posted September 18, 2006 05:46 PM              

*I am listening... observing*

Much intelligence is being shown.

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted September 18, 2006 06:28 PM              

quote:

---

But, nor do I invent a God who corresponds to my emotions, and say that "He" is the same God who created the world. A good God would not create the world. A good God would not create the kind of circumstances which would lead to starving people in Africa, and then leave them in the care of imperfect human wills. My logic, as well as my heart, assures me this is true.

---

Very interesting. but maybe this should be in another thread... a completely different discussion. This jumped at me: "...nor do I invent a God who corresponds to my emotions, and say that "He" is the same God who created the world.A good God would not create the world. A good God would not create the kind of circumstances"

Again, I feel this is another topic seperate from the subject of FREE WILL. I see why Lia mentioned why not talk about your beliefs and partly I think this is why, as she said, " Something I'm curious about. Why not just talk about what you believe?"

You seem to be in the same lines as the Gnostics in your reference to God. The Gnostics believe that the God of this world is a false God. A religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament: Jahova)

Gnostics hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner. By beginning with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering, it becomes evident that all forms of life are living in a world which is flawed and absurd.

Gnostics blame the world’s failings not on humans, but on the creator. Here I don't necessarily agree because we have free will; we make our choices. People tend to always want to blame others and not recognize their own mistakes. People want to blame the Devil (which to me the Devil is a fabricated story to put fear on people) Dark entities and so on true, but most of the time they can only harm you if you give it energy... they build on fear.

Gnostics believe there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, a being who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word ‘create’ is ordinarily understood. Instead this God ‘emanated’ or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. However, much of the original divine essence has since been projected from their source and in the process has undergone some distinctly unwholesome changes in the process.

Again, maybe we are combining different topics which perhaps should have its own thread because of its sensitivity... I think this is where the confusion is coming in. Again, I could be wrong

Very interesting that you mentioned that... just my thoughts.

Silverstone

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted September 18, 2006 06:59 PM            

quote:

---

If you think that we must have a motive, before we can have a conviction,
you are already imagining that you understand God's reasons, and that you can determine what God would or would not do,
based on your personal conception of his motives.

---

If you were asked to condense the Christian faith into the simplest terms, what would they be?

For me, Christianity is about LOVE. Therefore, for me, anything that goes against LOVE is not from God. This is how I ascertain motive.

quote:

---

A logical answer for this would be
"God's motives, if He has any, must be equally deplorable".
But you seem intent on dismissing this possibility without a thought, despite the self-evident fact that the world in which we live, which we say was created by God, is full of deplorable actions.

---

So you'd have me believe in a God that's different from the way He's portrayed by Jesus?

If I'm going to entertain this deplorable nature of God, then I may as well not believe in him, because I think we can do better than that thereby not fitting His image. If I'm going to believe in God, it's going to be a loving God who is righteous in the manner Jesus spoke of. Call me an optimist.

quote:

---

A better question would be,
what would God's motivation be to create people whom his son would have to instruct, in the first place?
I don't know. But it is a good question,
and one which is clearly warranted by our previous conclusions
(i.e. that God is responsible for both Jesus and the people who crucified him).

---

What answer to your question would satisfy you?

The way I see it, we can:

Stick to your premise, and try to suppose unloving actions come from God even when they are against Jesus.

Blame it on the devil, or some other evil force.

Believe in free will of a person to do what he or she likes.

quote:

---

I see what you are saying. But, if man creates something, and it operates independently of him, he is still responsible for everything it does after he lets it out of his hands.

---

Is he? If he creates a windmill, and the wind doesn't blow is it his fault? If man builds a car let's say, and put's it on the market in perfect working order is it the creator's fault if parts go bad over time based on the atmosphere the vehicle is put into? If God gives us a perfect child, and we abuse it, and it becomes a vile person is it God's responsibility? Do we blame God for vileness of the child?

quote:

---

But God is the transcendent. All things can be traced back to God, or, more precisely, to the infinite.
So, we may blame God, but only on the condition that we understand that which is meant in the Upanishads, where it says "God is and is not."

