Are My Actions Determined?

[Audie]

I just go with the Buddhist Zen philosophy of being content with never understanding. It's the same as the chicken or the egg argument. Which is it? Who knows? Only one Being does, but he won't tell

In other words, it's sort of like that "if a tree falls in the forest" logic puzzle. It's unsolvable, but it's fun to try anyway. And yes I realize approaching philosophical discussion with my hands held high in surrender is a poor position, but I'm playing my cards right, since I don't have any high cards lol

I do know the sound of one hand clapping. Seriously!

[Kurieuo]

Yes, Audie -- That sounds very concise.

It sums up all that is in the thread in a whole lot less words.

Perhaps you feel the way you do about much of the threads here, because you prefer the security of being taught what to believe Audie, that if the fuller body in society believes it you are more secure grounds. Questions like the one this thread poses, and much in philosophy, one must think through and people come to different conclusions normally based upon the philosophies they've adopted in their life. That is scary to those who like firm answers given to them.

I find it interesting, or sad, that others who like to think for themselves about questions in life, that you write such off as worthless philosophizophers or what-ever word you'd like to coin, and that is too your intellectual detriment.

Then again, Asian students often learn being told what to believe rather than thinking. I read something about China trying to change that in its education system to inspire more independent free thinking students, rather than just accepting what they're told in education as has been the trend to date. You're just meant to sit and learn whatever is dished to you without question.

In Asian culture, generally it is often not even a possibility that one question the teacher or think about other possibilities, based upon what I've read of Asians kids in Western countries with their parents. Second best is just as much losing as first, and to be first, well, you've got to learn the ropes and accept all what your taught by your teachers. This I understood from reading Amy Chua and her The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.

Now such may often lead to very bright and educated people, but sadly, one-dimensional people who don't think much for themselves except at being seen as #1 in whatever they put their minds to, such is better for some borg-like communism than some free-thinking rationally independent person the Western ideal craves.

If you're feeling here I'm poking a stick at you, then yes I am because I felt, always feel you poking yours around us who you seem to deem as some lower rung of intellectual people. Don't like it, don't start. Want to continue with gloves on, then I'll spar with you back.

You is just pokin' a stick in your own eye, ya yabbie, getting all heavy duty psychobabblealytical
over casual kidding around. Others doing likewise await analysis.

Get it right Audie! It wasn't a stick poking my eye, but a stray bullet from an AK methinks.

[Audie]

Yes, Audie -- That sounds very concise.

It sums up all that is in the thread in a whole lot less words.

Perhaps you feel the way you do about much of the threads here, because you prefer the security of being taught what to believe Audie, that if the fuller body in society believes it you are more secure grounds. Questions like the one this thread poses, and much in philosophy, one must think through and people come to different conclusions normally based upon the philosophies they've adopted in their life. That is scary to those who like firm answers given to them.

I find it interesting, or sad, that others who like to think for themselves about questions in life, that you write such off as worthless philosophizophers or what-ever word you'd like to coin, and that is too your intellectual detriment.

Then again, Asian students often learn being told what to believe rather than thinking. I read something about China trying to change that in its education system to inspire more independent free thinking students, rather than just accepting what they're told in education as has been the trend to date. You're just meant to sit and learn whatever is dished to you without question.

In Asian culture, generally it is often not even a possibility that one question the teacher or think about other possibilities, based upon what I've read of Asians kids in Western countries with their parents. Second best is just as much losing as first, and to be first, well, you've got to learn the ropes and accept all what your taught by your teachers. This I understood from reading Amy Chua and her The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.

Now such may often lead to very bright and educated people, but sadly, one-dimensional people who don't think much for themselves except at being seen as #1 in whatever they put their minds to, such is better for some borg-like communism than some free-thinking rationally independent person the Western ideal craves.

If you're feeling here I'm poking a stick at you, then yes I am because I felt, always feel you poking yours around us who you seem to deem as some lower rung of intellectual people. Don't like it, don't start. Want to continue with gloves on, then I'll spar with you back.

You is just pokin' a stick in your own eye, ya yabbie, getting all heavy duty psychobabblealytical
over casual kidding around. Others doing likewise await analysis.

Get it right Audie! It wasn't a stick poking my eye, but a stray bullet from an AK methinks.

Play with Krinks, ya may get hurt. Same as if you mess with greatity great granddaughters
of the Great Kahn. Ninety seven British Imperial pounds of fightin' Genghisette is nothing to fool with!

[Philip]

Audie: Play with Krinks, ya may get hurt. Same as if you mess with greatity great granddaughters
of the Great Kahn. Ninety seven British Imperial pounds of fightin' Genghisette is nothing to fool with!

Heck, Audie, my dog outweighs you by about 30 lbs. You could probably ride him! Problem is, he is very stubborn and, well, uh...

[RickD]

Audie: Play with Krinks, ya may get hurt. Same as if you mess with greatity great granddaughters
of the Great Kahn. Ninety seven British Imperial pounds of fightin' Genghisette is nothing to fool with!

Heck, Audie, my dog outweighs you by about 30 lbs. You could probably ride him! Problem is, he is very stubborn and, well, uh...

Perfect match then.

[Audie]

Audie: Play with Krinks, ya may get hurt. Same as if you mess with greatity great granddaughters
of the Great Kahn. Ninety seven British Imperial pounds of fightin' Genghisette is nothing to fool with!

