Free will and determinism

[CoreyD]

In Christian circles, the notion implies that God is not after all Omniscient, and that there are principles or fact that exist apart from him or his intentions --that is, that God is not, then, after all, first cause. I can't abide such a notion. That is a mere superhuman.

The Christian modalist ("middle knowledge") will disagree with that assessment, claiming that God 'invented' (to use my word) an indeterminate system, (and thus they run afoul of simple logic.)

But this is hardly, in my opinion, any different from the majority of Christians nowadays, who consider 'libertarian' (uncaused) free will a valid concept. In fact, if anything, the modalist has at least claimed something that works for them, since, to them, God is not quite the same omnipotent God that the Christian Freewiller generally claims to believe in.

Either God is a free willed agent, or he is not.
If God cannot choose to know or not know something - so called omniscient in the misunderstood view, which is not according to scripture, then God is not omnipotent - in control of his own decisions, but predetermined.

So, do you believe God can choose to know something, and choose not to know? Genesis 22:11, 12

 

[Jo555]

At the bottom of the post you want to respond to, click or tap on Reply (not Quote).
When the page comes up, and you want to respond to portions of the user's post, place your cursor, at the end of the sentence you want to respond to, and hit enter (not sure how that works on a phone or tablet, but it would be the equivalent for ENTER on a keyboard).
Type your comment in the space that appears.
Do this for every place in the post, you want to comment.



If a person does not feel bad about sin, they are unrepentant sinners, and what is the reward of an unrepentant sinner? Eternal death. Luke 3:7-9; Luke 13:2-5; John 3:36; Acts 3:19; Acts 8:21-23; Acts 17:30, 31; 2 Corinthians 7:9, 10

In order for a person to be truthful about love for God, they must also hate sin - Psalm 97:10
Of course, if they are working at this, God will help them, as he understands that habits are herd to break, and humans are weak.

However, if we do not feel bad about something we know is wrong, we are deliberately sinning. This is not something we to be taken lightly. 2 Corinthians 12:21


I understand that you are saying there are certain factors that play a role in your decision making.
However, to believe that we would make the choice we made, based on those factors - in other words, the choice we made was determined by those factors, contradicts God, and his word the Bible.

In fact, there are many examples in the Bible, that helps us to see why this philosophical view of determinism is flawed to its very core. I'll use one, though I can think of plenty.
Why did Cain choose to kill Abel?
Both brothers were born into the same household, and had the same parents.
Cain was warned - even encouraged to take a different course. His decision was not determined by causal factors he could not overcome, or go contrary to.

Let's run this one by @Mark Quayle, and yourself. If causal factors determined Cain's decision, why did God's influence fail.... and @Bradskii, why did other causal factors not determine Cain's decision?
In other words, there were "causal factors" that were opposing each other. How could one be the determiner, over the other?


I hope your mom recovers well.
How old is she, if I may ask?

Ah, I'm pulled in again. Topic close to my heart. Hopefully Bradskii is asleep and we can trail off the main topic just a bit.

Going to summarize to try and make it short.

Guilt and condemnation, shame, etc is reserved for the old man / carnal life. It keeps us on a vicious cycle of pointing back to us. It is a product of the law showing us ourselves apart from Christ, and condemning us to death. Guilt and condemnation says, What is going to happen to me?

It is based in self / carnal life of which we have died to, spiritually being crucified with Christ. We are then given new birth in spirit and given his Spirit that abides in ours.

This life is not a life that feels guilty and condemned, but it grieves when we slip BECAUSE (cause be the important aspect here), we have hurt (or committed an offense against) the object of our love and adoration; BECAUSE we love God with all and neighbor as ourselves. This kind of repentance brings life. The former brings death and keeps us on a vicious cycle of looking to ourselves and experiencing death and defeat.

The former, guilt and condemnation, was God's way of using our choice of looking to ourselves to try and be like him by partaking if the knowledge of good and evil, or to judge good and evil apart from Him.

