Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you know I am NOT saying any such thing since I have experienced God. What I AM saying is that expecting anyone else to believe in God because I have experienced Him is not reasonable. The only things we can expect others to accept are those things that have been validated and verified by science OR that they have experienced. Your major fault seems to be adding multiple implications for what are very simple statements. If science can't verify claims or assertions they simply are NOT verified, no need to posit lying.
don't say "we"
those are your beliefs. those are your criteria.
and don't say it is about getting "others to accept." what you are describing is your own criteria for yourself, what determines whether you will or won't accept something yourself.
what you are saying is you don't do faith.
the extent of what you believe and will accept is restricted and limited to that which science verifies, and that which you personally experience.
that is not faith.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-14-2017 at 06:35 PM..
Thanks for your answers. The only one I find deeply puzzling is (7a). I can think of one way it might seem to work. If you have always existed and if, in every moment of your existence, you have chosen to keep existing, then there was never a first moment in which a being that did not exist suddenly chose to exist. Thus you could, at first glance, seemingly avoid a flat-out logical contradiction. But, ultimately, this approach does not really escape logical contradiction.
(1) Free will is a capacity to make choices in accordance with one's intrinsic nature.
(2) For X to "have an intrinsic nature," X must exist.
(3) For any X, if X does not exist, then X has no intrinsic nature.
(4) For the concept "choosing to exist" to be meaningful, one must not already exist (on pain of utter redundancy).
(5) In order to freely choose to exist, X must already exist (per premises 1 & 2) but X cannot already exist (per premises 3 & 4).
This argument could probably be structured a bit better (ya'll are welcome to suggest improvements), but hopefully you get the key idea. The concept "choosing to exist" is a logically incoherent concept because it implies that "exists" and "does not exist" apply to the one and same being at the moment of free choice. (And, just a reminder, choosing to exist is not the same as choosing to continue existing. There is a logical contradiction with the former, but not the latter.)
I suspect that you are going to insist that you are thinking rationally, and that you did, indeed, choose to exist. And, if so, then there is nothing more I can say about it because if you choose to embrace a logical contradiction, then rational discussion simply has to cease. But I am curious: Why do you even care about this? Why do you feel a need to insist that you chose to exist? Do you remember choosing to exist? (Again, for the umpteenth time, keep in mind that choosing to continue existing is not a problem. Each of us does that in every moment until the point of death.)
If you do remember choosing to exist, then I'd like to know more about how you came to make that choice.
If you do not remember choosing to exist, then why are you so certain that you ever made such a choice?
And what is at stake for you such that you would want to claim that you chose to exist?
BTW: Can you reference any holy book or ancient sage who explicitly claimed that we chose to exist (or that God chose to exist)? Do they explain this? Or do they simply make the claim?
I think it would be better to learn some mechanical engineering and the inner workings of a cell. It becomes crystal clear how much free will we have. or i can spray some pheromones in a local restaurant.
I think it would be better to learn some mechanical engineering and the inner workings of a cell. It becomes crystal clear how much free will we have. or i can spray some pheromones in a local restaurant.
In the context of the discussion with Taz, the concept of "free" will is not the core issue. It's the act of "doing something" that is the problem. A choice is an "action" or an "activity" no matter whether it is a conscious being or a mechanical system. So if you program a computer to "choose" between options A and B by employing a RNG (random number generator), the "choice" is nevertheless made by an existing entity (the RNG). An action implies actor. A choice implies a "chooser" of some sort. Non-existence doesn't do anything.
Let's suppose that unicorns do not exist. If this is true, then unicorns cannot do anything. We can imagine a unicorn existing, and thus we can imagine it running, jumping, etc., but the concept of a unicorn is not a unicorn. The concept of a unicorn could exist, and thus a concept could presumably do something, but unicorns, as such, can't do anything because they don't exist. They certainly can't choose to start existing.
As for free will: If I were to talk about free will, I would not talk about mechanical systems. Deterministic/algorithmic systems do not exercise free will. I do not believe that animals are deterministic/algorithmic systems. Living systems are dynamical and chaotic in the mathematical sense (not in the common language sense of merely "disordered" like a messy closet or an unruly crowd). As such living systems cannot, even in principle, be reduced to algorithms (for essentially the same reason that a irrational number cannot be reduced to an integer or a finite set of digits).
