Moses and Jesus taught free will

[praise_yeshua]

I have many choices. But only one outcome per choice. If you can demonstrate that there are two decisions made, be my guest.

Ever heard of double minded? You make competing choice every day of your life. Multiple outcomes from the same choice. See how easy that was?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You are completely missing my point. I'm not saying they give a wrong or mistaken definition. Look through the dictionary —you will find many words of things that don't exist in any sense but imaginary or figurative or rhetorical etc. There may be a perfectly apt definition for unicorn, but that doesn't prove that there is such a thing as a unicorn. The fact we use "chance" and "random" as substitutes for the more accurate, "I don't know", doesn't make the definition wrong. But your trust in the notions is very much mistaken, no matter how useful they have been to you in your considerations of reality.

Obfuscation on your part.....

Yes. You are denying the existence of choice by appealing to predestination. There is no choice without differentiating outcomes. A unicorn has nothing to do with it. It is funny how you appeal to "I don't know" as randomness. Amazing lack of self awareness on your part. Do you see how you are being certain while appealing to "I don't know"?

If you don't know, then you have no right to appeal to randomness as a defense.

Also, you are ignoring the vast majority of what I have wrote. I insist you deal with the Scriptures referenced.

 

[makesends]

Correct. My mistake. Can you make a mistake? You ignored a mistake you made by point at one I made. Typical Calvinist response. You maybe incapable of admitting you are wrong. This has nothing to do with only one possible choice.

My bad. What mistake was that?

But there was no need to admit to that mistake, nor to even respond concerning it. I was just pickin'

 

[makesends]

Don't play dumb. You said God predetermined everything. Do you not know what everything includes?

It would appear that you are god by your own standards.

This is rich. I'm asking why you go on about using the bathroom. Your questions there are irrelevant, as your comments here are. You still haven't explained why they would be relevant. Have I not said that God determines all fact? Why go on about the toilet then?

If you want what I believe to sound gross, then why not go the whole way and introduce really gross stuff? There's hardly any limit to how awful the horrors are of what God has decreed. Why stop with excrement? Truth is, you want to win by mocking —not by debate. Get to the point!

But, I'll play.

Oversimplification. You insist there are only one choice that is purposed. Which is contrary to choice itself. As I've told you before. It doesn't matter when you choose to use the bathroom. There is more than one choice to be made and only the choice to wait till your bowls bust will cause harm.

I insist you answer if you only have one choice as to when to use the bathroom. Why not answer?

It is my belief that God doesn't purpose when we use the bathroom or many other things that take place in life.

So, if I read you right, you mean, "Regardless of when you use the bathroom, there is more than one option to the choice to be made, and only one of those options is harmful." So what? What is your point?

I didn't answer according to your subject (the bathroom et al) because the conversation is stupid. You keep going on with some inane claim that since we choose from among options that therefore there are multiple possible outcomes (which here you call choices). I repeat, you have no way to show that more than one outcome was actually possible. I did answer the point you were trying to make.

 

[makesends]

Ever heard of double minded? You make competing choice every day of your life. Multiple outcomes from the same choice. See how easy that was?

Did I ever say there is no choice? You are letting words tangle up your thinking, because if you are not, then you are merely stubborn, and unwilling to take my meaning.

Again, there is only ever one option finally chosen. You have not demonstrated to the contrary.

 

[makesends]

Obfuscation on your part.....

Yes. You are denying the existence of choice by appealing to predestination. There is no choice without differentiating outcomes. A unicorn has nothing to do with it. It is funny how you appeal to "I don't know" as randomness. Amazing lack of self awareness on your part. Do you see how you are being certain while appealing to "I don't know"?

If you don't know, then you have no right to appeal to randomness as a defense.

Also, you are ignoring the vast majority of what I have wrote. I insist you deal with the Scriptures referenced.

There is no choice without differentiating apparently possible outcomes.

