Free Will (An Illusion?) Revisited

[juantoo3]

Ahhhh but!! He loves you too!!

That was a wonderful soundbite advert for atheism Mr Dog

Aww gee, Tao, it's good to see you, but is that the best you have to offer? Surely you can do better than that?

 

[jyanez]

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

(These are actually trick questions, )



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.



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



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



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.

Yes, however the Will of the Father is untraceble, no one can know this truly but the Father, many will say, I gave more so where's my payback and the Father will say I loved this one more than the others, and he will be first while others will be last. He is the owner of the vineyard and knows each one of His.

You've talked about the clear and confusing paths but I haven't seen any references to the defender, which is the spirit of the Father, which can turn any light on and turn the must humble person into knowledge of life and guide him to a place where the water of life flows day and night and the existance of the one who drinks from it will have no end.

About ethnicities, Jesus existed after the prophets, who were killed and persecuted, in order that many could see the will of the Father and remove the law and turn it into only one commandment "Love your Father with all your heart, with all soul and all your spirit".

For anyone else, including "ethnicities", if they do what is correct in their heart and loves his brother as himself then that person will see the Father since the will of the Father is within him, he will receive a higher reward than the one who had to learn the path by the Word.

The Father knows the number of hairs of each one of us, no matter when or where all things are plainly visible to Him.

About the people who don't get the message because they dont like the way they're teached, they are like rocks where the message cannot grow, each rock will be judged by the will of the Father whose justice and commandment is perfect and whose kingdom will have no end.

I will add another comment, if I act as a righteous person but the spirit of the Father doesn't dwell within me, then I've done nothing, since my behaviour was intended to honor myself, but if the spirit of the Father lies within and I do as He wills then all will be complete, since I have done nothing for myself but for the one who deserves all honor and glory.

Regards,

 

[juantoo3]

It seems we do indeed share a lot of the same thought on the matter.

Yes, however the Will of the Father is untraceble, no one can know this truly but the Father, many will say, I gave more so where's my payback and the Father will say I loved this one more than the others, and he will be first while others will be last. He is the owner of the vineyard and knows each one of His.

As Solomon observed, the same sun shines and the same rain falls on both the righteous and the unrighteous. And while yes I can agree that *on occasion* the Father may choose to set aside particular persons for specific reasons, the vast majority of us are not so privileged. As I am but a common nondescript person seeking wisdom and salvation, it is to those like myself that I direct my comments. What need of medicine do the well have? Stated another way although not directly at you; physician, heal thyself. I am a poor wretch in need of spiritual medicine, so I study as though to become a doctor to cure myself. If I am able to assist others along the way, then it is good, but my primary objective is selfish; getting me to heaven and return to my Father.

You've talked about the clear and confusing paths but I haven't seen any references to the defender, which is the spirit of the Father, which can turn any light on and turn the must humble person into knowledge of life and guide him to a place where the water of life flows day and night and the existance of the one who drinks from it will have no end.

Touche, and good catch! I agree, and this is true, regardless of the particular *correct* path one is on. I believe if I were born a Jew, and placed on the path of Jews, and followed with the same contrite and determined spirit, I would eventually arrive at the same destination. Same if I were born Hindu. Same if I were born Buddhist. Same if I were born Native American. Etc. You are correct, G-d knows His own, *all* of them, as He created them, and where He placed them. He knows all of their hearts. He knows those who seek Him, and He knows those who would distance themselves from Him.

About ethnicities, Jesus existed after the prophets, who were killed and persecuted, in order that many could see the will of the Father and remove the law and turn it into only one commandment "Love your Father with all your heart, with all soul and all your spirit".

Except that Jesus gave us two commandments, that if observed fulfill the ten.

