Trigger words: sin (2)
Indicator sentences: One definition of "Sin" is a greek term to "miss the mark."
Negotiation parts: [here's the source](http://biblehub.com/greek/264.htm). So we should think of it as more to err or make a mistake rather than to violate god's will. This definition takes away a lot of the emotional and cultural baggage of the word.
Trigger words: free will (2)
Indicator sentences: If we defined free will as the ability to do something other than what you yourself would do, then yes this would be a problem. However, that's not how I defined free will.
Negotiation parts: Free will is defined as the ability to choose to sin or not sin. God only loses his free will because he cannot choose to sin.
Trigger words: free will
Indicator sentences: That is a bizarre definition of free will.
Negotiation parts: I guess if you want to use that definition, then it's true that if we can't sin then we don't have free will. But realize what you're doing here. Even though it looks strange, I think that my definition is the same definition used in most Christian theologies. Consider the common response to the question, 'why did God create a universe that contains sin?'. The answer is generally, 'because this was necessary in order for us to have free will.' In other words, the possibility of sin is a necessary condition for the existence of free will. Do you agree so far, or have I interpreted their theology wrongly? I don't agree that you have the theology right, but I'm not going to argue it because there are so many interpretations, you can really make it whatever you want. So if you want to define free will that way, I'm fine with that.
Trigger words: ability
Indicator sentences: I didn't say anything about the possibility. I said I have the "ability" to do it. I used that word because that's the word you used. Having the ability to do something doesn't imply that there is a non-zero probability of ever doing it, right? It simply doesn't logically follow. Unless you're going to define "ability" to mean "has a non-zero probability of happening".
Negotiation parts: If the possibility of punching your friend remains non-zero, I think that it does. In my choosing A or B example, if there was 0 probability to choose B, then you cannot choose B. If you cannot choose B, then you lack the ability to choose B. [STA-CITE]>if there was 0 probability to choose B, then you cannot choose B. [END-CITE]I'm not sure I agree with this. I could choose to intentionally drown my cat. But I choose not to. There is 0 probability that I will choose that option, even though the option is available to me. It's not that I *can't* choose it, but that I *choose* not to, using this free will thing. I think this gets to the meat of our disagreement. I'm saying that our ability to choose something doesn't logically necessitate that we must eventually make that choice. You're saying it does. In the end I think it's just the definitions you're using, again: To you, 0 probability of choosing option B means there is no ability to choose B. To me, 0 probability of choosing option B could also mean I would never choose that option. Let me try to lay these out in logical form, in a universe where only options A and B exist. The argument you presented goes like this: * (p1) Free will exists: I have the ability to choose either A or B * (p2) The probability of my choosing B is 0 * (p3) 0 probability means I don't actually have the ability * (c1) Therefore, I have no ability to choose B (which contradicts p1) So one of your premises must be wrong. We agree on p2 so one of p1 or p3 must be wrong: Either Free will doesn't exist or 0 probability can't mean I don't have the ability to choose B. Here is my argument: * (p1) Free will exists: I have the ability to choose either A or B * (p2) My will is such that I never desire to choose B * (c1) Therefore, the probability of my choosing B is 0 As a matter of full disclosure, I actually don't think we have this kind of libertarian free will at all, I'm just arguing on that basis because it's how you originally presented it.
Trigger words: sin
Indicator sentences: The definition of "sin" is dependent on what God is/does.
Negotiation parts: As a parallel, if the word *"nis"* meant *"things that /u/luxo42 never does"* then it would equally true that you couldn't *nis*, by definition. By making up this word/definition of a thing you can't do, did I just take away your free will? Of course not. You would be no less capable of taking any action you otherwise could have taken, the concept of *nissing* simply becomes incoherent when applied to you. Same thing with God.
