Predestination and Free Will

[Washington]

When I use the term free will I am saying I have some ability to control what I do. I am not saying I have unlimited ability to do anything I can think of; nor am I saying what I do and what I decide is free from all influences from the environment and other factors.

If I understand you correctly, you are a compatibilist; someone who recognizes that "decisions" cannot be other than what they are. That the will is NOT free of cause. That there is no such thing as an uninfluenced or undetermined "choice." But that in many cases your decisions are simply not coerced.

 

[elman]

=Washington;43618616]If I understand you correctly, you are a compatibilist; someone who recognizes that "decisions" cannot be other than what they are.

It does not appear you understand what I am saying. I recognize my decisions could have been different if I simply chose to decide differently.

That the will is NOT free of cause. That there is no such thing as an uninfluenced or undetermined "choice." But that in many cases your decisions are simply not coerced.

If a decision is entirly coerced then it is not a decision, unless it is a decision of the entity doing the coercing. So in all cases my decisions are not entirely coerced even though in all cases they are influenced. They are never made in a vacume.

 

[Washington]

It does not appear you understand what I am saying. I recognize my decisions could have been different if I simply chose to decide differently.

Good. Having cleared that up I'll proceed.

I have said this many times and it remains ignored. My decisions are caused and one of those causes is me deciding to do what I do.

But, what does it mean to say "one of the causes is me"? It's like saying that one of the causes of being able to fly is airplanes. But what causes an airplane to fly? I agree that in a broad sense one of the causes of your decisions is you, but what causes you to make a decision? You claim it is a will free of cause. That your will does what it does free of any determinants. But what form of "deciding" operation takes place that is completely free of cause? Do your decisions unexpectedly pop out of thin air, completely unbidden? There has to be some reason you "decided" to do A rather than B. And whatever that reason is functions as the cause of your decision. Then the question becomes one of, what configured that reason? Do your reasons simply pop out of thin air? Something had to cause your reasoning to take the shape it did instead of some other shape. So what caused that "something" rather than another "something"?

Obviously the regression continues to an almost infinite regress. Unless you concede events (decisions) simply pop into existence, they must have a cause. They must be determined. You cannot help but "decide" in favor of A over B because the chain of cause/effect inexorably led you to it. In order for B to occur something in the chain would have to be different. (If it wasn't different then B would not be possible.) And that "different" could only have arisen if the one or more of the determinants were different. And why would any of the determinants be different? They could only be different if something caused them to be different. And what would be the cause of this "something"? As you can see we're right back to the chain of cause and effect. So, unless you want to bring utter randomness into the equation, you're stuck with the chain of cause/effect as the reason for your decisions. Your decisions are determined by all the preceding factors that inexorably led to it. You could not do any differently than you did.
Free will is a comforting notion, but aside from a function of utter randomness, it's ungrounded. Things happen and "decisions" occur for reasons, and those reasons are caused, and these causes have causes, which themselves are caused, which . . . . . . .
Sorry, but there's no escaping the nature of the beast. Things are what they are because they cannot be otherwise. If they could be they would.

 

[NotreDame]

Very well, though I can't take credit for development. Around here, I know David Gould has used a form of it before.

1. An event is either caused or uncaused.
2. A caused event is determined; an uncaused event is random.
3. A decision is an event.
4. Therefore, a decision is either determined or random.

Well but this really does not tell me who or what is doing the "determining." Is an event/decision "determined" because of the decision making actions of the individual or something else?

Second, you want to argue semantics? You want to argue definitions? I can do so until you go blind. What do you mean by "determined"? See, the meaning "determined" has a precise and agreed upon meaning by most people in the philosophical world dealing with the subject free will.

That is a supremely superficial analysis. Philosophers haven't been concerned with such triviality for more than 500 years.

This does not really matter at all. This is a superficial reply and has no relevance. It is irrelevant what philosophers have concerned themselves with for the last 500 years.

What is "I"? How does it make decisions?
What do you expect? You have barely progressed beyond a rudimentary understanding of terminology, let alone causality.

You have not progressed at all in terms of making a strong argument. My understanding of the terminology should not impede your ability to make a strong argument. Attempting to blame me for your evidentiary shortcomings is sour grapes. Attempting to blame me for the shortcomings of your logic is also sour grapes. Either you have evidence and a strong reasoned argument or you do not. You having evidence or a strong argument is not predicated upon my understanding of terminology. The fact is, you do not have a very strong argument and little evidence and you attempt to obscure this fact with the bullcrap above.

So, let's try this one more time.

What is the "cause" for me to read your post and submit a reply? I say "I" am the cause because "I" decided to do so. You inquire, "What is I?" "I" is me, a human being, with a brain, which has a thought process, and gives the rest of my body commands.

What is the cause for the movement of my leg back and forth? What is the cause for the movement of my arms back and forth? What is the cause for a football player to react to a football they see, or to react to a play? What is the cause for the movement of my fingers to type this post? What is the cause for reading and replying to your post? Well "I" is the cause, my brain, reading what you said, processing it, and then telling my fingers to type a reply.

