By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Player1x3 said:
Farmageddon said:
sapphi_snake said:
Farmageddon said:

Some believe we're just born and make all those concepts up as we go :P

When it comes to a single world religion, I really, really, really don't see that happening (besides maybe on an "official" level). Only shot would be if that one religion was non-religious. I don't think even extreme supernatural intervention would change that. I mean, assuming they don't just wipe our minds.

Also, Player1x3, I see your vision of humans is as if we're removed from nature, special. I think this kind of argument about human nature can't really be settled between people with a creationist view and people with a more naturalistic one.

How can this be?

Well, I just don't see how, moving forward, will there be a time whithout people skeptical of religions and gods and etc. I don't see atheists and agnostics and laVey satanists and whatnot suddenly disappearing, specially on a global government where flow of information would be (presumably) very high.

As long as there's religion there'll also be the ortodox types and the "I believe in something but don't fit any of this crap" Wiccan-type minorities. It just seems like this to me.

Player1x3 said:


What? No I dont believe in creationism, I simply believe that we have free will and that we make our choices but in the end our choices make us(shamelessly stolen from Bioshock), they determine weather or not we are greedy, destrctive etc etc...

Well, what makes you believe our free will is so absolute and detached from nature then? If we're products of nature, so is our free will. And if our choice determines what we are, what determines them? Our "free will"? If our personality plays a role in determining our actions, and to these actions we attribute lables, why not carry them over for our personalities?

Of course I'm not defending we're static, there's a lot of feedback and forth, but we are born with all of that in us, otherwise it would never surface.

Because we are not robots nor animals, we can control ourselves.For example, lets say we are really rich and we really want those extra 10 000 dollars for ourselves, but we EVEN WITH THAT WISH AND NEED for 10k$  we donate it to some childern chairity. So we CHOOSE not to be greedy. Or you can choose to keep to money to yourself and be greedy. And like I said we determine our choices and in the end they determine, or ''make''. Our personality doesnt have to play the role in our actions if we dont let it, because we can controll ourselves and think, what would YOU WANNA do.

Really, greed in this sense is not limited to money, and a rich person giving money away is less impressive then a poor person. Still, no one donates without pressure unless they'll feel good for doing that (and under pessure means they'd feel worse not doing). People want money so they have things like power, fame and proprierty. But ultimately all of these are only longed for because they make you feel good, so buying a yatch or donating is really the same thing. The impressive donation comes from people who'll actually suffer from the donation and that's absolutelly not the norm. It's the poor guy who hasn't eaten for the past three days and has no idea when he'll get anything else to eat giving food away. Even then we could debate how selfless that really is when you look deep enought, but let's call that selfless for now.

There are two points I want to make out of that, but they're kind of tied togheter, so forgive me if I'm unclear.

First, you have these kinds of "selfless" donation on lots of other animals. It may not be in form of money but various species are capable of sacrificing their lives for others. You may argue they're not reasoning about what they are doing or don't even know what death is (which would be over simplifying the matter) but the fact is that donation is not exclusivelly human nor there's reason to believe very advanced rationality is necessary for that. A rational donation actually would be more in the lines of a buisness proposition, but that's beside the point. So, yeah, by now you realise I do see us as animals, and you can change that vision and yours with naturalistic and creationist in my first post and that should work.

The second point is there are reasons we feel good or bad for doing determined things, and we do have a basis, a natural instinct in ourselves. And those reasons are shared with many other animals. Saying we have free will and are detached from nature while "animals" have none is simply your bias talking. I could just as well point out that just as a child may decide to obey it's parents, so may a dog. You tell him not to do something he's about to do, he has two opposing urges, and this divergence has to be dealt with. How different is that really from "I wanna buy a yatch but donating to this charity would be great for those children"?

I mean, you may point the dog is just crudely balancing his wants and his fear of punishment, but how much would the rich guy be able to enjoy his yatch knowing that decision made all those children suffer? And how good wouldn't he feel helping them? Where's the practical difference? If free will is being able to resolve an internal conflict of interest, then every living being has free will.

Those basic instincts I talked about earlier, they're fundamental to our frame of mind, but as social and learning animals we build on that, and every decision we make we refer to those things. See, some people can buy that yatch and not feel bad with themselves. In fact, most people can. It's also natural to feel good helping others, but our needs and wants are central to us. But the fact is you can't make a choice at all without a personality, a background on which you run and weight your different options, and in our case that's our mind, our very definition of self. That's our identity, so our choises are made by us. They do have and impact on us and that framework, on our minds, but it's not like we decide if we're gonna be happy about donating or indifferent about suffering, we, just as any other animal, don't have that kind of control.

Again, I apologise, I was thinking as I typed and won't take the time to try and polish it up :P

Kasz216 said:

Really the whole free choice vs divine will thing is better questioned under the "God knows what choice your going to make so how is it free will arguement" that is made against evangelicism and that suggests full true ominpotent god.

Though even that isn't really a contradiction.  Since if I travel to the future one week and find that you decide to have a diet coke over a coke, then go back to my time....

I've in no way negated your free will.

 

 

Yeah, but the "proper" way would be to include the act of creation on that criticism. Simply knowing the future doesn't infringe on free will (whatever that really is), but if you're creator, all powerfull and all knowing then not only you could choose to create differently, you know how that would affect the entire future. So God would be essentially deciding on all of our actions at the moment of creation, thus negating free will.

Of course that can be countered. You could go with something weird like every thought of God constitutes a reality in itself, but there's a better explanation that actually answers a lot more questions that is to say "God's atemporal". I mean, ok, it breaks all logic down in a sense and makes further inquiry kinda hard, (but hey, isn't that the definition of an all powerfull being? "Something capable of telling all logic and knowlodge to just GTFO"?), but other than  that it's actually quite elegant.