Fate vs. free will

[Stek]

Yes

Then would you care to elaborate on the grounds of which you disagree?

If you argue that compatibilism is not contradictory, then that must be based on the compatibilist definition of "free will", which if I remember correctly, is something like "you act congruent with your own desires" or something to that effect. But compatibilism cannot account for why your thoughts and desires are what they are, and so, even if you act according to them, their manifestation is arguably outside of your control, and therefore, your behaviour is too.

 

[Beorn]

But compatibilism cannot account for why your thoughts and desires are what they are, and so, even if you act according to them, their manifestation is arguably outside of your control, and therefore, your behaviour is too.

I'm confused by the argument and your use of "why your thoughts and desires are what they are."

Do you you mean that Compatibilism posits that desires are not determined by persons?

 

[Beorn]

I don't really believe in free will (in the way most people understand it). I will admit that.

I assert, however, that despite the nature of a predetermined universe people make choices that act on their desires and they are responsible for those decisions.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

There is not real free will, that's just an illusion... also of course there is no fate

 

[Evee]

Buddha did not believe in fate, which is synonymous with luck. Only cause and effect.

 

[Passacaglia]

That's what happens when you have a misunderstanding of basic theology by wide swaths of Christians. Many great theologians have worked for centuries to develop a consistent and coherent theology.

Haha, fair enough.

They're wrong. God is not omnibenevolent. That is plain. He can still be good and just as long as those he hates are worthy of hate.

So your God is omnipotent and omniscient, but not omni-benevolent?

I don't think Augustine did believe in a tri-omni God. You can quote him if I'm wrong.

I might go quote-hunting later, but Augustine was deeply concerned with the Problem of Evil. Which isn't much of a problem unless one thinks that God is supposed to be tri-omni.

 

[Passacaglia]

I think the problem of evil is only a problem because "evil" is itself a subjective concept. Nothing is evil if not observed and categorized as such by an observer. And so, "evil" can only exist in the mind of the observer.

I agree that good and evil are ultimately subjective. However, believers like Augustine consider them to be very objective things, which is why he spent so much mental energy trying to reconcile a good God with an evil world.

Again, the concept of "meaning" is also subjective. Objective meaning does not exist. Meaning is created by the mind of the observer of an event.

Again, agreed. "Why does a perfect and infallible God create the universe?" was mostly a rhetorical question.

 

[KitchenFly]

Buddha did not believe in fate, which is synonymous with luck. Only cause and effect.

Cause and effect naturally manifests the fate of what ever cause and effect applied to as action. Ni

Fate equals out come. Ne

Fate is synonyms with both direct cognition and creation found at point nine as cause and effect are never separated from mass and energy two ends of a multiplicity between points 3 (mass) and 6 (energy). They connect with point nine and form the primary triangle with (creation) at the said point nine. Te

Creation (9) , spatial perception (3) , temporal perception (6) Ti

The question of fate vs free will can only be a trick question. Fi

 

[Evee]

Cause and effect naturally manifests the fate of what ever cause and effect applied to as action. Ni

Fate equals out come. Ne

Fate is synonyms with both direct cognition and creation found at point nine as cause and effect are never separated from mass and energy two ends of a multiplicity between points 3 (mass) and 6 (energy). They connect with point nine and form the primary triangle with (creation) at the said point nine. Te

Creation (9) , spatial perception (3) , temporal perception (6) Ti

The question of fate vs free will can only be a trick question. Fi

I don't understand how enneagram fits into this.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I have seen religious people argue that we have free will, but at the same time, that our destiny is predetermined. This is seems to be an obvious contradiction. Have I misunderstood something?

Is the notion of fate and destiny contradictory to the notion of free will?

only if you are stuck on a singular plane of abstraction. 'there is no such thing as contradiction, only a paradox which points to the limits of 3d time space. Like particles can hve both wave and particle properties so too can a person have free will and fate. What is lacking is the imaginal possibility because the mind is stuck.

 

[Beorn]

So your God is omnipotent and omniscient, but not omni-benevolent?

Yes. It's not possible for him to be omni-benevolent and order the slaughter of the Amalekites. No christian or jew should believe that God is omni-benevolent as it's obviously not true.

might go quote-hunting later, but Augustine was deeply concerned with the Problem of Evil. Which isn't much of a problem unless one thinks that God is supposed to be tri-omni.

It is still very much a problem because despite the lack of omni-benevolence towards others the God of the Bible is still perfectly good in and of himself. So the problem is still how can a perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent God coexist with evil.

 

[Riva]

According to buddhism there are 4 or 5 aspects (can't remember) that influences (i am using the word influenze NOT govern) a person's life:

A) karma - consequences of one's actions in this life and previous
B) parental attributes - looks etc which you inherit from parents
C) nature/weather - rain, earthquakes, tsunamis etc
D) thoughts - this aspect is controllable by the person

And buddhism also says no matter what aspects you get (A B and C) one can change one's life for the better or worse through perseverence (one's thoughts/will/ point D). D is equal to free will.

So in the end free will can change everything in your life for the better or worse.

 

[Passacaglia]

Yes. It's not possible for him to be omni-benevolent and order the slaughter of the Amalekites. No christian or jew should believe that God is omni-benevolent as it's obviously not true.

I would think so too, but that doesn't stop them from believing it, does it?

They're wrong. God is not omnibenevolent. That is plain. He can still be good and just as long as those he hates are worthy of hate.

It is still very much a problem because despite the lack of omni-benevolence towards others the God of the Bible is still perfectly good in and of himself. So the problem is still how can a perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent God coexist with evil.

I get the sense that we're using 'good' in rather different ways. My definition of good revolves around empathy and altruism; how about yours?

