There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

[rodgertutt]

As individuals who have unique perceptual filter systems developed from birth which color our decision making process, we then all have uniquely different mechanisms for making those decisions.
So there is not a universal template which guides each and every person as what one would want the most, another would not.
Any observer of humanity can see this.

The game theory idea brought up by Penelope also raises a good question in that if your "theory" had validity, then how could people choose irrational moves which appear to cost them as each and every move is a choice and they are allegedly locked into a rigid pattern of doing what they want most. Since they are playing a game they must WANT to win, so what do you suggest?? that they are doing some mental gymnastics here and flip-flopping from wanting to win to wanting to lose to wanting to win again?
They would have to in order for the theory you propose (and I know it comes from the sources you have linked) to have plausibility.

I believe it is God Who dictates the extent to which each person gets involved in evil and suffering in conjuntion with His unique plan for each individual.

Martin Luther, in his lengthy writing on the fallacy of free will is excellect on this subject in his debate with free-willer Erasmus
THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL
The Bondage of the Will

 

[rodgertutt]

The one thing you've gotten right all day.

Here's another thing I've "gotton right" citizen.
Free Will and the "Oh Well!" Creed - Calvinism and Arminianism

 

[shawn]

ah yes, martin-luther... the anti-semite.
great resource there mate.

Another thing to bring up is the whole hypnosis thing.
So if this alleged theory is correct, then hypnosis would never work unless various people really wanted to be told by others to act stupid in front of a crowd.
Sure, most of it is a scam, but there is also working hypnosis, so what about that....how does that fit into this little sand-pail of limitation you are presenting?

 

[Penelope]

WE ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, CHOOSE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE STRONGEST INFLUENCE, ALL OF THE TIME.
... temporary involvement in evil and suffering ...

Friend of mine made this movie:
Girl and guy on their second date. Dance recital, theater on Floor 2 in a college hall.

The exit door to the hall is on the landing, at the turn of the stairs between Floor 2 and Floor 1. After the recital, the pair walk down the stairs. The guy pretends to forget that the exit door is there, and starts to turn the corner to head down to Floor 1. The gal stops.
(He is prepared to say "whoops" and exit with her into the night. But ... )
Their eyes lock.

He extends his hand.
She hesitates, gives him a second look.

Then she takes his hand. They descend the stairs, and neck in the dark underneath the stairs. Over their heads is the sound of other recital-goers trotting down the stairs and exiting thru noisy doors to the darkness outside.

& & &

Lovely moment.
That moment: between their eyes locking and she taking his hand.

That moment of overture and indecision.

& & &

This is not a feeble "choice" on her part. It is a decision, with consequence in her life and in the lives of others.

God may be there.
(It is, potentially, a momentous decision.)
But it has nothing to do with evil and suffering.

& & &

There is no evil, unless you interpret this as being merely an instance of spontaneous behavior - behavior with no social-yoke upon it. But I don't see this instance on the stair-landing (not one iota of it) as being this way. What happened is too complicated for that.

I have been there. I have made such decisions ... and they were not impulsive consumer choices. And these intervals (a mere second or two ... but, also, a near eternity) have contributed to my emotional growth as a person.

Evil?
(Don't insult me!)

The meaning of life is in such intervals.
Here real (world-changing ) decisions are being made.

 

[rodgertutt]

ah yes, martin-luther... the anti-semite.
great resource there mate.

For most of his life my 97 year old dad was anti-Catholic because that is how he was programmed to be by the strongest influences to which he was exposed (his frame of reference). He has changed his mind after studying and embracing Christian universalism which displaced his anti-Catholic tendencies. In spite of his character flaw, I learned many good things from my Dad.

To the extent that Luther was anti-semite he was responding to the strongest influences in his life during that period of time. His temporary character flaw does not negate the persuasive power of his logical thinking regarding the fallacy of "free" will.

Another thing to bring up is the whole hypnosis thing.
So if this alleged theory is correct, then hypnosis would never work unless various people really wanted to be told by others to act stupid in front of a crowd.
Sure, most of it is a scam, but there is also working hypnosis, so what about that....how does that fit into this little sand-pail of limitation you are presenting?

I'm unable to grasp the relevance of your question.
What does hypnosis have to do with the fact that every choice we made was the only choice we could have made because we decided it was the choice that we wanted to make MOST?
Consequently, we could not have made any other choice at that particular point in time.

 

[rodgertutt]

There is no evil
Evil?
(Don't insult me!)

