Very simple and very cool analogy

[ant222]

There are things you are partially determined (dh that you cannot think without a brain, so each thought requires existence of a brain at first), and some which are objectively random. Or, to fit it, acts of pure God's will. Altough it is in an ethernal time-point, not a line.

As to the brain, without it human's body can not be controlled by the soul. But I am not sure it is the brain which is the thinking organ, not the soul or the spirit.

[Spectral Paladin]

Unfortunately, the argument of the first cause is not a proof of God's existance.

Unfortunately, it was not meant as such.

No need for a programmer. If a snowflake hits the right spot, an avalanche will result. There was no need for someone to consciously place the snowflake.

I did present the possibility that it may not have been done in purpose. In which case, everything was randomly decided at the beginning.

[Dante]

If there is no free will, how life could have originated? What is the cause of evolution, of the struggle for life? There should have been an external (from God?) stimulus that would make life possible. Living organisms are making order from disorder - decreasing enthropy, which is quite unusual. Why these anti-enthropy machines originated and evolved to more more complex (=low-enthropy) machines.

Firstly, life and free will are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, the external stimulus for the creation of life need not have been random, nor designed by a higher being. Thirdly, I fail to see the slightest indication that life lowers the net entropy of the universe. If anything our (supposedly but not actually) random acts should make existence even more chaotic.

I'd respond to the rest of the post, but it doesn't seem to make any sense; nor draw any conclusions.

I did present the possibility that it may not have been done in purpose. In which case, everything was randomly decided at the beginning.

One does not necessarily follow the other. Lack of design does not indicate random events, merely lack of design.

[Spectral Paladin]

Don't let play with words again. Random events = events that occurred randomly because noone planned them = lack of design.

[Dante]

There is no such thing as random.

[Spectral Paladin]

You become annoying as hell when you put reason aside.

Who was that stupid to invent the word random I wonder.

Many things are random, from certain viewpoints.

ie when a football match begins, the decision which teams gets the ball is called random, because the referee flips the coin without intending it to land on a specific side, nor is anyone capable of saying on which side it will land. Lack of design = random flip.

Also, if the coin is flipped lots of times everyone notices that the result is heads about as many times as it is tails. The situation is similar (not exactly same) but the result varies. Thus, the result is called random, because in a similar situation you might get one or the other (and this doesn't counter what you say that if the situation is exactly the same, so will be the result. I 'm just trying to clarify what is meant by "random").

Clear enough?

[Dante]

I think you'll find that I'm actually following logic to a rational conclusion.

Just because we cannot know the outcome, does not mean that it is random. The side that the coin will land on depends on which side it was on when it was flipped, how hard it was flipped, whether there was a breeze at the time, which side of the coin is heavier... All of these factors contribute to the coin landing on one side. If those circumstances were to be recreated exactly, the coin would land on the same side with 100% predictability.

Random = spontaneous, without cause.

And everything has a cause. If there was no cause, there would be no effect. So a random event cannot exist. Thus randomness itself does not exist.

...It would be better to say that the result of the coin toss is unpredictable. Because we cannot know all of the factors that effect it (shape of the flipper's thumbnail, air pressure, shape of coin...), we cannot predict the outcome. This does not mean that it is random.

And unpredictable events are not necessarily without design. The coin was only flipped because someone wished to flip it.

[Spectral Paladin]

Just because we cannot know the outcome, does not mean that it is random. The side that the coin will land on depends on which side it was on when it was flipped, how hard it was flipped, whether there was a breeze at the time, which side of the coin is heavier... All of these factors contribute to the coin landing on one side. If those circumstances were to be recreated exactly, the coin would land on the same side with 100% predictability.

I agree with everything here and I believe I 've already made it clear.

However, from our viewpoint, nothing causes the coin to land on a specific side. The way we see it, the chance it will come as heads is as much as the chance it will come as tails. This is called random.

And unpredictable events are not necessarily without design. The coin was only flipped because someone wished to flip it.

