted to Christians.

I believe everything happens for a reason, as Stargrl (sorry for any misspelling) stated. It may be random, it may be planned, but there is a reason that I''m at sciforums right now, just as theres a reason I got hit by a car last Friday.

Originally posted by Angelus
I believe that even in the small picture we have nothing you could rightly call "free will," genetics and environment make your choices.

I know this is late but I still hope you guys can respond. If genetics and environment make our choices, what becomes of responsibility? Should a person who commits a murder be held responsible for his actions or should the act be seen as the outcome of his environment and genetic make-up? Or heck, should we say the murder was fated and no one is directly responsible and just move on from there.

I know the above questions are somewhat cliche but I would still like to know the response within the context of this thread.

Truly it isn't the murderer's fault. I don't believe in moral responsibility. However steps should be taken to make the environment inhospitable for murderers. This is why I believe in the death penalty. Not to punish the murderer, but to make others thinking about murderering someone at least think twice. Of course if we had an effective way of rehabilitating the murderer even better, but at the moment the judicial system is not set up not for rehabilitation but punishment and holding.

I know this is late but I still hope you guys can respond. If genetics and environment make our choices, what becomes of responsibility? Should a person who commits a murder be held responsible for his actions or should the act be seen as the outcome of his environment and genetic make-up? Or heck, should we say the murder was fated and no one is directly responsible and just move on from there.

It is the murderer's fault, although there are exceptions. For sake of argument, let's say a man in his 20's, lived his life "normally." Then one day he commits murder because his wife cheated on him.

His fault? Yes, for he has the reason to choose to kill or not to kill.

It may be because he overreacted, saw that was wrong and wanted to fix it. But since we live in a society, we must live by it's standards...although other variables influenced him to do so, it was solely his decision and he could've stopped it. He has his free will, be it WEAK or STRONG. Society will only punish those who break the law, simply as that, even if the circumstances are almost unavoidable....

I don't believe in moral responsibility.

Yes, morals is like a mask humans wear to cover "evil." But I believe we need moral responsibility because humans created morals for themselves. For society to live in with standards, and those who oppose the standards will be responsible for that. Although there are some cases where some moral standards are senseless.

Laws in a society should be based on logical reasoning on what would better society as a whole. Not on some vague notion of retribution, punishment, right and wrong.

Laws in a society should be based on logical reasoning on what would better society as a whole.

Unfortunatly things do not work like that Angelus. The problem with that is that everyone has different ideas about what kind of laws would better society.

Example: New Law- I think that I should be able to buy beer on sundays and that it would make me and a lot of other people happy.

Christians would get up and quote the bible, all the people in my AA meetings would go crazy, youd have people saying "Why isnt pot legal?" All because I want to be able to buy beer on sundays. Everyone has different ideas about what the perfect society should be, which is why we will never have one.

Not on some vague notion of retribution, punishment, right and wrong.

It always breaks down to right and wrong. Its wrong to drink beer on sundays because thats gods day.

axonio 98,


Ther's no freedom without destiny.

Why?

I don't believe in fate, but I believe in divine plan. It's different. The divine plan you can accept it or not, you have the free will to accept it. Fate and free will cannot co-exist, but Divine plan and free will can.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
It always breaks down to right and wrong. Its wrong to drink beer on sundays because thats gods day.

There is no God.

"There is no God."

Why?

""There is no God."

Why?


God is dead.

"God is dead."

Whos said such thing?
God never dies...

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
"God is dead."
Whos said such thing?
God never dies...
The madman said it in this parable ...

Parable of the Madman (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/nietzsche-madman.html)

Do you believe in a madman? Then, you yourself is a madman...! ;)
That is not even a parable at all!!

God is Life... and life never dies...

TruthSeeker,


Do you believe in a madman?
What, in your opinion, defines madness?


Then, you yourself is a madman...!
This observation has been made before, nothing new here.
For future reference - it's madwoman not man. :)


That is not even a parable at all!!
Well, that is your opinion, I disagree. I define a parable this way:
a simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson, how do you
define it?


