If god can't affect free will, then

[poxpower]

Religious topic number 25 823 948 923
Sub-category: God vs Free will
Sub-sub-category: Omnipotence vs free will
sub-sub-sub category: pseudo-scientific babble

=======
Alright here me out homies.

1. Free will assumes we make choices for ourselves.
2. the choices we make take place in our brains
3. our brains are composed of electric currents, and tiny little LEGO bricks.
4. everything is basicaly made with these same bricks.
SO --- if you took a rock and a brain, separated the pieces and put them in a big jar, it would be impossible to know which piece belonged to what in the first place.

5. Influencing the brain would be a matter of moving the bricks around.
6. If God can't influence free will, then it must mean he cannot move the bricks in our brain.
7. Those bricks are exactly the same as all other bricks

In conclusion, since everything is made out of those little blocks, if God can't affect free will, then God can't affect ANYTHING.

yay

can you find the loopholes?
bonus activity ( ask your parents ): you and a friend each pick a household appliance and start praying to it. Whichever appliance grants the most wishe... er prayers is your new God!

[TonioMiguel]

In conclusion, since everything is made out of those little blocks, if God can't affect free will, then God can't affect ANYTHING.

Real cute Poxpower but what about we people who think we actually come to God on our own accord? Truth be not all Christians are Calvinists. I am a Wesleyan which means I do believe God shows himself and his goodness to us but I do not believe he actually makes me follow him. So your foolish an infantile remarks only work for mainstream churches and not Evangelical.

First of all if you do not belong to a church than this post is about a mediocre as an evolutionist trying to prove the Big Bang is a better explanation than intelligent design which is impossible because both are....hmm... how can I put it.... Theories and not facts.

Affecting free will is for the Calvinists so not all Christians will be easily bought on your lego theory.

[Tomsan]

easy tonio its just a little word game.

I have some to if poxpower doesnt mind:

1. The creation of the world is the most miraculeus(wonderfull) performance imaginable.

2. The 'goodness' (its a wrong translation, but I cant translate the dutch word) of the performance is a product of (a) her intrinsic quality and (b) of the competence of her maker.

3. The bigger the incompetence of the maker the more impressive the perfomance.

4. The most fearsome handicap for a maker would be its non existence.

5. Therefor, when we assume that the universe is the product of an existing creator, we could imagine an even greater being, the creator who created everything without existing.

6. An existing god would therefor not be the greatest being, that mankind can imagine, because an even more fearsome and more miraculeus creator would be the god that doesnt exist.

ergo:

7. God does not exist.

[IllustriousPotentate]

First, who says that God can't affect free will? Couldn't one say God is moving the Legos© around in such a way to make us believe that there is a free will?

Second, what if there is no free will?

[poxpower]

At 1/11/07 09:19 AM, Tomsan wrote:

3. The bigger the incompetence of the maker the more impressive the perfomance.

You mean, as in 'wow, I can't believe he pulled that off!!"?

At 1/11/07 09:21 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: First, who says that God can't affect free will?

Some religious nuts.
Can't believe you're seriously asking this :o
Haven't you been on this forum long enough? Haha

[Tomsan]

At 1/11/07 09:55 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/11/07 09:19 AM, Tomsan wrote:

3. The bigger the incompetence of the maker the more impressive the perfomance.

You mean, as in 'wow, I can't believe he pulled that off!!"?

yes, when we have two watchmakers, one normal man, one blind and without arms, and they both make an equally impressive watch, I would admire the one comming from the maker with no arms and being blind more.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/11/07 08:29 AM, poxpower wrote: Religious topic number 25 823 948 923

1. Free will assumes we make choices for ourselves.

Assumes? Why do you assume?
Free will means "we make choices"

2. the choices we make take place in our brains

Really! I've heard from at least 1 girl, that we sometimes think with our little head!
So there goes the "always thinking with your brain" theory.

3. our brains are composed of electric currents, and tiny little LEGO bricks.

I wonder if the bricks come in 'Lego' colors?

4. everything is basicaly made with these same bricks.
SO --- if you took a rock and a brain, separated the pieces and put them in a big jar, it would be impossible to know which piece belonged to what in the first place.

I would have to agree, if the pieces were really , really small.

5. Influencing the brain would be a matter of moving the bricks around.

Maybe it would be the moving of small electrical currents instead of the bricks.

6. If God can't influence free will, then it must mean he cannot move the bricks in our brain.

Although he isn't able to move the bricks, he is still screwing with the tiny electric currents

7. Those bricks are exactly the same as all other bricks

not moving at all,ok.
but still being affected by the electricity.

In conclusion, since everything is made out of those little blocks, if God can't affect free will, then God can't affect ANYTHING.

you left out the electricity again.

yay

yay

can you find the loopholes?

