A phone conversation with a muslim missionary

[citizenzen]

Ahh, but how do they know it's the will of God?; how can man-made stuff be 'the will of God'?

I do believe that we are connected (one) with God. When we speak in the simplest terms we can express God's love. I actually don't like the term "will", as I don't believe God has one.

the Quran is the litteral word of God, put to paper by men without change in the slightest; interpretations of it are contained in other books

Uh-huh. So everybody's fallible but you? That kind of argument just won't fly with me. If we accept your first statement, then it follows that the Quran is also vulnerable to the same fallibilities that other religions fall prey to.

 

[rodgertutt]

I do believe that we are connected (one) with God. When we speak in the simplest terms we can express God's love. I actually don't like the term "will", as I don't believe God has one.

Uh-huh. So everybody's fallible but you? That kind of argument just won't fly with me. If we accept your first statement, then it follows that the Quran is also vulnerable to the same fallibilities that other religions fall prey to.

I believe that everything HAS to happen the way that it does, including the attempts of everyone to assist, or prevent, it from happening.

I suppose you could call me a theistic fatalist.
I believe in theistic absolute determinism.

Unlike most Christians, I actually believe Ephesians 1:11.
"God works ALL things after the counsel of His own will."

 

[citizenzen]

I believe in theistic absolute determinism.

If God had a will, it would be at most broadly based, such as "I" want you to be wise and compassionate.

Do you have children roger? Would it be wise to raise them with absolute determinism? Would you want to tell them, "No. Step with the left foot now... and make sure it is 4.3 cm above the ground with your little toe flexed more."

Of course not. You want them to embrace overall values, but exactly how they go about their lives is up to them. I could see God working on a similar level. God would see the big picture, and leave the details up to us.

 

[rodgertutt]

If God had a will, it would be at most broadly based, such as "I" want you to be wise and compassionate.

Do you have children roger? Would it be wise to raise them with absolute determinism? Would you want to tell them, "No. Step with the left foot now... and make sure it is 4.3 cm above the ground with your little toe flexed more."

Of course not. You want them to embrace overall values, but exactly how they go about their lives is up to them. I could see God working on a similar level. God would see the big picture, and leave the details up to us.

IMO, since it is not even possible to choose what we do not prefer, your reasoning is irrelevant.

We ALWAYS, without exception, choose in the direction of the STRONGEST influence.

It is completely illogical to think that we don't.

Therefore, "free will" is an illusion.

Since it is God Who is keeping everyone alive, in that sense, He is the One Who is CAUSING our choices that always will be in the direction of the STRONGEST influence.

 

[bob x]

The definition of "free will" that I have in mind is the idea, that during the act of making a choice, it is possible to not choose something that is having the strongest influence on your mind.

I maintain that is logically impossible. Thus, no "free will."

There is nothing in "logic" that requires events to have causes at all. It is simply a habit of ours to think in such terms, a habit which might be as fallible as our habit of attributing "purposes" to inanimate objects. There may be sound evolutionary reasons why our brains have been hard-wired to think in such habitual patterns, but there is no logical reason why the universe has to conform to our habits of thought.

 

[rodgertutt]

There is nothing in "logic" that requires events to have causes at all. It is simply a habit of ours to think in such terms, a habit which might be as fallible as our habit of attributing "purposes" to inanimate objects. There may be sound evolutionary reasons why our brains have been hard-wired to think in such habitual patterns, but there is no logical reason why the universe has to conform to our habits of thought.

Since we always respond in the direction of the STRONGEST influence,
there simply cannot be any such a thing as "free will."

It is silly to think it was not the strongest influence if we did in fact respond to it.

 

[citizenzen]

There was a former member who used to say the exact same thing in the exact same way as rogertutt, and after much debate I seem to remember him leaving in a huff.

Does this mean we have to go through this all over again just because you changed your username?

Is that really what God wants?

 

[rodgertutt]

There was a former member who used to say the exact same thing in the exact same way as rodgertutt,

Perahaps that's because the truth remains the same no matter who verbalizes it.

and after much debate I seem to remember him leaving in a huff.

I have never left a forum in a "huff."

Does this mean we have to go through this all over again just because you changed your username?

I only use one user name.

Is that really what God wants?

Within the wise counsel of His DECRETIVE will (which is that which MUST occur, EVERYTHING is what God wants.
Even our temporary rebellion against His PRECEPTIVE will (which is that which we all OUGHT to do.

