There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

[rodgertutt]

We are governed by our reasonings which CAUSE us to choose the choice that we prefer to choose the MOST.
We cannot choose anything else.

Our "decisions" are made in response to the reasonings that cause us to "desire" one choice instead of another.

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."

 

[rodgertutt]

Yet another link explaining why I reject the concept of "free" will.

HIS ACHIEVEMENT ARE WE
Concordant Expositions (html format) - His Achievement Are We
The introduction at the beginning of each chapter is not the chapter itself. You must click on the highlighted title of each chapter to bring up the entire chapter to read it.

 

[shawn]

[youtube]5P6UU6m3cqk[/youtube]
YouTube - Hahaha

 

[rodgertutt]

the influences toward the other choice were actually stronger, objectively speaking, but the actual choice was to reject them anyway. QUOTE]

Though we do what we want, according to our own choice, and therefore act voluntarily, we cannot always want what we want. That is, we cannot truly want, in a decisive sense, what we want, simply in an abstract sense, so long as there are other things that we want more, in a decisive sense, than we want the ideals for which we abstractly long.

The fact that the choice was chosen demonstrates that ONLY what was actually chosen was the choice that was preferred the MOST.
No one can choose what they do not prefer the MOST.

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

 

[rodgertutt]

"Free" will is an illusion.

Causality has always been true.

Choices never get made for no reason, even if the only reason is to commit ourself to a random choice, like flipping a coin.

It is the reason that we prefer one choice over another that causes us to make that choice.

It is not possible to have made any other choice but the one we deemed MOST preferable to make at that split-second in time.
A second before, or a second after, there may have been a reason why we would not make that choice due to considerations that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
But at that split-second in time, when we actually did make the choice, it was the ONLY possible choice we could have made.

Here is how James Coram puts it:
"In any certain moment, either we have a given preference (and consequently effect a corresponding choice and action) or we do not.

We cannot have a new preference while our old preference still exists.
Nor can we make a new choice while we still have an old preference.
For the act of choosing is merely the exercise of existing preference.

One cannot prefer what is not yet preferable.
Yet when it becomes preferable it is preferred."

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

 

[shawn]

If you had anything new to add this may be interesting to discuss, but just repeating the same statements over and over again is not a discussion and is not going to garner any respect.
Don't you realize how much that turns people away from anything you are saying?

 

[rodgertutt]

If you had anything new to add this may be interesting to discuss,

Like I keep saying, people should find out what "works" for them and stick with that, instead of what I believe.
Having said that, I would like to repeat,

"Will" exists, but "free" will does not exist.

Facts are stubborn things. They just sit there in all of their apparant irrefutableness, unchanged, and unchangeable, bugging the heck out of "free-willers."

After all of the arguments have been exhausted about not being a "robot," and caused choices supposedly having "no moral value," it will still remain true that every choice we ever made was the ONLY choice we could have made at that particular split second in time, because we made it in response to the reasons why we determined that we preferred that choice the MOST.

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

but just repeating the same statements over and over again is not a discussion and is not going to garner any respect.

I'm not iterested in "respect."
Instead, I'm interested in sharing why I believe in theistic determinism rather than "free" will.
From a universalist Christian point of view, the following is an excellent exposition on the subject.
HIS ACHIEVEMENT ARE WE
Concordant Expositions (html format) - His Achievement Are We
The introduction at the beginning of each chapter is not the chapter itself. You must click on the blue highlighted title of each chapter to bring up the entire chapter to read it.

Don't you realize how much that turns people away from anything you are saying?

You're kidding, right? People have "hung in there" for dozens of pages of dialog, repeatedly reading my same arguments, but still remaining interested.
Seems like the strongest influence (whatever that may be) is causing them to choose to keep reading this thread.

 

[seattlegal]

It is not possible to have made any other choice but the one we deemed MOST preferable to make at that split-second in time.

Man who says it cannot be done should not argue with woman doing it!

A second before, or a second after, there may have been a reason why we would not make that choice due to considerations that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
But at that split-second in time, when we actually did make the choice, it was the ONLY possible choice we could have made.

We are not just temporal creatures, for God has put eternity in our minds. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

Without that, there could be no prophesy.

Here is how James Coram puts it:
"In any certain moment, either we have a given preference (and consequently effect a corresponding choice and action) or we do not.

We cannot have a new preference while our old preference still exists.

Why not? I do it all the time.

Nor can we make a new choice while we still have an old preference.

I do this all the time, as well.

