There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

[rodgertutt]

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...

I can't see that we disagree. I think that you are right, we won't be a clean slate.
Intead, I believe He will use everything on that slate to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that can only apply uniquely to the experiences that we have gone through.

 

[rodgertutt]

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.

I'm agreeable with that.
But your smilie is embarrassment.
You don't need to be embarrased for disagreeing with me.

 

[juantoo3]

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.

That's just it though, determinism is an "all-or-nothing" proposition. Self-control isn't. If my desire for ice cream wins out this time, and my self control wins out the next time, then the whole thing negates determinism. I don't have to be in absolute control of my self at all times, but if I can demonstrate control at any time, even once, I have refuted determinism.

Your mileage may vary...

 

[rodgertutt]

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

Were they too hard for you?

Um, lets take them one by one OK?

First question please ..................

Thanks

 

[rodgertutt]

That's just it though, determinism is an "all-or-nothing" proposition. Self-control isn't. If my desire for ice cream wins out this time, and my self control wins out the next time, then the whole thing negates determinism. I don't have to be in absolute control of my self at all times, but if I can demonstrate control at any time, even once, I have refuted determinism.

Your mileage may vary...

Nope, during the times that you demonstrate self control it's because the strongest influences in your life have caused you to do it no thanks to an imaginary "free will" at all.

 

[Quahom1]

I can't see that we disagree. I think that you are right, we won't be a clean slate.
Intead, I believe He will use everything on that slate to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that can only apply uniquely to the experiences that we have gone through.

And because we are not "omnipresent", we will always have a past to grow from. And we will cry from time to time, as we learn new things, because we will remember...but Jesus promised he would be there to wipe away our tears...not once and for all, but simply that he would be there to do so when we needed it, each time we need it...

we are "human", that means saved, and we will always weep when we look at what we were "saved" from...

Angels can not even comprehend that...but Jesus does.

 

[citizenzen]

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.

That is a contradiction.

In your first sentence you acknowledge that according to your view self-control is a delusion.

From your previous posts you indicate that our actions are still caused by internal and external influences, though they may be too subtle for our conscious minds to discern.

In your second sentence you say we can learn self control. So what are we learning here? To delude ourselves into thinking we have control? What would be the purpose to increasing self-delusion in our lives?

 

[citizenzen]

Um, lets take them one by one OK?

First question please ..................

Thanks

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

(probably because the questions were too hard for you to answer)

Here, let me cut and paste them into this post 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 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.

 

[rodgertutt]

That is a contradiction.

In your first sentence you acknowledge that according to your view self-control is a delusion.

From your previous posts you indicate that our actions are still caused by internal and external influences, though they may be too subtle for our conscious minds to discern.

In your second sentence you say we can learn self control. So what are we learning here? To delude ourselves into thinking we have control? What would be the purpose to increasing self-delusion in our lives?

The strongest influences (not our supposed "free will") will teach us how to control ourselves in various situations. The self control will be genuine, but it will also be caused.

BTW, causative forces (eg the stimulation by the information in your brains memory bank) make you choose the flavor of ice cream that you choose, not "free will."

 

[Netti-Netti]

"We always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest sets of influences all of the time? It is simply impossible for anyone to choose what they do not prefer.

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.

 

[rodgertutt]

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

 

[juantoo3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?