So if there is no free will how can we be responsible for our sins?

We can't

We aren't in ethical terms. In practical, societal, political terms we are. At least until society is overhauled.

>>4945805
So then by what right does God have to condemn us to hell?

You only get it one way. If there is no free will then you are not responsible. Of course, it becomes very hard to define free will. Does the act of feeling as if I am making a decision define free will? The ability of choice? Some may say it is not me who is making the choice but chemical reactions in a predetermined pattern. However, aren't these not too me, chemicals sloshing within my brainpan making the ideas surface that create the choices I make?

What is free will? What is sin?

>>4945812
God isn't real, only man is.

Sin implies a vast supernatural consciousness that monitors an individual's progress over life.

The probability of this is next to zero.

Now i'm not saying that you should go fuck, kill or eat the next person you see, as philosophical morality exists, but perhaps you should cast your eyes in that direction before you act on any of these responses.

>>4945797
god is dead

>>4945822
He died in the 1990s.

Any believers care to justify how God could exist, but at the same time allow for us to commit actions that would sentence us to hell?

This is the one thing that I can't get out of my mind when it comes to Christianity. I am so close to believing but just cannot.

>>4945843
St Augustine

>>4945843

good is meaningless if there is no possibility to do evil.

File: 1371105440633.jpg (38KB, 352x315px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 352x315px

If we are all but mere actors in a grand play, so engrossed in our respective roles that we have lost sight of reality, would we still be held accountable for our sins?
After all, we are just playing the part, no?

>>4945856
Everything is inherently meaningless, so that changes nothing.

Besides, if you define evil as, say, inflicting suffering, most of it has nothing to do with any sort of human 'agency' or 'will'. Its the demands of nature and the various injustices it inflicts upon humanity that makes up the bulk of the worlds suffering, human evil is a drop in the ocean by comparison.

So resorting to the Free Will defense, even if Free Will isn't nonsense (it is, without question, bullshit) doesn't address the salient issue.

>>4945843
Moreover, If god is omniscient he knows everything we will do, and therefore our actions, including sins, are per-determined.

>>4945932
That's literally what the OP says...

Typical atheist behavior, patting themselves on the back for fighting off invisible god fags rather than actually saying anything of worth

>>4945961
Why don't you post something of worth?

Oh wait you can't

>>4945932
Calvin pls go

>>4945872
Actually, yes.

After all, in the play, the villain must be punished for his sins. He cannot say "But my crimes are not of my own devising, they were thought up by the author!"

Not only does he have no free will, but neither do the people who condemn him.

>>4945843
to become christian is to believe that a supposedly 'all powerful & loving' god both: chooses to allow suffering (that he caused) to happen, and creates individuals with the knowledge that they will be unable to believe and therefore suffer eternally for finite acts of freedom.

The more I think about it, the more I hope there is no god and no eternity.

>>4945974
Do you know what metaphor is?

You're stupid as fuck man.

>>4945932
>per-determined

>>4945967
>No u

Is this where I tell you to fight me in reality, gay boy?

>>4945987
What a pathetic defence.

>>4945979
I'm pointing out that if free will doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that suddenly, one person doesn't have free will, and everyone else still has it somehow and can CHOOSE whether they can hold him responsible for his sins.

No, if there is no free will, then we can be held responsible for our sins by other people because they have no choice but to do so.

>>4945978
God is a libertarian and doesn't give a shit

He tried to send ron paul as his prophet, but people keep listening to sand niggers that tell people to mutilate their dicks and kill fags

>>4945992
yea ur mum didn't defend her pussy against muh cock

probably cuz she wanted it

>>4946003
So you accuse people of posting bad content and then proceed to shitpost.

You're not very logical are you?

>>4946003
>>4946011
Can you sissies go bitchfit on reddit or something. people are trying to masturbate in peace

>>4946026
>>4946003
samefag

>>4945797
What is sin?

>>4945856
Think of it in terms of a tangible object, for someone to have a book, does there have to be some kind of anti-book? No, there just has to be having a book, as opposed to not having a book.

There doesn't have to be evil for good to exist, only someone being neutral, neither good nor evil.

File: Untitled.png (31KB, 712x250px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 712x250px

>/lit/ - Literature

Christianity is fucking terrifying

>>4945856
good/god is pointless unless it is chosen freely as opposed to some alternative, be it "neutral" or "evil"

because this ability to choose exists, the ability to choose the opposite of good exists

>>4945843
if you aren't able to choose good over the alternative what's the point
you would just be a meaningless, soulless puppet slave without the choice

>>4945797
That's the trap. Religion is not meant to resolve itself.

The question being: Is life meant to resolve, or evolve itself at some point?

The thief said, "Can't you see I was fated to steal this bread?"

The philosopher replied, "Can't you see I was fated to strike you with my cane?" *bonk*

>>4947813
reality is terrifying nigga

>>4947821
>Abrahamic God: I love you all, truly I am gracious and merciful
>Casts dozens of billions of unbelievers into a lake of fire for fucking eternity

>>4947832
>critiquing the morality of bronze age god
>using Christian morality

>>4947832
of course, like most important things it's not that simple

whether or not you're being facetious, most people in the world really do found a lot of their philosophical and political opinions on simple-minded bullshit aphorisms

which really is fucking terrifying

>>4947832
>implying God casts all unbelievers into Hell

>>4947840
That's the topic of this thread, not that you can focus there.

