10 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I were to mind read I would say that it is important to you that there exists a 'Christian' concept of free will that is incompatible with an 'atheist' concept and that this 'Christian' concept must be obviously correct. WHITEY
Oh come on. You change your story every time you tell it. We established in another thread that in your view when a decision is based entirely on your character then it is [b]not an example of free will and that a free will decision in your view was necessarily random at heart.
This whole discussion is becoming a waste of time because you change your ...[text shortened]... in fact justify such a view at all and are willing to go to any length to prove otherwise.[/b]
Good try but I believed just as strongly in free will when I was an atheist. Infact , I can never remember not believing in it and I became a christian at 23. To me free will has also meant a real genuine free choice between A or B in that both are possible choices and potentially real. i have never ever understood why someone would want to call something a free choice when only one outcome is ever possible. How can it be free? Or a choice if one of the choices is excluded from ever being possible for the individual.
Looking back , it was when I realised why I believed this so strongly that was a light bulb moment. Without realising it God was always there in the background whispering " it doesn't have to be like this if you don't want it to".
10 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou also seem to have a very strong need not to be entirely a physical creature ie to have a supernatural part of you that somehow defines you and maintains control over the physical you. WHITEY
Oh come on. You change your story every time you tell it. We established in another thread that in your view when a decision is based entirely on your character then it is [b]not an example of free will and that a free will decision in your view was necessarily random at heart.
This whole discussion is becoming a waste of time because you change your ...[text shortened]... in fact justify such a view at all and are willing to go to any length to prove otherwise.[/b]
I do have a very strong need to explain my experience of not being entirely a physical creature. I also have a very strong belief in the latent potential of all human beings to reach their full potential. i also strongly believe that we are all responsible for our own actions in a specific way which means none of us is able to say to God "you made me like this , so how could I be any different , I had no alternative but to be just me". It's this philosophy that means that no-one can use their upbringing as an excuse for wrong doing. I have seen alcoholics drowning in their own vomit turned around by God's grace to become incredibly creative and wonderful people. Call this a need if you want , I call it my conviction about what is true and untrue.
10 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterAnd you changed your claims. Now you appear to be trying to change them back or invent new ones. After admitting that you had made a pigs ear of your original description you admitted that your view was essentially that:
If you hade been following my posts you would have known that I admitted that I made a pig's ear of my first description of free will.
1. If your character was the determining factor in a choice then there was no free will involved.
2. Free will is essentially indistinguishable to an observer from random choices.
Now you appear to be reversing those claims.
To illustrate:
If a gun is placed in your hand and a stranger is placed before you and I tell you to shoot the stranger, you have already said that you would not do so and it would not be a free will choice but forced by your own character.
Now if a gun was placed in Hitlers hand and a Jew whom he believed was an enemy of his country was placed before him and he shot him, then surely it would be a direct result of his character and even you believe that the decision would be determined and not and example of free will.
So as regards Hitler where does my view differ from yours?
[edit]
And why do you appear to hold Hitler morally responsible for shooting the Jew but refuse to take moral responsibility for your own actions in a similar situation?
10 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo as regards Hitler where does my view differ from yours? WHITEY
And you changed your claims. Now you appear to be trying to change them back or invent new ones. After admitting that you had made a pigs ear of your original description you admitted that your view was essentially that:
1. If your character was the determining factor in a choice then there was no free will involved.
2. Free will is essentially indistin ...[text shortened]... ing the Jew but refuse to take moral responsibility for your own actions in a similar situation?
Glad you asked...my view would hold hitler partly responsible for his own character. My view would argue that there are many things Hilter could have done with his life (eg become a loving father , a painter etc etc) and one of these things was a mass murderer. God would have prefered to have worked with hitler to bring out the more human and compassionate/creative side of him in a more constructive way , but seemingly hitler would not allow God to do this (this is where pride comes in for example) . My view allows that hitlers character is not set but has many possibilities and potential outcomes and that hitler must take responsibility for his part in who he eventually became. That's the difference. In your view it is impossible for someone to work at who they are and transform themsleves and rise above what would appear to be their destiny. Your view predicts that hitler was always destined to do what he did , my view says that he really really could have been a famous painter. Your view says that we are what we are and that's all there is to it. My view says that this is not the end of the story. Every human being is a potential seed of compassion and love and humanity (even hitler) . Your view says some seeds are bad full stop. My view says that if the seed ends up bad then it is because the person has not allowed the transforming power of christ into their lives (either consciously or unconsciously).
In your view hitler could say "i was only ever a nettle seed so all I could ever be is a nettle" In my view the response of christ could be "no , you became a nettle because you denied your humanity , your humaness and chose to be the nettle. You could have been a sunflower but you would not let me water you"
(sorry - you did ask)
10 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhitehead1. If your character was the determining factor in a choice then there was no free will involved. WHITEY
And you changed your claims. Now you appear to be trying to change them back or invent new ones. After admitting that you had made a pigs ear of your original description you admitted that your view was essentially that:
1. If your character was the determining factor in a choice then there was no free will involved.
2. Free will is essentially indistin ...[text shortened]... ing the Jew but refuse to take moral responsibility for your own actions in a similar situation?
The point you miss is that I am partly responsible for my charactor via my free choice to allow God to shape me in a certain way. So therefore although my charactor is the determining factor , there are a series of subtle choices I made that shape who I am today.
10 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow you appear to be reversing those claims. WHITEY
And you changed your claims. Now you appear to be trying to change them back or invent new ones. After admitting that you had made a pigs ear of your original description you admitted that your view was essentially that:
1. If your character was the determining factor in a choice then there was no free will involved.
2. Free will is essentially indistin ...[text shortened]... ing the Jew but refuse to take moral responsibility for your own actions in a similar situation?
Yes , and if I had stuck stubbornly to my line then it would have been foolish of me. As I said I made a pig's ear of it. You can either take this as slippery disingenuous behaviour or you can take it as evidence of someone who is brave enough to admit they got it wrong. You are free to choose. One part of your charactor driven by a need to beat me into a pulp so that you can carry on convincing yourself that christianity definitely is bunk will be battling with a nobler part of you that wants to believe that I am for real and telling the truth.
Complex thing this thing we call character.
You will find that you may have two charactors , one competitive and mean spirited that can't resist the chance to exploit this opportunity to make me squirm and another part of you that is prepared to give me the benefit of the doubt. Now this is an awul lot of mind reading I know but am I partly right? It's your character , you choose who you want to be. What you choose to do or believe about me is partly coming from who you are but you are also a work in progress , you are also actively involved in forming who you will be tomorrow.
11 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterOh, so how many persons collectively comprise you then, knightmeister? Which person am I addressing right now? Goodness.
This static idea that you have that we are rigidly one person and one person only doesn't fit with me.
To be sure, your idea of personal identity must be very strange indeed. Recall our conversation about Cho? Apparently, you think there is some irreducible Cho and that, under deterministic states of affairs, psychological states are "thrust onto" this Cho. So, what in the world comprises this Cho (at rock bottom)? Clearly it must be irreducible with respect to physical and psychological entities. So what is it, then?
This is another quite unsatisfactory aspect of your view. At the end of the day, you're committed to some ridiculously silly dualistic/idealistic view of the self.
11 Jul 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloReminds me that, while we all may be multiple personalities, we do not all suffer from multiple personality disorder.
Oh, so how many persons collectively comprise you then, knightmeister? Which person am I addressing right now? Goodness.
To be sure, your idea of personal identity must be very strange indeed. Recall our conversation about Cho? Apparently, you think there is some irreducible Cho and that, under deterministic states of affairs, psychological states ...[text shortened]... f the day, you're committed to some ridiculously silly dualistic/idealistic view of the self.
11 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't mind you changing your view but at least let us know each time you change it and restate your new view so that we know what we are dealing with. We may actually agree with it or some of it and be arguing over nothing! You have changed it several times now so maybe you could give a clear concise summary of what it is now.
Yes , and if I had stuck stubbornly to my line then it would have been foolish of me. As I said I made a pig's ear of it. You can either take this as slippery disingenuous behaviour or you can take it as evidence of someone who is brave enough to admit they got it wrong. You are free to choose. One part of your charactor driven by a need to beat me int ...[text shortened]... ling with a nobler part of you that wants to believe that I am for real and telling the truth.
Complex thing this thing we call character.