Sheer speculation: Generally, when theoretical physicists discover infinities in the equations of their physical theories, they regard their theory as "breaking down" at that point. They say the theory "no longer applies" in that realm, or is "undefined" in this domain. I predict that if we ever manage to fully identify the neural activity correlated with a "free choice" we will discover that infinities and/or irrational numbers are unavoidable at crucial points within the theory. Why? Because for free will to exist, the agent who exercises the free choice must literally initiate a causal chain based on the agent's own holistic nature (a sort of top-down causal influence), and this initiation cannot be reducible to quantum randomness (either that or, quantum randomness itself will have to turn out to be events of agent causation). In other words, there must be significant "breaks in the physical chains of causation." But, in the case of a physical theory of free will, the introduction of infinities won't indicate a "breakdown" of the theory, but a confirmation of it. That's the trick. We need a theory that predicts exactly when/where/how the infinities have to come on-line (at the moments of free choice initiating new causal chains), and then we need to test the theory to see if these predictions are confirmed. And then, perhaps, we could build "machines" that have free will - i.e., we would build "machines" that stop being "machines" at the moment of their first free choice.
(7b) There is no logical contradiction in choosing to be born into this lifetime. If we are immortal souls who reincarnate from one lifetime to another, it is possible that we are conscious between lifetimes and make a choice to be born into our next life. Some traditions claim that we choose the time and circumstances of each birth in order maximize our potential for learning whatever it is that we need to learn for the overall development of our soul. I am not personally convinced that this sort of conscious life-to-life choice-making occurs, but I see no super-strong reason to disbelieve it either. Some folks have said that they have experienced these inter-life conscious states. Maybe they have, and maybe we do actually make such choices. I am agnostic on this idea until I have experience or empirical evidence upon which to make a decision.
as a human there are two parts to us: the physical human body which is finite, has a beginning and end, is born and decays at death; and the eternal soul which is infinite has no beginning and no end, inhabits a physical body for a time then exiting.
the physical body (and everything in our physical world) is bound by time.
the eternal soul is not bound by time.
just like God is eternal and is not bound by time has no beginning and no end.
so regarding "past lifes" they are not linear in terms of one life after another. they are actually all going on at the same time. which means you are in more than one place at the same time. the eternal you that operates outside of time and has no beginning and has no end, is fully aware that it is in more than one place at the same time.
...so regarding "past lifes" they are not linear in terms of one life after another. they are actually all going on at the same time. which means you are in more than one place at the same time. the eternal you that operates outside of time and has no beginning and has no end, is fully aware that it is in more than one place at the same time.
I think that this is probably true. It is essentially my non-temporal "multiverse" theory of Reality (although in my theory there are no "non-physical" souls. In my theory, all beings are essentially embodied).
Thanks for your answers. The only one I find deeply puzzling is (7a). I can think of one way it might seem to work. If you have always existed and if, in every moment of your existence, you have chosen to keep existing, then there was never a first moment in which a being that did not exist suddenly chose to exist. Thus you could, at first glance, seemingly avoid a flat-out logical contradiction. But, ultimately, this approach does not really escape logical contradiction.
(1) Free will is a capacity to make choices in accordance with one's intrinsic nature.
(2) For X to "have an intrinsic nature," X must exist.
(3) For any X, if X does not exist, then X has no intrinsic nature.
(4) For the concept "choosing to exist" to be meaningful, one must not already exist (on pain of utter redundancy).
(5) In order to freely choose to exist, X must already exist (per premises 1 & 2) but X cannot already exist (per premises 3 & 4).
This argument could probably be structured a bit better (ya'll are welcome to suggest improvements), but hopefully you get the key idea. The concept "choosing to exist" is a logically incoherent concept because it implies that "exists" and "does not exist" apply to the one and same being at the moment of free choice. (And, just a reminder, choosing to exist is not the same as choosing to continue existing. There is a logical contradiction with the former, but not the latter.)
I suspect that you are going to insist that you are thinking rationally, and that you did, indeed, choose to exist. And, if so, then there is nothing more I can say about it because if you choose to embrace a logical contradiction, then rational discussion simply has to cease. But I am curious: Why do you even care about this? Why do you feel a need to insist that you chose to exist? Do you remember choosing to exist? (Again, for the umpteenth time, keep in mind that choosing to continue existing is not a problem. Each of us does that in every moment until the point of death.)
If you do remember choosing to exist, then I'd like to know more about how you came to make that choice.
If you do not remember choosing to exist, then why are you so certain that you ever made such a choice?
And what is at stake for you such that you would want to claim that you chose to exist?