---

So now we're back into the New Age arena of God, correct? I'm not altogether familiar with everything New Age, though I gather that most New Age people believe in things and powers beyond themselves, which could be considered God-like for they are mysterious in the ways that they happen.
___________________________________________________________

posted September 19, 2006 02:51 AM              

quote:

---

If I'm going to entertain this deplorable nature of God, then I may as well not believe in him, because I think we can do better than that thereby not fitting His image. If I'm going to believe in God, it's going to be a loving God who is righteous in the manner Jesus spoke of. Call me an optimist.

---

I'm with you on being an optimist, AG.

The only God that I know is a loving God and a forgiving God. I too would prefer not to believe in God than to believe in a God that deplorable. When it all comes down to it, it takes a lot of hope and a lot of faith. I feel one could have neither faith nor hope if they believed in a deplorable, uncaring, unloving, unforgiving and merciless God.

I also agree with you and Mannu that we are getting off on other subjects and agree with Silverstone that those subjects, such as predestination and determinism, need their on threads. As AG stated the debate here is whether or not we possess free will. That is large enough to chew on and digest without throwing any more on the plate.

posted September 19, 2006 11:50 AM              

Regarding free will, the following thought comes from theology. I have presented some articles on the philosophy of free will so now I am presenting the theological approach. It is Catholic theology, because, well, because I am not a Buddhist or anything else so it's only logical that I would present what I know and believe. Please note that I am not attempting to convert anyone to Catholicism. I did skip the history of the doctrine of free will in this article. I think we have pretty much covered that aspect of it, or at least the philosophical aspect. We did touch on the psychological aspect of free will a bit too.

THE ARGUMENT

As the main features of the doctrine of free will have been sketched in the history of the problem, a very brief account of the argument for moral freedom will now suffice. Will viewed as a free power is defined by defenders of free will as the capacity of self-determination. By self is here understood not a single present mental state (James), nor a series of mental states (Hume and Mill), but an abiding rational being which is the subject and cause of these states. We should distinguish between:

spontaneous acts, those proceeding from an internal principle (e.g. the growth of plants and impulsive movements of animals);
voluntary acts in a wide sense, those proceeding from an internal principle with apprehension of an end (e.g. all conscious desires); and, finally
those voluntary in the strict sense, that is, deliberate or free acts.

In such, there is a self-conscious advertence to our own causality or an awareness that we are choosing the act, or acquiescing in the desire of it.

Spontaneous acts and desires are opposed to coaction or external compulsion, but they are not thereby morally free acts. They may still be the necessary outcome of the nature of the agent as, e.g. the actions of lower animals, of the insane, of young children, and many impulsive acts of mature life. The essential feature in free volition is the element of choice--the vis electiva, as St. Thomas calls it. There is a concomitant interrogative awareness in the form of the query "shall I acquiesce or shall I resist? Shall I do it or something else?", and the consequent acceptance or refusal, ratification or rejection, though either may be of varying degrees of completeness. It is this act of consent or approval, which converts a mere involuntary impulse or desire into a free volition and makes me accountable for it. A train of thought or volition deliberately initiated or acquiesced in, but afterward continued merely spontaneously without reflective advertence to our elective adoption of it, remains free in causa, and I am therefore responsible for it, though actually the process has passed into the department of merely spontaneous or automatic activity. A large part of the operation of carrying out a resolution, once the decision is made, is commonly of this kind. The question of free will may now be stated thus. "Given all the conditions requisite for eliciting an act of will except the act itself, does the act necessarily follow?" Or, "Are all my volitions the inevitable outcome of my character and the motives acting on me at the time?" Fatalists, necessarians, determinists say "Yes". Libertarians, indeterminists or anti-determinists say "No. The mind or soul in deliberate actions is a free cause. Given all the conditions requisite for action, it can either act or abstain from action. It can, and sometimes does, exercise its own causality against the weight of character and present motives.