Lack of design was meant for the result of the flip.

[Dude_Doc]

I once heard someone say: "God creates everything from moment to moment".

Anyways, the question of free will is a difficult one. Do we have free will if God already knows every move everyone will make? I see free will in that one would actually be able to know the future, and therefore make a good decision, thus a free will. In a way, this freedom must require the freedom to analyze and make decision on what would happen if I choose A or B. We cannot do this without really knowing the future. Both decisions, A and B, could in the end kill a person, despite my choice because of my past and background.

And just like Dante said, if we could rewind time to any point in our lives, knowing what we knew then, we would always make the same decision - over and over again.

[Dude_Doc]

And everything has a cause. If there was no cause, there would be no effect. So a random event cannot exist. Thus randomness itself does not exist.

Interesting. Isn't "everything"/the universe created by a random event? Or let's go further. Space came from somewhere, so did time. But these two must have a cause, and if they don't, well, how can something be unpredictable when there is nothing at all to affect the outcome, let alone any timeline to move the event forward?

[Dante]

I didn't mention rewinding time... just duplicating circumstances. Which is impossible. If we were to go back and know then what we know now, the circumstances would be altered.

Anyways, the question of free will is a difficult one. Do we have free will if God already knows every move everyone will make? I see free will in that one would actually be able to know the future, and therefore make a good decision, thus a free will. In a way, this freedom must require the freedom to analyze and make decision on what would happen if I choose A or B. We cannot do this without really knowing the future. Both decisions, A and B, could in the end kill a person, despite my choice because of my past and background.

If you knew the future was that you would be burned to death in an art gallery, you would be inclined to avoid art galleries. You never go to an art gallery again, and die from poisoning. Thus you never knew the future to begin with, because by definition the future is what will happen. Paul knew the future in Dune, and he was trapped by it because he knew exactly what decisions he had to make. He had no choice. No free will.

If you know the future, you cannot avoid it and have no free will. If you manage to avoid it, then you did not know the future.

However, from our viewpoint, nothing causes the coin to land on a specific side. The way we see it, the chance it will come as heads is as much as the chance it will come as tails. This is called random.

Lack of design was meant for the result of the flip.

Our viewpoint is that the coin flip is unpredictable, not spontaneous. The coin doesn't just flip itself without cause. Even if the chances of the coin landing on either side are not 50/50, it is true that we generally see them as such. But the result of the coin toss is not random, it is unpredictable. Random is not the right word, it can be misinterpreted too easily, and is also synonomous with spontaneous.

In other words, it is true that there is no design behind the result of a coin toss. But it is not random either. It is unpredictable, but not random. If something has a cause, and everything does, then it is not random.

Addition: ...Like free will, there is an illusion of random in the world. Perhaps that's what you're trying to say?

Interesting. Isn't "everything"/the universe created by a random event?

No.

Or let's go further. Space came from somewhere, so did time. But these two must have a cause, and if they don't, well, how can something be unpredictable when there is nothing at all to affect the outcome, let alone any timeline to move the event forward?

Time and space had a cause. Everything has a cause. Exactly what this was is open to debate.

[Spectral Paladin]

I didn't mention rewinding time... just duplicating circumstances. Which is impossible. If we were to go back and know then what we know now, the circumstances would be altered.

I think he means what we knew back then (not now)? In which case, the situation would be duplicated.

Our viewpoint is that the coin flip is unpredictable, not spontaneous. The coin doesn't just flip itself without cause. Even if the chances of the coin landing on either side are not 50/50, it is true that we generally see them as such. But the result of the coin toss is not random, it is unpredictable. Random is not the right word, it can be misinterpreted too easily, and is also synonomous with spontaneous.

In other words, it is true that there is no design behind the result of a coin toss. But it is not random either. It is unpredictable, but not random. If something has a cause, and everything does, then it is not random.

