Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

If God told me that tomorrow at exactly 9:30 I will eat a sandwich, is there any way for me to not eat that sandwich?
If so, wouldn't that mean God was wrong?
If not, wouldn't that mean I have no free will?

If my future action doesn't exist, then how can God know it?
If it does exist, then how do I have free will? I can freely make decisions now, in the present. I can't teleport to the past or to the future. If my action already exists, prior my ability to freely make it, then how is it free?

There is no free will regardless of the omniscience of god.
But you are right to question the possibility.
Being omniscient god must have know since the beginning of time that you will die a sinner or saint before he created you.

[Nitai]

Like I said as long you see God as a machine you won't understand this issue. (and many others)

But God is not any kind of person. The idea is as ridiculous as the idea of a gendered God referred to as "him". The notion cannot reasonably be considered for even a moment, no more than Zeus and Odin.

While God, if existent, is clearly neither a male nor a person, "a machine" is hardly the only other option. If God exists, it would be as impossible for us to understand as it would be for our gut bacteria to understand the whole human. Besides, the use of machines as a metaphor for life or the cosmos is backwards. It is machines that echo natural dynamics, not the other way around.

God is of course beyond genders as you understand it.
But Genders and personhood are a part of reality and have a source. It is not coming out of nowhere.
So the source have to have both and more.

You are a person and you think that you are coming from an impersonnal void or machine ?
That is a ridiculous idea to me and to reason.

Just look at life and learn from it because without refering to what Is, we can invent so many nonsense theories out of touch of existence itself, that is one of the madness of human being.

In all this theories life is devoid of Beauty, Love, Compassion ect.. actually life is just meaningless and have no value !!
And I don't say that as an argument to have a need of beleive but as an argument that if you feel life you will know it is non sense.

I could ask you the same the question. If you think that the lifelike cannot emerge from the machinelike, then why do you think the machinelike can emerge from life? Shouldn't that which is intrinsically alive only produce more life, as per your post?

So you do not see the difference between matter devoid of consciousness and matter empower by consciousness ? it is not obvious ? Consciousness create with matter all the time, we have this experience everywhere since always, nothing new.
So our experience is life come from life. And Life use matter.

Now your questions is interesting because I can see in it the Abrahamic religions and western speculation of the nature of God. God create from nothing.
But God is never separated from His energies and material nature is one of his multi-energies, it as always been accepted in ancient wisdom.
The fact it is coming from God is that actually matter is eternal just his form is transforming we know that since not long in material science.

You also dicount the fact that most of what you do and say is automatic. The freedom only applies to the thinnest sliver of life's operations. Yet, rather than valuing the marvels of nature, you treat as "lesser" the mechanistic aspects of you that are most connected to the Earth.

Well actually this marvel is even more appreciated when we know the artist behind it.
Because have you seen a machine not created ? and without operator ?
Yes nature is so wonderful and it is calling all of our intellect to know the person behind.
And yet it is a conditioning from western view to think that if we accept God we have to dismiss or ridiculise this artwork of nature and then go into obscurantism. It is true for fanatic but there is fanatic in all area.

You seem to consider emotions - "beauty, love, compassion", to be all that matters, yet all manner of animals experience emotions. Emotions are nothing special, just the link between the physical and the mental aspects of oneself, to help keep the entire system in sync. Brains emerged to protect metabolisms - to detect threats and opportunities and to trigger responses. That's what brains and nervous systems do.

Say that to your loved one.
In our western worldview we have put thinking the base of consciousness.
But it is actually Feelings, emotions.
More the consciousness is developed the more the emotions become sublime and that principle is seen in the search for pleasure every living being is hankering for thought their senses. But the human intellect is able to understand higher principle and then to take a process to develop his consciousness in a more subtle way.

Consider beauty. Why are green fields, blue skies and fluffy clouds beautiful to us? Because these are generally considered healthful conditions, as opposed to brown lands with murky skies. Why are certain people considered beautiful? Because they look healthy and robust, capable of contributing good genes to a partnership.

