There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

[shawn]

Thanks juan.
I like to hear all kinds of points of view as it is mentally stimulating, but repetition which becomes excessive which is a blanket answer for all questions is way out of line.
So thanks for stepping in and maybe, thereby, an old dog can learn some new tricks
The only time someone is too old to learn something new is when they are dead.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by rodgertutt

"In any certain moment, either we have a given preference (and consequently effect a corresponding choice and action) or we do not.

We cannot have a new preference while our old preference still exists.
Nor can we make a new choice while we still have an old preference.
For the act of choosing is merely the exercise of existing preference.

One cannot prefer what is not yet preferable.
Yet when it becomes preferable it is preferred."

"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."

No sir, you're not getting off that easy. I pointed out a serious flaw in your reasoning, and you reply to me with an undocumented quotation?

For the love of God, will you please just admit that you don't know what you're talking about? You already told Q that you don't know how to express your own words. If you truly knew what you were talking about, you'd find a way.

Q, you were in no way out of line. This is intellectual Darwinism in action-- a true JS Mills test of merit in action, and from what I can see, the ideas expressed by Rodger are going the way of the Dodo bird.

Rodger, since you are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your assertion, not on US to prove it's not true. You have a responsibility to either prove your assertion (you, by the strength of your own ideas based on your own understanding, not simply quoting somebody else who you may or may not fully understand). If you cannot do so, please have the courtesy of admitting that what you're saying isn't necessarily true.

[citizenzen]

I find it really interesting is that this thread has gone on for over 1,000 posts. What is it about an old man repeating the same message over and over that is so fascinating? I guarantee you, if he were capable of a normal discussion, this thread would have been over long ago. He would have had his say, we would have had ours and that would be that. But for some reason his inability to articulate his message or engage in debate has given this thread bizarre and incredible longevity.

I wonder why? It is curious.

I think it's a little of the old sword-in-the-stone appeal.

[king]"Who can break this man of his stubborn and naive beliefs? [S]He who can accomplish it shall have my daughter's hand and shall rule my kingdom!"[/king]

And we all line up and give it a pull, only to eventually leave, befuddled that someone could be so obstinate and jejune. It is hard to pass up a challenge. And it's hard to believe he can be that dense. One more pull... then he'll see the light.

Wait... okay... one more pull. AAARRRrrrrrrggg!

One more pull. NNNNnnNnnnnnnnggggghhh!

One more pull...

Any other theories?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by rodgertutt

Everything I know I have learned from someone else.

That is probably true of everybody, but it evades the point.

If this material is yours, and it is of G-d, don't you think you should be able to respond freely in your own words (or as the spirit moves you) without resorting to repetition?

Again, the answer is unimportant to anybody else, merely something for you to consider.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Wait... okay... one more pull. AAARRRrrrrrrggg!

One more pull. NNNNnnNnnnnnnnggggghhh!

One more pull...

Any other theories?

LOL! I think you got it CZ.

My bad was in not looking before I leapt, I've been away for a bit. To his credit Roger is not responsible for the entire 1000 posts, this was started a couple years ago by someone else, to whom I responded way back then. I kinda doubt Roger took any time to read it from the beginning tho'.

P.S., for Roger's benefit, my arguments have not changed either, but I can express them in a wide variety of ways as the need suits. I am also open to considering those points where I might possibly be mistaken, but I have usually spent considerable thought before I ever come to any conclusion.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Marsh

No sir, you're not getting off that easy. I pointed out a serious flaw in your reasoning, and you reply to me with an undocumented quotation?

Hey Marsh! It's been awhile, how's things your way?

I suspect Roger will likely keep a deathgrip on what he feels is some profound mysterious truth in spite of any logical persuasions.

But then, this is the kind of stuff that drives Christianity into all sorts of denominations, is it not?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

P.S., for Roger's benefit, my arguments have not changed either, but I can express them in a wide variety of ways as the need suits.

I think this is a key point. It's because we're able to express ourselves that we're able of demonstrate that our beliefs are reasonable (as reasonable as faith can be).

But Rodger hasn't been able to present his case in a reasonable or logical manner. So we are enticed to respond in the vain hope that a rational argument would have impact.

I just find it interesting and counterintuitive to find that being a poor conversationalist can actually promote conversation.

Sometimes life just doesn't make sense.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I think this is a key point. It's because we're able to express ourselves that we're able of demonstrate that our beliefs are reasonable (as reasonable as faith can be).

But Rodger hasn't been able to present his case in a reasonable or logical manner. So we are enticed to respond in the vain hope that a rational argument would have impact.

I just find it interesting and counterintuitive to find that being a poor conversationalist can actually promote conversation.

Sometimes life just doesn't make sense.

Good point.

I think we tend to take exception to those that feel the need to shout from rooftops...with bullhorns...as if volume or repetition somehow confer legitimacy. Eh...

Goodness knows I've voiced thoughts that were not well received before, but at least I have the presence of mind (or at least I hope so) to know when I am not being received and move along...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by rodgertutt

Something else to consider.

The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, and He delighteth in his way. Psam 37:23

The word "good" was added by the translators.
It was not in the original text.

I believe that God will eventually fit every unique individual into His master plan in a positive way that necessitates their unique temporary involvement in evil and suffering that will enable God to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that uniquely involves that person, and everyone else involved in that person’s life too.

Then, after God has finished using evil and suffering for the reasons why He allowed them to temporarily exist, He will eradicate them from existence.

Sir, that is not true.
The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, and He delighteth in his way. Psam 37:23
The term "Good" was translated from the Greek word equivelent "Piused". Nothing was added. What else is a piused man but "good"? Unless your intent is to equate Pius with the Pope called "Pius XII" and the "Holocaust" instead of its original intent...?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Sir, that is not true.
The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, and He delighteth in his way. Psam 37:23
The term "Good" was translated from the Greek word equivelent "Piused". Nothing was added. What else is a piused man but "good"? Unless your intent is to equate Pius with the Pope called "Pius XII" and the "Holocaust" instead of its original intent...?

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
The Hebrew reads "geber" or able bodied man, strong man, like the "mighty ones" in Genesis 6:4

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I think it's a little of the old sword-in-the-stone appeal.

Interesting analogy. To me, it's more like an intellectual car wreck, and we're all rubber-necking as we drive by...

[bob x]

CZ: very much reminds me of the "Obama birth certificate" thread, remember that guy?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by bob x

CZ: very much reminds me of the "Obama birth certificate" thread, remember that guy?

How could I ever forget that!

He sure was entertaining.

And nearly as repetitive.

[Dragonseer]

Originally Posted by Azure24

'Free will' is a myth, God is reposible for everything and He brings about everything only at its precise "appointed seaon and time".

Ecclesiastes 3

One can also consider free will a myth if one believes that everyone--every soul--is, over time, working his/her way back to God. If we're all going to get "there" eventually, wouldn't that mean that we don't really have free will in terms of remaining "cut off" from God? Just my $.02.

[rodgertutt]

IMO "free" will is an illusion.

Our will is only "free" to choose the choice that we prefer the most.

We may try to insist that we could have chosen something other than the choice that we did make. But the fact that we actually did choose that choice demonstrates that, at that particluar split second in time, we did in fact prefer that choice at least slightly more than some other choice.

Maybe others can perceive that as having a "free" will.

I can't.

We have a "will" alright. But like I said, it is is only "free" to choose the choice that we prefer the most.

I think Martin Luther got it right in his BONDAGE OF THE WILL
http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelu...uther_bow.html
Luther wrote. "there can be no such thing as—"Free-will!"

I agree!