[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 258 KB, 1920x1278, AdobeStock_163571305[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15684205 No.15684205[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is there a view in philosophy/theology that says our lives are "determined" by natural causes with a naturalistic destiny already determined (textbook definition of determinism) but man has the "free will" to reject this natural causal chain ONLY by allowing God to cause his destiny?
Essentially this would mean we only have one "free" choice: to reject God which sets in place our Natural Destiny (Determinism) or accept God and set in motion our Divine Destiny (don't know what this is called) and that is the ONLY free choice we make?

>> No.15684253

>>15684205
bump

>> No.15684306

/lit/????

>> No.15684406

bump

>> No.15684429

How does that one free choice come about if it is inevitably determined from either side?

>> No.15684434

>>15684429
I'm saying the consequences of the that choice are inevitable, not the choice itself which is free.

>> No.15684451

>>15684434
Yes but how is that choice free? if there are two paths for conduct, how do they not determine the choice in path?

>> No.15684469

>>15684451
The choice is free because it is beyond nature and therefore natural laws can not act on it. Other choices have physical laws acting upon them.

>> No.15684511

>>15684205
Going back to the last thread

>>15682822
>If he is presented with choice x or y, his mental states determine his decision.
Correct.

>And that means that every action someone does in his life is predetermined from the moment of his birth.
Incorrect. His uncaused immaterial mental states would by definition not be determined.

>this isn't what people normally mean when they talk about the freedom of the will.
I think that's exactly what normal people mean: that their decisions are not predetermined by physical causes, thus 'free' and 'up to them'. Anything less than that, like what the compatibilist proposes, does not give you not free will.

>> No.15684534

>>15684511
OP here. I didn't know about the previous thread.
Can you respond to what I said? That we can only freely choose or God or reject him and are two destinies are determined by either choice?

>> No.15684535

>>15684205
I've often considers something like this position. It's like Gnostic dualism, but with the Demiurge replaced by the laws of physics. Basically the true God would not be able to change the physical world except by changing our minds, which are partially immaterial. Such an approach would be fairly consistent with empirical science as we know it, yet would allow room for both free will and god.

>> No.15684554

>>15684534
>Can you respond to what I said?
See >>15684535

>That we can only freely choose or God or reject him and are two destinies are determined by either choice?
I wouldn't phrase it as such a stark dichotomy. I would phrase it as, it is possible to break the causal chain of physical fate but only by communing with the spirit through prayer or meditation. Something like that.

>> No.15684556

>>15684554
Is it only Gnostics who believe this?

>> No.15684575

>>15684556
I'm not really a scholar of Gnosticism. I do know that they distinguish the creator of the material world (Demiurge) from the true God. Given that we can explain the material world via physics, I don't see the need for a Demiurge figure. So you are left with the laws of nature and God.

>> No.15685449

>>15684205
A man shoots the president.

Option A, he shoots him for a reason. Let's say he hates his hair. Why does he hate his hair? For a reason. Who knows what reason, but definitely some reason. And on and on. Eventually, the reasons have nothing to do with him. No free will, because the source of his action is a reason outside of his self.

Option B, he shoots him because he hates his hair. Why does he hate his hair? No reason. Well, that means he just shot him randomly. There's no internal source of the will to shoot, either. It just happened. He randomly hated the president's hair, so he randomly shot him. If he hadn't hated the hair, he wouldn't have shot him. Not in his control at any point.

Option C, he shoots him for no reason. Completely random. Not in his control either, because he didn't decide to shoot him–you can only decide something if you have a reason, deciding is choosing between reasons. It's reasoning. So he didn't decide, in just happened. Not in his control.

Free will is an illusion insofar as the self being separate from the universe is an illusion. In light of separation existing, as an intuitive fact, free will is obvious, necessary, constant. But intellectually, it's an impossibility.

>> No.15685684

>>15685449
>Free will is an illusion insofar as the self being separate from the universe is an illusion.
That's why I said opening yourself up to God to escape the determinism you described. Then your actions aren't naturally caused but divinely inspired.

>> No.15685691

>>15685449
>three scenarios in which an action is performed proves that the action was unavoidable and free will is a hoax
So when the man doesn't shoot the president, what then? You're talking about reasons and not action.

