Restating the Paradox
 

Restating the Paradox

I realize there is already a free will thread, and an omniscience/omnipotence thread, but I think this is worthy of a new one. I don't think a logical refutation of this is possible.

Premise 1: God is Omnipotent and Omnicient.
Premise 2: God created humans.
Premise 3: Those humans have free will.

This logically does not follow. Here is why:

If God is omnipotent, he can create things. He can create an infinite number of things. Since he is also omnicient, how knows the exact result of creating each of those infinite possible creations. Let's say he chooses one of the possible creations to create. How can that creation possibly have free will if God knows exactly what it will do, and chose to create that specific being over an infinite number of other possible beings he could create? By choosing to create that being, he also chose it's fate, therefore it does not have free will.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
Restating the Paradox

How can that creation possibly have free will if God knows exactly what it will do, and chose to create that specific being over an infinite number of other possible beings he could create? By choosing to create that being, he also chose it's fate, therefore it does not have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasoning goes wrong here. What god does is create a being that will freely choose to do x. What god knows is that the being will freely choose to do x. The illusion of incompatibility comes in thinking that because god knows that the being will choose to do x, then the being *must* do x, but again, divine foreknowledge and free will are not incompatible.

All that is required for the being to have free will is for the being to have freely chosen to do x. This does mean that it must have been possible for the being to have chosen to do y instead, but that is not incompatible with god knowing that the being will choose to do x. Of course god cannot be wrong, and that is where the illusion of incompatibility comes in--since god cannot be wrong, how can it be possible for the being to choose y instead? But remember, what god knows is not that the being will do x because there is no other possibility, but that the being will choose to do x even though it was possible for the being to do y.

btw, it's "omniscient."

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

I just did a search at biblegateway.com for the word "omniscient" - I can't find it in the bible. Am I missing something? Why is God said to be imbued with the ability to see perfectly into the future. Couldn't it be that even a being that can create existence from nothing, still be bounded by certain physical laws? If not, wouldn't he be trapped by his own lack of free will? Or, couldn't he have initially possessed free will and then chosen to give it up for himself and the rest of the prescient beings in the universe?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

please ignore my last sentence. I can see it makes no sense.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

Hold up. Before you can start to argue whether or not there is a god, you have to define a god. What is the nature of god? What is it that it can/cannot do? Only positive concepts will do, i.e. things god CAN do. We cannot ask what it cannot do (negative definitions). This leads to a fallacy exemplified by St. Anselem, which defines god as "that which nothing greater can be conceived". To continue, this undefined god has to exist in reality, because if it exists only in your mind, you can conceive of something greater; a god that exists in reality, so in order to be the greatest thing that can be conceived, it has to actually exist.

Give me a list of traits and I will show you why they are all contradictory and prove nothing. And hopefully you will not still believe in a god that cannot exist in or out of reality.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

I was just curious as to where premise #1 came from - that God is Omnipotent, etc. If what you're saying is that God is omnipotent because God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, then I for one can't conceive of anything close to perfect. Who can? This Anselm arguement for God doesn't make sense.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

I realize there is already a free will thread


[/ QUOTE ]

Naturalism says we are entirely the result of causes operating according to fixed laws. Where is free will?

Evolution by chance says we are the product of randomness. If all we think and will is random, where is free will?

Free will is only possible for finite beings if God exists.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
Naturalism says we are entirely the result of causes operating according to fixed laws. Where is free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

A natural Universe operating according to fixed laws is not necessarily a deterministic Universe. Quantum Mechanics is a fundamentally non-deterministic science.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution by chance says we are the product of randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution doesn't procede randomly. Evolution procedes according to random variation and non-random selection.

[ QUOTE ]
If all we think and will is random, where is free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with evolution? How did you get to "all we think and will is random" from the element of randomness involved in biological evolution? How does the evolution of mankind over the past x million years have anything to do with whether I choose waffles or pancakes for breakfast?

[ QUOTE ]
Free will is only possible for finite beings if God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? What I mean is, what is physically different about a Universe where a Creator God exists that allows free will than a naturalistic Universe where no Creator God exists? And if there is no physical difference, how can free will exist in one and not the other?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

A natural Universe operating according to fixed laws is not necessarily a deterministic Universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how something that is in accordance with fixed laws isn't determined by those laws.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution doesn't procede randomly. Evolution procedes according to random variation and non-random selection.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying evolution doesn't proceed randomly, it proceeds according to random variation. I don't see the difference.

[ QUOTE ]

How does the evolution of mankind over the past x million years have anything to do with whether I choose waffles or pancakes for breakfast?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your genes, which are determined by random variation, determine which you will choose.

[ QUOTE ]

What I mean is, what is physically different about a Universe where a Creator God exists that allows free will than a naturalistic Universe where no Creator God exists?


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a question of physical difference. If free will exists for man it is because God is in control and allows it. If there is no God, either fixed law reigns, so all is determined, or chance reigns, so all is accidental.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

You realize of course that after you die, God will show you posts like what you just wrote and say something like:

" Not Ready, I put you on the earth to talk about issues like this. But then you waste your talents and screw everything up by insisting that the nutcase Calvin with all his silly and often wrong minute details, needs to be followed. Thus putting off those who might otherwise have listened to you. Now go sit in the corner with BluffTHIS for three billion years.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now go sit in the corner with BluffTHIS for three billion years.


[/ QUOTE ]

But after a mere 3b years I'm out and in heaven. Where will you be?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
You realize of course that after you die, God will show you posts like what you just wrote and say something like:

" Not Ready, I put you on the earth to talk about issues like this. But then you waste your talents and screw everything up by insisting that the nutcase Calvin with all his silly and often wrong minute details, needs to be followed. Thus putting off those who might otherwise have listened to you. Now go sit in the corner with BluffTHIS for three billion years.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "in the corner" you refer to the Catholic idea of Purgatory...it's not such a bad thing. The souls in Purgatory (and I fully expect to be one...hopefully not for 3 billion years) eventually get to Heaven.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A natural Universe operating according to fixed laws is not necessarily a deterministic Universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how something that is in accordance with fixed laws isn't determined by those laws.


[/ QUOTE ]

The LAWS are fixed. The outcomes of those laws are probabilistic in the theory.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution doesn't procede randomly. Evolution procedes according to random variation and non-random selection.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying evolution doesn't proceed randomly, it proceeds according to random variation. I don't see the difference.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems clear that you don't know anything about science. I suppose that's hardly surprising.

You know how heat flows from hot regions to cold? That's an orderly process with structure, right? Do you realize that heat transfer on a microscopic level is just atoms wiggling around randomly, bumping into each other in a process that appears completely random on a local scale? But if you back up and look at the bigger picture, this underlying random process creates a bigger picture that has a very neat and orderly structure to it.

This is like evolution. It is only random locally. Globally, there is an emergent order from that randomness. That's what we see in the orderly progression of species.

[ QUOTE ]

It isn't a question of physical difference. If free will exists for man it is because God is in control and allows it. If there is no God, either fixed law reigns, so all is determined, or chance reigns, so all is accidental.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the random variation of atoms in a bar of iron accidental? And yet don't we see on a larger scale the very orderly flow of heat emerging from that underlying random process?

Why are you troubled by a universe where "chance reigns"? I don't think this implies what you assume it to imply.

eastbay

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

The LAWS are fixed. The outcomes of those laws are probabilistic in the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you want are fixed laws and absolute chance, which is self-contradictory. Either the laws are ultimate or chance is ultimate. Either way, no free will.

[ QUOTE ]

It seems clear that you don't know anything about science.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know that science assumes order in the universe AND chance though it can prove neither and they are self-contradictory.

[ QUOTE ]

Do you realize that heat transfer on a microscopic level is just atoms wiggling around randomly, bumping into each other in a process that appears completely random on a local scale?


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is it, random or apparently random?

[ QUOTE ]

But if you back up and look at the bigger picture, this underlying random process creates a bigger picture that has a very neat and orderly structure to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, order. But order produced randomly. So how can it really be order? Why can't the process randomly be completely different tomorrow? The local order that is randomly produced can just as easily turn into disorder if chance is the underlying cause.

[ QUOTE ]

Why are you troubled by a universe where "chance reigns"?


[/ QUOTE ]

How can anything mean anything if chance reigns? What purpose or meaning is there in an accident? If your criticism of Christianity is just a random flow of electrons, why should anyone pay any attention to it? How can you claim validity to something that is the product of an accident? And if the will is accidental, it may be free in the sense of undetermined, but how is it a choice?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how something that is in accordance with fixed laws isn't determined by those laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you aim an electron beam at two narrow slits placed very close together in a thin screen, quantum mechanics can describe the probabilities that an individual electron in the beam will pass through the left slit or the right slit, but it cannot predict which slit it will go through.