>>4947832
We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."

God predestines no one to go to hell for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"

>>4947862
I feel like your wall of text is like the Red Sea and I shall part my way and see myself through unscathed.

>>4947862
*clutches crucifix*
*kisses Pope's feet*
*sodomizes pubescent boy*

>>4947871
That sounds fun. Where do I sign up for that?

We wouldn't be responsible for our sins if we did have free will, because God gave us free will, knowing full well what immense problems it would cause.

If he wanted no sin, he should have never given us free will

File: 1393887044255.jpg (38KB, 210x224px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 210x224px

Why didn't God just call it quits shortly after the fall of man and save billions of people who were yet to be born from damnation?

The world population is at 7 billion, the overwhelming majority of whom are not Christian (and have never been, if we take into account historical records)

At the very least, either God does not care, or he gets a kick out of torturing people

What a petty manchild of a God

>mfw I asked this to a Catholic priest and he did nothing but hit me with platitudes and irrelevant scripture quotes

>>4947887
by call it quits, I mean wrap creation up/wreak Judgment Day/whatever the fuck it is Christards believe these days

>>4947887
>looking for answers from religion

you just cope, son

>>4947887
God has no obligation to help us with everything, he set out his Church to preach and offer salvation to the whole world

File: whale face.jpg (87KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x375px

>(whale noise)

>>4947887
>>4947895
I want to think about what you said logically, but the classiness of your fedora is just too damn distracting

>>4947904

>God has no obligation to help us with everything

In that case, I have no obligation to even like him, much less love and thank him for all the stuff he doesn't do for me

>>4947909
It's not logical to apply logic to religion.

>>4947914
obligation is the only thing that gives life meaning

>>4947920

To you maybe, not to me

>>4947923
Not admitting that your life has no meaning is pure cowardice.

>>4947929

Oh really? So praising an incompetent dick who doesn't give a single fuck about you, that's your idea of meaning?

>>4947914
Dude, if you don't even consider theism it's ludicrous to express this kind of egoism
What you are doing is imagining God as some sort of deity that operates in the world
To Christians, god is BEING ITSELF, the very reason you can think, reason and have emotions
Going against the will of god is objectively incorrect if you hold this conception

>>4947934
I generally said that obligation is the only thing that gives life meaning. Calm down.

File: 1392649218594.jpg (19KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 240x240px

>>4947909
*clutches crucifix*

>>4947936
You do realize that if the Christian God is real then even the most pious and unselfish of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. (of which there are many) who never had any reason to believe in Jesus and never will, will burn in a lake of fire for fucking eternity in the afterlife. That's 10 million years, times another billion, times another trillion, times a million more, etc. You get the idea.
Actually no, you can not. It is insane.
Call me a fedora if it makes you happier, though. Just try not to clutch your crucifix too hard.

>>4947989
>You do realize that if the Christian God is real then even the most pious and unselfish of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. (of which there are many) who never had any reason to believe in Jesus and never will, will burn in a lake of fire for fucking eternity in the afterlife.

Those are your assumptions, how about pulling something to support them?
The Church is highly interested in interfaith dialogue with those religions and doesn't consider them infidels who will suffer torture because God is evil.
Pull your head out of your ass and realize Christianity has changed from 10 centuries ago

>>4948001

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6

Seems fairly clear to me

>>4948001
>how about pulling something to support them?

>supporting religious beliefs with evidence

>>4948001
>what is Christocentrism

>>4948007
From the Catechism is seems pretty clear to me that Hell is a state of being that comes about from abandoning God and doesn't actually have to do with your religion

"To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice."

Dying in state of mortal sin. Whether you're catholic, atheist or buddhist, the principle is the same

But just keep constructing your straw man of Christianity, laughing at it and calling everyone retards. I'm sure this is very effective instead of respectable dialogue and attempting to understand the position of theists, which are the majority of the world in some form.
This is why you are cancer

>>4948019
From what I've read about the Catechism, only those who are 'ignorant' of Christ's sacrifice can still be redeemed without faith in Jesus. But this seems to begs the question; why bother in the first place? In that case, isn't his sacrifice a burden rather than a blessing?

>implying any other faiths give two shits about muh mortal sin

>>4948030
Because without the sacrifice everyone would be in the default state, which is sinful nature without salvation. If 5% manage to be united with God through the rigorous moral perfection that it requires, the sacrifice was worth it

>>4948034
Oh right, so everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus IS going to hell (according to those lunatics). Thanks.
Why not just call Judgment Day way before the cumulative historical human population hit 90 billion people? Does God simply not care?

>>4948044
Again, this is your own strawman. Do you even want to argue or are you just here to affirm your intellectual superiority?