Yes it is wonderful indeed

Now, in complex human cultures, there are meta dynamics layered atop these basic impulses. However, just a few days without food will bring the whole edifice crashing down, as our prior values are crushed under the weight of the survival instinct. That is, what we tend to think of as important in this life tends to be fragile and usually fairly superficial. That's why people close to death so often have regrets that they did not simply open their eyes and ears and appreciate the everyday wonders that we dismiss offhand while busy with "more important" issues.



Yes this is due to a lack of using the subtle science to refined consciousness we are just then a two legged animal, a refined animal in the struggle for existence and just a little problem can uncover our defect hidden behind our so called civilized modern human; it’s just a farce. And you can see all the sexual scandals from so called respected people coming out, it is only the tip of the iceberg. So it is a myth that we are advancing, we are not progressing, we are devolving in consciousness.


So in conclusion I know all this discourses nothing new, just a product of the century it will pass and come back it is just a natural symptom of our condition here. But the fact is you yourself do not live the material concept of realities you are describing if not you will just seclude yourself or suicide. Why do you cry when you are separate from something dear if it is all without meaning, why do you attach yourself in the first place ? If you are just a bunch of matter what is the difference between you and a rock ?
There is a word for people that live like robot it is called sociopath, so I don’t think that is what you want, but that is where this speculative philosophy is bringing to.

It is a fact that animals or other living entities have been discarded in the worldview of so-called religion, actually they are not different then us in essence but their conditioning is more gross so their free will is less, science call it instinct but it is just a rubber stamp word to say they don’t know.

[Belindi]

If God told me that tomorrow at exactly 9:30 I will eat a sandwich, is there any way for me to not eat that sandwich?
If so, wouldn't that mean God was wrong?
If not, wouldn't that mean I have no free will?

If my future action doesn't exist, then how can God know it?
If it does exist, then how do I have free will? I can freely make decisions now, in the present. I can't teleport to the past or to the future. If my action already exists, prior my ability to freely make it, then how is it free?

There is no free will regardless of the omniscience of god.
But you are right to question the possibility.
Being omniscient god must have know since the beginning of time that you will die a sinner or saint before he created you.

Exactly! And so what did the religious doctrine- makers do? They said God gave us Free Will. No other animal, only humans, got Free Will. Free Will is God's special dispensation to humans to act against the will of God.

[Sculptor1]

If God told me that tomorrow at exactly 9:30 I will eat a sandwich, is there any way for me to not eat that sandwich?
If so, wouldn't that mean God was wrong?
If not, wouldn't that mean I have no free will?

If my future action doesn't exist, then how can God know it?
If it does exist, then how do I have free will? I can freely make decisions now, in the present. I can't teleport to the past or to the future. If my action already exists, prior my ability to freely make it, then how is it free?

There is no free will regardless of the omniscience of god.
But you are right to question the possibility.
Being omniscient god must have know since the beginning of time that you will die a sinner or saint before he created you.

Exactly! And so what did the religious doctrine- makers do? They said God gave us Free Will. No other animal, only humans, got Free Will. Free Will is God's special dispensation to humans to act against the will of God.

Religious people can "beleive" mutually contradictory things, I have noted.
One of the lecturers that I studied Classical Civilisation with used to say that the Greeks could believe 12 different things before breakfast.

[LuckyR]

If God told me that tomorrow at exactly 9:30 I will eat a sandwich, is there any way for me to not eat that sandwich?
If so, wouldn't that mean God was wrong?
If not, wouldn't that mean I have no free will?

If my future action doesn't exist, then how can God know it?
If it does exist, then how do I have free will? I can freely make decisions now, in the present. I can't teleport to the past or to the future. If my action already exists, prior my ability to freely make it, then how is it free?

