Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Let's talk about free will

SurvivingAMethodology
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:35:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what free will means. The traditional and orthodox Christian definition of free will is not libertarian in nature, but is instead a negative action.

In other words, your 'choice' of chocolate or vanilla ice cream is not a use of your free will. Your 'choice' to go back to school or to take that job is not a use of your free will. Your 'choice' to go to a bar and try to get laid or stay home and read a book is not a use of your free will. Are you predestined to do these things? I don't know.

We all have certain tendencies, be they genetic, environmental, chemical - frame them however you wish. Using your free will means going against these tendencies. It means not being a slave to your every whim. This is part of what fasting is meant to teach us. You are using your free will when you say 'no' to that voice in your head that tells you to do this or that at any given moment. This, more than anything else, is the crucial difference between humans and the rest of the animal world.

Why is this important? Because before we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, we must empty ourselves first. There is simply no room for God in us when we are filled with our own desires. Free will is denying your desires and wants to make room for God within you.

There is a similar line of thought in Buddhism, only without the notion of 'filling yourself up' with God once you purge the self/ego. There is a reason Christianity and Buddhism are the only two major religions with a history of monasticism.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:39:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Man is made in the image of God: "God is LOVE!"
Actions or INACTION of the heart is the use of free will!

To love or not to love... Only man is capable of loving action because only men can love! Animals cannot love, BUT.. they also cannot hate so animals cannot sin!

Dogknox
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 11:13:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:35:36 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what free will means. The traditional and orthodox Christian definition of free will is not libertarian in nature, but is instead a negative action.

In other words, your 'choice' of chocolate or vanilla ice cream is not a use of your free will. Your 'choice' to go back to school or to take that job is not a use of your free will. Your 'choice' to go to a bar and try to get laid or stay home and read a book is not a use of your free will. Are you predestined to do these things? I don't know.

You are free to choose as you please, but not free to choose what you please.

We all have certain tendencies, be they genetic, environmental, chemical - frame them however you wish. Using your free will means going against these tendencies. It means not being a slave to your every whim. This is part of what fasting is meant to teach us. You are using your free will when you say 'no' to that voice in your head that tells you to do this or that at any given moment. This, more than anything else, is the crucial difference between humans and the rest of the animal world.

What if the voice in your head is the holy spirit? how do we really know?.. we don't we can only hope. Point being, we are unreliable. The more one focus' inwardly(into man), the more confusion he will enter. This is mankind's tendency, and it rules us; we are slaves to it; slaves to ourselves.

Why is this important? Because before we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, we must empty ourselves first. There is simply no room for God in us when we are filled with our own desires. Free will is denying your desires and wants to make room for God within you.

This is impossible. The bible teaches that we are already worthless, and everything we is offensive. Our hearts are the most deceitful, and are beyond cure.

The holy spirit is all we have, and it is given us for free, in-spite of our efforts and desires.

There is a similar line of thought in Buddhism, only without the notion of 'filling yourself up' with God once you purge the self/ego. There is a reason Christianity and Buddhism are the only two major religions with a history of monasticism.

That is not any Christianity I know of...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
SurvivingAMethodology
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 11:46:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The more one focus' inwardly(into man), the more confusion he will enter. This is mankind's tendency, and it rules us; we are slaves to it; slaves to ourselves.


Luke 17:21 - "nor will they say, "See here!" or "See there!"[a] For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

Before you try to claim that translation is wrong, consider this:

The word translated in the NIV as "midst" (or in other versions, as 'among', instead of 'within', which is the proper translation) is entos (Greek font doesn't work here apparently). Let's look at other usages of this word in the LXX and the NT.

Matthew 23:26 - "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside (entos) of the cup and of the platter, that its outside may become clean also."

Ps. 39:3 (38:4) - "My heart was hot within (entos) me; While I was musing, the fire burned. Then I spoke with my tongue:"

Cant. 3:10 (Sgs) - "He made its pillars of silver, Its support of gold, Its seat of purple, Its interior (entos) paved with love By the daughters of Jerusalem."

There are more, I could keep going. But the fact of the matter is that entos is never translated as 'among' or 'midst' except in this instance in the NIV and other modern, Protestant translations, and without explanation. If you want to express 'among', or 'midst' in Greek, you always use 'en meso';. Search it for yourself: http://concordances.org...

