Free Will (An Illusion?) Revisited

[juantoo3]

Do you believe there is absolutely no affect of parental influence that cannot be reversed consciously?

Whoa…time out. That is not what I said, and I see you attempting to tag me with it repeatedly.

In what sense? Can we change the color of our hair or eyes? No, unless with hair dye or colored contact lenses, but that is temporary. The color of our hair and our eyes is genetic…it comes from our parents. However, even our genes do not determine our thoughts and behavior. There is a fantastic program done to answer this and related questions, done by PBS some years ago, it is called “Our Genes, Our Choices.” I highly recommend looking it up, last I checked it was still available about 6 months ago at the PBS online site.

Now, as to what extra-genetic influences our parents provide, I presume you are speaking of attitudes, prejudices, opinions, and general ways of thinking. I agree…when we are a young blank slate and effectively have no other source of input, then that parental programming serves as a master program from which we develop our character and personality, and to these things we will probably reference consciously or unconsciously for the rest of our lives. But you are speaking absolutes…as though every one of these foundational inputs is inviolable. That is simply not the case.

A person does not need to rewrite every parental program in order to exercise self-direction…they only need to have the *option* to rewrite even just one of those parental programs. Just one rewrite undoes the concept of absolute inviolable determinism. And it is frequent that a person will rebel against some of their parental programming at a later date once more input from other valued sources comes into play. I believe you mentioned teenage rebellion? That is one cultural expression of the self-directed challenge to the inviolability of the parental programming. By the time we are mature adults we have a library from which to draw and compare…and decide from and choose which to use to filter our character and personality (or ego and superego, if you prefer).

I speak English, and I've got an understanding of the logical basis for my argument.

Whew! For a bit there I was concerned I might not be qualified to speak to this matter…especially if a PhD / MD who was the head honcho for the Genome Mapping Project isn’t qualified to speak to issues concerning genetics and “deterministic” influence on thoughts and behavior. That is why I referenced him, so that his words could speak for themselves.

This isn't a courtroom and we aren't trying to establish the existence of something tangible. There can be no evidence presented in support of a logic-based philosophical assertion.

Then I guess your understanding of logic is different from mine. I understand the elemental syllogism to be [+a +b = +c; therefore –a +b does not = +c, and +a -b does not = +c]. Logic is not only a method to prove and validate an argument, it also provides a manner in which to invalidate it. Therefore a philosophical assertion, like any other assertion, should be able to be proven *and* disproven in order to rightly be called “logical.” In effect, all philosophical arguments attempting to assert a basis in logic must of necessity be tried in the court of public opinion. What is more, that trial demands evidence.

Otherwise that philosophy is not logical, is invalid and unsubstantiated, and effectively is no more than opinion, supposition, smoke and vapor and wishful thinking. Nothing more. Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but a simple look at a wiki on logic will support what I am saying.

As a concept understood and expressed by humans, yes. As an objective reality? Not really. Not as itself. Does hate exist? Yes, hate is, say, a pattern of human thought/behavior, thoroughly real as far as human understanding, but hate as a concept is not something tangible and measurable. So too is love. An umbrella term for a number of subjective, human realities. Do you disagree?

Now we get to start blending our previous posts. You said that an oil slick is evidence of motor oil, and circumstantially I agree. I find plenty of circumstantial evidence for love, and not only limited to humans.

For one, there is the recorded chemical activity in the human brain…I believe seratonin is the chemical, and it is an ingredient in chocolate. Funny how atheists readily point to seratonin to support their arguments that love is merely the effect of chemicals in the brain…at least until they learn that the exact same chemical is implicated in the “G-d process” of the brain as well. I would be happy to point to studies in brain chemistry that support my comments about seratonin, love and G-d.

While emotions in general *are* philosophically challenging…such as your assertions about hate and war…nevertheless emotions exist and there is a distinct chemical process that occurs in the brain, and not just human brains. The philosophical quandary though in this matter is; which came first? The chemical or the emotion? Does the sun rise because the rooster crows? I can reference logical fallacies if need be.

Social animals such as apes and monkeys do exhibit various emotions. Before it is raised, I am aware of the trap of anthropomorphization, the desire to see human behavior in other creatures. It is a valid concern. But anyone who has ever spent any time at all studying social animals, even beyond apes to others such as wolves or deer, cannot help but come away with the impression that there are certain emotions that convey back and forth between individuals. The best examples are the mother-child connection. I will be happy to share references to this as well if it would be appreciated.

So the emotive responses certainly leave an oil slick behind, which indicates that there is indeed some objective reality to emotions. And love is metaphysically the most potent emotive response traditionally, therapeutically and mythologically. Care for examples?

Edit to add: if occurs to me now that in so building my premise I have lost my train of thought as to how love impinges on determinism...but it will come to me. Ah yes! I remember now...love cannot exist in a deterministic environment, it must be able to be freely given and freely received, otherwise it is not love. And since love exists, as indicated by the circumstantial evidence above, a deterministic environment must not. How's that for a logical sylligism?

 

[juantoo3]

I haven't understood you to have put forward anything I'd think of as 'evidence' to the effect of "Free will exists because..." that is the discussion, isn't it? Does free will exist, or is it an illusion? I don't believe you [can] give evidence for such a thing, as morality among human or animal populations is evidence only of the illusion of choice, not of its objective reality. You can establish that free will exists, but you can't establish, with evidence, that it is more than an illusion exhibited by humans/animals.

I wonder if you may be pulling my leg? Have you read the entire *thread* in which others and myself explored the development of morality in evolution? The thread is called, strange enough, “Morality in Evolution.”

Free will has been demonstrated by the ability of any given individual to change the course they find themselves on. It is never instantaneous, it is never a total change…it doesn’t have to be…to upset the deterministic apple cart. A mighty ship is steered by a tiny tiller. If the content of our character is the ship, self-direction is the tiller, and the least little change in course dries up the sea of determinism.

