Consciousness

[NotBlinded]

We define it if we wish to discuss it. Language. Words have definitions, and the definitions are meant to make the words useful. I am asking if there is some way, given the definition of consciousness, that the universe manifests consciousness - other than using what we already know are conscious. If the answer is only, the potential is there, I agree with that. I think we are agreeing with each other.

Yes, I think we are too.

 

If "Life may exist on other planets" is all we mean by the universe has the potential for conscious life forms, that's what I think too. Why take grandiose phrases that really mean something different and apply them to situations where you either have to leave terms undefined or redefine them entirely?

It's more inclusive that way and leaves one with a greater reverence for the universe as a whole. I'm a unity nut. Also, I think it's important to understand that those phrases may not always mean what one thinks they mean. It causes a shift in consciousness that unifies instead of dividing. It a different worldview. One that see the universe as alive instead of dead and dumb.

 

Now you're just teasing me, but I already love you.

[Shyone]

One that see the universe as alive instead of dead and dumb.

Oy veh. You win.

[NotBlinded]

One that see the universe as alive instead of dead and dumb.

Oy veh. You win.

I don't want to win, I just want understanding.

[Shyone]

One that see the universe as alive instead of dead and dumb.

Oy veh. You win.

I don't want to win, I just want understanding.

I really can't go around this way again. It's not even important. I just mean to say that IN the universe, there is life. The universe isn't alive in any understandable way, and certainly not conscious except for the particular separate identifiable units that are conscious.

 

A town in a desert is a town. The desert is not a town. It's simply a matter of perspective.

 

If life is wiped out, the universe will be dumb, and life will not be missed. We are as ephemeral as a sunspot, as temporary as a comet, and disposable. The universe will continue to exist after you, or I, or all of us are gone; even the entire solar system or galaxy.

 

The universe just is.

[NotBlinded]

I really can't go around this way again. It's not even important. I just mean to say that IN the universe, there is life. The universe isn't alive in any understandable way, and certainly not conscious except for the particular separate identifiable units that are conscious.

 

A town in a desert is a town. The desert is not a town. It's simply a matter of perspective.

You have a right to your opinion, but I disagree with it. I know what you are saying and indeed it is a matter of perspective and there is more than one way to look at this.

 

If life is wiped out, the universe will be dumb, and life will not be missed. We are as ephemeral as a sunspot, as temporary as a comet, and disposable. The universe will continue to exist after you, or I, or all of us are gone; even the entire solar system or galaxy.

 

The universe just is.

I agree with the bolded part. The first part is just a difference of opinion even if we both state it as if it is fact. Neither one of us will give on this and I suppose understanding is out of the question. Oh well.

[Legion]

Mind = brains.

Okay, this is a good assertion to examine in my opinion.

 

I think if mind = brain then mind always implies brain and brain always implies mind. I agree that mind always implies brain (or some other analogous organ of cognition). However I disagree that brain always implies mind. Sometimes brains die or are critically damaged thus obliterating the mind. Many may obviously agree, but it seemed to me a small, solid point to make.

[Shyone]

Mind = brains.

Okay, this is a good assertion to examine in my opinion.

 

I think if mind = brain then mind always implies brain and brain always implies mind. I agree that mind always implies brain (or some other analogous organ of cognition). However I disagree that brain always implies mind. Sometimes brains die or are critically damaged thus obliterating the mind. Many may obviously agree, but it seemed to me a small, solid point to make.

I understand what you mean, but implied in "brain" is a functioning brain, and perhaps even more, a brain from a species that exhibits "behavior." Or something like that.

 

Perhaps the appropriate formulation would be: mind <= brain, except that the mathematical equation carries other implications (less than or equal to? That isn't what I mean...).

[Legion]

Mind = brains.

Okay, this is a good assertion to examine in my opinion.

 

I think if mind = brain then mind always implies brain and brain always implies mind. I agree that mind always implies brain (or some other analogous organ of cognition). However I disagree that brain always implies mind. Sometimes brains die or are critically damaged thus obliterating the mind. Many may obviously agree, but it seemed to me a small, solid point to make.