Addition: ...Like free will, there is an illusion of random in the world. Perhaps that's what you're trying to say?

I 've already said it...from our viewpoint there is no cause for a specific result, therefore we see it as random. That doesn't mean there is no cause. Duh.

[Dante]

And I already said that if we percieve random, then it is illusionary. Don't be crass.

[Spectral Paladin]

We flip the coin twice. First time it's tails, second time it's heads. The situation appears the same to us, yet the result varies. Since we can't see what the differences are, we call it random. Many other things are random.

There is no such thing as random.

This is where you 're wrong. Because otherwise we wouldn't use that word. Yet we do, and we use it a lot. An illusion? Acceptable, but the word doesn't lose its meaning.

Also, the word "random" isn't used because people have illusions. Even one who doesn't share your belief that everythig is a result of a cause, can certainly see that this is the case in the coinflip. And yet he 'll call random. Same with computers generating "random" numbers. No matter one's beliefs, we all know that the number is not really random and yet it is called thus.

[Dante]

I can call a chicken a duck, but it remains a chicken. You may call events random, but they won't be. Just because we use words to describe certain things, does not mean that they are strictly accurate. Just look at normalcy. Normalcy isn't even a word, it's normality. And yet people persist...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dante... since it is impossible to re-create an event exactly... does this not give credibility to randomness?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Wow, this God really needs to get laid. But seriously, what's with the ego trip that God loves to have? An all-powerful god does not NEED to test someone's loyalty, because it already knows the level of loyalty of all of its creation. And, what's the point of loyalty? God created us, and then expects us to be loyal? If we are not loyal, then we go to hell and suffer for eternity. This sounds an awful like an emotionally-hazardous human being.

An all-knowing God would not NEED to do this. He already knows. An all-loving god would not NEED to do this, he wouldn't care whether or not you're "true" or "deserving." That defines a just god. A just and all-loving god simply cannot exist.

What's the difference? If we don't, we go to hell and find out for ourselves then. If we do, then we go to heaven. There's simply no point.

An all powerful God has to test us so that we can see for ourselves what we are.

[ant222]

They go to hell when god knew that they were not strong enough to withstand the punishment that life threw at them. And he still let them fall. That is unacceptable.

God (not life!) doesn't expose us to tests that we can not pass.

Firstly, life and free will are not mutually exclusive.

I didn't say the opposite.

Secondly, the external stimulus for the creation of life need not have been random, nor designed by a higher being.

I just said there should have been an external stimulus. And if it were not God then the probability of it's (the stimulus's) existance was very low.

Thirdly, I fail to see the slightest indication that life lowers the net entropy of the universe. If anything our(supposedly but not actually) random acts should make existence even more chaotic.

I meant the enthropy of living organisms. In spite of that the fact the overall enthropy may increase, the local enthropy of organisms is, of course, low. And that is quite unlikely. High-orederd structers live on the Earth and increase local enthropy by their existence and breeding, by converting non-organic substances into organic ones, and, then into new living forms.

Do we have free will if God already knows every move everyone will make?

Does he?

I see free will in that one would actually be able to know the future, and therefore make a good decision, thus a free will...

I am sure free will is the ability to make a decision.

Both decisions, A and B, could in the end kill a person, despite my choice because of my past and background.

But they are still different decisions. They may have common results but some of their results will neccessarily be different: there may exist more than one way to the same place.

Random is not the right word, it can be misinterpreted too easily, and is also synonomous with spontaneous.

Well, I think random in not a property of an event but rather of our attitude to it.

If we certainly know the outcome, we call the evnt deterministic.

Random events may be divided into two kinds:

- ones whoose outcome we can not predict, but that have statistical stability.

- events that don't possess statistical stability.

Time and space had a cause. Everything has a cause. Exactly what this was is open to debate.

The first cause didn't have a cause. Otherwise it wasn't the first cause...

[Acriku]

If the first cause doesn't need a cause, then why can't the Universe right at the big bang be the first cause?