I think I found a loophole.

bonus activity ( ask your parents ): you and a friend each pick a household appliance and start praying to it. Whichever appliance grants the most wishe... er prayers is your new God!

I just tried doing this to the fridge...oh my new god it worked
I prayed for there to be a beer left...
And there was ,
yay, it was cold too!
All bow down to
the mighty all powerful refrigerator!

[Peter-II]

Your argument assumes that free will is a result of physical neuroscientific actions and reactions, which is something I agree with.

However, if you're assuming everything is physical, then you're essentially implying that a personal god doesn't exist in the first place, since that would also mean that nothing metaphysical exists in the universe. Meaning there's no "God feeling" or any of that stuff.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

Not even all evolutionists believe in entire free will. The nature/nurture problem is how that is called. Genes effect our thinking in a way we don't even try to imagine. You think that you think free, but it might as well be an illusion.

I am confinced that God created the world through evolution, therefor he was the one that indirectly created our genes, and our genes controll (for a part) our choices. So god cannot effect free will, cause he already did.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

At 1/11/07 01:44 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: God affects your soul through the Holy Spirit, G.

Indeed, but then we can still do whatever we want with it, atleast in my point of view. I'm ofcourse no theologist.

[Begoner]

That would be clever if there was free will in the first place, but free will does not exist. We don't have free will any more than a computer or a triple-beam balance does.

[Goldensheep]

Loophole:

You assume God exists. This is fine.
Assuming God does not exist, there is a problem; we could have free will or not, but your argument is flawed, since it assumes the existance of God.

Assuming God does exist, then you presuppose the idea of a spiritual world. Again, fine, although some philosophical issues not worth going into here.
If you do not accept a spiritual world exists, you have to accept God is a person. May I suggest myself as an ideal model?

You presuppose, therefore, the idea of a world which is not affected, or composed, of your Lego bricks.
Again, denying this leads to the 'fact' that God has to be a person. I've never met Him.

If God can influence a rock, then you presuppose that this non-physical world can interact with the physical world we know and love.
Otherwise God cannot influence a rock, or a brain, and we have free will.

So why can't the brain have a spiritual dimension - if you like, a 'soul'.
Although I haven't proved we have free will, I've proved your argument can't be known for certain. Therefore you can equally comfotably believe in free will or not, depending on the day of the week.

This argument overlooks the fact there are other relevant arguments against free will.

[Togukawa]

At 1/11/07 04:37 PM, Goldensheep wrote: Loophole:

You assume God exists. This is fine.
Assuming God does not exist, there is a problem; we could have free will or not, but your argument is flawed, since it assumes the existance of God.

The argument is: if God exists and he can't affect free will, he can't affect anything. The flaw is definitely not in the assumption of God's existence... In the case of "God exists" being false, nothing is being said, so it can't be flawed.

Assuming God does exist, then you presuppose the idea of a spiritual world. Again, fine, although some philosophical issues not worth going into here.
If you do not accept a spiritual world exists, you have to accept God is a person. May I suggest myself as an ideal model?

Or an animal, or a kitchen appliance, or... With spiritual world I guess you mean metaphysical world?

You presuppose, therefore, the idea of a world which is not affected, or composed, of your Lego bricks.
Again, denying this leads to the 'fact' that God has to be a person. I've never met Him.

The lego bricks he's talking about are the elemental particles of nature, bozons, quarks, leptons and so on. The world IS composed of those. The question is merely whether there's something else outside of the physical world too, i.e. metaphysical.

Denying it, i.e. accepting reality, says nothing about whether a metaphysical world does or does not exist. The world is definitely physical and constructed out of matter.

If God can influence a rock, then you presuppose that this non-physical world can interact with the physical world we know and love.

Indeed, and the possibility of interacting with the physical world implies the possibility of interacting with free wil. But God can't influence free will (premise), hence God can't interact with the physical world, because of reductio ad absurdum. That's essentialy the argument...

Otherwise God cannot influence a rock, or a brain, and we have free will.

Nope. It's not because there isn't any theological determinism, that there isn't any other kind of determinism. God not influencing anything is a necessary condition for free will, not a sufficient one.

So why can't the brain have a spiritual dimension - if you like, a 'soul'.

Separating free will into a metaphysical realm allows God to influence the physical world (in this argument). However, it has been proven that free will is NOT entirely seperated from the physical world. Drugs and other addictive substances for example, definitely physical, will screw free will over.

Hence, free will can't be entirely put into the metaphysical realm, and hence God interacting with the physical world still implies the possibility of theological determinism leading to absense of free will.

Although I haven't proved we have free will, I've proved your argument can't be known for certain. Therefore you can equally comfotably believe in free will or not, depending on the day of the week.

You haven't proven anything. Not even that it can't be known for certain. Note that the argument has a condition: IF God can't affect ...