 

[Beorn]

I get the sense that we're using 'good' in rather different ways. My definition of good revolves around empathy and altruism; how about yours?

How can God be altruistic?
He is the Summum Bonnum, the highest good. It seems to me that altruism is very humanistic and presumes there are higher goods outside one's self. So it doesn't make sense to apply it to God.
And yet, while his goodness is not dependent on being altruistic, the death and resurrection of Christ represents the most self-sacrificial act imaginable.

I like Thomas Manton's description of God's goodness:

He is originally good, good of Himself, which nothing else is; for all creatures are good only by participation and communication from God. He is essentially good; not only good, but goodness itself: the creature’s good is a superadded quality, in God it is His essence. He is infinitely good; the creature’s good is but a drop, but in God there is an infinite ocean or gathering together of good. He is eternally and immutably good, for He cannot be less good than He is; as there can be no addition made to Him, so no subtraction from Him

 

[1487610420]

How can God be altruistic?
He is the Summum Bonnum, the highest good. It seems to me that altruism is very humanistic and presumes there are higher goods outside one's self. So it doesn't make sense to apply it to God.
And yet, while his goodness is not dependent on being altruistic, the death and resurrection of Christ represents the most self-sacrificial act imaginable.

I like Thomas Manton's description of God's goodness:

He is originally good, good of Himself, which nothing else is; for all creatures are good only by participation and communication from God. He is essentially good; not only good, but goodness itself: the creature’s good is a superadded quality, in God it is His essence. He is infinitely good; the creature’s good is but a drop, but in God there is an infinite ocean or gathering together of good. He is eternally and immutably good, for He cannot be less good than He is; as there can be no addition made to Him, so no subtraction from Him

How does it make sense or not to apply anything humanly conceptualized to anything humanly conceptualized?

ETA: oh wait, don't answer that, it's because the answer will be 100% dependent on the subject's doing the evaluation, subjective human experience.

 

[KitchenFly]

I don't understand how enneagram fits into this.

Minds are thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting the in betweens.

The enneagram is as relevant to this topic as breathing air,,. is relevant to being a human.

 

[Evee]

Minds are thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting the in betweens.

The enneagram is as relevant to this topic as breathing air,,. is relevant to being a human.

Are you sure that's all minds do?

 

[Passacaglia]

How can God be altruistic?
He is the Summum Bonnum, the highest good. It seems to me that altruism is very humanistic and presumes there are higher goods outside one's self. So it doesn't make sense to apply it to God.
And yet, while his goodness is not dependent on being altruistic, the death and resurrection of Christ represents the most self-sacrificial act imaginable.

While altruism does have philosophical backing, all one needs to be altruistic is empathy; a trait which you haven't yet denied your God. I'm not sure what Christ has to do with the question of your God's altruism or goodness; an omniscient and omnipotent deity doesn't need proxies to do or be anything.

I like Thomas Manton's description of God's goodness:

He is originally good, good of Himself, which nothing else is; for all creatures are good only by participation and communication from God. He is essentially good; not only good, but goodness itself: the creature’s good is a superadded quality, in God it is His essence. He is infinitely good; the creature’s good is but a drop, but in God there is an infinite ocean or gathering together of good. He is eternally and immutably good, for He cannot be less good than He is; as there can be no addition made to Him, so no subtraction from Him

So it looks like your definition of goodness is godliness, or god-ness; is that a fairly accurate description of your view?

If so, yes, I can see how the Problem of Evil is still a problem even without omni-benevolence. Your God created everything to be exactly how it is and everyone to be exactly as obedient and godly as we are, set down ten big rules and a lot of other minor rules (guidelines?) for us to follow, and is now judging all of us by the godliness and obedience that He gave us, despite having the power to alter us and/or the rules toward a more agreeable outcome. (For Him and us.) Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

 

[sprinkles]

I had a dream last night that reminded me of my philosophies, what they are, why I have them and what they've done for me. It also told me that anyone who doesn't believe in free will has never fully utilized their imagination. It's quite obvious that such people are mundane and do what they are told, never having major epiphanies or feeling like they've broken through the cusp of a new universe after a protracted mental and emotional struggle, like a new chick hatching from an egg.

Maybe some people don't have free will. Maybe some people are born as drones and truly can't help themselves and will live the rest of their life doing what destiny tells them, under the illusion of a choice that they don't have.

Maybe only some people. And maybe some of us are like gods and the rest of you are boring.

 

[Beorn]

While altruism does have philosophical backing, all one needs to be altruistic is empathy; a trait which you haven't yet denied your God.

It doesn't fit though. Because God is the greatest good he can't act in a disinterested way. Everything he does is for his own glorification. Even the sacrifice of Christ glorifies God.

I'm not sure what Christ has to do with the question of your God's altruism or goodness; an omniscient and omnipotent deity doesn't need proxies to do or be anything.

I'm explaining things from a protestant orthodox position

Christ isn't a proxy. He is God.

So it looks like your definition of goodness is godliness, or god-ness; is that a fairly accurate description of your view?

I don't think so because I think godliness extends beyond goodness. Off the top of my head I would just say that goodness is God's character and any goodness in humanity reflects that character.

If so, yes, I can see how the Problem of Evil is still a problem even without omni-benevolence. Your God created everything to be exactly how it is and everyone to be exactly as obedient and godly as we are, set down ten big rules and a lot of other minor rules (guidelines?) for us to follow, and is now judging all of us by the godliness and obedience that He gave us, despite having the power to alter us and/or the rules toward a more agreeable outcome. (For Him and us.) Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

It's a paradox.

But I'm not bothered by it because he's still just. What's amazing is that he withholds his justice, is patient, and extends his mercy and grace throughout the world.