Now, I suppose you could continue saying something along the lines of “yeah, but how do you know that the change of course wasn’t predetermined?” I suppose I don’t. Conversely, I have seen nothing from you, or anywhere for that matter, to indicate otherwise. Only empty and hollow supposition without even circumstantial evidence of an oil slick on the pond…

Just as the objective reality of your existence, yes? Because I am an ego with only true assurance that exist, if you as a thinking agent also exist there should be abundant evidence for that as well, yes? No. Any evidence that you exist as a thinking conscious in and of yourself can be presented only as evidence of a pattern of clues suggesting a conscious entity. Without experience of you, I can't know if you, or anyone beside myself really exist(s). Not everything that is objectively real (i.e. consciousnesses besides ones own) can be proved to be such with evidence.

But again I come back to my crude but definitive example to wake one from the reality as illusion dream; all it takes is a punch in the nose. If that punch is illusory, then the nose won’t bleed, will it?

That is another problem with the absolutist position; One doesn’t need to experience all 6 billion other people on the planet to realize there are other egoistic entities objectively walking the planet. One *only* needs to experience one other ego…mom...to realize that other egos exist. Most of us have the benefit of a dad and / or siblings. And then we experience the egos of our mates, and then our own children…and the infinite thread of humanity carries on…egos touching egos.

Dunno, seems pretty objective to me.

The ability to choose to "steer the wheel" would be another choice subject to this argument. If I don't have the freedom to decide whether or not I will do something, I don't have free will.

But you *do* have that freedom. The evidence is all around, it is historic, it is cultural, it is physics, it is metaphysical.

You perceive yourself as exerting voluntary influence on your world (including your mind), but for it to be true voluntary you'd have to have the freedom, at every and any moment, to do something else.

There’s your absolutist arguments again…for one, no it does not *have to be* “at every and any moment,” it can as easily be at any moment, period. What is more, a person is free “to do something else” at any time they so choose. It may not be practical, it may cost them friendships, divorce, sanity or any of a list of other related and tangential outcomes, but the simple fact is that we *can* so choose to stop driving the car we are in at any moment on the freeway, get out and take a walk in the woods and never come back. We tend to think of such people as crazy or insane, but it is a *possibility.* With determinism, such is not possible.

That is extreme, but even sane people make “insane” decisions on a frequent basis. I have already pointed to this previously, if you prefer references I will be happy to provide them. It is said that even the most sane people are not 100% sane, that we are all just a bit crazy, some more so than others.

The falling marbles would have to be able to not do what the pattern said they would. A physical pattern in the universe interacts with a mental pattern within you to produce predictably* every choice you will ever make. One can "steer the wheel" as one can do anything else, but one cannot choose to not steer the wheel if the interaction between their mental pattern and the physical pattern of the world demands that they do.

Sure one can choose not to steer anymore…the results might be disasterous, but that is *a* possible choice. An alzheimer’s patient doesn’t have much choice but to surrender that control…but that is an abnormal condition brought on by a disease process. One can choose to steer into a brick wall, which would be suicidal…but it *is* a possible choice.

Even playing your marble game, which demands simplicity to illustrate as we both agree the number of factors involved are too many to keep track of, and bearing in mind that a marble game may not be an accurate representation of the complexity involved, but it will serve to illustrate for the moment. The first marble is struck and sent on its way; it had no “say” in the matter of how it would be struck and thereby which direction it would careen. To this much I agree; there are factors surrounding our present moment over which we have no control. Now, that marble Theorhetically (purposeful spelling) *could* travel in an infinite variety of directions, particularly if not limited to a two dimensional plane. Practically however, the marble is limited to 180 degrees on a plane for two reasons; the limitations of illustration, and more importantly the source and direction of the instigating impact. A glancing blow may send the marble nearly perpendicular to the source of impact, whereas a direct hit would send it in the same direction as the source was headed. (And in the grand style of Newtonian physics we also have the equal but opposite reaction…) And that marble careens into another marble that careens into another marble until all the energy is spent…and what one ends up with is chaos. Or more properly (and illustrated by Mandelbrot, previous reference…) controlled chaos with defined parameters. A marble obviously will not travel back at the source impact without first being struck probably a few more times to route it back in the opposite direction.

Is light a beam, a particle or a wave?

The first major flaw I see with the analogy is that we are not marbles. At best the marbles represent the obstacles and influences that we cannot control. We are more like a mouse standing in the middle of that batch of marbles…and we do have the ability both conscious and unconscious to dodge oncoming marbles. There is a difference between “fate” and “the Fates.” A choice we made last year, or last month, or last week, or yesterday, or a split second ago may allow us to dodge an oncoming marble. Or not. It is just as possible that the choice we made last year or a split second ago may place us in line to be run over by a freight train. That would be an unfortunate choice, but it was still a choice. Maybe Snideley Whiplash tied us to the railroad tracks against our wishes…certainly a possibility. But it was our choices in combination with those influences beyond our control that brought us into contact with ol’ Snideley, unless we were his child with no choice…in which case the parental drive would likely prevent Snideley from tying us to the track…

Who is to blame? The drug addict or the drug peddler? I get the feeling you would say “neither,” they are both playing the roles they were meant to in this illusion of life. Fair enough, unless you are the addict and die of an overdose, or the peddler going to jail for life. Then it is not so abstract.

I feel both are to blame. Granted the peddler makes the drugs available, but he is serving a market, a desire, a choice to use. The user is at least as much to blame, they choose to use and by so choosing become hooked. They *can* choose to become unhooked, but both the choice to use and the choice not to use require continuous effort, neither is an instantaneous thing. A person isn’t an addict one moment and not the next. It doesn’t work that way. At an AA or Narconon meeting you will hear former users say they are still addicts…even if they haven’t used in years. Maybe that’s a psychological crutch with practical application…but I am inclined to think it is just as much about the choices to do without or do with. Want references?

OK, I’m tired at this point, enough for today. The rest will just have to wait.

 

[juantoo3]

If God didn't create people to war, why is war (in one form or another) universally practiced by every culture I can think of? This is a whole 'nother can of worms.

I agree this is a tangent, but there may be some relationship to our discussion. Be that as it may, since war is universally practiced by all of creation, certainly by every creature large enough to eat another creature, I think the intended implication is more than a bit misleading. If G-d created all creatures that evolve, and war is an intrinsic part of evolution; then it seems as though G-d may have indeed created people to war, just as “He” created so many other creatures to war as well. War is not limited to humans, and is properly subject to a broad range of interpretation as to meaning. War is not only waged with bombs and guns…it is also waged with tooth and claw.