You will find that you may have two charactors , one competitive and mean spirited that can't resist the chance to exploit this opportunity to make me squirm and another part of you that is prepared to give me the benefit of the doubt. Now this is an awul lot of mind reading I know but am I partly right? It's your character , you choose who you want to be. What you choose to do or believe about me is partly coming from who you are but you are also a work in progress , you are also actively involved in forming who you will be tomorrow.
I think I agree with all that. But it is not incompatible with my world view. Nor would I like to separate it into "characters" as that implies consciousnesses whereas what we are really talking about are 'desires' or 'tendencies' or 'instincts' or something like that. For example when I see a bar of Chocolate my desire to eat it and my desire to keep my weight under control are not two consciousnesses but two desires and the decision is come upon via what we have referred to previously as deliberation.
11 Jul 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloTo be sure, your idea of personal identity must be very strange indeed. Recall our conversation about Cho? Apparently, you think there is some irreducible Cho and that, under deterministic states of affairs, psychological states are "thrust onto" this Cho. So, what in the world comprises this Cho (at rock bottom)? Clearly it must be irreducible with respect to physical and psychological entities. So what is it, then? LEMON
Oh, so how many persons collectively comprise you then, knightmeister? Which person am I addressing right now? Goodness.
To be sure, your idea of personal identity must be very strange indeed. Recall our conversation about Cho? Apparently, you think there is some irreducible Cho and that, under deterministic states of affairs, psychological states ...[text shortened]... f the day, you're committed to some ridiculously silly dualistic/idealistic view of the self.
....OH BOY! You really are silly sometimes! The whole point about what I said about Cho was me playing devil's advocate . i'm playing the ROLE of being a determinist because I can't understand why you lot don't believe what I am stating . I don't actually believe a word of what I was saying about Cho being destined to do what he did or the stuff about how one may feel sorry for him (or hitler) In that whole conversation I was stating rhetorically what you should believe if you really believe in determinism. The views I expressed are logical extrapolations of what determinsim implies . But the interesting thing is that you found yourself arguing with these points but you also say you believe in determinism?
So which person am I addressing? The lemon who intellectual pays lip service to determinism or the lemon who doesn't really believe in it because it's implications are too uncomfortable?
As for who I am , do you deny that within human beings there exists both the capacity for good and bad?
11 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy god, you're dense.
To be sure, your idea of personal identity must be very strange indeed. Recall our conversation about Cho? Apparently, you think there is some irreducible Cho and that, under deterministic states of affairs, psychological states are "thrust onto" this Cho. So, what in the world comprises this Cho (at rock bottom)? Clearly it must be irreducible with re ...[text shortened]... , do you deny that within human beings there exists both the capacity for good and bad?
To be quick: again, I'm asking about your notion of personal identity. What constitutes Cho, and what makes Cho the same Cho over time?
----
And boo hoo hoo, knightmeister can still only bring question begging and appeals to consequences against compatibilism.
11 Jul 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm dense? You are the one who completely missed the fact I was arguing rhetorically!
My god, you're dense.
To be quick: again, I'm asking about your notion of personal identity. What constitutes Cho, and what makes Cho the same Cho over time?
----
And boo hoo hoo, knightmeister can still only bring question begging and appeals to consequences against compatibilism.
BTW- Cho wasn't always the same Cho , he went through various stages of change. He was unwell and then well . At times he was acting disturbingly and others not. I'm sure Cho had a softer and sensitive side to him as well (otherwise he would not have felt so hurt and angry).
11 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterHelloooooooo! I'm saying that your view as you endorse it -- that is, your libertarian stance as you have expounded it -- commits you to a ridiculous conception of the self. Jesus you're impossibly slow.
I'm dense? You are the one who completely missed the fact I was arguing rhetorically!
BTW- Cho wasn't always the same Cho , he went through various stages of change. He was unwell and then well . At times he was acting disturbingly and others not. I'm sure Cho had a softer and sensitive side to him as well (otherwise he would not have felt so hurt and angry).
And you must not understand what is meant by 'personal identity' either. That's clearly not what I meant when I said "the same Cho". I'm asking what, under your view, made Cho in 2007 the same person that he was in, say, 2006. What makes you today the same person you were yesterday? And what constitutes you today?