christian counter-arguments?

[David]

damn you and your logic lol....

but really... I think that just by having an illusion of free will is enough to call it free will.

because, like I said before, whether you really have the choice or not, there's still a different option... even if there's no way to choose that other option, it's still there.

[dead jim]

Originally Posted by gold.n.god

but really... I think that just by having an illusion of free will is enough to call it free will.

sure, if you think living in the matrix (minus the few who know the difference, that is) is the same as living in the real world.

because, like I said before, whether you really have the choice or not, there's still a different option... even if there's no way to choose that other option, it's still there.

i guess i don't know what it means to say that there's some other option you can't choose.

[putis]

I was under the impression that a 'choice' you can't choose isn't a choice at all.

[dead jim]

Originally Posted by putis616

I was under the impression that a 'choice' you can't choose isn't a choice at all.

you and me both.

[David]

apparently you don't choose anything at all... so that word shouldn't even be used anymore.

I said option for a reason.

[dead jim]

Originally Posted by gold.n.god

apparently you don't choose anything at all... so that word shouldn't even be used anymore.

I said option for a reason.

i don't see what "option" there is. and i'm unsure what the distinction between "option" and "choice" is. they sound like synonyms. for example, "you have two choices," and "you have two options" mean the same thing.

[David]

an option is something that you have extra, doesn't have to be used, doesn't have to be able to be used, it's just there.

[dead jim]

Originally Posted by gold.n.god

an option is something that you have extra, doesn't have to be used, doesn't have to be able to be used, it's just there.

i don't know where you got that idea, but an option that can't be opted isn't a legitimate option. again, 'option' is a synonym of 'choice'. at the risk of being pedantic, i'll quote dictionary.com:
option:

1. the power or right of choosing.
2. something that may be or is chosen; choice.
3. the act of choosing.
4. an item of equipment or a feature that may be chosen as an addition to or replacement for standard equipment and features: a car with a long list of extra-cost options; a telephoto lens option for a camera.
5. stock option.
6. a privilege acquired, as by the payment of a premium or consideration, of demanding, within a specified time, the carrying out of a transaction upon stipulated terms; the right, as granted in a contract or by an initial payment, of acquiring something in the future: We bought one lot and took a 90-day option on an adjoining one.
7. Football. a play in which a back has a choice of either passing or running with the ball.
–verb (used with object)
8. to acquire or grant an option on: The studio has optioned his latest novel for film adaptation.
9. to provide with optional equipment: The car can be fully optioned at additional cost.

nowhere there does it suggest anything along the lines of something you can't choose. i'm not quoting that to be a jerk, but, since we're debating the word, you'll have to give me an example of a use of 'option' where there is something for which you cannot opt.

more than that, though, i need to understand what you mean in the first place. even without the discussion of whether or not you can opt or choose or whatever this other action is, i don't understand what other possible actions you're saying exist. are you talking about in a situation where causality fails and, hence, pure randomness exists, such as in the case where you hit a billiard ball and, instead of taking it's predetermined course, it turns into a chicken? i mean, if pure randomness is at play, then i guess there are are limitless possibilities, even if there is no way to choose which possibility is the eventual outcome. is that what you're talking about? if so, are you relying on quantum mechanics for the suggestion that such randomness exists? if that is the case, i am fully prepared to continue on and suggest that determinism is still salvageable, but i need to know where we're at right now.

[David]

example:

you can choose to respond, or you can choose not to.

but according to you, only one of those options is really available to you. That's an example of an option that can't be chosen

[putis]

But you did choose it. You chose to not respond.

Originally Posted by gold.n.god

you can choose to respond, or you can choose not to.

Just because the choice you make is not necessarily an action, doesn't mean it's some kind of choice that isn't chosen.