You're mocking the air. Yes, I am certain there is no such thing as actual randomness. Yes, I am certain that "chance determining" anything is self-contradictory. I'm not appealing to "I don't know". That is what using words like "chance" and "random" does —appeals to "I don't know". Your arguments are inane.

You use the sword like a wet noodle. But go ahead and repost the scriptures you insist I respond to. I don't know remember not responding to them, or at least to the points/arguments I thought you were trying to make by your use of them. So I don't know which ones you mean, nor am I motivated by your insistence to go find them. No, no! I insist! You first! Be my guest!

And why should I care what you insist that I do?

 

[atpollard]

If you can follow the logic of the argument in "Schrödinger's cat", then you will see that a similar paradox applies to HUMAN CHOICE.

In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 in a discussion with Albert Einstein to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.​

​

In Schrödinger's original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal radiation monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.​

​

Although originally a critique on the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's seemingly paradoxical thought experiment became part of the foundation of quantum mechanics. The scenario is often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly in situations involving the measurement problem. As a result, Schrödinger's cat has had enduring appeal in popular culture. The experiment is not intended to be actually performed on a cat, but rather as an easily understandable illustration of the behavior of atoms. Experiments at the atomic scale have been carried out, showing that very small objects may exist as superpositions; but superimposing an object as large as a cat would pose considerable technical difficulties.​

​

Fundamentally, the Schrödinger's cat experiment asks how long quantum superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse. Different interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been proposed that give different explanations for this process, but Schrödinger's cat remains an unsolved problem in physics.​

BEFORE you choose, you can either CHOOSE to do "A" or you can CHOOSE to do "B". Each will have a different consequence that will lead to different choices that will have consequences and lead to different choices ...

HOWEVER, you CANNOT do both "A" and "B" so there is only one ultimate REALITY that will occur ... God's Plan. You are free to choose whatever you want, but you will ultimately make the predestined choice ... the reality of God's perfect fore-knowledge (omniscient Plan) cannot be altered. We will do what we will do.

 

[praise_yeshua]

My bad. What mistake was that?

But there was no need to admit to that mistake, nor to even respond concerning it. I was just pickin'

I would like to know if you make mistakes?

 

[makesends]

If you can follow the logic of the argument in "Schrödinger's cat", then you will see that a similar paradox applies to HUMAN CHOICE.

In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 in a discussion with Albert Einstein to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.​

​

In Schrödinger's original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal radiation monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.​

​

Although originally a critique on the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's seemingly paradoxical thought experiment became part of the foundation of quantum mechanics. The scenario is often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly in situations involving the measurement problem. As a result, Schrödinger's cat has had enduring appeal in popular culture. The experiment is not intended to be actually performed on a cat, but rather as an easily understandable illustration of the behavior of atoms. Experiments at the atomic scale have been carried out, showing that very small objects may exist as superpositions; but superimposing an object as large as a cat would pose considerable technical difficulties.​

​

Fundamentally, the Schrödinger's cat experiment asks how long quantum superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse. Different interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been proposed that give different explanations for this process, but Schrödinger's cat remains an unsolved problem in physics.​

BEFORE you choose, you can either CHOOSE to do "A" or you can CHOOSE to do "B". Each will have a different consequence that will lead to different choices that will have consequences and lead to different choices ...

HOWEVER, you CANNOT do both "A" and "B" so there is only one ultimate REALITY that will occur ... God's Plan. You are free to choose whatever you want, but you will ultimately make the predestined choice ... the reality of God's perfect fore-knowledge (omniscient Plan) cannot be altered. We will do what we will do.

Veterinarian comes out to the waiting room. "Mr. Schrodinger, I'm afraid I've got both good new and bad news..."

 

[praise_yeshua]

This is rich. I'm asking why you go on about using the bathroom. Your questions there are irrelevant, as your comments here are. You still haven't explained why they would be relevant. Have I not said that God determines all fact? Why go on about the toilet then?

