There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

[rodgertutt]

your argument is false because it is unnecessarily narrowed and doesn't take into consideration other mitigating factors.

All of the mitigating factors combine together to make up the strongest sets of influences that cause us to choose what we do choose.

Did you find out anything about the Nephilim?

There hasn't been a strong enough influence to make me care about the Nephilim. I asked you why you brought it up but you didn't reply except to say that theologians disagree about them. So what else is new?

POST SCRIPT:
I have to go out for a few hours but my wife is not ready to go yet.
Strongest influences are detaining her.

Toronto Blue Jays lost yesterday to the team with the worst record in baseball. That sucks.
They need some players to exert the strongest influence tonight.

Did I ever mention before that we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest sets of influences that are being brought to bear upon out minds and emotions? The fact that we choose what we do demonstrates that it is the strongest sets of influences that is causing us to do it because we choose it even though there are sets of influences that are almost just as strong. IMHO (and Einstein's, and James Coram's) that is not "circular reasoning." Instead, it is irrefutable logic.

biblical studies: His Achievement Are We - Part 16 - Choice and Deity
By James Coram

Of course each of us will make up our own minds about it based on the sets of evidences that have the strongest influence on our minds.

Does not this, in and of itself, prove my point?

 

[juantoo3]

All of the mitigating factors combine together to make up the strongest sets of influences that cause us to choose what we do choose.

Only the tiniest fraction of which could be directly considered to be G-d.

There hasn't been a strong enough influence to make me care about the Nephilim. I asked you why you brought it up but you didn't reply except to say that theologians disagree about them.

This doesn't surprise me in the least. Making overarching comments about G-d and the Bible, and then not wanting to actually read the Bible when it challenges that overarching comment, is hardly logical. But it is quite informative, thank you.

Its hard to be in a fallen state from G-d if you are under the influence of G-d. And since there is no condition of simultaneously being with G-d and against G-d, then it stands to reason that *Biblically speaking* your argument is not logical.

Instead, it is irrefutable logic.

Does not this, in and of itself, prove my point?

Ignoring a refutation does not make an argument irrefutable. So the answer is still "no," your point is not proven.

 

[Quahom1]

Paradigms create perceptions, which in turn cause emotions. I guess the best way to keep things right and true, and "free", is to insure that the paradigm is correct...

 

[juantoo3]

Toronto Blue Jays lost yesterday to the team with the worst record in baseball. That sucks.

BTW, I haven't been ignoring your baseball comments, I just don't care much for baseball. I prefer American football, and even then I don't get to watch nearly as much as I would prefer. But if your team is doing well, good for you!

 

[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

 

[citizenzen]

Did I ever mention before that we always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest sets of influences that are being brought to bear upon out minds and emotions? The fact that we choose what we do demonstrates that it is the strongest sets of influences that is causing us to do it because we choose it even though there are sets of influences that are almost just as strong. IMHO (and Einstein's, and James Coram's) that is not "circular reasoning." Instead, it is irrefutable logic.

This is like listening to a skipping record.

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 live, 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.

 

[citizenzen]

And just how are they illogical? What is illogical about finding the company and affections of the opposite sex compelling? Are you not being a tad judgemental? 10 lovers is not many, in my book that is about normal and in no way indicative of a compulsive tendency. Additionally he was up-front about it. His wives knew. Maybe they did not like it but he did not keep it secret from them and they were thus given the opportunity to make the decision for themselves whether or not to tolerate it. From what I understand his choice of lover was invariably a highly intelligent and stimulating woman. I just see nothing, but nothing wrong in his behaviour.

The assumption that since AE was a great physicist, that we should give credence to his thoughts on other subjects as well is highly suspect. As Roger is a baseball fan, he knows that the ability to hit a 90 mile an hour fastball should not confer "role model" status on a player. That is something separate from athletic ability and must be demonstrated in its own right.

A man who is smart enough and sufficiently self-aware would not have entered in to a life-long covenant only to break it so easily and so often. Had AE remained a serial romancer, I would not judge his actions harshly. But when one enters into binding contracts only to break them, it shows a certain lack of foresight, self-control and commitment.

It demonstrates that ability, both physical and mental, should not be mistaken for wisdom. I would no more rely on AE's life philosophy than I would the baseball player who can hit a home run in the bottom of the ninth to win the big game.

 

[juantoo3]

Paradigms create perceptions, which in turn cause emotions. I guess the best way to keep things right and true, and "free", is to insure that the paradigm is correct...

Right!

Which got me to wondering if maybe I was misunderstanding something, so I've gone back looking a bit to see if somehow I got on a sidetrack somewhere:

God has locked all of us up in a lifetime of making choices that can ONLY be made in the direction of the strongest influence.

The fact is we will be unable to "repent" until a strong enough influence, i.e. God, lays hold on us by His grace and CAUSES us to repent.

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."

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.

Now, Mr. Tutt is certainly welcome to hold whatever point of view he wishes.
He is welcome to be a baseball fan...or cricket or soccer or hockey or whatever makes his day.

I was getting a bit concerned with my own answers, because it seemed I had a focus on G-d and the metaphysical, and his answers lately haven't really included that so much, and I was wondering where I got my focus from. So I had to go back and reread and make sure I wasn't somehow off track in my responses. Gauging by this handful I quoted above, I think I was pointed reasonably in the right direction.

This following quote threw me for a loop though, especially considering the previous comment:

Human error is frequently the strongest influence in explaining our choices.

Is G-d (the Divine, meta-physical, Holy Spirit, etc.), or not, the strongest influence? My responses to this point have been directed with the presumption on my part that G-d was being argued as the strongest influence in every person's life at all times, thereby negating free-will.