I think if you happen to look, you will find a famous Jewish Rabbi (Hillel?) said something very similar to the Golden Rule around the same period of time:

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"[2] and the expression of the ethic of reciprocity, or "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."[3]

Hillel lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod and the Roman Emperor Augustus. In the Midrash compilation Sifre (Deut. 357) the periods of Hillel's life are made parallel to those in the life of Moses. Both lived 120 years; at the age of forty Hillel went to the Land of Israel; forty years he spent in study; and the last third of his life he was the spiritual head of the Jewish people. A biographical sketch can be constructed; that Hillel went to Jerusalem in the prime of his life and attained a great age. His activity of forty years likely covered the period of 30 BCE to 10 CE.

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For anyone else, including "ethnicities", if they do what is correct in their heart and loves his brother as himself then that person will see the Father since the will of the Father is within him, he will receive a higher reward than the one who had to learn the path by the Word.

Amen. Paul tells us as much in Romans chapter 2.

The Father knows the number of hairs of each one of us, no matter when or where all things are plainly visible to Him.

Sure, but He cannot force us to love Him. He made us with the capacity to love, but He cannot make us love Him or the whole shebang falls apart, all the way back to Eden. If, and this is a huge if, if G-d could force Adam and Eve to love Him, they could not have suffered the fall for partaking of the forbidden fruit. If they were always in G-d's will, then there was nothing to be forbidden, and they never would have suffered the fall from grace, be cast out of Eden, or be barred from the Tree of Life.

About the people who don't get the message because they dont like the way they're teached, they are like rocks where the message cannot grow, each rock will be judged by the will of the Father whose justice and commandment is perfect and whose kingdom will have no end.

Ah! Now is your turn to misunderstand! Who is the more faithful and obedient; the Conquering Spaniard carrying the Bible and a sword and disease murdering and enslaving as they go in the name of G-d and King, or the Indigenous Natives living as G-d made them to and minding their own business? As you said earlier, "the Will of the Father is untraceble, no one can know this truly but the Father." But this much should seem evident; if G-d created all peoples as He intended and placed them where He intended to live essentially as He intended (with allowance of course for love and will which demand a degree of self-direction), then it seems to me that forcing the political will upon a people in the name of G-d with the ulterior motive of enslaving the people to rape the land of the silver and gold to enhance the coffers of the Kingdom is not Righteous no matter what banner is flown or what book is carried.

It is a sad truth, but great harm has been done to many, many peoples in the name of G-d and Christianity. I cannot help but feel G-d cannot help but cringe at seeing His creation done so cruelly, and by misguided humans acting in His name no less.

I will add another comment, if I act as a righteous person but the spirit of the Father doesn't dwell within me, then I've done nothing, since my behaviour was intended to honor myself, but if the spirit of the Father lies within and I do as He wills then all will be complete, since I have done nothing for myself but for the one who deserves all honor and glory.

Agreed. Yet unless one has clear convincing evidence that they are indeed select of G-d, then like myself they must proceed to *seek* the spirit and it's guidance. G-d's will is not a destination, it is a journey. To return to the Father's bosom, *that* is the destination.

 

[jyanez]

It seems we do indeed share a lot of the same thought on the matter.



As Solomon observed, the same sun shines and the same rain falls on both the righteous and the unrighteous. And while yes I can agree that *on occasion* the Father may choose to set aside particular persons for specific reasons, the vast majority of us are not so privileged. As I am but a common nondescript person seeking wisdom and salvation, it is to those like myself that I direct my comments. What need of medicine do the well have? Stated another way although not directly at you; physician, heal thyself. I am a poor wretch in need of spiritual medicine, so I study as though to become a doctor to cure myself. If I am able to assist others along the way, then it is good, but my primary objective is selfish; getting me to heaven and return to my Father.



Touche, and good catch! I agree, and this is true, regardless of the particular *correct* path one is on. I believe if I were born a Jew, and placed on the path of Jews, and followed with the same contrite and determined spirit, I would eventually arrive at the same destination. Same if I were born Hindu. Same if I were born Buddhist. Same if I were born Native American. Etc. You are correct, G-d knows His own, *all* of them, as He created them, and where He placed them. He knows all of their hearts. He knows those who seek Him, and He knows those who would distance themselves from Him.



