poor old hitler

Originally posted by knightmeister
However , in your mind you can't see anything at all between the extremes of determinism and randomness. For you it has to be one or the other. Since this is the very premise I am challenging it makes little impact to hear you restate it again and again as self evidently true (for you).

It is evidently true for me because that is how I have defined randomness. I have repeatedly asked you to suggest an alternative definition but you have not done so.

I would hold him accountable under free will because the factors that influenced his life ( hate , racism, inhumanity , etc etc) were selected by him under the awareness that another way of living was truely available to him in a real and meaningful sense ( ie compassion, humanity , beauty etc).
But as usual you avoid explaining why he made that choice which is actually our only point of disagreement. In fact if we and he do not know why then his choice was random by definition and thus he was simply unlucky.

He could have broken out of the life placed before him , but chose to "not choose" the alternative that God makes potentially available to us all. This is radically distinct from the idea that the evil he did was inevitable for him to commit from the moment of his birth and there was nothing he could do about it or could ever have done about it (your view).
You have not been following my position at all. In fact your position is getting closer and closer to mine all the time except you refuse to admit it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is evidently true for me because that is how I have defined randomness. I have repeatedly asked you to suggest an alternative definition but you have not done so.

[b]I would hold him accountable under free will because the factors that influenced his life ( hate , racism, inhumanity , etc etc) were selected by him under the awareness that another wa your position is getting closer and closer to mine all the time except you refuse to admit it.

But as usual you avoid explaining why he made that choice which is actually our only point of disagreement. In fact if we and he do not know why then his choice was random by definition and thus he was simply unluck WHITEY

It might be useful if you stopped projecting avoidance onto me via mind reading and accept some awareness of how incredible complex this issue is. This issue of human reasoning and choice and moral responsibility goes right to the heart of all human behaviour . Do you seriously think because I am struggling to explain things that I am "avoiding " the issue??

He made that choice because he deemed that those values were not important to him and chose to not grow and find out the full potential of his humanity. He stayed stuck with "self" and ego/pride and did not allow himself to transcend this. Why did he do this ? Because at a certain crossroad in his life an alternative was presented to him that he refused. What caused this? He refused it for all the same reasons men generally refuse and reject the cause of justice , truth and compassion - stubborness , fear , pride , hate, ignorance etc. However , the reasons/cause for his choice (or lack of) were not such that he was forced to follow this path. The influence of the Holy Spirit (because he eminates from a nature beyond forced causality) creates a different scenario from simple brute "forced" causality. The Holy Spirit can place a man (however briefly) in charge of his own destiny whereby there are still reasons and causes for his actions but they are not forced or sufficient to make a man's actions inevitable.

Our sticking point is that you see only forced causality or randomness whereas I see the possibility for a man to have a reason for his action but for it not be a forced action by necessity of it having a reason. Hitler becomes the determining factor in tipping the balance one way or another but he tips it in the direction of one set of reasons or another.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It might be useful if you stopped projecting avoidance onto me via mind reading and accept some awareness of how incredible complex this issue is. This issue of human reasoning and choice and moral responsibility goes right to the heart of all human behaviour . Do you seriously think because I am struggling to explain things that I am "avoiding " the i ...[text shortened]... ance one way or another but he tips it in the direction of one set of reasons or another.

Your whole long post boils down to the simple admission that Hitlers choice was ultimately random and he was the victim of bad luck. You are trying to hide it in long winded explanations but you cannot honestly deny that by definition what you have described is a random choice.
The real problem you have is that you believe the word "random" to mean something other than what I have given as a definition but do not actually have an alternative definition.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your whole long post boils down to the simple admission that Hitlers choice was ultimately random and he was the victim of bad luck. You are trying to hide it in long winded explanations but you cannot honestly deny that [b]by definition what you have described is a random choice.
The real problem you have is that you believe the word "random" ...[text shortened]... her than what I have given as a definition but do not actually have an alternative definition.[/b]

The alternative to randomness or determinism is the nature of God which has been spoken about and defined for centuries. The essence of our argument about randomness is that for you it is a self evident truth that something is either random or determined and for me it is not. You cannot prove your premise as I cannot prove mine. For me the nature of God and eternity is self evident for you it is not.

You seem to believe simply by defining randomness/determinism in a specific way is a proof of these things. If this were so all I would have to do to prove God would be to define him. Where is your proof that there cannot be anything in existence that is not random or determined by something else?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The alternative to randomness or determinism is the nature of God which has been spoken about and defined for centuries.

I have never come across such a definition. Do you have a reference?

The essence of our argument about randomness is that for you it is a self evident truth that something is either random or determined and for me it is not. You cannot prove your premise as I cannot prove mine.
But mine is not a premise and therefore requires no proof. It is a definition. Do a little bit of reading about logic or don't even bother using the words 'proof' or 'definition' as you don't seem to understand what they mean.
Unless you give an alternative definition for the word 'random' you must be assumed to be using my definition. If you are using my definition then you are talking nonsense.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Hitler killed himself which to me suggests deep sadness. I could ask how would you like it if you were predetermined from birth to live a life of mass murder and carnage? Is it a life you would choose for yourself?

No, but Hitler DID choose it for himself.

Sure, he was upset because he lost, but he took a gamble and it failed. He didn't want to live with the consequences so he took the easy way out.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have never come across such a definition. Do you have a reference?

[b]The essence of our argument about randomness is that for you it is a self evident truth that something is either random or determined and for me it is not. You cannot prove your premise as I cannot prove mine.
But mine is not a premise and therefore requires no proof. It is a ...[text shortened]... to be using my definition. If you are using my definition then you are talking nonsense.[/b]

I have never come across such a definition. Do you have a reference? WHITEY


.....Um er...the Bible + many other religious texts

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have never come across such a definition. Do you have a reference?

