There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

[rodgertutt]

The part of self control that is delusional is not thinking that it is the product of causality.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Duuude. If you had clicked on the link I provided it would have taken you to the post that you have conveniently ignored.

PSSST: I tried the links, both of them, and they took me to page one of this thread. I wasn't sure what you were getting at either, so I can understand why Mr. Tutt might not have. Just a friendly FYI.

[rodgertutt]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I disagree. I suspect people become people of faith after they convert kicking and screaming.

In my mind, the turning to G-d occur despite our basic preference for a negative trajectory - like being attacked to sensory experiences or our little egoic victories, alll of which which are very immediate and ensnaring, and which therefore dominate our usual preferences.

In the final analysis we choose what we prefer. We might not start out preferring it. But that fact that we finally choose it demonstrates that the strongest influences have caused us to prefer the choice we once rejected.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

PSSST: I tried the links, both of them, and they took me to page one of this thread. I wasn't sure what you were getting at either, so I can understand why Mr. Tutt might not have. Just a friendly FYI.

Any post can be linked to. It is the permalink function in the top right corner of any post's window.

The post at the top of the window that opened after clicking the link was the post I was asked Roger to answer.

Just a friendly FYI.

BTW... I can't help but notice that he still hasn't answered them.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by rodgertutt

In the final analysis we choose what we prefer. We might not start out preferring it. But that fact that we finally choose it demonstrates that the strongest influences have caused us to prefer the choice we once rejected.

Again a contradiction.

We can't "choose" what we "prefer" if these influences cause us to choose and form our preferences in the first place.

It's amazing. Most people take far longer than three sentences to directly contradict themselves.

You're an overachiever.

And still... no answer.

[rodgertutt]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Again a contradiction.

We can't "choose" what we "prefer" if these influences cause us to choose and form our preferences in the first place.

It's amazing. Most people take far longer than three sentences to directly contradict themselves.

You're an overachiever.

And still... no answer.

We prefer what we prefer because the strongest influences cause us to prefer it.
I see no contradiction in that.

What is your first question?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by rodgertutt

In the final analysis we choose what we prefer. We might not start out preferring it. But that fact that we finally choose it demonstrates that the strongest influences have caused us to prefer the choice we once rejected.

Paul's description of persons of faith as "slaves of Christ" seems accurate to me. We don't choose slavery. The decision to convert is not even a personal choice in the sense of involving our usual modes of decision-making and our usual way of evaluating options. I think that's pretty much the meaning of Dark Night of the Soul.

There is a choice that is made in the attitude of faith, but it seems to have very little to do with what we personally want and don't want. Some of this is implied on Buddhism as far as overcoming personal preferences (attachments and aversions).

[rodgertutt]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Paul's description of persons of faith as "slaves of Christ" seems accurate to me. We don't choose slavery. The decision to convert is not even a personal choice in the sense of involving our usual modes of decision-making and our usual way of evaluating options. I think that's pretty much the meaning of Dark Night of the Soul.

There is a choice that is made in the attitude of faith, but it seems to have very little to do with what we personally want and don't want. Some of this is implied on Buddhism as far as overcoming personal preferences (attachments and aversions).

This link is very good on that subject.
http://concordant.org/expohtml/HisAchievement/index.html

The introduction at the beginning of each of the seventeen chapters is not the chapter itself. You must click on the highlighted title of each chapter to bring up the entire chapter to read it.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by rodgertutt

What is your first question?

For the third time Roger I will post my questions. There are more than one, but they are on the same subject, so I hope this won't be too complicated for you.

================================================== =================

Roger, let's assume that you are correct. Can you tell me how this changes my life or my decision making? If these "internal and external influences" are indistinguishable from me making a decision based upon free-will, what difference does it really make in my life?

If these internal and external influences "cause" you to forget your wife's birthday, she doesn't take her anger out on the influences, she takes her anger out on you.

If a player on your beloved Blue Jays starts swinging at bad pitches and taking the wrong routes to fly balls, they don't think about sending internal and external influences down to the minor leagues.

When Albert Einstein explained to his wife that his affairs were caused by internal and external influences, did it lessen her pain and save their marriage?

So please Roger, give me a reason to see your view as one that will lead me to live a better life, to become a better person. Do not link me to any sites, I will not read them (I blame internal and external influences). Do not merely parrot your meaningless phrase again. But tell me in your own words how your view can be applied in real world settings to make my life, and the lives of those around me better.

================================================== =================

[seattlegal]

This thread has so many repeated posts that I had to keep checking the date and time of each post to make sure I wasn't reading the same thing from several pages back. (Sure sign of being stuck in a rut. Some might rather call it entrenched, but whatever.)

It seems to be contagious, as different posters are now repeatedly repeating themselves ad nauseum.

Shall we put a quarantine sign on this thread?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by rodgertutt

The part of self control that is delusional is not thinking that it is the product of causality.

Causality? I think this is one of those times when terms brought from one discipline in an attempt to meld with another discipline really loses its character and meaning in the translation.

There is such a difference between "material, domino theory" and meta-physical determinism that trying to combine the two really doesn't do much in the way of justice to either one. Of course, that is my opinion. The problem I see with convoluting scientific and philosophical terms is that they become overgeneralized and thereby lose their meaning, which causes a vagueness that leads to further misunderstanding rather than clarification.

Although Stephen J. Gould did not address this in particular that I know of, it is he that pointed out the "Non-overlapping Magisteria" between science and religion. There are a few others who have attempted a reconciliation between science and religion, but it is a really tough row to hoe, primarily I think because the two are speaking different languages (even when using the same tongue).

We've discussed this in the past around here, about how science is designed to answer questions of a "how?" nature, whereas religion is designed to answer questions of a "why?" nature. And since each philosophy now has its own authority structure, and for the last couple hundred years have been playing something of a power game with each other, it can be very confusing to a lay person when the jargon from one is inserted into the other. Perhaps the intent is pure in doing so, but it really only serves to create an air of confusion.

From a purely physical perspective, I suppose one could say that since everything came from something that from a scientific-philosophy POV everything is "pre"-determined. But from a religious-philosophy POV, there are implications that seriously undermine the entire ethical and moral structure of societies and cultures if one tries to carry this line of reasoning into the magisteria of religion.

It doesn't work, on a practical level. It doesn't make sense, on a philosophical level. And it can be (not saying at this point that it is) disingenuous and a subversive ploy to exert political power by a competing magisteria.

Which means that some sub-culture somewhere will probably pick it up and try to make something of it...human nature being what it is.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Any post can be linked to. It is the permalink function in the top right corner of any post's window.

The post at the top of the window that opened after clicking the link was the post I was asked Roger to answer.

Just a friendly FYI.

BTW... I can't help but notice that he still hasn't answered them.

Perhaps.

I'm just letting you know what happened when I clicked the links you provided.

No harm, no foul.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Shall we put a quarantine sign on this thread?

SG, take your pick...

Quarantined

Toxic Waste

Radioactive

Condemned

Under Fumigation

and still... UNANSWERED

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

SG, take your pick...

Quarantined

Toxic Waste

Radioactive

Condemned

Under Fumigation

and still... UNANSWERED

Let's see, which one would have the strongest influence?
Aha! This one:

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is a book out there called "The Shack" by William Paul Young...it's as close to one of the lost books the bible should have had, that there is...and "free will" is first and foremost in its design...

v/r

Q

If it was "lost" how did the author know what was in it?