 

[bob x]

Since we always respond in the direction of the STRONGEST influence,
there simply cannot be any such a thing as "free will."

It is silly to think it was not the strongest influence if we did in fact respond to it.

If you believe that you could look at all the influences, BEFORE the decision was made, and figure out, based strictly on what those influences were at the time without any foreknowledge of the decision, which influence was "strongest", and therefore anticipate what the decision would be: I believe that what you are saying is, simply, FALSE.

If instead all you are saying is that whatever the decision turns out to be, you will retroactively tag the influences pulling in that direction as "stronger", even though the opposite decision was reached by someone else under pretty much the same influences, forcing you to re-label the relative "strengths" of the influences in that other case: then what you are saying is, simply, a circularity with no content at all.

 

[OAT]

That's to be expected Oat.
The strongest influences on our mind will dictate what we choose to believe or not believe.

In my case the strongest influence is the idea that God is eventually going to transform all of the negative things that happen into something better that they happened.

I believe God will do this through Jesus Christ.
Many do not.
I think that's because that idea is not the strongest infuence on their mind.

This link explains why I think like I do.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL - A.P. Adams
evil.html

Dr. Leslie Weatherhead (author of THE CHRISTIAN AGNOSTIC)
wrote

“God’s purposes are so vast and glorious, beyond all guessing now, that when they are achieved and consummated, all our sufferings and sorrows of today, even the agonies that nearly break our faith, the disasters that well nigh overwhelm us, shall, seen from that fair country where God’s age long dreams come true, bulk as little as bulk now the pieces of a broken toy upon a nursery floor, over which,
thinking that all our little world was in ruins, we cried ourselves to sleep.”

I LOVE THAT QUOTE

Thanks Rodgertutt, but I've moved beyond Christianity long ago as I've found something else that is much better because it is so much more internally consistent, and it makes so much more sense than any doctrines of Christianity could ever be, including that of Christian Universalism.

 

[rodgertutt]

If you believe that you could look at all the influences, BEFORE the decision was made, and figure out, based strictly on what those influences were at the time without any foreknowledge of the decision, which influence was "strongest", and therefore anticipate what the decision would be: I believe that what you are saying is, simply, FALSE.

If instead all you are saying is that whatever the decision turns out to be, you will retroactively tag the influences pulling in that direction as "stronger", even though the opposite decision was reached by someone else under pretty much the same influences, forcing you to re-label the relative "strengths" of the influences in that other case: then what you are saying is, simply, a circularity with no content at all.

So I repeat.
The STRONGEST influence always dictates what we choose to believe.
That is self-evident and irrefutable.
I think your reasoning is gobbledygook.

 

[rodgertutt]

Thanks Rodgertutt, but I've moved beyond Christianity long ago as I've found something else that is much better because it is so much more internally consistent, and it makes so much more sense than any doctrines of Christianity could ever be, including that of Christian Universalism.

Good for you Oat.
I'm glad you found what you're looking for!
The STRONGEST influences caused you to choose the "something else that is much better" for you.
I'm happy for you!

 

[OAT]

God is the first cause, OF FREE WILL, hence how can God be responsible for mans misdeeds?; man ahs a choice, and if he chooses hell, he gets it and if he chooses heaven, he gets it; isn't that in accordance with Gods attribute of justice?

Because God is the first cause by definition, hence anything else that follows from that he, has some responsibility as well. No one who is trained in formal logic will agree with your conclusion.

I agree with Rodgertutt that free will is an illusion. This is because everything in this world is due to something. That everything in this world is due to something, factors or conditions is termed as dependent arising in Buddhism. The choices we make in the excercise of our so-called "free" will are no exception, they are dependently arisen as well.

 

[OAT]

Good for you Oat.
I'm glad you found what you're looking for!
The STRONGEST influences caused you to choose the "something else that is much better" for you.
I'm happy for you!

Thank you Rodgertutt.
I believe as you do, each of us will find a path that suits us best.

 

[citizenzen]

I have never left a forum in a "huff."

I only use one user name.

Ooohhh... that rogertutt.

Yeah... we definitely went over this issue before.

I probably thought you left in a huff because in your last post (06-20-2009, 01:56 PM) you said you had company coming, then we didn't never hear back from you in that thread.

