Fate vs. free will

[Stek]

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?

 

[Pionart]

Let me drop some stoner philosophy on ya.

I propose that time works differently to how we think...

To the present, the past is determined, at least so we imagine, yet if there is free will, then the past was constructed by free will. So too, at the end of time, everything that happened is determined yet constructed by free will. But what if the end of time is already here, and so every future is already constructed? But this answers nothing! For how can we have free will right now, if we are to follow a given path? There is a strange sense of time traveller logic at play if we say that the future is here already but we can choose it. Hmm...

What I really think, is that all possible futures with respect to our given universe already exist, as an outcome space. What we do with free will is not what we think we do. What we are doing is selecting between which set of futures we wish to view at any given time. We are not effecting the future, we are only choosing which future we want to see. We are not even part of the universe, we are just viewing it.

 

[Opal]

Eh, given life's linear discourse, I think it can be assumed that no other unfolding was possible.

I recycle this phrase, but any given thing is a confluence of forces (pushed and pulled by other forces), and given enough understanding and computational power, predictable.

(so, imo, fate is a more valid belief, but neither has practical consequences)

 

[Stek]

Eh, given life's linear discourse, I think it can be assumed that no other unfolding was possible.

I recycle this phrase, but any given thing is a confluence of forces (pushed and pulled by other forces), and given enough understanding and computational power, predictable.

(so, imo, fate is a more valid belief, but neither has practical consequences)

My understanding is that "fate" is the idea of a perfect description of an individual's future. It is what is going to happen no matter what. It is not an estimate, nor is it possible to fully realize it until it has happened. Maybe this is not the best understanding of it, but with this "definition", free will makes no sense, as you can only chose that which will lead you to your fate, which is predetermined. As we cannot observe that our choices were in fact predetermined, we can only live in the illusion of the present, where we are unable to see the future. We cannot see the path clearly even if it already exist. Time reveal the path, and our perception is limited by the present.

More or less...

 

[Opal]

My understanding is that "fate" is the idea of a perfect description of an individual's future. It is what is going to happen no matter what. It is not an estimate, nor is it possible to fully realize it until it has happened. Maybe this is not the best understanding of it, but with this "definition", free will makes no sense, as you can only chose that which will lead you to your fate, which is predetermined. As we cannot observe that our choices were in fact predetermined, we can only live in the illusion of the present, where we are unable to see the future. We cannot see the path clearly even if it already exist. Time reveal the path, and our perception is limited by the present.

More or less...

Yeah, determinism encompasses the illusion of free will. If we understand enough factors, we can predict trends and vague outcomes, but never with certainty.

 

[Passacaglia]

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?

I don't think that free will and fate have to be contradictory within the context of religion.

In the context of religion, free will is an illusion in much the same way that it's an illusion in the context of determinism. God created us and the universe. God knows how each of us ticks, which decisions each of us will make, and how those decisions affect the world and people around us. To God, we are all gears in the cosmic machine.

But we don't even fully understand how we think and make decisions, so to us the future is a mystery. We're predestined to do and think everything in our future, but because we rarely know what we're going to do and think and decide, we collectively shrug and say "Well, God gave us free will."

'Course, most religious folks don't like to think about it this way because the idea of free will being an illusion tends to make people uncomfortable. So I think that a lot of religious people -- specifically monotheists -- turn this whole issue into a contradiction in an effort to reconcile true free will with an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent God.

 

[Kullervo]

Fate in an objective sense is impossible because one's destiny is not preordained. How you are born affects your future but does not control it.

Free will is a result of higher consciousness. Humans, unlike any other creatures on the Earth, have the ability to make wholly innovative, creative decisions that can influence the future of life. It is for this reason that we have the power to control our own destiny but also the responsibility to ensure if not a better, at least a sustainable future for the world we have become caretakers of.

 

[Stek]

In the context of religion, free will is an illusion in much the same way that it's an illusion in the context of determinism. God created us and the universe. God knows how each of us ticks, which decisions each of us will make, and how those decisions affect the world and people around us. To God, we are all gears in the cosmic machine.

Then we cannot be any more important than any rock flying through the universe. This also makes no sense with the notion of heaven and hell. If everything is predetermined, then he asks us not to do what we are programmed to do. And if we do it, he will burn us in hell for eternity. If so, he has even created hell and a conscious afterlife just for billions of people to experience agony for eternity. That seems quite pointless and evil.

'Course, most religious folks don't like to think about it this way because the idea of free will being an illusion tends to make people uncomfortable. So I think that a lot of religious people -- specifically monotheists -- turn this whole issue into a contradiction in an effort to reconcile true free will with an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent God.

