(urth) Theism Supports Free Will Better than Materialism Does

[Marc Aramini]

Since you asked, I do not limit God by human understanding.  The Bible
cannot circumscribe him, nor can any theology adequately describe a being
for which all powers are conceivable.  But the very prevalent idea of
"God's will be done" implies that He has one, even if it is beyond human
understanding.  I am obviously not an agnostic, but my words and philosophy
cannot encapsulate the existence of such a power.  The only statement I am
willing to make is that our universe operates under reasonable and
seemingly consistent physical laws - if existence is an amusement, it seems
to be operated with, overall, reliable rules. If God desires free will, He
can certainly have it, if desire is even applicable in describing Him or
His motivations.



On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >David Stockhoff: I happily concede that 100% free will as philosophy
> frames it
> >is a pernicious myth, and biology presents all sorts of arguments
> >against it.
>
>
> Heh. I've seen the unpredictability of sub-atomic physics as an argument
> for free will.
>
> I don't think our behavior choices boil down to that level (biochemistry
> seems sufficient)
>
> but hey, its an argument.
>
>
> >Marc Aramini: I am sure Wolfe believes in free will
>
>
> I think the question is the nature of it. Are there degrees? Does an ape
> have it? A bacterium?
>
> A rock?
>
>
> And from what perspective? What about God's? It is a logical fallacy to
> say He knew Adam and
>
> Eve would eat forbidden fruit but they still had free will. If God
> constructed them, molecule by
>
> molecule in such a way that they would eat the fruit. then they cannot be
> said to have free will.
>
>
> Marc, I didn't see that you weighed in on the question of whether God has
> free will. What is your
>
> opinion?
>
>
> I get the sense from Wolfe's work that he recognizes how choices become
> more and more restricted
>
> as one approaches godhood.  Various Wolfean characters start human (or
> something) and
>
> as they approach godhood, become less able to make evil/human choices.
>
>
> >Gerry Quinn: There's also the issue of Master Ash, who says he thinks his
> future is
> >improbable, but clearly his existence suggests that the future of
> >Severian's world is not cast in stone.
>
>
> Master Ash, for all his wisdom, is the product of one timeline. Severian
> eventually surpasses that.
>
> When Severian travels the Brook Madegot, I think the answer is revealed.
> This river of time only
>
> branches as you travel forward in time, not backward. But since there are
> branchings, Master Ash's
>
> and The Green Man's future both exist.
>
>
> The structure of Brook Madregot demonstrates that choices always pertain
> to moving forward to the
>
> future.  The path of your  past is fixed. Thus I would argue that the
> Increate, who can see all paths
>
> simultaneously, is denied the "freedom" of choice. He can't choose a left
> or right path on Brook
>
> Madregot. For Him,  everything just IS.
>
>
> Unlike Master Ash, The Increate can't  just can't travel to the left or to
> the right in time (to frozen Urth or
>
> sunny Ushas). He is constantly aware of the existence of both.  Perhaps
> the Increate actually embodies
>
>  both. Somewhere in BotNS it is implied that the infinite complexity of
> the universe(s) IS the very substance
>
> of the Increate.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141012/e16fb4c9/attachment-0002.htm>