After the fall we are looking to ourselves and the law was brought in to show us ourselves apart from Him and condemn us to death. Remember, even after giving us the law He knew we wouldn't keep it as it is just a shadow of his heart and the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.

And i do believe choice is a good word here as it also includes going after our preferences, even if they are under the influence.

Now some may disagree with me and I'm open to being wrong, but i do believe God can still use legalism in a believer's life. For instance, if they are looking to murder for whatever God forsaken reason and are ignoring the love call of the Spirit to stop. It can serve them by using fear of punishment to look to stop them, but it can't move them forward. The Spirit does that, through the love of God.

God's law was put in place, because of the fall, as a temp measure to serve and protect us until we came into Christ. Unfortunately, many Christians serve it instead of becoming Christ's love slave.

I also in my life do still struggle with guilt and condemnation, but it has nothing to do with sin as we generally see it. My guilt comes from being a caregiver. When my father passed i beat myself up for not being God and not being able to see every issue that arose with him and address it correctly. I know God did extend his life as he wanted, but there comes a day he says, time to come home, no more extensions and no matter what we, we go home.

So my sin in this instance is a lack of faith and trust in God and i suffer from guilt and condemnation, and even shame as a failure as i look to myself, but i am fully secure in the love of God for me and know i am not judged or shamed by Him. I just have to grow in my trust in Him.

He is not loading me up with guilt and condemnation. I do a fine job of that myself as a caregiver, and I'm sure the forces of darkness are at work too. He is inviting me to continue to draw close to Him so He can grow my trust in Him as I get to know Him even better.

She is 88 years young, and counting ...

Thanks for asking.

 

[CoreyD]

Ééé

You guys been busy without me. I agree with you Bradskii. If freewill is defined as making a choice without prior influencing factors, then freewill doesn't exist.

Say I am an alcoholic, and I chose to stop drinking.
How did I not make a free willed decision to stop drinking, despite it being difficult because of continuous effects of my prior habit?

If one defines freewill as the capacity to make a choice regardless of prior influences, then i do believe in certain circumstances, freewill exists.

Pease explain one of those circumstance.
An example would be useful, thanks.

Corey, from what I know of scripture, one main reason God brought in the law was to show us, at heart where it counts, we are not free to choose because we are imprisoned to the carnal nature. The carnal nature is the influence we are imprisoned to. Determinism.

So if the sinful state is determinism, would that not disagree with @Bradskii, since to go against the sinful nature - determinism, would mean it (determinism) does not influence a decision against it (determinism).

I see no contradiction to scripture in regards to what Bradskii is saying.

Hopefully, before this discussion ends, you do.

After conversion, we are liberated from the carnal nature, and are called not to heed its call, but to continue after Christ where his Spirit guides by his love. In this case i see a choice, but it is still influenced by wanting to obey God.

So, why do those liberated people still give in to sin?
I hope you aren't going to tell me they don't, because you know what 1 John 1:10
If we say we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar, and His word is not in us.

Now here is where i see the difference between morality and "Spirituality based on God's Spirit".

Morality is based on the knowledge of good and evil - guilty conscience, obligation out of shame - to use some influencers that can be seen in Bradskii's war example.

Believers are not to be led by morality, but God's Spirit that leads us by his love. For an atheist this "God's love" may be seen as a faculty of the conscience. For a Christian we believe it is a Spiritual force that resides in the human spirit of every believer, or their heart if you will, but it is still an influencer.

It helps one to understand why the commands. In submitting to God, not out of a guilty conscience and fear of punishment (legalism) but out of love, we allow his Spirit to take the driver's seat in our lives.

He already proved we would not choose well if we are left to our own devises. Yet, now we can choose to obey God out of love and faith in Him, but his love and faith are still the influencer, therefore, if freewill is defined as a choice without ANY influencers, then in that box, there is no freewill.