Just as the athlete sees a play, sees the ball, and reacts but what makes them react? Their brain processes what they are seeing, the play, the ball, and sends an electrical message to those parts of the body to react, to move. But, this is if the brain decides to do anything...there are some occasions when athletes do not react, do not respond, and why? Because the brain has decided not to react and consequently, no messages are sent for the limbs to react/respond. Just as my brain made the decision to type this post. I did not have to type this post but it happened, because my brain chose to do so, just as it could choose not to type a post, or read your posts, etcetera.

 

[NotreDame]

And this is NotreDame's basic problem, thinking that as long as he can paste a label such as "I," " my brain," or "myself" on the carrier of free will that he has addressed the issue. Heck, I could use the same argument, "I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate to me something other than determinism has made a decision to act." Pretty lame argument. No need to explain the nature of determinism: how it works and when, or its logic. No evidence needed. Just say "I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate . . . . "

LOL...you have a lot to learn and I doubt you will do so anytime soon but anyway....

First, TeddyKGB's argument is a little more advanced than your own. He actually provided a reasoned argument, something you have failed to do. I do not have any burden because I am not asserting free will exists. You keep diverting the attention from you to me because you do not want to and cannot meet your burden of proof.

You made the claim there is a cause for our decisions and the free moral agent known as a "human being" is not the cause. Consequently, it is your burden to demonstrate the "cause." Stop with the red herring of, "Well NotreDame, you have not provided any logic/evidence free will exists," yes but I never said we did, I have merely been asking YOU for EVIDENCE/REASONING to support your claim, something you have demonstrated over and over again you cannot do.

Even if I made the assertion free will exists, my failure to provide any evidence/reasoning for the veracity of my claim does nothing to validate your own.

Your basic problem is your reasoning is littered with fallacies and you do not even know it.

 

[elman]

=Washington;43621550]


But, what does it mean to say "one of the causes is me"? It's like saying that one of the causes of being able to fly is airplanes. But what causes an airplane to fly? I agree that in a broad sense one of the causes of your decisions is you, but what causes you to make a decision? You claim it is a will free of cause. That your will does what it does free of any determinants. But what form of "deciding" operation takes place that is completely free of cause? Do your decisions unexpectedly pop out of thin air, completely unbidden? There has to be some reason you "decided" to do A rather than B. And whatever that reason is functions as the cause of your decision. Then the question becomes one of, what configured that reason? Do your reasons simply pop out of thin air? Something had to cause your reasoning to take the shape it did instead of some other shape. So what caused that "something" rather than another "something"?

I don't know, but that does not prove I had nothing to do with the election of the reason that became the reason upon which a decision was based.

Obviously the regression continues to an almost infinite regress. Unless you concede events (decisions) simply pop into existence, they must have a cause.

Yes they have a cause. I decide that way and that is the cause.

They must be determined. You cannot help but "decide" in favor of A over B because the chain of cause/effect inexorably led you to it. In order for B to occur something in the chain would have to be different. (If it wasn't different then B would not be possible.) And that "different" could only have arisen if the one or more of the determinants were different. And why would any of the determinants be different? They could only be different if something caused them to be different.

Like me wanting them to be different? Anytime I decide in favor of A over B, I could have helped it. I could have decided I don't care what explerience indicates is the consequences of this action, I am going to do it the other way, chose B and live with those consequences.

And what would be the cause of this "something"? As you can see we're right back to the chain of cause and effect.

But you want to eliminate me from the chain and I insist on being one of the cogs in the chain.---a cog I created and not a cog that was forced on me by previous events.

So, unless you want to bring utter randomness into the equation, you're stuck with the chain of cause/effect as the reason for your decisions. Your decisions are determined by all the preceding factors that inexorably led to it.

You believe that but you have not proven that and your reasoning above does not prove that.

You could not do any differently than you did.

Again this is mere assertion, not proven fact.

Free will is a comforting notion, but aside from a function of utter randomness, it's ungrounded.

But observable and it can be experienced.

Things happen and "decisions" occur for reasons, and those reasons are caused, and these causes have causes, which themselves are caused, which . . . . . . .
Sorry, but there's no escaping the nature of the beast. Things are what they are because they cannot be otherwise. If they could be they would.

Again the problem with this logic is you assume the decision was caused by a reason, when I assume it was only influenced by that reason and there were contrary reasons that were not chosen at the time of the decision that could have been chosen. Sometimes by the way, the choice between the reasons is made at random or without a particular reason to chose one reason over another, as in deciding if a coin is going to come up heads or tails.

 

[Washington]

I don't know, but that does not prove I had nothing to do with the election of the reason . . . . . . . .

Obviously I should have stuck with my original decision in post 50.

"I think we are at loggerheads and any further discussion would be fruitless.​

Take care"​

Take care.

 

[Washington]

LOL...you have a lot to learn and I doubt you will do so anytime soon but anyway....

First, TeddyKGB's argument is a little more advanced than your own. He actually provided a reasoned argument, something you have failed to do. I do not have any burden because I am not asserting free will exists. You keep diverting the attention from you to me because you do not want to and cannot meet your burden of proof.

You made the claim there is a cause for our decisions and the free moral agent known as a "human being" is not the cause. Consequently, it is your burden to demonstrate the "cause." Stop with the red herring of, "Well NotreDame, you have not provided any logic/evidence free will exists," yes but I never said we did, I have merely been asking YOU for EVIDENCE/REASONING to support your claim, something you have demonstrated over and over again you cannot do.

Even if I made the assertion free will exists, my failure to provide any evidence/reasoning for the veracity of my claim does nothing to validate your own.

Your basic problem is your reasoning is littered with fallacies and you do not even know it.

I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend the essence of the issue. And because I'm a bit weary of trying to get it across and have serious doubts I ever could, I'm going to simply call it a day.


Take care.

 

[NotreDame]

Not at all. It's a method used by most everyone when confronted by an unsubstantiated claim: "Show me the beef." Where is your evidence that free will exists.

Even if I cared to, what would it prove?


The difference is that the free will advocate has yet to produce any e v i d e n c e it exists. And until that happens the default position necessarily consists only of determinism and randomness. So far they are the only operants found to exist in the universe. EVERY event can be attributed to one or the other, so there's no need to postulate free will---no more need than to postulate invisible faeries---other than the fact that most religions require it. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.


Would you agree that besides determinism, randomness, and free will, that invisible faeries were also behind events? Assuming you would not then you should understand the logic in not granting free will, also a concept without evidence, consideration. As I've said, determinism and randomness are the only two operants supported by evidence. Free will is not. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.


See above. And if you have evidence free will exists please share.


Don't equivocate. Just show us the evidence that free will exists. It's YOUR claim, so the burden is yours to back it up.

Washington is heard Laughing at his desk and thinking to himself, "Boy if that sorry excuse for a retort isn't given a quick burial pretty soon it's going to become the mantra of everyone who can't come up with a reasonable reply. ''well, I don't think peanut butter is good for you!' ' STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!' 'But your tie doesn't go with that shirt dear.' ' STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!' 'But I'm not old enough to vote.' 'STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!'"​

Please---give it a break.​

That's the "standard characterization of determinism" is it. Something I assume you've determine after carefully comparing a slew of such "characterizations." Please excuse me if I question your certitude. Of course, if it WAS the "standard characterization of determinism" just think how many have got it wrong, because, as quantum physics has shown us, not every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events.

I know your position. There are billions of operants in the universe: determinism, randomness, and 6.6 billion others on earth just like yourself. What I find telling is that you're still unable to explain what this free will thing is. All you can do is label what it is: the person. "Free will is a person doing stuff." Not very scientific or even philosophical, is it. And this is what you expect me and everyone else to put on the same level as determinism and randomness: two operants that HAVE been shown to exists and have been explained. Sorry, but your free will just doesn't measure up. However, IF you have e v i d e n c e, I'm willing to listen.

So if I told you that flying pink elephants existed you'd take that as a serious claim worthy of such possibility that it would be perverse to say they did not. Therefore, you're obviously ready to admit the real possibility of anything I or anyone else suggests: even that Jesus had green skin and twelve toes. I understand. In the face of a lack of concrete evidence you're willing to grant any absurdity possible existence. Gotcha.

Boy is this a load of bad reasoning...this is a good example of the fallacy of strawman argument. Your above strawman argument is an extrapolation, an illogical one, of the remarks below. MY REMARKS:

"When you assert "until either can be substantiated" you are essentially asserting there is a lack of evidence or no evidence at all. Then on this basis you conclude they are non-existent entities. Sorry, but this conclusion does not follow. It is a non-sequiter because of the fallacy of the argument of ignorance. A lack of evidence or the non-existence of evidence for X does not mean, and nobody should conclude, X is false or does not exist."

Nothing you said in the quote tags above is an accurate or correct representation of what I said in italics. Logical reasoning errors seem to be the norm, rather than the exception, for your arguments.

Even if I cared to, what would it prove?

Oh I just love this reply. You make this reply to my remark of, "Good...now suffer the luxury of divulging this logic and evidence and actually meeting your burden of proof in this exchange, as opposed to dodging it."

What would it prove? Well since you are making the claim, it makes sense you may want to submit a logically reasoned argument/evidence for your position, in an effort to persuade others. At this time, you have demonstrated a proclivity for using logical reasoning fallacies and no evidence for your claim. A dubious method of argumentation to be sure.

The difference is that the free will advocate has yet to produce any e v i d e n c e it exists. And until that happens the default position necessarily consists only of determinism and randomness.

