Existence

[Bluce Ree]

No, that is what I was taught. God wants us to decide for ourselves and not just do his bidding. We alone make the choice to steal or not steal, to kill or not kill. This determines the people that we become. He also stated that after the great flood, he would never destroy mankind again, he would allow us to do it to ourselves. This is why so many christians believed the nuclear age was the beginning of the end.

So, you don't subscribe to the notions of "God's plan" and "destiny".

 

[Graybrew1]

So, you don't subscribe to the notions of "God's plan" and "destiny".

Part of God's plan that I was brought up with is our free will. As to destiny...........NO, I believe we make our own destiny. This POA also brings Faith into this, which not all have or even believe in.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Part of God's plan that I was brought up with is our free will. As to destiny...........NO, I believe we make our own destiny. This POA also brings Faith into this, which not all have or even believe in.

If one believes that any part or event in their lives was "part of God's plan" then the entire notion of free will is tossed out. Whether "God" sets events in motion to trigger decisions/paths or to create an eventual destiny by nudging your "free will" still implies that your outcome is predetermined. If someone is pulling your strings, your free will is an illusion.

Having "faith" in an outcome implies destiny, which, again, negates "free will". Having "hope" for an outcome implies no predetermination.

 

[Graybrew1]

If one believes that any part or event in their lives was "part of God's plan" then the entire notion of free will is tossed out. Whether "God" sets events in motion to trigger decisions/paths or to create an eventual destiny by nudging your "free will" still implies that your outcome is predetermined. If someone is pulling your strings, your free will is an illusion.

Having "faith" in an outcome implies destiny, which, again, negates "free will". Having "hope" for an outcome implies no predetermination.

NO.

I was brought up that God has a plan to give us free will. Period. He loves us enough to allow us to decide for ourselves. Just us all loving parent's do. Most parents all have plans for their children, the good ones allow their children to make their own decisions and yet still try to help them along the way. That is how I look at God's plan. This entire discussion is of a personal nature. Having faith is no different. Faith in God to me, means I believe he exists and wants what is best for me. Not Destiny. The definitions you speak of , are all "man's" and so they can not be forced onto those that believe in the bible and not just man's words.

It is a hard road to follow for those that are both believer's of God and also wish to pursue earthly knowledge. You simply have to try to keep an open mind about which knowledge came from where and which belief's are merely based on blind faith. When you have faith in a loved one, not God, it does not imply a destiny, it merely implies you have faith in that person's wishes for your well being.

 

[Bluce Ree]

NO.

"NO" what?

I was brought up that God has a plan to give us free will. Period. He loves us enough to allow us to decide for ourselves. Just us all loving parent's do. Most parents all have plans for their children, the good ones allow their children to make their own decisions and yet still try to help them along the way. That is how I look at God's plan. This entire discussion is of a personal nature. Having faith is no different. Faith in God to me, means I believe he exists and wants what is best for me. Not Destiny. The definitions you speak of , are all "man's" and so they can not be forced onto those that believe in the bible and not just man's words.

It is a hard road to follow for those that are both believer's of God and also wish to pursue earthly knowledge. You simply have to try to keep an open mind about which knowledge came from where and which belief's are merely based on blind faith. When you have faith in a loved one, not God, it does not imply a destiny, it merely implies you have faith in that person's wishes for your well being.

What does any of this have to do with what I said above? I was speaking about faith and hope in regards to outcomes and their differences as well as the belief in destiny and the notion that, when things happen to someone (i.e. death, accident, etc) it's somehow part of a big plan. Rather than respond to what I'm discussing you hit me with "NO" followed by a big non-sequitur.

I understand what you're saying but you're off on a completely different subject. I wasn't discussing religion.

 

[Graybrew1]

NO, meant that faith did not infer destiny.

My whole point is that "free will" is ALL about religion for many. I can't argue this point, it is simply a matter of opinion and faith. To put it this way, one main part of my religious faith is that I have free will from God. I neither condemn or judge others who disagree with this or any other religious matters. I simply have mine. I am far from perfect in my God's eyes. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all that....... I did not change a subject. You were rebutting me, not the other way around.

 

[Bluce Ree]

NO, meant that faith did not infer destiny.

Then you didn't respond to anything in my post. Faith can infer destiny depending on context, which I set out in my post.

Your personal notion of "faith" (i.e. faith that God exists) does not infer destiny. However, someone saying they have "faith" that their loved one will recover from an accident because "it's not their time" implies destiny.