I understand what you mean, but implied in "brain" is a functioning brain, and perhaps even more, a brain from a species that exhibits "behavior." Or something like that.

 

Perhaps the appropriate formulation would be: mind <= brain, except that the mathematical equation carries other implications (less than or equal to? That isn't what I mean...).

Hmm Shyone... This seems important to me. I think most people would now easily agree that there is a relation between mind and brain. But what is that relation? I don't believe it's an equality relation. It's something else.

 

Let's switch up. Let's make another, and I suspect related, assertion.

 

Life = organism

 

This also seems incorrect to me for the same vague reasons. I will likely think of this further.

[Shyone]

Mind = brains.

Okay, this is a good assertion to examine in my opinion.

 

I think if mind = brain then mind always implies brain and brain always implies mind. I agree that mind always implies brain (or some other analogous organ of cognition). However I disagree that brain always implies mind. Sometimes brains die or are critically damaged thus obliterating the mind. Many may obviously agree, but it seemed to me a small, solid point to make.

I understand what you mean, but implied in "brain" is a functioning brain, and perhaps even more, a brain from a species that exhibits "behavior." Or something like that.

 

Perhaps the appropriate formulation would be: mind <= brain, except that the mathematical equation carries other implications (less than or equal to? That isn't what I mean...).

Hmm Shyone... This seems important to me. I think most people would now easily agree that there is a relation between mind and brain. But what is that relation? I don't believe it's an equality relation. It's something else.

 

Let's switch up. Let's make another, and I suspect related, assertion.

 

Life = organism

 

This also seems incorrect to me for the same vague reasons. I will likely think of this further.

You can make it simple, or you can make it complex.

 

For now, I agree with Life = organism.

 

Then the problem becomes - defining an "organism."

 

I think I'll just leave it simple for now and avoid the complex interactions in ecosystems, interactions between all biological forms and the surface of the earth...

 

Is Gaia an organism?

 

I think so... But that's too complex for me right now.

[chefranden]

I some regard I agree with Watts that the universe is intelligent i.e. that it knows how to get stuff done. But I would disagree that it knows that it knows how to get stuff done. In some sense the universe knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows, but the universe doesn't know that it knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows. Apparently this thread is supposed to be about the bits that know that they know.

 

I'm using stuff as a more amorphous term than matter in order to avoid the indivisible BB like bits that may or may not be at the bottom of it all. Stuff is whatever is there in whatever pattern, and whatever it is doing. Maybe physics will find a BB maybe not, but it won't matter. Some of the stuff will be able to know that it knows some things without being able to know other things like what it is.

This is what I have been saying all along. Self-awareness is not the totality of consciousness, but one highly developed aspect of it. It is present in one form or another all the way down, and all the way up - again, in one form or another, some more shallow, some more deep. Self-awareness is a deeper form of it. But where does consciousness come from? Where does the Universe come from?

 

I think that I have led you astray.

 

I have a conservative definition of consciousness which is an alert cognitive/mental state in which and individual is aware of self and it's situation. I think that consciousness may exist on a continuum in things that have a brain/nervous system the scale of which may go from 1 in a mosquito to 1000 in a human and maybe beyond in something else.

 

The universe as a whole is not conscious because it is not structured as a brain/nervous system. Consciousness, is not the ground of being. Consciousness in simply one artifact among many of the organizational property of stuff.

 

When I say the universe knows how to make a human, I'm writing about its unconscious organizational abilities that are described in the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.

 

Consciousness is not the ground of being, being is the ground of consciousness.

[Shyone]

Consciousness is not the ground of being, being is the ground of consciousness.

Organization.

 

In this short statement (supplemented by the entire post), you have summarized my thoughts perfectly.

[NotBlinded]

Consciousness is not the ground of being, being is the ground of consciousness.

Being is consciousness and consciousness is being. I am therefore I think.