There is no free will regardless of the omniscience of god.
But you are right to question the possibility.
Being omniscient god must have know since the beginning of time that you will die a sinner or saint before he created you.

Exactly! And so what did the religious doctrine- makers do? They said God gave us Free Will. No other animal, only humans, got Free Will. Free Will is God's special dispensation to humans to act against the will of God.

Religious people can "beleive" mutually contradictory things, I have noted.
One of the lecturers that I studied Classical Civilisation with used to say that the Greeks could believe 12 different things before breakfast.

Of course, though being illogical is not limited to the religious.

[Sculptor1]

There is no free will regardless of the omniscience of god.
But you are right to question the possibility.
Being omniscient god must have know since the beginning of time that you will die a sinner or saint before he created you.

Exactly! And so what did the religious doctrine- makers do? They said God gave us Free Will. No other animal, only humans, got Free Will. Free Will is God's special dispensation to humans to act against the will of God.

Religious people can "beleive" mutually contradictory things, I have noted.
One of the lecturers that I studied Classical Civilisation with used to say that the Greeks could believe 12 different things before breakfast.

Of course, though being illogical is not limited to the religious.

Not but where there is religion there is lack of knowledge.

[Sy Borg]

But God is not any kind of person. The idea is as ridiculous as the idea of a gendered God referred to as "him". The notion cannot reasonably be considered for even a moment, no more than Zeus and Odin.

While God, if existent, is clearly neither a male nor a person, "a machine" is hardly the only other option. If God exists, it would be as impossible for us to understand as it would be for our gut bacteria to understand the whole human. Besides, the use of machines as a metaphor for life or the cosmos is backwards. It is machines that echo natural dynamics, not the other way around.

God is of course beyond genders as you understand it.
But Genders and personhood are a part of reality and have a source. It is not coming out of nowhere.
So the source have to have both and more.

You are a person and you think that you are coming from an impersonnal void or machine ?

No, I am saying that we ARE machines, based on the analogies that I debunked, which you still seem to think I have endorsed. I will never be a materialist, no matter how hard you try to paint me as one.

The way humans behave en masse is not much less predictable than how the material of a protoplanetary disc behaves. We do numerous things without agency, while convincing ourselves that we are in control and are making our own choices, but we are obliviously being lead by the nose by nature.

[Sy Borg]

I could ask you the same the question. If you think that the lifelike cannot emerge from the machinelike, then why do you think the machinelike can emerge from life? Shouldn't that which is intrinsically alive only produce more life, as per your post?

So you do not see the difference between matter devoid of consciousness and matter empower by consciousness ? it is not obvious ? Consciousness create with matter all the time, we have this experience everywhere since always, nothing new.

So our experience is life come from life. And Life use matter.

Abiogenesis disproves your point, unless we consider that the organic chemicals that preceded LUCA had more in common with what we refer to as "life" than the semantics of our language would suggest.

You also discount the fact that most of what you do and say is automatic. The freedom only applies to the thinnest sliver of life's operations. Yet, rather than valuing the marvels of nature, you treat as "lesser" the mechanistic aspects of you that are most connected to the Earth.

Well actually this marvel is even more appreciated when we know the artist behind it.

The Sun and the Earth. Give credit where it is due rather than invent a humanlike being to attribute all good things. It was just the Sun and the Earth, with some help from the Moon, the other planets, asteroids and comets.

Because have you seen a machine not created ? and without operator ?

The analogy does not hold. Biology operates differently to technology.

You seem to consider emotions - "beauty, love, compassion", to be all that matters, yet all manner of animals experience emotions. Emotions are nothing special, just the link between the physical and the mental aspects of oneself, to help keep the entire system in sync. Brains emerged to protect metabolisms - to detect threats and opportunities and to trigger responses. That's what brains and nervous systems do.

Say that to your loved one.
In our western worldview we have put thinking the base of consciousness.
But it is actually Feelings, emotions.
More the consciousness is developed the more the emotions become sublime and that principle is seen in the search for pleasure every living being is hankering for thought their senses. But the human intellect is able to understand higher principle and then to take a process to develop his consciousness in a more subtle way.