My whole point is that "free will" is ALL about religion for many. I can't argue this point, it is simply a matter of opinion and faith. To put it this way, one main part of my religious faith is that I have free will from God. I neither condemn or judge others who disagree with this or any other religious matters. I simply have mine. I am far from perfect in my God's eyes. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all that....... I did not change a subject. You were rebutting me, not the other way around.

I wasn't discussing religion. My reply focused on a single phrase in your post. None of this has anything to do with what I asked.

 

[Graybrew1]

I am done with this subject with you. I made a statement regarding Muzz's statement. You commented on that statement and I responded as I saw fit. It frakin most certainly DOES have to do with religion. Read certain bible's and you will see this.

Joelist , Rac can you please explain this better? To say that "free will" does not have to do with religion for "many" , not all , as I stated is heresy to those that believe that.

Yes, faith can infer several different things. The one I was was referring to from my OP is religion based because free will is directly connected to religion for quite a few human beings on this planet. Never once did I state I was right and your were wrong. I stated that many believe this. I have no need to respond to your comments because that was not the original point of discussion I was speaking of. Yours is an intellectual discussion alone, mine was and always has been connected to a statement about how free will is directly a part of millions for their relgious beliefs and so this makes this impossible to debate merely on the merits of intellect alone for myself and many others.

 

[OMNI]

per usual religiously brainwashed people get their panties in a bunch as soon as their deluted "beliefs" are even slightly challenged or some form of logic is brought up.. nothing new under the sun..

 

[Bluce Ree]

Ok, here we go. First, the original post:

That depends on more than just an intellectual argument. It is the basis of many christians that God gave us "free will" [...]

Isn't that a contradiction? And, if one subscribes to the "God's plan" doctrine, doesn't that and "destiny" basically negate the whole notion of "free will" and render the whole concept to nothing more than an illusion?

If it's all an illusion, then, do we truly exist?

And here is where you ended up:

I am done with this subject with you. I made a statement regarding Muzz's statement. You commented on that statement and I responded as I saw fit. It frakin most certainly DOES have to do with religion. Read certain bible's and you will see this.

I'm going to start questioning your basic comprehension skills here. I am not talking about religion. I was referring to the bolded in your post.

Joelist , Rac can you please explain this better? To say that "free will" does not have to do with religion for "many" , not all , as I stated is heresy to those that believe that.

Here you go on as if I said "free will has nothing to do with religion". I said I was not discussing religion so feel free to point out where in my posts to you I said "free will has nothing to do with religion".

Yes, faith can infer several different things. The one I was was referring to from my OP is religion based because free will is directly connected to religion for quite a few human beings on this planet. Never once did I state I was right and your were wrong. I stated that many believe this. I have no need to respond to your comments because that was not the original point of discussion I was speaking of.

I merely extracted a part of your post and asked your thoughts about it by pointing out an alternate point of view. By that bolded statement, you're saying "I have no idea how to respond so I will bury my head in the sand :smiley-lala: and keep yelling my non-sequiturs until you go away".

Yours is an intellectual discussion alone, [...]

Yes, and I was hoping to engage you in that intellectual discourse, which I mistakenly thought you would/could do. My apologies. I'll try not to confuse you with such complex subjects in the future and stick to simple things so I don't make your brain explode.

mine was and always has been connected to a statement about how free will is directly a part of millions for their relgious beliefs and so this makes this impossible to debate merely on the merits of intellect alone for myself and many others.

It is obvious that you are incapable of engaging anyone on an intellectual level in an impartial manner.

 

[shavedape]

See? SEE?????????? I knew this thread would get out of hand. Now our idyll paradise has been rent asunder due to the original nonsensical query challenging the validity of existence. Did Whitney Houston's death teach us nothing????????????????????????

 

[Bluce Ree]

See? SEE?????????? I knew this thread would get out of hand. Now our idyll paradise has been rent asunder due to the original nonsensical query challenging the validity of existence. Did Whitney Houston's death teach us nothing????????????????????????

Yes, it did.

 

[Graybrew1]

Ok, here we go. First, the original post:



And here is where you ended up:



I'm going to start questioning your basic comprehension skills here. I am not talking about religion. I was referring to the bolded in your post.




Here you go on as if I said "free will has nothing to do with religion". I said I was not discussing religion so feel free to point out where in my posts to you I said "free will has nothing to do with religion".




