There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

[nativeastral]

Then you will just settle for the chocolate pudding?

must confess a fatalist concerning chocolate, contrariness is hardwired

 

[rodgertutt]

Dispute my premise all you want.

But after all of the arguments have been exhausted about us not being robots, and after all of the ethical opinions about our perception of morality have been expounded, this stubborn fact will still just sit there in all of its irrefutability.

We will always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest sets of influences that are being brought to bear upon our minds, because it is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer. The fact that we choose it demonstrates that we preferred it at least slightly more than other sets of influences that were almost just as strong.

Therefore there is no such a thing as “free will.”

Ths apostle Paul's frustration was that, regretfully, he sometimes preferred sinning.
Sometimes his sinful nature was the strongest influence in his life.
But he learned by experience that in those times he could reach out to Jesus for rescue.

 

[seattlegal]

Ths apostle Paul's frustration was that, regretfully, he sometimes preferred sinning.
Sometimes his sinful nature was the strongest influence in his life.
But he learned by experience that in those times he could reach out to Jesus for rescue.

Well, let's look at what Paul wrote at Galatians 5:

16 I say then, walk by the Spirit (Q) and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires (R) what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you don't do what you want. (S) 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.​

This passage suggests that you have no free-will in the matter. However, he continues on to explain more:

19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: [a] [b] sexual immorality, (T) moral impurity, (U) promiscuity, (V) 20 idolatry, (W) sorcery, (X) hatreds, (Y) strife, (Z) jealousy, (AA) outbursts of anger, (AB) selfish ambitions, (AC) dissensions, (AD) factions, (AE) 21 envy, (AF) [c] drunkenness, carousing, (AG) and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (AH) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit (AI) is love, (AJ) joy, (AK) peace, patience, (AL) kindness, (AM) goodness, faith, [d] 23 gentleness, (AN) self-control. (AO) Against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus (AP) have crucified the flesh (AQ) with its passions and desires. (AR) 25 If we live (AS) by the Spirit, we must also follow the Spirit. 26 We must not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. (AT)​

He explains that one of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control, which does indicate that free-will is given by the Spirit, whereas we are imprisoned by the flesh. {Love also being a fruit of the Spirit goes back to post #170 where I ask if love is truly real if it is not freely given.}

 

[rodgertutt]

Romans 7:14-25 makes it plain that in no way was Paul’s will “free.”
But the Spirit of God taught Paul through experiences that in those times that “the sin that dwelt within him” (v20) preferred sinning; he could then reach out to Jesus for rescue. This God-taught attitude gradually, and no doubt reflexively, became the strongest influence on Paul’s will in his war with his sinful nature. It was the Spirit of God Who CAUSED Paul's self-control, no thanks to himself at all.

SELF-HELP SALVATION AND PRIDE

By James Coram, director of THE CONCORDANT PUBLISHING CONCERN

Some Christians think that the gaining of their salvation is, in part, a human achievement. Other Christians think that the maintaining of their salvation is, in part, a human achievement. Yet other Christians think that both the gaining and the maintaining of their salvation is, in part, a human achievement. Even though it be ever so small, many Christians think that their part (which becomes the most important part) is absolutely necessary for the success of their salvation. God’s part, they think, is not sufficient.

What everyone needs most is a willing heart and a change in their stubborn will. But many Christians think that at that point, just when we need Him the most, God lets us down. They think that He will not grant anyone a willing heart or effect a change in their stubborn will. This is something, they think, that they must supply on their own.

Even if we have been graced to come to Jesus, we tend to suppose that this was thanks to ourselves. Indeed, many seem to become much more proud and self reliant after “conversion” than ever before. And they seek to cover this up through much ill-disguised religious parlance in which it is true that they do give much, but certainly not all the credit to God. For example, “The Lord did it all, after I let Him.” or “I could never be where I am today without His assistance.”

This increase in pride is the result of having been subjected to such an abundance of human-independence teaching in an atmosphere in which it is continuously encouraged and reinforced, verified and justified with much approbation and exaltation.

After all, such believers are sure that they, unlike others, have “made their decision for Christ.” And, they say, this has not occurred in the grace of God as a result of their having been chosen before the disruption of the world (even if the Scriptures do say so), but is the result and is thanks to their very own decision. Though others may far excel them in lesser things, when it comes to what is most important, they think it is obvious that they are superior. They think, “At least I was willing and sufficiently disciplined, for when it mattered the most I did the right thing and the switch got thrown, so people like me will go up to heaven while everyone else will go down to hell.”