This is impossible. The bible teaches that we are already worthless, and everything we is offensive. Our hearts are the most deceitful, and are beyond cure.

If we are beyond cure, then Christ died for nothing. Nothing made in the image of God is worthless. Don't get into a proof-texting war with me. And I never said anything about us doing the brunt of the work in salvation. We do none of the work, we must only assent to it - but this is not simply a matter of saying 'I accept Jesus Christ as my savior' and then going about your life.

That is not any Christianity I know of...

Because you do not read the writings of the earliest Christians.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 9:26:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:35:36 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what free will means. The traditional and orthodox Christian definition of free will is not libertarian in nature, but is instead a negative action.

Please define orthodox Christian. I have understoon Augustinian and Edwardsian notions of free will to be orthodox.

In other words, your 'choice' of chocolate or vanilla ice cream is not a use of your free will. Your 'choice' to go back to school or to take that job is not a use of your free will. Your 'choice' to go to a bar and try to get laid or stay home and read a book is not a use of your free will. Are you predestined to do these things? I don't know.

If God ordained it, and your freedom to choose is not libritarian in any way the yes: it was predestined.

We all have certain tendencies, be they genetic, environmental, chemical - frame them however you wish. Using your free will means going against these tendencies. It means not being a slave to your every whim. This is part of what fasting is meant to teach us. You are using your free will when you say 'no' to that voice in your head that tells you to do this or that at any given moment. This, more than anything else, is the crucial difference between humans and the rest of the animal world.

There must be a motivation to deny our internal intentions. Free will begs the question: "what are we free from?" Now you frame free will in saying we excersise that free will by doing things that go against our tendencies. Are you alluding to a form of natural depravity? If we say 'no' to our conscience (the voice in our head) then we are saying 'yes' to something else- what is that?

Why is this important? Because before we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, we must empty ourselves first. There is simply no room for God in us when we are filled with our own desires. Free will is denying your desires and wants to make room for God within you.

What if your desires are godly? Are denying those desires godly and righteous act of our free will?

There is a similar line of thought in Buddhism, only without the notion of 'filling yourself up' with God once you purge the self/ego. There is a reason Christianity and Buddhism are the only two major religions with a history of monasticism.

I am glad someone is finally bringing this subject up. What you are saying, at least to me, does not make sense. You are saying that an act of free will is not the result of thinking or influence of your desires. So where does it come from? It seems you have eliminated all internal motivations. I suppose you are alluding to the spirit then?

I would say acting on your desires is free will. I would say you will always choice to do what is most appealing at the time of decision. That desire could be wordly or spiritual. Free will is being able to do freely what we desire.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 10:26:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
joneszj You said..
I am glad someone is finally bringing this subject up. What you are saying, at least to me, does not make sense. You are saying that an act of free will is not the result of thinking or influence of your desires. So where does it come from? It seems you have eliminated all internal motivations. I suppose you are alluding to the spirit then?

I would say acting on your desires is free will. I would say you will always choice to do what is most appealing at the time of decision. That desire could be wordly or spiritual. Free will is being able to do freely what we desire.


I reply: free will is an action/inaction of the heart!

Jesus FREELY died for us on the cross! He died fro us because he LOVES his Father and us NO OTHER REASON!!
Animals have desires they do nothing by the heart!
Free Will is actions of LOVE!!
GIVING of self freely is Free will!
NOT GIVING of self is also actions of the heart.

joneszj Man is made in the image of God.. FREELY we choose to sin or to love!! ONLY men can sin!!

Dogknox
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 10:36:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 10:26:18 AM, Dogknox wrote:
joneszj You said..
I am glad someone is finally bringing this subject up. What you are saying, at least to me, does not make sense. You are saying that an act of free will is not the result of thinking or influence of your desires. So where does it come from? It seems you have eliminated all internal motivations. I suppose you are alluding to the spirit then?

I would say acting on your desires is free will. I would say you will always choice to do what is most appealing at the time of decision. That desire could be wordly or spiritual. Free will is being able to do freely what we desire.


I reply: free will is an action/inaction of the heart!

ok....? You basically described the subtance of what I said. So we are in agreement.

