What I believe.....

Carrots I am confused by your comments. On the one hand you suggest that we have free will but it is extremely limited. You then go on to say we are responsible for our actions.

If we don't have much in the way of free will, how can we be held responsible for our actions? Seems to me we can only be held responsible for our actions if we have the free will to choose those actions.

If our choices are very limited when it comes to free will, then the responsibility of our actions must also be very limited.

But then I don't really understand what you mean by the statement we have free will but it is extremely limited. Extremely limited how? By what?
 
GK, I believe it is a continuum. For instance, I go to a bar and have drinks with this really likeable lady. I make sure she drinks more than I, but I do my share. I take her home, accept her offer of a nightcap, undress like her and her wiccan roommate. Then She asks if I want a Viagra, I take it. Then we have sex.

Where did I compromise my free will? When the Viagra was in me? Hardly. I think I compromised it when I went into the bar. See, as the evening goes on I have less and less free will (to not have sex).
 
I'm not sure your response answers the question. In the scenario you developed you are yourself limiting your choices by getting drunk. Had the entire event unfolded as you suggest, except you didn't drink, would you then not have complete free will to either take the ladies up on their offer or pass on it?

And secondly what bars do you go to, cause you obviously know where the action is!
 
Gordian Knot said:
Carrots I am confused by your comments. On the one hand you suggest that we have free will but it is extremely limited. You then go on to say we are responsible for our actions.

If we don't have much in the way of free will, how can we be held responsible for our actions? Seems to me we can only be held responsible for our actions if we have the free will to choose those actions.

If our choices are very limited when it comes to free will, then the responsibility of our actions must also be very limited.

But then I don't really understand what you mean by the statement we have free will but it is extremely limited. Extremely limited how? By what?
Click to expand...

Its like being on a plane we are limited as to what we can do, but we have freewill to do what we want anyhow.

Our freewill now is conditioned by so many factors but if I choose to kill, the laws of karma are going to see that justice is done. This material world is like a giant machine where karma and freewill interplay. We are bound by our karmic reactions enjoying and suffering the fruits of our activities.

responsibility is greater the more we awaken.
 
"The Gulch" and "Peaches". Is does not relly matter about the drinking. The point is that our character (good or bad or in-between) really determines our "free will". A heroin addict or alcoholic (and I am both) has none… once the first drink or smoke or hit hits, comprenez vous? “Free will” is a function of character, the closer we are to the d!vine, the more we have. The further we are from it, ensnared in physical reality, the less we have.
 
radarmark said:
I (as a physicist) do not think so… this is the best of all possible worlds. Those without volcanism or earthquakes or novae are not!
Click to expand...
Radar, we are talking about an omnipotent G!d who can make a stone heavier than he can lift. Physics had yet not reached that stage (Saints and sages have, they can move mountains just by wishing, they have been promised this). :D
Gordian Knot said:
If humans live a deterministic (lack of free will) life, then there is a serious problem with the standard answer that religion has been supporting for the past few thousand years.
Click to expand...
Life is not deterministic, every single one, for humans, animals, and vegetation, all. It is chancy, full of infinite probabilities. :D
 
Aup actually I tend to lean towards yours and Radar's thinking on free will. I am pointing out that there are strong camps in physics and psychology (don't even get me started on the psychology!) who claim to have respectable science to support the concept that proves free will is an illusion.

We can all decide for ourselves, and no one can state categorically that any one decision is right or wrong.

Life is deterministic.
Life is not deterministic.

These are statements of belief based on individual perceptions. Neither is based on hard evidence as there appears to be supporting evidence for both. Bottom line, the jury is still out on this question.

My solution to the conundrum has always been thus " Whether or not I have free will, I choose to live my life, and make my decisions as if I do!"
 
Radar said "“Free will” is a function of character, the closer we are to the d!vine, the more we have. The further we are from it, ensnared in physical reality, the less we have."

This is a fascinating statement! That the strength of our character is a function of our closeness to the divine. I suspect it is close to truth for a lot of people. As for me, myself and I? Not so much. As I have made it abundantly clear, I have no use for divine beings in my life. I choose my morals for myself; not interested in what some theocracy says I have to follow.

For the most part, my moral choices seem to have been good ones. I have never done anything seriously wrong; never damaged another person (or other life for that matter) with harmful intent in my heart. I am not petty, vengeful or particularly prideful. All this being said is not being boastful. It simply is who I am.

There is little in the way of actions that I regret. There are some, of course, none of us is immune to being human. But they are by far in the minority.

I do not believe in sin as a defined set of rules by some supreme entity. Don't believe in reincarnation.