Just think of it. Picture this type of self-help salvation and pride. For all eternity (or at least for the ages) they will be able to say, “All those miserable sinners burning in hell could have gone to heaven too. Certainly the work of Christ saved no one at all. It wasn’t supposed to. All it did was make salvation possible. Besides, every one of those sinners deserves to be in everlasting burning, for unlike me, they didn’t do what they should have and could have. And here I am in eternal bliss, perfectly good and perfectly happy, even though billions of my fellow creatures are perfectly miserable and doomed to stay that way forever (or at least for the ages). Yet in the end I only got here myself because of what I did, not because of the sacrifice of Christ. I chose to meet God’s demands for His (so-called) free gift and I did so. I wasn’t given any special grace. It wasn’t any easier for me than for anyone else. It’s too late now anyway so let them burn. Too bad for them, but not for me. I’m happy and so is God. In fact we’re all happy here.”

You see, that’s the ultimate selfishness of that view and that’s what it leads to. One can only avoid boasting in self by truly ceasing to believe things and say things that are inherently of a boastful nature.

It is only the word of the cross that effectively and wisely trains us in this true humility so that “if anyone is boasting, in the Lord let him be boasting,” as Paul says. It is an empty gesture to go through the motions of giving all the glory to God, while at the same time continually believing that good decisions and acts are things which ultimately owe their existence to one’s own self, God having but made them possible. May He enlighten us to see truly that it is “in the grace of God that I am what I am.”

After thought. Since the salvation of even one soul is 100% by God’s grace plus nothing, the salvation of all souls will be no problem for God at all according to His sovereign perfect timing for each individual

See
HIS ACHIEVEMENT ARE WE (no free will)
http://concordant.org/expohtml/HisAchievement/index.html
The introduction at the beginning of each chapter is not the chapter itself. You must click on the highlighted title of each chapter to bring up the entire chapter to read it.

 

[seattlegal]

Romans 7:14-25 makes it plain that in no way was Paul’s will “free.”
But the Spirit of God taught Paul through experiences that in those times that “the sin that dwelt within him” (v20) preferred sinning; he could then reach out to Jesus for rescue. This God-taught attitude gradually, and no doubt reflexively, became the strongest influence on Paul’s will in his war with his sinful nature. It was the Spirit of God Who CAUSED Paul's self-control, no thanks to himself at all.

Where did I ever write that free-will was not attritutable to God?

 

[rodgertutt]

Neither love, nor personhood, nor moraility are diminished by the existence of causality.

 

[rodgertutt]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Where did I ever write that free-will was not attritutable to God?

Since it it God alone Who achieves the start, and the maintenance (eg self-control) and the successful completion of our salvation, there is no such a thing as "free will."

 

[rodgertutt]

Since we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest influence all of the time, there can be no such a thing as "free will."
It is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer.
The fact that we choose it shows that we prefer it at least slightly more than other influences that are almost just as strong.

 

[greymare]

I disagree with your statement, rodger.
I have, as many do, chosen to do things we would much prefer not to. I have felt that in different situations, things go either right or wrong, but often situations are not my first preference.
Is this what you mean, or am I missing something?
(I seem to be saying that alot lately. lol)

 

[seattlegal]

Since we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest influence all of the time, there can be no such a thing as "free will."
It is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer.
The fact that we choose it shows that we prefer it at least slightly more than other influences that are almost just as strong.

Chanting the same thing over and over again does not make it true. Show me some empirical evidence to back this up, please.

 

[rodgertutt]

I disagree with your statement, rodger.
I have, as many do, chosen to do things we would much prefer not to. I have felt that in different situations, things go either right or wrong, but often situations are not my first preference.
Is this what you mean, or am I missing something?
(I seem to be saying that alot lately. lol)

What you are missing is the fact that what you actually choose (whether you have given it due consideration or not) is in fact your "preferrance."
If it were not your preferrance you would not have finally chosen it.
The strongest sets of influences on your mind (not your "free will") determines what you actually choose.

 

[rodgertutt]

Chanting the same thing over and over again does not make it true. Show me some empirical evidence to back this up, please.

