Free will and determinism

Mark Quayle said:

God makes some for one purpose, some for another. We are all caused to do what we do.

Click to expand...

Common misread of Romans 9 if saying some people are slated for Divine Mercy and some people for wrath. That understanding won't cut it.

If however the devil and his messengers are brought into the picture as they should be, then the read changes dramatically, as it was God who made "me (and thusly everyone else)" such, a vessel of honor bound with a vessel of dishonor that is not the person.

The variants applied to Romans 9 are extensive, but few variants know that the adversaries are the vessels of dishonor even though they are the most likely candidates and Paul included himself in that combo in Romans 7, Romans 11, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 3:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, 2 Cor. 12:7, Eph. 2:2, and 1 Tim. 1:15 openly showing that other party as non people, but devils. Of course Jesus provided us the same picture thousands of times in the Gospels as well including in every parable and again thousands of examples, the man of Gadarene's having a legion of devils "within him" for example.

Funny how what is so obvious gets missed.

The scriptural construct also dismisses freewill entirely because the resisting parties wills can not be ruled out of any person's picture and God's Will working in any person also can not be eliminated.

Neogaia777 said:

@Bradskii @BelieveItOarKnot

The only way a choice, or anything at all, can be truly random under the theory or teaching of determinism, is only if it has absolutely no prior inputs/causal factors influencing or determining it, which would take us all the way back to the very first "thing/cause" before the BB probably, which none of us knows about what was or might have been before that then, or even the way it would operate or even happen, since we cannot even imagine a thing not having any prior casual influences, or determining factors, etc.

Click to expand...

The above, taking into account ALL that has gone on before, is what Mr. Sapolsky poses, and I wouldn't say he's wrong. In the short clip attached (a couple hours long) I didn't hear him mention the chemical and pollution mix of people either which can also be a very large contributor, especially in today's world. Each person is also a unique chemical factory. There's simply a LOT involved in every person's decision and since it can't be pinned down as to the exact mix of potential causes it has to appear somewhat random, out of gazillions of possibles. What is it then? 1 gazillionth of everything? Some other assortment?

It's kind of ridiculous to say what the possible inputs can be other than the obvious larger points such as geographical /born in various times/social constructs and restraints.

Neogaia777 said:

So, please stop calling certain things in this reality random, when you know they are not, ok. It's not only incorrect, but it's also very poor language to use if your try to show/convince others of determinism, etc.

Click to expand...

Well, if you claim to be able to figure out the exactness of the process (hint: no one can) then it will have to be simply random and a possibly ever changing mix with a phony brand called determinism.

I'd say it resembles freewill just as much because technically no 2 people would be exactly alike and therefore they stand uniquely, alone in their ever brewing stew of possible inputs to the process.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

The above, taking into account ALL that has gone on before, is what Mr. Sapolsky poses, and I wouldn't say he's wrong. In the short clip attached (a couple hours long) I didn't hear him mention the chemical and pollution mix of people either which can also be a very large contributor, especially in today's world. Each person is also a unique chemical factory. There's simply a LOT involved in every person's decision and since it can't be pinned down as to the exact mix of potential causes it has to appear somewhat random, out of gazillions of possibles. What is it then? 1 gazillionth of everything? Some other assortment?

It's kind of ridiculous to say what the possible inputs can be other than the obvious larger points such as geographical /born in various times/social constructs and restraints.

Well, if you claim to be able to figure out the exactness of the process (hint: no one can) then it will have to be simply random and a possibly ever changing mix with a phony brand called determinism.

I'd say it resembles freewill just as much because technically no 2 people would be exactly alike and therefore they stand uniquely, alone in their ever brewing stew of possible inputs to the process.

Click to expand...

Just because it's such a complex/complicated mix of determining factors/causal influences (or whatever) that is enough to make every person (and their experiences) unique, and just because even our most advanced computer brains/systems cannot even know it (or calculate/compute it) right now (and we cannot do it either right now, etc) doesn't mean it's a random mix, or that it can't be all fully known/calculated (or initially thought out/known/originally caused on purpose and with an ultimate purpose) by another brain that is maybe much, much more farther advanced than either us or even our most advanced computer systems are right now maybe, etc.

Under the teaching of determinism, you cannot say anything is truly random, because in order to say that, it must have no prior causal influences, or it's not truly random, which none of us can even imagine how that could happen or be right now, etc. Random is the opposite of determinism, etc. Free also means completely uncaused, etc. All of which (terms) are antithetical to the teaching/theory of determinism, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

doesn't mean it's a random mix,

Click to expand...

