Geegee?  Fuss?  Am I being unreasonable?

Holy excrement.

We may have had a break through.

Johnny, I'm not saying man does not have a will. If your skin itches does God have to come down from heaven and say "JOHNNY! scratch your skin! I command you!" No. But what CAUSED you to scratch your itch? What causes you to have sex with your loved one? What causes you to eat?

I don't think that these are good examples of the point you are trying to make, but I understand the point you are making.

"The will is not causeless. Every choice we make is caused."

This I disagree with.

"He is accountable, not responsible. Big difference there."

[sounds of trumpets, soggy New Orleans band, three drunk Chicago Bear fans celebrating a single touchdown][/end jubilance]

I agree.  There is a difference between accountable and responsible.  

But this means that God has designated within his 'will' (to the degree that he is responsible for everything existing at all) the ability for people to exert their OWN individual will.  As I just said on another thread, this has nothing to do with the free will question and everything to do with the omnipotence question.  Is God able to create a system (which ultimately has him to thank for its complete existence) where entities within that system can exert their will in such a way that they themselves are accountable for their actions?

Now, on the face of it, it seems as though your answer may be with mine- 'yes.'  

However, I argue that there is no reason to believe that this power ceases at the end of all things.  He is able to give us the dignity of choice.  And this dignity requires that God 'bear with great patience' the objects of his wrath.  And one day, those who desire a life without God really will get what they desire.  I believe that God can do this.  If God cannot do this, then God hasn't really granted me the dignity of a real choice.

sntjohnny said:

Holy excrement.

Well, there's something I didn't expect to hear from you.

Quote TonyN:
Johnny, I'm not saying man does not have a will. If your skin itches does God have to come down from heaven and say "JOHNNY! scratch your skin! I command you!" No. But what CAUSED you to scratch your itch? What causes you to have sex with your loved one? What causes you to eat?

I don't think that these are good examples of the point you are trying to make, but I understand the point you are making.

I would have used "allowed" rather than "caused."

"The will is not causeless. Every choice we make is caused."

This I disagree with.

I agree with you.

"He is accountable, not responsible. Big difference there."

[sounds of trumpets, soggy New Orleans band, three drunk Chicago Bear fans celebrating a single touchdown][/end jubilance]

I agree. There is a difference between accountable and responsible.

I also agree with what Tony wrote.

But this means that God has designated within his 'will' (to the degree that he is responsible for everything existing at all) the ability for people to exert their OWN individual will. As I just said on another thread, this has nothing to do with the free will question and everything to do with the omnipotence question. Is God able to create a system (which ultimately has him to thank for its complete existence) where entities within that system can exert their will in such a way that they themselves are accountable for their actions?

Now, on the face of it, it seems as though your answer may be with mine- 'yes.'

It's mine, too.

However, I argue that there is no reason to believe that this power ceases at the end of all things. He is able to give us the dignity of choice. And this dignity requires that God 'bear with great patience' the objects of his wrath. And one day, those who desire a life without God really will get what they desire. I believe that God can do this. If God cannot do this, then God hasn't really granted me the dignity of a real choice.

I agree, so long as it's understood that I do not believe in everlasting torment in "hell."

Maybe this will serve as the "what do we have in common" thread after all?

Tony wrote:
"The will is not causeless. Every choice we make is caused."

john replied:
This I disagree with.

Tony's reply:
If choices are not caused, if they just "happen" with no causality at all, then man is not responsible because nothing caused him to do what he did. They just happened.

Tony wrote:
"The will is not causeless. Every choice we make is caused."

john replied:
This I disagree with.

Tony's reply:
If choices are not caused, if they just "happen" with no causality at all, then man is not responsible because nothing caused him to do what he did. They just happened.

This must be another free will topic.

"Tony's reply:
If choices are not caused, if they just "happen" with no causality at all, then man is not responsible because nothing caused him to do what he did. They just happened."

Um.  If a person does something because he was caused to do it, he is responsible.  If a person does something for no cause at all, he is not responsible.

I have no idea how anyone could accept such tortured logic.  Geegee, you understand this?  Frightening.

Two accused of murder stand before a judge.  The judge asks the first:

"Why did you do this?"

"Well, he made fun of my mah.  I had to do it."

"Well, to prison with ya."

The judge asks the second the same question.

"Why did you do this?"

"No reason, sir."

"Are you saying nothing caused you to choose to kill this man?"

"No sir."

"Well, that settles it.  Obviously you aren't responsible, then.  You are free to go."

 

If anyone wants to know why I disagree with what Tony said, its because it wasn't a logically honest thing to say.  Whether choices are caused or not is just another way to asking whether we have free will or not.

His argument against free will is that our choices are caused, which is EXACTLY the same as saying "we don't have free will because we don't have free will."

So, I'd disagree with that statement on two grounds.  1.  I think we do have free will, albeit corrupted, so obviously when presented with a statement that merely asserts that we don't have free will (aka "our choices are caused")  I will reject it.  And 2.  The logic is question begging and fallacious.  I may as well respond to it by saying, Yes, we do have free will because we know that we have free will.  

I think its interesting when we consider this question in the context of the criminal justice system, Tony's view as he has further justified it is completely repudiated.  For one thing, if a person is 'caused' to commit a crime, that's often a mitigating circumstance and will diminish the amount of responsibility we ascribe.  Ie, "I killed him because he was about to kill me."   Of course, some 'causes' turn our stomach.  "I killed him because his money was a great temptation to me."

But on the other side, "I killed him for no good reason, with no cause- it just 'happened'" .... this guy, he is not going to be absolved from responsibility.  No.  This guy is going to fry.  He will CERTAINLY be considered responsible.

But if he's lucky, he'll have a universalist judge and jury, right?

Again, in an applied sense, there are other people that hold this view as well.  We call them liberals.   "He did it because society oppressed him.  Its not his fault, he's not responsible. Society made him what he is."  People who view people as mere reactive machines (caused) blame the system, not the machines.  

The whole reason we might convict a murdered from the 'oppressed classes' is because we recognize in our criminal justice system that no matter what 'caused' someone to do anything, that person still made a choice, and he could have chosen to do something else, specifically, the 'right' thing.

God help us if this philosophy is ever allowed free room in any society.   I suppose Tony might respond like some other secular determinists I have talked to who recognize that one could never let these implications loose in a society.  In otherwords, they recognize that we have to behave exactly the opposite in the REAL world than what we actually believe to be true about the world.

Ummm....since there is basically one thing most spoken of, or questioned on this site recently...except that there has never been a definition of it..I will now create a new thread concerning it under the "christian" section.

Responses are welcomed from all.