[dead jim]

Originally Posted by gold.n.god

example:

you can choose to respond, or you can choose not to.

but according to you, only one of those options is really available to you. That's an example of an option that can't be chosen

the point here is that it only appears to be an option, but, in fact, it is not. we simply don't have the means to accurately predict the actual outcome, so we come up with those most likely. you could respond to the thread, eat a cheeseburger, go play with your zune, but we don't think of you being able to flap your arms and fly away. that doesn't seem to be an option. however, if we take this seriously, it looks like no other action other than the one you took was ever possible. the issue is that we don't know enough of the determining factors.
think of it this way. if you're playing pool, you can't be sure if the ball you're shooting at will go into the pocket or not, so you think of both outcomes as equally possible. however, once the shot has been taken, you understand that the outcome you witnessed was the only one that could occur given the circumstances. that is, if you hit the ball on the left side, the ball will move to the right. it can't move to the left. once it goes to the right, it does whatever physical laws dictate it must do.
well, you're made up of a bunch of physical stuff that is determined by physical laws as well. in the same way the ball didn't have a "choice" to move a different direction you don't have a choice to do anything differently either. it isn't the case that once the ball was hit on the left there was an "option" for it to move left. on the contrary, there was no possible action other than the one that occurred. our ignorance of all the relevant factors doesn't change that situation. just because you aren't aware of the necessity of some outcome doesn't make it any less necessary.
do you get what i'm saying? neurons in your brain don't get activated unless neighboring neurons provide the proper stimulus. they're like billiard balls getting moved. a ball doesn't move without getting hit by another ball (or moved by some other general force like wind, etc), and your neurons don't activate without affecting and being affected by neighboring neurons. in that respect there is only one possible outcome, and there is no other option. we just can't predict the outcome because of how massively complicated the system is.

for anyone hoping to come back with issues of quantum randomness i'll simply say that those events aren't actually "random," but we need not have that discussion at all. if events were completely random there would still be no room for any choice to be made, and we would be forced to admit that, however improbable, there is always the possibility that, rather than being moved toward the right, the billiard ball in the previous scenario could simply turn into a chicken. randomness is random, and, hence, it gets us nothing.

[David]

yeah I get what you're saying... the thing about the neurons explained a little about what you're trying to say to me.

what I thought you orriginally meant was that all of my actions were determined by something that happened earlier... which is somewhat true also.

I think there could have been a better example that billiards though... because you choose where the ball goes... that is if you're good enough at the game lol. But I get what you're saying.

[David]

did I end the argument with my agreeing with you?

oh well.. it's the counter schistian argument thread anyway... not the free will thread.

so doesn't the fact that we have no free will prove that something about the bible is wrong?

[dead jim]

yea, i guess it didn't seem like there was much left to say.

as far as evidence against God, several versions of Christianity have some form of "predestination," and it's close enough to determinism to suggest that determinism and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive.
the deal is, however, that most Christians who don't accept determinism would have an out by talking about a "soul." souls aren't material, hence they are not subject to causal laws. of course, there doesn't seem to be any way for the immaterial to interact with the material, and any such doing would seem to necessarily contradict any of the conservation laws, but if you already believe God is magic, then a little more magic in the form of such interaction is no biggie.
of course, then you have that whole God-being-omniscient-doesn't-allow-for-real-choice problem, but that's where faith comes in.

[David]

damn that faith... making people this stuff... lol

so some chistian sub-groups beleive that they don't have free will?

but like I asked before... does it say there's free will in the bible?
because if it does, that proves the bible wrong... which makes god wrong.

but if it never says we have free will in the bible... then it doesn't matter.

[putis]

Originally Posted by gold.n.god

because if it does, that proves the bible wrong...

If that's all you're trying to do, there's plenty of easier ways to do it.

[David]

i'm just adding to the list of bible imperfections... but I still don't know if it says that anywhere in the bible.

[dead jim]

the Bible never mentions free will, although it can certainly be inferred in many places. that said, here is a site that argues that the Bible explicitly rules out free will: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/chri..._freewill.html