[chefranden]

Consciousness is not the ground of being, being is the ground of consciousness.

Being is consciousness and consciousness is being. I am therefore I think.

 

But not I think therefore I am.

 

You need your stuff in order to think, but your stuff doesn't need your thinking in order to be. This is because being is not consciousness. It is existence. Stuff is the ground of consciousness, not consciousness is the ground of stuff.

 

Watts said that the universe peoples like a tree leaves, but that isn't the case. A tree has to produce leaves according to its genetic rules i.e. it can't produce whales or snow. But the universe has no rules that forced it to produce people. The universe's rules allowed for the production of people, but it could just as well have done something else. In fact it will do something else sooner or later.

[Legion]

Then the problem becomes - defining an "organism."

Well here again Rosen comes into play. The question which preoccupied him was... What is life? or... Why is a specific natural system an organism and not something else? His answer was that it is an organism if and only if it is closed to efficient causation. That is if f is any component of an organism then the question "why f?" has an answer within the organism which is the efficient cause of f. He derived this from a model of organisms which he called metabolic repair systems.

 

But I'm still trying to understand it all.

 

Is Gaia an organism?

I fall into the camp which thinks that Earth's ecosystem is not an organism. I even think it's very misleading to give it a personal name like "Gaia".

[Shyone]

Is Gaia an organism?

I fall into the camp which thinks that Earth's ecosystem is not an organism. I even think it's very misleading to give it a personal name like "Gaia".

My reasoning for considering the Earth to be an organism is not simple or careless, but I don't wish to elaborate on the point - it's not that important.

 

The earth, however is transformed by life which is all related genetically, and the genetic material, from bacteria to birds, depends upon the transformed Earth to the exclusion of any other known place. IOW, the earth has been incorporated and adapted to life just as life has adapted to the earth. Furthermore, in some sense or another, all life is interdependent even though concurrently competitive.

 

If you eliminate any change in the earth due to life, or you try to completely remove some part of the major parts of the ecosystem (plants, bacteria, animals), then the whole system would likely suffer. Earth is in homeostasis, and that homeostasis is dependent on each and every part of earth.

 

Think of Earth as inanimate plasma. You can't eliminate all of the plasma from a body and expect the body to survive.

[Antlerman]

My god man... welcome to my world. And now you're singing my song... today...

[Shyone]

My god man... welcome to my world. And now you're singing my song... today...

I see reciprocity, so I also see organization. There is a fine line (or is there?) between symbiosis and a single organism.

 

It's kind of like a kidney stone. It is inanimate, a collection of waste chemicals, formed in the body, a definite pain in the ass. You can't call the stone alive, but the stone would not exist were there not life. The stone is, therefore, part of the body - and it remains part of the body even when it is tossed in with gravel and sand.

 

 

 

So, yeah, I get that much.

[LNC]

I gave this some thought while I was driving home tonight.

 

The short answer is that cannot, at least in the way you wish for me too. I can explain the evolutionary processes that gave rise to intelligence, but that is not satisfying to you because you seem to think there is a basic philosophical problem with our conciseness being contained in "mere" matter.

 

The best I can say is that I do not see the same problem you do.

 

I have shown that it is not just me who has a problem with this concept and not just dualists, it is a problem that exists within the study of philosophy of the mind. There are various theories to attempt to close the "explanatory gap" as it is called, however, many, including Chalmers, believe it will never be closed.

 

I am not sure if this means no one could, I am not a nurologist, and my knowledge of these things are quite limited, as is yours by the way. Part of what I find silly about this debate is that even among humans (whose overall knowledge of things is laughable) we are both pretty ignorant. I would argue that you are more so than me, but that is another topic. I think many of the philosophers you quote are just as ignorant as they mostly base their arguments on the notion that science is not answering these questions adequately, but they are, by and large, quite ignorant when it comes to what science DOES know.