One of the main differences between Protestantism and Catholicism is that Catholicism emphasizes the moral life and striving for perfection, and having faith and praying is only a part of it. Protestants are the ones who consider that you get magically saved by having faith and to them you can direct your complaints about atheists burning in hell
Also there's purgatory, which is realistically what the majority of people are going to end up with - people who didn't commit serious sins but NEED THE PURIFICATION TO BE ABLE TO UNITE WITH GOD, BECAUSE OUR SINFUL NATURE IS OPPOSED TO GOD. GOD ISN'T ARBITRARILY DECIDING THAT WE'RE BAD BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CATHOLICS.

>>4948050
> GOD ISN'T ARBITRARILY DECIDING THAT WE'RE BAD BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CATHOLICS.

Not him, but the Catholic Church arbitrarily magicked into doctrine (purgatory being one example) a lot of the things you just described once it became evident they were not the centre of the universe

>>4948055
That's completely untrue. Purgatory has been there since early Christianity, Catholics just formed a firm theology around it. People have been praying for the salvation of dead people for a long time. But, if hell is inescapable and heaven is eternal, for what are they praying? Clearly there is a state of being that concerns people who have yet to be purified but are not without the chance of salvation.

>>4948066
Oh yeah, universal salvation was also present in early Christianity, Catholicism actually takes the moderate view and doesn't go full-happiness
This is what they do with many doctrines. Don't pretend that Christians steadily became more lax about their theology because anyone with a minor understanding of church history can clearly see your error

>>4945849
augustine was a retard
'oh yeah you were all present at adam and eve's fuckup so you have to suffer too'

if god were truly omnipotent he could remove all evil and suffering, and provide humans with free will at the same time (even the will to do evil)

Here is what I have understood based on my limited reading of Christian theology:

It must be the case that God is omniscient and omnipotent. I do not see any way around this. It follows that everything in existence has been preordained.

Creation exists in order to glorify God in all his attributes (to who?). In order to show His love, God created humans and His plan of salvation.

It was necessary for humans to fall and be tainted with original sin, so that they can be redeemed later by the sacrifice of Jesus ,in order to show God's mercy, and this is necessarily preordained. Since God is the opposite of sin and anathema to it, He is justified in not saving anyone at all, and could rightly condemn every human ever to punishment in Hell in order to show His justice. This is how His mercy is shown, by saving some people through Jesus.

It is necessary for some humans to be preordained to not be with God and be punished, because otherwise there would be no place for God's wrath or God's justice to be glorified. Evil must exist as an opposite to God, so that His divine justice may be exercised upon those preordained to sin.

Please note that this is not what I believe. If the things I outlined above are the case, I would rather have not lived at all, than take part in glorifying something like this. Unfortunately I don't have much choice in the matter if it is, since everything I wrote here was preordained anyway and I'll surely be tormented forever.

I may have made errors somewhere in my understanding.

>>4948196
Seems like a very Calvinist understanding, you should read some catholic/orthodox theology

>>4948196
The problem is that not every Christian believes those things. Opinions vary hugely.

>>4948194
>if god were truly omnipotent he could remove all evil and suffering, and provide humans with free will at the same time (even the will to do evil)
Kant plz go. "Omnipotence" is generally defined as being able to do everything that is logically possible. God could be unable to create square circles and still be omnipotent.

Unless you go full Kant and assume "God can make square circles. He can also create rocks so heavy he can't lift them, and then lift them. Fuck logic". But that puts God beyond comprehension and any attempt to comprehend him useless.

>>4948199
>>4948200
What in Orthodox/Catholic theology changes the conclusions? Or are the assumptions (Creation exists to glorify God in all his attributes) different?

Since God did create everything at some point, and he knows everything that will eventually take place, I think there is no way around preordainment. Even with "free will", God knows the end result of everyone's life, and their eternal reward (or lack thereof), so at the end of the day, some people were created with God's knowledge that they will go to Hell.

>>4948215
>being able to do everything that is logically possible.
Then I'm omnipotent. I can't make you eat your hand because it's logically impossible for me to do that. Still omnipotent. That definition is useless.

>>4948216
That assumes that God has omniscience in the sense that he knows the linear outcome of everyone's life
A different understanding is that since God is outside time, he knows the outcome of every possible choice a person can make and how that outcome influences further etc., but the choice that is going to happen in time ultimately rests on the free will of the individual

>>4948228
>I can't make you eat your hand because it's logically impossible for me to do that
But making someone eat their hand is logically possible. Just because YOU can't do it, doesn't mean it's logically impossible (liek a square circle is)

>>4948237
If I can't do it then it's logically impossible for me to do it.

>>4948240
>for me
You just added those two important words. Making someone eat their hand is not logically impossible full stop.

>>4948200
That's because being a christian in 2014 requires immense amounts of cognitive dissonance or flat out ignorance/stupidity.

>Muh specific interpretation is the truth
>It's le metaphors! Jebus don't care if I fuck bitches and taunt people about being sinners
>Jebus don't care the Church is intellectual dishonest

Christians are just afraid of hell, which is also a retarded and nonsensical concept. As I grow older I find it almost impossible to be civil with christians, especially online. You're just retarded. There's no sense in beating around the bush. I certainly am not going to respect a reality denying cultist who is implicitly insulting my very "soul" by telling me their idiotic traditions are "the truth".