So we do choose of our own free will, and some choices lead to sad consequences, which some learn from... or not.
You mentioned our own desires, and this is what James says.
James 1:14
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

So, are you not saying on the one hand freewill exists, but on the other hand it doesn't exist?
Do you believe freewill exist, and a person makes an informed choice to serve God? Or is the person programmed to do so?

 

[Jo555]

Say I am an alcoholic, and I chose to stop drinking.
How did I not make a free willed decision to stop drinking, despite it being difficult because of continuous effects of my prior habit?


Pease explain one of those circumstance.
An example would be useful, thanks.


So if the sinful state is determinism, would that not disagree with @Bradskii, since to go against the sinful nature - determinism, would mean it (determinism) does not influence a decision against it (determinism).


Hopefully, before this discussion ends, you do.


So, why do those liberated people still give in to sin?
I hope you aren't going to tell me they don't, because you know what 1 John 1:10
If we say we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar, and His word is not in us.



So we do choose of our own free will, and some choices lead to sad consequences, which some learn from... or not.
You mentioned our own desires, and this is what James says.
James 1:14
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

So, are you not saying on the one hand freewill exists, but on the other hand it doesn't exist?
Do you believe freewill exist, and a person makes an informed choice to serve God? Or is the person programmed to do so?

Short on time and used up morning time to get back with you on another post, but i think a good deal of the problem many are having in this thread is making the distinction between freewill and choice.

Freewill says there are no influences affecting your choice, whether that be love or knowledge or experiences, etc.

I don't know anything that fits into the model of freewill, except God.

But choice does allow for influences, like knowledge, preferences, experiences, etc.

Some may say choice does not exist, but according to the definition Google has given me (and he is the smartest one i know, after God), choice does exist.

 

[CoreyD]

Do you mean, "Can a person be influenced in both positive and negative ways, or do you mean, "Can a person influence other persons (or things) in both positive and negative ways?", or the more absurd, "Can a person possess both positive and negatives influences within and of themselves?"

What does "...choose a path of their own making" mean? How is that not begging the question? At best it only asserts that there is such a thing.

You don't understand the question?
I'll rephrase it.

Can a person have a negative influence - someone around them that encourages them to do X, and positive influence - someone around them, that encourages them to do B, and can the person choose between those, or ignore both and choose a path of their own making - K?

A person may choose to ignore influences, but that doesn't mean (s)he is not influenced by them.

Please explain how a person is influenced by something that they turn their back on.

--But I'll take a look at what is linked and see if there is something there than makes a difference so that I can understand your assumptions here.

Later: Nope. Your post here still doesn't add up, to me.

The link is a definition, which shows influence to be something that has "power to sway" or "a determining factor believed by some to affect individual tendencies and characteristic".

In the former, there is the potential to affect, and not the effect, which the determinist are arguing for, because they believe an influence is a determining factor.

However, an influence is not necessarily a determining factor, as your answer to my question will show.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Bradskii said:
You make choices whether free will exists or not. The deciding factor is whether the choice was determined by antecedent conditions or not .

Please prove this assertion.
We can't just throw false statement around as if they are facts, and expect people to just accept them.
A programmed robot doesn't make a choice because it is not free to determine between different options, but rather is programmed to do only what it is programmed to.
People are not robots.

I'd be happy if @Mark Quayle can join you in providing proof of your claim, since he wholeheartedly agrees.

People are indeed not robots, being willed 'agents'. But, consider that your statement, "We can't just throw false statement around as if they are facts, and expect people to just accept them." applies to you, too.

I think we have already been through this, but it will more enjoyable to say it again than to go back and look for the post(s):

Whatever one uses as first cause, whether "turtles all the way down", or a mechanical first cause, or a willed first cause, all things that happen subsequent to that cause, are effects of that cause. And all effects are caused, per "the Law of Causation".​

Now, if you can prove, either, 1) that there are as many 'little first causes running about the planet', as there are people, which is contrary to logic, or, 2) that not all that comes after the beginning are effects of that beginning, contrary to good sense, or, 3) that the law of causation ("all effects are caused") is not universal, then have at it, or even, 4) that causes do not determine, (by more than just redefining @Bradskii 's meaning of determine), then please, be my guest.