That's the problem with delving too deeply into somebody's "coping mechanism"... if you pick it apart, their ability to cope becomes based upon an illusion. Rest assured, I do want you to retain the ability to cope. But when you present the mechanism to the forum, you have to expect that we'll ask you how and why you think it functions.

I don't think you managed to pull that off in the previous discussion.

 

[rodgertutt]

Ooohhh... that rogertutt.

Yeah... we definitely went over this issue before.

I probably thought you left in a huff because in your last post (06-20-2009, 01:56 PM) you said you had company coming, then we didn't never hear back from you in that thread.

That's the problem with delving too deeply into somebody's "coping mechanism"... if you pick it apart, their ability to cope becomes based upon an illusion. Rest assured, I do want you to retain the ability to cope. But when you present the mechanism to the forum, you have to expect that we'll ask you how and why you think it functions.

So I repeat.
The STRONGEST influence always dictates what we choose to believe.
That is self-evident and irrefutable.
I think your reasoning is gobbledygook.

 

[citizenzen]

I think your reasoning is gobbledygook.

That's probably why you left that last thread.

Well... I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise.

So really... best of luck with that "coping mechanism" of yours.

While it doesn't work for me, who am I to say it can't work for you?

 

[rodgertutt]

That's probably why you left that last thread.

Well... I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise.

So really... best of luck with that "coping mechanism" of yours.

While it doesn't work for me, who am I to say it can't work for you?

I think I simply forgot to come back to this forum after having to entertain my company for a few days.

Thanks for wishing me the "best of luck."

Here is a link that was part of the strongest influence that caused me to believe as I do, as applied within the context of Christianity.
biblical studies: His Achievement Are We - Part 9 - Choosing What Is Choice

 

[bob x]

That everything in this world is due to something, factors or conditions is termed as dependent arising in Buddhism. The choices we make in the excercise of our so-called "free" will are no exception, they are dependently arisen as well.

No, Buddhism teaches that the essence of mind is "spontaneous" and "unconditioned". Samsara is characterized by dependent arising; the Third Noble Truth is that it is possible to escape from this.

The STRONGEST influence always dictates what we choose to believe.
That is self-evident and irrefutable.

Could two people, under the exact same influences, make opposite choices? That unfortunately has to remain a hypothetical; we cannot really perform the experiment, because no two situations are exactly the same. But you believe that if we could realize the hypothetical, the two must make the same choice, while I believe the opposite. There is nothing in logic which requires that either position be correct. I cannot "prove" free will to you, anymore than you can "prove" determinism to me.

But it is certainly false to claim that your position is "self-evident": the mere existence of disagreement falsifies that claim. I cannot refute your position in the sense of proving the contrary position, but I can refute your claim that no other position is logically feasible, and indeed I have already done so.

Which leaves this puzzle: I believe that you have chosen, of your own free will, to believe in the illusion of determinism. You believe that I am compelled, by irresistible influences, to believe in the illusion of free will. Under my beliefs, it is possible (if unlikely) that your mind might be changed; so there is some point in my continuing to talk to you. But under your beliefs, there is no possibility that my mind might be changed; so why do you preach your beliefs, to people who either cannot possibly be converted to them, or else already by necessity share them? You do it because you just can't help it?

 

[rodgertutt]

Could two people, under the exact same influences, make opposite choices?

No two people would ever be exposed to "the exact same influences."

But it is certainly false to claim that your position is "self-evident": the mere existence of disagreement falsifies that claim. I cannot refute your position in the sense of proving the contrary position, but I can refute your claim that no other position is logically feasible, and indeed I have already done so.

We always choose whatever is having the strongest infuence on our mind.
If we choose something, instead of something else, it is because the influences to choose that thing were stronger than the influences to choose the other thing.

Which leaves this puzzle: I believe that you have chosen, of your own free will, to believe in the illusion of determinism.

Here is a link that explains why I disagree with you.
biblical studies: His Achievement Are We - Part 9 - Choosing What Is Choice

You believe that I am compelled, by irresistible influences, to believe in the illusion of free will.

Yes, but temporarily.

Under my beliefs, it is possible (if unlikely) that your mind might be changed; so there is some point in my continuing to talk to you. But under your beliefs, there is no possibility that my mind might be changed; so why do you preach your beliefs, to people who either cannot possibly be converted to them, or else already by necessity share them? You do it because you just can't help it?

I do it because what I say may well become the strongest influence that changes your mind. In fact, I think the contents of the above link may well be powerful enough to do just that.

It did it for me.