I would say that the "abstract" operates on a level of nature that we haven't deciphered yet.

That doesn't excuse these "abstract" qualities from behaving according to deterministic laws. It just means that we don't understand the interactions that produce them, therefore they appear outside the realm of determinism--when viewed with our limited perceptive tools.

I am in agreement fully. I have had posted on these kind of subjects in the past and frankly I'm burn't out on them. You have said it all so completely for me that even if I wanted to add something substantial I'd just be making a position which would seem rather redundant since your statements have embodied everything I believe anyway. Esp. the bold font part.
I can't tell you how many times those same thoughts have gone round in my heart and mind.


Good subject to read other peoples views too though!

Except for all those things in physics that we already know about that don't behave according to deterministic laws. What if our free will is subject to quantum probabilities? Not only is it not pre-determined, it can't be determined from the outside... which sounds a lot like "free" to me.

Quantum mechanics is often pseudo-scientifically referenced as a cure for all of western science's wrong-thinking; but I think it makes an even worse case for free will than determinism. How do fuzzy, random possibilities translate into a cohesive "free" will?

Cute. I'm operating on YOUR assumption that "we already know about" things that "don't behave according to deterministic laws."

If quantum possibilities are not deterministic, then they are random. Deterministic on a level that we don't understand yet is still deterministic--and was already included in my definition of deterministic.

The two main interpretations of quantum mechanics are the multiple universes theory and the must be observed before it pops into place theory. Neither one, taken to it's logical conclusion, produces a free will.

Your mom is deterministic.

I got somethin' you can make a determination on right here.

it's fuzzy and random, too

I think this is the only place and time we'll have free will, and that the development of our spirits will be determined in this life if at all,
and that every dimension of our existence hereafter will simply be a progression of our souls to infinity... forever.

So we won't have free will but will always be developing in some way.

Heaven as a cloudy place with angel wings is cute, but it would get dull after a while I think.

This is one long thread to read through. :) :cool:

There are a ton of thoughts I'd like to respond to, but it would take three evenings. :3_eyes: :D

First, to answer the threads question in a way that hasn't yet been done- Yes, there will be be free will in Heaven.
But the inhabitants will be willingly exercising their free will within the boundaries of God's overall best will for them.
This should be pretty easy to do since God is a God of Love and His best will for them is what will give them the greatest, most joyous life possible, I would think.
But it won't be strumming a harp for all eternity in one long Praisefest!
That is not a biblical teaching at all, anywhere, that Heaven is a place where singing praises for all eternity is the main gig.
In fact where will christians exist after the New Creation? (see Revelations 21-22)
What will those who have learned to subject their will to God's will do throughout eternity since its not playing a harp and singing continuously?

Thank God for that! :cool:

Let me throw out another applicable thought that hasn't come up yet.

What is the difference between "believe", and "know" as applied to a personal religious "faith"?
Christians often fail to use "know" when it for some actually applies and can more clearly define their thoughts and experiences.
Ex.- if I know that a specific berry will make one sick from past personal experience, how does that compare to someones belief that the berry won't make one sick who hasn't experienced eating the berry?

It's a matter of courteous interaction, and a way of shielding oneself from criticism. "I know", is perceived to be both arrogant and assailable. "I believe", shows humility and is wholly unassailable in our society. Most of us say we believe (that there is, or is not a god) when in truth most of us know (that there is, or is not, a god).

I hear you Dana and I appreciate where you are coming from, thank-you. :cool: From your answer I think I need to make a signature about this. ;)

I have learned that we can best understand one another in the "far from perfect" thing called communicating if we are as detailed and specific as possible with each other in what we say. It eliminates as much misunderstanding as possible.

I see, and use the word "know" in my talking with someone when it applies not as a word of carrying any emotion or attitude; but rather one of conveying a detailed, specific difference in meaning from "believe". There is a huge, nay "humongous" difference between the two words.
Each word carries a definitive difference in steps of degree. the same as the scientific steps of: (question, postulate, theorize, proof, know)
ex.- (question, think, believe, know)

If there is no chance of any one of us being able to know a specific something, I could see all of us not using the word because it wouldn't apply. But it is possible to not confer any attitude while using it.

I am old enough and have experienced many things enough to know more than many, and less than many others about all sorts of things. True of all of us to varying degrees.
Isn't that why we enjoy these forums? I love to learn from those around me, and if I can give something useful back in return we are twice blessed as I look it. I know I am. :D ;)

Oh yea, I'll be the first to say that in using the word "know" with someone you are close to, and who knows you well; they have an obvious ability to understand you and how well you can correctly perceive reality.
Unfortunately here on the internet, we can only somewhat correctly understand each others honesty, and abilities to reason logically. But I still wouldn't want us to lose the value of the specific, detailed, difference in definitions. We can do our best by gleaning what we can from all of a member's posts. Plus we can always ask in the forums, or pm one another.