You, I think, or maybe it was @Ana the Ist , admitted that there are indeed 'influences' upon the person's thoughts in deciding. But the fact that one may shed an influence, or choose to go with the influence, neither one means that they were not swayed one way or the other by that influence --thus, "caused". Every argument that I have seen trying to show that influences are not causes, circularly depends on the notion that consideration of and willed motions against or toward whatever influence means that the influences are not causes.

 

[CoreyD]

For my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and i realize you may know this already.

The fact that choices do not exist without influence does not undermine the fact that we can still choose. Those choices are just based on what is influencing our lives.

That's a nice way of putting it.
So, are these choices free willed choices?

It actually confirms many things in scripture like how apart from God we can do nothing (nothing good that is, and good being defined as God's Spirit/ Heart); how when we are liberated from the yoke of the law with its inability to change the heart, we are now yoked with Christ and empowered by his Spirit; how their are two main forces influencing our lives, good and evil, light and darkness.

That is true.
Apart from God, we always do what is not right. No matter how noble our intentions.
This is why the world has so many problems man try to fix. They create them, then try to fix them.

Romans 3:
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

It does not undermine God being just. Later on Paul goes into predestination and how God knows how to balance the scales, like bearing with much patients the unbeliever, and then we are given his corporate plan, so that all will see his light / glory and be drawn to Him.

When i started diving into this topic years ago it just emphasized for me with a greater understanding that, as He has said ...

"Apart from me, ye can do nothing."

Nothing good that is. And once again, good being defined as his Heart / Spirit.

This position of no freewill actually strengthens scripture and our inability to operate independently of influences.

.John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

God's creation, all of it, are just branches that are either found in Him, and influenced by Him, or apart from Him influenced by the kingdom of darkness.

So we can also say independence is just an illusion.

Maybe @Bradskii should have used your explanation.
So, we are either influenced by God's spirit, or the "kingdom of darkness", and thus slaves to either.
In that case, no one can freely choose to break free from either. Is that correct?

 

[CoreyD]

Why do you want to be a lawyer?
Why do you want to secure your future with a good income?
Are there not cause(s) for both of those?
Choice CAN exist along with purpose and reason. But uncaused choice cannot.

What is an uncaused choice?
How do we get a caused choice?

 

[CoreyD]

Why do you think God's influence failed?

I do not think anything of God fails.
I am using what @Jo555 and you are saying, that the holy spirit determines.
If the holy spirit - god's influence determines, and it was God's will for cain to do the right thing, why did God's influence fail?
Can you answer the question?

I don't remember if it was you who considered the Reformed/Calvinistic notion of 'two wills of God' to be bogus, but they do present a way of understanding what is presented in Scripture, as, 1) what God ordained from the beginning that would happen, (if no other way but by everything subsequent to his creating being an effect), being the one Will of God, and the other being 2) what he commands to his willed human creatures.

This would be a different topic, and does not change nor affect the question. Unless you are saying God ordained Cain to kill Abel, and then turned around and told him not to do it.
Is that what you are saying?

That God gives Cain advice, cajoling, even if it is pleading, or commanding does not even imply that Cain possessed the ability to obey, nor does it indicate what God expected to happen, nor does it at all supersede or control what God, from the very beginning, intended to happen.

So, you believe that God, intended Cain to kill Abel, and then played out the drama for us in Genesis 4:6-10?

So what do you even think God's influence was? There were, even back in simpler times, multitudes of determining factors, the whole of which resulted in precisely what God intended to happen -- redemption and salvation, and "God with us." There is no "one be the determiner", but many.


Again, take a look at simple logic: If God is first cause, then everything else, (regardless of how anyone may wish to describe it), is effect of that cause (whether directly or indirectly), and all effects are caused ("law of causation").


