When was there free WILL ?

[Rainbow Mage]

How do you know it is illusory?

Because it's something the carnality wants to have, so it can be in control, rather then god= ego

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you know it is illusory?

Speaking for myself, I don't know if we can even say that the illusion of it exists.

Logically speaking, if there is no perceptible difference between a situation where something exists and another where that same thing does not exist, then its existence is tentative, speculative, even in theory.

That said, I would recognize free will if it turned out that we can make free choices. We don't, because we are bound by countless circunstances.

The illusion of free will may exist, on a psychological level. Human beings are predisposed to believe and to work better under the belief that their choices are theis alone, even when they are clearly responses to external circunstances and pressures.

 

[Willamena]

How is that any different from the absence of free will, then?

Absence of free will is absence of "us, doing things," which necessarily entails an absence of "us" (or "me").

Unity, for example.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

That said, I would recognize free will if it turned out that we can make free choices. We don't, because we are bound by countless circunstances.

You are only bound if you believe yourself to be bound. You can chose to do something, or not do it, regardless of any circumstance. The consequence of that choice is a completely different issue. Just because we don't want to face a certain consequence doesn't mean we can't.

The illusion of free will may exist, on a psychological level. Human beings are predisposed to believe and to work better under the belief that their choices are theis alone, even when they are clearly responses to external circunstances and pressures.

External circumstances and external pressures a simply that; external. They have no bearing on whether or not you can chose a certain action. Free will is not action without consequence. It is merely action. Us choosing to do something.

 

[thedope]

There is one will, free to all, and that is to be.

Creation is extension.

There is only one choice however, it is yours.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are only bound if you believe yourself to be bound. You can chose to do something, or not do it, regardless of any circumstance. The consequence of that choice is a completely different issue. Just because we don't want to face a certain consequence doesn't mean we can't.

Do you actually have the choice of doing anything you want regardless of any circunstances? Aren't most choices actually dependent on some circunstances that allow them in the first place instead?

Can you, for instance, decide to recognize John McCain as POTUS? Or maybe buy any house you want to, regardless of price?

External circumstances and external pressures a simply that; external. They have no bearing on whether or not you can chose a certain action.

Would you agree that the house and POTUS examples I just gave you are, in fact, of choices that rely on external circunstances to be even possible in the first place?

Free will is not action without consequence. It is merely action. Us choosing to do something.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Do you actually have the choice of doing anything you want regardless of any circunstances? Aren't most choices actually dependent on some circunstances that allow them in the first place instead?


Can you, for instance, decide to recognize John McCain as POTUS? Or maybe buy any house you want to, regardless of price?

Choices lead to consequences, then those consequences lead to other choices. Could you decide to recognize that John McCain is president, of course you could. No one else would agree with you, but you still could. If you are suggesting that you can buy a house without money, then you aren't buying the house. Can you acquire any house you want, regardless of price? Yes. In order to do that though, based on our laws, you have to have the money first. That is not a constraint on free will, that is just a goal that has to be reached before you can get the house you want. If you wanted to, you could forgo that goal, break into the house and live there. You wouldn't live there very long, because B&E is against the law (again, constructed limit), but you could still do it.

Would you agree that the house and POTUS examples I just gave you are, in fact, of choices that rely on external circumstances to be even possible in the first place?

Some choices do. You have to have a house built in order to have the option of buying (or breaking in) the house. There must also be an executive called the POTUS, before someone can be recognized as such. But once those choices exist, you can do whatever you want with them. Like I said before, consequences are independent of free will.

 

[Onkara]

There is a factor here - imagination. We can do almost anything with our imagination, thus enforcing free will and choice theoretically. Bring that choice to the present moment, every moment and report if there there are so many options available.

You fancy pizza, you go to the kitchen there is pizza and there is pie. You have a choice, but you choose pizza because that is what you fancied. Or you choose pie because on seeing it that is what you fancied. It is the fancying that makes the choice. Free will is what we report it to be afterwards.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Exactly Onkarah. What's the hang up with some Christians on accepting predestination? Doesn't Christianity teach God is all-knowing?

 

[LuisDantas]

Like I said before, consequences are independent of free will.

This being a DIR, I guess I will have to just say that I disagree and leave this thread.

 

[Onkara]

Exactly Onkarah. What's the hang up with some Christians on accepting predestination? Doesn't Christianity teach God is all-knowing?

Thanks for the vote of support dear Senedjem
The problem is that if everything is predestined then God made Adam eat the apple, or God knew it and didn't stop it. Basically God could be said to be evil. So free will is a must in Christianity (and other religions) it seems.

 

[thedope]

Our hopes and dreams may or may not be appreciated in time, but what will be done, is done.

The past as well as the future are artifacts of current emergence.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Exactly Onkarah. What's the hang up with some Christians on accepting predestination? Doesn't Christianity teach God is all-knowing?

It's possible that His omniscience does not injure our free will. Maybe that is the reason why witchcraft and divination and fortune-telling are forbidden. Knowledge of the future and other occult knowledge would seriosuly interfere with free will. People aren't supposed to know what the future holds if their free will is to be preserved.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I mean isn't part of being all knowing, knowing what people will do before they ever do it? In that way, God's will is inescapable? So how isn't free will just an illusion and fancy of the carnal mind? I believe it's something people want to believe they have, and if believing that drives them onward, so be it.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I mean isn't part of being all knowing, knowing what people will do before they ever do it? In that way, God's will is inescapable? So how isn't free will just an illusion and fancy of the carnal mind? I believe it's something people want to believe they have, and if believing that drives them onward, so be it.

What do you mean by "carnal mind?"

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What do you mean by "carnal mind?"

I mean the mindset that tends to focus on the material world and sometimes drives a wedge between a person and god, how ever you view god.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I don't understand how free will could be an illusion of the carnal mind. What does the carnal mind have to with philosophical abstracts?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Because the carnal mind IE: thinking that focuses on the materialistic existence, wants to believe it is in control. It wants to hoard and own things. These things are mine, these children are mine, etc. They are not even their ownselves, we all belong to God.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Hi to all , and most believers today say that as a people , we all have free will !

To me , the only ones that had free will was Lucifer and the angels that fell with Lucifer .

The other two , were Adam and Eve .

Today , we are dead in Trespasses and Sins .

In 1 Cor 2:14 , But the Natural man received not the things of the Spirit God for they are foolishness unto him , NEITHER can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned .

It is by Election and Grace of God .

I'm curious. Why do you consider only Adam & Eve, Lucifer and his angels, to have had genuine free will? What is so unique about their decision-making processes? Do you see rebellion as the only evidence of genuine free will?