- Jun 28, 2018
- 15,549
- 5,876
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Choose = react to what you think is the best course of action.What is your definition of "choose" here?
Upvote
0
Choose = react to what you think is the best course of action.What is your definition of "choose" here?
I see.Choose = react to what you think is the best course of action.
The will never acts, it always reacts for a certain reason God uses to control you. But since you want to choose that course of inaction or inaction, you become complicit and accountable for your choices.I see.
And in your view, my notions of whats "best" come entirely from God. So there's no room for some part of the choice to originate in me. I'm kind of acting out the script as given to me.
You said those wants were given to me by God, and do not originate in me. Therefore I am not responsible for them, nor for their results.The will never acts, it always reacts for a certain reason God uses to control you. But since you want to choose that course of inaction or inaction, you become complicit and accountable for your choices.
You are responsible because you wanted to choose your course of action.You said those wants were given to me by God, and do not originate in me. Therefore I am not responsible for them, nor for their results.
The person who had some control over the situation is responsible. The person without control is not responsible.
I had no control over those wants according to you.You are responsible because you wanted to choose your course of action.
Yes, because they think they control them and do what they want to do.I had no control over those wants according to you.
Do you believe that people are responsible for situations over which they had no control?
You have been telling me all along that the wants are not from us, they are from God. So whatever we do is really what God wants us to do.Yes, because they think they control them and do what they want to do.
If you think you are sinning, you are, even if you aren't sinning. Those deceived into thinking their wills are free are responsible for choosing the sins they want.You have been telling me all along that the wants are not from us, they are from God. So whatever we do is really what God wants us to do.
People should only be responsible for what they can control. This is a basic ethical principle.
Point to the control that the "sinner" has over anything, then we assess responsibility properly.If you think you are sinning, you are, even if you aren't sinning. Those deceived into thinking their wills are free are responsible for choosing the sins they want.
You always choose what you want. = you are responsible. But God provides the reasons you base your choices on = you choose what he planned for you to choose.Point to the control that the "sinner" has over anything, then we assess responsibility properly.
Wait... you were telling be all along that the wants I seem to have are actually provided by God.You always choose what you want. = you are responsible.....
So yes it is possible for humans to delude themselves no doubt, but that is true of every knowledge category. So I don't think that gets us anywhere.Not having free will doesn't equal fatalism in the sense that there's no point in trying to change anything. Paul's pleas would be one of the million things that determined what people choose. It's perfectly possible to not have free will at all and still believe that you do.
If I choose to think my will is free, it's because God wants me to want to think that, because God controls all of my wants. So God deceived me into thinking my will is free.Those deceived into thinking their wills are free are responsible for choosing the sins they want.
I think we have some measure of libertarian free will. Of course it contests with all manner of internal and external factors that we didnt choose. In many people the capacity for this will is completely buried under inherited bad habits, terrible diet, cultural conditioning from childhood, genetic predispositions, and so on. Its like this little mouse squeek amongst the roar of daily life.So yes it is possible for humans to delude themselves no doubt, but that is true of every knowledge category. So I don't think that gets us anywhere.
So my point would be that is very difficult to read any scripture in any book OT or NT, without hundreds of implicit clues that require the reader to have libertarian free will. Every comment on this thread required people to use their intent to recall memories, choose freely to study philosophical notions of free will, using rationality freely decide which position, libertarian, compatibilism, or determinism, best explains their experience of the world and in some cases their understanding of the scriptures. So none of these appear to me to be determined.
So you would say that instead of replying to my argument with a counter-argument that is more reasonable due to the truth of its premises you think that what you typed was a function of random material forces and by that I mean "apsdiofjf[oqne[wui9q n]-siopan[fpojn[q -we0n]-weni0"I think we have some measure of libertarian free will. Of course it contests with all manner of internal and external factors that we didnt choose. In many people the capacity for this will is completely buried under inherited bad habits, terrible diet, cultural conditioning from childhood, genetic predispositions, and so on. Its like this little mouse squeek amongst the roar of daily life.
But, I cannot rationally account for this free will. Maybe its supernatural, tho I think someday we'll find its locus in material conditions.
Why do you say that?Exactly. You aren't you. You're an amalgam of all these things. What's more, you're not the same person you were yesterday, or even a minute ago.
At birth.When did you become you?
As I said before; if I believe in Santa Clause, and I describe Santa as the one who creates toys in the North Pole, the very existence of toys would be evidence of Santa for me, but not for you. If you believe in God; and you define God as the creator of the Universe and all that exists; the very existence of the Universe and all that exist will be evidence of God for you, but it will not be for me.God is Spirit and the universe is only evidence of his presence.
And of course everybody seems to experience God differently this way.But some people experience God as identified in scripture in their hearts.
Fundamental material forces may be random. But in us, it appears that evolution has shaped them into an emergent order thats suitable for arguing these topics.So you would say that instead of replying to my argument with a counter-argument that is more reasonable due to the truth of its premises you think that what you typed was a function of random material forces and by that I mean "apsdiofjf[oqne[wui9q n]-siopan[fpojn[q -we0n]-weni0"
That statement above seems self-destructive.
Since our rationality wouldn't be aimed at truth. We couldn't argue rationally for anything.
That is why Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism was so devastating to philosophical materialism.
Paul says you are without excuse because the universe reveals God, no matter how much you rationalize against this. And Spiritually, God's presence in people's hearts is a uniform experience where only their attempts to understand differ somewhat.As I said before; if I believe in Santa Clause, and I describe Santa as the one who creates toys in the North Pole, the very existence of toys would be evidence of Santa for me, but not for you. If you believe in God; and you define God as the creator of the Universe and all that exists; the very existence of the Universe and all that exist will be evidence of God for you, but it will not be for me.
And of course everybody seems to experience God differently this way.