You've clearly stated that the "facts" that you're reference are the ONLY choice. Which would = God has predetermined your bowel movements.

I use this as a reference in an attempt to get you realize how silly such arguments are. Your position requires God to predetermine exactly when you CHOSE to relieve yourself. Remember.... only ONE outcome. Please be consistent with your own claims.

If you want what I believe to sound gross, then why not go the whole way and introduce really gross stuff? There's hardly any limit to how awful the horrors are of what God has decreed. Why stop with excrement? Truth is, you want to win by mocking —not by debate. Get to the point!

No. I presented you a choice. I established a ridiculous contrast. No one can possibly believe that God predetermined your bowel movements. Yet, that is the argument you're making. We need to the find the edges of your belief. You are correct, I could say more. However, I have chosen this example because Elijah made pretty much the same argument against the prophets of Baal. I was trying to indirectly....."shake your memory"......

I'm not God. I didn't predetermine your mistake.

But, I'll play.

So, if I read you right, you mean, "Regardless of when you use the bathroom, there is more than one option to the choice to be made, and only one of those options is harmful." So what? What is your point?

That primary cause don't determine your choice. This "choice" you demand as being the only viable outcome becomes rather silly relative to such nonsense as when you decide to use the bathroom.

I didn't answer according to your subject (the bathroom et al) because the conversation is stupid. You keep going on with some inane claim that since we choose from among options that therefore there are multiple possible outcomes (which here you call choices). I repeat, you have no way to show that more than one outcome was actually possible. I did answer the point you were trying to make.

To everything there is a season. Any system relative to Determinism requires "timing".

Ecc 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

What you fail to realize is that "seasons" add variability to the equation. God has defined boundaries and established limits. Man operates freely within those boundaries of these "seasons".

 

[praise_yeshua]

Did I ever say there is no choice? You are letting words tangle up your thinking, because if you are not, then you are merely stubborn, and unwilling to take my meaning.

Again, there is only ever one option finally chosen. You have not demonstrated to the contrary.

You're starting at the end and working backwards. We build foundations before we ever make a determination. You're demand your conclusion is true without doing the work to establish as being true.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There is no choice without differentiating apparently possible outcomes.

You're mocking the air. Yes, I am certain there is no such thing as actual randomness. Yes, I am certain that "chance determining" anything is self-contradictory. I'm not appealing to "I don't know". That is what using words like "chance" and "random" does —appeals to "I don't know". Your arguments are inane.

I believe Jesus. I gave you Scripture that you refuse to deal with. Please do. You're denying the Scriptures to insert your false doctrine.

You use the sword like a wet noodle. But go ahead and repost the scriptures you insist I respond to. I don't know remember not responding to them, or at least to the points/arguments I thought you were trying to make by your use of them. So I don't know which ones you mean, nor am I motivated by your insistence to go find them. No, no! I insist! You first! Be my guest!

And why should I care what you insist that I do?

You don't have to do anything. You couldn't have possibly not known the reference in the Scriptures to chance. If you do not know them, then you're a novice. How do you think I even posted them? Did I imagine them?

Do as you please. Read. Don't read. Remember, forget. Your choice. Yes. There are multiple viable outcomes to these choices. What one takes place is up to you.

 

[makesends]

I would like to know if you make mistakes?

That's not even worthy of an answer. Are you kidding me? EVERYTHING I do is by trial and error, and sometimes, by repeated rebellious error, and even, sometimes, by the fact that my brain doesn't always run on all thrusters. Just like you.

What in the world is wrong with you???

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If you can follow the logic of the argument in "Schrödinger's cat", then you will see that a similar paradox applies to HUMAN CHOICE.

In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 in a discussion with Albert Einstein to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.​

​

In Schrödinger's original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal radiation monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.​

​

Although originally a critique on the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's seemingly paradoxical thought experiment became part of the foundation of quantum mechanics. The scenario is often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly in situations involving the measurement problem. As a result, Schrödinger's cat has had enduring appeal in popular culture. The experiment is not intended to be actually performed on a cat, but rather as an easily understandable illustration of the behavior of atoms. Experiments at the atomic scale have been carried out, showing that very small objects may exist as superpositions; but superimposing an object as large as a cat would pose considerable technical difficulties.​

​

Fundamentally, the Schrödinger's cat experiment asks how long quantum superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse. Different interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been proposed that give different explanations for this process, but Schrödinger's cat remains an unsolved problem in physics.​

BEFORE you choose, you can either CHOOSE to do "A" or you can CHOOSE to do "B". Each will have a different consequence that will lead to different choices that will have consequences and lead to different choices ...

HOWEVER, you CANNOT do both "A" and "B" so there is only one ultimate REALITY that will occur ... God's Plan. You are free to choose whatever you want, but you will ultimately make the predestined choice ... the reality of God's perfect fore-knowledge (omniscient Plan) cannot be altered. We will do what we will do.

You beat me too it. I was going to make a joke about Schrödinger's cat being a case where both options exist until you examine the cat. From what I've read, Schrödinger was poking fun at the quantum idea of something being in two states until observed, but I can't recall where I read that.

 

[praise_yeshua]

If you can follow the logic of the argument in "Schrödinger's cat", then you will see that a similar paradox applies to HUMAN CHOICE.

In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 in a discussion with Albert Einstein to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.​

​

In Schrödinger's original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal radiation monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.​

​

Although originally a critique on the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's seemingly paradoxical thought experiment became part of the foundation of quantum mechanics. The scenario is often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly in situations involving the measurement problem. As a result, Schrödinger's cat has had enduring appeal in popular culture. The experiment is not intended to be actually performed on a cat, but rather as an easily understandable illustration of the behavior of atoms. Experiments at the atomic scale have been carried out, showing that very small objects may exist as superpositions; but superimposing an object as large as a cat would pose considerable technical difficulties.​

​

Fundamentally, the Schrödinger's cat experiment asks how long quantum superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse. Different interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been proposed that give different explanations for this process, but Schrödinger's cat remains an unsolved problem in physics.​

BEFORE you choose, you can either CHOOSE to do "A" or you can CHOOSE to do "B". Each will have a different consequence that will lead to different choices that will have consequences and lead to different choices ...

HOWEVER, you CANNOT do both "A" and "B" so there is only one ultimate REALITY that will occur ... God's Plan. You are free to choose whatever you want, but you will ultimately make the predestined choice ... the reality of God's perfect fore-knowledge (omniscient Plan) cannot be altered. We will do what we will do.

There is no cat. It only exists in YOUR mind and those you decide to share the delusion with.

Man can do anything in his own mind. They call it "fiction". You're establishing an imaginary idol of god in your mind with such "thought experiments". Also, don't pretend you understand "quantum mechanics". You've simply appealed to the limitation of your own mind's ability to believe God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's not even worthy of an answer. Are you kidding me? EVERYTHING I do is by trial and error, and sometimes, by repeated rebellious error, and even, sometimes, by the fact that my brain doesn't always run on all thrusters. Just like you.

What in the world is wrong with you???

A question that deserves an answer.

When you make a mistake...... is it God that predetermined the outcome or YOU living in your own depraved mind? Don't try to tell me that you don't have a battle between your mind and the mind of Christ raging in your own being/body.

This is proof of what you're saying isn't true. We know from the Scriptures that one is contrary to other. You're insisting that they are complimentary.

We know better.

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

This is proof of God's plan. Conflict.

 

[makesends]

If you can follow the logic of the argument in "Schrödinger's cat", then you will see that a similar paradox applies to HUMAN CHOICE.