This argument overlooks the fact there are other relevant arguments against free will.

With 'this' argument, you refer to your own?

Otherwise God cannot influence a rock, or a brain, and we have free will.

In that sentence you imply that God's ability to influence a rock or a brain is not only the single obstacle to free will, but even that removing the obstacle immediately guarantees free will. This is false of course.

Poxpower's argument says that God influencing the physical world is AN argument against free will. If we assume that free will exists, that means that God, if he exists, can't influence the physical world. In no way does it say anything about other arguments against free will.

Such as for example if everything is made out of tiny lego blocks that obey certain laws of nature, then our thoughts too must obey certain laws of nature, from which it follows that there is no free will. (Not that I endorse this argument)

Either this, or I misinterpreted poxpower's post entirely :)

[Aserg]

I for one do not believe in this so-called "free will". Our wills are in one way or another subject to one or more influences in the universe, such as "desire" and "want".

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/11/07 04:29 PM, Begoner wrote: That would be clever if there was free will in the first place, but free will does not exist. We don't have free will any more than a computer or a triple-beam balance does.

So who told you to type this.

[Begoner]

At 1/11/07 09:08 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: So who told you to type this.

The laws of physics which govern all the interactions between all the particles in the universe. Self-awareness is simply the result of chemical reactions occurring your brain; the same is true of thought. There is no such thing as "randomness"; everything is dependent on a set of physical laws. Therefore, there is no free will. What you will do has already been determined.

[iAnimate]

He can affect free will. But he chooses not to. See, God observes us like somebody would playing an RTS. Occassionally building a human, etc. But he is busy with like meetings in heaven and such, so he just let's the whole thing kinda run and see's what happens.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/11/07 09:14 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/11/07 09:08 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The laws of physics which govern all the interactions between all the particles in the universe. Self-awareness is simply the result of chemical reactions occurring your brain; the same is true of thought. There is no such thing as "randomness"; everything is dependent on a set of physical laws. Therefore, there is no free will. What you will do has already been determined.

May I ask which theory of physics describes this.

Just for a personal info search if I may.

No use arguing on a subject that I have little knowledge of know is there.

[Vrael]

I find this topic inadvertently or indirectly offensive to humans, but more specifically newgrounders since we are the ones reading it. Yes, there are loopholes; furthermore, even though this is insulting it's almost funny

good job pox

[Freemind]

At 1/11/07 09:22 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: May I ask which theory of physics describes this.

Just for a personal info search if I may.

No use arguing on a subject that I have little knowledge of know is there.

I don't think it is a theory, really, but I believe he is correct. Everything in the universe is a chemical reaction and everything behaves as it does for a reason. If you technically knew the precise location of every atom, how energy was flowing through it, all other factors, etc, you could technically tell the future because the patterns are set. The same goes for human behavior since we are just another part of the physical universe.

[Altarus]

At 1/11/07 04:29 PM, Begoner wrote: That would be clever if there was free will in the first place, but free will does not exist. We don't have free will any more than a computer or a triple-beam balance does.

But humans have the ability to suffer. That is an ability no computer will ever have. Therefore, I have defeated your argument.

[AdamRice]

At 1/11/07 09:21 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: First, who says that God can't affect free will?

Quite a few in the christian and catholic religion, some of my friends, and the movie Bruce Almighty. Infact, most religious people will say that god can't force them to do things but "shows them the way" or some crazy stuff like that.

Personally I'm already hard at work on that bonus activity, maybe if I pray to my 19" LCD monitor long enough it will grant me newgrounds mod powers so I will no longer have to suck mod cock like I'm kind of doing right now.

[Memorize]

I sense a really weird Matrix Movie/Fate thing going on.

"You didn't come here to make the choice. You already made it..."

What? I didn't do it yet but I already made it? Yet I made the choice to make it?

*BRAINFREEZE*

[Enders-Army]

ugh. another religious topic. You guys do realize that by arguing about a topic such as this, you've completely missed the point of talking about something that is religious. The reason why is because you talk about religion as if its something you can prove. You can't. This is eventually the mistake everyone makes. Thats why a religion is a belief in something. You can't prove anything about it in the terms that mankind always want: physical proof. You start to talk as if one side of the topic will eventually outdo the other side, thus proving that the side that outdid the other, is true. This is completely wrong. now personally, I am a Christian, and I believe in God the father, and that he created everything that exists, and that through the death of his son Jesus Christ, all the sins of mankind were payed for on the cross. I believe that. And I always will. Thats the path I have chosen for my life. And I going to try to live my life in the best way I can. And if you choose to not believe in that or any other religion, then thats what you've choosen. End of arguement. You can't stop someone from believing in what they believe. I think that is true. Whatever you choose to believe in is your choice and your choice alone. I also believe that something eventually has to be true, to all mankind. An ultimate truth of sorts. But who the hell knows what that may be. I have my beliefs, and im content with those. I just hope that we may all find out one day. for the sake of at least one thing: that there will be one idea or truth that all people can agree upon without arguement.