For those bringing up the notion after what has been said here, that God by commanding what he did not ordain, is working against himself, consider:
1) Again, what were his INTENTIONS (plans, reasons) by creating?
2) His commands are given for at least 3 reasons --like his word always accomplishes what he sent it out to do-- a. To effect certain results that are always in keeping with what he ordained to happen; b. To drive some away from him while to attract others toward him; c. To demonstrate to all of us our INABILITY to do anything worthy apart from him.
3) Consider the implications of the Christian 'Attributes of God' of the Simplicity of God and the Transcendence of God. God's purposes are beyond our understanding, yet as simple as speaking all fact into existence. This is what is commonly referred to as his "decree". That it takes all time for it to be completed, time is only a temporal consideration. When we see him as he is, I rather imagine we will not see time at all how we do now. The Bible makes it plain that God certainly does not see it the way we do.

I'm not getting into a theological argument on this.
It will take us into another subject, and I would be showing and asking for scripture to back up what is said.
That would be for a different thread. I am sure @Bradskii isn't interested in a scriptural debate.

 

[CoreyD]

Ah, I'm pulled in again. Topic close to my heart. Hopefully Bradskii is asleep and we can trail off the main topic just a bit.

Going to summarize to try and make it short.

Guilt and condemnation, shame, etc is reserved for the old man / carnal life. It keeps us on a vicious cycle of pointing back to us. It is a product of the law showing us ourselves apart from Christ, and condemning us to death. Guilt and condemnation says, What is going to happen to me?

It is based in self / carnal life of which we have died to, spiritually being crucified with Christ. We are then given new birth in spirit and given his Spirit that abides in ours.

This life is not a life that feels guilty and condemned, but it grieves when we slip BECAUSE (cause be the important aspect here), we have hurt (or committed an offense against) the object of our love and adoration; BECAUSE we love God with all and neighbor as ourselves. This kind of repentance brings life. The former brings death and keeps us on a vicious cycle of looking to ourselves and experiencing death and defeat.

The former, guilt and condemnation, was God's way of using our choice of looking to ourselves to try and be like him by partaking if the knowledge of good and evil, or to judge good and evil apart from Him.

Our choice? What do you mean?
How is it our choice, if we are slaves to the kingdom of darkness?

After the fall we are looking to ourselves and the law was brought in to show us ourselves apart from Him and condemn us to death. Remember, even after giving us the law He knew we wouldn't keep it as it is just a shadow of his heart and the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.

And i do believe choice is a good word here as it also includes going after our preferences, even if they are under the influence.

Are you saying we have no choice but to go after our preferences... however dark?
Do we freely chose whichever dark "preferences" are there?

Now some may disagree with me and I'm open to being wrong, but i do believe God can still use legalism in a believer's life. For instance, if they are looking to murder for whatever God forsaken reason and are ignoring the love call of the Spirit to stop. It can serve them by using fear of punishment to look to stop them, but it can't move them forward. The Spirit does that, through the love of God.

God's law was put in place, because of the fall, as a temp measure to serve and protect us until we came into Christ. Unfortunately, many Christians serve it instead of becoming Christ's love slave.

I also in my life do still struggle with guilt and condemnation, but it has nothing to do with sin as we generally see it. My guilt comes from being a caregiver. When my father passed i beat myself up for not being God and not being able to see every issue that arose with him and address it correctly. I know God did extend his life as he wanted, but there comes a day he says, time to come home, no more extensions and no matter what we, we go home.

I too, made decisions that I now look back, and regret that I did not do better.
I think that has happened to all of humanity. We are imperfect creatures.
I hope you have stopped beating yourself up.

So my sin in this instance is a lack of faith and trust in God and i suffer from guilt and condemnation, and even shame as a failure as i look to myself, but i am fully secure in the love of God for me and know i am not judged or shamed by Him. I just have to grow in my trust in Him.

