Do universal logic absolutes remove the power of choice?

[cardw]

I'm glad that you are admitting that the idea of collateral damage is at least a mystery. I think if god picked and chose we could at least argue that there was some kind of consistent standard.

I think what is really happening is that people die and humans need to assign some god to the event when in reality it is really random as far as who dies.

I think what many people do, who need to have a source or god, is to move toward deism to explain the apparent randomness of life.

As far as the harm of any belief goes, it really is the actions that are carried out in the name of that belief. And in my experience sometimes a well meaning fool can cause more suffering than a tyrant.

I want to be clear that I am not saying that you are a fool or that your beliefs are harmful on an individual level. I do think that moderates, in supporting an authoritative respect for the myths of the Bible, do tend to give support to the more fundamental totalitarian aspects of Christian behavior.

[cardw]

Mark,

The reasons why a universal law of logic around cause and effect negate free will are outlined in the opening post to this thread.

[Twilight]

If there is one cause that allows many effects then the problem you present does not exist.

But if there is only one effect from every cause, then your opening argument stands.

Absolute laws of logic, govern the "field" of acceptable thoughts and choices, they do not "limit" that field to simple single choices.

They just negate all those choices that would not make sense.

It is a bit like saying, pork is bad for me, therefore I cannot eat any ice cream.

This would be illogical.

Pork is out of the picture, but the choice of ice cream is still plentiful.

This is logical.

Cause allows for a multitude of positive effects, but ultimately it also allowed for a negative effect.

Without it, the great controversy would never have started...

Mark :-)

[cardw]

Mark,

There is nothing in the explanation that limits it to only positive effects. Your point has nothing to do with negating freedom of choice.

Absolute logic is binary. You have either true or false. The variety of effects is dependent on the number variables. This is why absolute logic removes choice. If your origin of cause is god then all effects stem from that one source.

[Twilight]

I could make the same argument from "naturalism".

The belief that all things are a result of natural events.

In fact, that is the only place you could really make it from.

Because only a closed system would bring that type of freedom from choice that you have pointed out here.

But if the system was closed but controlled, then there would be choice within that system.

[cardw]

An absolute universal system is a closed system.

When you state there are a variety of choices then the system is no longer absolute or universal in terms of logic.

To use your illustration. When is 2+2 not 4?

[Twilight]

2 + "a variable" = many variables.

That then allows for choice and also allows for universal laws of logic to be maintained.

I do not see that laws reduce choice, but rather they define what choices are available.

[cardw]

For every variable there is a fixed answer in a world of universal logic. That is not choice.

Laws negate choice because they are laws. If what is "chosen" is regulated by some universal law, then it is pre-determined by the law.

[olger]

Do you accept offerings for your missionary enterprise, or fund it yourself?

[cardw]

Olger,

To engage in the pursuit of truth is to honestly consider the evidence, no matter where that leads.

I do my best to talk from evidence and when it is conjecture, I honestly admit that I don't know.

There are a number of believers on Club Adventist that engage in dialog in a very honest way. They admit when something doesn't make sense, they admit that their belief is based on their personal encounter with what they call god, and they comprehend what I am saying.

I have gained valuable insight into some of the weaknesses in my understanding on various ideas and topics.

On the other hand I have also encountered believers who engage in either personal accusations, make up things that I don't post, and often resort to sarcasm or implied threats when they run out of reasonable responses. If I weren't confident in who I am and what I am about, I would call that bullying.

I'll give you some friendly insight that you are free to accept or reject. In my world, the type of response that you have posted here simply provides more evidence of the weakness of the Christian world view. I say this because it is the more common response, rather than the exception.

This causes me to conclude that while there are some very fine Christian thinkers and believers, I suspect that it doesn't come from Christianity, but from who they are as individuals.

[Tom Wetmore]

Consider a scientific view of free will - Neuroscience, Free WIll and Determinism... or An illusion called free will .

...and now the counter-point - Are the rumors of the death of free will greatly exagerated? .

Read first, then continue the discussion...

[cardw]

If our consciousness is in the brain, then we don't have free will. It is impossible within a binary system to have free will. In the brain, either the synapse is firing or it's not.

There are a number of problems with considering the brain as even the central logic center. The types of things that we do simultaneously as conscious beings would cause the brain to overheat because its clock rate for synapses would have to increase considerably to accomplish all the processing that we can do.

This includes facial recognition, sensory input for balance, calculating distance, pressure, and spacial awareness to just mention a few. I believe the brain is simply an interface.

The awareness of a self is a unique problem that is beyond algorithms as far as we know.

[CoAspen]

Interesting articles...it's all in the definitions that one......subscribes too!!

[teresaq]

I only briefly read over the articles...aside from that when I look back over my life I don't think I have had much freewill, much more like an automaton, if I am using the word correctly. As the twig is bent...

The Spiritual Maturity stages really make sense to me with Stage 1 being our ultimately dulled mind in sin, but as light penetrates - and is accepted - intelligence, or choices, come.

I think I would ask, is choice and freewill the same?

There are those here who do not see the need for a god, a Power outside themselves. I do. I need that Power to first show me another way than what I have known, to shine that light in my darkened soul, then give me the power to accept and follow that light in spite of the darkness thrown across my path by the enemy in the form of people.

Often I have seen that "light" also in the form of people, but rejected some of it because "some people need to be knocked upside the head". The automaton in action, it had been internalized.