Except that Jesus gave us two commandments, that if observed fulfill the ten.

I think if you happen to look, you will find a famous Jewish Rabbi (Hillel?) said something very similar to the Golden Rule around the same period of time:



Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Amen. Paul tells us as much in Romans chapter 2.



Sure, but He cannot force us to love Him. He made us with the capacity to love, but He cannot make us love Him or the whole shebang falls apart, all the way back to Eden. If, and this is a huge if, if G-d could force Adam and Eve to love Him, they could not have suffered the fall for partaking of the forbidden fruit. If they were always in G-d's will, then there was nothing to be forbidden, and they never would have suffered the fall from grace, be cast out of Eden, or be barred from the Tree of Life.



Ah! Now is your turn to misunderstand! Who is the more faithful and obedient; the Conquering Spaniard carrying the Bible and a sword and disease murdering and enslaving as they go in the name of G-d and King, or the Indigenous Natives living as G-d made them to and minding their own business? As you said earlier, "the Will of the Father is untraceble, no one can know this truly but the Father." But this much should seem evident; if G-d created all peoples as He intended and placed them where He intended to live essentially as He intended (with allowance of course for love and will which demand a degree of self-direction), then it seems to me that forcing the political will upon a people in the name of G-d with the ulterior motive of enslaving the people to rape the land of the silver and gold to enhance the coffers of the Kingdom is not Righteous no matter what banner is flown or what book is carried.

It is a sad truth, but great harm has been done to many, many peoples in the name of G-d and Christianity. I cannot help but feel G-d cannot help but cringe at seeing His creation done so cruelly, and by misguided humans acting in His name no less.



Agreed. Yet unless one has clear convincing evidence that they are indeed select of G-d, then like myself they must proceed to *seek* the spirit and it's guidance. G-d's will is not a destination, it is a journey. To return to the Father's bosom, *that* is the destination.

Greetings,

Sure we do share a lot of good points, I'm glad such subjects can be expressed this way.

God bless and I hope we can meet soon in some other discussions. If you find any I could add some ideas to just let me know. I'll keep on reading this one anyways.

Regards,

 

[Q2008]

Perhaps within the objective reality you see you do not exercise voluntary control. Within the objective reality I see I do exercise voluntary control.

If voluntary control proves illusory, then all of life is illusion...pointless, without reason and ephemeral. Why bother? Just sit back, get high, and enjoy the pretty colors while they last...

It was a rather crude, but to my mind poignant example, that woke me out of the philosophical illusion game:...life seems like an illusion until it punches you in the nose and breaks it. Nothing like a shot of adrenaline to shake one out of an illusory dream. Nothing like the car crash and waking up in a hospital to realize the dream does end, and one must make a seriously conscious effort to overcome obstacles. Life isn't a fantasy to me. Life is a reality to be lived.

I am pressed for time, I will try to get back to the rest later.

Sorry for the overdue reëntry into the discussion, but I've needed a break from this sort of foruming for a while.

Now: This post of yours is steeped in the implications of accepting voluntary control/responsibility as illusory. Does objective reality have any relevance whatsoever to how we mice run our lives and our reality? Again, no. Does it matter that you [are] just a pawn along for the ride if your personal [perception] is not so? Whether we [are] choosing beings or we [feel] that we are, our experience of the world is the same.

 

[Q2008]

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).

My only real problem with your line of thinking here is that you don't take into account, how should we call it? The stacking effect? The position of (and yes, I am sorry to subject you again to the analogy) a marble on top a stack is dependent on the marbles below. If the marbles bellow are moved, it moves, their collective physical state determines its state. The human animal is a work-in-progress, I'm sure we agree; we change throughout our lives. What you call a conscious decision to subvert a parental influence (and certainly I know what you're talking about. My mother tells me she's worked her entire life to recover from some of the less-wonderful ways of her parents), I cite as a consequence of those and other influences.