I merely extracted a part of your post and asked your thoughts about it by pointing out an alternate point of view. By that bolded statement, you're saying "I have no idea how to respond so I will bury my head in the sand :smiley-lala: and keep yelling my non-sequiturs until you go away".



Yes, and I was hoping to engage you in that intellectual discourse, which I mistakenly thought you would/could do. My apologies. I'll try not to confuse you with such complex subjects in the future and stick to simple things so I don't make your brain explode.



It is obvious that you are incapable of engaging anyone on an intellectual level in an impartial manner.

View attachment 7120

You completely twist my words and spin and insult me again.

I made a statement, you tried to debunk. I stand by my statement. I tried to explain it, but you don.t get it.

 

[Bluce Ree]

You completely twist my words and spin and insult me again.

I made a statement, you tried to debunk. I stand by my statement. I tried to explain it, but you don.t get it.

What you meant to say is, "I stand by my non-sequitur".

I give up. It's like trying to converse with a wall.

 

[mzzz]

What the hell does this even mean??? "well defined"??? You quibble with Rand's definition of existence because she wasn't needlessly verbose???



So, "perceptual reality" is unjustified? Hmm, interesting... And how do you discern reality, that is, if you acknowledge reality at all?

P.S. -- You are a classic example of one who uses the "stolen concept fallacy" as a method of argument (See also Aristotle's "reaffirmation through denial"). You use the very concepts you deny in a fraudulent attempt to "prove" your argument to be correct. You attempt to negate reason by means of reason. You question the validity of existence while ignoring the fact that you have to exist first before positing such a query. You deny axioms, namely the Primacy of Existence, and completely ignore the fact that if it wasn't for this irreducible primary you wouldn't be here stinking up the place with your freshman level regurgitation of Cartesian nonsense. You, sadly, are trying to prove "I think, therefore I am" while ignoring the epistemological fact that there has to be an "I" first (existence) before there can be any "thinking" (consciousness) that takes place. (The proper term reads: "I am, therefore I think".)

You do need a definition of existence and it's not needlessly verbose. You're maintaining the view that consciousness is a proper subset of existence, but how can you say that without defining existence. If you don't define it, you can't argue that it is a proper subset, for all we know it could just be a normal subset, or even just equal sets.

See, again you assume the correctness of your stance and using that to judge. I didn't question the validity of my existence, but her undefined existence and her argument as a result of that. I never brought Descartes into this. This is solely her argument or rather lack thereof.

 

[mzzz]

Haha, I forgot to add the clause that to try to not argue about free will in terms of God, because that'd require a whole new set of justifications, God's existence, your religion, etc. But carry on, anyone have thoughts into the second question, whether there is a difference between an act and omission.

 

[Graybrew1]

Haha, I forgot to add the clause that to try to not argue about free will in terms of God, because that'd require a whole new set of justifications, God's existence, your religion, etc. But carry on, anyone have thoughts into the second question, whether there is a difference between an act and omission.

Yes, it does.
That was my whole point.

It is a whole different ball of wax.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Haha, I forgot to add the clause that to try to not argue about free will in terms of God, because that'd require a whole new set of justifications, God's existence, your religion, etc. But carry on, anyone have thoughts into the second question, whether there is a difference between an act and omission.

I think the difference here in the way you are "couching" it is that one demands you accept responsibilty (the act) and one pretty much doesn't (the omission). One puts you in the position of being judged by others, one put you in the position of being judged by yourself.

 

[Graybrew1]

They are two totally different ways of looking at it. One is by blind faith and the other is by intellect.

That is not to say one is right or the other is wrong, just that they are different. I walk the fine line and try to trust my beliefs and keep an open mind about the intellectual nature of it. This is far from the first time I have been told that it is impossible. I simply continue to try to walk that line.

 

[mzzz]

I think the difference here in the way you are "couching" it is that one demands you accept responsibilty (the act) and one pretty much doesn't (the omission). One puts you in the position of being judged by others, one put you in the position of being judged by yourself.

I didn't want to get overly specific and wanted you guys to develop the necessary parameters on your own, just like the thing you brought up, bringing in the additional parameter of 'causal blame'. There's plenty of ways to look at it, you could look at it without causal implications and just the act itself, whether they are the same. Or with causal implication, which is often the case during specific cases of this during abortion/euthanasia.