Talk:Free will/Archive 2

message: The sections that talks about God (referring to the God of Christianity) is ridiculously biased and could easily be offensive to Christians.  How exactly does God's omnipotence imply that he chooses our actions?  Just because he is "all-capable" doesn't mean that he's "the only one capable".  
: (William M. Connolley 10:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 10:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd to last paragraph very POV 

message: As a point of information,  Go is algorithmic, since it is a game of perfect information (all is visible to the players).  No bluffing is possible, and there is no chance involved.  Chess programming has received a greater amount of effort.  It is true that the complexity of Go is much greater, and it is a much more philosophical game.  Nonetheless, deleting the edit about it was a good call. Hu 21:00, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
I have no idea what the bit about Go or chess has to do with free will. "Yet, chess and Go, with their strict and simple rules, generate great variety and unpredictable behaviour." - Chess and go don't "generate" anything, certainly nothing like "unpredictable" behaviour. Maybe the author of that snippet meant to say, that the single best playing strategy is [not known|not yet known|may never bw known|does not exist] - but it is totally unclear fromt he way that is phrased. 84.63.13.21 10:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go 

message: I made some minor changes to this section.  Previously, it seemed to say that the canonical Christian belief in predestination was the definition given, whereas in reality, this differs from sect to sect (as the article goes on to admit).  I also removed the John 3:16 quote since its relevance is disputable:  e.g. Calvinists do not think their position is contrary to John 3:16 in the least when 'properly' understood.  -- OracleofTroy
I've just been pondering this little paradox: I don't believe that an omniscient god can exist and we still have free will (as according to the bible). The reasons for this were outlined in the article, but the arguments I have extend that. I will post some in case anyone disagrees with me.
As a rebuttal to those dead Jewish philosophers, who claim that God limits himself, I say that it makes no difference whether or not he does when it comes to the free will paradox. If he did limit himself, then we humans have the power to create the future. In other words, we possess a power which God does not give himself (making the future). This makes it hard to differentiate between what is God's plan and what is our doing, which blurs the line greatly between what is God and what is human. And unless we are God and God is us, Christianity and Judaism hav a self-created paradoxes. ----- Tritium919
I'd be interested in what you mean by "as according to the bible" in your first sentence, in reference to human freewill.  There are many beliefs regarding the interaction of God's sovereignty and man's will in the different sects.  Just contrast the answers given by Calvinism and Open Theism.  Each believe that their interpretation is in accordance with the bible, yet are nearly polar opposite positions.  If I might indulge my own bias, Calvinism is more consistent in that is claims that man has freewill, and God has full sovereignty, and insofar as man's will is contrary to God's own will, God wins every time.  On this vein, it might be interesting to check out the differences between Determinism, Libertarian Free will and Compatibilist Free will
- OracleofTroy 02:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In theology 

message: Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:27, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I've added a few references.  Hope that helps.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a new section with some more references.  I'm glad your stopping by for WP:CITE.  Too many times I've seen editors ignore the policy even when it comes to challenged material.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for references 

message: Christian anarchists feel that earthly authority such as government, or indeed the established church do not and should not have power over them. Christian anarchists are pacifists and oppose the use of all physical force, both proactive and reactive
What does this have to do with free will? --Yodakii 17:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing as far as I can see.  KHM03 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian anarchists 

message: This article is too much about philosophers of centuries ago. It should be called: the history of the concept of free will, or something like that. What is the contemporary thought about free will? Did the modern philosphers drop this issue after postmodernism? I read somewhere that it is a hot debate at the moment.--Daanschr 13:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary thought 

message: Your clarification is a vast improvement on this paragraph.  Rick Norwood 17:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers!Visual Error 19:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent clarification, Visualerror 

message: Good rewrite, David.   Rick Norwood 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edit 

message: I noticed how agency theory was omitted in this article.  That's pretty surprising considering how prominent this view of free will is.  I put up a list of terms regarding freedom in the article and included agency theory among them (and added references).  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, made a mistake when I defined incompatibilism.  I fixed this in my next edit.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agency theory neglected 

message: I think you move too much of the discussion of moral responsibility into the discussion of free will.  These are two separate topics, and the topic of moral responsibility is covered fully below.  Arguments of the form "there must be free will because without it there is no moral responsibility" suggest the the universe ought to be structured along moral lines and not deterministic lines, but the universe is what it is, and questions of how to assign or not assign moral responsibility have no power to shape the universe.  It should be obvious that the universe is not constructed along moral lines. 
I'm going to rewrite, and at at the same time change from bullet point form to paragraph form, which I am told is more encyclopedic. Rick Norwood 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my edit watered down the mentioning of moral responsibility: since before, issues of compatibilism etc. were being stipulated to be issues of accountability, while my edit hedged those claims. Perhaps the mentions of accountability should be removed entirely from the section. I didn't do it myself, because I was acting out of deference to the editor who introduced this useful section. Lucidish 22:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Would this, perhaps, be a good place for a definition list, since most of the narrative to connect the various ideas seems to occur later? Ig0774 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just a matter of style, so I don't have much of a preference. Lucidish 01:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucidish edit 

message: Do we really want so many of the footnotes here to point to Philosophy for Dummies? Rick Norwood 22:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully not... I'm having a hard time following which footnotes point to which references on this page, or else I would look for some better citations. Ig0774 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Tom Morris (the author) has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale, has published extensively, serves as a professor at a major university, and seems like a reliable, reputable source.  I will admit however that the title of the book is perhaps not as confidence inspiring. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoops, I did mess up. Thanks for catching that! Ig0774 23:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My reaction to the "For Dummies..." series is visceral, not reasoned.  If it is a good book, then more power to it.  It's just...just... Rick Norwood 13:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy for Dummies 

message: Hopefully someone can fix this. The issue is trivial, but it is so tedious to fix I don't think I can finish it all. I might even list it on featured article removal, because frankly, the point of view using "we" nullifies the entire formality of it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, it might sometimes be appropriate to use "we" or "one" when referring to an experience that anyone, any reader, would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences. For example, although it might be best to write, "When most people open their eyes, they see something", it is still legitimate to write, "When we open our eyes, we see something", and it is certainly better than using the passive voice: "When the eyes are opened, something is seen."
Rick Norwood 15:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but it is not the best solution, certainly not for a featured article. It makes it very informal and unprofessional, especially about a philosophical issue. Furthermore, the use of "we" is analogous and very rude as it is coercive in style on the reader, and is incorrect in the sense of singular they, because we are not merely discussing the reader and the author as a group (we), but rather individuality in itself, and thus individuals is the preferred thing to refer to. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  extensive POV and copyediting issues