Thread: A Clockwork Orange-esque debate.

Originally Posted by Think

Yeah, it's called predestination, and given that the Christian God is meant to be both omnipotent and omniscient, it's probably the most logically sound interpretation.
Never mind free will, if you can see everything that someone is going to do from the moment they are created (as omniscience says God can), and you are all powerful, then you can make versions of them that would behave differently.
According to these premises, any man God created must have already been condemned by Him to either Heaven or Hell.

The problem I'm having with this discussion is the assumption that everything is pre-determined from the very beginning, and that probability is seen as negating choice. Using Think's post here, it's pretty clear that the idea itslef seems derived from the idea of God (or some other omnipotent/omniscient being/presence).

I also find your logic of God problematic in and of itself; if He (capitalized to keep with the common tradition of Christians) already determined that you would go to Heaven or Hell, then why have us exist? Why then implant the idea that free will exists, from the beginning (as the Bible would have you believe)?

Also, if everything (as you say) is already pre-determined by either some mathematical equation or some god (in this case, the christian version), then why does probability exist at all? Further, why should we condemn a criminal for committing a crime if he was predestined to commit it from the very moment of his conception or-as some have stated-from the big bang itself?

To my knowledge, this entire "predetermination" theory depends on the idea that something has already decided that--which would force one to believe that God/s or some underlying magic that exists within everything to keep it in line with the previous determinations.

From a psychological perspective, yes, I agree that personality is composed of experience and environmental factors. However, this is an area where input by the individual is required; the individual also can and sometimes will shape his/her environment in meaningful ways.

In a famous scientific study (the Milgram experiment), subjects were asked to deliver higher and higher amounts of electrical shocks to another person (perceived real volts) as part of a supposed "teaching" experience to the 'learning' confederate. Most people went up to the highest voltage. Note the usage of the word "most"; not all of them did, despite the idea that people will act predictably when given these scenarios. The psychologist who described the method for Operant Conditioning theorized that if he put a child in a box, and only allowed the child to know what he taught him/her, then he could control every single behavior that child had... is this something that you agree with?

Again, the entire argument for predetermination hinges on the idea of God's existence or that of a mathematical formula deciding every single speck of dust's future--and neither of these work within the grounds of logical reasoning.