/rant

File: 403802-2000x1368.jpg (424KB, 2000x1368px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 2000x1368px

Hi, /lit/.
I need some help.
Can anybody tell me the full meaning of word "intercellar", please?

>>4948246
Making a circle squared is not impossible full stop.

>>4948246
what makes giving people free will and removing suffering 'logically impossible'?

>>4948215
But he is the "alpha and omega" and "knew us before we were born" and still punished us for everything he designed and was aware would happen, taunts eve, smites the earth, commands slaughter etc

You're an apologist fucking moron and behind all of your rhetoric you're just terrified of hell, which makes no sense as a concept. Jesus is the savior of rape and BDSM. You're a moron.

File: 4f74d22c30208[2].png (61KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x380px

>>4948247
>It's le metaphors! Jebus don't care if I fuck bitches and taunt people about being sinners
Metaphors have been part of Christian doctrine and interpretation since the very fucking start, nigger.

The thing about the Bible is that it isn't one book where you can just read it, see something you don't like and say "yup, metaphor!". It's a collection of different books from different genres. Genesis is an Epic, Leviticus is a legal code, the Psalms are poetry and the Gospels are Biographies. All different genres that need to be read in different ways.

Or do you seriously read a newspaper in the same way you'd read a novel?

>>4948259
oh do fuck off i swear people shouting 'tips fedora' are bigger neckbeards than the atheists

>>4948229
So some people believe that God does not know the course of each person's life that is actually realized, but only all the possibilities? In other words, all the possibilities of the world unfolding are known by God, but he does not know which exact one is the case?

Also, the idea of something being "outside time" is confusing to me: For instance God has intervened or interacted with humanity in some way at certain points in time. Does this not require God to be on a timeline? Even in the Bible somewhere it says he has taken actions in response to humanity (the Flood, for instance).

Removing linear omniscience from God's attributes does make theology seem less bad, though.

>>4948262
No respect given, no respect received fedora.

>>4948266
The theological concepts of God in theology can be very abstract and disconnected from the direct involvement in human history, yeah. I can't really answer that, especially for the Old Testament. But if you take Christ as the person of the Trinity, he had to assume a human body to be able to communicate with us, which is more plausible

>>4948267
people criticising a belief is not disrespectful

>>4945856
>tea is meaningless if there is no coffee!!!

>>4948276
I just think that ascribing omniscience to God in the sense of knowing the outcomes of everyone's life is problematic, in that it makes God's existence a depressing fact, for reasons I explained in >>4948196

You can say that anything done by God is necessarily good (because he is God) in response, so that there is no reason to feel that any of these things aren't good and just, but then I've been preordained to feel this way, which is even more depressing than knowing that countless people have existed who will be tormented forever to glorify God.

>>4948256
>what makes giving people free will and removing suffering 'logically impossible'?
Because it removes the impossibility of doing evil.

As for natural evil, that's a bit harder, but C. S. Lewis believed that a static outside world was needed to differentiate between invididuals. If there was a world with just two minds that could hear eachothers thoughts and nothing else, it would become impossible for one mind to differentiate his own thoughts from those of others, he believed. There needed to be an unchanging "outside" for there to be an "inside".

>>4945979
Then you made a shit metaphor, stupid fuck. Not the replier by the way.

Metaphors go both ways, not just for you to make a point.

How do you guys know all this stuff?

>>4948291
>Because it removes the impossibility of doing evil.
no it doesn't
god could simply make people inclined towards good 100% of the time -- evil is still a possibility, but people don't choose it

>>4948289
Actually, to say it better, I should say:

Omniscience being ascribed to god as in >>4948196 makes his existence the Bad News (as opposed to the Good News that Christians claim).

>>4948289
I don't see where the idea that God creates us solely to glorify him is common at all. It's more commonly understood that God created us so we could share in his divinity. But due to original sin we cannot experience it any longer and we require purification to reach Him again.

>>4948297
this is a literature board
we read

>>4948298
Is it still a free possibility if you cannot do it?

>>4946011
he had no choice in the matter; neither did you to fight back. Nor do I; I must mediate!

If you refute this post, confirmed for meek willed.

>>4948305
you can do it
you choose not to
free will doesn't exist anyway

>>4948298
And that's the Garden of Eden pretty much.

>>4945932
Does the bible actually say God is omniscient or is it just like how a man would seem "omnipotent" to an ant?

>>4948303
I don't mean "where do you get those arguments", I mean ""how do you know they are not pulled out of someone's ass". Like if I think it's raining outside, I stick my hand out, how do you check if God is omnipresent or divinely simple or whatever?

>>4948312
Omniscience is just a really confusing concept that doesn't mean what we want it to mean - something like knowing every possible bit of information

>>4948311
Even the Garden of Eden needed a massive fuck-up button (the fruit of knowledge) to make doing good a real choice. You can't freely do good if doing evil is not an option. That tree needed to be there to make their stay freely willed.

>>4948301
I don't think that changes the conclusion of God being omniscient in the sense I described, because it still requires God to have a reason for the fall to take place, since we could have just shared in His divinity in the first place.