What I mean is that the "choice," to break oneself of what one perceives as influences of the parent is itself dependent on those and other influences, just as the marble at the top of the stack is dependent on the state of the lower marbles. As we move forward in time, we accept external stimuli and react based on them and former experience. Here, choices occur as theoretically predictable consequences of earlier experience. "You wouldn't have if." I don't think anyone will deny that this is sometimes true. A man's choice of A or B may be made differently if you change one thing, outside of his control, in his past. Do you agree that at least some choices depend on previous realities outside of our control? I believe all choices are wholly dependent on all previous realities, and since those are dependent on the chain of factors behind them, all choices are ultimately determined by the chain.

You may drive or walk, nap or work, consciously differentiate your behavior from what your parents' might've done, but you'd do none of these if we changed events further back in the chain. If my decisions rest on any uncontrolled events in the past I am a victim of my decisions, not a free agent in their production.

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.

There's a clear answer to that last one. What is the distinction between the emotion and the chemical reaction? They are one and the same. Both the chicken, neither the egg. The physical changes in brain chemistry that produce what we observe as emotions are the emotions. What more would emotion be?

Is the firework the chemicals burning in the air or the light that hits your retina? Or the impulses along the optic nerve? Or your perceptual construction?

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?

That conclusion rests on the acceptance of love as something more than an umbrella term for emotional/behavioral realities. I accept that love is only such. For love to only exist when "freely given," requires one to accept the subjective value statement seeing love as a strictly chosen expression, rather than, like everything else, a production of the causal chain of existence.

Sure, if love is only "love," when freely given, the existence of "love" does prove that we live in a non-determined environment. Agreed. Now, you need to show how it is that love exists as more than a precious, beautiful, inspiring pattern of human emotion and behavior. Can you do that?

 

[Q2008]

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.”

A thread in which I have not sought to participate and which I believe has no bearing on this particular discussion? No. I have not read it. Go figure.

Free will has been demonstrated by the ability of any given individual to change the course they find themselves on.

The entire argument can stop there. We do not have the ability to choose to "change our course." You can choose to drive into a metaphorical brick wall, but the choice to do or not do that is what is determined. You perceive a conscious conclusion to action. What you do not perceive is the forces bringing you to that conclusion.

For your argument to stand we'd need to verify that a "tiny tiller," independent of causal chains, exists. We can't do that. You keep describing choices to the contrary as if they are proof for free will. All they demonstrate is the complexity of the factors involved in causation. The tiller will steer the steamboat of personality in a given direction based on what? Whim? Fancy? Magical random-individualism? To avoid the issue of determinism, his choice can't be based on anything. The tiller chooses to steer away from an iceberg. Why? Because he doesn't want to die, having a wife and kids to think about? Why did he marry? Because he was born to a Christian mother and didn't believe he should have sex before marriage, but he did have a ticking biological clock and a culture that encouraged marriage and childbirth? So many things could go into producing an iceberg-shy tiller. He is not responsible for a choice which is the direct result of factors outside his control.

I understand I've broken the analogy, but the point to take away is that your personal, voluntary decisions are always based on something, and all somethings ultimately derive from past somethings.

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?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. An illusory nose would bleed illusory blood from an illusory punch.

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.

What would differ in your experience of... Mom... if she were a biological robot programmed to exhibit all the responses and reactions associated with one's caring, nurturing mother? Nothing. You can't know anything except that it appears that other people think and feel too. As not-them, you can't know what, or if they really feel. Objectively, all you know is that everything suggests our world is filled with others. You can't experience the consciousness of anyone but you.

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

The difference between a mother and a flesh robot made to emulate her completely would be imperceptible. The difference between a determined world with the façade of choice and a world of choice would also be imperceptible.

What is more, a person is free “to do something else” at any time they so choose.

The human body is capable of action, the human brain is capable of commanding and directing actions. I agree. But I can not choose to do other than what I will choose, and I will not choose except that which has (a) cause(s). You can choose to drive into a brick wall, but you won't unless something's worked its way into you, the events of your experience producing, like a firework, an action. Every choice is caused.

With determinism, such is not possible.

A toy train goes behind a barrier and doesn't come out a differnent way than you expected. You'd say, "Ha, look! There's no track! It couldn't come out that way if it was on a track!" Remove the barrier, and the track is a different shape than you expected. The track was, however, there. When someone does something you wouldn't expect, it is not because they're just choosing to arbitrarily. Their actions could be tracked to a series of causes, if only we could move the proverbial barrier. If we could know all factors, we'd know the pattern the marbles fell.

The first major flaw I see with the analogy is that we are not marbles.

You've misunderstood the analogy. The marble analogy is supposed to describe the process by which we arrive at a choice. Every marble present is a past or present influence on you. The content of your personality, your mind, your biology, the circumstances of the choice, these are the marbles. The pattern of the marbles scattering is the final choice.

Then it is not so abstract.

You're really struggling with the idea that this debate really has NO practical implications, aren't you? Fine, look at it how you like. I've already explained my feeling as to why objective reality is not of consequence to human life. Take it or leave it.

 

[Q2008]

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.

It's safe to assume I will never bring anything remotely like quantum mechanics into any discussion voluntarily. Bear that in mind.

Now. What I'm saying, and it goes along with the idea that we can only really know that one conscious being exists (ourselves). If a thinking perceived the presence of something, it would react to it just as if it existed. If fish died because they thought there were an oil slick, we could point to the dead fish ONLY as evidence that they thought they'd been exposed to motor oil. If, in a determined universe, sentient animals perceived an illusory free will, their behavior would tell us only that they were behaving according to what they thought was free will.

Are we getting a little clearer? I'm starting to think we should slim down the scope of our discussion. Too many analogies, too much text. This isn't my job, you know?



the very presence of an oil slick indicates that there is *something,* something to cause the slick.[/quote]

But what we observe is a reaction to a perception of an oil slick (bad analogy), not the oil slick itself. We don't see free will, we see a reaction to a perception of free will. If you will, the silhouette of a paper cut-out wouldn't be readily distinguishable from the silhouette of the real thing.

The implication that morality is an invented byproduct of imagination is a bit of a stretch.

How so? If we think we can choose, our next natural conclusion is that we're responsible for those 'choices,' and then that certain rules, from one source or another, need to govern what it is acceptable to 'choose' to do.

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.

And now we're arguing about the existence of God? Come now, that is a stretch. I'll humor it; If the tendency to produce deity-concepts was intrinsic to our species, it wouldn't be a 'chance occurrence,' and the existence of God as strictly imaginary would be easily defensible. A belief in magic is pretty widespread too. Did you connect to the forums by a witchdoctor, perchance?

What purpose would a deterministic environment serve without a G-d to make the determination?

A random, determined universe would be purposeless. 'Nother scary thought, eh?

In a determinist environment there is nothing to repent of and no wrong to make right.

In an amoral, subjective, illusory, human world, sure. We don't live in one of those. We live in a subjective, moralistic, illusory, human world.

There are *some* things beyond a person’s control. Yeah, so?

If any one in a stack could be removed to topple the others, no things 'controlled' would really make a bit of difference if any uncontrollable factor existed previously. Sure, you play the hand you're dealt. But how you play it depends on your experience. Everything is subject. That you work with what 'the fates' give you, how you do so, to what effect, all of these are determined by your prior experience.

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.

Obviously so.

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.

What i think I've failed to stress is that all voluntary action would be determined, not just the 'choices' we keep talking about. That you control any aspect of your environment, or yourself, is irrelevant. How you exert control could be traced to deterministic causal chains of events, and the ultimate result of your control is determined.

 

[winner08]

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

A. It is not blasphemy if it is true.

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.

A. I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean if people were in the Father's Will.

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.

A. Right I never said we don't make choices. I said that those choice are not free. Free form uncaused causes.l

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.

A You ate that peice of candy because you desiered to. something in you brain (pea brain your words) proabable because of a sweet tooth. A craving. I don';t know. I do know that it is impossibe to make a choice without a ;cause. Impossible. It is a law of the universe, cause and effect. Law. just as gravity, a law there's no way around it. Do you think for one min. that mans so call free can be free if God's will is Always done. Always.



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.

I would start a new thread but just as the myth of free will is so ingraved in yalls brain you cant even consider that it might of been made up by the same people who said that our loving and merciful and forgiven Father will barbque the majority of His creation because they are not saved. What other religion has a god that is that curl?? In fact christians would have you believe that a god that is all powerful all knowing all loving who created the heavens and earth and all thats in it is so powerfull but yet he can't even save his own creation, even though he desiers to he just get man to repent and believe. Yea right.

 

[winner08]

Just as in free will, a place called hell where god will punnish people, just in ones soul going to a place called heaven or hell when one dies. Just in santa claus and the easter bunny or the toothfairy. Why question these things. We have these things passed on from genration to generation without question. Why because it is not right to question them. It's just the way it is. It is ingraved in our brains. A few bad translations of scripture and the actions of a few bad apples and we just believe blindly what is is what is. it is not all that it seems to be.

 

[AJA1984]

Hi All, it's been a while. I'm not one to go back on past threads (if anyone remembers this one), but I'd like to know what other religions think about this. Is free will an illusion? A clarification when I say free will I do not mean choice (e.g. we don't make our own choices / predetermined) but I mean, does life (or God) set out a certain path for us in life that we must follow guided to us by life experiences? In other words does certain situations influence our decisions.

Here's an example:

Your in your car driving somewhere, suddenly your realise you low on petrol. You tell yourself you're going to stop at the next petrol/gas station you see (as you do). Eventually you see one and decide to stop there. As you get out to fill your car, you happen to see a large billboard advertisement of the Eiffel Tower. The next day you enter yourself in a raffle which you win and the prize is ...guess what... a trip to any major European City of your choice. You choose... Paris... of course because of the large billboard you saw the other day. You can say it had... influenced...Your descision, which was after all completely your own choice... but... realising you were low on petrol at that moment, arriving at that petrol/gas station first, putting the billboard of the eiffel Tower in that particular place, even the winning prize for the raffle being a trip to any Major European City...Was not your choice.

Ok, that was probably a bad example, but hopefully you know what I mean...

Our choices (Our control) are influenced by situations (not in our control).

But, just ask yourself "who is in control of the situation then?"

"What? So murderers, rapists etc are what they are because of situations beyond their control?" I here you say? Well...Not exactly. Here's the confusing part. Personally, I believe life is about self development, we're all here to learn from life's experiences (not matter how bad). Some (or most) of life's experiences are beyond our control: e.g. Which family we are born into, the people we meet, where and when we are born and so on. But what we decide to take from these experiences are up to us, which then leads to our choices.

Here's an example:

In England some years ago a young black man was murdered in a racial attack. His attackers were not jailed (or found) due to a lack of police effort it was believed (perhaps something again racial). The Mother in this situation decided to...instead of taking revenge or taking the law into her own hands since the law (police) obviously seemed to not care. She decided to attempt to build relationships between police and all members of community to work together for a better future. Where as someone else in the same situation would do the opposite.

I believe throughout every persons life there is an experience that can make that person do things for the better. But more often that not it is either, misinterpreted making people do things for the worst or ignored.

Can a person ever make an completely imdependant choice?

Is subjective influence taken into account? Our responses to anything is based on self imposed constrains, social constraints, religious constraints, ethical considerations etc...

Take a look at radical constructivism. Largely everything is an illusion based on who we are; free will is as free as your will is, which largely isn't free when taken into account how we self police ourselves further beckoning the question is objective free will possible. I equate free will with independance but seeing as most aren't capable of self sustaining their own lifes i think that further impacts the question, and furthermore since your will can easily be stopped by another in a more powerful situation (physical or otherwise) one can't really suggest that free will is really free absolutely, just subjectively.

 

[juantoo3]

since your will can easily be stopped by another in a more powerful situation (physical or otherwise) one can't really suggest that free will is really free absolutely, just subjectively.

Ah, but at what point is the distinction between will and behavior relevent?

Another in a more powerful situation over me may stop my *behavior* (outward expression), but I can pretty much guarantee that force is not the way to influence my will (internal expression). I may tell you what you want to hear, and do what you want me to do in your presence...and then do as I damn well please as soon as you are no longer present, and at all times think as I will anyway regardless of what you want me to think.

 

[AJA1984]

Will is supportive of behavior and thus behavior can be and in many ways impedes will. They go hand in hand. As per your example by telling someone what they wish to hear is that not subjecting your will for however the brief moment regardless of the truth (carrying out said will eventually). It can be argued that your will is broken however temporary it is.

 

[juantoo3]

...by telling someone what they wish to hear is that not subjecting your will for however the brief moment regardless of the truth (carrying out said will eventually). It can be argued that your will is broken however temporary it is.

Perhaps. I am inclined to think not, because it is my will to override my will.

Self-protection and the will to survive are very powerful forces operating in the individual.

 

[AJA1984]

Is it truly your will that wishes to be overridden or are you adapting to the moment? A will obstructed isn't entirely free absolutely. I do see what your seeing and ultimately it'll look like a game of semantics arguing either side of it, but for the sake of debate heres an alternate way of looking at it.

Example;
Say your having intercourse with whomever you please. I don't know about you but i don't like to be interupted... say that a telephone call/knock at the door/child requires you to stop. You can argue that it was your will that caused the ceasation of said events, but chances are you didn't want to stop what you were doing. Is it your will to stop said act in light of the circumstances? Or is it the circumstances affecting your will? Is it truly your will to override your will thus giving a looser concept to will as something less prominant then i think to attribute to it... or is it the nature of the circumstances imposing altered behavior being attributed to a new will? Was it really your will to quit is the question... it can be argued it was because your the one who made the decision to stop ultimately thus it was your will, however it can also be viewed as circumstances affecting behavior, curtailing the original will.

 

[juantoo3]

Example;
Say your having intercourse with whomever you please. I don't know about you but i don't like to be interupted... say that a telephone call/knock at the door/child requires you to stop. You can argue that it was your will that caused the ceasation of said events, but chances are you didn't want to stop what you were doing. Is it your will to stop said act in light of the circumstances? Or is it the circumstances affecting your will? Is it truly your will to override your will thus giving a looser concept to will as something less prominant then i think to attribute to it... or is it the nature of the circumstances imposing altered behavior being attributed to a new will? Was it really your will to quit is the question... it can be argued it was because your the one who made the decision to stop ultimately thus it was your will, however it can also be viewed as circumstances affecting behavior, curtailing the original will.

I am inclined to agree we ultimately are arguing semantics and we will chase each other round and round.

Here's the thing; let's take your example, a person is deep in the throes of making love...and the phone rings. Like you, I don't wish to be interrupted...so I ignore the phone. I reason, if it's truly important they will try to call again later. Let's say a child interrupts...the child can be told to go play for a few minutes (or the love making could be "started" at a more convenient time to begin with). Might not be the wisest choice, but I have heard of worse choices. Let's say the house is on fire...I could still choose to finish getting my rocks off, but I should be prepared for the possibility of burning alive if I do so. In every example it is still my choice to *allow* the interruptions to actually interrupt.

The circumstances do not affect my behavior directly, but I agree they do *influence* my choice of responses. In theory, I should always choose to respond wisely...such as in the case of the child or the fire. But one must admit, when in the throes of passion wise choices are seldom among the first considerations.

 

[AJA1984]

lol you make a good point. In each case you are momentarily interrepted however brief, addressing each issue at hand, your focus strayed, your attention diverted, when as you agree it was your will not to be interupted...

lol I don't wish to get into semantics so i'll conclude with that.