Trigger words: probability (2)
Indicator sentences: More examples of your misunderstanding of probability and outcome:
Negotiation parts: the flipping coins example is actually isomorphic to my binary decimal experiment: let heads and tails be 0 and 1. You flip forever and you generate a string, infinitely long, of H and T. If you think that, at the end of this process, both H and T must have occurred equally as often, then you are wrong. There are exactly as many potential outcomes (strings of H and T) as there are real numbers. One of these outcomes is all H. Another outcome is all T. Another outcome is perfectly alternating HTHTHT... And each of these is just all likely to occur as any other. So, your premise that a human randomly choosing to sin or not sin does not lead you to the conclusion that they must sin, not even mathematically. [STA-CITE]>More examples of your misunderstanding of probability and outcome: the flipping coins example is actually isomorphic to my binary decimal experiment: let heads and tails be 0 and 1. You flip forever and you generate a string, infinitely long, of H and T. If you think that, at the end of this process, both H and T must have occurred equally as often, then you are wrong. [END-CITE]It does due to the Law of Large numbers. [Here is a pdf of the proof and further discusses the topic](http://maxim.ece.illinois.edu/teaching/fall12/handouts/LLN.pdf) Here is also a [video](https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probability/random-variables-topic/expected-value/v/law-of-large-numbers) on Kahn academy that discusses this very example. Basically if the probability of x occurring is p, then after n trials we can expect x to occur with a relative frequency of p as n goes to infinity. >There are exactly as many potential outcomes (strings of H and T) as there are real numbers. One of these outcomes is all H. Another outcome is all T. Another outcome is perfectly alternating HTHTHT... And each of these is just all likely to occur as any other. So, your premise that a human randomly choosing to sin or not sin does not lead you to the conclusion that they must sin, not even mathematically. The probability of any one particular outcomes goes to zero as we increase the number of trials. The probability of any *infinite* sequence HHHHH..., TTTTT..., or HTHTHT... are all zero. However the probability that we encounter any *finite* sequence approaches one. Since my argument does not depend on one particular infinite sequence occurring, so I'm not sure where your objection lies. [STA-CITE]>But the premise itself is also flawed because free will is not the same as random chance: I can, by my choice and my choice alone, deliberately choose to set down the penny Heads up, every. single. time. [END-CITE]This seems to be the main point of contention. I would say that if the probability of you choosing tails is zero, then you cannot choose tails, i.e. you lack free will. Admittedly my argument for this is weak at this point, because to me it seem inherently true. Let me take some time to think of a proof, and then I'll get back to you. You seem to be conflating some mathematical notions. The *probability* of any particular outcome is 0, but obviously *one outcome must occur*. There is a difference, even if you choose not to recognize it, between an event with 0 probability and an event that is impossible. You are also misinterpreting probability as some absolute notion of truth. The Law of Large Numbers does not, as you state, guarantee that every outcome with non-zero probability must occur. It simply states that the likelihood of such an event occurring tends to 1. And, like an event with 0 probability can occur, an event with 1 probability is not *factually* guaranteed to occur. It is merely immensely likely to occur. Basically, you seem to think that probability makes any sort of statements about what will happen, but it doesn't. It merely makes predictions. So that's just my explanation for the math side of things, something I am well versed in. I hate asking for trust in a debate, but you are quoting math that you don't quite understand and making interpretations about it that don't actually exist, and I don't really know what else to say other than sorry, but you are wrong about this. As for the last bit, about free will. It seems absolutely assinine that you would describe my choice to never do something as having a 0 probability of occurring (because that's not how probability works) and then to *further* conclude that that means I have no free will is just completely ass-backwards. Your model dictating that I *must* sin is devoid of free will as it dictates my actions. The righteousness that I exercised to get in to heaven will guide me to make sinless choices for the rest of eternity, because I choose to remain sinless. You also never responded to my earlier point about sins not being possible to commit in heaven because the notions of sin itself doesn't even exist there: every action in heaven is virtuous. [STA-CITE]>Yes I understand this much. I don't think it makes a difference to my argument. If you would rather I say that something has a probability of zero rather than be impossible, then that is perfectly fine with me. [END-CITE]It makes all the difference. Your argument is making assertions about what *will* happen, not about what *may* happen. Considering heaven is already a place of fantasy, it should not be a huge jump to imagine incredibly unlikely things happening there. [STA-CITE]>I understand this too. If you would prefer I say that the probability of an individual sinning is 100% instead of certain, that's fine by me. [END-CITE]Again, your entire argument falls apart when you recognize this distinction. [STA-CITE]>Sure. I'll say that with all the confidence allowed to me, that an individual will sin. It seems like you are just arguing that I'm not being rigorous with my language. That is fair, but it doesn't really address the meat of my argument. [END-CITE]The meat of your argument is that you claim to have proven mathematically that heaven is sinful. Which you agree, here, now, you don't have. You have, at best, heaven is *likely* sinful. Which is meaningless. [STA-CITE]>It seems like your only objection is that a probability of 1 doesn't mean absolutely certain and 0 doesn't mean impossible. I already understood this much, but didn't see the need to make the distinction. Do you have any other objection besides this? I don't know everything but if you tried to explain I think I could understand. [END-CITE]If you already understood this, and chose to ignore the distinction, then you have committed an awful sin: misrepresenting statistics to sell a view. [STA-CITE]>I don't think I ever said that. I said that if there is no possibility to do X, then you can't choose to do X. I don't see how this is assinine or even that controversial. [END-CITE]Correct, you didn't exactly state this. However, when I said that I would never choose to sin, you responded by saying that sin therefore had a 0% chance to happen, and thus restricted my freewill. I trust that you can see how I made this conclusion from such a response. However, it is flawed, probabilistically speaking, to look back on my choices after the fact and say that because I never sinned, sinning was impossible for me to do. Sinning was possible, I chose to refrain. This is the essence of free will, and the whole point of life on earth. [STA-CITE]>Alright, it is not necessary for you to sin, but the probability of you sinning approaches 1 as time goes to infinity. Do prefer this version any better? [END-CITE]I do prefer this, because it is completely counter to your original claim, in which you state that every person will necessarily sin. As for the rest, I will look through the thread for the relevant discussions. [STA-CITE]>However, it is flawed, probabilistically speaking, to look back on my choices after the fact and say that because I never sinned, sinning was impossible for me to do. Sinning was possible, I chose to refrain. This is the essence of free will, and the whole point of life on earth. [END-CITE]From my perspective, I see a coin that lands heads up an infinite number of times. It would be reasonable for me to suspect that the coin is rigged to always land heads up. [STA-CITE]>I do prefer this, because it is completely counter to your original claim, in which you state that every person will necessarily sin. [END-CITE]My original claim was that every person will sin. I am willing to change that to every person will almost surely sin. How are these completely counter to each other?
Trigger words: free will (2)
Indicator sentences: free will is not the same as random chance:
Negotiation parts: I can, by my choice and my choice alone, deliberately choose to set down the penny Heads up, **every. single. time.** [STA-CITE]>More examples of your misunderstanding of probability and outcome: the flipping coins example is actually isomorphic to my binary decimal experiment: let heads and tails be 0 and 1. You flip forever and you generate a string, infinitely long, of H and T. If you think that, at the end of this process, both H and T must have occurred equally as often, then you are wrong. [END-CITE]It does due to the Law of Large numbers. [Here is a pdf of the proof and further discusses the topic](http://maxim.ece.illinois.edu/teaching/fall12/handouts/LLN.pdf) Here is also a [video](https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probability/random-variables-topic/expected-value/v/law-of-large-numbers) on Kahn academy that discusses this very example. Basically if the probability of x occurring is p, then after n trials we can expect x to occur with a relative frequency of p as n goes to infinity. >There are exactly as many potential outcomes (strings of H and T) as there are real numbers. One of these outcomes is all H. Another outcome is all T. Another outcome is perfectly alternating HTHTHT... And each of these is just all likely to occur as any other. So, your premise that a human randomly choosing to sin or not sin does not lead you to the conclusion that they must sin, not even mathematically. The probability of any one particular outcomes