More baloney....you want to assume determinism and randomness are the default position but it makes no sense to make either the default position anymore than it makes sense to begin with free will as the default position. You, like the free will advocates, have not produced a scintilla of evidence for your position.

So far they are the only operants found to exist in the universe. EVERY event can be attributed to one or the other, so there's no need to postulate free will---no more need than to postulate invisible faeries---other than the fact that most religions require it. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.

Good....of course you can demonstrate this right? You can demonstrate my decision to type this post to your reply was "CAUSED" or the RESULT of determinism or randomness? Well, "WHAT" determined me to type this reply? "WHAT" determined me to read your post?

As I've said, determinism and randomness are the only two operants supported by evidence. Free will is not. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.

You are making the assertion determinism and randomness are supported by evidence. I have asked for the evidence and you continue in your failure to disclose it. What is the evidence for ONLY determinism/randomness?

Don't equivocate. Just show us the evidence that free will exists. It's YOUR claim, so the burden is yours to back it up.

Actually, I have not made a claim yet and your assumption I have is erroneous. I entered this dialogue by analyzing your argument, illuminating its assumptions, its weaknesses, and asking for you to make it better by evidence/a logically reasoned argument. Rather than do either one, rather than actually meet your burden, you have attempted to divert the attention from you to me by this myth I have made a claim. I have not made a claim. Rather, I have played the role of a skeptic and nothing more.

Either support your claim with evidence/reasoning, or bow out. Your refusal to do so is a plague to your position and cannot hurt any claim I have not made.

That's the "standard characterization of determinism" is it. Something I assume you've determine after carefully comparing a slew of such "characterizations." Please excuse me if I question your certitude. Of course, if it WAS the "standard characterization of determinism" just think how many have got it wrong, because, as quantum physics has shown us, not every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events.

You can question my certitude all you want...in the philosophical field, my definition of determinism is widely accepted. Whatever mythical meaning you rely upon is irrelevant, except in your land of Oz.

I know your position. There are billions of operants in the universe: determinism, randomness, and 6.6 billion others on earth just like yourself. What I find telling is that you're still unable to explain what this free will thing is

What I find telling is your inability to support your argument with evidence or an logic devoid of fallacies.

"Free will is a person doing stuff."

Nice strawman argument...I never defined free will this way. I actually defined it quite differently. I award you no points...you have lost this game...insert more coins to continue playing and go back a few posts and see how I precisely defined free will.

Not very scientific or even philosophical, is it.

I agree...there is nothing scientific or philosophical about your fallacious argument.

However, IF you have e v i d e n c e, I'm willing to listen.

Teapot calling the kettle black...asking me for evidence when you cannot and refuse to do so yourself...what a joke.

 

[NotreDame]

I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend the essence of the issue. And because I'm a bit weary of trying to get it across and have serious doubts I ever could, I'm going to simply call it a day.


Take care.

Thanks for the condolences...the problem was your inability to make a logically coherent argument. Perhaps had you done so, your argument would have been better understood. Of course, an argument lacking in evidence/reasoning, and plagued with reasoning fallacies, is quite simply not a good argument.

Take care...

 

[NotreDame]

There is really only one thing I want from TeddyKGB and Washington.

What is the "CAUSE" for some event/decision? Both of you say there is a "cause" but repeatedly fail, time after time, after time, after time, to tell me or anyone else the "cause."

Washington, you mockingly talk about "fairies" in terms of characterizing the free will argument. Well, your argument relies upon magical fairies because in post, after post, after post, after post you have failed to tell me or Elman the "cause." You just assert there is a "cause." Well great! What is the "cause"? You fail to identify, even given an example, of the "cause" and consequently, this makes one wonder if you even have any evidence to support your claim, as you boast in each boast you do but fail to disclose it. You do not even provide an example of what you are talking about! It seems to me you are relying upon magical fairies.

Teddy, the above remarks apply to your own argument. Do not tell me there is a cause, what is the cause?

Both of your arguments are parallel to the following example.

Person X says, "There is a cause for the existence and disappearance of dinosaurs." Y inquires, "What is the cause for the existence and disappearance of dinosaurs?" Person X replies, "Well, quite simpy there is a cause, I am not going to tell you the cause, but I can tell you what you think is the "cause" is wrong." Person Y retorts, "Okay, well if my cause is wrong, and there is a cause, then what is the cause?" Person X responds, "There is a cause, period! Your cause is wrong but there is a cause." WHAT IS THE CAUSE???

Both Teddy and Washington represent person X who are insistent there is a cause but fail, repeatedly, to disclose to me or anyone else the "cause." They cannot even provide an example. Thus, in the end, it is their argument which apparently relies upon magical fairies, a mysterious, unidentified, flying object, oh, I mean unidentified "cause."

 

[Washington]

There is really only one thing I want from TeddyKGB and Washington.

.​

 

[NotreDame]

.​

YES!!!! Washington has finally admitted he does not get what is being asked of him. He does not get logical reasoning. He does not get the concept of the burden of proof. What he does get, however, is circular reasoning, strawman arguments, begging the question reasoning, and a persistent refusal to tell us the "cause" and merely tell us there is one, rather than identify it for us.

Keep debating in this manner, and soon the Law School Admission Council will ask permission to reprint portions of your argument in the logical reasoning sections of the law school admission test, for the express purpose of asking the test taker to identify the flawed or fallacious reasoning of your argument. Keep up the good work.

 

[TeddyKGB]

There is really only one thing I want from TeddyKGB and Washington.

What is the "CAUSE" for some event/decision? Both of you say there is a "cause" but repeatedly fail, time after time, after time, after time, to tell me or anyone else the "cause."

Washington, you mockingly talk about "fairies" in terms of characterizing the free will argument. Well, your argument relies upon magical fairies because in post, after post, after post, after post you have failed to tell me or Elman the "cause." You just assert there is a "cause." Well great! What is the "cause"? You fail to identify, even given an example, of the "cause" and consequently, this makes one wonder if you even have any evidence to support your claim, as you boast in each boast you do but fail to disclose it. You do not even provide an example of what you are talking about! It seems to me you are relying upon magical fairies.

Teddy, the above remarks apply to your own argument. Do not tell me there is a cause, what is the cause?

Both of your arguments are parallel to the following example.

Person X says, "There is a cause for the existence and disappearance of dinosaurs." Y inquires, "What is the cause for the existence and disappearance of dinosaurs?" Person X replies, "Well, quite simpy there is a cause, I am not going to tell you the cause, but I can tell you what you think is the "cause" is wrong." Person Y retorts, "Okay, well if my cause is wrong, and there is a cause, then what is the cause?" Person X responds, "There is a cause, period! Your cause is wrong but there is a cause." WHAT IS THE CAUSE???

Both Teddy and Washington represent person X who are insistent there is a cause but fail, repeatedly, to disclose to me or anyone else the "cause." They cannot even provide an example. Thus, in the end, it is their argument which apparently relies upon magical fairies, a mysterious, unidentified, flying object, oh, I mean unidentified "cause."

Is this Bizarro-Philosophy? I distinctly remember you telling me that "I" is a cause, and then me asking you what "I" is.

When did you challenge me to provide an example of a cause? I can tell you what might have caused the dinosaurs to die en masse at various levels of abstraction. Is that good enough?

 

[Idea]

We are responsible for our own actions. We are the cause.
I admit, I did not read the whole thread… here is the standard reply…

I do not believe the Bible teaches predestination… Predestined would mean no free agency, God loves only a select few, sets the ground of a man’s hope of salvation entirely outside himself.

Paul taught that God “will render to every man according to his deeds. … For there is no respect of persons with God.” (Rom. 2:6–11.)

Render according to deeds = part of man’s hope for salvation lies within himself and not from what God has decreed - ie – it takes BOTH works and the atonement to find salvation…

“the elect” can fall from grace and thus lose their reward. (See Rom. 11:17–21.)

Paul claimed no guarantee of his own salvation; one of his favorite themes was the necessity of holding “stedfast unto the end.” (Heb. 3:14; see also 1 Cor. 9:27.) Such constant exhortations to righteousness would hardly seem necessary if he had believed that human beings did not help determine their own eternal destinies by their conduct during mortality.

The Bible teaches liberty – free will – that we choose who are, that we have our own will,

Agency
Gen. 2:16 Of every tree ... thou mayest freely eat
Gen. 4:7 if thou doest not well
Deut. 11:27 blessing, if ye obey
Deut. 30:19 therefore choose life
Josh. 24:15 choose ... whom ye will serve
1 Kgs. 18:21 if the Lord be God, follow him
Prov. 1:29 did not choose the fear of the Lord
Matt. 26:39 not as I will, but as thou wilt
John 5:30 I seek not mine own will

Free = f.
Ex. 21:2 (Deut. 15:12; Jer. 34:14) he shall go out f.
Ex. 36:3 brought yet unto him f. offerings
2 Chr. 29:31 as many as were of a f. heart burnt offerings
Isa. 58:6 let the oppressed go f.
Jer. 34:9 let his manservant ... being an Hebrew ... go f.
Matt. 15:6 (Mark 7:11) honour not his father ... shall be f.
Matt. 17:26 Jesus saith ... Then are the children f.
John 8:32 the truth shall make you f.
John 8:36 Son ... shall make you f., ye shall be f. indeed
Rom. 6:7 he that is dead is f. from sin
Rom. 6:18 Being then made f. from sin, ye became the servants
Rom. 6:22 made f. from sin, and become servants to God
Rom. 8:2 f. from the law of sin and death
1 Cor. 9:1 am I not an apostle? am I not f.
1 Cor. 12:13 Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or f.
Gal. 3:28 (Col. 3:11) bond nor f.
Gal. 4:22 one by a bondmaid, the other by a f. woman
Gal. 5:1 liberty wherewith Christ hath made us f.
2 Thes. 3:1 word of the Lord may have f. course
1 Pet. 2:16 As f., and not using your liberty
Rev. 13:16 f. and bond, to receive a mark

Liberty = l.
Ex. 21:2 in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing
Lev. 25:10 proclaim l. throughout all the land
Ps. 119:45 I will walk at l.
Isa. 58:6 to let the oppressed go free
Isa. 61:1 to proclaim l. to the captives
Jer. 34:8 made a covenant ... to proclaim l. unto them
Jer. 34:17 I proclaim a l. for you
Ezek. 46:17 it shall be his to the year of l.
Luke 4:18 to set at l. them that are bruised
John 8:32 know the truth, and the truth shall make you free
John 8:36 If the Son ... make you free, ye shall be free indeed
Rom. 8:21 glorious l. of the children of God
1 Cor. 7:39 she is at l. to be married
1 Cor. 8:9 lest ... this l. of yours become a stumblingblock
1 Cor. 10:29 is my l. judged of another man's conscience
2 Cor. 3:17 where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is l.
Gal. 2:4 our l. which we have in Christ Jesus
Gal. 5:1 (Mosiah 23:13; Alma 58:40; 61:9; D&C 88:86) Stand ... in the l. wherewith Christ hath made us free
Gal. 5:13 ye have been called unto l., only use not l.
Heb. 13:23 Know ye that ... Timothy is set at l.
James 1:25 whoso looketh into the perfect law of l.
James 2:12 they that shall be judged by the law of l.
1 Pet. 2:16 not using your l. for a cloke of maliciousness
2 Pet. 2:19 they promise them l.

I do believe in foreordination. allotted, planned, and fore-approve. Heavenly Father knows what will happen, but does not cause it to happen.

Some might ask - if Paul did not believe in predestination, why does the passage in Hebrews refer to it? Could those who translated the King James Version have erred in using the English word predestinate to convey the meaning of foreordain?

Possibly. The problem arises because the Greek word proorizo, which is made up of the prefix pro (meaning “before or in front of; beforehand, or earlier&#8221 14 and the verb orizo (meaning “to determine, mark out, designate, destine, ordain, or appoint,” or “to divide or separate from … to pre-appoint or pre-ordain)” 15 can be translated a number of different ways. In fact, various combinations of words have been used to translate the term over a period covering hundreds of years. an examples from various translations of Romans 8:29–30. Note how the same idea is translated in a number of different ways.

Translation Year Romans 8:29 Romans 8:30

Wyclif 1380 bifor ordeyned bifor ordeyned

Tyndale 1534 ordeyned before appoynted before

Cranmer 1539 ordeyned before appoynted before

Geneva 1657 ordeyned before appoynted before

Rheims 1582 predestinated predestinated

Standard Rev. 1881 foreordained foreordained

James Moffatt 1913 decreed of old has thus decreed

J. B. Phillips 1958 chose them chose them long ago

Wm. F. Beck 1963 appointed long ago appointed long ago


New Testament in Today’s English 1966 had also set apart had already set apart



In addition to these translations, the Greek word proorizo can be translated several other ways—for example, with such English words as allotted, planned, and fore-approved.

 

[Idea]

Foreordination
Deut. 32:8 he set the bounds of the people
Isa. 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning
Jer. 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly ... I ordained thee a prophet
Matt. 3:3 he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias
Luke 22:22 Son of man goeth, as it was determined
Acts 2:23 delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
Acts 17:26 determined the times before appointed
Rom. 8:29 he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
Rom. 9:11 purpose of God according to election
Rom. 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew
Gal. 3:8 foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
Eph. 1:4 he hath chosen us in him before the foundation
Eph. 1:5 having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
2 Thes. 2:13 God hath from the beginning chosen you
2 Tim. 1:9 called us ... before the world began
1 Pet. 1:2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God
1 Pet. 1:20 who verily was f. before the foundation
Rev. 13:8 Lamb slain from the foundation of the world

These scriptures refer to the pre-existence…

Man, Antemortal Existence of
Num. 16:22 (27:16) God of the spirits of all flesh
Job 38:7 all the sons of God shouted for joy
Eccl. 12:7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
Jer. 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee
Zech. 12:1 Lord ... formeth the spirit of man within him
John 9:2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind
Acts 17:28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring
Rom. 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate
Eph. 1:4 chosen us in him before the foundation of the world
Heb. 12:9 subjection unto the Father of spirits
Jude 1:6 angels which kept not their first estate
Rev. 12:7 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon

Have any LDS people commented on this thread?
God created our spirits – that is why He is our “Heavenly Father” – He is literally the Father of our Spirits

Man, a Spirit Child of Heavenly Father
Num. 16:22 God of the s. of all flesh
Deut. 14:1 Ye are the children of the Lord your God
Job 32:8 there is a s. in man
Job 33:4 breath of the Almighty hath given me life
Ps. 82:6 Ye are gods ... children of the most High
Eccl. 12:7 the s. shall return unto God who gave it
Isa. 42:5 he that giveth breath ... and s. to them that walk
Hosea 1:10 Ye are the sons of the living God
Mal. 2:10 Have we not all one father
Matt. 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father
Matt. 6:9 Our Father which art in heaven
Acts 17:29 we are the offspring of God
Rom. 8:16 Spirit itself beareth witness ... we are the children of God
Eph. 4:6 One God and Father of all
Heb. 12:9 be in subjection unto the Father of s.

Before we were born our spirits lived in heaven with our Heavenly Father. He knew us before we were born, we lived with Him, learned from Him, sang with Him, and chose to come to Earth. If you are here, it is because you choose to come – it is because you kept your “first estate” (Jude 1:6) Jer 1:5, and most of the foreordination scriptures are in reference to our pre-mortal life as spirit children of Heavenly Father…. ALL people are foreordained to salvation and exaltation, but to fulfill that foreordination they must accept the ordinances of the gospel, keep the commandments, and endure to the end.

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!​

- William Wordsworth, “Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood,” in The Oxford Book of English Verse: 1250–1900, ed. Arthur Quiller-Couch (1939), 628.

Faith VS works…
The Lord will render to every man according to his works, Prov. 24:12.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, Matt. 5:16
He that doeth the will of my Father shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 7:21.
Faith without works is dead, James 2:14–26.

We are not predestined… we must work.. there is glory in being able to stand on our own two feet of our own free will. To limit our ability to think, and act, and choose would limit His creation.

Ps. 82:6 Ye are gods ... children of the most High

Doctrines of Devils to claim that God can only make mindless robots… We are not puppets… He has created us with the potential to be gods…
"It is a serious thing," says Lewis, "to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no 'ordinary' people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whome we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit -- immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously -- no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner -- no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment."

--C. S. Lewis, From The Weight of Glory. ​

 

[Washington]

I do not believe the Bible teaches predestination… Predestined would mean no free agency, God loves only a select few, sets the ground of a man’s hope of salvation entirely outside himself.



I do believe in foreordination. allotted, planned, and fore-approve. Heavenly Father knows what will happen, but does not cause it to happen.

Sure you want to stick with that?


foreordain:

____________________________________________________

to dispose or appoint in advance : predestine

(Merriam=Webster)
____________________________________________________

determine future events: to arrange or determine an event in advance of its happening

(MSN Encarta)
____________________________________________________

To predestine or preordain

(Wiktionary)
____________________________________________________

Inflected forms: fore·or·dained, fore·or·dain·ing,
fore·or·dains
To determine or appoint beforehand; predestine.

(The American Heritage)
_____________________________________________________

to predestine; predetermine.

(Infoplease Dictionary)
______________________________________________________

To ordain or appoint beforehand; to preordain; to predestinate; to predetermine.

(Online Plain Text English Dictionary)
______________________________________________________

. to appoint or determine beforehand; predestine.

(The Wordsmyth English Dictionary)
______________________________________________________

 

[Idea]

Sure you want to stick with that?


foreordain:

____________________________________________________

to dispose or appoint in advance : predestine

(Merriam=Webster)
____________________________________________________

determine future events: to arrange or determine an event in advance of its happening

(MSN Encarta)
____________________________________________________

To predestine or preordain

(Wiktionary)
____________________________________________________

Inflected forms: fore·or·dained, fore·or·dain·ing,
fore·or·dains
To determine or appoint beforehand; predestine.

(The American Heritage)
_____________________________________________________

to predestine; predetermine.

(Infoplease Dictionary)
______________________________________________________

To ordain or appoint beforehand; to preordain; to predestinate; to predetermine.

(Online Plain Text English Dictionary)
______________________________________________________

. to appoint or determine beforehand; predestine.

(The Wordsmyth English Dictionary)
______________________________________________________

There are many definitions of words – the point is, God knows what we will do, but does not force us to do it.

Whatever word you would like to use that shows that He knows everything – use whatever word you would like. God does not control our actions – He could, but He chooses not to, we have free will - Satan wants to take that away from us, God teaches us how to keep it - how to keep all our options open.​

We are here proving to ourself who we are - not proving anything to God. We learn, and grow, and experience, and are tested here - He knows how it will all turn out for us, we still need to actually go through it though. Our life is for us to find ourself, to refine ourself hopefully, to prove to ourself who we are... not for Him to find us...

​

 

[Washington]

There are many definitions of words – the point is, God knows what we will do, but does not force us to do it.

Whatever word you would like to use that shows that He knows everything – use whatever word you would like. God does not control our actions – He could, but He chooses not to, we have free will - Satan wants to take that away from us, God teaches us how to keep it - how to keep all our options open.​

We are here proving to ourself who we are - not proving anything to God. We learn, and grow, and experience, and are tested here - He knows how it will all turn out for us, we still need to actually go through it though. Our life is for us to find ourself, to refine ourself hopefully, to prove to ourself who we are... not for Him to find us...





​

Fine. Let's say god doesn't force you to do anything. He simply sits on his hands and watches what goes on. And one of the things he sees while sitting on his hands watching is you and what you are going to be doing next week. He sees you eating curds and whey for breakfast. Now, because god sees the true future it is inevitable that you will eat curds and whey for breakfast. So the question is, could you do any differently when next week rolls around? Could you actually decide not to eat curds and whey? No, because it's a forgone conclusion that is what you have to do. If you say, "Yes, I can decide to not eat curds and whey," then in what sense does "decide" have meaning? You cannot decide not to eat curds and whey because god has already seen what you will do: You absolutely will, without question, eat curds and whey. It is impossible to "decide" any differently. If you could---if you had a will free to choose not to eat curds and whey, and did---then god would not have really seen the future.

 

[Idea]

Fine. Let's say god doesn't force you to do anything. He simply sits on his hands and watches what goes on. And one of the things he sees while sitting on his hands watching is you and what you are going to be doing next week. He sees you eating curds and whey for breakfast. Now, because god sees the true future it is inevitable that you will eat curds and whey for breakfast. So the question is, could you do any differently when next week rolls around? Could you actually decide not to eat curds and whey? No, because it's a forgone conclusion that is what you have to do. If you say, "Yes, I can decide to not eat curds and whey," then in what sense does "decide" have meaning? You cannot decide not to eat curds and whey because god has already seen what you will do: You absolutely will, without question, eat curds and whey. It is impossible to "decide" any differently. If you could---if you had a will free to choose not to eat curds and whey, and did---then god would not have really seen the future.

We are the ones who determine what our future will be... Honestly, I do not know if God chooses to see it all or not... there are a few prophecies in the Bible that do not come to pass because the people change their ways...

the Lord himself, through the biblical prophet Jeremiah, who explained the conditional nature of prophecy:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)1

If prophecy is conditional - this would say that the future can be altered...

Jeremiah himself exemplified the principle of conditional prophecy when he told king Zedekiah, in the name of the Lord, that he would not go captive into Babylon if he followed the prophet's instructions; otherwise, he would be taken captive and Jerusalem would be destroyed (Jeremiah 38:17-23). The conditional nature of prophecy explains why Jonah is not a false prophet. The Lord's threat to destroy Nineveh within forty days (Jonah 3:4) was mitigated by the repentance of the city's population (Jonah 3:4-9). "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not" (Jonah 3:10). Ironically, Jonah was upset by the fact that the prophecy was not fulfilled, and the Lord had to explain to him that the resultant repentance of "sixscore thousand persons" was more important than fulfilling the word (Jonah 4:1-11). From this story, it is obvious that the free-will actions of men play a role in the fulfillment of prophecy. Here are other examples from the Bible:

• The Lord told David that the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up [to Saul]" (1 Samuel 23:12). This did not happen, however, because David fled from the city (verses 13-14).
• Isaiah told king Hezekiah, "Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." (2 Kings 20:1) But after the king pleaded with the Lord, the prophet delivered a new message, saying that fifteen years would be added to his life (verses 2-6).
• The Lord told Moses that he would destroy the Israelites and make of Moses a greater nation than they. When Moses protested that this would be wrong, the Lord changed his mind (Numbers 14:11-20).
• The Lord said through Elisha that the combined armies of Israel, Judah and Edom would "smite every fenced city" of Moab and that he would "deliver the Moabites also into your hand." But one city, Kir-hareseth, was not taken. When Mesha, the Moabite king, sacrificed his son on the city wall, the Israelites left and went home. The prophecy was not fulfilled because the Israelites would not cooperate with the Lord's wishes.
• Through Ezekiel, the Lord declared that the Lebanese city of Tyre would be destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar, never to be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26, especially verses 4, 7, 12, 14). Though Nebuchadrezzar laid siege against Tyre from 598 to 586 B.C., he was never able to take the city. The Lord then told Ezekiel that, in compensation for his not taking Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar would be given the land of Egypt, (Ezekiel 29:17-10). Its people would be slain and its rivers dry up (Ezekiel 30:10-12; 32:11-15) and the land of Egypt would remain uninhabited for forty years (Ezekiel 29:11-13). But though Nebuchadrezzar defeated an Egyptian army in battle, he never conquered Egypt either.
• Isaiah, in his prophesy against Babylon (Isaiah 13:1), declared that the Medes would slay men, women and children and that Babylon would "be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation" (Isaiah 13:17-20). In 539 B.C., Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, took Babylon without bloodshed, and made it one of the principal cities of his empire. Babylon remained inhabited for centuries afterward.

It is in the light of the conditional nature of prophecy we must consider that some things are not set in stone.

What doesit mean to be "all knowing" - does it mean know everything now - or know everything at some future point?

8. Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

God is not confined with time... take away time, and you take away any understanding of past, present ... future...