Discussion Predestination makes no sense

[parzurnacs]

Theology.is

 

[based_meme]

Of course I'm only going off your posts only!

That's precisely the problem. You don't have the background knowledge, yet you're stubbornly steadfast without realizing your ignorance.

This is a forum thread lol. Its not my fault that you're unable to use all the material you've read to produce a profound argument that couldn't immediately be countered.

This is definitely a you problem, brocel. I don't stick in my nose in discussions I have little or zero knowledge of and then opine strongly about shit I have no idea on. I stay quiet and learn about things I'm both curious and ignorant about. And if people ask me, I state up front that I don't know or I'm not sure. Like economics. I know shit about economics past the basic theory of micro and macro that most people are exposed to, supply demand curves etc. Generally, I know that it's a cross between psychology and mathemathics, but I just don't have an interest in the theoretical side of economics to pursue it and satisfy any personal curiosities.

That's the rational approach.

You, however, are skeptical for its own sake (/r/atheism tier NPC behavior, ironically), and that ends up stifling your knowledge, because you believe that anything that doesn't conform to your (obviously correct) understanding of the world is bullshit to be discarded. This is the irrational skepticism again rearing its head that I've mentioned to you elsewhere.

And its not my fault that you fall for the same intellectual traps that are found commonly among apologists, of claiming that your opponent hasn't read the required material instead of actually making good arguments for your beliefs

They're not traps. They're common mistakes laymen make, and then I have to respond to it (well, I don't HAVE to) with more jargon and concepts to explain the things I already explained and argued for. JFL

And what beliefs? Did you even once ask about any of my beliefs and what my positions are, or did you (in your arrogance) just assume them? I'm making arguments and they're evidently not clicking for you, because it conflicts with the preconceived notions you have going into this.

This pretention will never not be embarrassing lmao. Never expected this from someone who's supposed to be educated enough to know how complicated can things really get in certain topics if you dive deep.

Which you haven't even done on a surface level. WTF ARE YOU EVEN DOING?!

Still pretending that anything you've presented thus far was anything but easily apparent.

It's sometimes funny when a person is wrong but doesn't know about it. We laugh and poke fun. It's all harmless fun.

But it's annoying when they're wrong, don't know about it, think they're right, and then vehemently argue why they think they're right. You're clearly too arrogant to take time out of your day to learn something new, while instead using that time to fling shit.

Whatever bro, I won't stop you from acting like a monkey. Enjoy.

I can clearly see why you'd think its compatible. I've also already explained why I disagree with it in my last paragraph in previous post.

And I've already explained how your disagreements are invalid, misinformed, and misguided.

I have literally zero issues with this. Of course I know that this is not how exercise of will takes place in the real world but so far I've been willing to put up with spiritualistic nonsense for the sake of argument. Because that is a different debate altogether

You're coming at this with baggage, as well as ignorance. I suspected that this was going to be a waste of time, but I didn't think it would be this bad.

You cannot just side step the inherent logical contradiction between free will and determinism by jumping two steps forward and claiming that its independent of the notions of determinism/indeterminism. When the question is whether free will can even exist in a deterministic world, making such claims is akin to ignoring the question instead of answering it. The question is whether an agent actually had the power to generate one causal chain instead of another if the first choice itself was predetermined.

There is no "inherent logical contradiction." I've been explaining it for the past few posts and giving you the pointers to educate yourself, and it's just not getting through to you.

Do the fucking work.

Prime mover is not the same thing as the first cause.

Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Literally in the first sentence. This is basic shit in this kind of discussion and your lack of fundamentals is further cementing the fact that you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

And my argument is that the deterministic game's(with no dice) outcome was never deterministic to begin since a free thinking agent was involved. If the player truly has free will then nothing could predict the outcome of the game.

Do you understand what I mean when I say "solved game?" Tic tac toe is an example of a solved game. That's one more thing you need to look for up for your own edification.