[Faetarius]

Just coming back to the idea that god is in some way testing us to prove our loyalty. This isn't exactly a fair or understanding test. Some people can start off with a terrible lot in life, but remain true. Times get harder, they continue to suffer. God is obviously testing them, right? Yet this test is, in itself the act of a conditionally loving god, as a single slip sends you to hell. In college you can ask the professers for advice, guidance, and ways to improve your standards. When people pray they are doing the same. However god has not been known to reply for a VERY long time, so is in essence, making us con tinue along in life, drawing our own conclusions as to what constitutes "right" with no clarification or hints, and then nailing us for getting it wrong

[Dude_Doc]

Does he?

I guess he must know, since he is allknowing. On the other side, he could have created us and just let it all go.

I am sure free will is the ability to make a decision.

And isn't free will just an illusion? We can't say no, I won't go to work today, because we will end up in the streets and live in poverty. Realistically, what choice do we really have?

If the first cause doesn't need a cause, then why can't the Universe right at the big bang be the first cause?

Maybe we have got it all wrong? We all seek the great answers to everything. There must always be a cause to everything. There can never, to us, be "just like that, out of thin air".

[Dude_Doc]

Just coming back to the idea that god is in some way testing us to prove our loyalty. ...

I agree with this. One thing that irritates me is the sentence that there is some higher purpose beyond our understanding. But why this purpose if we can not understand it? After all, don't God want us to understand why we are here, and why we must worship him, let alone the nature of universal morality and love?

[ant222]

If the first cause doesn't need a cause, then why can't the Universe right at the big bang be the first cause?

The point is that it should have a cause, since "everything has a cause", according to Dante. And this is a little problem.

I guess he must know, since he is allknowing.

The exact knowledge of future is possible only in a deterministic world, which is not the case if we do have free will. Allknowing means the total knowledge of the current state of the universe. In the case of determinism it would imply the knowledge of all future states since everything could be easily calculated. But the presence of free will introduces a fluctuation.

In the case of determinism the actions of God himself would be deterministic, so that God would not have free will. If everything is determined, there is no need in God at all, or rather, there is no personal God.

On the other side, he could have created us and just let it all go.

According to Bible, it is not so.

And isn't free will just an illusion? We can't say no, I won't go to work today, because we will end up in the streets and live in poverty. Realistically, what choice do we really have?

Of course, we have choice. Since it is you on whom (including other factors) your fate depends. As you said you may "end up in the streets and live in poverty", or you may become a monk, and so on up to suicide. If you consider yourself as being forced to do certain things it doesn't mean you have no free will. In this text you use 'free will' is some other sense than the existance of several atlernatives of behaviour at every moment.

Yet this test is, in itself the act of a conditionally loving god, as a single slip sends you to hell.

That is an exagerration, what you said about a single slip...

When people pray they are doing the same. However god has not been known to reply for a VERY long time, so is in essence, making us con tinue along in life, drawing our own conclusions as to what constitutes "right" with no clarification or hints, and then nailing us for getting it wrong.

Direct reply is not the only possible reaction. God may help people in many other ways, so that they observe nothing literally miraculous. If a good idea suddenly emerges in somebody's head, it may be His help.

[Spectral Paladin]

In the case of determinism the actions of God himself would be deterministic, so that God would not have free will. If everything is determined, there is no need in God at all, or rather, there is no personal God.

God would not be affected by the determinitstic nature of the universe. Assuming we are, it is so because we are made of molecules which are made of atoms etc, which are bound to interact in a certain way no matter what. This does not apply to God.

[ant222]

God would not be affected by the determinitstic nature of the universe.

But determinism implies that any future state of the universe (excluding God) can be calculated given the current state. Thus, God can not affect the universe in a non-deterministic way, that is, He can not behave in different ways, and His behavior is determined.

We can calculate the future of the universe and God will not be able to change it. If God nevertheless can change something, then the world is not deterministic.