Heck, Audie, my dog outweighs you by about 30 lbs. You could probably ride him! Problem is, he is very stubborn and, well, uh...

Perfect match then.

Men are not hard to understand. Just know their lingo!
When women are right, that is "stubborn."

[crochet1949]

Humm.... This turned out to be a lot easier than I thought.

There is no defeating you Kenny.

What self-proclaimed skeptics don't really seem to understand, is a healthy skepticism also involves being skeptic of one's skepticism. That's all I'll say. If you want to knock my questions up to "making some point" then so be it.

Self -proclaimed believers dont realize that believing also involves believing one's belief

A delusion person believes they lack a belief in something they lack a belief in.

Similar to the delusion of believing in the external existence of something
that exists only as a belief in your own head?

Only difference Is that God DOES exist -- we don't see Him Visually , no. But then the 'wind' is Also an invisible Force -- it is only Seen by what it picks up -- but it is Also 'felt' as a breeze / the wind that pushes against a person. The 'wind' is visual in the dust, leaves, etc. whatever gets picked up. And no one has ever questioned the Existence Of the wind. We Can observe the existence of God by the positive changes He makes in a person , in a multitude of way He Does show Himself. In lots of ways that science tries to pass off as simply nature doing it's thing. When, in reality, they are missing the awesomeness of what God IS capable of doing . That which He did in the past and does Now and what He Will do in the future.

[Justhuman]

There is no defeating you Kenny.

What self-proclaimed skeptics don't really seem to understand, is a healthy skepticism also involves being skeptic of one's skepticism. That's all I'll say. If you want to knock my questions up to "making some point" then so be it.

Self -proclaimed believers dont realize that believing also involves believing one's belief

A delusion person believes they lack a belief in something they lack a belief in.

Similar to the delusion of believing in the external existence of something
that exists only as a belief in your own head?

Only difference Is that God DOES exist -- we don't see Him Visually , no. But then the 'wind' is Also an invisible Force -- it is only Seen by what it picks up -- but it is Also 'felt' as a breeze / the wind that pushes against a person. The 'wind' is visual in the dust, leaves, etc. whatever gets picked up. And no one has ever questioned the Existence Of the wind. We Can observe the existence of God by the positive changes He makes in a person , in a multitude of way He Does show Himself. In lots of ways that science tries to pass off as simply nature doing it's thing. When, in reality, they are missing the awesomeness of what God IS capable of doing . That which He did in the past and does Now and what He Will do in the future.

But the wind is material of origin, while God is immaterial.

[Philip]

But the wind is material of origin, while God is immaterial.

Wind is a result of the physical - atmospheric pressures, planetary rotation speed, etc. All of which are caused by physical things that once did not exist, all derived from SOMETHING eternal that caused and designed what produces wind.

[Justhuman]

But the wind is material of origin, while God is immaterial.

Wind is a result of the physical - atmospheric pressures, planetary rotation speed, etc. All of which are caused by physical things that once did not exist, all derived from SOMETHING eternal that caused and designed what produces wind.

Meaning?

One can't compare 'wind' with 'God'. On can't explain the existance of God by comparing it to the physical properties of wind.
Though I get the idea behind it, it's just incompatible incomparable

[Kurieuo]

Corchet was using an analogy I believe. Wind is physical. God isn't.

Nonethless the Hebrew ruach (often translated "spirit" as in Spirit of God), means "wind," "breath," or "spirit." When the Spirit of God brooded over the waters, such was rauch Elohim. Adam and Eve were given the breath of life, such was ruach.

More can be read here: https://www.gotquestions.org/meaning-ruach.html

[Justhuman]

... We Can observe the existence of God by the positive changes He makes in a person...

Well, how can we observe that? How can we know that He did 'that', and not the person itself?

[ultimate777]

Just another question, related to my one about whether I should do as I please.

This one is obviously important as to whether I can in fact do as I please, or whether my actions are already decided for me as part of some biochemical event.

We often hear positions of those who believe in God, you know the free will vs predetermination.
What say some lay people without belief in God though, I'd be interested?

I think we have free will within a deterministic framework. We all have the freedom to make our own choices, but lots of factors - age, gender, education, life experience, religious beliefs, up-bringing, government intervention, wealth or lack thereof, knowledge, and a hundred other things - act as limiting factors and/or push us in one direction or another. So yeah, we have free will to do what's possible within whatever boxes where we find ourselves.

A hundred limiting factors? More like 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 :

[ultimate777]

I just go with the Buddhist Zen philosophy of being content with never understanding. It's the same as the chicken or the egg argument. Which is it? Who knows? Only one Being does, but he won't tell

The egg is first, its parents were not quite chickens yet.

In other words, it's sort of like that "if a tree falls in the forest" logic puzzle. It's unsolvable, but it's fun to try anyway. And yes I realize approaching philosophical discussion with my hands held high in surrender is a poor position, but I'm playing my cards right, since I don't have any high cards lol

It still makes a noise if anything could have heard it.

[Justhuman]

The question should be "when was it a chicken?".

The not-a-chicken laid an egg that hatched a not-yet-a-chicken that laid an egg that hatched a proto-proto-chicken that laid an egg that hatched the proto-chicken that laid an egg that hatched our current one-and-only-chicken.