No need to get personal. What I say or do with my "loved ones" is purely my business. Please let's just focus on the issues, not us personally. What we are are, do or say is not relevant to a discussion about God or other deities.

Emotions are not to base of consciousness, sensations are. As I said, emotions are the link between the body and the mind.

The Abrahamic religions are famously focused on emotions, using them as a vehicle to achieve personal growth and development. However, like all organisations, they value themselves over others. By placing emotions above the intellect, the Abrahamic religions throw away many of the lessons of the Greek philosophers, making them especially prone to corruption and sadism, as evidenced in the extraordinary scale of child molestation perpetrated by these institutions.

By contrast, the creeds of the far East are more based on the intellect, with emotions being treated as useful information about one's inner states but not elevated to the highest aspects of one's being as with Abrahamics. So, when they retreat, instead of leveraging the force of their desires as Abrahamics do, they work to simply observe. In each case, the idea is to put aside one's ego so as to experience life more acutely.

Philosophy too can work to sublimate one's ego. As can work, the arts or any deeply immersive activity.

[Belindi]

A conservative politician believes in Free Will.This is because if the criminal has Free Will she should be punished for her crimes as she was entirely free to do otherwise then she did, whatever her circumstances. That is why Republicans are both punitive and 'religious'.

[BobS]

A conservative politician believes in Free Will.This is because if the criminal has Free Will she should be punished for her crimes as she was entirely free to do otherwise then she did, whatever her circumstances. That is why Republicans are both punitive and 'religious'.

Not that I have a firm grip on what "free will" means...

So you're saying that conservative politicians don't really believe in free will; they just find it a handy excuse for being punitive and religious?

In any case, if there's no free will, why not just say that the positions that Republicans take are predetermined? Same for everyone else.

[Sculptor1]

A conservative politician believes in Free Will.This is because if the criminal has Free Will she should be punished for her crimes as she was entirely free to do otherwise then she did, whatever her circumstances. That is why Republicans are both punitive and 'religious'.

Not that I have a firm grip on what "free will" means...

So you're saying that conservative politicians don't really believe in free will; they just find it a handy excuse for being punitive and religious?

In any case, if there's no free will, why not just say that the positions that Republicans take are predetermined? Same for everyone else.

As the future is not known there can be no "pre"determinism. We all determined by who and what we are; by the circumstances and the conditions of our environment. But only a omnipotent god would be capable of predicting the future.

[Nitai]

I could ask you the same the question. If you think that the lifelike cannot emerge from the machinelike, then why do you think the machinelike can emerge from life? Shouldn't that which is intrinsically alive only produce more life, as per your post?

So you do not see the difference between matter devoid of consciousness and matter empower by consciousness ? it is not obvious ? Consciousness create with matter all the time, we have this experience everywhere since always, nothing new.

So our experience is life come from life. And Life use matter.

Abiogenesis disproves your point, unless we consider that the organic chemicals that preceded LUCA had more in common with what we refer to as "life" than the semantics of our language would suggest.

You also discount the fact that most of what you do and say is automatic. The freedom only applies to the thinnest sliver of life's operations. Yet, rather than valuing the marvels of nature, you treat as "lesser" the mechanistic aspects of you that are most connected to the Earth.

Well actually this marvel is even more appreciated when we know the artist behind it.

The Sun and the Earth. Give credit where it is due rather than invent a humanlike being to attribute all good things. It was just the Sun and the Earth, with some help from the Moon, the other planets, asteroids and comets.

Because have you seen a machine not created ? and without operator ?

The analogy does not hold. Biology operates differently to technology.

You seem to consider emotions - "beauty, love, compassion", to be all that matters, yet all manner of animals experience emotions. Emotions are nothing special, just the link between the physical and the mental aspects of oneself, to help keep the entire system in sync. Brains emerged to protect metabolisms - to detect threats and opportunities and to trigger responses. That's what brains and nervous systems do.