I agree with free will being an illusion. We don't even have any control over what we think. It just happens because of previous patterns in our mind and behaviour. But if free will is an illusion, then any divine punishment is pointless. Why would you punish a tree for falling the way you pushed it?

 

[Stek]

Fate in an objective sense is impossible because one's destiny is not preordained. How you are born affects your future but does not control it.

Free will is a result of higher consciousness. Humans, unlike any other creatures on the Earth, have the ability to make wholly innovative, creative decisions that can influence the future of life. It is for this reason that we have the power to control our own destiny but also the responsibility to ensure if not a better, at least a sustainable future for the world we have become caretakers of.

It's not preordained? How do you know? Isn't our every choice a consequence of prior events?
I agree that your birth does not control your future, but your birth is part of the universe. And so is your future. I think the universe control your future - not through any conscious decision, but through its inherent interaction with itself, which you are part of.

Yes, we differ from animals in cognition, but are you really saying that animal behaviour are completely predetermined, but human behaviour is not? Even if we can use our brain for more advanced processing than animals, I think anything we think is just as predetermined as anything any animal thinks. Why would it not be? You are talking about a fundamental difference in the nature of the brain. Not just a more advanced version of an animal brain. I don't see how that is logical.

It seems like you are talking about the illusion. Which the animals probably also have. The illusion of self.

 

[KitchenFly]

Fate and will are perspectives, I could refuse to eat and my fate will be starvation.

I could eat more food than I require each day and over time fate will lead me to suffering obesity if I have a slow metabolism that makes me susceptible to obesity.

Entropy and creation and manipulation seem to be connected to fate and will.

On a personal level will maybe seen to be connected to choice and fate maybe seen to be linked to outcome.

GreaterNature hosts and in this action maintains. The created (man) (man as a collective) has will within participation and the balances are determined as action via math. A will action influences fate fate influences the the chooses of will action between the Sole actions or man.

If fate was sealed and will was an illusion the synergy of mans role-play within activity would be nought proactive. And as we reflect upon the state of the balances between people politics and environmental balances it is easy to see that humans have a pore understanding of the inner connections that link fate and will with creation entropy, choose seems to be lost within an array of chosen distractions and chosen influences created by the entropy of mac animal mans disconnect with the scales of Greater Natures mathematical accord.

Within the balances of hosted activity fate is real and will is real and the retiming factors are sheared between relevant factors. God men and man.

I think time moves in three directions forwards backwards and present know, and I think this because I think the host universe is a membrane that has a life cycle that involves reproduction via a big band with other membrane universe. And from the larger scale of universes as membranes as occupants of a supper universes that may have strange laws where in to sustain balance time must travel in many directions for the purpose of sustaining a balance to scale.

The term men is inclusive and meant as the word human being.

 

[Passacaglia]

Then we cannot be any more important than any rock flying through the universe. This also makes no sense with the notion of heaven and hell. If everything is predetermined, then he asks us not to do what we are programmed to do. And if we do it, he will burn us in hell for eternity. If so, he has even created hell and a conscious afterlife just for billions of people to experience agony for eternity. That seems quite pointless and evil.

Indeed! I've heard many explanations of how God sets people up to fail but is still a loving and just God, but none of them are convincing. But hey, that's what happens when you take a monolatrous regional deity (early Yahweh) with a consistently capricious mythology (the Old Testament), and then try to turn him into a tri-omni monotheistic deity who goes on to spawn three more major faiths. (Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i.) Things get inconsistent fast, but somehow that doesn't seem to bother many believers in the slightest.

In fact, I think the inconsistency actually appeals to believers who enjoy the intellectual challenge of rationalizing a tri-omni God. I recently read The Confessions of Saint Augustine, who was a Manichee during his early adulthood. The Manichaean faith was a gnostic religion without a tri-omni God, and Augustine found Manichaeism much more reasonable than Christianity for ~9 years. But he eventually converts, and then writes something to the effect that "The Bible is full of inconsistencies, which I had found scorn-worthy as a young man, but which I grew to appreciate." Augustine was a very intelligent and well-educated man, and his Confessions include a very creative solution to the Problem of Evil -- centuries before later theologians came up with the idea of free will to solve the same Problem.

Stranger than fiction, you might say!

I agree with free will being an illusion. We don't even have any control over what we think. It just happens because of previous patterns in our mind and behaviour. But if free will is an illusion, then any divine punishment is pointless. Why would you punish a tree for falling the way you pushed it?