A quick look at the warlike behavior of chimpanzees and various monkeys upon others “outside” of their respective clique (yet still within the same breed or species) will confirm my comment, although it should be readily apparent that all animals that eat (including herbivores) must consume other living beings; which can in a more broad interpretation be considered as war.

The nature of an Abrahamic god. God, being all-knowing, created mankind with perfect forknowledge of every choice that every man, woman, and child would ever make. Why would a loving God create a people of which the vast majority would be godless and ineligible for redemption (I'm afraid I'm assuming we're talking in terms of Orthodox Christian theology. Please tell me if your conception of 'G-d' differs.)? Of course he wouldn't.

The nature of an Abrahamic G-d? What nature might that be?

The nature of an Abrahamic G-d is a matter of some discussion and debate all across the Abrahamic traditions…there is no clear “nature” to be appealed to without gross presumption. Therefore it is presumptuous to infer “perfect forknowledge,” as not all Abrahamic traditions agree on this point. A look around this site will confirm my comment.

Which also means the presumption that G-d is “all-knowing” and would “create a people of which the vast majority would be godless and ineligible for redemption” is indeed an assumption, certainly not explicitly shared across even “Orthodox Christian” theology. If it could somehow be proven that in fact G-d does create people with the explicit purpose of using them for firewood for an eternal bonfire regardless of how they conduct their affairs in this existence, and that there is no hope of redemption, repentence, or forgiveness, *then* your hypothesis of determinism could be shown to be valid.

However, and I do draw flak from some of my Christian cohorts for the position I hold, those verses that imply determined creation (such as that in Jeremiah) are written to *specific* individuals, not the collective whole. Once again I invoke the love mandate of free-will, that love requires freedom of gift and receipt to truly be love. Likewise, sin must be a deliberate choice, else there is no place for justice (no wrong would be committed) or for negative karma / hell…all behavior would be acceptably fair game with no adverse repercussion. The knowledge of good and evil from the earliest lessons of Eden would be pointless…there would be no evil, or good, to have knowledge *of.* Further there is the teaching of Paul in Romans 2 that decidedly contradicts the “determined creation” POV that *only* Christians go to heaven…which is why it is seldom referenced, let alone in context, by those denominations that attempt to maintain a “chosen few” attitude.

 

[juantoo3]

What does it mean for love to be real, and what impact would love's reality have on the reality of free will? I'm afraid that while I dismissed it before, I still don't understand the connection you're making.

Already addressed…the short is that love could not exist in a determinist environment. Love exists, therefore a determinist environment must not exist.

Evidence of impact on the environment demonstrates only that from the perspective of the environment something with the effect of motor oil exists. If the environment was a thinking organism reacting in a specific way to what it perceived as motor oil, by observing the reaction of the environment we would know only that the environment perceived motor oil as existing. It would not prove to us that there actually was any motor oil present.

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Evidence…does not prove? Either something is…or it is not, unless we are speaking of Shroedinger’s cat. But I see no need to get into quantum mechanics.

I'm arguing that motor oil does not exist, and further saying that the way the environment reacts to motor oil would not be evidence of the objective reality of motor oil (In this function, you're right, the analogy doesn't work. The environment isn't a thinking entity.).

Even if we don’t fully understand what we are observing, the very fact we are observing indicates that there *is* something. Even if we do not understand what is causing the oil slick, the very presence of an oil slick indicates that there is *something,* something to cause the slick. The implication that morality is an invented byproduct of imagination is a bit of a stretch. I have written a little bit here at IF about the formation of religion and morality in prehistoric humanity…and I haven’t just pulled this stuff off the top of my head. There is extensive research that spans the better part of 100 thousand years showing a comprehensive ethical development in humanity, an ethical development that holds no theoretical basis if there is no fundamental impetus, no reason for being. The implication that “G-d” is strictly a product of imagination is simply not tenable when held to the archeological evidence…it is too widespread and too endemic to be a chance development. We still do not understand what G-d is…but we see the circumstantial evidence of “G-d” all around (and across time and culture), even if there are those who find ways to dismiss that circumstantial evidence by whatever mental acrobatics suit their fancy.

Perhaps I digress, but it is intrinsic to the problem at hand. What purpose would a deterministic environment serve without a G-d to make the determination?

I have addressed the idea of a "change of heart," already. A change of heart is just a complex interaction that we cannot follow consciously. Most aspects of human cognition and reaction are that way, actually. That a man has a change of heart is nothing but that he has a change of heart. If it were his conscious choice to suddenly feel differently, why would anyone allow themselves to feel negatively? Why would there be cowards if it were within a cowards voluntary control to change his feelings?

Nice try.

It is no sin to be a coward…however there are times when it can be a sin (if only figuratively) to remain a coward. But that is an evasion of the point.

By change of heart, I was referring directly to repentence and contrition, and “turning over a new leaf.” For example, if I have stolen, and I have a change of heart and decide it is no longer ethical to steal, and I make amends and steal no more…that is a change of heart. In a determinist environment there is nothing to repent of and no wrong to make right.

If we say that people choose how they are, we have to conclude that people are 'created' differently. Otherwise, why would anyone choose to be different? Eventually, you have to look for a cause, and when you get to the cause you must reconsider your position that we are responsible for who we are, and by extension what we do.

Is it wrong that each person is unique? Fingerprints alone should prove that to anyone who even takes a cursory glance at the statement. What do you mean “people choose how they are?” There are *some* things beyond a person’s control. Yeah, so? There are other things that *are* within a person’s control, and it is those things within a person’s control that refute the determinist argument. So there is no need to reconsider my position that we are responsible for who we are; we are responsible for who we are. There is no need to reconsider that we are responsible for what we do; we are responsible for what we do.

There is an old saying, I wish I knew to give credit:

What we are is G-d’s gift to us.
What we do with ourselves is our gift to G-d.

Objective reality: A choice is an interaction between a person and a situation. Objective reality: We can't control all of the situations that come upon us. Objective reality: We cannot fully control who we are at a given moment. Therefore: at a moment of choice, in a situation one does not control, with a personality, frame of reference, set of schemas, etc. etc. etc. one does not immediately control, one is making a choice over which ones does not exercise voluntary control.