In Christiandom it's surely a mix. Believing freewillers who rule out God's Will and the will of devils operating as distinct wills from their own really don't understand what they're trying to claim. It's actually a Godless position without any resisting will working also. They're missing 2/3rds of the vital scriptural components.

As to Mr. Sapolsky's postures, by his own admission he doesn't and can't understand the complexity, only observe it. And therefore his conclusions are jaded, far from definitive. It doesn't resemble Christian determinism in the least.

Neogaia777 said:

Under the teaching of determinism, you cannot say anything is truly random, because in order to say that, it must have no prior causal influences, or it's not truly random, which none of us can even imagine how that could happen or be right now, etc. Random is the opposite of determinism, etc. Free also means completely uncaused, etc. All of which (terms) are antithetical to the teaching/theory of determinism, etc.

Click to expand...

I don't believe any wills of the person's in our current environment operate apart from God's Over Riding Will or the wills of the resistors, the devil and his messengers, the lawless ones. So it's not as easy as it may appear on the surface.

Thankfully God is in control when all the dust settles.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

In Christiandom it's surely a mix. Believing freewillers who rule out God's Will and the will of devils operating as distinct wills from their own really don't understand what they're trying to claim. It's actually a Godless position without any resisting will working also. They're missing 2/3rds of the vital scriptural components.

As to Mr. Sapolsky's postures, by his own admission he doesn't and can't understand the complexity, only observe it. And therefore his conclusions are jaded, far from definitive. It doesn't resemble Christian determinism in the least.

I don't believe any wills of the person's in our current environment operate apart from God's Over Riding Will or the wills of the resistors, the devil and his messengers, the lawless ones. So it's not as easy as it may appear on the surface.

Thankfully God is in control when all the dust settles.

Click to expand...

I think not seeing the deterministic nature of this specfic universe is outright rebellion of not wanting to submit to God's overarching will/plan for everyone and everything, etc. Most, especially believers, just don't want to wrestle with the implications of it, etc. But I also think fortune favors those that will, etc. Or that it at least does by the end of that whole entire process, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

I think not seeing the deterministic nature of this specfic universe is outright rebellion of not wanting to submit to God's overarching will/plan for everyone and everything, etc.

Click to expand...

How is such rebellion possible without free will? What is it that we are supposed to submit to God?

Neogaia777 said:

Most, especially believers, just don't want to wrestle with the implications of it, etc. But I also think fortune favors those that will, etc. Or that it at least does by the end of that whole entire process, etc.

God Bless.

Click to expand...

Seems to me the stream runs in the other direction.

Fervent said:

How is such rebellion possible without free will? What is it that we are supposed to submit to God?

Click to expand...

Some of you were always meant to rebel and will still stay rebellious, but if you were paying attention at all to some of my other posts, the only reason it still matters is because none of us knows the future, or who each one is who is meant to stay that way after our efforts, or else change, or anything like that, so our efforts here with other people can still matter, if that's what's already been chosen for them, etc, but they also will not if it hasn't or won't, etc.

God Bless.

Fervent said:

Seems to me the stream runs in the other direction.

Click to expand...

I guess fortune can sometimes favor ignorance.

God still takes care of his immature children, etc.

God Bless.

Studyman said:

The thread is called "Free will and determinism". Why would I go back and remove the very word that defines the will being discussed?

Click to expand...

To see the foolishness of—or, the lack of logical support for— "Free will".

A snippet of a part of what I am discussing with AI right now, and this snippet is about the God of the universe (or all of this determinism) and God in and of the OT, who we are right now suggesting is different maybe? This is also built on the theory/assumption that both (God's?) (Or God-like beings) are actually real, or are actual real entities, and that God in the OT is exactly as the OT scriptures describe him to be, etc, or is at least, how he used to be before Jesus Christ maybe, etc.

Here's the snippet:

It's like this God or God-like being is saying to us (about God in the Old Testament) "If I had a beginning, like the rest of you do, or if I could feel or experience things in the same way that you do, this is what it would be like, or how I might be", etc, or "this is the closest thing to it that I can show you right now in the way in which you all right now live in your present reality", etc, or "right now, there is no other way for you to know me or know about me right now in the way in which you all right now live in your current state of existence/present reality”, etc, and “If it were possible for me to have a beginning, then this is how it would happen, or how I might be”, etc, and "this is the reason why these other ones right now are (and are the way they right now were or still are) in your present reality", etc, "right now, there is no other way to show you who or how I am yet in this (your) present reality", etc.“Christ also has a very, very important part in showing you this after this other one also, but we'll get to that a little bit later”, etc. "Together they are the story of father and son, or parent/child, but we'll get to that more later", etc. "Right now, these ones can cause you to come to know me in ways that are just not possible for either one of us right now in both of our present realities", etc. "It is why I caused all of you to be right now in your present realities", etc, "the rest will come later, and when your all fully ready", etc.