I'm just done. I don't have patience anymore for anyone who argues out of a place of ignorance. I can't believe I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Continue on with whatever it is you think you're doing here, but I just DGAF anymore until you do the work (for yourself, really, not for me KEK).

 

[Caesercel]

That's precisely the problem. You don't have the background knowledge, yet you're stubbornly steadfast without realizing your ignorance.


This is definitely a you problem, brocel. I don't stick in my nose in discussions I have little or zero knowledge of and then opine strongly about shit I have no idea on. I stay quiet and learn about things I'm both curious and ignorant about. And if people ask me, I state up front that I don't know or I'm not sure. Like economics. I know shit about economics past the basic theory of micro and macro that most people are exposed to, supply demand curves etc. Generally, I know that it's a cross between psychology and mathemathics, but I just don't have an interest in the theoretical side of economics to pursue it and satisfy any personal curiosities.

That's the rational approach.

You, however, are skeptical for its own sake (/r/atheism tier NPC behavior, ironically), and that ends up stifling your knowledge, because you believe that anything that doesn't conform to your (obviously correct) understanding of the world is bullshit to be discarded. This is the irrational skepticism again rearing its head that I've mentioned to you elsewhere.


They're not traps. They're common mistakes laymen make, and then I have to respond to it (well, I don't HAVE to) with more jargon and concepts to explain the things I already explained and argued for. JFL

That's quite an elaborate cope for "my arguments are demonstrably illogical and my viewpoint is self contradictory". If the only response you can come up with for my rebuttals is " U dun undersan" then what can I say. Maybe there's a good argument for how two opposite notions like free will and determinism could be reconciled but its apparent I won't find them here.

And what beliefs? Did you even once ask about any of my beliefs and what my positions are, or did you (in your arrogance) just assume them? I'm making arguments and they're evidently not clicking for you, because it conflicts with the preconceived notions you have going into this.

I'm only talking in the frame of reference of the things you posit. Forgive my language.

Which you haven't even done on a surface level. WTF ARE YOU EVEN DOING?!

Atleast I'm not pretending that anything that's been said so far in this thread by either of us is "le deep and complicated". For someone who has apparently studied advanced math and computer science you demonstrate zero awareness about how surface level your own arguments are.

That's precisely the problem. You don't have the background knowledge, yet you're stubbornly stea

It's sometimes funny when a person is wrong but doesn't know about it. We laugh and poke fun. It's all harmless fun.

But it's annoying when they're wrong, don't know about it, think they're right, and then vehemently argue why they think they're right. You're clearly too arrogant to take time out of your day to learn something new, while instead using that time to fling shit.

Whatever bro, I won't stop you from acting like a monkey. Enjoy.

Whatever helps you cope I guess. I have no intention of flinging shit. But when I'm faced by someone who holds contradictory viewpoints , and instead of explaining how it makes sense or countering valid rebuttals to those explainations, starts claiming that the other party won't understand because they haven't done adequate research. Yeah I'm gonna call that shit out for what it is.

Which is double embarrasing when the arguments themselves are surface level sophistry. This is just cringe.

Literally in the first sentence. This is basic shit in this kind of discussion and your lack of fundamentals is further cementing the fact that you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECC0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2DKT4opPSHW7oUt71BHPRa


Argument of the unmoved mover is not the same as argument of the universal cause. Atleast read on the stuff that you claim to know better than me lel.

There is no "inherent logical contradiction."

Its right here:

Free will cannot exist in a deterministic world since the choice made by the agent is pre known and hence any alternative was impossible to begin with.

I've been explaining it for the past few posts and giving you the pointers to educate yourself, and it's just not getting through to you.

Your so called explaination has been rebutted right here :

But it is simply true that the randomness of random events is rendered untrue if the outcome is known. I understand what you're trying to say but God's Omniscience does not absolve you from using logic. Infact preordination is necessary for such knowledge to even exist. I know you claim that it isn't necessary "cuz God" but that's not rationality.

. ..

Do you understand what I mean when I say "solved game?" Tic tac toe is an example of a solved game. That's one more thing you need to look for up for your own edification.

Lets say two agents with perfect free will play a closed game like tic tac toe or chess. Can you "determine" the exact outcome of the game when the first move hasn't been made? No? Well gg. I can literally see how you're confusing yourself with this one and its sad to see that you won't acknowledge where you went wrong with this example.

I'm just done. I don't have patience anymore for anyone who argues out of a place of ignorance. I can't believe I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Continue on with whatever it is you think you're doing here, but I just DGAF anymore until you do the work (for yourself, really, not for me KEK).

I'll just repeat the fundamental flaw in your thought process again for everyone's benefit:

On a more abstract level you cannot define two entities X and Y with properties that are inherently contradictory to the other's existence and then claim that X and Y can co-exist because by definition X is X and Y is Y. You haven't resolved the contradiction here. ( for example X = God's omniscience and Y = randomness of truly random events. )

 

[Mortis]

For every A_1,...,A_n, there a B_1,...,B_n, and for every B_1,...,B_n, there's a C_1,...,C_n, where C is a subset of B and B is a subset of A, and each subset is dependent upon its parent superset. And there are an infinite number of subsets (but this is doesn't really matter). In practice "n" for every subset - i.e., the number of your choices in any decision set - is not infinite, because you will one day die and not be able to exercise your free will i.e., continue making decisions.

Should I just rope? Goodness Gracious why did I have to read this 10 times, I hate being low IQ.

Sorry for the necropost but the topic piqued my intrest again, and I remembered I made this thread.

 

[based_meme]

Should I just rope? Goodness Gracious why did I have to read this 10 times, I hate being low IQ.

Sorry for the necropost but the topic piqued my intrest again, and I remembered I made this thread.

Just take A, B, and C. Let these be the sets of possible choices at any given point in time. C ⊆ B ⊆ A. That funny sideways U means that C is a subset of B and B is a subset of A. By transitivity, C is a subset of A.

The point I was making there was that any change in C would affect B, which would then affect A. Whichever decision you make in your set of choices in C affects the decision tree, which may limit the choices available in B, which would then possibly limit the choices available in A for the entire decision tree. This could work in reverse. Some choices in C may open up more choices in B and A.

From the perspective of an omniscient being or observer (denoted OB there) i.e., God, they would instantly see the changes in the decision tree with the choices in A when changing anything in C. From the perspective of you, all you see are your choices available in C at that given point in time and won't be able to see how it changes your decision sets in B and A, because you have imperfect knowledge and can't see the future.

 

[Mortis]

Just take A, B, and C. Let these be the sets of possible choices at any given point in time. C ⊆ B ⊆ A. That funny sideways U means that C is a subset of B and B is a subset of A. By transitivity, C is a subset of A.

The point I was making there was that any change in C would affect B, which would then affect A. Whichever decision you make in your set of choices in C affects the decision tree, which may limit the choices available in B, which would then possibly limit the choices available in A for the entire decision tree. This could work in reverse. Some choices in C may open up more choices in B and A.

From the perspective of an omniscient being or observer (denoted OB there) i.e., God, they would instantly see the changes in the decision tree with the choices in A when changing anything in C. From the perspective of you, all you see are your choices available in C at that given point in time and won't be able to see how it changes your decision sets in B and A, because you have imperfect knowledge and can't see the future.

Thanks for the clarification, I can understand your point much clearer now.


I really envy your knowledge, and keen intelligence. Would you mind me asking how old you are? You don't have to give me your exact age, just a rough range.

 

[based_meme]

Thanks for the clarification, I can understand your point much clearer now.

I really envy your knowledge, and keen intelligence. Would you mind me asking how old you are? You don't have to give me your exact age, just a rough range.

You shouldn't envy something accessible to you. You can envy Lebron James or Sean O'Pry, because you'll never be that tall (and good at basketball) or look that good, but this is something you can just go and learn for yourself, given enough motivation and time.