Jesus FREELY died for us on the cross! He died fro us because he LOVES his Father and us NO OTHER REASON!!

I never alluded to any reason concerning Christs death and causation or will.

Animals have desires they do nothing by the heart!

Hold on here. Animals have desires but they never act from the heart?!? Then where do their desires come from if not the heart?

Free Will is actions of LOVE!!

So people can't do free will actions of hate or selfishness....?

GIVING of self freely is Free will!
NOT GIVING of self is also actions of the heart.

You are gonna have to clearly deinfe and differentiate actions of the heart and actions of the free will for your statements to be rational.

joneszj Man is made in the image of God.. FREELY we choose to sin or to love!! ONLY men can sin!!

So man can freely do things other then love, such as sin then. You honestly have confused me.

Dogknox

Jones
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 11:10:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:35:36 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:

With all due respect, the reason why this makes sense to you is because it doesn't seem like you stood it against questioning before adopting it.

The notion that freewill is the negative rejection of impulses, not the positive enactment of choices is ludicrous....because the rejection in itself is a positive action (there's no such thing as a negative action). So long as we are performing some kind of verb, we are engaged in a positive action, which is subject to impulses and tendencies. Furthermore, wouldn't the rejection of an initial impulse also be dependent on a prior impulse? While you think you're rejecting a biological tendency, really all that happened is that a different biologically/environmentally induced tendency overtook the prior tendency you were aware of,....still leaving you every bit as much subordinate to your impulses, except this time, you didn't realize your rejection of an impulse, was itself, caused by an impulse.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 11:13:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 11:10:53 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:35:36 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:

With all due respect, the reason why this makes sense to you is because it doesn't seem like you stood it against questioning before adopting it.

The notion that freewill is the negative rejection of impulses, not the positive enactment of choices is ludicrous....because the rejection in itself is a positive action (there's no such thing as a negative action). So long as we are performing some kind of verb, we are engaged in a positive action, which is subject to impulses and tendencies. Furthermore, wouldn't the rejection of an initial impulse also be dependent on a prior impulse? While you think you're rejecting a biological tendency, really all that happened is that a different biologically/environmentally induced tendency overtook the prior tendency you were aware of,....still leaving you every bit as much subordinate to your impulses, except this time, you didn't realize your rejection of an impulse, was itself, caused by an impulse.

Indeed
SurvivingAMethodology
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 2:53:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 11:10:53 AM, 000ike wrote:

The notion that freewill is the negative rejection of impulses, not the positive enactment of choices is ludicrous....because the rejection in itself is a positive action (there's no such thing as a negative action). So long as we are performing some kind of verb, we are engaged in a positive action, which is subject to impulses and tendencies.

When I say negative, I mean specifically not just 'doing what you want to do', which is how the vast majority of people conduct themselves on a day to day basis.

Furthermore, wouldn't the rejection of an initial impulse also be dependent on a prior impulse? While you think you're rejecting a biological tendency, really all that happened is that a different biologically/environmentally induced tendency overtook the prior tendency you were aware of,....still leaving you every bit as much subordinate to your impulses, except this time, you didn't realize your rejection of an impulse, was itself, caused by an impulse.

Can you show me another animal besides humans which fast? Or which meditate/pray? Or which can spend all of their waking hours devoted to service of others in neglect of themselves?

Call it just a biological/environmental tendency to do these things if you wish, but then the onus is on you to cite exactly how this is the case.
Kali
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 3:09:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Free will exists, sure, it's just not real. Whether or not we're determined has nothing to do with the fact that we make choices. All of us, even determinists, experience the phenomenon of choice. Choice probably isn't a real part of the universe, but it does exist, in the same way that race exists, for instance.
SurvivingAMethodology
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 3:22:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 3:09:02 PM, Kali wrote:
Free will exists, sure, it's just not real. Whether or not we're determined has nothing to do with the fact that we make choices. All of us, even determinists, experience the phenomenon of choice. Choice probably isn't a real part of the universe, but it does exist, in the same way that race exists, for instance.

Considering that it is a phenomenon that everyone experiences, the onus is on you to prove that it isn't real. Too bad there isn't a control group for reality.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 3:34:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 3:22:51 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:
At 9/29/2012 3:09:02 PM, Kali wrote:
Free will exists, sure, it's just not real. Whether or not we're determined has nothing to do with the fact that we make choices. All of us, even determinists, experience the phenomenon of choice. Choice probably isn't a real part of the universe, but it does exist, in the same way that race exists, for instance.