I do believe in a kind of Karma, though I'm not sure my version could be correctly called Karma. Karma, as I understand it, and put very simply, is a balance sheet where good deeds get you plus points and bad deeds net you negative points. Which in total determines your next life. That is not my belief.

I don't do bad deeds because of any damage to an afterlife. I don't do bad deeds because of the negative damage to my current life. The more negativity one creates in oneself, the more one damages oneself. Right in the here and now. That is of concern to me. Here is one example; I don't hold grudges because doing that damages me. In physical health, in mental attitude, in spiritual empathy.

Yes I do believe in spirituality. But again, my definition seems far removed from how most would define it. But it is there and in abundance. Maybe I am closer to a divine than I think?

Apologies for the rambling. This was more stream of consciousness post than my usual.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Radar, we are talking about an omnipotent G!d who can make a stone heavier than he can lift. Physics had yet not reached that stage (Saints and sages have, they can move mountains just by wishing, they have been promised this) .
Click to expand...
Gee, I for one do not define g!d that way… a non-personal, non –anthropomorphic g!d.

Aupmanyav said:
Life is not deterministic, every single one, for humans, animals, and vegetation, all. It is chancy, full of infinite probabilities.
Click to expand...
Quite so, infinite possibilities, if you are looking as g!d’s plan as something like Einstein’s Block Universe (everything being totally pre-determined) it is very hard to live, or play baseball.

Gordian Knot said:
Radar said "“Free will” is a function of character, the closer we are to the d!vine, the more we have. The further we are from it, ensnared in physical reality, the less we have."
Click to expand...
Gordian Knot said:
This is a fascinating statement! That the strength of our character is a function of our closeness to the divine. I suspect it is close to truth for a lot of people. As for me, myself and I? Not so much. As I have made it abundantly clear, I have no use for divine beings in my life. I choose my morals for myself; not interested in what some theocracy says I have to follow.
Well, as my g!d is neither personal or anthropomorphic, you are free to substitute a notion of “doing good” in a Platonic or Spinozan or Daoist or Buddhist sense (none have much to say about g!d, but a lot to say about good).

By d!vine I do mean “the good”, “the loving”, “the understanding” all those neat things that one emulates or chooses because it is right (I would choose “beautiful” too, but I am not).

Ours is a difference in terms, not content.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
"Ours is a difference in terms, not content."

Fair enough! Though when we are talking terms, I'm curious what you mean by beautiful.
 
It's fascinating that the atheists* have a stricter definition of what God is them most theists here, even Thomas the Catholic (yep, that's your new epithet).

*Sorry G-Knot, I'm lumping you with these guys in this context since you're arguing against gods here.
 
Gordian Knot said:
My solution to the conundrum has always been thus " Whether or not I have free will, I choose to live my life, and make my decisions as if I do!"
Click to expand...
:) This also is based on your experiences, bringing-up, your reaction to religion, your education, your situation, and of course, a God's will. Leaves little for you to decide.
Gordian Knot said:
Karma, as I understand it, and put very simply, is a balance sheet where good deeds get you plus points and bad deeds net you negative points. Which in total determines your next life. That is not my belief.
Click to expand...
Indian religions do not add it up as the Abrahamic religions do. We keep the accounts separate, and deal with them separately. Just explaining a point.
Gordian Knot said:
I'm curious what you mean by beautiful.
Click to expand...
Though you asked GK, my answer would be 'what suits me'.
 
The beautiful is a term of axiology, of aesthetics. Try "pleasing to the eye" or "balance and harmonious", "in accordance with with nature", "perfection of form", all of which lead to subjective attraction and emotional well-being.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
It's fascinating that the atheists* have a stricter definition of what God is them most theists here, even Thomas the Catholic (yep, that's your new epithet).

*Sorry G-Knot, I'm lumping you with these guys in this context since you're arguing against gods here.
Click to expand...

S'Okay. Though I'm not atheist, I have no more use for gods than atheist's do.

But if you think atheists have a stricter definition of God, you really need to come visit the American South sometime. You will then see the error of your ways!!!
 
GK, the C.S.A. (Umerikkan South) is a relatively backwater of Christianity. Most Christian (world wide) have a much less restrictive definition. So the reality is somewhere between you and ACOT.
 
Gordian Knot said:
S'Okay. Though I'm not atheist, I have no more use for gods than atheist's do.

But if you think atheists have a stricter definition of God, you really need to come visit the American South sometime. You will then see the error of your ways!!!
Click to expand...


It is that fire and brimstone version of G!d, the smiting and plagueing passive aggressive off his meds bipolar feller that makes many folks if not atheist...recovering christians...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top