A fundamental part of quantum mechanics is uncertainty. This prevents quantum mechanics from being deterministic, since it prevents you from ever knowing all of the initial conditions to make your predictions from. If you know the initial position of an electron more and more accurately, you must become more and more uncertain about its velocity (momentum, more specifically), and vice versa. As I stated, quantum mechanics is a fundamentally non-deterministic science.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution doesn't procede randomly. Evolution procedes according to random variation and non-random selection.[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying evolution doesn't proceed randomly, it proceeds according to random variation. I don't see the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you apparently missed it, I've bolded the second half of my statement for your convenience. Variation is random. Selection is not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does the evolution of mankind over the past x million years have anything to do with whether I choose waffles or pancakes for breakfast?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your genes, which are determined by random variation, determine which you will choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really. How? I mean, I presume you have a naturalistic mechanism all worked out to explain this, right? I'm all ears.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is, what is physically different about a Universe where a Creator God exists that allows free will than a naturalistic Universe where no Creator God exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a question of physical difference. If free will exists for man it is because God is in control and allows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, what is the physical process whereby the divinely allowed Free Will is exercised? Apparently Free Will occurs in the brain, yes? Via chemical and electrical processes, yes? Because those are what impliment the chosen actions, chemical and electrical processes within the brain that tell my voice box to order either pancakes or waffles, yes?

So how exactly does the physical Free Will mechanism operate? And what is physically different in a Universe without a Creator God that makes the chemical and electrical processes different?

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no God, either fixed law reigns, so all is determined,

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've pointed out, this is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
or chance reigns, so all is accidental.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what this means, if anything.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

quantum mechanics can describe the probabilities that an individual electron in the beam will pass through the left slit or the right slit, but it cannot predict which slit it will go through.


[/ QUOTE ]

QM isn't omniscient.

[ QUOTE ]

Since you apparently missed it, I've bolded the second half of my statement for your convenience. Variation is random. Selection is not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which makes it either accidental or determined. Neither produce free will.

[ QUOTE ]

Really. How? I mean, I presume you have a naturalistic mechanism all worked out to explain this, right? I'm all ears.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you did.

[ QUOTE ]

So how exactly does the physical Free Will mechanism operate?


[/ QUOTE ]

In God's universe we are more than chemistry. In a naturalistic, random, determined, accidental universe we are only chemistry.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what this means, if anything


[/ QUOTE ]

Chance and accident are synonymous. Just interchange the terms.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
Restating the Paradox

I realize there is already a free will thread, and an omniscience/omnipotence thread, but I think this is worthy of a new one. I don't think a logical refutation of this is possible.

Premise 1: God is Omnipotent and Omnicient.
Premise 2: God created humans.
Premise 3: Those humans have free will.

This logically does not follow. Here is why:

If God is omnipotent, he can create things. He can create an infinite number of things. Since he is also omnicient, how knows the exact result of creating each of those infinite possible creations. Let's say he chooses one of the possible creations to create. How can that creation possibly have free will if God knows exactly what it will do, and chose to create that specific being over an infinite number of other possible beings he could create? By choosing to create that being, he also chose it's fate, therefore it does not have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always figured this is reconciled by the fact that God, were he to exist, would transcend the man-made concept of chronology, then I try to wrap my head around the concept of a God existing outside of the dimensions we're constrained to, thereby he could 'see' everything that has, and will, happen along the "Time" dimension despite the fact that we haven't got there yet. Once I try, and fail, to visualize 4-dimensional spacetime with some old guy outside of it staring in like a Peeping Tom, I usually just go play a game of Madden 2005.

No one answered me question!!!
 

I believe I proved that God chooses our actions in my OP, but no one has made a reasonable argue against this.

Philo, you said that God is not choosing our destiny. By choosing to create us over the infinite number of other possible creations, he is the one making the choice.

NotReady, your post tried to prove that free will is not possible without God. This does not refute my contention at all, since my contention is that free will is not possible even with God. FWIW, I believe that free will does not exist, but that has very little to do with my OP.

Let me restate my OP. There are an infinite number of creations that God could make. Each of those creations has a destiny that God is fully aware of. By choosing any number of those infinite creations to create, God is choosing which destinies will exist on Earth, and which destinies will never come to be.

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are an infinite number of creations that God could make. Each of those creations has a destiny that God is fully aware of. By choosing any number of those infinite creations to create, God is choosing which destinies will exist on Earth, and which destinies will never come to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Extracting one attritbute of a god and trying an analysis from there often leads to conclusions that may not be useful when considering the entire god. As given, there are reasonable arguments that free will was exercised by the person, regardless of the fact that god snuffed out the other branches, but whatever validity they may have is based on this voyeur god caricature.