We have much to be grateful for, considering God's great mercy toward us miserable and unworthy creatures.
Having that appreciation will bolster our faith in, and love for God.

He is not loading me up with guilt and condemnation. I do a fine job of that myself as a caregiver, and I'm sure the forces of darkness are at work too. He is inviting me to continue to draw close to Him so He can grow my trust in Him as I get to know Him even better.

She is 88 years young, and counting ...

Ah, good. She reached the age of might, or prevalence. Psalm 90:10

Thanks for asking.

Thanks for sharing. I understand you very well.

 

[Chesterton]

No, you are the process. It's you making the decision. And you make it because...? Fill in the elipses yourself and you'll then know what determined it.

I make it because I will it.

How does you being the cause mean that there are no other causes?

I don't deny that there are influences. That's why we try to influence our children to have good morals from an early age. But ultimately, they make their own choices.

 

[CoreyD]

Short on time and used up morning time to get back with you on another post, but i think a good deal of the problem many are having in this thread is making the distinction between freewill and choice.

I hope you did not somehow think the thread was about choice.
The thread's focus is on freewill, and making it obsolete.

Freewill says there are no influences affecting your choice, whether that be love or knowledge or experiences, etc.

Where did you get that from?

I don't know anything that fits into the model of freewill, except God.

But choice does allow for influences, like knowledge, preferences, experiences, etc.

Some may say choice does not exist, but according to the definition Google has given me (and he is the smartest one i know, after God), choice does exist.

What does google give you on freewill.
I get this:
freewill /frē′wĭl′/

adjective​

Done of one's own accord; voluntary.​

Done of your own accord.​

When a person chooses to leave from under God's influence, do they do so freely, of thier own accord?

 

[CoreyD]

Bradskii said:
You make choices whether free will exists or not. The deciding factor is whether the choice was determined by antecedent conditions or not .

People are indeed not robots, being willed 'agents'. But, consider that your statement, "We can't just throw false statement around as if they are facts, and expect people to just accept them." applies to you, too.

I think we have already been through this, but it will more enjoyable to say it again than to go back and look for the post(s):

Whatever one uses as first cause, whether "turtles all the way down", or a mechanical first cause, or a willed first cause, all things that happen subsequent to that cause, are effects of that cause. And all effects are caused, per "the Law of Causation".​

Now, if you can prove, either, 1) that there are as many 'little first causes running about the planet', as there are people, which is contrary to logic, or, 2) that not all that comes after the beginning are effects of that beginning, contrary to good sense, or, 3) that the law of causation ("all effects are caused") is not universal, then have at it, or even, 4) that causes do not determine, (by more than just redefining @Bradskii 's meaning of determine), then please, be my guest.

You, I think, or maybe it was @Ana the Ist , admitted that there are indeed 'influences' upon the person's thoughts in deciding. But the fact that one may shed an influence, or choose to go with the influence, neither one means that they were not swayed one way or the other by that influence --thus, "caused". Every argument that I have seen trying to show that influences are not causes, circularly depends on the notion that consideration of and willed motions against or toward whatever influence means that the influences are not causes.

How does any of this prove you make choices whether free will exists or not.?

 

[CoreyD]

The bible doesn't even teach freewill. It does speak of choices, but those choices are not independent of influences.

Why is a choice made, though influenced by knowledge, not freely made of one's desire or will?

Freewill actually, imo, does more damage than no freewill because it creates the perception that we are at liberty to make the right choice apart from God.

Does God make our decisions, or us?

And then Christians keep trying to move forward partaking of the wrong tree and drowning in guilt and condemnation, thinking this is something good, and noble, and humble, and load others up with that stuff, when in actuality it is pride because it denies the fact that apart from Him we can do nothing.

Now I'm of the camp that while we are being perfected in love, God can use it as a motivation to stop us if we are not walking in love and ignoring the call of his Spirit, but it doesn't move us forward, and it is not meant to.

