Message from @AncienMedecin

Discord ID: 690024977021534321


2020-03-19 02:26:24 UTC  

God can interfere in our affairs but He does not always
Its not God's plan that a baby is aborted after all

2020-03-19 02:26:52 UTC  

Yes, our choices and actions are simply the result of our free will.

2020-03-19 02:27:01 UTC  

<:what:591451631590178846>

2020-03-19 02:27:04 UTC  

seems weak

2020-03-19 02:27:15 UTC  

I don't think so

2020-03-19 02:27:20 UTC  

Remember Adam and Eve?

2020-03-19 02:27:23 UTC  

<:what:591451631590178846>

2020-03-19 02:27:35 UTC  

Also I hate when you mention the names of all those big shot philosophers because I have no idea what they said

2020-03-19 02:27:43 UTC  

Even if I've read some of them

2020-03-19 02:28:00 UTC  

> I don't think so
@Eoppa That's *confirmation bias* <:smug:591181720565579807>

2020-03-19 02:28:08 UTC  

~~all Christians should read Nietzsche~~

2020-03-19 02:28:12 UTC  

<:wew:591452132721426484>

2020-03-19 02:28:17 UTC  

Well Molina formulated the idea that all of our choices are free but God puts us in situations that he knows we will make certain choices to complete God's plan.

2020-03-19 02:28:35 UTC  

I say I don't think so because I understand my idea better than I can communicate it

2020-03-19 02:29:18 UTC  

So we have free will but we are in a rat maze and it's certain that we'll follow the cheese?

2020-03-19 02:29:28 UTC  

That's what he said

2020-03-19 02:29:34 UTC  

<:oh:603773792673595405>

2020-03-19 02:30:15 UTC  

And I maintain the intellect is immaterial, but is strongly influenced by the material, but the free will and intellect is incorporeal

2020-03-19 02:30:31 UTC  

Cool explanation, it has the advantage of explaining free will and the "disadvantage" of keeping the deathly dread of determinism

2020-03-19 02:32:00 UTC  

I've always held explanations that say the free will can come from determined particles and laws as too big of a concession where it just devolves past compatiblism into determinism again.

2020-03-19 02:32:54 UTC  

I still think my original explanation is extremely cool

2020-03-19 02:34:17 UTC  

I think that's Locke's explanation. I'm not a fan of Locke. It's interesting and certainly adds to the debate, but ultimately I think it collapses under pressure.

2020-03-19 02:34:33 UTC  

*what pressure*

2020-03-19 02:34:59 UTC  

The pressure of actually conforming to any real definition of free will

2020-03-19 02:35:27 UTC  

That's what that argument has the biggest trouble doing

2020-03-19 02:35:31 UTC  

What's your definition?

2020-03-19 02:37:18 UTC  

That our will in some respect is uncaused

2020-03-19 02:37:57 UTC  

Assuming free will exists is the most coherent option we have.

2020-03-19 02:38:47 UTC  

That way we can kick the shit out of people who act like assholes instead of being forced to leave them alone because they didn’t “chose” to do it.

2020-03-19 02:39:01 UTC  

Philosophically we still ought to justify/explain it.

2020-03-19 02:39:23 UTC  

By face value it's easiest to assume we have it

2020-03-19 02:39:54 UTC  

In the same way that in our every day life we act as if the earth is flat, but everything is more complicated as we go up in complexity.

2020-03-19 02:41:18 UTC  

Is it acceptable for your definition that the source of the free will is not caused, but is the cause? Because my definition of what a subject is is basically the sum total of causes that ultimately cause action to be taken

2020-03-19 02:43:28 UTC  

If Free Will is say, the cause, then God still is the First Cause because He Himself made the Concept of Free Will

2020-03-19 02:44:12 UTC  

That's what Eoppa said referring to Molinism I think

2020-03-19 02:44:32 UTC  

Molinism?

2020-03-19 02:44:37 UTC  

Molinism is something a bit different

2020-03-19 02:44:44 UTC  

Imma Google that

2020-03-19 02:45:06 UTC  

And I say God at every moment sustains our free will

2020-03-19 02:45:17 UTC  

ughh

2020-03-19 02:45:26 UTC  

I am ragequitting this conversation