goes to zero as we increase the number of trials. The probability of any *infinite* sequence HHHHH..., TTTTT..., or HTHTHT... are all zero. However the probability that we encounter any *finite* sequence approaches one. Since my argument does not depend on one particular infinite sequence occurring, so I'm not sure where your objection lies. [STA-CITE]>But the premise itself is also flawed because free will is not the same as random chance: I can, by my choice and my choice alone, deliberately choose to set down the penny Heads up, every. single. time. [END-CITE]This seems to be the main point of contention. I would say that if the probability of you choosing tails is zero, then you cannot choose tails, i.e. you lack free will. Admittedly my argument for this is weak at this point, because to me it seem inherently true. Let me take some time to think of a proof, and then I'll get back to you. You seem to be conflating some mathematical notions. The *probability* of any particular outcome is 0, but obviously *one outcome must occur*. There is a difference, even if you choose not to recognize it, between an event with 0 probability and an event that is impossible. You are also misinterpreting probability as some absolute notion of truth. The Law of Large Numbers does not, as you state, guarantee that every outcome with non-zero probability must occur. It simply states that the likelihood of such an event occurring tends to 1. And, like an event with 0 probability can occur, an event with 1 probability is not *factually* guaranteed to occur. It is merely immensely likely to occur. Basically, you seem to think that probability makes any sort of statements about what will happen, but it doesn't. It merely makes predictions. So that's just my explanation for the math side of things, something I am well versed in. I hate asking for trust in a debate, but you are quoting math that you don't quite understand and making interpretations about it that don't actually exist, and I don't really know what else to say other than sorry, but you are wrong about this. As for the last bit, about free will. It seems absolutely assinine that you would describe my choice to never do something as having a 0 probability of occurring (because that's not how probability works) and then to *further* conclude that that means I have no free will is just completely ass-backwards. Your model dictating that I *must* sin is devoid of free will as it dictates my actions. The righteousness that I exercised to get in to heaven will guide me to make sinless choices for the rest of eternity, because I choose to remain sinless. You also never responded to my earlier point about sins not being possible to commit in heaven because the notions of sin itself doesn't even exist there: every action in heaven is virtuous. [STA-CITE]>You seem to be conflating some mathematical notions. The probability of any particular outcome is 0, but obviously one outcome must occur. There is a difference, even if you choose not to recognize it, between an event with 0 probability and an event that is impossible. [END-CITE]Yes I understand this much. I don't think it makes a difference to my argument. If you would rather I say that something has a probability of zero rather than be impossible, then that is perfectly fine with me. [STA-CITE]>The Law of Large Numbers does not, as you state, guarantee that every outcome with non-zero probability must occur. It simply states that the likelihood of such an event occurring tends to 1. [END-CITE]I understand this too. If you would prefer I say that the probability of an individual sinning is 100% instead of certain, that's fine by me. [STA-CITE]>Basically, you seem to think that probability makes any sort of statements about what will happen, but it doesn't. It merely makes predictions. [END-CITE]Sure. I'll say that with all the confidence allowed to me, that an individual will sin. It seems like you are just arguing that I'm not being rigorous with my language. That is fair, but it doesn't really address the meat of my argument. [STA-CITE]>So that's just my explanation for the math side of things, something I am well versed in. I hate asking for trust in a debate, but you are quoting math that you don't quite understand and making interpretations about it that don't actually exist, and I don't really know what else to say other than sorry, but you are wrong about this. [END-CITE]It seems like your only objection is that a probability of 1 doesn't mean absolutely certain and 0 doesn't mean impossible. I already understood this much, but didn't see the need to make the distinction. Do you have any other objection besides this? I don't know everything but if you tried to explain I think I could understand. [STA-CITE]>As for the last bit, about free will. It seems absolutely assinine that you would describe my choice to never do something as having a 0 probability of occurring (because that's not how probability works) [END-CITE]I don't think I ever said that. I said that if there is no possibility to do X, then you can't choose to do X. I don't see how this