Genesis 3:4 says that Adam and Eve would find knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit
so how can a just god consider eating the fruit a sin if they didn't even know it was wrong -- they had no knowledge of morality so they couldn't possibly know that not following god's commands is sinful, so it is unjust for them to be punished

>>4948318
Because it's theology, and theology is based on certain basic assumptions that progress from there.
Once you reach some arguments for theism, you can then start pondering the metaphysical questions and how God related to us etc.
If you think metaphysics is just wordgames then it's nothing to you, but it's a big part of western philosophical canon

>>4948324
>so how can a just god consider eating the fruit a sin if they didn't even know it was wrong

Go here
>>4948321
And then consider God's explicit commandment to not eat from that tree. They had no knowledge of evil, but knew that eating from the tree was something God had forbidden.

>>4948323
It doesn't make any sense to me that God "planned" for humanity to fall, it's pretty damn clear that he's frustrated with the whole business

>>4948337
This is my opinion as well, so I think it must be the case that God can't know exactly how every human's life will unfold before it happens, otherwise the Bible becomes the Bad News.

>>4948335
yes, god had forbidden it
but they don't know that not listening to god's 'forbidding' of it is evil without the knowledge
so although they went against his will knowingly, they didn't know that doing so would be immoral, so they cannot justly be punished

>>4948349
I think it's better understood if you compare God's relation to humanity as a father's relation to his children.

Your children don't know that being an asshole and refusing to listen is bad. But you still expect them to listen and consider ones who do listen good children.

>>4948357
inadequate comparison
children have a sense of morality, adam and eve didn't

>>4948379
>children have a sense of morality

At a certain age maybe, not before that.
And this is assuming that story is literal anyway, which isn't really common outside protestantism I think.

>>4948383
it's taken literally in Catholicism, and there are over a billion Catholics in the world.

>>4948391
>it's taken literally in Catholicism
Not really. Perhaps there are Catholics that take it literally, but it's not taken literally in Catholic doctrine as early back as St. Augustine (see; De Genesis).

>>4948393
how can you say augustine didn't take the garden of eden literally? he based his entire theodicy around the idea

Dennett says you can. That's all you need to know, pleb.

>>4948395
One example would be is that he believed Adam and Eve were not created perfectly (as a literal interpretation would argue), but were already mortal upon creation.

Of course he took Genesis seriously, but he was no literalist.

>>4947821
Richmond is terrifying, nigga.

File: spinozapaint.jpg (26KB, 590x349px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 590x349px

Everything is determined but relax! Just work on your stoicism v2.0 and strive toward intellectual love for God.

>>4948257
What if I told you god was a cunt, straight up and down?

We aren't truly responsible but it's desirable to punish people regardless because it reduces their chance of spreading the genes that contributed to their actions.

>>4945797
we re characters in a book written by god can u desobey ?

>>4948403
The place in Oakland or the one in Virginia?
I live 20 minutes away from Richmond, VA by the way
thx 4 reading my blog

>>4945822
> god is dead
Ah, I remember high school

File: 1397781343987.jpg (38KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 601x601px

>>4945932
Exactly. God is cruel. He'll take everyone you love away. He created you just so could get a tantalizing, unsatisfying taste of joy before you burn for eternity.

>>4945978
Are you me?

>>4948837
>I live 20 minutes away from Richmond, VA by the way

You from the West End wyte boi?

>>4945797

The notion of "responsibility" is a metatechnology which helps one attain a greater executive power over shorter term but more "heavily" weighed tic responses.

Just as the notion of "truth" is a metatechnology for weeding out unpragmatic and totally alturistic actions (as in supporting systems you have no sympathy with at all).

>>4948894
Can you please translate that to English?

>>4948894

with that said, social notions of "responsibility" are mostly retarded, punitive, and hypocritical to the core.

But that task of any young ape in modern society is to find the few gleaming tools in a heap pile of shit rust.

>>4948902

"Responsibility" is a mental technology. We don't have a literal "soul" or "spirit" of "absolute executive control" to which we could endlessly blame or praise. But acting as if we had responsibility gives a psychological boost to attempts to counter common procrastination and shorter-term valuations which prevent longer-term pleasure so to speak.

>>4945818
No gods or kings, only man

>>4945797
If there's no free will, sin doesn't exist. It's important we all learn the truth, that free will is illusory, so that everyone can adopt a more forgiving, less vengeful, more empathetic view towards criminals. A strong belief in free will gets you antiquated punitive systems, like in the US. To understand the deterministic nature of things gets you rehabilitation centers wherein criminals are treated humanely, and then properly integrated back into society. In the US, we have people who, like Andy Dufresne, became criminals only after they were imprisoned.

File: richard_dawkins_wallpaper_by_kampy-d37566w.jpg (123KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1440x900px

May I remind you, gentlemen, that God no real.

>>4948919
Thanks.

