Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God at the end of time can communicate to God at the beginning of time (Himself)
and it is fixed, but again that does not mean humans did not make free will choices along the way.
Ever experience any of the kinds of things i am talking about with it...? or any or all of this at all...?I've experienced dejavu several times in my life.
Please notice that asking what free will means
I don't think wanting to do something constitutes a free will. it only shows we have a will. In this scenario, the will to eat could also be recognized as hunger.No, if God foresees that I will eat scrambled eggs for breakfast next Friday, then it is fixed that I will eat scrambled eggs for breakfast next Friday -- I am unable to choose anything else. In other words, I do not have free will of the libertarian kind.
I still have compatibilist free will: I choose eggs because that's what I want to do.
Matrix: Your not here to make the choice, you've already made it... We cannot see past the choices we don't understand... Your here to understand why you made or make the choices that you do, or did... Do you see her die...? You have the sight now Neo... Were all here to do what were all here to do... Everything that has a beginning, has an end Neo...And I'm saying there are different kinds of free will.
Libertarian free will = I could have chosen something different.
Compatibilist free will = I choose the thing that I want to choose.
I don't think wanting to do something constitutes a free will. it only shows we have a will. In this scenario, the will to eat could also be recognized as hunger.
Right. Well, that's just like saying that there are more than one interpretations or definitions of free will. I take compatibilism to be an attempt to make free will viable with predestination by changing the definition. To choose the thing I want to choose implies a predisposition or preference which is more consistent with determinism. I think it becomes a more focused discourse when contemplating the moral/immoral implications.And I'm saying there are different kinds of free will.
Libertarian free will = I could have chosen something different.
Compatibilist free will = I choose the thing that I want to choose.
As a spinoff from my last thread I found lots of differing ideas with “free will” and a need to ask some more questions:
Does God have both the power and knowledge to create a being with the ability to make one truly autonomous free will choice and if not why not?
Would God’s foreknowledge and/or knowing everything keep a being from making a truly autonomous free will choice?
Would giving a being the ability to make a truly autonomous free will choice reduce or even eliminate God’s Sovereignty?
God can certainly keep any being from making a choice, so does allowing the being to make the choice mean God is not “controlling” or “over” the universe?
With enough environmental and biological information, it can be determent which ice-cream you will chose, so is that really a free will choice?
If God created a being with the very limited autonomous free will ability to make just one choice, yet that being never came close to reaching the age to ever making that autonomous free will choice, would God still know the exact without a doubt selection the being would have made had if it lived long enough?
Right. Well, that's just like saying that there are more than one interpretations or definitions of free will.
I take compatibilism to be an attempt to make free will viable with predestination
What about the impetus? If I pose the question in a moral/immoral context., where does the want to pet and hold a puppy come from as opposed to the want to strangle or torture it? Is it merely my random choice to want either one, or are their higher powers ,described spiritually as darkness and Light ,moving me and formulating my wants?You misread the sentence. Compatibilist free will means that you do the thing that you want to do.
Standard example: you wake up to find yourself in a cinema playing a fascinating movie, which you want to watch, so you sit in your chair and watch it. Unknown to you, the doors are all locked, trapping you inside.
Do you have free will about staying inside the cinema? On the compatibilist version, yes (you want to stay and watch the movie). On the libertarian version, no (you are unable to leave).
I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by "any of the kinds of things I am talking about". I only know that for a moment I experienced myself in a future time and place that I sensed was in the future, but I only became assured it was reality and not an illusion when that future became the present just exactly as I saw it in the past. It mainly left an imprint upon my disposition similar to when you first wake up from a dream and still have the feeling or flavor of the dream.Ever experience any of the kinds of things i am talking about with it...? or any or all of this at all...?
If so, what does it mean...?
God Bless!
What about the impetus? If I pose the question in a moral/immoral context., where does the want come from to pet and hold a puppy come from as opposed to the want to strangle or torture it.?
or are their higher powers ,described spiritually as darkness and Light ,moving me and formulating my wants?
As a spinoff from my last thread I found lots of differing ideas with “free will” and a need to ask some more questions:
Does God have both the power and knowledge to create a being with the ability to make one truly autonomous free will choice and if not why not?
Would God’s foreknowledge and/or knowing everything keep a being from making a truly autonomous free will choice?
Would giving a being the ability to make a truly autonomous free will choice reduce or even eliminate God’s Sovereignty?
God can certainly keep any being from making a choice, so does allowing the being to make the choice mean God is not “controlling” or “over” the universe?
With enough environmental and biological information, it can be determent which ice-cream you will chose, so is that really a free will choice?
If God created a being with the very limited autonomous free will ability to make just one choice, yet that being never came close to reaching the age to ever making that autonomous free will choice, would God still know the exact without a doubt selection the being would have made had if it lived long enough?
As a spinoff from my last thread I found lots of differing ideas with “free will” and a need to ask some more questions:
Does God have both the power and knowledge to create a being with the ability to make one truly autonomous free will choice and if not why not?
Would God’s foreknowledge and/or knowing everything keep a being from making a truly autonomous free will choice?
Would giving a being the ability to make a truly autonomous free will choice reduce or even eliminate God’s Sovereignty?
God can certainly keep any being from making a choice, so does allowing the being to make the choice mean God is not “controlling” or “over” the universe?
With enough environmental and biological information, it can be determent which ice-cream you will chose, so is that really a free will choice?
If God created a being with the very limited autonomous free will ability to make just one choice, yet that being never came close to reaching the age to ever making that autonomous free will choice, would God still know the exact without a doubt selection the being would have made had if it lived long enough?
By the end of these movies as an outer example, in the first movie on it, it is all about man's free will and choice empowering them through Neo, but by the time the second starts, Morpheus even mentions that the reason why many of them were there or were supposedly free, was because of their shared affinity for rebelliousness or disobedience, ect, then there are characters like the Merovingian who talks all about "causality" (cause and effect, or supposed choice and consequence, ect) how they are all slaves to it, ect, no escaping it, ect, then by the end of the second movie after Neo's meeting with the Architect, ect (where maybe, or by the end of the movie it is revealed that only that one single choice, which was only one of two choices, made by Neo alone, and only right at that time with Architect, might have been the only true choice any of them ever made ever, throughout any of the entire three movies, by any of them... it is revealed that, by and at the end of the third that that might have been the one and only real true choice by anyone, but by the ending of the third movie of the series and the conclusion that was maybe never any of any or all of them, was any real true choice made anyone at all, Neo and Agent Smith, none of them maybe never, ever made any real true choice at all... and it is ultimately Neo's telling Agent Smith that (by or at the end of the final battle between them) that Neo beats Him (Agent Smith) at the end, by telling Agent Smith that he was right and was always right, then submits to Agent Smith and is how he (Neo) ultimately beats Smith, stops the attack on Zion and wins the biggest battle and war perhaps ever up to that point costing Neo (and Smith) their lives...along with many others, but then peace and a new and better world by that, by the end... And was it choice...? or was any of it really and real, true choice at all, truth is IDK..? if they ever truly figured it or that out for sure... maybe you should watch the series again...? And you tell me...?Matrix: Your not here to make the choice, you've already made it... We cannot see past the choices we don't understand... Your here to understand why you made or make the choices that you do, or did... Do you see her die...? You have the sight now Neo... Were all here to do what were all here to do... Everything that has a beginning, has an end Neo...
God Bless!
Its just a movie series though, but man I really don't know of any other movie or series or whatever really tries hard to go into and answer that like the Matrix series does...By the end of these movies as an outer example, in the first movie on it, it is all about man's free will and choice empowering them through Neo, but by the time the second starts, Morpheus even mentions that the reason why many of them were there or were supposedly free, was because of their shared affinity for rebelliousness or disobedience, ect, then there are characters like the Merovingian who talks all about "causality" (cause and effect, or supposed choice and consequence, ect) how they are all slaves to it, ect, no escaping it, ect, then by the end of the second movie after Neo's meeting with the Architect, ect (where maybe, or by the end of the movie it is revealed that only that one single choice, which was only one of two choices, made by Neo alone, and only right at that time with Architect, might have been the only true choice any of them ever made ever, throughout any of the entire three movies, by any of them... it is revealed that, by and at the end of the third that that might have been the one and only real true choice by anyone, but by the ending of the third movie of the series and the conclusion that was maybe never any of any or all of them, was any real true choice made anyone at all, Neo and Agent Smith, none of them maybe never, ever made any real true choice at all... and it is ultimately Neo's telling Agent Smith that (by or at the end of the final battle between them) that Neo beats Him (Agent Smith) at the end, by telling Agent Smith that he was right and was always right, then submits to Agent Smith and is how he (Neo) ultimately beats Smith, stops the attack on Zion and wins the biggest battle and war perhaps ever up to that point costing Neo (and Smith) their lives...along with many others, but then peace and a new and better world by that, by the end... And was it choice...? or was any of it really and real, true choice at all, truth is IDK..? if they ever truly figured it or that out for sure... maybe you should watch the series again...? And you tell me...?
God Bless
As a spinoff from my last thread I found lots of differing ideas with “free will” and a need to ask some more questions:
Does God have both the power and knowledge to create a being with the ability to make one truly autonomous free will choice and if not why not?
Would God’s foreknowledge and/or knowing everything keep a being from making a truly autonomous free will choice?
Would giving a being the ability to make a truly autonomous free will choice reduce or even eliminate God’s Sovereignty?
God can certainly keep any being from making a choice, so does allowing the being to make the choice mean God is not “controlling” or “over” the universe?
With enough environmental and biological information, it can be determent which ice-cream you will chose, so is that really a free will choice?
If God created a being with the very limited autonomous free will ability to make just one choice, yet that being never came close to reaching the age to ever making that autonomous free will choice, would God still know the exact without a doubt selection the being would have made had if it lived long enough?
I've studied linguistics most of my life. Therefore, asking where the impetus comes from is not much different than asking where our nature is derived from. In other words, I don't feel like you've answered where the impetus to do good or evil comes from when you say it's determined by our nature.In most cases, these wants are determined by our natures. If I loved puppies from childhood, I will want to pet and hold the puppy.
I believe it's the case and believing in free will simply obscures this reality.That can happen.
asking where the impetus comes from is not much different than asking where our nature is derived from. In other words, I don't feel like you've answered where the impetus to do good or evil comes from when you say it's determined by our nature.
These are all examples of circular reasoning consistent with free will theology.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?