>> No.15685775

>>15685691
Scenario A: He doesn't shoot the president for a reason, which has a reason, which has a reason.
Scenario B: He doesn't shoot the president for a reason, which has no reason, and is random.
Scenario C: He doesn't shoot the president, for no reason.

Exact same thing. Jesus, /lit/ is trash these days.

>> No.15685865

>>15684205
God is a part of the determinant system, and Is a determinant Agent, with some sort of "emotions" and "reactions" to inner and outer stimulae, the reactions are defined by His "Character", and the said Character was developed from His "beginning" State in a determined "live and develop" way.

Thus His interaction doesn't free you from determinism.

Maybe in some []-verse, there exists a non-determinant God, but no proof of it in this one, and definitely no proof of any God- determinent or not, in this world.


this post was made by the KSR GANG

>> No.15686421

>>15684511
>uncaused mental states
So they are not caused by freewill? In other words, an entirely useless concept which advances no point and might as well be determined

>> No.15686462

>>15685684
>Then your actions aren't naturally caused but divinely inspired.
It's a combination of both. Determinism is false but that doesn't mean "you" have "free will"

The divinely inspired parts of you that are receiving/coming up with ideas and wills have some amount free will in the roles they play, but you cant identify that as "you" in the strictest conscious sense.

"You" didn't consciously summon that thought, you only got the outcome of the work they did generating it. You weren't conscious of their process. Only because your biology has chained all of you together as a permanent network, you can identify with the whole thing, with the work that they do that you can call your free will

>> No.15686539

>>15686421
They are the free will.

>> No.15686545

>>15684205
Shouldn't determinism be required for free will? If the world isn't logically deterministic, how can you be sure your will does not lead to your actions?

>> No.15686560

>>15684205
Free will doesn't exist

>> No.15686566

>>15684205
overwhelmingly determinist civilizations > ancient greeks, post-medieval europe (italian renaissance, post-cartesian europe) > ubermenschen
overwhelmingly spiritualistic civilizations > mesopotamians, medieval europe > untermenschen

>> No.15686570

>>15686545
Say what?

>> No.15686583

>>15686566
determinism has already been scientifically refuted mr brainlet tier-lister

>> No.15686626

>>15686539
If it springs into existence spontaneously, it is not free will, you are still the victim of the caprice of what ever appears

>> No.15686631

>>15686583
>Our models can't predict certain things so they must not be deterministic
Hardly a refutation

>> No.15686635

>>15684205
does an actor playing a role have free will?

>> No.15686662

>>15686583
1. determinism has not been scientifically refused of course
2. positive science is still too underdeveloped to work on a level where it could confirm or refute determinism. mathematics though is the apotheosis of determinism. physics is implicitly determinist. biology and especially neurophysiology too. all sciences are moving towards the direction of determinism.
3. for now, all we know is that artistically/intellectually superior civilizations embraced determinism, while negroids stuck to spiritualism/animism/totemism

>> No.15686665

>>15686662
>refused of course
*refuted

>> No.15686675

>>15686626
No, it's your free will.

>> No.15686728

>>15686675
>(1. There are different "wills"
>(2. You did not choose the one you have, as that would have required you to have a will to select which will to have
You can't get away from the fact that the very concept of a freewill is laughable because whatever will you have was thrust upon you without your will

>> No.15686863

>>15684511
>>And that means that every action someone does in his life is predetermined from the moment of his birth.
>Incorrect. His uncaused immaterial mental states would by definition not be determined.
You are missing the point.. Even if I concede the existence of uncaused immaterial mental states, your choices will still be predetermined from birth - precisely be these immaterial states. The problem is that you don't choose your mental attributes, you just have them. The choices you make in life are determined by your mental make-up, if you started with a different set you would make different choices. The reason someone is or is not a serial killer, for example, is determined by whether or not he was born with x set of mental states.

>> No.15686882

>>15686728
Your will is a part of you. According to the free will proponent, it was not thrust upon you by the material world but is constitutive of your soul.

>> No.15686897

>>15686863
The immaterial states constituting your present state of mind were not predetermined from birth. They are by definition not determined by anything. Since your choices and actions depend on these states, they too are not predetermined.

>> No.15686902

>>15686462
I don't understand your post at all.
>>15686626
>If it springs into existence spontaneously
But determinists don't believe this is possible. Everything has an earlier cause is what they believe.