>>4949853
>Free will is illusory
There is no good evidence of this in physics, given that our physical theories are incomplete, and that parts of QM (entanglement specifically) provide pretty strong arguments AGAINST determinism.
The two sides of the free will debate go along the lines of "All natural things behave predictably according to underlying laws; Human beings are natural things; Human beings behave predictably according to underlying laws." However, we've discovered that the laws of the world on a small scale (think electrons) do not behave in ways that can be understand in terms of simple deterministic laws, but actually behave according to statistical probability, with the mechanics underlying said probability remaining a mystery (and many scientists and mathematicians have argued that they will forever remain a mystery).
When this is considered in tandem with the completely unexplained (unexplainable?) observable phenomena of conscious experience, and it is difficult to just write off "free will" as a nonexistent construct of self-important minds.
Predictability of choice does not imply a lack of choice

>>4950006
There's evidence in the fact that not fucking one of you can even define Free Will. The concept is utterly meaningless

>>4945814
This reads like something out of Cat's Cradle

File: quote-hey-guess-what-you-re-the-only-creature-with-free-will-how-does-that-make-you-feel-kurt-vonnegut-275926.jpg (59KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 850x400px

>>4950009

>>4950007
"The ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors."
If you reach a forked path, whether or not you go left or right is not predetermined, but chosen.

>>4950007
This is one of the dumber things I've seen on /lit

... In the last 48hrs anyway

>>4950014
You know what can make choices unconstrained by certain factors? My computer
>>4950017
Yeah thats fine, don't actually post a definition or anything, since one doesn't exist

>>4950006
Living in a non-deterministic universe doesn't equate to free will in humans. A person is no more responsible for there action if it's the equivalent of randomly spinning a wheel of choices or if they were always going to predictably pick a choice. The only way we can be responsible for our choices is if we are actually in control of which one we pick, I don't see how randomness helps this at all, I would in fact argue it moves away from it.

>>4950020
Actually, computers are good examples of deterministic machines incapable of making choices unconstrained by certain factors. Computers are constrained by their input and programming to provide a specific output.
People aren't you big doof. The concept of free will is that people are capable of taking whatever path they can think of, and the only constraint on what outputs they can provide in any situation is that they cannot use information they do not have.

>>4950038
>the only constraint on what outputs they can provide in any situation is that they cannot use information they do not have.
This doesnt worry you at all? they arent constrained by the information they don't have? they aren't completely determined by the information they do have? Where did that information come from exactly?

>>4950041
>>4950038
Furthermore 'people are capable of taking whatever path they can think of' is hilariously vacant'
'capable of taking a path', yes they can choose options presented to them, according to desires *also presented to them*
'whatever path they can think of', exactly. whatever path appears to them. they dont choose which paths appear to them

>>4950044
we may as well say 'computer are capable of taking whatever path is presented by their programming'

>>4950022
Because the randomness we have discovered is only "fundamental" in that we currently have no way to look past it, and likely never will.
The reason a universe that behaves according to a perceived randomness on a fundamental level is different from a universe that is completely deterministic is that in a completely deterministic universe, free will is impossible, because if you know the state of every particle of the universe to an exact degree, you also know the future of the universe to the same exact degree, and it can be demonstrated that no system can ever make a "choice" about it's future state.
In a system governed by probability, however, it is different, because we don't know what underlies the probability. There are a great number of different things that create patterns according to probability, some of them could be argued to be completely deterministic, but others could not.

Basically, a deterministic universe writes out free will completely, but a universe not known to be completely deterministic leaves room for systems (including human minds, and a far greater number of other systems) to make "choices" when faced with situations. When combined with the unexplained phenomenon of conscious experience, I think free will seems relatively likely, though obviously not proven and still possibly illusory.

>>4950038
I dunno man, what you described sounds an awful like an input, some algorithms and then output exactly like a computer.

>take what human knows (constraint on what you put in)
>information is processed
>output

Where does that differ from a computer again?

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" - Schopenhauer

no free will =! pre-determinism

>>4950048
But computers only have one path according to whatever algorithm is programmed into them. If you press the p key, a computer can not choose to output q.
Free will means that when presented with more than one path, the path is selected, not determined. If you ask a person to say p, he can say p, or he can say q, or he can say fuck off, or he can say pineapple, or he can make up a completely new word, but he cannot tell you what the capital of taiwan is if he doesn't know what the capital of taiwan is
I'm just trying to hit you with a definition.

>>4950064

>what is an RNG

>>4950064
I appreciate it, but just think of *why* the person chooses p, q or fuck off, or pineapple or his new word. Are you seriously implying that this decisions springs into being utterly without prior cause? Wouldnt it make more sense that the persons past experiences and genetics shaped how he would choose? And if it weren't determined, it if were truly random, how would that implicate the individual choosing at all? That would simply be a random occurrence presented to the individual.
this>>4950062 post sums it up very well
We cannot choose what we *want*. Our choices are governed by a desire, and that desire was not chosen by us

>>4950062
A man has the urge to kill someone. He does not do it.
A person who doesn't believe in free will would say that it was his will not to kill that person.
A person who believes in free will would say that it was his will to kill that person, and he chose against it.
Can we struggle against our nature? Or are our struggles against what we see as our nature a part of our nature?

>>4950057
Please explain how not knowing where particles are suddenly jumps to us being able to make choices. What changed from us knowing where all the particles are, to not knowing that made us able to chose.

Are you saying that a choice to decision is just atoms existing in a certain position? It must if that's what changed, and allows you to predict choice if you know where they are. That would have to mean that interaction between those particles is what makes choices (as in how the fundamental particles interact, in which the concept of people etc. is irrelevant). How does those particles being theoretically unknown equate to being able to make choices? Wouldn't it still just be particles interacting that decides everything, the only difference being that you can't predict how they are going to interact?

>>4950069
>A person who believes in free will would say that it was his will to kill that person, and he chose against it.
The non-believer would simply reply that the desire not to kill outweighed that of killing, or rather replaced it at the crucial moment.

The fact remains that Free Will does not have a coherent definition. It would imply choosing to want something before you were aware that you wanted it. The concept is simply meaningless

>>4950066
RNG is not true random, it's pseudorandom, sometimes just determined by inputs into really big, scary complex algorithms (which is how we encode pseudorandom bits we transfer through the internet, and because they're actually pseudorandom and not really random, the NSA could access them), or based on measurements of difficult to predict systems, i.e. the number of milliseconds into that specific second.

>>4950075
Are implying that humans aren't really big, scary, complex algorithms?

You do know we have modeled the brain already, it just takes a lot more time to compute at our level of technology (think 1 sec for brain, 1-2 minutes computer). Also we've created programs that can learn (through cross-breading of algorithms) to walk and do crazy shit that isn't predictable.

I actually feel quite sad when I come across people who still believe in free will. I certainly wish I did, it's like religion at the turn of the 20th century, a dying hope.

>>4950079
Yes, I am implying that, for while we have a good model of the brain, we do not have a good model of the electron, proton, neutron, photon, or any of the other fundamental particles, and we still have no explanation for conscious experience or qualia (the ascription of qualitative experiences to different things in nature. i.e. we can determine that the eye recognizes the color red, we can determine how it does it, we can determine how it transfers that information, and even why the body responds to it to some extent, but why does red look the way it does?).
>>4950074
You might be right, and I think I'm beat, but I don't think I can give up on the concept of free will. I don't know how much of what we do is predetermined, but I can't explain consciousness, and I'm not sure I'm ready to consider us completely algorithmic yet

>>4950089
I understand, but know that it really isn't that bad admitting that it doesn't exist. If it should ever cross your mind and seem right, you don't have to be afraid of it.

Consciousness on the other hand remains the fundamental mystery of basically everything, and we seem no closer to understanding it than we've ever beeb.

>>4950096
One thing I've always liked to hang onto when thinking about consciousness is that we've found the area that deals with out of body experience. You can put electrodes in that specific region of the brain and quite literally cause the individual to see himself from outside his own body, to back in his own point of view like a (or even with) light switch.

>>4950109
That's crazy do you have somewhere I could read about this?
I don't think it addresses the fundamental strangeness of consciousness though, its only a different kind of consciousness isn't it? I suppose it might illuminate some of its properties

>>4950096
But it's not that I have a hard time admitting it doesn't exist.
I actually used to believe in a completely algorithmic, deterministic universe, until I began to study physics.
Now, as a physics major, I keep on encountering more and more questions that simply don't seem to have any coherent sensible answers, specifically in the field of quantum entanglement. Frustration with the bizzarreness of the behavior of the fundamental particles has lead physicists to declare the "random" behavior of particles as fundamental. I refuse to believe this, but instead feel that they must be part of some greater underlying system, but, as some papers have shown, such an underlying system must have some very bizarre qualities, one of such qualities being that, in order for entanglement to make sense, either information must travel faster than light or the world must not be deterministic (what's called the rejection of "local realism" or "hidden local variables")
The way we've tried to circumvent this is by getting around the speed of light with "Wormholes" and unobservable extra dimensions, which I also currently reject as being completely undescriptive and incomprehensible in the context of observable reality.
The only other option is to reject determinism, but I still simply "feel" that a system must underlie the perceived randomness, and if that system is not random and not predetermined, that suggests that a choice is made.
Perhaps I'm wrong about the way the world works, but something about current models of the universe just feels so wrong on a fundamental level.

>>4950116
I read about it a long time ago, can't remember the name of it. You can probably do some quick googling though. If it helps I first heard about it in a video discussing near death experiences. It had some woman who had drowned in a kayaking trip and a couple neurosurgeons.

>>4950123
I didn't mean to imply you were in denial, only offering the view that it isn't that bad of a perspective.

I definitely get why a deterministic worldview would seem lacking, and why you'd look for other answers. Personally I don't think that really gets any closer to explaining what Free Will could be, but now we're entering the territory of, like you say, 'vague feelings'. If that's how it appears to you I can respect that. From my own experience, nothing has ever presented itself to me as indicating a feeling that I was choosing. It always seem to me like my choices are just given to me, and I can think about them and then whether I decide to go with that choice or another also just seems given to me, it just appears at some point, and I dont see how i could have chosen for it to appear, since I didnt know about it before it appeared to me.

>>4950123
The problem with equating this to humans is that you're talking about particles making choices. If we are comprised of particles wouldn't we still be subject to the will of the particles, not 'us'? I don't see how this can lead to complete human minds make choices.