I still disagree that there is no free-will, and another consideration that entered my mind is delayed gratification. If my preference *right now* is a bowl of ice cream, and I choose to delay that preference for any reason, then the influence of my preference is negated by the need to delay that gratification. Self control is evidence of free-will.

Mr. Tutt has the free-will option to view the matter differently, of course. That is his perogative.

 

[rodgertutt]

I'm baaak

I am a "Christian Biblical Universal Transformationist."
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/restitution.htm
See especially the very last paragraph on that link.

I’m convinced that after we have thought the very best thoughts about God, we can be sure that He is even better than that because He is able to do above what we can even think, Ephesians 3:20. And IMHO I cannot think any higher thoughts than universal transformation.

I believe that after our resurrection from the dead God will eventually somehow transform every second of everyone's suffering into something better that it happened.

That includes both the unexplained and unjustifiable suffering that we all experience in varying degrees, as well as what the Bible calls "kolasis aionian" which means age-during corrective chastisement that everyone who needs it will experience.

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.

I believe that everything HAS to happen the way that it does, including all of our efforts to assist it or prevent it from happening. In every case the strongest influences will dictate what everyone chooses.

We universal reconciliationists believe that God will eventually transform all evil and suffering into something better that it happened for everyone, and when evil and suffering has served God’s eonian purpose, God will eradicate them both from existence.
http://www.saviourofall.org/Tracts/Eons2.html

Just in case anyone is interested, the contents of this link explains why we reject the idea of "free will."
biblical studies: His Achievement Are We - Part 16 - Choice and Deity

 

[Quahom1]

I'm baaak

I am a "Christian Biblical Universal Transformationist."
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/restitution.htm
See especially the very last paragraph on that link.

I’m convinced that after we have thought the very best thoughts about God, we can be sure that He is even better than that because He is able to do above what we can even think, Ephesians 3:20. And IMHO I cannot think any higher thoughts than universal transformation.

I believe that after our resurrection from the dead God will eventually somehow transform every second of everyone's suffering into something better that it happened.

That includes both the unexplained and unjustifiable suffering that we all experience in varying degrees, as well as what the Bible calls "kolasis aionian" which means age-during corrective chastisement that everyone who needs it will experience.

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.

I believe that everything HAS to happen the way that it does, including all of our efforts to assist it or prevent it from happening. In every case the strongest influences will dictate what everyone chooses.

We universal reconciliationists believe that God will eventually transform all evil and suffering into something better that it happened for everyone, and when evil and suffering has served God’s eonian purpose, God will eradicate them both from existence.
http://www.saviourofall.org/Tracts/Eons2.html

Just in case anyone is interested, the contents of this link explains why we reject the idea of "free will."
biblical studies: His Achievement Are We - Part 16 - Choice and Deity

Now why in his name, would God take away the past from us? That would be like saying "now you are whole" (lobotomy), and we would say, "ok God, whole from what?"

 

[citizenzen]

Roger, I hope that's not your answer to my questions.

 

[juantoo3]

It demonstrates that ability, both physical and mental, should not be mistaken for wisdom. I would no more rely on AE's life philosophy than I would the baseball player who can hit a home run in the bottom of the ninth to win the big game.

Very good point.

 

[citizenzen]

Very good point.

It helps to speak their language.

 

[rodgertutt]

Self control is evidence of free-will.

We will only have "self control" if there are not stronger influences present that cause us to lose control of ourselves.

If you don't think there are such occasions then I think you have probably lived a very sheltered life.

 

[citizenzen]

We will only have "self control" if there are not stronger influences present that cause us to lose control of ourselves.

According to your viewpoint (as I interpret it) there was never control to begin with since we are at the mercy of these influences. Any control would be a self-delusion.

 

[rodgertutt]

Now why in his name, would God take away the past from us? That would be like saying "now you are whole" (lobotomy), and we would say, "ok God, whole from what?"

God won't take away the past from anyone.

What I believe He will do in every case is transform the negative portion of the past into something better that it happened, better than if it had not happened, as He fits each person into His master plan in their own unique way.

 

[rodgertutt]

According to your viewpoint (as I interpret it) there was never control to begin with since we are at the mercy of these influences. Any control would be a self-delusion.

Any degree of apparant self control would depend on the strength of the influences that are being brought to bear upon us.

I believe we can learn self control by trial and error, situation by situation.

 

[Quahom1]

God won't take away the past from anyone.

What I believe He will do in every case is transform the negative portion of the past into something better that it happened, better than if it had not happened, as He fits each person into His master plan in their own unique way.

I respectfully disagree Rodger Tutt. We will remember that which developed our personalities, and brought us to the point in time that we embraced God. Forgiveness does not mean forgetfullness. For example, I am who I am because of my design, and also because of what I have done. But that is who God wants...me as I am. He puts no pre-conditions on his grace for us.

God never said "come to me and you will be a clean slate". What God did say was "come to me and I will wash you clean". Big difference there my friend...

 

[juantoo3]

I am a "Christian Biblical Universal Transformationist."

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.

We universal reconciliationists believe that God will eventually transform all evil and suffering into something better that it happened for everyone, and when evil and suffering has served God’s eonian purpose, God will eradicate them both from existence.

OK, so there is merit to my previous arguments. It's nice to know I haven't lost *all* of my marbles yet.

Again, you are welcome to believe as you wish. As a logical argument though, I'm afraid I just don't see the logic in the conclusion. It contradicts what I understand the Bible to teach as well as what it represents to humanity as a sacred ethical text.

I'm afraid we will simply have to agree to disagree on this matter.

 

[citizenzen]

Roger, I still see you've chosen... er, been influenced... to ignore my questions.

Were they too hard for you?