Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Whether or not “free will” exists is subjective because it all depends on whether or not you except that “free will” can be correctly defined as “conscious self-determination” where you consciously choose what to think and do and that choice is determined by yourself but it is a determined choice because it is purely determined by the state of your b ...[text shortened]... at was caused randomly and, by definition of random, you would have no control over its outcome.
as long as you define those “choices” as real choices, despite, at the same time, being fully aware that those choices are predetermined choices which would mean you would have no ultimate control over what choices you would arrive at, then there is no logical contradiction.
--------------------------------hamilton---------------------------
So as long as you "define" it as a real choice then it IS a real choice even though it's not actually a choice but a pre-determined action?? How does simply "defining" it as a choice make it a choice?
I'm darn sure that if I "defined" suffering as compeletely compatable with a loving God and then said that the contradiction "went away" because of this you would have me for breakfast!!!
You complicate too much. It's a basic fudge. Either the control we have over our choices is a complete illusion and not actually real ( compatabilism) or the control we have over our choices actually exists and is not illusionary (real free will) . Which is it in reality (not by definition)
You cannot say that our conscious choices are illusionary because they are pre-determined but THEN say that because you "define" them as real choices then they become so. What you define something as makes no difference to the actual reality of the thing. A choice is a choice between two options. In compatabilism this "choice" is an illusion , no amount of "defining" can change that.
I hereby declare that God is real because I define him as real. Problem solved ....duh??? NOT!!