 

You don't know my level of understanding of the topic, so you can only speak to your own ignorance on this issue. As for what philosophers of mind know, I think you are also incorrect as most of them are up on what neuroscience is discovering, they wouldn't be at the institutions that they are if they weren't up on all the research. I would suggest that you read some of their writings.

 

In any case, it does not bother me greatly that I can not fully answer the question. Why does this not bother me?

For one, you (and theists in general ) cannot, despite your claims otherwise, answer the question any better than I.

 

Second, and more importantly, it does not bother me because this question is really only a problem if I were claiming to know without a doubt that there is nothing metaphysical. Of course you seem to think this is exactly what my position is and you have been arguing based upon that assumption from the start, but it is not a position I would defend because I have never claimed it.

 

Third, and perhaps most important, I would point out that we must consider the problems that are leveled at the notion that the mind emerges entirely from the brain. The problem that is traditionally leveled is that the physical world opertates by certain mechanistic laws which precludes free will and would make inteligence a simple illusion.

 

My thought on this is that I find it strange that you (or anyone else) would submit the concept of the metaphysical as something that does away with this issue completely. Most theists would admit that God and by extension the metaphysical is beyond human understanding so how can we be certain that the metaphysical does not obey a set of mechanistic laws of its own, perhaps different than the ones we know, but laws just the same. We have no reason to think that positing the metaphysical would solve these problems.

 

So how do YOU account for the mind with the metaphysical?

 

First, this is not a theist/non-theist discussion. Most of the philosophers whom I quote would not be theists.

 

Second, I have never, to my knowledge, said what your position is on metaphysics; however, if you would like to explain your position, I would be interested in reading it.

 

Third, there is a problem with free will given physicalism. We either have free will or we don't, and I don't see how it can exist given physicalism. If you think it can and have ideas as to how, again, I would like to read them.

 

In regard to whether most theists would regard God as being beyond human understanding, I would say that is not an accurate statement. Yes, God cannot be known exhaustively by humans; however, that does not preclude humans from having a meaningful understanding of God. The position that you advocate wasn't actually put forward until the Enlightenment, with thinkers like Kant and others. However, those same thinkers said that we couldn't know the phenomenological world as it is either, but could only know it through sense impressions. In other words, according to them, we don't have direct access to the phenomenal world, it is always mediated to us.

 

I disagree with these thinkers and do believe that we can have direct access to both the phenomenal and noumenal world. I am a dualist and believe that the mind is a real immaterial part of who we are. I think that this explanation best fits our experience of the world, both the phenomenological and noumenal realms.

 

LNC

[LNC]

That was very well put. Kudos.

 

Argument from ignorance is never very convincing, even if peppered with big words.

 

I think the key to the problem, of course, is your last question (highlighted). Metaphysical explanations are not explanations at all, but mental shortcuts without data. IOW, one does not account for mind with the metaphysical; one merely asserts it and leaves it at that.

 

Strategies for theology mostly rely on attacks of the natural, which is generally futile and has resulted in faux pas throughout the history of religion. LNC, like many theists, thinks that if one can show that we don't "understand" the mind, then there must be a soul.

 

Likewise, attacks on evolution rely on "gaps" or "unknowns." The replacement, however, answers no questions.

 

And attacks on the physical universe rely on unknowns from a time that is almost impossible for us to understand.

 

Replacing the unknown with the unknowable is senseless, counterproductive and ultimately futile.

 

You misunderstand my argument if you believe that I am making an argument from ignorance, it is quite the opposite. I am making an inductive argument from the information and experiences that we have and know.

 

If metaphysical arguments are not arguments, then your argument fails as it is a metaphysical argument. Your argument uses logic which cannot be proven scientifically or empirically. Arguments for the mind are all metaphysical arguments as they deal with the nature of the mind (the metaphysics).

 

I have never made the argument that if we cannot understand the mind then there must be a soul.

 

I don't know that we are discussion evolution here, but it is not always wrong to argue that if a gap cannot be closed by an explanation then it is false. Atheists use gap arguments as well, as many are doing here in trying to show that the immaterial is false. The gap argument used by naturalists is that when we see a gap we know that science will eventually close it. That is a scientistic argument of the gaps and just as fallacious in its use. You seem to make this leap in your argument for naturalism above, which is a faux pas on your part.