Another point of view
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
http://thegloryrd.com:80/apadams/evil.html

 

[bob x]

He is assuming that you will take it for granted that "any mixture of the two" is impossible, although there may be some who will try mix the two.

That is because he has no knowledge about how the real world works, which turns out to involve processes which are difficult to understand, and are not discussed even slightly in 2000-year-old books so that it is useless to discuss the issues if that is all you will look at. The pre-existing causes determine only a narrow range of possibilities; the relative strengths of the influences permit only an assessment of their probabilities, but the less probable outcomes are still open and may happen. Most physicists do assume that these decisions, within the determined range, happen randomly, but I do not: that is where I believe "freedom" exists, and none of your sources have anything useful to say about the issue, because they foreclose the possibility out of a sheer lack of knowledge right at the start.

 

[rodgertutt]

I believe "freedom" exists

The only freedom that "exists" is the freedom to choose what we prefer MOST.

Even though we "preferred" something, if we chose something else, we irrefutably demonstrated that we preferred that "something else" MOST.

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

 

[Marsh]

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."

Oh, so that's what I think! Thanks for telling me, Rodger.


A couple of years ago, there was a guy who posted something on this forum about a group of people who were somehow set apart from the rest of us by God.... they had a name for themselves, but I forget what it was. Anyways, the whole thing sounded pretty cultish to me and to basically everyone else who replied on that thread, and there was one thing in particular that this guy said that's stuck with me.

According to the guy who was posting, this set-apart group could see and hear truth that nobody else could see or hear; the truth resonated with them, but not with the ordinary Joe. Now, this group had a leader, and the teachings of this leader were said (by the guy who was posting) to be absolute truth.

Now here's the catch: if you didn't agree with these teachings, it wasn't because the teachings were wrong; it was because the truth was not resonating with you. In other words, anyone who disagreed was disagreeing because they were too dumb to agree. So basically, there was no way to evaluate the truth of what this leader was saying.

I see a lot of this sort of twisted logic in what you've been saying Rodger-- in what you've been saying, and also in the constant references to these writers that we are somehow supposed to accept as authoritative.

 

[rodgertutt]

I see a lot of this sort of twisted logic in what you've been saying Rodger-- in what you've been saying, and also in the constant references to these writers that we are somehow supposed to accept as authoritative.

They are only as "authoritative" as their explanations have the strongest influence on your thinking as making the most sense regarding the subject of "free" will. I don't see anything "twisted" about that logic.

Each person will make up their own mind on the validity of the conclusions of the writers I guide people to.

 

[Marsh]

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 Jim Coram means 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 at that point in time.

So.... if I meet you on the street, and kick you right in the sack, as hard as I can, you're saying that I really didn't have any choice in the matter?

Do you think that'll hold up in court? Will you testify for me?

I think I'm starting to like this way of thinking.

 

[rodgertutt]

So.... if I meet you on the street, and kick you right in the sack, as hard as I can, you're saying that I really didn't have any choice in the matter?

Do you think that'll hold up in court? Will you testify for me?

I think I'm starting to like this way of thinking.

If you in fact did kick me, it would demonstrate that at that particular point in time the only choice you had was to kick me. Because at that particular point in time, kicking me was the choice that you preferred MOST.

However, experiencing the consequenses of kicking me might well CAUSE you to never kick me again.

 

[rodgertutt]

I am bringing this post over to page 47 in the hope that citizen will see it.

Originally Posted by citizenzen
"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.
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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since citizen thinks the above is a pivitol issue in proving us determinists wrong because we have a "false premise," I am repeating this post.

Here is why I do not think Jim's "premise" is false.

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 Jim Coram means 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 at that point in time.

"Within the confines of cause and necessity lurks the opportunity to choose our very next step" ONLY in the direction of the choice that we have concluded that we want to make the MOST.

Our will was not "free" to choose any set of influences that were not the STRONGEST on our mind to choose. We HAD to choose what we chose when we chose it.

Free willers claim that, notwithstanding the fact that we did choose as we chose, we nonetheless could have chosen otherwise? That is absolutely false.

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

 

[citizenzen]

I see a lot of this sort of twisted logic in what you've been saying Rodger--

My main problem with Rodger's posts: his certainty that he knows the truth. Here he's talking about one of the most unknowable aspects of the human condition as if it were an obvious, simple truth. That tells me right there that the man is a huckster, a snake-oil salesman... or at best, just severely deluded.

