There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

[shawn]

Which sounds a lot like, "LA, LA, LA... I can't hear you."

He is not hearing as he chooses not to which is what he most wants to avoid as it would cause him to choose to revise his position which he most wants to avoid.
Hence the stuck in a loop thing.

Its been fun....for a while, but then it becomes tedious.

 

[rodgertutt]

He is not hearing as he chooses not to which is what he most wants to avoid as it would cause him to choose to revise his position which he most wants to avoid.
Hence the stuck in a loop thing.
Its been fun....for a while, but then it becomes tedious.

Yes I hear you. I just reject what you say based on the following evidence. People will choose to believe about the "will" whatever reasoning has the strongest influence on their mind about it. This will always be true. The following is what has the strongest influence on my mind.

The issue is that we ALWAYS choose what we want the MOST at any given point in time.
Our will is only "free" to choose what we perceive that we want the MOST.
We could not have chosen anything else at that particular point in time.

Here's how James Coram (blue), and Galen Strawson (red) put it, in case you missed it before.

"Those who advocate “free will” actually mean to stand for by means of this expression is the notion that men have the power of contrary choice: Even though, in fact, we chose as we did, we could have chosen otherwise. That is, we could have done so at that time. It is not contended (nor is it disputed) that, hypothetically and by itself, we might have chosen otherwise. That is not the idea at all. Instead, it is claimed that, notwithstanding the fact that we did choose as we chose, we nonetheless could have chosen otherwise. This, and this alone, is the question to be resolved.

Advocates of this position, which should be called, “the power of contrary choice,” prefer to perpetuate it instead under the innocuous and advantageously ambiguous title “free will.” At once, this gives it the advantage of a respectable-sounding name, and makes those few who are constrained to reject the actual doctrine appear as strange extremists, inasmuch as they reject such a well-accepted, desirable and seemingly reasonable concept.

The advocate of free will actually stands for the position which asserts that man’s choices are uncaused—absolutely devoid of all necessity. And yet he does not realize, or at least he refuses to admit the fact, that the denial of causality will not bring him any closer to what he wants than its advocacy.

Essentially this matter is a simple one: It is impossible to prevent anything that is the product of a cause from coming into existence; and, it is also impossible to prevent anything that is not the product of a cause from coming into existence. If a truly uncaused event were ever to occur (were such a thing even possible), being the product of nothing, uninfluenced and uninfluenceable, it would simply “show up,” appearing “out of nowhere.” While it would not be brought in, neither could it be kept out.

Whether “determinism” (i.e., causality), divine or otherwise, is true or false, we cannot possibly be free either way—that is, in a freewill or contrary-choice sense. If we are caused to choose as we do, we cannot help choosing as we do. And, if we are not caused to choose as we do, we still cannot help choosing as we do."

“We cannot be free agents, in the ordinary, strong, true-responsibility-entailing sense, if determinism is true and we and our actions are ultimately wholly determined by causes which existed anterior to our own personal existence. And we can no more be free if determinism is false and it is, ultimately, either wholly or partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are."
Galen Strawson, FREEDOM AND BELIEF, p.25; London: Oxford University Press, 1986

"Neither determined nor random will afford any place for free will. Neither determinedness nor randomness (nor any mixture of the two) can give or allow what is wanted, even though between these two the field of possibilities is exhausted.

Therefore, contrary choice or “free will” not only does not exist but cannot exist."
James Coram, THE VAUNTED “POWER OF CONTRARY CHOICE”

 

[bob x]

Ah, I see now. Basically, what you're saying is that it's impossible not to have chosen the choice that you've made. Of course it's impossible not to choose what you chose, because what you chose was chosen because you chose it. Now if you had chosen differently when you chose to make that choice, then you wouldn't have chose what you chose when you chose it, because the choice you made wasn't actually the choice we were talking about, now was it? So the choice that we choose to make are chosen because we chose to choose them, while simultaneously choosing not to choose choices that were weren't choosing to choose at the time we made the choice.

Makes perfect sense now...

Congratulations on getting so quickly. It took 'zen and I a lot of headbanging to get there.

 

[rodgertutt]

Just in case you didn't notice James Coram's conclusion of what he wrote, he said in the last line of my last post, "therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."

 

[rodgertutt]

Ah, I see now. Basically, what you're saying is that it's impossible not to have chosen the choice that you've made. Of course it's impossible not to choose what you chose, because what you chose was chosen because you chose it. Now if you had chosen differently when you chose to make that choice, then you wouldn't have chose what you chose when you chose it, because the choice you made wasn't actually the choice we were talking about, now was it? So the choice that we choose to make are chosen because we chose to choose them, while simultaneously choosing not to choose choices that were weren't choosing to choose at the time we made the choice.

Makes perfect sense now...

So let's simplify what "makes perfect sense" to you.

