Westminster Confession 5.2. "Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."
She is arguing for the theistic conviction that there is something beyond the idea of scientific reductionism of matter and the logical chain of cause/effect. The fact that we can argue both for or against free will means that we can step outside the atomistic chain of cause/effect and consider concepts, ideas, etc. If we were truly inside the box and mere products of nature, we should not be able to even think about, for, or against mother and father atom. Scientific reductionism is an idea and may refer to mindless matter, but no human really lives like they are mindless matter.
Actually it really comes down to what you mean by free will.....Can we make choices? Of course! Can we make choices contrary to our nature? No. Our nature is enslaved by sin therefore our desires and will ultimately are enslaved by sin.
Agreed. Also she says "No" but identifies the wrong part. "It depends what you mean by 'science'". When really the problem - if you look to philosophy - is 'What do you mean by FREE will?' On that mark she completely fails to address the problem. So, really, no she can't prove free will - we really wouldn't expect her to since it is an outstanding problem of determinism - but she focuses on the "science" aspect? Dishonest AF.
Very well said.
Westminster Confession 5.2. "Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."
She is arguing for the theistic conviction that there is something beyond the idea of scientific reductionism of matter and the logical chain of cause/effect. The fact that we can argue both for or against free will means that we can step outside the atomistic chain of cause/effect and consider concepts, ideas, etc. If we were truly inside the box and mere products of nature, we should not be able to even think about, for, or against mother and father atom. Scientific reductionism is an idea and may refer to mindless matter, but no human really lives like they are mindless matter.
I think it will not be long before we will know exactly why we think we free will, and I don't think there will be any supernatural cause to it.
Actually it really comes down to what you mean by free will.....Can we make choices? Of course! Can we make choices contrary to our nature? No. Our nature is enslaved by sin therefore our desires and will ultimately are enslaved by sin.
+immaturechildofgod What do you mean by "sin"?
으 알아듣고 싶다.
"We are not just trapped in a chain of cause and effect....." And how does that even work??? Same as always: Nothing but claims.
Agreed.
Also she says "No" but identifies the wrong part. "It depends what you mean by 'science'". When really the problem - if you look to philosophy - is 'What do you mean by FREE will?' On that mark she completely fails to address the problem. So, really, no she can't prove free will - we really wouldn't expect her to since it is an outstanding problem of determinism - but she focuses on the "science" aspect? Dishonest AF.
How do you disagree with her unless you’re above cause and effect? If you’re merely subject to cause and effect then what makes your objection valid?
@@leepretorius4869 Have you watched the video? You certainly have misread my comment.
What utter complete BS!
What made you say that? What was the cause?