As a Buddhist I embrace the value of "not knowing"... not trying to fill the void of the unknown. Rodger embraces the opposite strategy. He has taken one of the most compelling aspects of our lives and traded it in for the comfort and security of simplistic belief. He doesn't even have the self-awareness to understand that it's based on faith and instead insists that it is the truth.

If he were only to say, "It's my faith," then there'd be nothing I could say against it other than "I don't share that same faith." I'd have far more respect for him if that were the case. As it is I can only see him as an evangelist bent on indoctrinating instead of discussing.

 

[citizenzen]

One more thing...

After over 600 posts, I still don't understand the value of his belief.

The choice you made was the only choice you could have made.​

What does one learn from that? How does it help to make me a better person... to lead a better life and make better decisions? The only response that it elicits from me is, "So?" Perhaps Gatekeeper, or Penelope could explain to me the value this belief brings to my life as Rodger, after hundreds of posts, has failed to reveal it to me.

 

[rodgertutt]

After over 600 posts, I still don't understand the value of his belief.
"The choice you made was the only choice you could have made."

"THE VALUE OF MY BELIEF" FROM A CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALIST POINT OF VIEW

To be able to relax in the confidence that no will can defeat God's intention to eventually transform all evil and suffering into something better for everyone that it temporarily prevailed.

THE PURPOSE OF EVIL - A.P. ADAMS
http://thegloryrd.com:80/apadams/evil.html

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 seemingly unjustifiable suffering that we all experience in varying degrees, as well as what the Bible calls "kolasis aionion" 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.

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.

I believe that God has both the ability and the intention to save all fallen creatures from everything from which they need to be saved, INCLUDING THEIR STUBBORN WILL, and He will not fail to do so.

I believe that God's determination, within the wise counsel of His DECRETIVE will which is that which MUST occur, to eventually rid all of creation from evil and suffering, will in every case, overcome the strongest will that is temporarily opposed to God's PRECEPTIVE will which is what His creatures OUGHT to do, e.g. THE "GOLDEN RULE."

All evil eventually leads to good, however, God is the only One Who can do this. He created evil (Isaiah 45:7), to provide the contrast for good. When all good is revealed, then evil will be abolished from God’s universe—forever.

I believe the only mistake that I am probably making is in grossly underestimating just how gloriously God will achieve this universal transformation.

Realizing that he is including everyone without exception, the following quote by Christian universalist Dr. Leslie Weatherhead nicely sums up what I believe. I've had it memorized for many years and love to quote it frequently.

“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!

 

[shawn]

The aforementioned idea is one solidly based in single-value physics.
These kinds of ideas always run contrary to multi-valued physics in their imposition of limitations which only exist in their given frame.

But...they are not the only game in town.

We do live in a multi-verse, not a uni-verse.

So then, a fact may be irrevocably true in one context of reality, partially true in varying degrees of many and not true at all in some.

A most puzzling of contradictory concepts is the human will to set up such arbitrary limits to their comprehension.

 

[citizenzen]

"THE VALUE OF MY BELIEF" FROM A CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALIST POINT OF VIEW

Oh. So since it's from a Christian point of view, it's a matter of faith.

Why then do you keep insisting it's truth?

And how is it possible that you know this to be true while no one in the scientific world could or would ever make the claim that they know the basis for every decision made by a person? Earlier you asked me what books I'd written on the subject... well, what scientific studies can you point to to verify your claims?

 

[rodgertutt]

So then, a fact may be irrevocably true in one context of reality, partially true in varying degrees of many and not true at all in some.

The following fact is "irrevocably true" in every "context of reality."

Our will was not "free" to choose any set of influences that were not the STRONGEST on our mind to choose. We HAD to choose what we chose when we chose it at that particular point in time.

Free willers claim that, notwithstanding the fact that we did choose as we chose, we nonetheless could have chosen otherwise? That is absolutely false everywhere, all of the time.

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

 

[rodgertutt]

Oh. So since it's from a Christian point of view, it's a matter of faith.
Why then do you keep insisting it's truth?

It's a "matter of faith" that I believe it to be the "truth" because I have yet to encounter an argument that would persuade me that it is not true.

And how is it possible that you know this to be true while no one in the scientific world could or would ever make the claim that they know the basis for every decision made by a person? Earlier you asked me what books I'd written on the subject... well, what scientific studies can you point to to verify your claims?

I didn't say "I know this to be true."
I guided you to several writings explaining why I perceive it to be true.
Each person will decide for themselves on whether or not it is true.
No, I know of no "scientific studies" that can verify my claim.
But I also know of no reason why I should not believe it to be true.