 

LNC

[LNC]

This seems like double speak to me, you start by saying you will consider emergentism but then go on to argue that it is a form of reductionism which you have already stated you will not consider.

 

What double speak? You claim that I dismissed emergentism and I ask you to show evidence, that seems pretty clear to me. I believe that reductionism is false as materialism fails to account for certain phenomena (free will being one); however, not all forms of emergentism are reductionistic, so I won't pass judgment on them until I have all the facts as to how they account for consciousness. I just finished reading a book by Searle who is an emergentist of a sort. I still have to read more of his work as I still have questions as to how he adequately accounts for phenomena like intentionality.

 

I generally see emergentism as necessarily different than reductionism. Though I maybe misusing the terms and emergentism is more properly defined as a subset of reductionism. I really do not care about labels much. Truth is much more important than what you choose to label it.

 

Emergentism does not necessarily lead to reductionism, although, many of its advocates have a hard time avoiding reductionism. Searle makes one of the more valiant attempts and I am reading know to see if he does more than assert that he avoids it or if he really does. Many don't think he is successful in his avoidance of reductionism. I'll let you know what I discover.

 

I am quite willing to change my mind if someone can demonstrate I am wrong. I do not think you have done so. I am also doubtful that you are willing to change your mind. I have not changed my mind here because your arguments are bad, simple as that

 

Though I imagine you would say the same as me. The difference is that I used to be a christian and came to reject that system so I have a historical basis for the claim that I can change my mind as evidence dictates.

 

As for a demonstration of your ability to change your mind. I am sure I have not seen it, certainly not on the level of giving up ones entire belief system.

 

We should all be willing to go where the evidence leads us. If my arguments are bad, then please point out where and let's discuss those ideas. Simply saying that my arguments are bad without showing why is not helpful.

 

Changing ones mind about Christian convictions is not the only way to show that one can change one's mind. I have plenty of historical data of changing my mind on issues as well, even as a Christian no less!

 

You could look through my past posts on this site and find evidence where I have changed my mind on issues and admitted it on this site. Non-theists don't have a corner on either being open-minded or close-minded, that is a human trait, not necessarily the trait of a person based upon their convictions regarding Christianity.

 

I haven't given up my entire belief system simply due to the fact that I think it is a valid belief system and best explains the world as I have experienced it - even while interacting on this site with an audience that attacks my belief system and is skewed heavily against it. It remains intact.

 

Now, I will look forward to reading your response as to where, specifically, you find my arguments to be wrong

 

If you wish to call me a reductionist I do not particularly care. The term seems to have taken on a negative connotation in the context of debates along this line, if you think I fit the definition then I guess I am at least for the context of this discussion. The label means nothing to me as the only thing that means anything is the facts that come to bear on the issue not the labels you attache to people so you can dismiss their ideas out of hand.

 

I am asking what you are, not telling you what you are. I am open to hearing your explanation as to where you stand on the issue if you are willing to say. I don't presume to tell you what you believe, that is not for me to do.

 

The only reason that reductionism may have a negative connotation is that it does not adequately account for our experience and knowledge. Now, there are very smart people who are unabashed reductionists (Dennett, the Churchlands, etc.); however, I don't see how they account for phenomena like free will. However, I am going to be reading more of Dennett's work as I research a thesis on the topic, so I'm sure I will interact more with his explanation. I have also read the Churchlands, Tye and Dretske who chalk it up to illusion, which is where I think Dennett stands as well based on what I have read and heard of him, although he is more nuanced in his explanation.

 

Regarding the facts, again, please explain how you interpret them so I can understand your view.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

That was very well put. Kudos.

 

Argument from ignorance is never very convincing, even if peppered with big words.