>>4950140
I think that consciousness must somehow be related to this phenomena.
This could mean that consciousness is not unique to the brain, or even life, but simply the qualities of human consciousness (like qualia, the color red, all that human condition jazz) are not fundamental to consciousness, but specific to human consciousness, and that consciousness is actually a broader effect on the greater universe.
This is pure, unsubstantiated speculation and belief, which is very unscientific indeed, and quite embarrassing for someone going into a scientific field, but it's the only way I can think to fit the greater issues of consciousness in with our understanding of how our brains and fundamental particles work, and is the direction we have to look in if we want to answer grander questions in physics. The alternative is to cast away ideas of free will, throw up our hands and admit that we don't understand why consciousness exists and instead try to quantify it using what we know of how it works in the human brain (a la Michio Kaku), but I think in order for a physical theory to really be complete, it should explain why something exists, and, in my opinion, no matter how elegant our mathematical theories become, until they include an explanation for consciousness, they are incomplete

>>4950162
Out of curiosity, why exactly do you think that consciousness can't derived from brain activity, and exist as brain activity? I don't see how problems in physics need to involve dualism in order to be explained.

>>4950177
Largely because I can't think of anything in brains that is unique from a computer (aren't they just big algorithms?), but I also can't imagine what a computer's conscious experience would be like. I'm therefore left with two options. One is that computers and human brains are in some way different, and in the way that they differ, consciousness exists, or that consciousness is a greater effect of some other phenomena.
There's also the fact that consciousness is one of the few things we're pretty certain exists, but cannot come up with a purpose for it, why it should exist. It's not needed to explain how the brain works, that we believe can be explained decently well without any sort of qualitative experience.
I therefore think it must arise from something currently unexplained whose unknown explanation is known to be complex. QM fits the bill.

I don't understand why people are arguing that because God is omnipotent and omnipresent (though these things are arguable per se, but we will assume them to be true for now) that means that there is no such thing as free will. God chose to give Man free will, the free will to choose to believe or not to believe (see the temptations of Christ). I don't think of God as being some all-powerful puppeteer that controls ever single aspect of everyone's lives, but instead as a Judge, an aloof arbiter that set things in motion and left it up to Man to seek salvation through repentance for his sins against God, who is all-loving, all-merciful, and all-forgiving, but only grants eternal life to those who find Him and his love and forgiveness through this morality.

God is omnipotent in the fact that he has control over everything, though he is very selective about supernaturally interfering with things.

(Mind that I'm not entirely a Christian, but this is how I understand some of what people are asking about.

What movie is dat op?

>>4948324
I think that maybe God created Adam and Eve sort of how children of 2 or so are; they have no sense or morality, especially the feeling of guilt that goes along with it, until they grow into it, but the feeling is still innate within them, just hidden. Eve eating the apple represents a child's emerging sense of "right" and "wrong" and the guilt that comes with it. The point is that Adam and Eve are supposed to blindly listen to God's word otherwise they will feel the guilt of having betrayed him; God didn't put feelings of guilt in them afterwords, they already had the feeling of guilt innate but it stayed hidden until they unearthed it by disobeying God.

>>4951980
Omniscience is where the problem is.

>>4945812
some unidentifiable or incomprehensible right befitting an omnibenevolent and infinitely just being

File: Representation_of_the_Sower's_parable..jpg (77KB, 415x312px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 415x312px

>>4945812
Because fuck it, xe's God.

>>4945932
But if you work hard, then you're probably ok, right?

>>4945797
Unless you actually believe in god or have any faith then you're wasting your time even participating in this discussion since obviously it shouldn't concern you anyway

>>4948919
>We don't have a ... "soul"
>acting as if we had ... attempts to counter procrastination

First you're assuming there's no subject to assign responsibility to. Then you propose that the purpose of "responsibility" is a carrot in a stick that people created to try to push themselves a little further. This is ambiguous.

"Acting as if" requires the previously dismissed subject ("soul", "spirit", "freewill"), which leads to an absurd conclusion. Your case would be much better defended if you were to dismiss "responsibility" as either an illusion or an evolutive adaptation, well beyond people's control. Would these options better portray the point you tried to make?

>>4945812
because there is free will, despite the fact that the freely chosen decision is known beforehand. The choice is free, it is ours, but it is also knowable by a being who may observe all points in time.

This isn't really as much of a problem as people make it out to be. The bigger problem would be why god would create beings who he knows will go to hell because of their freely chosen actions.

I also think there's a philosophical way out of that conundrum as well, but it's certainly the more interesting question

>>4945797
Because you still did them? What kind of retarded question is this?

You're responsible for your actions.

Do you mean "how can we be blamed for our sins?" If so, we can't.

>>4950177

I cannot emphasize enough now much you need to read Blindsight, by Peter Watts. You WILL enjoy it.

The problem with functionalist theories of consciousness is that of the zombie - you could theoretically have every aspect of functionalist consciousness working in an unconscious automaton, because at the end of the day functionalism has no way of explaining what it is about certain systems that makes them conscious, because it has no mechanism for explaining qualia.

If we are going to explain consciousness scientifically, we must either come up with a purpose for it in an evolutionary context, or admit that as far as we can tell it is an epiphenomenon. As to the idea that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, I direct you to Peter Watt's excellent book for an exegesis on why that idea is utter shit.