The means of this? Everything is already chosen for us??? Now you sound like those religious people that believe God has plans for them. 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. 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. What do you mean by that? Elaborate more on this for me please. 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? We disagree. We may just keep it as that.
You're thinking too small 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.
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.
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 Nope. I agree.
I see 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.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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.
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. 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.
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .
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 reply for ADAM 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.......
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.
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.
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.