It is not even possible that you could have made a different choice than the one you made based on what you concluded, after due deliberation, you wanted to choose MOST at that particular point in time.

Your choice was CAUSED by the REASONS that made you want that choice the MOST.

What that means is, “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."

 

[citizenzen]

Its been fun....for a while, but then it becomes tedious.

Tell me about it. I've here since day one. That makes me both a sadist... and a masochist.

But I continue to have this hope that Tutt will snap out of it.

That makes me both an optimist... and completely delusional.

 

[citizenzen]

Just in case you didn't notice James Coram's conclusion of what he wrote, he said in the last line of my last post, "therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."

Well why didn't you say so in the first place?

OMG, that changes everything!

 

[shawn]

Well, have fun.
It has become too much for me.
But I may change my mind.
Who knows.
I reserve all rights to that decision.

 

[bob x]

But whatever you decide, it cannot help but be what you choose, because you always want most what, at that particular time, you want MOST.

 

[rodgertutt]

But whatever you decide, it cannot help but be what you choose, because you always want most what, at that particular time, you want MOST.

Let's rephrase that so it reflects the truth.

But whatever you decide, it cannot help but be what you want the MOST at that particular point in time.

Your will is only "free" to choose what you want the MOST.

Every choice you ever made was the ONLY choice you could have made at that particular point in time, because it was what you wanted the MOST.

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

citizen says "I continue to have this hope that Tutt will snap out of it."
That of course means that he hopes James Coram and Galen Strawson will "snap out of it" too. I rest my case on their conclusions because the strongest influence on my mind is that they are absolutely right.

Here's how James Coram (blue), and Galen Strawson (red) put it, in case you missed it before.

"Those who advocate “free will” actually mean to stand for by means of this expression is the notion that men have the power of contrary choice: Even though, in fact, we chose as we did, we could have chosen otherwise. That is, we could have done so at that time. It is not contended (nor is it disputed) that, hypothetically and by itself, we might have chosen otherwise. That is not the idea at all. Instead, it is claimed that, notwithstanding the fact that we did choose as we chose, we nonetheless could have chosen otherwise. This, and this alone, is the question to be resolved.

Advocates of this position, which should be called, “the power of contrary choice,” prefer to perpetuate it instead under the innocuous and advantageously ambiguous title “free will.” At once, this gives it the advantage of a respectable-sounding name, and makes those few who are constrained to reject the actual doctrine appear as strange extremists, inasmuch as they reject such a well-accepted, desirable and seemingly reasonable concept.

The advocate of free will actually stands for the position which asserts that man’s choices are uncaused—absolutely devoid of all necessity. And yet he does not realize, or at least he refuses to admit the fact, that the denial of causality will not bring him any closer to what he wants than its advocacy.

Essentially this matter is a simple one: It is impossible to prevent anything that is the product of a cause from coming into existence; and, it is also impossible to prevent anything that is not the product of a cause from coming into existence. If a truly uncaused event were ever to occur (were such a thing even possible), being the product of nothing, uninfluenced and uninfluenceable, it would simply “show up,” appearing “out of nowhere.” While it would not be brought in, neither could it be kept out.

Whether “determinism” (i.e., causality), divine or otherwise, is true or false, we cannot possibly be free either way—that is, in a freewill or contrary-choice sense. If we are caused to choose as we do, we cannot help choosing as we do. And, if we are not caused to choose as we do, we still cannot help choosing as we do."

“We cannot be free agents, in the ordinary, strong, true-responsibility-entailing sense, if determinism is true and we and our actions are ultimately wholly determined by causes which existed anterior to our own personal existence. And we can no more be free if determinism is false and it is, ultimately, either wholly or partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are."
Galen Strawson, FREEDOM AND BELIEF, p.25; London: Oxford University Press, 1986

"Neither determined nor random will afford any place for free will. Neither determinedness nor randomness (nor any mixture of the two) can give or allow what is wanted, even though between these two the field of possibilities is exhausted.

Therefore, contrary choice or “free will” not only does not exist but cannot exist."
James Coram, THE VAUNTED “POWER OF CONTRARY CHOICE”

BTW citizen, what book have you written about this subject that any publisher has considered worthy of publishing, may I ask?

 

[citizenzen]

citizen says "I continue to have this hope that Tutt will snap out of it." That of course means that he hopes James Coram and Galen Strawson will "snap out of it" too.

Why? Do they do your thinking for you?

BTW citizen, what book have you written about this subject that any publisher has considered worthy of publishing, may I ask?

None... absolutely none.

But since when is wisdom measure by the number of books published Rodger? Methinks you're praying to a false God... an icon of authorship as authority... and you've forgotten how to think for yourself.

 

[rodgertutt]

Why? Do they do your thinking for you?
None... absolutely none.
But since when is wisdom measure by the number of books published Rodger? Methinks you're praying to a false God... an icon of authorship as authority... and you've forgotten how to think for yourself.

Everything we know we learned from others.
We judge the validity of what others say, and if what they say has the strongest influence on our mind we will embrace it as the truth unless a stronger influence comes along to change our mind.
Nothing that has been said on this thread has refuted the conclusions of James Coram and Galan Strawson.

In addtion, I could post several other links proving "free" will is a fallacy.
Another good one is
SPIRIT OF THE WORD FREE MORAL AGENCY
You can Google it up if you are interested.

And the online book
IS MAN A FREE MORAL AGENT? is on the same Google page
right after SPIRIT OF THE WORD FREE MORAL AGENCY
It's a good one too!

 

[Gatekeeper]

Let's rephrase that so it reflects the truth.

But whatever you decide, it cannot help but be what you want the MOST at that particular point in time.

Your will is only "free" to choose what you want the MOST.

Every choice you ever made was the ONLY choice you could have made at that particular point in time, because it was what you wanted the MOST.

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

citizen says "I continue to have this hope that Tutt will snap out of it."
That of course means that he hopes James Coram and Galen Strawson will "snap out of it" too. I rest my case on their conclusions because the strongest influence on my mind is that they are absolutely right.

Here's how James Coram (blue), and Galen Strawson (red) put it, in case you missed it before.

"Those who advocate “free will” actually mean to stand for by means of this expression is the notion that men have the power of contrary choice: Even though, in fact, we chose as we did, we could have chosen otherwise. That is, we could have done so at that time. It is not contended (nor is it disputed) that, hypothetically and by itself, we might have chosen otherwise. That is not the idea at all. Instead, it is claimed that, notwithstanding the fact that we did choose as we chose, we nonetheless could have chosen otherwise. This, and this alone, is the question to be resolved.

Advocates of this position, which should be called, “the power of contrary choice,” prefer to perpetuate it instead under the innocuous and advantageously ambiguous title “free will.” At once, this gives it the advantage of a respectable-sounding name, and makes those few who are constrained to reject the actual doctrine appear as strange extremists, inasmuch as they reject such a well-accepted, desirable and seemingly reasonable concept.

The advocate of free will actually stands for the position which asserts that man’s choices are uncaused—absolutely devoid of all necessity. And yet he does not realize, or at least he refuses to admit the fact, that the denial of causality will not bring him any closer to what he wants than its advocacy.

Essentially this matter is a simple one: It is impossible to prevent anything that is the product of a cause from coming into existence; and, it is also impossible to prevent anything that is not the product of a cause from coming into existence. If a truly uncaused event were ever to occur (were such a thing even possible), being the product of nothing, uninfluenced and uninfluenceable, it would simply “show up,” appearing “out of nowhere.” While it would not be brought in, neither could it be kept out.

Whether “determinism” (i.e., causality), divine or otherwise, is true or false, we cannot possibly be free either way—that is, in a freewill or contrary-choice sense. If we are caused to choose as we do, we cannot help choosing as we do. And, if we are not caused to choose as we do, we still cannot help choosing as we do."

“We cannot be free agents, in the ordinary, strong, true-responsibility-entailing sense, if determinism is true and we and our actions are ultimately wholly determined by causes which existed anterior to our own personal existence. And we can no more be free if determinism is false and it is, ultimately, either wholly or partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are."
Galen Strawson, FREEDOM AND BELIEF, p.25; London: Oxford University Press, 1986

"Neither determined nor random will afford any place for free will. Neither determinedness nor randomness (nor any mixture of the two) can give or allow what is wanted, even though between these two the field of possibilities is exhausted.

Therefore, contrary choice or “free will” not only does not exist but cannot exist."
James Coram, THE VAUNTED “POWER OF CONTRARY CHOICE”

BTW citizen, what book have you written about this subject that any publisher has considered worthy of publishing, may I ask?

I think I might agree with you Roger. We make our decisions based on what we think is best in any given situation. We have the illusion of complete free will, but our choices are pretty much governed by individual circumstance and personal desire. We will always choose what we 'think' is best (Even when we know the potential negative consequence of our actions). There is always an underlying force behind our every decision, whether wise or unwise.

That's not to take away from taking responsibility for our actions, though. We are always able to learn from our past (I think this is essential to our growth) but many resist gaining understanding, so they keep doing what they've always done, getting what they always got. It isn't until we desire something better that there is a change in our behavior, and even then there is an underlying force driving that change.

GK

 

[citizenzen]

Nothing that has been said on this thread has refuted the conclusions of James Coram and Galan Strawson.

No... I just refuted the basis upon which their argument rests.

If you set up the premise that the belief of free will is based upon the belief that choices are made devoid of conditions and necessity, then you are engaging in a fallacy.