is assinine or even that controversial. [STA-CITE]>and then to further conclude that that means I have no free will is just completely ass-backwards. Your model dictating that I must sin is devoid of free will as it dictates my actions. [END-CITE]Alright, it is not necessary for you to sin, but the probability of you sinning approaches 1 as time goes to infinity. Do prefer this version any better? [STA-CITE]>The righteousness that I exercised to get in to heaven will guide me to make sinless choices for the rest of eternity, because I choose to remain sinless. [END-CITE]So another poster here changed my view about this slightly. To avoid starting a duplicate conversation, would you mind just joining our conversation instead of starting a new one here? I gave him a delta so it should be easy enough to find. If you aren't satisfied with what was already posted, I'll be more than happy to start a new conversation with you. [STA-CITE]>Yes I understand this much. I don't think it makes a difference to my argument. If you would rather I say that something has a probability of zero rather than be impossible, then that is perfectly fine with me. [END-CITE]It makes all the difference. Your argument is making assertions about what *will* happen, not about what *may* happen. Considering heaven is already a place of fantasy, it should not be a huge jump to imagine incredibly unlikely things happening there. [STA-CITE]>I understand this too. If you would prefer I say that the probability of an individual sinning is 100% instead of certain, that's fine by me. [END-CITE]Again, your entire argument falls apart when you recognize this distinction. [STA-CITE]>Sure. I'll say that with all the confidence allowed to me, that an individual will sin. It seems like you are just arguing that I'm not being rigorous with my language. That is fair, but it doesn't really address the meat of my argument. [END-CITE]The meat of your argument is that you claim to have proven mathematically that heaven is sinful. Which you agree, here, now, you don't have. You have, at best, heaven is *likely* sinful. Which is meaningless. [STA-CITE]>It seems like your only objection is that a probability of 1 doesn't mean absolutely certain and 0 doesn't mean impossible. I already understood this much, but didn't see the need to make the distinction. Do you have any other objection besides this? I don't know everything but if you tried to explain I think I could understand. [END-CITE]If you already understood this, and chose to ignore the distinction, then you have committed an awful sin: misrepresenting statistics to sell a view. [STA-CITE]>I don't think I ever said that. I said that if there is no possibility to do X, then you can't choose to do X. I don't see how this is assinine or even that controversial. [END-CITE]Correct, you didn't exactly state this. However, when I said that I would never choose to sin, you responded by saying that sin therefore had a 0% chance to happen, and thus restricted my freewill. I trust that you can see how I made this conclusion from such a response. However, it is flawed, probabilistically speaking, to look back on my choices after the fact and say that because I never sinned, sinning was impossible for me to do. Sinning was possible, I chose to refrain. This is the essence of free will, and the whole point of life on earth. [STA-CITE]>Alright, it is not necessary for you to sin, but the probability of you sinning approaches 1 as time goes to infinity. Do prefer this version any better? [END-CITE]I do prefer this, because it is completely counter to your original claim, in which you state that every person will necessarily sin. As for the rest, I will look through the thread for the relevant discussions. [STA-CITE]>However, it is flawed, probabilistically speaking, to look back on my choices after the fact and say that because I never sinned, sinning was impossible for me to do. Sinning was possible, I chose to refrain. This is the essence of free will, and the whole point of life on earth. [END-CITE]From my perspective, I see a coin that lands heads up an infinite number of times. It would be reasonable for me to suspect that the coin is rigged to always land heads up. [STA-CITE]>I do prefer this, because it is completely counter to your original claim, in which you state that every person will necessarily sin. [END-CITE]My original claim was that every person will sin. I am willing to change that to every person will almost surely sin. How are these completely counter to each other?
Trigger words: free will (5) Free will
Indicator sentences: Also, you are using a different definition of free will.
Negotiation parts: I define free will specifically as the ability to choose to sin (or not sin). Of course limiting options does not remove the ability to choose in general.
Trigger words: improbable
Indicator sentences: It may be just semantics, but to me improbable means that we can assign some arbitrarily small number to the probability that an event will occur.
Negotiation parts: That is what it means, but that's still a far cry away from "impossible".