Say that to your loved one.
In our western worldview we have put thinking the base of consciousness.
But it is actually Feelings, emotions.
More the consciousness is developed the more the emotions become sublime and that principle is seen in the search for pleasure every living being is hankering for thought their senses. But the human intellect is able to understand higher principle and then to take a process to develop his consciousness in a more subtle way.

No need to get personal. What I say or do with my "loved ones" is purely my business. Please let's just focus on the issues, not us personally. What we are are, do or say is not relevant to a discussion about God or other deities.

It is not that I am attacking you personally, sorry if you thought that.
What I meant is that you don’t really believe in your own philosophy, because in this philosophy Love is only chemicals what to speak of being faithful and all the other sweet sentiment sung in music that you certainly express sometime, it is just chemical for your philosophy, it has no real value, nothing real. Just a way of nature to procreate and survive. That is why I said this...


Emotions are not to base of consciousness, sensations are. As I said, emotions are the link between the body and the mind.

The Abrahamic religions are famously focused on emotions, using them as a vehicle to achieve personal growth and development. However, like all organisations, they value themselves over others. By placing emotions above the intellect, the Abrahamic religions throw away many of the lessons of the Greek philosophers, making them especially prone to corruption and sadism, as evidenced in the extraordinary scale of child molestation perpetrated by these institutions.

By contrast, the creeds of the far East are more based on the intellect, with emotions being treated as useful information about one's inner states but not elevated to the highest aspects of one's being as with Abrahamics. So, when they retreat, instead of leveraging the force of their desires as Abrahamics do, they work to simply observe. In each case, the idea is to put aside one's ego so as to experience life more acutely.

What you are saying is not true at all. There is the 2 paths in both eastern and western views.. which are not contradictory if we know the total aspect of reality.
One is the impersonal point of view of reality
The other is the personal point of view of reality.
And what is funny is that more you go deep in the philosophy of Western religions more it is impersonal but it seams personal from the surface.
And more you go deep in Eastern philosophy more it is personal but it seams impersonal on the surface.
(And actually it is the same with science as the greatest scientists said.)


Philosophy too can work to sublimate one's ego. As can work, the arts or any deeply immersive activity.

Oh yes False-Ego being a material subtle substance you can do what you want with your sense of identity but it as nothing to do with the Ego meaning the real self which is unchanged and is to be uncovered.

[Sy Borg]

You seem to consider emotions - "beauty, love, compassion", to be all that matters, yet all manner of animals experience emotions. Emotions are nothing special, just the link between the physical and the mental aspects of oneself, to help keep the entire system in sync. Brains emerged to protect metabolisms - to detect threats and opportunities and to trigger responses. That's what brains and nervous systems do.

Say that to your loved one.
In our western worldview we have put thinking the base of consciousness.
But it is actually Feelings, emotions.
More the consciousness is developed the more the emotions become sublime and that principle is seen in the search for pleasure every living being is hankering for thought their senses. But the human intellect is able to understand higher principle and then to take a process to develop his consciousness in a more subtle way.

No need to get personal. What I say or do with my "loved ones" is purely my business. Please let's just focus on the issues, not us personally. What we are are, do or say is not relevant to a discussion about God or other deities.

It is not that I am attacking you personally, sorry if you thought that.
What I meant is that you don’t really believe in your own philosophy, because in this philosophy Love is only chemicals what to speak of being faithful and all the other sweet sentiment sung in music that you certainly express sometime, it is just chemical for your philosophy, it has no real value, nothing real. Just a way of nature to procreate and survive. That is why I said this...

There is no conflict. I said that emotions are the bridge between mind and body, not that they don't exist.

What of Christians' belief in their own philosophies? Jesus said the most important thing is love, and that's the opposite to what we are seeing in, say, the US. And if an eternal heavenly life is so certain and so great, why fear death or cry at funerals?

