bob x
Well-Known Member
The reasons were not the cause: their free choice to deem them strong reasons was the cause. The reasons have no power to compel; only the will does.
There is no such thing as 'Free Will'
- Thread starter Azure24
- Start date
R
rodgertutt
Guest
The final decision to choose one thing over another is CAUSED by our reasonings that convince us that is the choice that we want the MOST.
The reasons were the cause.
We "deem them the strongest" simply because they ARE, not because we "choose" them to be. I don't choose to believe the evidence that convinces me that the sun has risen. It just does convince me by the sun being there on the horizon.
The reasons have ALL the power to compel our choice.
Our will can only choose what our reasons for choosing convince it that it prefers that choice the MOST.
The will is caused to choose by the power of the reasons that convince us that the choice is the one that we prefer the MOST.
"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."
Last edited by a moderator:
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Once again rodger describes free will, yet denies that is what he is describing.
In rodger's world, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it can't possibly be a duck.
R
rodgertutt
Guest
Our will is only "free" to choose what we want the MOST.
Every choice we ever made was the ONLY choice we could have made because it was what we determined we wanted the MOST at that split-second in time.
A few seconds before, or a few seconds afterwards we might have chosen differently because there might have been different influences to do so.
Your will was not "free" to prevent yourself from choosing what your reasons persuaded you that you wanted to choose the MOST.
That was the only choice you could have made at that point in time.
"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."
Bertrand_Russell
Well-Known Member
Hi Rodger, if I understand your hypothesis, you are saying that the universe is fully deterministic ? In other words any action can have one and only one reaction. Is that your point ?
-Bert
R
rodgertutt
Guest
Hi Bert,
IMO everything HAS to happen the way that it does including all of our efforts to assist it, or prevent it, from happening.
From a universalist Christian point of view, here is an explanation of why I conclude that is true.
CHOOSING WHAT IS CHOICE
biblical studies: His Achievement Are We - Part 9 - Choosing What Is Choice
Theologically we call it God's DECRETIVE will, which is that which MUST occur, contrasted with God's PRECEPTIVE (not perceptive) will which is want we OUGHT to do, e.g. THE GOLDEN RULE.
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.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
http://thegloryrd.com:80/apadams/evil.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Bertrand_Russell
Well-Known Member
Hi Rodger, if I understand your deterministic ideas they are very much in agreement with those of Sir Isaac Newton, would you say that he is one of the sources of your inspiration ?
Thanks, Bert
R
rodgertutt
Guest
Interesting that Newton thought like that too.
I know a bit about fig newtons (like em)
Don't know much about Sir Isaac though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bertrand_Russell
Well-Known Member
Interesting that Newton thought like that too.
I know a bit about fig newtons (like em)
Don't know much about Sir Isaac though.
Hi Rodger, I was guessing you are a follower of Isaac Newton is because he was a determinist. Of course, he lived from 1643 - 1727 so some of his ideas might a be a little bit "old fashioned".
On the other hand, Werner Heisenberg (1901- 1976) proved that strict determinism is not possible, which is known as the "Uncertainty Principle" hence your view of the world is incorrect.
Enjoy the fig newtons
O} -Bert
R
rodgertutt
Guest
Hi Rodger, I was guessing you are a follower of Isaac Newton is because he was a determinist. Of course, he lived from 1643 - 1727 so some of his ideas might a be a little bit "old fashioned".
On the other hand, Werner Heisenberg (1901- 1976) proved that strict determinism is not possible, which is known as the "Uncertainty Principle" hence your view of the world is incorrect.
Enjoy the fig newtons
Methinks "proved" is an unprovable opinion.
I think this proves the "uncertainty principle" is uncertain, so far as the human will is concerned.
biblical studies: His Achievement Are We - Part 16 - Choice and Deity
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
R
rodgertutt
Guest
If only you gave your opinion the same consideration.
I don't think I ever said my opinion is "provable" did I?"
I'm sure you will quickly correct and quote me if I did.
What I, for sure, did say though is
Every choice we ever made was the only choice we could have made because we chose what we preferred the MOST at that particluar split second in time.
A few seconds before, or a few seconds afterwards, we may have chosen something else due to influences that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hi Rodger, I was guessing you are a follower of Isaac Newton is because he was a determinist. Of course, he lived from 1643 - 1727 so some of his ideas might a be a little bit "old fashioned".
On the other hand, Werner Heisenberg (1901- 1976) proved that strict determinism is not possible, which is known as the "Uncertainty Principle" hence your view of the world is incorrect.
Enjoy the fig newtons
-Bert
Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, is God observing everything, or does God enjoy surprises sometimes and let us do the observing?
R
rodgertutt
Guest
God is never surprised.
He is omnicient (all-knowing).
“ALL is of God”
2Corinthians 5:18
“God works ALL things according to the counsel of His own will”
Ephesians 1:11
No one has ever made a choice without a reason, even if that reason was only to choose randomly, e.g. flipping a coin.