Considering that it is a phenomenon that everyone experiences, the onus is on you to prove that it isn't real. Too bad there isn't a control group for reality.

You act like it's not possible or somehow difficult to prove that freewill is false. There are a compelling number of neurological studies that indicate that your decisions are determined several seconds before they reach your awareness, I list a few of them in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

also consider the dilemma of determinism argument:

P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
SurvivingAMethodology
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 4:42:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 3:34:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/29/2012 3:22:51 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:
At 9/29/2012 3:09:02 PM, Kali wrote:
Free will exists, sure, it's just not real. Whether or not we're determined has nothing to do with the fact that we make choices. All of us, even determinists, experience the phenomenon of choice. Choice probably isn't a real part of the universe, but it does exist, in the same way that race exists, for instance.

Considering that it is a phenomenon that everyone experiences, the onus is on you to prove that it isn't real. Too bad there isn't a control group for reality.

You act like it's not possible or somehow difficult to prove that freewill is false. There are a compelling number of neurological studies that indicate that your decisions are determined several seconds before they reach your awareness, I list a few of them in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

also consider the dilemma of determinism argument:

P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

And you are using here a definition of free will which is not the one I gave in the opening post. There is little point in debating when we are using different definitions.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 4:46:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
joneszj You said.. Hold on here. Animals have desires but they never act from the heart?!? Then where do their desires come from if not the heart?

I reply: Animals cannot LOVE!
God made MAN in his image, not animals!! The desires of the animal are instinct; Eat, sleep, reproduce.. ZERO LOVE!
Animals can't LOVE but they also can't hate!

joneszj Animals do not sin because they do not have free will!

Only man can sin.. Only he can chose to love or not to love!
Angels have already been judged.. Satan CAN'T love he is pure hate, he hates you, he made his choice, not to love. He was judged to be love-less, he is with sin so he was condemned!

1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

Satan does not have God inside.. he chose, he is God-less!

Man has yet to be judged, all man with "God inside" will be judged to enter heaven!
All god-less men.. Men with NO LOVE... Men who made a choice to "Not Love" do not have God inside!
Whoever lives in love lives in God!

God judges each man by what God finds in each heart!

"Harden not your hearts"!

Dogknox
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 5:07:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
GIVING of self freely is Free will!
NOT GIVING of self is also actions of the heart.

joneszj You said.. You are gonna have to clearly define and differentiate actions of the heart and actions of the free will for your statements to be rational.

I reply: Actions of the heart is free will actions!
Open the door for a lady, carrying a bag of grocery for a old person are all actions of the heart.
Letting go of self for another person is an "Action of the heart"!
LOOK.. The Sheep go to heaven at the last judgement because of their actions of the heart! They do NOT WORK they >>GIVE<< of themselves from the heart! They made a free choice to GIVE!

Matthew 25
34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and >> you gave me << something to eat, I was thirsty and >> you gave me << something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?"

40 "The King will reply, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."


joneszj verse 37 (above) tells you the Sheep are RIGHTEOUS people!! The RIGHTEOUS go to heaven!

1 John 3:7
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

DO YOU SEE IT?? The one who does what is right is righteous
joneszj DOING RIGHT SAVES!!! Not working but >>GIVING OF SELF from the heart<< SAVES all men!

The Sheep did not even know they were LOVING Jesus they ask "WHEN did we GIVE YOU..."?

joneszj They were NOT working their way into heaven, they LOVED their way into heaven!

The Goats also have faith.. but their faith is ALONE they go to the Lake of fire! They have NO LOVE!!!

44 "They also will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?"

joneszj The Goats also ask "WHEN did we NOT GIVE YOU..."?
This is the exact statement as the Sheep, they both have faith, both address Jesus as LORD the only difference between the two is the Choice to GIVE or NOT to give!

The Choice to Give from the heart/NOT to give from the heart, is what saved or condemns!

Free will is: A FREE CHOICE TO LOVE OR NOT TO LOVE!