But you are playing loose with the term “objective reality.”

First, I am of the opinion that we cannot fully know objective reality…so the truth of the matter is that this is all your (and my) *subjective* POV on the matter.

Now, taking you at your word, I can for the moment go along with your first “objective reality:” I can see how a choice can be considered an interaction between a person and a situation.

I can see your second “objective reality:” we can’t control *all* of the situations that come upon us…however, we *do* control some aspects of some situations that come upon us, and this portion of the objective reality you are deliberately dismissing out of hand as if it has no bearing on the situation. We do not need to control all aspects, we only need to control some aspects, and we do.

And while I tentatively agree we cannot *fully* control who we are at a given moment, the fact that we *can* control *some* of what we are at a given moment is being overlooked. And since we do have some control over certain aspects of some situations, particularly those aspects that impinge upon our character and personality; the conclusion “one is making a choice over which ones does not exercise voluntary control” is not accurate and does not support a determinist argument.

So the selective interpretation of the facts in order to support the thesis of determinism is far from objective, far from determined and far from being an accurate assessment of the situation. To come to that conclusion demands turning a blind eye to the degree of control that can be and is exercised by the typical person.

 

[jyanez]

Hello, jyanez.

Thank you for your post.

While I do agree with you that being able to explain something in as few words as possible is a very encouraging sign, it is also a sign that is frequently ignored and abused.

The discussion between Q2008 and myself has gone beyond simplicity and now demands nuance...sorry if that discourages you. But that's the way some discussions go.

Hello,

Remember we want to keep track of your ideas! This discussion is still very interesting.

Regards,

 

[jyanez]

I think my answer would be:

"Free will" an illusion? No, since it's not a false idea, I do have free will to write this.

However, we're not "Almighty", therefore we have no absolute control of everything, we can only make choices to create new, better and suitable situations, but this idea doesn't wipe out "free will" only wipes out "Almightiness" which is Ok.

I think many of the disagreements stems from the fact that we always use to think persons only "think" with their head, and the brain is a box which contains a software called "mind" inside, which in turn is what we are.

And that is ultimately wrong, brain is a tool designed to understand all the signs inside and outside the organism in order to transform that into ideas, colors, sounds, movements, etc.

A better idea is that we think with all our organism, because we're all connected, therefore free will is not contained in our heads, actually is not contained anywhere is an expression that flows from within every living creature, from every cell making sense to our existances and what we call "us".

As conclusion and in my opinion, free will is not an illusion, I'd add "Free will is the gift that enables us as living creatures to be taken in a future or present consideration, according to our behaviour, as sons of God, and I'd say the more free will you're given as individual the higher the price/payback."

 

[juantoo3]

Remember we want to keep track of your ideas! This discussion is still very interesting.

Thank you kindly.

A better idea is that we think with all our organism, because we're all connected, therefore free will is not contained in our heads, actually is not contained anywhere is an expression that flows from within every living creature, from every cell making sense to our existances and what we call "us".

You have some interesting ideas.

I have seen reference to everything being tied together in some ethereal manner, usually in the context of quantum physics...spooky action at a distance and that sort of thing. The trouble I see here is that if free will is not contained, then it would actually seem to support the determinist POV. We would inevitably be no more than puppets on strings, which defeats the purpose of free will.

As conclusion and in my opinion, free will is not an illusion, I'd add "Free will is the gift that enables us as living creatures to be taken in a future or present consideration, according to our behaviour, as sons of God, and I'd say the more free will you're given as individual the higher the price/payback."

I agree there's a trade off to free will...responsibility. But with that responsibility comes the potential for great reward, or great failure, and a wide scope of possibilities in between.

 

[jyanez]

Thank you kindly.

The trouble I see here is that if free will is not contained, then it would actually seem to support the determinist POV. We would inevitably be no more than puppets on strings, which defeats the purpose of free will.

I agree with you, and I must say that your "puppets on strings idea" could perfectly match my first statement.

However, the way I see life is that we're like trees, some trees drop good fruits others grow with thorns, and when we're gone, like in a harvest day, every good tree will be recognized by its fruits and be considered worthy by the sower.

So while it's true that many things play a important role in "decision making" in the end, that inner sap we all carry inside since we're born will give shape to everything we are, when that shape is complete the true nature of such sap will be finally visible as well.

So while we might seem to have a preset behaviour, the nature within us has not been preset, so while "free-will" seems an illusion, what we are is not.

I hope that completes better my idea on free will.

 

[juantoo3]

the way I see life is that we're like trees, some trees drop good fruits others grow with thorns, and when we're gone, like in a harvest day, every good tree will be recognized by its fruits and be considered worthy by the sower.

So while it's true that many things play a important role in "decision making" in the end, that inner sap we all carry inside since we're born will give shape to everything we are, when that shape is complete the true nature of such sap will be finally visible as well.

So while we might seem to have a preset behaviour, the nature within us has not been preset, so while "free-will" seems an illusion, what we are is not.

I hope that completes better my idea on free will.

That's OK, "the tree will be known by its fruit" analogy is not lost on me. Yet Jesus also said that the wild vines can be grafted in, and that unproductive vines (even though they are native born and bred) can be pruned away.

From where I stand I see limitation to the analogy. Inasfar as it *will* go, it must be understood that the vine has some self-directed determination over the kind of fruit that will be produced...if the vine (or tree) is meant to imply a particular individual. Now, if the vine or tree symbolically represents our earnest and ethical endeavors, then we as husbandmen and gardeners have control over the fertilizing and weeding and watering, to make the tree or vine produce the best it can (or not, or somewhere in between). I think the parable of the talents illustrates this even better.

 

[winner08]

Free will the ability to choose without any cause. what I mean by that is if something causes or influences our choices then it is not free. In every choice we make in life there will be something or someone that has made us choose that way. Cause and effect. Our circumstances will always dictate our choices which mean our will is not free. There's no free if something causes our choice. God is in control of all things. God controls all our circumstances in life and we choose the only way we can it that circumstance. Can anybody give me a choice someone made without a reason behind it. So if there is always a reason behind the choice then that reason made you choose the way you did. If so it is not Free. Free will to will without cause. Can't be done.