[b]The essence of our argument about randomness is that for you it is a self evident truth that something is either random or determined and for me it is not. You cannot prove your premise as I cannot prove mine.
But mine is not a premise and therefore requires no proof. It is a ...[text shortened]... to be using my definition. If you are using my definition then you are talking nonsense.[/b]

I accept your definition of randomness it's your position on existence I'm challenging - a moments thought would have helped you realise this...

Your assumption (or premise) is this- "If something is not determined then it must be random - there is no third option"

This position requires either proof OR you need to admit that it is regarded by you as self evident and requiring of no proof because it is an established basic fact.

Since you seem to say your position requires no proof you must therefore regard it as self evident (which is my very point). Within your definition of the smeantics of our debate lies a basic asumption about the nature of existence which I am asking you to prove.

You are currently showing no desire to prove your assumption NOR accept that you must therefore believe it to be self evident.

So stop giving me lessons in logic when you yourself are evading the issue.

Can you prove your position or do you think it is self evident?

Originally posted by knightmeister
.....Um er...the Bible + many other religious texts

So those constitute a definition for the "nature of God"?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I accept your definition of randomness it's your position on existence I'm challenging - a moments thought would have helped you realise this...

Your assumption (or premise) is this- "If something is not determined then it must be random - there is no third option"

My definition for random is: An event that is not determined or not known to be determined or not known how it is determined.
Clearly this includes all non determined events. Therefore every event is by definition either determined, random or both. Although I have used the word 'therefore' I still hold that it is a 'fact by definition' rather than a 'proof' and to call it 'self evident' would be similarly misleading.
I have made no assumption (or premise).

Originally posted by twhitehead
My definition for random is: An event that is not determined or not known to be determined or not known how it is determined.
Clearly this includes all non determined events. Therefore every event is [b]by definition either determined, random or both. Although I have used the word 'therefore' I still hold that it is a 'fact by definition' rather than ...[text shortened]... t 'self evident' would be similarly misleading.
I have made no assumption (or premise).[/b]

So where would self determined fit into all this? (Eg- God's actions are not random but are not determined by an outside source )

The misleading part of all this is the insinuation you make by using the word random with all that it implies (ie by chance , not rational , indiscriminate or without purpose). God is none of these things but is also not having his strings pulled by any other determining force or cause. Your position subtly implies that any act not determined by something is not reasonable.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So where would self determined fit into all this? (Eg- God's actions are not random but are not determined by an outside source )

By "self determined" you answer your own question. His actions must be deterministic. Whether the cause is internal or external to him is irrelevant.

The misleading part of all this is the insinuation you make by using the word random with all that it implies (ie by chance , not rational , indiscriminate or without purpose).
I do realize that the word can be misinterpreted but I do not have a better one hence the reason for my clear definition.

God is none of these things but is also not having his strings pulled by any other determining force or cause.
And hence his actions must be either an infinite chain of caused actions or they must ultimately be uncaused in nature. As we do not currently know the ultimate cause of his actions we should call them random.

Your position subtly implies that any act not determined by something is not reasonable.
No I do not imply that at all. It is you that clearly has a problem with the concept of randomness and hates the idea that anything might be random just as you hate reality and 'nature' but do not let your fears read something into my posts that isn't there.

The real problem with your position is that you have realized that your position tries to hold people accountable for decisions that they do not have conscious control over and do not know the cause of and you really don't know how to justify such an absurd idea and are trying to obscure the fact with vague references to something unexplainable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
By "self determined" you answer your own question. His actions must be deterministic. Whether the cause is internal or external to him is irrelevant.

[b]The misleading part of all this is the insinuation you make by using the word random with all that it implies (ie by chance , not rational , indiscriminate or without purpose).
I do realize that t ...[text shortened]... idea and are trying to obscure the fact with vague references to something unexplainable.[/b]

By "self determined" you answer your own question. His actions must be deterministic. Whether the cause is internal or external to him is irrelevant. WHITEY

Nope , it is very relevant because if the cause of God's actions are some other force beyond God then God cannot logically be God can he? He would be dependent on something else for his actions. With self determining actions God is the cause of his own actions WITHOUT reference to anything else. Technically one can say his actions are "deterministic" but this word has no meaningful sense in the way that we have been using it in this debate. It's not a matter of it being internal or external but being independent of causality. God does not act in a way that can be traced back to anything else. He is the Uncaused Cause of all causes. The buck stops with him. You obviously don't understand what it is you say you disbelieve.

Originally posted by twhitehead
By "self determined" you answer your own question. His actions must be deterministic. Whether the cause is internal or external to him is irrelevant.

[b]The misleading part of all this is the insinuation you make by using the word random with all that it implies (ie by chance , not rational , indiscriminate or without purpose).
I do realize that t ...[text shortened]... idea and are trying to obscure the fact with vague references to something unexplainable.[/b]

As we do not currently know the ultimate cause of his actions we should call them random. WHITEY

He is the ulitmate cause of his own actions . If there was a source for God's actions then he would not be God.

Originally posted by knightmeister
As we do not currently know the ultimate cause of his actions we should call them random. WHITEY

He is the ulitmate cause of his own actions . If there was a source for God's actions then he would not be God.

His actions are ultimately random. There is no reason why for example God is good or loving or any of the other properties you may claim he has. There is no ultimate rule of eternity that ensured that this was the case, God just is as he is by chance. The other interesting thing is that you have no real way of knowing if he is as you believe him to be because it is equally likely that he is totally different and is deceiving you.