But such a god may as well not exist, since nothing (in the life of the person) would change whether he did or not. An intervening god, a meddling god, that presents a much tougher universe for free will to survive in.

People having free will in a universe where god has free will is an interesting argument to make. Obviously if god doesn't have free will that's a different scenario.

Ignore this if I've morphed your question too much, but you don't specify in your scenario what attributes god has a far as meddling and/or his free will... I'm not sure what your default assumption was.

thanks, luckyme

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, your post tried to prove that free will is not possible without God. This does not refute my contention at all, since my contention is that free will is not possible even with God


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't deal specifically with free will and God, partly because I have before, partly because the issue of free will if God doesn't exist is rarely discussed, and partly because it's an issue that has occupied philosophers since Plato and hasn't yet been resolved.

From a Biblical standpoint, Scripture never says man has free will. The issue is always presented in the context of responsibility. The Bible is crystal clear that man is responsible to God. We humans think that means man has to have free will. I agree with this at least to the extent that his will is uncoerced. But when you try to get past that, it becomes difficult to even define what we mean. For more in depth analysis you might want to google libertarian and compatabilist ideas of the will. The central problem is the fact we are bound by cause and effect thinking. Since every effect must have a cause, the will must have a cause. But if it does then how is it free? But if it isn't free, how are we responsible? Atheism doesn't solve this because either we are determined and so not free, or we are free and so not responsible.

[ QUOTE ]

By choosing any number of those infinite creations to create, God is choosing which destinies will exist on Earth, and which destinies will never come to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily agree with the infinite creation idea, but it's a minor point. But your last sentence agrees with the Reformed idea of God's decrees, God's plan for the universe. In a sine qua non sense, God causes everything. Calvin tried to distinguish between proximate and remote cause and others have used similar approaches. None of them really work, however. What I believe is simply that God can cause to happen what He wants to happen and use man's free will as a secondary cause. Another way it's phrased is that God ordains the means as well as the ends. But in the end there is an element of mystery. This is not an evasion, it is an admission of ignorance. I don't think atheistic naturalism solves the problem though. If you simply deny free will there are logical consequences that most people would not accept. In the end, like most if not all non-theistic systems, you are reduced to pragmatism, which for obvious reasons is a poor solution.

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
pragmatism, which for obvious reasons is a poor solution

[/ QUOTE ]

???

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

many people have you figured as being among the elite of the on-line players. you have a website, and seem to be, at times, happy w/ and proud of your play. why? you are just a character in a movie---like the roll on a player piano. you make no decisions, so why should anyone give you credit for having 'talent'? and given your views, how could you make a fool of yourself by having a website? after all, any success you 'display' is not of your doing................b

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]

???


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a philosophical cop-out, an admission there's no purpose or meaning to life, an irrational leap of faith that man somehow has significance while stating that meaning is impossible. It's also where all non-theistic worldviews end up.

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
many people have you figured as being among the elite of the on-line players. you have a website, and seem to be, at times, happy w/ and proud of your play. why? you are just a character in a movie---like the roll on a player piano. you make no decisions, so why should anyone give you credit for having 'talent'? and given your views, how could you make a fool of yourself by having a website? after all, any success you 'display' is not of your doing................b

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point seems to be that life is meaningless since we make no decisions. This is not the case at all. I take great pleasure out of my life. The fact that my life has been predertimened doesn't matter to me in the least. Why should it?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

My contribution to this thread can be found here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=3837376

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

i did not use the word 'meaningless', for starters. my question was straightforeward, your answer:"why should it". ok, fair enough, what will you say on your website next tuesday when you are out on bail, pending trial, for an attack on a college co-ed? will you still be "taking great pleasure out of your life"? you are foreclosed from saying "that can't happen", and you are on record as being very happy over being a player in this drama w/ no ability to alter the course of events. btw, are you taking into acct the fact that taking pleasure out of your life is merely a determined event? perhaps next tuesday on your website you will be telling us you are taking great pleasure out of awaiting trail. remember: it could go down that way and there is nothing you could do about it............b

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
i did not use the word 'meaningless', for starters. my question was straightforeward, your answer:"why should it". ok, fair enough, what will you say on your website next tuesday when you are out on bail, pending trial, for an attack on a college co-ed? will you still be "taking great pleasure out of your life"? you are foreclosed from saying "that can't happen", and you are on record as being very happy over being a player in this drama w/ no ability to alter the course of events. btw, are you taking into acct the fact that taking pleasure out of your life is merely a determined event? perhaps next tuesday on your website you will be telling us you are taking great pleasure out of awaiting trail. remember: it could go down that way and there is nothing you could do about it............b

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your point?