PS yall most likley didn't even notice I was gone. But I missed you guys.

 

[jyanez]

That's OK, "the tree will be known by its fruit" analogy is not lost on me. Yet Jesus also said that the wild vines can be grafted in, and that unproductive vines (even though they are native born and bred) can be pruned away.

From where I stand I see limitation to the analogy. Inasfar as it *will* go, it must be understood that the vine has some self-directed determination over the kind of fruit that will be produced...if the vine (or tree) is meant to imply a particular individual. Now, if the vine or tree symbolically represents our earnest and ethical endeavors, then we as husbandmen and gardeners have control over the fertilizing and weeding and watering, to make the tree or vine produce the best it can (or not, or somewhere in between). I think the parable of the talents illustrates this even better.

Well to me that last statement it's more a phylosophy rather than an analogy, in my personal believe we're all seeds, at that point it's already determined whether that seed is good or bad, but since there are good seeds and bad seeds then those trees must be sown in order to see the true shape and distinguish each one by their fruit.

If you had orange seeds you'll see they're very similar to lemon seeds, if you had plenty of them you would need to saw them in order to taste their fruit and treat each one as necessary. However, at the point the seeds are in your hand it's already determined by nature what each seed will bring out, the shape of each leave, and the final taste of their fruit.

However, that's a personal believe I'm not trying to impose and it's based on my own perspective for life, and hope it helps on finding an answer for the discussion.

 

[juantoo3]

Free will the ability to choose without any cause. what I mean by that is if something causes or influences our choices then it is not free. In every choice we make in life there will be something or someone that has made us choose that way. Cause and effect. Our circumstances will always dictate our choices which mean our will is not free. There's no free if something causes our choice. God is in control of all things. God controls all our circumstances in life and we choose the only way we can it that circumstance. Can anybody give me a choice someone made without a reason behind it. So if there is always a reason behind the choice then that reason made you choose the way you did. If so it is not Free. Free will to will without cause. Can't be done.

PS yall most likley didn't even notice I was gone. But I missed you guys.

Good to "see" you back, winner. Yes, I did notice you were gone.

I'll try to look beyond the broken record problem, because I really don't see you bringing anything new to the table.

Nothing in existence then, according to you, is without cause. Every blade of grass is the result of previous influence...which to some extent I could agree. Where you and I are having some difficulty is the nature of human thought and from there human behavior.

According to your premise, a mass murderer has no choice but to murder. I disagree of course. Adolf Hitler was influenced beyond his own capacity to reason and therefore is not responsible for issuing orders to kill over 6 million people. Harry "the buck stops here" Truman had no choice but to issue orders to drop the atomic bombs on Japan killing 200 thousand people in two days, he was influenced by circumstances beyond his ability to circumvent.

And every one of these were influenced beyond their control by G-d I presume. All of these could not have made any other choice, they were all born to play their part in killing other humans.

Therefore, I can murder with impugnity...I was born to kill. I can't help myself, G-d made me this way. What's more, I get to go to heaven for acting as I was created to behave. I am fully carnal with no consequence.

I think Jesus and Paul both said a great deal to refute that conclusion...

 

[juantoo3]

Well to me that last statement it's more a phylosophy rather than an analogy, in my personal believe we're all seeds, at that point it's already determined whether that seed is good or bad, but since there are good seeds and bad seeds then those trees must be sown in order to see the true shape and distinguish each one by their fruit.

If you had orange seeds you'll see they're very similar to lemon seeds, if you had plenty of them you would need to saw them in order to taste their fruit and treat each one as necessary. However, at the point the seeds are in your hand it's already determined by nature what each seed will bring out, the shape of each leave, and the final taste of their fruit.

However, that's a personal believe I'm not trying to impose and it's based on my own perspective for life, and hope it helps on finding an answer for the discussion.

That's where the parable breaks down though. Are there people damned to hell for *no other reason* than being born in the wrong culture or civilization? Does that not imply that G-d deliberately creates people to be destroyed...which means G-d creates imperfect people who have no hope *ever* of salvation?

So what if one is a lemon or an orange? Do you believe lemons to be bad, and you are an orange? I see quite a different teaching by Jesus regarding this. Lemons are not bad...they are simply a different taste. One cannot make lemonade without lemons, and oranges simply will not do to make lemonade. What then of limes? What then of grapefruit, tangerines, kumquats and other citrus...all of which G-d in His infinite wisdom also created?

Even in Romans 2, Paul teaches a very different understanding from the traditional conclusion reached by those who desire a "we are saved and you are not" attitude.

Don't get me wrong, and this is the point I was attempting to make, there are bad orange and lemon and other citrus trees...trees that do not live up to their full potential and cast spoiled and undesireable fruit. But one bad orange does not mean that all oranges are bad, nor because one doesn't care for the taste of lemons that lemon trees are automatically to be presumed bad.

And I disagree that "at the point the seeds are in your hand it's already determined by nature what each seed will bring out, the shape of each leave, and the final taste of their fruit." I disagree because it *is* within our ability to cultivate our own fruit. So what if we are born a lemon tree? It is in our power to grow the best lemons possible, or neglect ourselves and grow the worst lemons possible. If we are born an orange tree, the same applies: we can grow the best or the worst fruit. There is nothing to indicate that *only* orange trees are favored in G-d's eyes. The same "rules" apply even if we are *any* other kind of citrus tree. The most wonderful part is, G-d loves *all* citrus trees and the fruit they bear. He has chosen what trees to plant where and when. From there it is up to each tree to grow the best fruit, or get culled when it comes time to clear the field. If G-d has chosen what trees to plant where and when, and He purposely planted trees to be destroyed...not just one or two but whole species, then doesn't that mean that G-d makes a pretty huge mistake? That maybe G-d is not so "perfect" after all?

 

[winner08]

Good to "see" you back, winner. Yes, I did notice you were gone.

I'll try to look beyond the broken record problem, because I really don't see you bringing anything new to the table.

Nothing in existence then, according to you, is without cause. Every blade of grass is the result of previous influence...which to some extent I could agree. Where you and I are having some difficulty is the nature of human thought and from there human behavior.