 

I think the key to the problem, of course, is your last question (highlighted). Metaphysical explanations are not explanations at all, but mental shortcuts without data. IOW, one does not account for mind with the metaphysical; one merely asserts it and leaves it at that.

 

Strategies for theology mostly rely on attacks of the natural, which is generally futile and has resulted in faux pas throughout the history of religion. LNC, like many theists, thinks that if one can show that we don't "understand" the mind, then there must be a soul.

 

Likewise, attacks on evolution rely on "gaps" or "unknowns." The replacement, however, answers no questions.

 

And attacks on the physical universe rely on unknowns from a time that is almost impossible for us to understand.

 

Replacing the unknown with the unknowable is senseless, counterproductive and ultimately futile.

 

You misunderstand my argument if you believe that I am making an argument from ignorance, it is quite the opposite. I am making an inductive argument from the information and experiences that we have and know.

 

If metaphysical arguments are not arguments, then your argument fails as it is a metaphysical argument. Your argument uses logic which cannot be proven scientifically or empirically. Arguments for the mind are all metaphysical arguments as they deal with the nature of the mind (the metaphysics).

 

I have never made the argument that if we cannot understand the mind then there must be a soul.

 

I don't know that we are discussion evolution here, but it is not always wrong to argue that if a gap cannot be closed by an explanation then it is false. Atheists use gap arguments as well, as many are doing here in trying to show that the immaterial is false. The gap argument used by naturalists is that when we see a gap we know that science will eventually close it. That is a scientistic argument of the gaps and just as fallacious in its use. You seem to make this leap in your argument for naturalism above, which is a faux pas on your part.

 

LNC

The conversation has become too fragmented to make any sense at all. I wrote something to someone in January, and it's March now, and I don't recall what I was responding to so I don't know if your criticisms are valid.

 

As for the mind/soul, you never argued there wasn't a soul. You are a dualist. You can't be a dualist without claiming that the mind itself is not sufficient for it's complete function. And I don't really give a flip.

 

Logic and logical arguments are only true if the premises are correct. Metaphysics is not the entirety of philosophy. "Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science." Once you begin transcending, you have left the earthly plane and are wandering into territory where ignorance reigns. Transcendent: "surpassing usual limits; being beyond the range of normal perception; free from the constraints of the material world, as in the case of a deity"

 

You really don't know what scientists think about gaps. They don't know they will be filled, but they look. When you look, sometimes you find. Every find is either a confirmation or a potential falsification. If you want to falsify something, start researching. You would rather have researchers stop looking to fill any gaps. That's where God hides, is it not? But there are so few gaps left. And God is getting tinier, and tinier, and... poof.

 

The metaphysical evidence for the poofing of God is the testimony of a leprechaun who was witnessed by a fairy who told a theist in a dream. And how can you argue with evidence like that?

 

What is clear is the between naturalism and theologic revelation, the former produces useful knowledge, the latter produces fatwas.

 

Or, as someone's sig says, "Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings."

[NotBlinded]

But not I think therefore I am.

I couldn't think without first being...or is it both at once?

 

You need your stuff in order to think, but your stuff doesn't need your thinking in order to be. This is because being is not consciousness. It is existence. Stuff is the ground of consciousness, not consciousness is the ground of stuff.

Existence isn't stupid. You said it right there, stuff doesn't need my thinking in order to be. That is true. My thinking is a small aspect of consciousness. That is why I say this like this: I am therefore I think.

 

Watts said that the universe peoples like a tree leaves, but that isn't the case. A tree has to produce leaves according to its genetic rules i.e. it can't produce whales or snow. But the universe has no rules that forced it to produce people. The universe's rules allowed for the production of people, but it could just as well have done something else. In fact it will do something else sooner or later.

It's actually "the earth peoples the same way an apple tree apples."

 

What he meant was that you don't see living things coming from dead things. You're not going to get an apple from a dead apple tree. I don't think it was meant to be taken so literally. He even says in other lectures (or the same one, I can't remember) that it doesn't matter what form of life it is, it will produce life. That is a fact not in dispute. The dispute lies in how and we all go from there.