It's "emperical evidence" is self-contained because it's logic is absolutely impossible to refute.

Since we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest influence all of the time, there can be no such a thing as "free will."
It is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer.
The fact that we choose it shows that we prefer it at least slightly more than other influences that are almost just as strong.

 

[greymare]

define preference

 

[seattlegal]

It's "emperical evidence" is self-contained because it's logic is absolutely impossible to refute.

Empirical - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\ Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\ Function: adjective Date: 1569

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism

​

Since we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest influence all of the time, there can be no such a thing as "free will."

It is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer.
The fact that we choose it shows that we prefer it at least slightly more than other influences that are almost just as strong.

That is your theory. Do you have any actual, practical observations to back this up? (Other than the assertations that merely exist in your mind? Is there any proof of its validity outside the realm of theory and speculation?)

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In practice, there is.
~Chuck Reid
​

 

[rodgertutt]

define preference

There you go. Now you have it!

That in fact is why the eventual salvation of all fallen creatures from everything from which they need to be saved (including their stubborn will) is guranteed.

Man Is A Free Moral Agent: Just What Do You Mean Man is A Free Moral Agent; The Sinner Must Decide; The Shepherd Seeks The Sheep; The Will Of Man; I Will Draw All Men Unto Me; By One Man

 

[rodgertutt]

Empirical - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\ Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\ Function: adjective Date: 1569

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism

​

That is your theory. Do you have any actual, practical observations to back this up? (Other than the assertations that merely exist in your mind? Is there any proof of its validity outside the realm of theory and speculation?)

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In practice, there is.
~Chuck Reid
​

It's not a theory. It's a stubborn fact, the logic of which cannot be refuted as it just sits there in all of the power of it's self-evidence.

Since we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest influence all of the time, there can be no such a thing as "free will."
It is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer.
The fact that we choose it shows that we prefer it at least slightly more than other influences that are almost just as strong.

 

[seattlegal]

It's "emperical evidence" is self-contained because it's logic is absolutely impossible to refute.

Since we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest influence all of the time, there can be no such a thing as "free will."
It is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer.
The fact that we choose it shows that we prefer it at least slightly more than other influences that are almost just as strong.

I tell you what, I will keep my eyes open and see if I can observe some actual behavior that will refute this assertation of yours. I'm confident that it won't be too long before I can provide an actual eye witness account that will demonstrate how disconnected from reality this is.

 

[rodgertutt]

I tell you what, I will keep my eyes open and see if I can observe some actual behavior that will refute this assertation of yours. I'm confident that it won't be too long before I can provide an actual eye witness account that will demonstrate how disconnected from reality this is.

Go for it!
The strongest influence is causing you to do it.

Unless of course you decide not to do just to try to prove you have a "free will."

In that case your desire to try to prove you have a "free will" becomes the strongest influence in causing you to do it.
Still no "free will" involved.

We will always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest sets of influences that are being brought to bear upon our minds, because it is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer. The fact that we choose it demonstrates that we preferred it at least slightly more than other sets of influences that were almost just as strong.

Therefore there is no such a thing as “free will.”

 

[rodgertutt]

The strongest influence in my life right now is to go on my daily health walk of two miles with my wife to whom I have been happily married for 47 years. I'm 70 now.

Catch ya'll later

 

[seattlegal]

It's "emperical evidence" is self-contained because it's logic is absolutely impossible to refute.

Since we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest influence all of the time, there can be no such a thing as "free will."
It is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer.
The fact that we choose it shows that we prefer it at least slightly more than other influences that are almost just as strong.

I tell you what, I will keep my eyes open and see if I can observe some actual behavior that will refute this assertation of yours. I'm confident that it won't be too long before I can provide an actual eye witness account that will demonstrate how disconnected from reality this is.

This really didn't take long.
Tell me, did this woman pour coffee on her pancakes because she preferred it to maple syrup?
[youtube]wl17ybVWVSU[/youtube]

It's not a theory. It's a stubborn fact, the logic of which cannot be refuted as it just sits there in all of the power of it's self-evidence.

Since we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest influence all of the time, there can be no such a thing as "free will."
It is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer.
The fact that we choose it shows that we prefer it at least slightly more than other influences that are almost just as strong.

I think the above video shows how your assertation is self-evidently false.