According to your premise, a mass murderer has no choice but to murder. I disagree of course. Adolf Hitler was influenced beyond his own capacity to reason and therefore is not responsible for issuing orders to kill over 6 million people. Harry "the buck stops here" Truman had no choice but to issue orders to drop the atomic bombs on Japan killing 200 thousand people in two days, he was influenced by circumstances beyond his ability to circumvent.

And every one of these were influenced beyond their control by G-d I presume. All of these could not have made any other choice, they were all born to play their part in killing other humans.

Therefore, I can murder with impugnity...I was born to kill. I can't help myself, G-d made me this way. What's more, I get to go to heaven for acting as I was created to behave. I am fully carnal with no consequence.

I think Jesus and Paul both said a great deal to refute that conclusion...

I We still make the choices. it is just those choices are not made free from influences. That's all I'm saying. It's really not hard to see. you and everybody on this earth makes choices. Billions of choices everyday. But not one of those choices are made free. Something or someone influences us somehow. The circumstances when fond ourselves in at any given time determinds what choices we will make.

Aince you brought up his name I will use it to show you how free will is not free.

Hitler orders the murder of the jewish people. Most men are not born killers. For most people murder does not come easy. So Hitler does the ordering his soldiers carry them out. (cause) They might out offear their own lives (fear)is a cause. There is always a cause to your choices. This is all i am saying. Since there is always a cause then you can't make a free choice. A free will. Just take a day at work and all the choices you will make in that day. Ever choice you make will have a cause why you chose that way. Tell you what I will make you a deal If you can give me one esample of a choice you made without a cause, an influence a choice totally void of influence I tell I sorry I was wrong. If you can do it . But I must say it is impossible. Try it. BTW Good to see you.

PS Jesus would not disagree with me because He also knows free will is a myth.
Jesus said I can do nothing of myself. I do my Father's Will. Everymove Jesus make was His fathers will.
Jesus also said the words I speak are no my own ther are of my Fathers.
Jesus did and spoke His fathers will. Just as the Father is in Jesus He is in us.

maby in time I will tell you who, what and when the myth of free will got started.
Just as in the myth of hell, the myth of an imortal soul
the easter bunny and santa.they all belong in the same fairytale book

 

[jyanez]

That's where the parable breaks down though. Are there people damned to hell for *no other reason* than being born in the wrong culture or civilization? Does that not imply that G-d deliberately creates people to be destroyed...which means G-d creates imperfect people who have no hope *ever* of salvation?

So what if one is a lemon or an orange? Do you believe lemons to be bad, and you are an orange? I see quite a different teaching by Jesus regarding this. Lemons are not bad...they are simply a different taste. One cannot make lemonade without lemons, and oranges simply will not do to make lemonade. What then of limes? What then of grapefruit, tangerines, kumquats and other citrus...all of which G-d in His infinite wisdom also created?

Even in Romans 2, Paul teaches a very different understanding from the traditional conclusion reached by those who desire a "we are saved and you are not" attitude.

Don't get me wrong, and this is the point I was attempting to make, there are bad orange and lemon and other citrus trees...trees that do not live up to their full potential and cast spoiled and undesireable fruit. But one bad orange does not mean that all oranges are bad, nor because one doesn't care for the taste of lemons that lemon trees are automatically to be presumed bad.

And I disagree that "at the point the seeds are in your hand it's already determined by nature what each seed will bring out, the shape of each leave, and the final taste of their fruit." I disagree because it *is* within our ability to cultivate our own fruit. So what if we are born a lemon tree? It is in our power to grow the best lemons possible, or neglect ourselves and grow the worst lemons possible. If we are born an orange tree, the same applies: we can grow the best or the worst fruit. There is nothing to indicate that *only* orange trees are favored in G-d's eyes. The same "rules" apply even if we are *any* other kind of citrus tree. The most wonderful part is, G-d loves *all* citrus trees and the fruit they bear. He has chosen what trees to plant where and when. From there it is up to each tree to grow the best fruit, or get culled when it comes time to clear the field. If G-d has chosen what trees to plant where and when, and He purposely planted trees to be destroyed...not just one or two but whole species, then doesn't that mean that G-d makes a pretty huge mistake? That maybe G-d is not so "perfect" after all?

Well, I appretiate your interest on my last comments, therefore I'll add this to my statement:

Every man is a seed fallen from a tree in the middle of a vineyard, but there is one tree that is house for many birds in heaven, produces many fruits and never withers in winter, non of those seeds fallen from that tree will be lost, because the Father who is in that tree and also lives in its seeds loves them much and they will always live. However there is another tree whose roots are unsound and the trees resulting from its seeds won't seek the sunlight since the sap within has the nature of its parent tree and will taste death as result.

Now my explanation to the analogy:

The seed is the soul of men.
The vineyard is the kingdom of heaven.
The One Tree is the Son of Man and the Father who existed since the begining.
The unsound tree is the wicked one who existed since the beginning of the world.
The sunlight is Life.
The sap within is the spirit.

Regard and God Bless!

By the way really good at defending ideas!

 

[juantoo3]

Well, I appretiate your interest on my last comments, therefore I'll add this to my statement:

Every man is a seed fallen from a tree in the middle of a vineyard, but there is one tree that is house for many birds in heaven, produces many fruits and never withers in winter, non of those seeds fallen from that tree will be lost, because the Father who is in that tree and also lives in its seeds loves them much and they will always live. However there is another tree whose roots are unsound and the trees resulting from its seeds won't seek the sunlight since the sap within has the nature of its parent tree and will taste death as result.

Now my explanation to the analogy:

The seed is the soul of men.
The vineyard is the kingdom of heaven.
The One Tree is the Son of Man and the Father who existed since the begining.
The unsound tree is the wicked one who existed since the beginning of the world.
The sunlight is Life.
The sap within is the spirit.

Regard and God Bless!

By the way really good at defending ideas!

Thank you, jyanez. My defense is borne of many years of thoughtful pursuit of spiritual matters.

I don't think yours is complete. I see you are familiar with the "serpent seed" doctrine? That Lucifer is the material paternal carnal father of Cain and his descendents? Yet even those descendents *can* be saved...that is how powerful Jesus' gift is.

So now to get to the nitty gritty, because it is essential to understanding this. Who then are those seeds that cannot be lost? Christians? If Christians cannot be lost, why did Jesus come to save them? Why would they need saving if they cannot be lost?