BTW: Can you reference any holy book or ancient sage who explicitly claimed that we chose to exist (or that God chose to exist)? Do they explain this? Or do they simply make the claim?
my understanding is that God has always existed. no beginning no end eternal, and exists outside of time.
God has always existed, but God desired to create, so God created a bunch of stuff including universes and galaxies and nature and life forms. So God has always existed but the stuff God creates has not always existed. Anything "physical" is finite and has a beginning and end.
my soul that is eternal is a spark of God, like a drop of water is a teeny tiny part of the ocean. My soul is part of God but is also aware of my own individual ness, with my own preferences, desires, goals, talents, skills, abilities. As an individual eternal soul, yes I do choose how and when and whether to incarnate and custom design lifetimes to meet the goals i set for myself. God created my soul by sending off a spark of its own self. That spark became me. In that sense I did not choose to exist. However in another sense all of creation is God experiencing what it is like in different scenarios. God is experiencing itself through all different creations and scenarios and forms. God wanted to experience what it is like to be me, so God created me. In that sense God did choose to create me, and since "me" is God in disguise, then "me" did choose to be created. Although it is more accurate to say God chose to experience itself as me. God can dress up in different clothes and have different adventures. God creates multiple selves. We kind of do the same thing when we incarnate in different lifetimes. Yes we choose different lifetimes. No we did not way back when choose to exist because God chose for us to exist as pieces of God dressed up having different adventures.
God is the singer, the song and the person hearing the song.
God is the giver, the gift and the recipient.
the nature of God is to love and to give, therefore since God wanted to love and to give, God created recipients and gifts so God could bestow love and give gifts.
so to address your questions: at a soul level, i choose each particular lifetime or incarnation and all parties are acting in agreement in every scenario. that is free will at the soul level designing and choosing a particular lifetime.
within a human lifetime i have free will to choose how i respond to whatever situation is facing me. i have free will to take responsibility (or not) for all my thought, speech, action, feelings. It is a very high level of responsibility. Why does it matter to me? Because it is what governs what we create in our world and in our daily life. It directly affects and impacts the quality of my daily life in every moment.
at the God level since God has always existed, and we are simply a spark of God dressed up in different clothes having adventures, then yes we have always existed.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-14-2017 at 09:38 PM..
... And then, perhaps, we could build "machines" that have free will - i.e., we would build "machines" that stop being "machines" at the moment of their first free choice.
why would you do that? what's the point?
it seems to me that the way to learn about using free will and explore the nature, impact, effect of free will is in our own life since we have free will.
although what you are describing is the parameters that the Divine set up in our free will plane. Free will is directly linked with the process of creation. Big creation at the Creator level (God creating all of Creation), and also little creators us at the level of our own daily life. God built and designed humans and gave us free will in our little corner of the universe. This sets us apart from other creatures that do not have free will. Free will is also directly linked to "doing the right thing."
.... But I am curious: Why do you even care about this? Why do you feel a need to insist that you chose to exist? Do you remember choosing to exist? (Again, for the umpteenth time, keep in mind that choosing to continue existing is not a problem. Each of us does that in every moment until the point of death.)
If you do remember choosing to exist, then I'd like to know more about how you came to make that choice.
If you do not remember choosing to exist, then why are you so certain that you ever made such a choice?
And what is at stake for you such that you would want to claim that you chose to exist?
BTW: Can you reference any holy book or ancient sage who explicitly claimed that we chose to exist (or that God chose to exist)? Do they explain this? Or do they simply make the claim?
what i emphasize is that we have free will within our life to choose how to respond to any given situation. and that at a soul level we chose the life we are now living. and that for me if i chose this life it was for a darn good reason and my soul is a lot smarter than I am and has my best interests at heart always and can see the big picture, the higher perspective and I want to see from that perspective, I want to understand more deeply about what is happening.
so it is "choosing this particular lifetime" and "choosing how to live the life we find ourselves in" and also how to consciously "choose how to create within this life"
there are books and sages that discuss how and why God chose to create us. and the process of creation. and our role in this process. and our relationship with the Divine. it is how we learn to create for ourselves. how to use free will in constructive ways rather than the opposite.
i care about this because I have always had a great yearning for God ever since i was a tiny child, and for nearly as long i have wanted to understand how the masters could do miracles.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-14-2017 at 11:22 PM..
Gaylen, why does any of this matter to you? In your words (good question by the way) "Why do you even care about this?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
