Time and Determinism

[Avatar]

Oh, you say it.

--A

[wayfriend]

(Was Jesus ever quoted as saying, I am the only son of God, in some form? I don't think so. He says God is our father. So we are all sons and daughters of God. Not that Jesus is necessarilly a subject matter expert...)

I don't think existence is entirely physical.

If that is so, and I ain't saying it ain't, then the question is, would a philosophy of predetermination include or exclude the non-physical aspects of existence? Can the meta-physical plane be bound also by cause and effect, or not?

It seems to me that the existence of non-physical existence (heh) either contradicts predetermination (as it is not subject to cause and effect) or (if subject to cause and effect) it does nothing to move forward the argument of whether or not free will can exist in a predetermined universe.

[Fist and Faith]

Thou art God.

Heh

[Cybrweez]

(Was Jesus ever quoted as saying, I am the only son of God, in some form? I don't think so. He says God is our father. So we are all sons and daughters of God. Not that Jesus is necessarilly a subject matter expert...)

Yes, the only begotten Son is in the Bible. John loves that phrase.

When Jesus says we are all sons and daughters, who is He talking to?

Not sure if it follows that if God is our Father, we are gods. It might mean, He's our Father.

[wayfriend]

Thou art God.

Indeed. That book has greatly influenced my outlook on spirituality. Not sure if Heinlein would laugh or cry if he knew.

(Was Jesus ever quoted as saying, I am the only son of God, in some form? I don't think so. He says God is our father. So we are all sons and daughters of God. Not that Jesus is necessarilly a subject matter expert...)

Yes, the only begotten Son is in the Bible. John loves that phrase.

That doesn't quite answer the question I asked.

When Jesus says we are all sons and daughters, who is He talking to?

That's not quite what I tried to say. What I tried to say was: as Jesus said that God is our father, it follows [even though he didn't say it] that we are all sons and daughters of God.

Not sure if it follows that if God is our Father, we are gods. It might mean, He's our Father.

And it might mean that we'll grow up some day and be just like Dad.

[Fist and Faith]

Thou art God.

Indeed. That book has greatly influenced my outlook on spirituality. Not sure if Heinlein would laugh or cry if he knew.

Good question. Either way, same with me.

Not sure if it follows that if God is our Father, we are gods. It might mean, He's our Father.

And it might mean that we'll grow up some day and be just like Dad.

Heh. Nicely said.

[Cybrweez]

That doesn't quite answer the question I asked.

Semantics?

That's not quite what I tried to say. What I tried to say was: as Jesus said that God is our father, it follows [even though he didn't say it] that we are all sons and daughters of God.

That doesn't quite answer the question I asked. Who is He talking to?

And it might mean that we'll grow up some day and be just like Dad.

Great, and it might mean He's our Dad, and we won't be like Him. This is deep stuff wayfriend.

[wayfriend]

That doesn't quite answer the question I asked.

Semantics?

No, sir. I asked if Jesus is quoted as saying it. You answered that John used the phrase.

That doesn't quite answer the question I asked. Who is He talking to?

I don't know. That's why I didn't try to answer your question.

[Cybrweez]

No, sir. I asked if Jesus is quoted as saying it. You answered that John used the phrase.

True, except John is the one who relayed His quotes. That's the semantics I'm talking about.

I don't know. That's why I didn't try to answer your question.

Oh, you threw it out there like you were up on the subject, sorry. I was trying to follow up on your claim.

[wayfriend]

No, sir. I asked if Jesus is quoted as saying it. You answered that John used the phrase.

True, except John is the one who relayed His quotes. That's the semantics I'm talking about.

You didn't say John was "relaying anything". If you assumed I knew, it was a bad assumption. Hence, I didn't see the connection.

[Avatar]

And it might mean that we'll grow up some day and be just like Dad.

Haha, well said.

--A

[Zarathustra]

I don't think existence is entirely physical.

If that is so, and I ain't saying it ain't, then the question is, would a philosophy of predetermination include or exclude the non-physical aspects of existence? Can the meta-physical plane be bound also by cause and effect, or not?

It seems to me that the existence of non-physical existence (heh) either contradicts predetermination (as it is not subject to cause and effect) or (if subject to cause and effect) it does nothing to move forward the argument of whether or not free will can exist in a predetermined universe.

I'm not sure how to answer, because I don't take determinism seriously at all. I haven't given it much thought. The physical universe itself isn't deterministic. We know that randomness exists on a fundamental level of the universe for every single particle in existence. This has been scientific fact for nearly a century.

As for the ideal (numbers, math, logic, etc.) we're talking about logically necessary, analytical truths (e.g. 2+2=4). Causation has no role to play in making that true. Causation (if it exists at all--David Hume gave a devastating argument against it, imo) deals with contingent matters of fact, not logically necessary relations of ideas.

As for mental states themselves, in as much as causation is real (and not itself an illusion as Hume thinks) we'd have to say that mental states do participate in this process. The brain produces the mind, and the mind becomes a causal agent. And since the mind is immaterial, then the "meta-physical" plane as you say can be involved in cause/effect (though I hesitate to say "bound."

I tend to think mind and matter are all free, and they simply express their freedom along patterned, self-organized routes.