[poxpower]

At 1/11/07 11:16 AM, Peter-II wrote:

However, if you're assuming everything is physical, then you're essentially implying that a personal god doesn't exist in the first place, since that would also mean that nothing metaphysical exists in the universe. Meaning there's no "God feeling" or any of that stuff.

aw you found my hole : (
Indeed, according to religious people, god is "metaphysical" , which is short for "whatever you say, I am still right!!!!!"

At 1/11/07 04:37 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

So why can't the brain have a spiritual dimension - if you like, a 'soul'.
Although I haven't proved we have free will, I've proved your argument can't be known for certain. Therefore you can equally comfotably believe in free will or not, depending on the day of the week.

Yes, of course, because everything is either 100% true, 0% true or 50% true!

At 1/11/07 05:42 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Poxpower's argument says that God influencing the physical world is AN argument against free will. If we assume that free will exists, that means that God, if he exists, can't influence the physical world. In no way does it say anything about other arguments against free will.

Indeed. You understand sire.

Usually people say God can't both be omnipotent AND let us have free will, but I take it one step further and say he can't do SHIT if he can't affect free will :o
Anyways, we could lose ourselves in stupidity fights over this, because "free will" doesn't even mean anything concrete in a Christian's mind. It's just some vague psycho babble that means about as much as calling someone a "republican".

but I won't get into that today. But it's fascinatingly hilarious.

At 1/11/07 11:17 PM, AdamRice wrote:

Quite a few in the christian and catholic religion, some of my friends, and the movie Bruce Almighty.

Yeah that movie was funny. Haha. It's got so many godhood loopholes. But who gives a shit, it ruled.

At 1/12/07 12:02 AM, Enders-Army wrote: ugh. another religious topic. You guys do realize that by arguing about a topic such as this, you've copeniscake

Ugh, another 15 year-old who walks into a topic about a very specific aspect of a specific religion and who copy/pastes his brilliant deduction that we can't prove God one way or the other, even if it it completely irelevant to the subject at hand.

[DingoTheDog]

If god created the universe then god must also be the creator of time. In which case everything we do is pre planned.

Why dont you put this in General, will be good a for few laughs.

[JackLee]

The motions of all the particles that make up our universe however is not necessarily fixed. There is a theory that subatomic particle interact entire through probability. So when two particles collide, there does not have to be only one outcome, there are other potential outcomes with different probabilities that will occur.

Pretend it was possible to recreated the EXACT same collision between two particles (and I mean exact, including all their properties in Space/time), you can indeed get different results with the exact same collision.

So in that sense, there is not going to any definite arrangement of lego at any future time, because there are different probabilities any particular outcome. In that sence, free will can exist.

[Togukawa]

At 1/12/07 08:01 AM, JackLee wrote: The motions of all the particles that make up our universe however is not necessarily fixed. There is a theory that subatomic particle interact entire through probability. So when two particles collide, there does not have to be only one outcome, there are other potential outcomes with different probabilities that will occur.

Not only subatomic particles, everything. Only for macroscopic objects the effects aren't measurable.

When two particles collide, there's only one outcome, depending on their momentum. The problem is we can't know the momentum, unless we have no clue whatsoever where the particle is, in which case it would be hard to see the collision.

Pretend it was possible to recreated the EXACT same collision between two particles (and I mean exact, including all their properties in Space/time), you can indeed get different results with the exact same collision.

But that isn't possible, since you can't even KNOW all the properties of a single particle in space/time. To say you would get different results with the same collision is meaningless. "Hey, if quantumtheory were invalid and we knew the properties, then quantum theory says we could have different outcomes!" :/ Either you assume it's invalid, or you assume it's valid. Don't mix :)

So in that sense, there is not going to any definite arrangement of lego at any future time, because there are different probabilities any particular outcome. In that sence, free will can exist.

If everything we do is random, how is that free will? I wouldn't say quantum mechanics gives the possibility of free will...

[cold-as-hell]

I think if god gave us free will, and will not show himself. Then it is my right not to believe in him/her. So he would be a total knob for sending me to hell.

Its like giving a 4 year old an uzi.

[Enders-Army]

At 1/12/07 12:02 AM, Enders-Army wrote: ugh. another religious topic. You guys do realize that by arguing about a topic such as this, you've copeniscake

Ugh, another 15 year-old who walks into a topic about a very specific aspect of a specific religion and who copy/pastes his brilliant deduction that we can't prove God one way or the other, even if it it completely irelevant to the subject at hand.

I suppose you didn't even bother to read the rest of my post. oh well.

Irrelevant- unrelated to matters being discussed. Two "r"s there buddy.