What of the Jews? They are the only race/culture/heritage to which the Bible plainly states are G-d's chosen people...not Christians.

What of Muslims? What of Buddhists? What of Hindus? What of Indigenous and Native peoples around the world? Are these G-d's mistakes? Are these meant solely to be kindling for an eternal bonfire? Are these people automatically lost in ignorance through no fault of their own?

Which brings us back to Christians...why must Christians repent if they cannot be lost? Why must they be shepherded or even need a shepherd if they cannot be lost?

Perhaps Jesus is the saving grace for Christians, and perhaps works mean nothing...so by all means, as a Christian go out and rape, pillage and plunder in the name of G-d. You can always repent later and put a couple of bucks in the offering plate and be absolved until next time... I think Paul spoke rather disapprovingly of this very matter. In his words, "G-d forbid."

Works are all any other faith has outside of Christianity. And if you understand that Lucifer is Cain's daddy, then you also understand that G-d *also* made all the other races on the 6th day creation, and that creation was not only good, it was *VERY* good.

Which tells me that a person, *any* person, is born "good" in G-d's eyes and has the potential to get to heaven. Even the parable of the Good Samaritan should serve as an example...the Jews held Samaritans in disdain in Jesus' day. Let's not overlook this, the Jews saw the Samaritans in the same exclusionary light that I hear come from many Christians. To Jewish eyes, Samaritans were doomed to hell, no matter how good they behaved. This parable teaches otherwise...out of the mouth of Jesus.

All peoples desire what is good and right and beautiful...it is the law written on our hearts (Romans 2). No mother or father worth the title wants evil for their child...not Christian, not Muslim, not Buddhist, not Hindu, not animist...*all* teach their children the difference between right and wrong. Even Jewish teaching of Noahide laws for gentiles speaks to this very issue, a lesson overlooked by their Christian cousins.

The very nature of sin and the fallen state, suggests that "seeds" can indeed be lost...if they so choose to separate themselves from the tree of life. We are not punished for our sins, we are punished by our sins (as I learned from a person here at IF). The teaching of Karma is in line with this as well.

Consequently, it seems to me, that so many people get caught up in the details...and where is the devil to be found? Too often people are concerned with validating themselves and excluding others. I really don't think G-d works like that...and if He does, then it exposes a huge fault in G-d's character. G-d may have created the devil, but it was the devil's choice to become evil. We are not damned because we are not born Christian, we are damned because we choose to separate ourselves from G-d's will.

 

[juantoo3]

PS Jesus would not disagree with me because He also knows free will is a myth.
Jesus said I can do nothing of myself. I do my Father's Will. Everymove Jesus make was His fathers will.
Jesus also said the words I speak are no my own ther are of my Fathers.
Jesus did and spoke His fathers will. Just as the Father is in Jesus He is in us.

Are you co-equal with Jesus? I'm not, and I wouldn't dare risk the blasphemy of suggesting I was...

If people were in the Father's will, there would be no need to be saved, nothing to repent from, no evil, nothing immoral, every behavior would be acceptable.

It is precisely because we *can* make choices that are not the Father's will, that Jesus and other religious leaders have reminded us of what is right and wrong, good and evil, given us a conscience and reminded us with guilt. These things are not automatic, a person isn't born to sin. Sin is a deliberate (definition: mindful thought, premeditation) choice and behavior.

You can change the name "free will" if you insist; the concept remains inviolable and the common nomenclature understood by the vast majority of English speakers is free will, which will only result in confusion among your readers. Sometimes concessions from absolute literality are necessary to promote understanding. I've known many people in my life with red hair. Literally, their hair looks orange to me; but we call it red anyway, and that is the commonly accepted term among English speakers.

If it helps you to think of "free will" as a figure of speech, so be it. In point of fact there is an element of self-direction irrespective of and regardless of any outside or internal influences, and it is that element of self-direction that makes a person's will "free." Free to choose right, or to choose wrong. Free to choose wisely, or to choose foolishly. Free to choose skillful or unskillful actions. Free to seek inclusion with the will of G-d, as well as free to dissociate from the will of G-d.

Oh, to answer your challenge, I just ate a piece of candy. I didn't need it, I wasn't hungry, nothing in my little pea brain told me I had to have it, no little spook riding on my shoulder whispered in my ear. I simply chose to eat it...I could have just as easily chosen not to eat it.

Just as in the myth of hell, the myth of an imortal soul the easter bunny and santa.they all belong in the same fairytale book

As for the rest, it is unimportant just now, we can save it for another day. I think it would derail this thread. Of course, you are welcome to begin a new thread to address those matters if you wish.

 

[jyanez]

Thank you, jyanez. My defense is borne of many years of thoughtful pursuit of spiritual matters.

I don't think yours is complete. I see you are familiar with the "serpent seed" doctrine? That Lucifer is the material paternal carnal father of Cain and his descendents? Yet even those descendents *can* be saved...that is how powerful Jesus' gift is.

So now to get to the nitty gritty, because it is essential to understanding this. Who then are those seeds that cannot be lost? Christians? If Christians cannot be lost, why did Jesus come to save them? Why would they need saving if they cannot be lost?

What of the Jews? They are the only race/culture/heritage to which the Bible plainly states are G-d's chosen people...not Christians.

What of Muslims? What of Buddhists? What of Hindus? What of Indigenous and Native peoples around the world? Are these G-d's mistakes? Are these meant solely to be kindling for an eternal bonfire? Are these people automatically lost in ignorance through no fault of their own?

Which brings us back to Christians...why must Christians repent if they cannot be lost? Why must they be shepherded or even need a shepherd if they cannot be lost?

Perhaps Jesus is the saving grace for Christians, and perhaps works mean nothing...so by all means, as a Christian go out and rape, pillage and plunder in the name of G-d. You can always repent later and put a couple of bucks in the offering plate and be absolved until next time... I think Paul spoke rather disapprovingly of this very matter. In his words, "G-d forbid."

Works are all any other faith has outside of Christianity. And if you understand that Lucifer is Cain's daddy, then you also understand that G-d *also* made all the other races on the 6th day creation, and that creation was not only good, it was *VERY* good.

