There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

I don't think that I have ever even inferred that anyone has to believe in God and evil.

Yet your reasoning for how adopting it can benefit one's life is grounded in those beliefs...

It enables me 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.

Take those components out and what do you have left?


But I admit that no one can "know" for sure that they are right.

There. Doesn't it feel better to let it out? :D
 
For me there is a difference between "being sure" that I am right, and "knowing" that I am right.
I'm "sure" that I am right about determinism because I have yet to find an argument that persuades me that I might be wrong.
But I admit that no one can "know" for sure that they are right.
Well that's a little progress, anyway.
The REASONS why you finally made the choice that you did make were the CAUSE of you making that choice.
There were other reasons, which could have led to a different choice. Which reasons were "stronger"? Here we have to differentiate between ways of measuring strength: there are the objective measures of strength, measures which could have been made before the decision, but it is now known that these measures of strength do not determine the outcome, only telling us which is more likely, although the objectively-weaker sometimes does prevail; and there is a subjective measure of strength, when you declare that whatever influence prevailed is, therefore, by definition the stronger-- but it did not become subjectively-stronger until after the decision was made. Before the decision, the subjectively-strongest may have been objectively-weaker, and so it is improper to call its strength the cause of the decision.
 
Well that's a little progress, anyway.
There were other reasons, which could have led to a different choice.

"Could have" is irrelevant.
It's what you DID choose that demonstrated what you preferred the MOST.

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.

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

You chose what you chose because the reasons for choosing what you chose CAUSED you to prefer that choice the MOST.
At that point in time it was impossible to choose anything else.

"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yet your reasoning for how adopting it can benefit one's life is grounded in those beliefs...

And your point is?

There. Doesn't it feel better to let it out? :D

No, it doesn't "feel better" because it has always been true that I am "sure" I am right, but I don't "know" I am right. And I will continue to be "sure" that I am right unless/until I encounter an argument that convinces me otherwise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Awwww... and you were making such progress. :(

My "progression" is in the direction of becoming more and more confident that determinsm is in fact the "truth."

What you "could have done" is irrelevant.
It's what you DID choose that demonstrated what you preferred the MOST.

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.

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

You chose what you chose because the reasons for choosing what you chose CAUSED you to prefer that choice the MOST.
At that point in time it was impossible to choose anything else.

"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."
 
And your point is?

The point is that your philosophy is grounded in your faith and that outside your faith it has no value because it requires a belief in God and "evil". Without those two components it is meaningless.

It's why I and others have been trying to get you to accept that your "truth" is actually an article of faith... a notion that for some reason you've resisted all along.

Faith is a belief that's not based on proof and you can't prove your theory. If you could you'd go down in history as one of the greatest human beings who ever lived.

I think that all that any of your "detractors" is asking is that you just have a little more realistic perspective about what you believe to be true and to understand the difference between faith and fact.
 
I think that all that any of your "detractors" is asking is that you just have a little more realistic perspective about what you believe to be true and to understand the difference between faith and fact.

I do understand the difference between faith and fact.

I believe (faith) that determinism is probably the "truth" based on the fact that I have yet to encounter an argument that convinces me otherwise.
 
That was a very measured and reasonable answer.

Thank you Rodger.

Go Jays!

:D
 
"Could have" is irrelevant.
It's what you DID choose that demonstrated what you preferred the MOST.
Are you claiming that it "demonstrated" some characteristic of the influences that already existed before the choice? In your own deathless words:
That is absolutely false.
It is only the choice itself which makes the chosen outcome become the "most preferred"; before that, at best it could only be called the "most likely" and sometimes it was not even that, for the "less likely" does sometimes prevail, and there is no characteristic of the influences, existing before the choice itself, which could tell you which would prevail.
 
Are you claiming that it "demonstrated" some characteristic of the influences that already existed before the choice? In your own deathless words:
That is absolutely false.
It is only the choice itself which makes the chosen outcome become the "most preferred"; before that, at best it could only be called the "most likely" and sometimes it was not even that, for the "less likely" does sometimes prevail, and there is no characteristic of the influences, existing before the choice itself, which could tell you which would prevail.

It was not just a "most likely" choice that you made.
It was absolutely imposible that you could have made any other choice than the one you determined you preferred MOST after considering all the REASONS why you decided to make that choice.

You chose what you chose because the reasons for choosing what you chose CAUSED you to prefer that choice the MOST.
At that point in time it was impossible to choose anything else.

A few seconds before, or a few seconds afterwards, you might have had other reasons why you would not make that choice.
But AT THAT PARTICULAR SPLIT SECOND IN TIME, the choice you made was the only one you possibly could have made based on your evaluation of what choice you perceived you preferred to make AT THAT TIME.

"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rodger, next time just say... ibid

Because I don't know what "ibid" means, and because this is a new page (50),
I am going to say this instead.

What you "could have done" is irrelevant.
It's what you DID choose that demonstrated what you preferred the MOST.

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.

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

You chose what you chose because the reasons for choosing what you chose CAUSED you to prefer that choice the MOST.
At that point in time it was impossible to choose anything else.

"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Googled up definition of ibid
"signifies the same work as the one cited immediately before, but to a different page"

I guess I just performed a genuine "ibid" then :)
 
Because I don't know what "ibid" means, and because this is a new page (50),
I am going to say this instead.

What you "could have done" is irrelevant.
It's what you DID choose that demonstrated what you preferred the MOST.

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.

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

You chose what you chose because the reasons for choosing what you chose CAUSED you to prefer that choice the MOST.
At that point in time it was impossible to choose anything else.
Matthew 19: Jesus said:
23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."
Jees, Louise, Rodger! You seem to have strength and power confused! Have you considered 1 Corinthians 1? Your argument would then nullify God's power:
19 For it is written:


“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”[a]

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks[b] foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.
Free will comes from God. Without it, love cannot be real or genuine. (compare 1 John 4) With it, you can overcome the "strongest, mightiest influence." It put's the "strongest, mightiest" influence to shame. That's the power of free will, given by God.

Continuing on with 1 Corinthians 1:
30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
 
Free will comes from God. Without it, love cannot be real or genuine. (compare 1 John 4) With it, you can overcome the "strongest, mightiest influence." It put's the "strongest, mightiest" influence to shame. That's the power of free will, given by God.

"WILL" comes from God.
There is no such a thing as "free" will

See Martin Luther's
THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL
The Bondage of the Will
in which he concludes
"there can be no "Free-will"—in man,—in angel,—or in any creature!"

"Real, genuine love" will conquer all wills and sooner or later will ellicit a loving response from everyone.

THE POWER OF GOD'S LOVE
God is Love: God Is Love! The Power of God's Love; Love Your Enemies! Knowing The Real Jesus

It is LOVE, not "free" will, that puts the strongest, mightiest, negative influences to shame.
THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS "FREE" WILL.
FREE MORAL AGENCY? - A.P. ADAMS
http://thegloryrd.com/apadams/moral.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top