Proof

The evidence usually adduced at the present day is of two kinds, ethical and psychological--though even the ethical argument is itself psychological.

(1) Ethical Argument. It is argued that necessarianism or determinism in any form is in conflict with the chief moral notions and convictions of mankind at large. The actual universality of such moral ideas is indisputable. Duty, moral obligation, responsibility, merit, justice signify notions universally present in the consciousness of normally developed men. Further, these notions, as universally understood, imply that man is really master of some of his acts, that he is, at least at times, capable of self-determination, that all his volitions are not the inevitable outcome of his circumstances. When I say that I ought not to have performed some forbidden act, that it was my duty to obey the law, I imply that I could have done so. The judgment of all men is the same on this point. When we say that a person is justly held responsible for a crime, or that he deserves praise or reward for an heroic act of self-sacrifice, we mean that he was author and cause of that act in such fashion that he had it in his power not to perform the act. We exempt the insane or the child, because we believe them devoid of moral freedom and determined inevitably by the motives which happened to act on them. So true is this, that determinists have had to admit that the meaning of these terms will, according to their view, have to be changed. But this is to admit that their theory is in direct conflict with universal psychological facts. It thereby stands disproved. Again, it may be urged that, if logically followed out, the determinist doctrine would annihilate human morality, consequently that such a theory cannot be true.

(2) Psychological Argument. Consciousness testifies to our moral freedom. We feel ourselves to be free when exercising certain acts. We judge afterwards that we acted freely in those acts. We distinguish them quite clearly from experiences, in which we believe we were not free or responsible. The conviction is not confined to the ignorant; even the determinist psychologist is governed in practical life by this belief. Henry Sidgwick states the fact in the most moderate terms, when he says:

Certainly in the case of actions in which I have a distinct consciousness of choosing between alternatives of conduct, one of which I conceive as right or reasonable, I find it impossible not to think that I can now choose to do what I so conceive, however strong may be my inclination to act unreasonably, and however uniformly I may have yielded to such inclinations in the past (Methods of Ethics).
The force of the evidence is best realized by carefully studying the various mental activities in which freedom is exercised. Amongst the chief of these are: voluntary attention, deliberation, choice, sustained resistance to temptation. The reader will find them analyzed at length by the authors referred to at the end of this article; or, better still, he can think them out with concrete examples in his own inner experience.

Objections

The main objection to this argument is stated in the assertion that we can be conscious only of what we actually do, not of our ability to do something else. The reply is that we can be conscious not only of what we do, but of how we do it; not only of the act but of the mode of the act. Observation reveals to us that we are subjects of different kinds of processes of thought and volition. Sometimes the line of conscious activity follows the direction of spontaneous impulse, the preponderating force of present motive and desire; at other times we intervene and exert personal causality. Consciousness testifies that we freely and actively strengthen one set of motives, resist the stronger inclination, and not only drift to one side but actively choose it. In fact, we are sure that we sometimes exert free volition, because at other times we are the subject of conscious activities that are not free, and we know the difference. Again, it is urged that experience shows that men are determined by motives, and that we always act on this assumption. The reply is that experience proves that men are influenced by motives, but not that they are always inexorably determined by the strongest motive. It as alleged that we always decide in favour of the strongest motive. This is either untrue, or the barren statement that we always choose what we choose. A free volition is "a causeless volition". The mind itself is the cause.