(Please note that I said "like", and that that doesn't mean "exactly alike", ok).

(I think it's enough to give you the general idea, or original thought idea, etc).

(This isn't a "thus says God" situation here IOW's, ok).

God Bless.

Bradskii said:

Love is an antededent condition. A pretty important one obviously. But one over which you have no control.

Click to expand...

Since you quoted AI and only one of three or more definitions of free will, I will also add a quote from AI:

Definition of Love

Love can indeed be defined as an act of free will. This perspective emphasizes that genuine love requires the ability to choose freely. Without the capacity to choose against love, the act of loving loses its true significance.

Importance of Choice in Love

Genuine Love: For love to be authentic, it must be freely chosen. If individuals are compelled to love without the option to choose otherwise, their love lacks depth and meaning.

Moral Responsibility: The ability to choose is essential for moral responsibility. When people can decide to love or not, they engage in a meaningful relationship that reflects their true feelings and intentions.

The Role of Free Will

Free Will and Relationships

Capacity to Choose: Love involves the freedom to act against one's feelings. This capacity allows individuals to express love genuinely, as they are not merely following instinct or obligation.

Examples in Life: In human relationships, such as between parents and children, love can emerge naturally without a conscious choice. However, the ability to choose to act lovingly is what solidifies that bond.

Implications for Divine Love

God's Love: The concept of free will extends to theological discussions about God's love. It is argued that God's love is genuine because it is freely given, despite His nature as love itself.

Conclusion

In summary, love is fundamentally linked to free will. The ability to choose freely is what makes love meaningful and authentic, whether in human relationships or in the context of divine love.

Bradskii said:

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because we must responsible agents therefore free will must exist. It doesn't work like that.

Click to expand...

Maybe I missed a few of the 4000+ previous posts, so please explain how it does work.

Bradskii said:

I could not disagree more. You say that if there is no free will to love then you must be compelled. In that you had no choice. Which is exactly the scenario everyone finds themselves in when they fall in love. They had no choice.

Do you think that I decided to love my wife? Do you think that you can decide to love someone other than your partner? What a nonsensical suggestion.

Click to expand...

Yes, you decide to love your wife. I agree that the “falling in love” part is mysterious. Let’s say a married couple has a terrible fight. They both said hurtful things to each other, and they are spitting mad. Maybe they even decide on a divorce. A moment later, the wife has a fall and breaks her leg. As much as the husband might think “good for you,” he takes her to the hospital and seeks her recovery. The same might be with your neighbor. He is a terrible person who has caused you endless grief. However, when he comes to you in serious need, you choose, from your free will, to help him, even if you hate the vary ground on which he walks. That is what loving your neighbor all is about. It is not a warm fussy feeling, but a choice to do what is best for somebody you may or may not like.

Bradskii said:

'There is no free will' is a conclusion reached from the premises as stated in the OP. One of the consequences of that conclusion is that one needs to re-evaluate one's position on personal responsibility.

What you can't do is wonder about where the premises are going to take you, decide that you don' tlike the consequences and therefore deny the conclusion. The two aren't logical connected. It's like following directions on a map to see where they take you. If the directions are valid then you end up in the right spot. You can't then say 'I don't like the view from here, so the instructions must be wrong'.

Click to expand...

The path you are describing assumes that only one definition of free will is correct, and you exercise your nonexistent free will to follow that path. It is a leap of faith in the definition. It is no different than choosing a religion, including atheism. I may die and find out that Islam was the correct way, or there may be nothing after death. We take a leap of faith in choosing, unless you believe in complete predestination, which is constantly discussed in other threads.

Bradskii said:

You do good to others who don't do good to you? That's very commendable. I mean it. Seriously. It's not easy a lot of time. I wish I was more like you.

But that's who you are. Could you make a decision not to be a caring person? Of course not...your character is what it is, formed over many years by your parents (your dna plus how they brought you up), your education, peer pressure, health, geography etc etc etc.

See what I'm saying?

Click to expand...

I understand completely what you are saying, but I disagree. I have looked deep into myself and seen the hateful evil person I am capable of being. It is not a pleasant task.