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

try a couple of re-reads .....some things have to sink in, unless one is in denial, and then they can't (for now)......b

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

But you will still always be left with this argument...

1. God is omnipotent
2. Humans are not omnipotent
3. Humans cannot understand what an omnipotent being would do

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
pragmatism, which for obvious reasons is a poor solution

[/ QUOTE ]

It works in practice but not theoretically.. umm, means the theory is wrong in my opinion [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
t's a philosophical cop-out, an admission there's no purpose or meaning to life, an irrational leap of faith that man somehow has significance while stating that meaning is impossible. It's also where all non-theistic worldviews end up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not a cop-out. The problem is that the question your pose implies that a meaning is neccesary. That is not so. To paraphrase your own saying: This is not the case at all. I take great pleasure out of my life. The fact that my life is totally devoid of meaning and has no significance doesn't matter to me in the least. Why should it?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
But you will still always be left with this argument...

1. God is omnipotent
2. Humans are not omnipotent
3. Humans cannot understand what an omnipotent being would do

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument has nothing to do with God's intentions.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
But you will still always be left with this argument...


[/ QUOTE ]
Not a fact - 1. God is omnipotent
Is a fact - 2. Humans are not omnipotent

3. Cannot be drived since 1 is not proved

This is an argument solely relevant for theists, right?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The LAWS are fixed. The outcomes of those laws are probabilistic in the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you want are fixed laws and absolute chance, which is self-contradictory. Either the laws are ultimate or chance is ultimate. Either way, no free will.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what "absolute chance" is.

In any case, I don't want anything. That's your mistake, not mine.

I am interested in what is based on the evidence, not figuring out some version of things which feels like something I want or appeals to me emotionally somehow. That's not a valid method for separating truth from fiction.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems clear that you don't know anything about science.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know that science assumes order in the universe AND chance though it can prove neither and they are self-contradictory.


[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't self-contradictory at all. That you would think so only further exposes your ignorance.

You can't "prove" something in science in the sense that you can show that no possible outcome can contradict a predictive theory. You can only add evidence by showing all known outcomes conform to the predictive theory.

This is quite a bit better however, than "faith" where you accept something based on no evidence at all.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you realize that heat transfer on a microscopic level is just atoms wiggling around randomly, bumping into each other in a process that appears completely random on a local scale?


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is it, random or apparently random?


[/ QUOTE ]

Definitions of "random" is a very complex subject and the meaning changes according to context.

The point here being that measurements will produce probability distributions of variables, and in that sense the variables are considered stochastic or random.

[ QUOTE ]

Why can't the process randomly be completely different tomorrow?


[/ QUOTE ]

It can be and it will be. And yet the macroscopic behavior will be the same.

[ QUOTE ]

How can anything mean anything if chance reigns?


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean "mean anything". If meaning is information content, why are you looking for information content in "anything."

[ QUOTE ]

What purpose or meaning is there in an accident?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what an "accident" is nor do I know what you mean by "purpose" or "meaning" in something like an evolutionary process. It is what it is. I think you are falling back on some kind of emotional litmus test as to whether you will accept it as being "purposeful". This is nonsense. It is what it is, you can't deny it because you are looking for "purpose" in it and can't find it.

[ QUOTE ]

How can you claim validity to something that is the product of an accident?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the "validity" thing is your hangup, not mine. How do I know if evolution is "valid"? What criteria can I apply to the process to determine if it is "valid"?

[ QUOTE ]

And if the will is accidental, it may be free in the sense of undetermined, but how is it a choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I frankly don't know if I have choice. I certainly feel like I do, but whether or not that is illusory is something I cannot know. You may find that emotionally troubling. I don't, and even if I did, I know it is invalid to reject something based on the grounds of an emotional reaction.

If I could reject things and know that they were not the truth based on them being emotionally disturbing, there would be no child molsters, no murderers, no hemmorhagic fevers. But as horrifying as those things are, I know it is absurd to reject them because I don't find them "purposeful" or "meaningful" or "valid". The evidence tells me they exist, so I must accept that they do.

If I were to tell you I deny that there are child molesters because such a thing would lack "meaning" or "purpose", you would tell me I was talking like a crazy man. And I would be. But so are you to reject evolution which proceeds by selection over chance variation because you can't figure out how it is "purposeful" or "meaningful."

eastbay

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is quite a bit better however, than "faith" where you accept something based on no evidence at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Science is based on faith.