For the act of choosing is merely the exercise of existing preference.

from Etymology online

intelligence late 14c., "faculty of understanding," from O.Fr. intelligence (12c.), from L. intelligentia "understanding," from intelligentem (nom. intelligens) "discerning," prp. of intelligere "to understand, comprehend," from inter- "between" + legere "choose, pick out, read" (see lecture). Meaning superior understanding, sagacity" is from early 15c. Sense of "information, news" first recorded mid-15c., especially "secret information from spies" (1580s). Intelligence quotient first recorded 1921 (see I.Q.).​

One cannot prefer what is not yet preferable.

I do this all the time, as well.

Yet when it becomes preferable it is preferred."

Not always.

"therefore

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

 

[rodgertutt]

"Free" will is an illusion.

Causality has always been true.

Choices never get made for no reason, even if the only reason is to commit ourself to a random choice, like flipping a coin.

It is the reason that we prefer one choice over another that causes us to make that choice.

It is not possible to have made any other choice but the one we deemed MOST preferable to make at that split-second in time.
A second before, or a second after, there may have been a reason why we would not make that choice due to considerations that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
But at that split-second in time, when we actually did make the choice, it was the ONLY possible choice we could have made.

Here is how James Coram puts it:
"In any certain moment, either we have a given preference (and consequently effect a corresponding choice and action) or we do not.

We cannot have a new preference while our old preference still exists.
Nor can we make a new choice while we still have an old preference.
For the act of choosing is merely the exercise of existing preference.

One cannot prefer what is not yet preferable.
Yet when it becomes preferable it is preferred."

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

 

[rodgertutt]

One cannot prefer what is not yet preferable.

Why not? I do it all the time.

No you don't.

The fact that you actually chose it shows that you did prefer it at least slightly more than something else.

No one can prefer anything which is contrary to their preference, any more than they can love what they hate. One may well lie to others concerning their preferences, but they can never truly choose what they reject in their heart.

 

[idiot]

Many many years ago I lost my way in the desert,
After three days of wandering I finally arrived an oasis,
I was so tired so I jumped off my camel and entered the first tent for a sweet long sleep.

When I woke up I sadly found out that my camel is gone

I wandered around the oasis in search of my lost camel till I reached the oasis sheikh,

"Hey idiot" he called, "what is wrong"?
I explained the situation and in reply sheikh said "oh how sad for you my friend"

Well, I said, this is GOD'S WILL

"Yes you are right", said sheikh, "but idiot my friend", you could of tied your camel to a tree…

Bless you all

 

[idiot]

Many many years ago I lost my way in the desert,
After three days of wandering I finally arrived an oasis,
I was so tired so I jumped off my camel and entered the first tent for a sweet long sleep.

When I woke up I sadly found out that my camel is gone

I wandered around the oasis in search of my lost camel till I reached the oasis sheikh,

"Hey idiot" he called, "what is wrong"?
I explained the situation and in reply sheikh said "oh how sad for you my friend"

Well, I said, this is GOD'S WILL

"Yes you are right", said sheikh, "but idiot my friend", you could of tied your camel to a tree…

Bless you all

 

[rodgertutt]

Many many years ago I lost my way in the desert,
After three days of wandering I finally arrived an oasis,
I was so tired so I jumped off my camel and entered the first tent for a sweet long sleep.
When I woke up I sadly found out that my camel is gone
I wandered around the oasis in search of my lost camel till I reached the oasis sheikh,
"Hey idiot" he called, "what is wrong"?
I explained the situation and in reply sheikh said "oh how sad for you my friend"
Well, I said, this is GOD'S WILL
"Yes you are right", said sheikh, "but idiot my friend", you could of tied your camel to a tree…
Bless you all

It is true that it is hypothetically possible that you could have tied your camel to a tree. But because you did not actually do it, that demonstrates the fact that the strongest influence CAUSING your failure to do so was your bad memory.

Not only was there no "free" will involved (since there is no such a thing).
There was not even a "will" involved, since the thought of tying up the camel did not even enter your mind.

It was "God's will" that at that particular point in time you had a bad memory.
However, it is also "God's will" that you probably learned to remember to tie up your camel in the future.

 

[seattlegal]

One cannot prefer what is not yet preferable.



No you don't.

Are you calling me a liar?

The fact that you actually chose it shows that you did prefer it at least slightly more than something else.

Actually, no, because I am imperfect, and do not always operate according to specifications.

No one can prefer anything which is contrary to their preference,

This is a self-referring argument

any more than they can love what they hate.

Pfft! Talk to any battered woman about that!

One may well lie to others concerning their preferences, but they can never truly choose what they reject in their heart.