The reason was the influence that CAUSED us to choose what we did choose.
At that particular split-second in time that was the ONLY choice we could have made based on the reason why we preferred that choice the MOST.
So 'He' feigns surprise for dramatic effect?
Where are you....seems 'He' didn't know.
We hid....'Seems they didn't know about 'His' omniscience'
And it all implies that 'He' didn't know they would eat from the tree.
Now for me this doesn't prove or disprove free will or omnicience. It simply shows that this is a story, a creation myth, a metaphor, an allegory. It doesn't indicate there is a 'garden' where spirit 'walked' and 'called' and 'looked' these are all anthropomorphizing G!d in man's image...
R
rodgertutt
Guest
No, God didn't feign surprise. He was simply prompting a response from him. He knew where Adam was. God knows everything all of the time.
It was God's intention that Adam and Eve would disobey.
God introduced evil and suffering on purpose.
He was not caught off-guard.
The end result will be better for everyone that evil and suffering temporarily prevailed.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
evil.html
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marsh
Disagreeable By Nature
Ahh, but I did BOTH, Rodger. I said I was going to do it, and then I decided not to.
How does this disprove your ideas? It's simple:
People's actions derive from their thoughts.
So too do their words.
If our actions are defined at any moment in time by the greatest influence upon us at the time, then so too should our words, as words and actions are both rooted in the intent that comes out of our minds. As you have said, "Your will is only "free" to do what you want to do the MOST. And what you actually do, (or do not do), demonstrates what you wanted to do the MOST."
And yet, at the same moment in time, I decided to say something, but not to do it. The intent, as it became manifested, was not to go to Toronto (only a 5 hour drive). BUT IN THE MOMENT IN WHICH THAT ULTIMATE INTENT WAS FORMED, I claimed that I was going to do something else.
But according to your way of thinking, THE GREATEST CAUSE should have prevailed upon both my words and my actions.
Yet, I said one thing, and did another.
Therefore, everything you have said about free will is, quite demonstratively, rubbish.
Now, of course I can't demonstrate that this is true in everybody's life; just in my own. But I'm quite satisfied.
Now, as for proving that you are a fool... of course, since I can't use a personal experience to demonstrate this for everybody (just myself), I unfortunately can't prove that you are a fool to anybody who has never said one thing and done another.
So for all of you people who have never told a lie or broken an agreement, Rodger Tutt is definitely not a fool.
By the way, sorry for the late reply.
R
rodgertutt
Guest
When you later "decided not to," that decision superceeded your first decision. The reason you changed your mind was the strongest influence that CAUSED your second decision.
Every choice we ever made was the only choice we could have made because we chose what we preferred the MOST at that particluar split second in time.
A few seconds before, or a few seconds afterwards, we may have chosen something else due to influences that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
No one has ever made a choice without a reason, even if that reason was only to choose randomly, e.g. flipping a coin.
The reason was the influence that CAUSED us to choose what we did choose.
At that particular split-second in time that was the ONLY choice we could have made based on the reason why we preferred that choice the MOST.
"therefore contrary choice or “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
It makes me think that your God is a sadist. If he intended for Adam and Eve to suffer then He also intended that every creature on Earth be wiped out in the flood. Why create something with the intent to destroy it?
You've said that you think people who teach eternal Hell are despicable (my word) yet you teach that God intentionally makes mankind suffer and intentionally destroyed every creeping thing that creeps upon the Earth. So it's difficult for me to see your perspective as anything but manipulative and despicable as well.
Perhaps you could clear this up for me... but I doubt it.
R
rodgertutt
Guest
They were not spiritually "wiped out."
Their learning process will continue in the afterlife.
JUST WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE WORD DESTRUCTION? | Hell Fact or Fable
Noah and his kin had their own learning process that would involve their continued experiences here on this earth.
God never allows any suffering for anyone that He does not intend to transform into something better that it happened.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
evil.html
When everyone look back from the perspective of the consummation of God's plan for the ages of time
BIBLICAL CHART OF GOD’S PLAN FOR THE AGES OF TIME
The eons of the Bible With Concordance, God’s purpose of the eons.
everyone will then agree that it was better for everyone that everything happened the way that it did, better than if it had not happened that way.
The only mistake I am probably making is that I am probably grossly underestimating just how gloriously God will achieve this universal transformation for everyone.
THE RESTITUTION OF ALL
The Restitution of All Things: There Is One God; The Lord Our God Is One; All Things Created By God; All Things Created In Christ; All Things Out Of Him; The Unfragmented One; All Things Through Him; All Things Into Him; Restitution
ESPECIALLY READ THE VERY LAST PARAGRAPH IN THAT LINK.
This all, of course, is from a universalist Christian point of view.
Last edited by a moderator: