From: max@admin.mport.COM (Max)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Keywords: Signs
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:30:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: Microport Inc., Scotts Valley, CA 95066 US of A


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Keywords: Signs

jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:

>In article <L#g=PfC@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>>In article <1infdrINNkl1@shelley.u.washington.edu> jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>>>In article <0Yf=kJB@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>>>>In article <1ilj5cINN7dg@shelley.u.washington.edu> jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>>>>[discussion of why omniscience denies free-will deleted]

>>
>>>There is no branching point.
>>>Only when there are branching points, we can start to think about free
>>>will.
>>
>> Why? When I have a choice, there may be several possible branches...
>>but I only take one. The others are merely potential branches that
>>were not taken.
>>

>The point is that we mortals follow time linearly. If there is no such
>thing as omni-scient being, you are right, there may (not must, for we
>cannot distingush the "illusion of free-will and actual free-will)
>actually be branching points. But if there exists an omni-scient being,
>the feeling that we (you and I) had a choice is an illusion because that
>feeling itself must also be a speck on the painting known to the
>omni-being.

>Opinions here are mine and mine only.
>jeon

well summerised jeon, you have been able to rresent this thought in a very
understandable way.

here is my question:

what purpose does a belief in an omniscent being serve to the believer? is
the belief that all choices have been made in advance absolve the beleiver
from responsability for their choices? how does a believer then "decide"
what to do? when a believer in this wants to take a trip out of town, what
guides his route? traffic reports? the voices in their head :-)?

"perhaps i should take I-5 north to 64, but hey, who cares, the choice has
been made!" <believer then takes the 10east and ends up in texas instead of
san fransisco>

or when pulled over for speeding:

"but officer, i wasnt intending to speed, it was my destiny to speed.."

i suppose a true believer would then claim that it would also be their
destiny to have received the ticket, but again, what purpose is this belief
other than to not have the responsibility for ones choices?

"we are our choices" -satre (?)

i suppose the above was meant in the context of what choices are
available, but it at least implies a system where ones decisions reflect
and modify who one is. in this case, one would take the route to ones
destination based upon whatever criterion was important to them, be it
views, traffic considerations, or whatever. 

maybe i am too hostle to organised religions and must be more tolerant to
those who chose not to chose (or who chose to believe they have not
chosen).

-max, whose lunch-time is now over....

=====================================================================
  \\\///   | 		             | the above represents my 
  //@@\\   | yet another nude biker  | opinion only, and is subject
  // \ \   | 		             | to change. 
  // - \   ----------------------------------------------------------  
    """    | max@mport.com | dod:234 | protect the bill of rights
=====================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc