[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why God's desition can't work by causality too. I'm not saying they MUST, I'm just saying that if we are to understand any of them, it's because they're at least partially deterministic. And again, I don't see the fundamental contradiction here. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Sure, I'm open to hearing any arguments on the matter, bring them on [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (if you think they're worth listening)




You can reduce this, but then you'll be making the wrong assumption that you already know what all the parts of our internal selfs are. I don't really see a reason to do that; unless it is for giving someone an example so they can understand the idea.

I understand the idea, and I too don't see a way for us to measure that. However I will add that as far as we know, humans can be extremely different individuals as far as their mind and opinions go, so long as the information they receive from outside influence during their life is entirely different. We do know that much. Of course you could consider stored external information to be part of the "self", and only consider external influence that which is being taken as of the moment (maybe, all external information that resides in consciousness before being stored). In that case it would be easier to conclude that we have free will.
In all examples though, there is really no way to measure this, so the idea that we have free will would be purely based on faith.

[ QUOTE ]
It also addresses this issue that we empirically idenfity with ourselves as possessing free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, yes, but also our empirical knowledge of the world suggest that (theoretically) we dont. At least not in the way we assume we do. (this assumption is usually unclear as to what it exactly suggests, btw)
My opinion is that what we have is the feeling/sensation of free will. Ultimately there isn't very much of a difference as far as how to act and feel about it; but philosophically speaking, there is a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

God cannot be instructed by causality - I feel like a broken record here, but 'by definition'. God is supposed to be the creator of all things. There is nothing before god, there is only god, therefore there is nothing which god can be reacting to. Nothing else exists to 'cause' anything, he is the primary agent, that's what being the creator means.

And the fact that something can't be accurately measured doesn't mean it's taken on 'faith'. I can't tell you how many cups of water are in the Pacific, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are more cups of water in the Pacific than there are in my bathtub. I suppose for those balancing the internality of self against the external world, that tipping point would arrive at the point where free will is experienced.

And empiricism tells us the opposite, it tells us we do have free will, that's our everyday experience of life. Which isn't to say this empirical understanding is necessarily valid - I just meant that, and even the strictest of rationalists would have to concede this, if there's going to be a higher level of convincing needed, it's with the rationale refuting empirical truths vs the one confirming them.