Nobody here believes that choice is devoid of conditions. We have taken pains to point out just the opposite. Perhaps you can address why the authors need to base their conclusions on an erroneous premise.

But I'll bet you'd prefer to avoid that question.

 

[rodgertutt]

No... I just refuted the basis upon which their argument rests.

If you set up the premise that the belief of free will is based upon the belief that choices are made devoid of conditions and necessity, then you are engaging in a fallacy.

Nobody here believes that choice is devoid of conditions. We have taken pains to point out just the opposite. Perhaps you can address why the authors need to base their conclusions on an erroneous premise.

But I'll bet you'd prefer to avoid that question.

It is not "an erroneous premise" to insist that choices are necessarily CAUSED to occur due to what we perceive to be the most desirable choice to make.

It is not even possible that you could have chosen any differently than you did, because you were CAUSED to prefer that choice by the influences to which you were exposed at that particular point in time.

A few second before, or a few seconds after, you might have chosen differently. But at that particular point in time you HAD to choose what you wanted to choose the MOST and you could not have chosen anything else.

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

 

[rodgertutt]

I think I might agree with you Rodger. We make our decisions based on what we think is best in any given situation. We have the illusion of complete free will, but our choices are pretty much governed by individual circumstance and personal desire. We will always choose what we 'think' is best (Even when we know the potential negative consequence of our actions). There is always an underlying force behind our every decision, whether wise or unwise.

That's not to take away from taking responsibility for our actions, though. We are always able to learn from our past (I think this is essential to our growth) but many resist gaining understanding, so they keep doing what they've always done, getting what they always got. It isn't until we desire something better that there is a change in our behavior, and even then there is an underlying force driving that change. GK

As a universalist Christian, 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.

Here is a good link on that subject
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
http://thegloryrd.com:80/apadams/evil.html

 

[Gatekeeper]

As a universalist Christian, 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.

Are you suggesting the evil, pain, suffering and the like are for our benefit? If so I agree, only we can be a stubborn species. My guess is that it will be a very long time before we have come to the point that these unpleasant elements of life are taken away. I'm one who believes that life is simply a classroom, whereby we have an opportunity to learn how to live and co-exist with all things respectfully.

I've thought about universal reconciliation often, and I'm not in disagreement with the concept altogether. Then again, I've often pondered reincarnation. I'm not entirely convinced that each individual will live forever though. I suppose these things are yet to be known, so the best I can do is hope that life doesn't end at old age, and that dying is simply a new beginning (Birth) into a new life.

GK

 

[citizenzen]

It is not "an erroneous premise" to insist that choices are necessarily CAUSED to occur due to what we perceive to be the most desirable choice to make.

Rodger, that's not the statement I called erroneous. Please read the words you submitted to this forum...

The advocate of free will actually stands for the position which asserts that man’s choices are uncaused—absolutely devoid of all necessity.

That is the premise based on a fallacy. No advocate for free will has ever suggested that choices are uncaused or absolutely devoid of necessity. We have in fact, argued just the opposite.

Causes shape every decision we make. Necessity shapes every decision we make. Yet within the confines of cause and necessity lurks the opportunity to choose our very next step.

 

[rodgertutt]

Rodger, that's not the statement I called erroneous. Please read the words you submitted to this forum...
That is the premise based on a fallacy. No advocate for free will has ever suggested that choices are uncaused or absolutely devoid of necessity. We have in fact, argued just the opposite.

When you insist that you did not HAVE to choose the way you did, you are insisting that you were not caused to do it. That's what they mean by you thinking that you were "not caused" to do it.

But you were caused to do it. In fact it is not even possible that you could not have chosen what you perceived that you wanted to choose the MOST.

 

[rodgertutt]

Are you suggesting the evil, pain, suffering and the like are for our benefit? If so I agree, only we can be a stubborn species. My guess is that it will be a very long time before we have come to the point that these unpleasant elements of life are taken away. I'm one who believes that life is simply a classroom, whereby we have an opportunity to learn how to live and co-exist with all things respectfully.

I've thought about universal reconciliation often, and I'm not in disagreement with the concept altogether. Then again, I've often pondered reincarnation. I'm not entirely convinced that each individual will live forever though. I suppose these things are yet to be known, so the best I can do is hope that life doesn't end at old age, and that dying is simply a new beginning (Birth) into a new life. GK

Speaking from my own experience GK, here is a link that helped me lot.
You will notice that one of the 15 chapters is on the fallacy of "free" will.

A great introductory series to ultimate reconciliation. J. Preston Eby does a thorough job covering many aspects of the topic.
Fundamental reading for any person interested in studying universalism from a solid biblical perspective.
Highly Recommended!
Kingdom Bible Studies: J. Preston Eby, Kingdom of God; Saviour of The World