There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Azure24, Jan 3, 2008.

  1. Marsh

    Marsh Disagreeable By Nature

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0

    Drum roll, please....

    And this, Mr. Tutt, is precisely the reason why you are not able to comprehend the fact that people have free will. You are assuming that everything in life is entirely LOGICAL, LINEAR, and STRAIGHTFORWARD. What you are unable to comprehend (and as you are a man who claims to be 71 years old, I am absolutely amazed at this) is that life is not a math equation.

    A person can't make two conflicting decisions in the same moment? Because it's not logically possible? This isn't a physics experiment, Rodger; it's the human condition we're talking about.

    So yeah, as long as one is living in a fantasy land where there is no irrational behaviour, then I can see where they'd think there's no free will.

    But for those of us who live on Earth, there is.
     
  2. Marsh

    Marsh Disagreeable By Nature

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    All work and no play makes Rodger a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Rodger a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Rodger a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Rodger a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Rodger a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Rodger a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Rodger a dull boy.
    All work and no play makes Rodger a dull boy....
     
  3. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Free" will is an illusion.

    Causality has always been true.

    Choices never get made for no reason, even if the only reason is to commit ourself to a random choice, like flipping a coin.

    It is the reason that we prefer one choice over another that causes us to make that choice.

    It is not possible to have made any other choice but the one we deemed MOST preferable to make at that split-second in time.
    A second before, or a second after, there may have been a reason why we would not make that choice due to considerations that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
    But at that split-second in time, when we actually did make the choice, it was the ONLY possible choice we could have made.

    Here is how James Coram puts it:
    "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."
     
  4. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    "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."
     
  5. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last edited: May 27, 2010
  6. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are repeating yourself again Rodger.
    We got you the first couple of dozen times.
    Can you say something new now.....please.
    Surely you do not suffer from Alzheimers ......do you?

    Repeating the same answer to all questions does not make it a worthy answer, it just makes people look at the display as a pathetic attempt to spread propaganda.
     
  7. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMO my "same answer" renders all counter-arguments on this thread irrelevant.

    I shall continue to repeat my position until someone can present me with an argument that proves it wrong.

    "Free" will is an illusion.

    Causality has always been true.

    Choices never get made for no reason, even if the only reason is to commit ourself to a random choice, like flipping a coin.

    It is the reason that we prefer one choice over another that causes us to make that choice.

    It is not possible to have made any other choice but the one we deemed MOST preferable to make at that split-second in time.
    A second before, or a second after, there may have been a reason why we would not make that choice due to considerations that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
    But at that split-second in time, when we actually did make the choice, it was the ONLY possible choice we could have made.

    Here is how James Coram puts it:
    "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."
     
  8. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    WOW, a truly hopeless case.
    Really pathetic.
     
  9. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    OK, so....

    Practical application question:

    What now?

    From what I see I am understanding you to say G-d willfully created all that is good, sacred, righteous and lovely as well as all that is evil, profane, unrighteous and ugly.

    In the most vague and remote sense I can possibly agree. For instance, I can agree G-d created the devil...but where I lose the concept is in wrapping my head around G-d making the devil do what the devil does. Is G-d responsible, ultimately, for what the devil does, having created the devil? Perhaps...of course I'm not in any position to judge G-d. But it also remains that the father is not responsible for what the son does after the son has reached the age of accountablity and the age of consent.

    Put another way, Dr. Frankenstein created a monster, but he could not control what the monster did. Was Frankenstein guilty for the actions of the monster? In some sense I would say "yes," but not in every sense. And could that monster achieve the ages of accountability (understanding of right and wrong) and consent (time to leave the nest), then the monster would be fully accountable in its own right, absolving Dr. Frankenstein of any further responsibility.

    So I understand you to believe G-d knew He was creating the devil, created the devil, then willed the devil to be evil. Is this correct?

    If so, then why did G-d banish the devil from heaven for doing what He willed the devil to do?

    It seems to me that would be like teaching your son to rob banks...and then disowning that same son because he became a bank robber. Seems to me in that case the fault lies with the father...no?

    If what you say is true, it seems to me then that G-d is guilty; directly, completely and without recourse, for all of the evil He warns His children against.

    Which means either G-d is a liar, and the father of lies...or what you are preaching is a lie.

    I know which side I have cast my lot with... ;)
     
  11. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Guilty" is the wrong word to use.
    God is 100% responsible for the existence of evil and also for how much each person becomes involved in it. But being responsible for it He Himself does not sin.

    It is God's decretive will (that which MUST occur) that because we are all sinners by nature and cannot help but sin (which means miss the mark) because we are spiritually "dead in trespasses and sin," we will all violate His preceptive (not perceptive) will (that which we OUGHT to do) e.g. THE GOLDEN RULE as much as we actually do.
    See Romans 3:10-18 (everyone without exception)

    God justly imposes accountability on everyone even though they cannot help but do what they do, because through His intimate sovereign control of how far He lets everyone get involved in sinning and suffering (until He intervenes for each one by His sovereign grace) God is going to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that is uniquely applied to each individual.

    The idea that it would not be "right" for God to hold us accountable for doing what we could not help but do is merely an ethical opinion that is rendered irrelevant by the irrefutable fact that WE ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, CHOOSE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE STRONGEST INFLUENCE, ALL OF THE TIME.

    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.
    THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
    evil.html
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2010
  12. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last edited: May 27, 2010
  13. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    Allow me to clarify my understanding...

    Being responsible for sin, G-d does not sin?

    Is that not a contradiction?
     
  14. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    No it is not a contradiction.
    God cannot sin.
    Everything that God does is right.
    And one of the things He does is be responsible for, and perfectly controls evil.
    See THE SOURCE OF SIN
    biblical studies: The Problem Of Evil - Part One - Chapter Two - The Source Of Sin

    God will eventually transform all evil into something better for everyone that it temporarily prevailed.
    THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
    evil.html
     
  15. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    Now wait a minute...you are the one saying all along that G-d wills people to sin, and that He is the father of sin by creating sin, and that He is responsible for sin...yet He cannot sin??? Mind you, I am only applying your words to their inevitable conclusion...a conclusion I disagree with. :)
     
  16. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    God wants sin to temporarily exist for wise ends.
    God is 100% responsible for the existence of evil and also for how much each person becomes involved in it. But being responsible for it He Himself does not sin.

    See THE SOURCE OF SIN
    biblical studies: The Problem Of Evil - Part One - Chapter Two - The Source Of Sin

    It is God's decretive will (that which MUST occur) that because we are all sinners by nature and cannot help but sin (which means miss the mark) because we are spiritually "dead in trespasses and sin," we will all violate His preceptive (not perceptive) will (that which we OUGHT to do) e.g. THE GOLDEN RULE as much as we actually do.
    See Romans 3:10-18 (everyone without exception)

    God justly imposes accountability on everyone even though they cannot help but do what they do, because through His intimate sovereign control of how far He lets everyone get involved in sinning and suffering (until He intervenes for each one by His sovereign grace) God is going to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that is uniquely applied to each individual.

    The idea that it would not be "right" for God to hold us accountable for doing what we could not help but do is merely an ethical opinion that is rendered irrelevant by the irrefutable fact that WE ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, CHOOSE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE STRONGEST INFLUENCE, ALL OF THE TIME.

    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.
    THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
    evil.html
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2010
  17. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bringing my main arguments in support of the subject title of this thread forward to page 70.

    "Free" will is an illusion.

    Causality has always been true.

    Choices never get made for no reason, even if the only reason is to commit ourself to a random choice, like flipping a coin.

    It is the reason that we prefer one choice over another that causes us to make that choice.

    It is not possible to have made any other choice but the one we deemed MOST preferable to make at that split-second in time.
    A second before, or a second after, there may have been a reason why we would not make that choice due to considerations that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
    But at that split-second in time, when we actually did make the choice, it was the ONLY possible choice we could have made.

    Here is how James Coram puts it:
    "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."
     
  18. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Stop using God blessed links to try and make your point. You are getting as bad as someone else who refused to express themselves with their own words, and this is getting old...

    You speak your mind. You talk to us. You express your views. Or God bless you, we will ask you to go away. I personally don't want your links; just your thoughts.

    I think the rules here at IO are pretty close to the same...

    v/r

    Q
     
  19. rodgertutt

    rodgertutt Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most of the words are my own.

    But sometimes others can say what I want to say better than I can it myself. That is why I guide people to what others say about the subject.

    I did not start this thread, but I agree with its subject title.
    There is no such thing as 'Free Will'
    Don't know why Azure24 left the thread, do you?
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2010
  20. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    My guess would be that he spoke his peace and went on to other matters.

    I don't have any problem with you speaking your own mind in the matter, and a link here and there for others to look at *if* they have an interest, such as researching a matter of history is OK. Where we have some difficulty, and I am respectfully requesting you to refrain, is for people posting and reposting links to sites that are specifically intended to recruit or proselytise.

    Frankly, I have not looked at any of your links, and have no intention of doing so. It is not that I haven't considered the matter, or even of politeness. I am not interested because I have already considered the matter, deeply and prayerfully, and came to a different conclusion.

    I do respect that you may not have come to the same conclusion as I have, and that is OK. I would encourage you to actually write out your own thoughts on the matter though rather than posting link after link after link and simply repeating *the exact same line* over and over as if we didn't hear the first time or that repetition will somehow create converts.

    If the thoughts are indeed your own, how about expanding on them without repeating yourself?
     

Share This Page