Um, yes they can, because we are imperfect.

 

[rodgertutt]

"Free" will is an illusion.

Causality has always been true.

Choices never get made for no reason, even if the only reason is to commit ourself to a random choice, like flipping a coin.

It is the reason that we prefer one choice over another that causes us to make that choice.

It is not possible to have made any other choice but the one we deemed MOST preferable to make at that split-second in time.
A second before, or a second after, there may have been a reason why we would not make that choice due to considerations that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
But at that split-second in time, when we actually did make the choice, it was the ONLY possible choice we could have made.

Here is how James Coram puts it:
"In any certain moment, either we have a given preference (and consequently effect a corresponding choice and action) or we do not.

We cannot have a new preference while our old preference still exists.
Nor can we make a new choice while we still have an old preference.
For the act of choosing is merely the exercise of existing preference.

One cannot prefer what is not yet preferable.
Yet when it becomes preferable it is preferred."

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

 

[rodgertutt]

No one can prefer anything which is contrary to their preference, any more than they can love what they hate.

Pfft! Talk to any battered woman about that!

They hate the battering, but love the man.

We ALWAYS actually choose what we prefer the MOST.
When faced with a choice that needs to be made is impossible not to choose what we prefer the MOST.

We may claim that we preferred something else more.
But the fact that we actually chose what we did choose PROVES that we were lying.

 

[rodgertutt]

KEEPING MY BASIC ARGUMENTS ON THE CURRENT PAGE

"Free" will is an illusion.

Causality has always been true.

Choices never get made for no reason, even if the only reason is to commit ourself to a random choice, like flipping a coin.

It is the reason that we prefer one choice over another that causes us to make that choice.

It is not possible to have made any other choice but the one we deemed MOST preferable to make at that split-second in time.
A second before, or a second after, there may have been a reason why we would not make that choice due to considerations that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
But at that split-second in time, when we actually did make the choice, it was the ONLY possible choice we could have made.

Here is how James Coram puts it:
"In any certain moment, either we have a given preference (and consequently effect a corresponding choice and action) or we do not.

We cannot have a new preference while our old preference still exists.
Nor can we make a new choice while we still have an old preference.
For the act of choosing is merely the exercise of existing preference.

One cannot prefer what is not yet preferable.
Yet when it becomes preferable it is preferred."

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

 

[seattlegal]

KEEPING MY BASIC ARGUMENTS ON THE CURRENT PAGE

"Free" will is an illusion.

Causality has always been true.

Alright, what caused God?

Free-will is a gift from God.

Choices never get made for no reason, even if the only reason is to commit ourself to a random choice, like flipping a coin.

It is the reason that we prefer one choice over another that causes us to make that choice.

It is not possible to have made any other choice but the one we deemed MOST preferable to make at that split-second in time.
A second before, or a second after, there may have been a reason why we would not make that choice due to considerations that were non-existent when we actually did make the choice.
But at that split-second in time, when we actually did make the choice, it was the ONLY possible choice we could have made.

Here is how James Coram puts it:
"In any certain moment, either we have a given preference (and consequently effect a corresponding choice and action) or we do not.

We cannot have a new preference while our old preference still exists.
Nor can we make a new choice while we still have an old preference.
For the act of choosing is merely the exercise of existing preference.

One cannot prefer what is not yet preferable.
Yet when it becomes preferable it is preferred."

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

How do you explain random, spontaneous acts?

 

[juantoo3]

If I say "automobile," I think most people would understand I mean a four-wheeled vehicle. If I say "auto" I think most people would understand I mean *exactly* the same thing.

You are trying to build a house of cards upon an attempt to distinguish "free-will" from "will." The two are exactly the same. If will is not free, it is not will.

Noun

* S: (n) volition, will (the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention) "the exercise of their volition we construe as revolt"- George Meredith
* S: (n) will (a fixed and persistent intent or purpose) "where there's a will there's a way"

Verb

* S: (v) will (decree or ordain) "God wills our existence"
* S: (v) will (determine by choice) "This action was willed and intended"

Noun

* S: (n) free will, discretion (the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies)

Rather extensive discussion of free will across various Christian denoms here:
Free will in theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And with which I find myself in disagreement with quite a bit of. Suggesting humanity has no will of their own goes against everything I read in the Bible.

 

[bob x]

Well, he has some ideology that the "preferences" always exist at least a split-second before the "choosing", where I say, a thing can become "preferred" by the act of choosing, although it wasn't before: that is, I do understand what rodger is saying but I disagree with it.