when HE chooses to be yes... You have the choice to NOT use your abilities, why would a God have less choice than you?
So you'r argument is that God has free will... but when God does somptin such as give up som of his powers to play a fare chess game... does he do such thangs for reasons... or no reasons.??? Edit::: My pont is (which relates to the topic of this thred glaucon is about to LOCK)... that free will (non random uninfluenced choises) ant posible for us humans or a God.!!! However... if you can demonstrate how a God coud have free will then it coud also be posible for free will to exist in humans.!!! PS Im all ears... eh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
IMO If there were this concept of God he would physically need something inside of him that gave him the all knowing and all seeing power possibly a very small what appears to be futuristic design to the naked eye. And the mind would control the on and off switch for free will of this all powerful being.
Coud be... how do you define free will.??? Edit::: Sinse the OP discusses "souls" mayb the fact that you mentoned "God" in you'r post wont get this thred locked an you will be able to answr my queston :shrug:
Mod note, I've given this thread a pretty free hand for some time now. Alas, it has descended into the near inevitable polarized silliness this topic usually results in, typically due to the lack of control in scope. Which is to say: there is no need to involve theistic or religious matters in any discussion of freewill. That being said, if people feel that they can continue to discuss the topic in a focused manner, by all means, please do. If on the other hand, people feel the need to introduce unnecessary elements to further complicate the issue, the feel free to refrain. *Thread on Watch for pending lockdown*
Metaphysically speaking free will is the heuristic release of certain deterministic values present in ones life and ones line of thought.
Determinism is related to the ability to affect outcome from a distance (spacetime) , while freedom to "not be affected" from those distances, must mean that some criteria must be met, to hinder outside involvement to those freedoms. Asymptotic freedom relationships involved in quark and gluon "determinisms", show the pairing dynamics of such relationships, where the "lack of space" confines the "criteria to combine", this confinement allowing more "freedom of baser components" to exist as they stand, as individual apparitions. Where alternately, the availability of extra space around the pairing dynamic, allows the culmination of even more particle creations, which would bolster and "demand" a determined pairing continuation (and not further cavalry to bolster any apparent possible freedoms).
The point of using a God like entity to demonstarte the nature of freewill is to push boundaries to the extreme. What ever reasons HE chooses to utilise in making his choices. ...and so we chase the tail... so to speak because it will always come down to the freedom to choose as HE wishes to and not by what HE is Compelled to as you are implying with your influences means no freewill approach. And this God would never surrender his ability to do as he likes he woudl simply stop himself from "cheating" using self restraint. The question you need to consider is : Does using self restraint somehow diminish or enhance the freedom to choose as you wish?
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund So you'r argument is that God has free will... but when God does somptin such as give up som of his powers to play a fare chess game... does he do such thangs for reasons... or no reasons.??? Edit::: My pont is (which relates to the topic of this thred glaucon is about to LOCK)... that free will (non random uninfluenced choises) ant posible for us humans or a God.!!! However... if you can demonstrate how a God coud have free will then it coud also be posible for free will to exist in humans.!!! Yes its a good tool to examine free will/determinism (the topic of the thred).!!! -------------- “ So you'r argument is that God has free will... but when God does somptin such as give up som of his powers to play a fare chess game... does he do such thangs for reasons... or no reasons.??? ” Yes... an im suggestin that not even a God can escape influence an make choises which are not random... unless you can give such an esample.??? Yep... jus like humans... even a God has inherent wants an needs which influence his behavior... ie... no room for free will.!!! How woud it be posible to diminish or enhance an undefined notion such as free will... or do you have a definition for free will.???
There is such a need. It is only in a theistic scope that free will can exist as anything other than mere illusion.
The notion of free will makes sense only as long as we talk about persons. Persons also have needs, interests and concerns. You seem to be after such an understanding of free will where this will would be beyond any personal needs, interests and concerns. Beyond such needs, interests and concerns, beyond persons, the notion of will simply does not apply.
This doesn't sound theistic coming from you if you're saying there can't be a will without needs. This will will be fundamentally different from ours.
I no longer think that. Free will is possible (but at the price that you are information in a brain process, not a physical body); however my demonstration that it is possible is not a proof or claim that it is anything but an illusion. See how it is possible at links given here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2649421&postcount=233 (Ignore first line where I just complain that I was miss quoted. i.e. I never asserted Free Will existed)
When you say "extra space" what do you mean? More heat which spreads distance between subatomic particles and allows for varying frequencies of radiation to continue their deterministic path in a more timely manner through a more entropic system. aka. It takes a longer time for all the radiation to vacate an area that is warmer? Compared to the same area being cold.
That's your opinion. Nonetheless, the concept itself can obviously be discussed in either a non-theistic or theistic context. Ergo, it is not necessary.