Why create the universe, let alone humanity to begin with?

 

[Beorn]

Indeed! I've heard many explanations of how God sets people up to fail but is still a loving and just God, but none of them are convincing.

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.

But hey, that's what happens when you take a monolatrous regional deity (early Yahweh) with a consistently capricious mythology (the Old Testament), and then try to turn him into a tri-omni monotheistic deity who goes on to spawn three more major faiths. (Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i.) Things get inconsistent fast, but somehow that doesn't seem to bother many believers in the slightest.

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.

In fact, I think the inconsistency actually appeals to believers who enjoy the intellectual challenge of rationalizing a tri-omni God. I recently read The Confessions of Saint Augustine, who was a Manichee during his early adulthood. The Manichaean faith was a gnostic religion without a tri-omni God, and Augustine found Manichaeism much more reasonable than Christianity for ~9 years. But he eventually converts, and then writes something to the effect that "The Bible is full of inconsistencies, which I had found scorn-worthy as a young man, but which I grew to appreciate." Augustine was a very intelligent and well-educated man, and his Confessions include a very creative solution to the Problem of Evil -- centuries before later theologians came up with the idea of free will to solve the same Problem.

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

- - - Updated - - -

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?

Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Stek]

If fate was sealed and will was an illusion the synergy of mans role-play within activity would be nought proactive. And as we reflect upon the state of the balances between people politics and environmental balances it is easy to see that humans have a pore understanding of the inner connections that link fate and will with creation entropy, choose seems to be lost within an array of chosen distractions and chosen influences created by the entropy of mac animal mans disconnect with the scales of Greater Natures mathematical accord.

You are talking about man's limited rationality. Even if a person has access to complete knowledge about the consequence of any choice, and a complete understanding of the dynamics of the world, he would not be able to comprehend this information simultaneously, and his decision would be biased (though, much more informed than any decision ever made by any man today). Limited rationality contributes to our illusion of self. It is not easy to truly realise that we are all momentary bundles of particles that are all part of the same universe. This bundle of particles isn't even made out of the same particles throughout our "life". When the realization is made that our lives are, in fact, a consequence of the prior state of the universe, then it will become easier to realize that the same must be true for our future. It is predetermined. As far as we know, the only thing that could influence this predetermined state is the notion of quantum randomness. But if we discard our understanding of time, then every random instance might as well be understood as predetermined. Nevertheless, any degree of true randomness will not constitute free will.

I think time moves in three directions forwards backwards and present know, and I think this because I think the host universe is a membrane that has a life cycle that involves reproduction via a big band with other membrane universe. And from the larger scale of universes as membranes as occupants of a supper universes that may have strange laws where in to sustain balance time must travel in many directions for the purpose of sustaining a balance to scale.

Maybe this understanding of time is a fundamental misconception. What makes you think that time moves at all? We can only perceive the present, and so our perspective on time is biased. Even if you would travel back in time, your perception of that would be your subjective present.

 

[Stek]

Augustine was a very intelligent and well-educated man, and his Confessions include a very creative solution to the Problem of Evil -- centuries before later theologians came up with the idea of free will to solve the same Problem.

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.

Why create the universe, let alone humanity to begin with?

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.

I think most philosophical questions is derived from the misconception of subjective concepts. You cannot find an objective answer to a question about a subjective concept, as the concept does not exist in objective reality. Any answer is subjective, and any answer is valid, which is why "no answer" can be made, and the discussion can go on forever (e.g. what is the meaning of life? What is objective moral values? What is right and wrong?).

 

[á´…eparted]

I feel like I have all kinds of free will. Whether or not that is true is completely irrelevant to me. Reason being, as if it's not true, I still feel like I have it, therefore it would be as if nothing has changed and I can go about my business.

 

[Stek]

Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compatibilism is a contradiction. The question "why" will, if answered, destroy any compatibilism explanation of a choice. Compatibilism explain free will with the illusion itself, but refuse to see it as such.

 

[KitchenFly]

Perhaps types that lead first; by the head (first) ,and the hart (first) ,and the gut (first) ,have differing experiences of will and fate.

If the triangle is thought of there is the will to do at point nine and the will to be at point three and the will to see at point six. Fate would accompany the actions of all three primary actions.

 

[Beorn]

Compatibilism is a contradiction. The question "why" will, if answered, destroy any compatibilism explanation of a choice.

Compatibilism explain free will with the illusion itself, but refuse to see it as such.

You're just begging the question.

 

[Stek]

You're just begging the question.

Do you disagree?

 

[Beorn]

Do you disagree?

Yes