Dogknox
Kali
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 6:26:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 3:22:51 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:
At 9/29/2012 3:09:02 PM, Kali wrote:
Free will exists, sure, it's just not real. Whether or not we're determined has nothing to do with the fact that we make choices. All of us, even determinists, experience the phenomenon of choice. Choice probably isn't a real part of the universe, but it does exist, in the same way that race exists, for instance.

Considering that it is a phenomenon that everyone experiences, the onus is on you to prove that it isn't real. Too bad there isn't a control group for reality.
Determinism is almost certainly true. That it is true does not mean that free will does not exist. Free will describes an extant phenomenon that we all experience, so it can't not exist.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 7:59:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 4:42:53 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:
At 9/29/2012 3:34:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/29/2012 3:22:51 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:
At 9/29/2012 3:09:02 PM, Kali wrote:
Free will exists, sure, it's just not real. Whether or not we're determined has nothing to do with the fact that we make choices. All of us, even determinists, experience the phenomenon of choice. Choice probably isn't a real part of the universe, but it does exist, in the same way that race exists, for instance.

Considering that it is a phenomenon that everyone experiences, the onus is on you to prove that it isn't real. Too bad there isn't a control group for reality.

You act like it's not possible or somehow difficult to prove that freewill is false. There are a compelling number of neurological studies that indicate that your decisions are determined several seconds before they reach your awareness, I list a few of them in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

also consider the dilemma of determinism argument:

P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

And you are using here a definition of free will which is not the one I gave in the opening post. There is little point in debating when we are using different definitions.

..............................................If you will recall my original response, I pointed out that your definition of freewill is incoherent....rejection of an action IS ITSELF an action. If you claim that freewill is resistance of impulse, not positive employment of action, then you need to realize that resistance of impulse IS a positive employment of action,... in summation, while you think you have made a new definition of freewill, you haven't, you've given it a new description that subjection to the same problems and founded on the same predicate as the last.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 9:01:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
000ike You said..
.If you will recall my original response, I pointed out that your definition of freewill is incoherent....rejection of an action IS ITSELF an action. If you claim that freewill is resistance of impulse, not positive employment of action, then you need to realize that resistance of impulse IS a positive employment of action,... in summation, while you think you have made a new definition of freewill, you haven't, you've given it a new description that subjection to the same problems and founded on the same predicate as the last.

I reply: Free Will is actions of the heart.. LOVE!
Only man can love, because only man is made in the Image of God!

GOD IS LOVE!

To love or not to love is only a choice man can make because only man is made in the image of God!

Jesus chose to die on the cross no one forced him!
John 10:18
No one takes it away from me; on the contrary, I lay it down of my own free will. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up again. This is what my Father commanded me to do."

Jesus made a choice from his heart to GIVE himself for others!
I lay it down of my own free will.
Dogknox
SurvivingAMethodology
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:36:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Determinism is almost certainly true. That it is true does not mean that free will does not exist. Free will describes an extant phenomenon that we all experience, so it can't not exist.

Thanks for this non-statement.
SurvivingAMethodology
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:38:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
..............................................If you will recall my original response, I pointed out that your definition of freewill is incoherent....rejection of an action IS ITSELF an action. If you claim that freewill is resistance of impulse, not positive employment of action, then you need to realize that resistance of impulse IS a positive employment of action,... in summation, while you think you have made a new definition of freewill, you haven't, you've given it a new description that subjection to the same problems and founded on the same predicate as the last.

And you responded to my response by ignoring it and reverting to your own definition. That isn't how argumentation works.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 6:06:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:39:16 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Man is made in the image of God: "God is LOVE!"
Actions or INACTION of the heart is the use of free will!

To love or not to love... Only man is capable of loving action because only men can love!

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: That's why your Johnny Come Lately narcissistic trinitarian bastard Story book god is obviously not a man (so as you stated) hence totally INcapable of loving action, therefore ALL god(s) are incapable of a ' loving action ' so you stated!

This is another KEEPER for me!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 6:13:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 3:09:02 PM, Kali wrote:
Free will exists, sure, it's just not real. Whether or not we're determined has nothing to do with the fact that we make choices. All of us, even determinists, experience the phenomenon of choice. Choice probably isn't a real part of the universe, but it does exist, in the same way that race exists, for instance.