Which tells me that a person, *any* person, is born "good" in G-d's eyes and has the potential to get to heaven. Even the parable of the Good Samaritan should serve as an example...the Jews held Samaritans in disdain in Jesus' day. Let's not overlook this, the Jews saw the Samaritans in the same exclusionary light that I hear come from many Christians. To Jewish eyes, Samaritans were doomed to hell, no matter how good they behaved. This parable teaches otherwise...out of the mouth of Jesus.

All peoples desire what is good and right and beautiful...it is the law written on our hearts (Romans 2). No mother or father worth the title wants evil for their child...not Christian, not Muslim, not Buddhist, not Hindu, not animist...*all* teach their children the difference between right and wrong. Even Jewish teaching of Noahide laws for gentiles speaks to this very issue, a lesson overlooked by their Christian cousins.

The very nature of sin and the fallen state, suggests that "seeds" can indeed be lost...if they so choose to separate themselves from the tree of life. We are not punished for our sins, we are punished by our sins (as I learned from a person here at IF). The teaching of Karma is in line with this as well.

Consequently, it seems to me, that so many people get caught up in the details...and where is the devil to be found? Too often people are concerned with validating themselves and excluding others. I really don't think G-d works like that...and if He does, then it exposes a huge fault in G-d's character. G-d may have created the devil, but it was the devil's choice to become evil. We are not damned because we are not born Christian, we are damned because we choose to separate ourselves from G-d's will.

I'm sorry you missunderstood my point, my idea is not a defense it's the way I see life as a perspective, in the other hand, I liked the sentence "We are not punished for our sins, we are punished by our sins" as well.

I'll respond however each question in your requested order:

1. The serpent seed doctrine?
A. No, I don't regard evil as an adjective, to me evil is lack of light, as cold is lack of heat, therefore the right idea would be, "The tree with no light"-seeds and "The tree with light"-seeds doctrine.

2. That Lucifer is the material paternal carnal father of Cain and his descendents?
A. I don't know, Cain is seen different in some agnostic books rather than in some canonical books, therefore I can't truly conclude an idea, however, anyone who kills his brother, has no light within, and as you said will die by his sin, in consequence, that tree didn't produce good fruit, if we had to resolve it against his tree we would know where he comes from.

3. Yet even those descendents *can* be saved...that is how powerful Jesus' gift is.
A. Yes, and if someone repents while in the world then a big joy will result in heavens, because a sheep was lost and was found. Which would be the same as a good seed was lost and was found, and now the glory of the Father will bloom in him.

4. Who then are those seeds that cannot be lost?
A. All of them who the Father knows, who He knew since the beginning and who will know in the end.

5. Christians? If Christians cannot be lost, why did Jesus come to save them?
A. Christ came to make plainly visible the things that were hidden so all of them who were the Father's and those who weren't could see clearly the light that shines the way.

6. Why would they need saving if they cannot be lost?
A. They will be save from the taste of death, and that is the saving that the Truth delivers, which happened through the Word of the Lord.

7. What of the Jews?
A. (Same as 4)

8. What of Muslims? What of Buddhists? What of Hindus? What of Indigenous and Native peoples around the world? Are these G-d's mistakes?
A. No the last question and same as 4.

9. Why must they (Christian) be shepherded or even need a shepherd if they cannot be lost?
A. When Christ came and exposed his ideas, people wasn't considered as Christian or NotChristian, rather all of them were seen plainly as men, therefore Christ came to tell the truth, so people could see the reality of the world and showed the mistery of heavens so they could be saved by His deeds. The idea exposed in John 14 explains a little bit better the full concept.

10. "And if you understand that Lucifer is Cain's daddy"...
A. No, I don't seeds as races. Those seeds existed since the beginning of the world and will exist in the end.


Regards,

Jose Angel Yanez.

 

[juantoo3]

4. Who then are those seeds that cannot be lost?
A. All of them who the Father knows, who He knew since the beginning and who will know in the end.

Would this include non-Christians? Would this include sinners?

(These are actually trick questions, )

5. Christians? If Christians cannot be lost, why did Jesus come to save them?
A. Christ came to make plainly visible the things that were hidden so all of them who were the Father's and those who weren't could see clearly the light that shines the way.

I agree Jesus showed the way. I cannot help but believe after all I have experienced that he put "us" back on a track, a track that others too tried to help still others get back on. I see many paths up the mountain, paths that are culturally and ethnically significant. So there is no confusion, I also see false paths, and sometimes it can be difficult to sort through it all unless one is constantly vigilant. I also see each valid path as complete in its own, that paths rightly cannot be mixed and matched willy nilly and picked over for the more esthetically pleasing scenarios and bypassing the less pleasing parts...it is *all* there for a reason, even if we do not understand why.

6. Why would they need saving if they cannot be lost?
A. They will be save from the taste of death, and that is the saving that the Truth delivers, which happened through the Word of the Lord.

7. What of the Jews?
A. (Same as 4)

8. What of Muslims? What of Buddhists? What of Hindus? What of Indigenous and Native peoples around the world? Are these G-d's mistakes?
A. No the last question and same as 4.

And if G-d is quite happy with His creation just as He created it? Are these people "saved" without Jesus?

9. Why must they (Christian) be shepherded or even need a shepherd if they cannot be lost?
A. When Christ came and exposed his ideas, people wasn't considered as Christian or NotChristian, rather all of them were seen plainly as men, therefore Christ came to tell the truth, so people could see the reality of the world and showed the mistery of heavens so they could be saved by His deeds. The idea exposed in John 14 explains a little bit better the full concept.

Good point. Be careful though, or you'll end up thinking like me.

10. "And if you understand that Lucifer is Cain's daddy"...
A. No, I don't seeds as races. Those seeds existed since the beginning of the world and will exist in the end.

That's fine, if "race" seems politically incorrect, how about "ethnicities?" Not every person of every ethnicity in every period of time has access to the teachings of Jesus, and even some who have have come away with a bad taste in their mouths not because of the teachings, but because of the people who *forced* the teachings on them against their will.

 

[Tao_Equus]

If there is no free will, there is no moral responsibility. If there is no free will, then God is worse than Satan.

Ahhhh but!! He loves you too!!

That was a wonderful soundbite advert for atheism Mr Dog