But my point here is that NONE of that matters - it's just personal argy bargy. Politics. Who cares whether others are living up to their ideals? (A quick answer: you can be sure they aren't, thanks to human frailty). Does it matter to anyone that some random person online displays ideological imperfections?

None of that matters to me in these conversations, only what is reality and what is not. If we don't know something for sure, then speculation is fine, as long as the ideas are presented as possibilities rather than indisputable fact.

[Sy Borg]

Emotions are not to base of consciousness, sensations are. As I said, emotions are the link between the body and the mind.

The Abrahamic religions are famously focused on emotions, using them as a vehicle to achieve personal growth and development. However, like all organisations, they value themselves over others. By placing emotions above the intellect, the Abrahamic religions throw away many of the lessons of the Greek philosophers, making them especially prone to corruption and sadism, as evidenced in the extraordinary scale of child molestation perpetrated by these institutions.

By contrast, the creeds of the far East are more based on the intellect, with emotions being treated as useful information about one's inner states but not elevated to the highest aspects of one's being as with Abrahamics. So, when they retreat, instead of leveraging the force of their desires as Abrahamics do, they work to simply observe. In each case, the idea is to put aside one's ego so as to experience life more acutely.

What you are saying is not true at all. There is the 2 paths in both eastern and western views.. which are not contradictory if we know the total aspect of reality.
One is the impersonal point of view of reality
The other is the personal point of view of reality.
And what is funny is that more you go deep in the philosophy of Western religions more it is impersonal but it seams personal from the surface.
And more you go deep in Eastern philosophy more it is personal but it seams impersonal on the surface.
(And actually it is the same with science as the greatest scientists said.)

Well, you had better explain how Christianity is less personal than Buddhism because your above criticisms strike me as being "not true at all".

Simplified, each tradition seeks authenticity, Christians by being as sincere as possible in prayer, and Buddhists by better understanding actual reality. The main power behind each approach is surrender, relinquishing mental control. They are effectively leveraging millions of years of evolution, allowing adherents' natural automatic responses freer reign, without being interfered with by cultural "noise".

Philosophy too can work to sublimate one's ego. As can work, the arts or any deeply immersive activity.

Oh yes False-Ego being a material subtle substance you can do what you want with your sense of identity but it as nothing to do with the Ego meaning the real self which is unchanged and is to be uncovered.

Ego stands between you as an individual and you as part of the planet Earth. Without ego, we fail to defend ourselves and soon return to the Earth. So ego is akin to a protective shell or a shield. So ego is desensitising, ie. it reduces our capacity to sensitively stop and taste reality.

Art, prayer and meditation are effectively a celebration of the fact that a person has the free time to "switch off" (being unable to meditate or pray when being chased by an enemy or a predator). So the defences come down, reducing the load on the body and brain. In the absence of exigencies, the body can work to heal itself. Mentally, these activities promote clarity and, sometimes, creativity.

[BobS]

A conservative politician believes in Free Will.This is because if the criminal has Free Will she should be punished for her crimes as she was entirely free to do otherwise then she did, whatever her circumstances. That is why Republicans are both punitive and 'religious'.

Not that I have a firm grip on what "free will" means...

So you're saying that conservative politicians don't really believe in free will; they just find it a handy excuse for being punitive and religious?

In any case, if there's no free will, why not just say that the positions that Republicans take are predetermined? Same for everyone else.

As the future is not known there can be no "pre"determinism. We all determined by who and what we are; by the circumstances and the conditions of our environment. But only a omnipotent god would be capable of predicting the future.

In every day conversation "predetermined" is often used interchangeably with "determined." My use of it had nothing to do with predictability.

Given the introductory phrase "if there's no free will," it's odd that you'd suppose I was bringing god into it. I haven't seen anyone around here claim that there's an omnipotent god, on the one hand, but no free will, on the other.