[ QUOTE ]

I don't know what "absolute chance" is.
Definitions of "random" is a very complex subject and the meaning changes according to context.
I don't know what an "accident" is


[/ QUOTE ]

Seems kinda simple:

[ QUOTE ]

random

SYLLABICATION: ran·dom
PRONUNCIATION: rndm
ADJECTIVE: 1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It can be and it will be. And yet the macroscopic behavior will be the same.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? If so, how?

[ QUOTE ]
How do I know if evolution is "valid"?


[/ QUOTE ]

How can you know Christianity isn't?

[ QUOTE ]

You may find that emotionally troubling.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one who keeps bringing up emotion.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

ZeeJustin, it seems that your paradox rests on the unsaid premise

1) Free Will means that in any particular situation in which an agent chooses freely, he could have done otherwise

I think that if we take a compatabilist approach to free will we can say that your 3 premises are true but free will exists because the agent is the causal factor in the choice being made. For example, imagine a person trying to exit a room with 3 doors, the person chooses the door in the middle, but unbeknownst to him the other 2 doors are locked and the only way out is the middle door. To any outside observer that knew you would attempt to leave the room they could predict that you would use the middle door, but the fact that they knew but weren't a causal factor in your decision to do so means that your actions were in fact still free.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

Quoting a dictionary definition of "random" in order to show that the definition of "random" is not 'very complex subject and the meaning changes according to context' (as was stated by eastbay) is silly to say the least. Sorry about using this word here, but I find no better way to describe what you have just did in your post.

Also, I don't mean it as a personal thing, because I don't know you well enough, but I find people who quote definitions from dictionaries in order to make a point (unless it's a discussion about 'what is said in a specific dictionary') really lacking in understanding with regard to the meaning of "understanding". Really: why should anyone wonder about the meaning of concepts such as "truth", "self", "mind", "energy" when you can open a dictionary and finish with it very quickly? This is absurd.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

Really: why should anyone wonder about the meaning of concepts such as "truth", "self", "mind", "energy" when you can open a dictionary and finish with it very quickly? This is absurd.


[/ QUOTE ]

Eastbay said this:

[ QUOTE ]

Do you realize that heat transfer on a microscopic level is just atoms wiggling around randomly, bumping into each other in a process that appears completely random on a local scale?


[/ QUOTE ]

I said this:

[ QUOTE ]

Which is it, random or apparently random?


[/ QUOTE ]

Eastbay replied:

[ QUOTE ]

Definitions of "random" is a very complex subject and the meaning changes according to context.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whereupon I gave the dictionary definition. I did it because eastbay was ambiguous in the original quote, first saying "randomly" then saying "appears...random". This seems to be an attempt to have it both ways. The problem isn't one of context but of language. There's a difference between "is random" and "appears random". If there's a disagreement about the meaning of a word, well, that's why they invented dictionaries. The dictionary is unambiguous. It's what I mean by the word. If you and eastbay mean something different, go ahead. If that's absurd, I can't see why.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there's a disagreement about the meaning of a word, well, that's why they invented dictionaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Dictionaries are completely irrelevant when there is a disagreement about the meaning of a word between people who have full control of the language they use (unless, again, for some specific argument about 'what does the dictionary say', or for making a rulling in a game like scrabble [but in that case definitions don't matter anyway]).

This is really fundamental, and I actually find it strange that I have to "explain" this. A dictionary is nothing but an (almost) tautoligcal set of definitions (and by that, I mean that if you start to look for the dictionary definitions of each word that you find in a certain definition of a certain word in the same dictionary, you'll go in circles, obviously), created by _specific_ people, in order to help you in getting some extremely rough approximation of what a word might "mean", and for what purposes it might "serve", and that's if you don't have any better idea about it. You go to a dictionary if you happen to hear/read a word you don't recognize, or don't remember well, or not sure how to spell, etc. Again: using it in order to make a point in a discussion like the one here, is completely absurd.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

is completely absurd.


[/ QUOTE ]

Totally missing my point is absurd.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
Science is based on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. Your argument is an intellectually dishonest one as you are trying to use the word "faith" in different contexts, but keep the same meanings.

Also, you said on the first page that our "genes" make use choose between pancakes and waffles in the morning. This demonstrates such an absurdly bad understanding of both evolution and psychology that you can't possibly expect anyone to take you seriously.