[LNC]

Reductionism is more than a claim that there is nothing but the material world. We already have a term for that "materialism," I would openly admit to being a materialist, at least methodologically speaking.

 

Reductionism is, as the passage you mention says, an ontological position which claims that we can UNDERSTAND all systems by reducing them to there basic parts.

 

While, I am a materialist because I see no evidence of the existence of non-material things, which leads me to conclude that all systems are made up entirely of material, my disagreement with reductionism is with the claim that we can understand these systems by reducing them to their individual parts.

 

A car, for instance, is a complex system but we will never fully understand how a car works by simply looking at the individual parts, we must see them working together as well to get a full understanding.

 

I have explained this as being my basic disagreement with reductionism several times....but you never listen. You will probably be asking me if I am a reductionist or not in your next post......again......

 

The breakdown with your car example is that when the parts are reduced you still have all that the car is or was. There is nothing more to that car but what the parts do when put together and when working together. If you disagree, then tell me what more exists of the car ontologically that is not contained within its parts. That is the issue here, isn't it? You have not explained what that essence is or why the car is not ultimately merely the sum of its parts working together.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I just wanted to chime in a response to this and say that in a similar way this is how I to view freewill. The difference for me is that I believe God has a will on Earth, and there are two sides of that will, but they are all apart of God's will.

 

People frequently ask, 'Why do people get tortured, molested, rapped, beat to death etc if God is omniscient'. I to believe that these people do not make choices to do these things, yet, it is not out from under God. Some would say to that, 'Doesn't that mean God is evil too, if he knows these people are doing these things, not stopping it, and it is actually apart of his will.'

 

There is an answer for that too. No, it doesn't make him evil, just knowledgeable of all things. In the end, all the bad is suppose to turned into good to further his will. I can get sick, twisted, or even hard to imagine, but, I see it as He made us this way, set motion, with freewill, and has intervined and also set in motion a will, which is fulfilling what the prophets said about Him in the OT and Christ.

 

This has caused another motion in my opinion, one that really was set out by man, but God has his hand on it, and it has become His will. To fulfill that will, things have to happen a certain way.

 

I do believe though that they are some of God's elect, chosen, that are held accountable to a different degree, and God has put a spirit in them to accomplish a certain task,bring a certain message, to groups, regions, in furthering His will on Earth. As He did with Jonah. Jonah had no choice, his freewill was limited to God's will. God willed him to go to Nineveh, so things happened in his life to persuade him to go, such as near death experience.

 

In that scenario, Jonah does not seem to have freewill, but he did, he choose to go on the boat, he choose to walk away from God, he choose to pray for God to forgive him, he choose to obey God.

 

So, freewill was still there, just not recognized if someone reads it as, Jonah was forced by God to do it. I have always felt imo that Jonah really didn't have a choice, yet I do realize that if God calls someone to do a certain task, Biblically, He doesn't just let it go when that person decides to not obey.

 

I think that if I understand what you are saying, then I would differ with you. I believe that God has created people with free will and people often exercise that free will to do evil things. God knows that people are going to do evil, yet, he has chosen not to violate man's freedom as we are not God's pets, but his creation.

 

It was Boethius who, back in the 5th and 6th centuries, understood that there was no conflict between God being omniscient and man having free will. He concluded that even though God knows what will happen in our future (as he is outside of time) it does not mean that he dictates those ends. Had we have chosen differently, he would have known that.

 

So, I don't think there is a conflict in these two concepts, nor do I believe that God is responsible for the free choices that people make, whether good or evil.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

Determined outcome, can't be changed.

 

The freedom to change outcome, undetermined outcome.

 

Knowing the outcome, with absolute certitude, means knowledge about a determined outcome.

 

If outcome is not determined, knowledge with absolute certitude is impossible.

 

I don't know. It just doesn't add up.

 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about Free Will and God's foreknowledge: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

 

Raymond D. Bradley's refutation of the Free Will Defense: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/fwd-refuted.html