God is Life...
What is your definition of God?


and life never dies...
What is your definition of dying?

sorry... i cannot reply anymore... :(

Interesting. I would ask why you can't reply anymore
but that would require a reply and you already stated
you can't do that so I am not going to.

"Thus spake the devil unto me, once on a time: "Ever God hath his hell: it is his love for man."
And lately did I hear him say these words: "God is dead: of his pity for man hath God died."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

"Thus be warned of pity: from there a heavy cloud will yet come
to man. Verily, I understand weather signs. But mark this too: all
great love is even above all its pity; for it still wants to create the
beloved.
"Myself I sacrifice to my love, and my neighbor as myself"---thus
runs the speech of all creators. But all creators are hard.
Thus spoke Zarathustra." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Kaufmann translation, Evilpoet? I prefer that over the Common one, however, I'd have to type these in if I used my Kaufmann.

"Whether it be the pity of a God, or whether it be human pity, it is offensive to modesty. And unwillingness to help may be nobler than the virtue that rusheth to do so."

But if you do help:

"They call you heartless: but your heart is true, and I love the bashfulness of your goodwill. Ye are ashamed of your flow, and others are ashamed of their ebb."

This is off topic, but I always was in awe of how closely Nietzsche's thought - especially in Zarathrusra - is to mine.

To be pitied is degrading. It coats both the person who pities and the the person who is pitied with slime. Much better is empathy, "sympathy for suffering and veiled deities!"

Pity and mercy are the lowest forms of domination. Yet empathy is an expression of love.

I believe that both fate and free will can co-exist together. I believe that people are born onto this world with specific predestined purposes according to the strengths that they already posessed in a pre-earth existence.

Free will plays a part in letting people choose the path they were given or by creating a new one for themselves. People always have a choice.

Life can be looked at as an assignment. We have the plan, the wishes of our leaders, but in the end its us who chooses our actions.

Yes it is. :)


Sils Maria

Here I sit, waiting---not for anything---
Beyond Good and Evil, fancying

Now light, now shadows, all a game,
All lake, all noon, all time without aim.
Then, suddenly, friend, one turned into two---
And Zarathustra walked into my view.
-Nietzsche, The Gay Science
__________

"It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable:
it is with precisely this charm that it entices subtler minds. It
seems that the hundred times refuted theory of "free will" owes
its continued existence to this charm alone -- : again and again
there comes along someone who feels he is strong enough to
refute it." -Nietzsche, Beyond Good And Evil

I really need to get around to reading Nietzsche.:(

I'm just not well, EvilPoet... :( And I won't reply to any other thread either... :(

I am sorry to hear you are not feeling well
TruthSeeker. I hope you feel better soon.

Take care,
EvilPoet

ignore this post...

Why Phrenetic? You have no response about the previous statement? Then why post? Wait... I know. Your one of those new members that just want to see their post number go up. I see how it is.

And if you really dont have a response to that then I feel very sorry for you.

I see my user title was removed - too late. I will delete the post, because I don't care about that little number below my nickname.


I see how it is
No, I don't think you do. But thanks for assuming and inferring I'm a slimeball.


And if you really dont have a response to that then I feel very sorry for you.

Why? Would it make me pathetic or ignorant? I fail to see why you would feel sorry for me if I did not have a response to the subject.


EDIT: As to the topic, I see the notions of fate and free will as created by homo sapiens. Other animals are not concerned with this. Fate and free will may (to some) appear to contradict one another, creating a sort of paradox given that they coexist - however, this paradox is present within the axioms of the system that created it and would not necessarily hold given a larger set of rules.

As to the topic, I see the notions of fate and free will as created by homo sapiens. Other animals are not concerned with this. Fate and free will may (to some) appear to contradict one another, creating a sort of paradox given that they coexist - however, this paradox is present within the axioms of the system that created it and would not necessarily hold given a larger set of rules.

Thats all I wanted to hear.:)

Perhaps there is a pattern to the universe. Mabye...Mabye not but even if there is do you think anything in this universe is with out change?

Fate and free will may (to some) appear to contradict one another, creating a sort of paradox given that they coexist - however, this paradox is present within the axioms of the system that created it and would not necessarily hold given a larger set of rules.

If fate does existed would it be so limited as we percieave it?