Why did God not stop Solomon, whom he imparted with wisdom, from going after pagan women, and falling victim to their pagan worship?
Did Solomon not make a free willed decision?

More i would love to say on this, but will have to take some time; the multi-layer (or dimensional) thing of spiritual and natural.

Please, take your time, and drive safely.

 

[Jo555]

Our choice? What do you mean?
How is it our choice, if we are slaves to the kingdom of darkness?


Are you saying we have no choice but to go after our preferences... however dark?
Do we freely chose whichever dark "preferences" are there?



I too, made decisions that I now look back, and regret that I did not do better.
I think that has happened to all of humanity. We are imperfect creatures.
I hope you have stopped beating yourself up.


We have much to be grateful for, considering God's great mercy toward us miserable and unworthy creatures.
Having that appreciation will bolster our faith in, and love for God.


Ah, good. She reached the age of might, or prevalence. Psalm 90:10



Thanks for sharing. I understand you very well.

I don't know how to make it any plainer Corey, so i guess i have nothing else to share on it.

Do you think this undermines the gospel?

It doesn't. It only strengthens it.

Maybe with more time i may try again.

And thank you. I'm quite sober today, for a change.

 

[CoreyD]

Oh Bradskii, are you going to make me look up what choice means?

Jo: Hey google? What is the definition of choice?

Google: Here is the definition of choice. An act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Says nothing of apart from influences. I'm holding my ground Bradskii, unless you can prove to me that there is a different definition.

Just give me one example. Just one.

I'm standing beside you on this ground, because @Bradskii seems to think that philosophical views are reality - making everything else oppose to those views invalid.

 

[Jo555]

I don't know how to make it any plainer Corey, so i guess i have nothing else to share on it.

Do you think this undermines the gospel?

It doesn't. It only strengthens it.

Maybe with more time i may try again.

And thank you. I'm quite sober today, for a change.

Sometimes the language throws me for a loop too: cause of the uncaused for causation, because the influencer has not ceased to influence the influenced.

In my frustration, i want to reply, "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickles."

Just can't wrap my head around it at times, and i get drunk on it, but hats off to you that can. I'm impressed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sometimes the language throws me for a loop too: cause of the uncaused for causation, because the influencer has not ceased to influence the influenced.

In my frustration, i want to reply, "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickles."

Just can't wrap my head around it at times, and i get drunk on it.

I don't know from which language you hail, but, an example to add to the fun, South American Spanish has many instances where an intensifier translated into English might be mistaken for the negation of a negative (or, logically, a double-negative).

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm standing beside you on this ground, because @Bradskii seems to think that philosophical views are reality - making everything else oppose to those views invalid.

Not that I can speak for @Bradskii but philosophical views are at best, ways to try to understand reality, or they are attempts to describe reality or something about reality. I'm a little surprised that you would take him to be supposing that philosophical views ARE reality.

That opposing views may (or may not) themselves be reality nor good descriptors of reality has no relevance upon what is reality.

Lol, I could even argue that, since the opposing views are not even cogent, they are not worth calling 'views'.

"No, he's not right --he's not even wrong!" is one of my favorite quotes.

 

[Jo555]

I don't know how to make it any plainer Corey, so i guess i have nothing else to share on it.

Do you think this undermines the gospel?

It doesn't. It only strengthens it.

Maybe with more time i may try again.

And thank you. I'm quite sober today, for a change.

Sometimes the language throws me for a loop too: cause of the uncaused for causation, because the influencer has not ceased to influence the influenced.

In my frustration, i want to reply, "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickles."

Just can't wrap my head around it at times, and i get drunk

I don't know from which language you hail, but, an example to add to the fun, South American Spanish has many instances where an intensifier translated into English might be mistaken for the negation of a negative (or, logically, a double-negative).

Yo comprendo. Capiche?

Lord, I'm hitting the bottle again. Maybe it is time I trade in my AA degree for an AA degree (alcoholics anonymous).

Like that? AA being the one in question.

How'd i do Mark?