In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 in a discussion with Albert Einstein to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.​

​

In Schrödinger's original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal radiation monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.​

​

Although originally a critique on the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's seemingly paradoxical thought experiment became part of the foundation of quantum mechanics. The scenario is often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly in situations involving the measurement problem. As a result, Schrödinger's cat has had enduring appeal in popular culture. The experiment is not intended to be actually performed on a cat, but rather as an easily understandable illustration of the behavior of atoms. Experiments at the atomic scale have been carried out, showing that very small objects may exist as superpositions; but superimposing an object as large as a cat would pose considerable technical difficulties.​

​

Fundamentally, the Schrödinger's cat experiment asks how long quantum superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse. Different interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been proposed that give different explanations for this process, but Schrödinger's cat remains an unsolved problem in physics.​

BEFORE you choose, you can either CHOOSE to do "A" or you can CHOOSE to do "B". Each will have a different consequence that will lead to different choices that will have consequences and lead to different choices ...

HOWEVER, you CANNOT do both "A" and "B" so there is only one ultimate REALITY that will occur ... God's Plan. You are free to choose whatever you want, but you will ultimately make the predestined choice ... the reality of God's perfect fore-knowledge (omniscient Plan) cannot be altered. We will do what we will do.

Frankly, from my POV, anyway, "Schrödinger's cat" is silly. To me, if that is the basis of Quantum Theory, then Quantum Theory also makes no sense. The obvious fact that only one 'possibility' is truly possible, though WE don't know which, is what it is quite apart from our measurement of it. And the "branching off" theory (see, "Back To The Future") is only speculation. No evidence at all.

I've raised this simple objection before, and people are quick to hail back to the Double-Slit Experiment, as though it ACTUALLY makes a difference that people are observing it. If it has elements of both wave and particle, then who is to say which it resolves into before it is observed to have done so? (Or perhaps, more to the point, how do they even know if observing it to do so did not introduce some peripheral influence?)

(There is also the POV question, and the acknowledging that the human observer doesn't see the whole matter. Not all that is empirical has yet been viewed by humanity.) I will cut this off here, to avoid complication, since it is an aside, but yeah, I know, I've heard the further claims that 'dispute' what I'm saying, but I don't see how they can know those claims are true.

 

[makesends]

There is no cat. It only exists in YOUR mind and those you decide to share the delusion with.

Man can do anything in his own mind. They call it "fiction". You're establishing an imaginary idol of god in your mind with such "thought experiments". Also, don't pretend you understand "quantum mechanics". You've simply appealed to the limitation of your own mind's ability to believe God.

Nobody understand quantum mechanics, as admitted by those who seem to understand it best. The whole thing seems to hinge on the notion that there actually is multiple possibility —i.e. mere chance. You should love that.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Frankly, from my POV, anyway, "Schrödinger's cat" is silly. To me, if that is the basis of Quantum Theory, then Quantum Theory also makes no sense. The obvious fact that only one 'possibility' is truly possible, though WE don't know which, is what it is quite apart from our measurement of it. And the "branching off" theory (see, "Back To The Future") is only speculation. No evidence at all.

I've raised this simple objection before, and people are quick to hail back to the Double-Slit Experiment, as though it ACTUALLY makes a difference that people are observing it. If it has elements of both wave and particle, then who is to say which it resolves into before it is observed to have done so? (Or perhaps, more to the point, how do they even know if observing it to do so did not introduce some peripheral influence?)

(There is also the POV question, and the acknowledging that the human observer doesn't see the whole matter. Not all that is empirical has yet been viewed by humanity.) I will cut this off here, to avoid complication, since it is an aside, but yeah, I know, I've heard the further claims that 'dispute' what I'm saying, but I don't see how they can know those claims are true.

Strong delusion that you believe a lie and be damned.....Does that come to mind? Just curious how you establish the application of such things in realty?

We do by the Scriptures.

It would seem you tend to agree with me here....

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nobody understand quantum mechanics, as admitted by those who seem to understand it best. The whole thing seems to hinge on the notion that there actually is multiple possibility —i.e. mere chance. You should love that.

Just pretty much said I did....