What?

How can something exist, but not be real?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 6:16:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is claimed that Story book jebus was a catholic (when it was an eternal jew of course!) but regardless, it is a well known fact that ALL at least claiming to be a genuine believer outside of Story book Land, admit they keep choosing to Sin (including catholic malignant sinning priests that require repeated confession?)

So my question is: Why do you sinful lot all keep Freely choosing by using your Free-Will, to be repeated malignant disobedient Sinners?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 6:16:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 11:10:53 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:35:36 PM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:

With all due respect, the reason why this makes sense to you is because it doesn't seem like you stood it against questioning before adopting it.

The notion that freewill is the negative rejection of impulses, not the positive enactment of choices is ludicrous....because the rejection in itself is a positive action (there's no such thing as a negative action). So long as we are performing some kind of verb, we are engaged in a positive action, which is subject to impulses and tendencies. Furthermore, wouldn't the rejection of an initial impulse also be dependent on a prior impulse? While you think you're rejecting a biological tendency, really all that happened is that a different biologically/environmentally induced tendency overtook the prior tendency you were aware of,....still leaving you every bit as much subordinate to your impulses, except this time, you didn't realize your rejection of an impulse, was itself, caused by an impulse.

The point is that our actions are not completely determined, there are choices we can make using free will.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 6:21:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 2:38:36 AM, SurvivingAMethodology wrote:
..............................................If you will recall my original response, I pointed out that your definition of freewill is incoherent....rejection of an action IS ITSELF an action. If you claim that freewill is resistance of impulse, not positive employment of action, then you need to realize that resistance of impulse IS a positive employment of action,... in summation, while you think you have made a new definition of freewill, you haven't, you've given it a new description that subjection to the same problems and founded on the same predicate as the last.

And you responded to my response by ignoring it and reverting to your own definition. That isn't how argumentation works.

No. I gave you a clear and sensible reason why your definition is garbage, a reason you have yet to address....can you please stop pretending like I haven't given you an argument, and address my point? If you want me to restate for you, here:

Your definition of freewill is completely absurd because you don't realize that rejecting an action IS an action. In your OP you made the argument that actions may be the result of impulses....but that isn't freewill. You said that freewill is the ability to reject an impulse for action, the ability to NOT do an action. My argument is, rejection is an action, therefore your freewill of not doing something is tantamount to doing something, and thus you have arrived at the same predicate you wished to avoid.

^^^^This is what's called an argument. It has a point. It has supporting reasons. Please respond to it. Thank you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
SurvivingAMethodology
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 12:49:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No. I gave you a clear and sensible reason why your definition is garbage, a reason you have yet to address....can you please stop pretending like I haven't given you an argument, and address my point? If you want me to restate for you, here:

Your definition of freewill is completely absurd because you don't realize that rejecting an action IS an action. In your OP you made the argument that actions may be the result of impulses....but that isn't freewill. You said that freewill is the ability to reject an impulse for action, the ability to NOT do an action. My argument is, rejection is an action, therefore your freewill of not doing something is tantamount to doing something, and thus you have arrived at the same predicate you wished to avoid.

^^^^This is what's called an argument. It has a point. It has supporting reasons. Please respond to it. Thank you.

If you prefer getting caught up in semantics, so be it. I don't care for that. I already told you what I meant by 'negative', and the usage of the words is totally superfluous to what I am trying to convey.

You have a problem with my terminology? Fine, use your own, it makes no difference to me. But you have not at all touched upon my point, which is that free will only matters as it applies to our salvation, not to the mundane choices we make on a daily basis.
Kali
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 1:47:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 6:13:22 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What?

How can something exist, but not be real?
Harry Potter exists. Harry Potter is not real. Race exists. Race is not real.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 1:51:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 1:47:37 PM, Kali wrote:
At 9/30/2012 6:13:22 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What?

How can something exist, but not be real?
Harry Potter exists. Harry Potter is not real. Race exists. Race is not real.

"real", the way you're using it, is a word without a meaning. What does real mean?...does it mean true? Does it mean objective? Does it mean existent?

exist is another ambiguous word. Does it mean, present in the material world? Does it mean present in an abstract world? Present in another logical world with different physical rules?

You guys are throwing around words with no specific meaning.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault