Free will

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by akushla99


Did you choose this belief, that people can't choose thier beliefs?

Akushla

It's not a belief, it's a fact. I do think often times people believe in what appeals to them, but that doesn't mean they actually choose those beliefs.

How can you pretend it is a fact? The only fact here, and no shame nor blame, is that we are here to experience a life in a goal of personal growth. If there is something we all do have and that makes the difference between us all, it is choice. One can believe there is destiny, the next one can say you make your own destiny. Two different choices, none of them is better or worse, only different.

Although, in the end it all leads to the same end. The only thing that truly matters is to believe in what suits you. Whatever you do or think has to be good for you in a way that you can develop yourself to your best potential.

Free will or not, believe in what helps you to grow, with the "big common sense" of course to not let others take advantage out of you/your belief.






What do you think?





Thruthseek3r

Originally posted by Observor
reply to post by lampsalot

 

Well technically yes, from a purely philosophical standpoint I do reject the idea of personal responsibility. However I still think it's practical to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior (in a humane and redemptive way).

You are talking as if you had a choice about accepting or rejecting personal responsibility, "philosophically" or otherwise and about "rewarding" or "punishing" any behaviour whether practical or not.

Anyone that honestly claims to possess no freewill is merely a sophisticated animal driven by biology, even if the animal's responses to every input are not completely understood and predictable. It is absolutely silly to deny the existence of such animals around, but equally silly to attempt to prove to those animals the existence of freewill.

Freewill is a matter of experience, not deduction. Just as certain colours are not experienced by some and cannot be demonstrated to them, the existence of freewill cannot be demonstrated to those who don't experience it.

Some problems with your argument.

By saying I reject it, I am saying I do not accept the argument for free will based on the calculations being done in my brain for and against the idea. I disagree with your animal comparison too, you are appealing to your beliefs in the superiority of humans relative to other animals.

The colour analogy fails too and here is why. Yes the subjective experience of colours can't be demonstrated to a blind person, but colour itself, that is, wavelengths of light can be.

Between God, beast and mankind, there has NEVER been free will. In the old testament, men were constantly punished by God or at God's direction for exercising free will. I.e.

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

The flood, Tower of Babel, Sodom & Gomorrah, Ten plagues, King Nebuchadnezzar Daniel 4:28

All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 Twelve months later, as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 he said, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?”
31 Even as the words were on his lips, a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like the ox. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.” (Coercion at it's finest.)
33 Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like the ox. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.

All of the examples above indicate an unnatural reaction to exercising free will. Not a natural law such as stick hand in fire, get burned.

There is not even free will to have a full tummy in this world, or get an education. Anyone who thinks we have free will lives in a bubble. Maybe their little world is perfect.....until something goes wrong, but there are litterally MILLIONS of examples where mankind still does not have free will. The bible does not teach we have free will. It clearly states that the wages of sin are death. True free will would not have a negative impact (death) hanging over a decision simply because an entity desires us to follow it's rules.

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by Observor
reply to post by lampsalot

 

Well technically yes, from a purely philosophical standpoint I do reject the idea of personal responsibility. However I still think it's practical to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior (in a humane and redemptive way).

You are talking as if you had a choice about accepting or rejecting personal responsibility, "philosophically" or otherwise and about "rewarding" or "punishing" any behaviour whether practical or not.

Anyone that honestly claims to possess no freewill is merely a sophisticated animal driven by biology, even if the animal's responses to every input are not completely understood and predictable. It is absolutely silly to deny the existence of such animals around, but equally silly to attempt to prove to those animals the existence of freewill.

Freewill is a matter of experience, not deduction. Just as certain colours are not experienced by some and cannot be demonstrated to them, the existence of freewill cannot be demonstrated to those who don't experience it.

Some problems with your argument.

By saying I reject it, I am saying I do not accept the argument for free will based on the calculations being done in my brain for and against the idea. I disagree with your animal comparison too, you are appealing to your beliefs in the superiority of humans relative to other animals.

The colour analogy fails too and here is why. Yes the subjective experience of colours can't be demonstrated to a blind person, but colour itself, that is, wavelengths of light can be.

Just thought i would jump into your dialogue,the colour aspect you mention throw in the subjective experience of a synesthete (synaesthesia sufferer) they can taste colour or tell you the sound yellow makes for example .Are they wrong ?Would the quality 'Green' exist divested of all its 'greeness'?To the blindman he can have subjective experience of colour,colours evoke sensory experience dont they? and Green for you wont be the same contingent greenyness of green for me will it?it might be i dunno.So associate all things that are Green grass trees lime lettuce etc to a blind person and they can associate through other senses and make up their own subjective experience of colours

I often wonder if I really have any free will or if I am just a slave to myself ...

Originally posted by Gridrebel
Between God, beast and mankind, there has NEVER been free will. In the old testament, men were constantly punished by God or at God's direction for exercising free will. I.e.

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

The flood, Tower of Babel, Sodom & Gomorrah, Ten plagues, King Nebuchadnezzar Daniel 4:28

All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 Twelve months later, as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 he said, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?”
31 Even as the words were on his lips, a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like the ox. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.” (Coercion at it's finest.)
33 Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like the ox. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.

All of the examples above indicate an unnatural reaction to exercising free will. Not a natural law such as stick hand in fire, get burned.

There is not even free will to have a full tummy in this world, or get an education. Anyone who thinks we have free will lives in a bubble. Maybe their little world is perfect.....until something goes wrong, but there are litterally MILLIONS of examples where mankind still does not have free will. The bible does not teach we have free will. It clearly states that the wages of sin are death. True free will would not have a negative impact (death) hanging over a decision simply because an entity desires us to follow it's rules.

...err...apparently, 'sinless' babies die...just this one element leaves a little hole in your 'fire and brimstone' explanation which is replete with procedural errors, if you hadn't noticed.
If the bible does not 'teach' that we have FREE WILL, how can we 'sin'?
Everything dies, therefore everything sins?!

No FREE WILL = no responsibility = no sin

Following this line, if you believe you have no FREE WILL to choose, it makes no difference to anyone what happens as a result of your choice of action...oh hang on, there's a choice there...

There appears to be a dead end in this line of thinking...procedurally, it simply does not work!...unless you are a robot!

A car has no 'conscience' of its own...if the driver forgets to apply the handbrake, and the car rolls and kills a child on a bike, who is to blame?...the car?

All 'self-aware' creation was given FREE WILL as a condition parameter, that has seen abuse of this FREE WILL to produce the horrors that many would use to explain that those 'horrored' against, did not have. From the outset, standing at the precipice between death and life, the FREE WILL to inhabit a vehicle is present always...the individual reasons for this are many and varied...nevertheless, once 'in', the memory of the choice and the reasons for it are forgotten by many...
The prophets appeared to inculcate the rules by which the UPWARD path can be gained...the message is the same...using your FREE WILL to choose one action over another, you LIFT yourself and others to that goal...conversely, because FREE WILL is involved, you have the choice to deny others' of thier FREE WILL...BUT, this imbalance will be redressed in one way or another...and the reality is...most will not remember why bad things happen to them etc, etc, etc...

It's a simple system which has been complicated beyond belief...

Akushla

free will is all what exist as the exclusive thing

knowing is never being the thing known, while any awareness is always meaning its objective knowledge so always free from

now as i said, the belief that u r alone absolutely is the will of lies meaning to benefit fully from objective knowledge

what apply to u justifying ur free sense out of absolute known facts apply to all others individually too while it also apply to everything but from the inverse sense

the thing u keep dealing with see u as else while refering to absolute facts it belongs to so it got its freedom from knowing ur relative existing fact