NATURE AND RANGE OF MORAL LIBERTY

Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. The rational being is always attracted by what is apprehended as good. Pure evil, misery as such, man could not desire. However, the good presents itself in many forms and under many aspects--the pleasant, the prudent, the right, the noble, the beautiful--and in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these. The clear vision of God would necessarily preclude all volition at variance with this object, but in this world we never apprehend Infinite Good. Nor does the doctrine of free will imply that man is constantly exerting this power at every waking moment, any more than the statement that he is a "rational" animal implies that he is always reasoning. Much the larger part of man's ordinary life is administered by the machinery of reflex action, the automatic working of the organism, and acquired habits. In the series of customary acts which fill up our day, such as rising, meals, study, work, etc., probably the large majority are merely "spontaneous" and are proximately determined by their antecedents, according to the combined force of character and motive. There is nothing to arouse special volition, or call for interference with the natural current, so the stream of consciousness flows smoothly along the channel of least resistance. For such series of acts we are responsible, as was before indicated, not because we exert deliberate volition at each step, but because they are free in causa, because we have either freely initiated them, or approved them from time to time when we adverted to their ethical quality, or because we freely acquired the habits which now accomplish these acts. It is especially when some act of a specially moral complexion is recognized as good or evil that the exertion of our freedom is brought into play. With reflective advertence to the moral quality comes the apprehension that we are called on to decide between right and wrong; then the consciousness that we are choosing freely, which carries with it the subsequent conviction that the act was in the strictest sense our own, and that we are responsible for it.

CONSEQUENCES

posted September 19, 2006 04:33 PM            

Silverstone

I was reading some posts and noticed that HSC you have changed your stance on the debate. So you do see God as two and not one when we speak of his transcendence.

I had maintained that he is one with his creation yet transcendent, and you seemed to see only one.

Can you please clarify?

posted September 19, 2006 06:25 PM            

I will respond soon to your thoughtful post. I am at work on a response to you as we speak. I enjoy our discussions.

Mirandee -

I don't know very much about the history of the Church, but, a few years ago, I was a little interested in issues surrounding the Reformation and the eventual split within the Catholic Church which resulted in Protestantism. The question of "indulgences" was big news, but, central to the split was the debate over the existence of free will.

Martin Luther, unbeknownst to the vast majority of Protestants, who generally credit him with spearheading the changes that resulted in the founding (or, some might say, refounding) of Protestant Christianity, was a staunch determinist. His interpretations of scripture in the light of determinism are revealing, to say the least. The crux of the problem, he says (and I agree), revolves around the meaning of "grace" and "works". He wrote a brilliant book on the subject (full of sarcastic invective - he WAS a Scorpio - against the convoluted theories of his theological opponent, Erasmus), called "The Bondage of The Will". I enjoyed it very much.

Luther was a hardcore ascetic for several agonizing years, subjecting himself to all manner of afflictions and hardships, in his striving for Christ. All of his personal efforts, he found, only succeeded in taking him further away from the love of Christ. It was not until he realized that salvation was entirely beyond his control, that he surrendered himself, the blame for his sins and the credit for his works, over to Christ, and was able to receive some part of that infinite love and power which is always waiting to infuse us with its divine being.

Like many spiritual seekers who have experienced profound revelations, Luther believed he had achieved a high level of consciousness, not because of his efforts, but, in spite of them.

He also had his faults. He was a violent anti-semite, for one thing. He was clearly not a sage or enlightened man, but, nonetheless, a somewhat profound thinker, capable of making insightful and revolutionary interpretions of scripture in many instances. However, he did miss the mark when it came to the most important scriptural point of all, "Love your enemies."

Mannu -

I have not changed my position.
God is both imminent and transcendant,
but, "He" is neither one, nor two.
Imminence is transcendance,
transcendance is imminence.
There is, in truth,
only the transcendant-imminent,
but, our perception is limited,
so, we have the illusion of imminence
as something separate from the transcendant.
Truth is context.
We can speak of God as one,
and we can speak of God as two,
but, either way,
we are still only speaking of
our own ideas of God.
God is not limited by our ideas of "Him".

I have tried to speak more of the creation,
than the creator, but, in doing so,
I have tried to show that the one is
a reflection, or image, of the other,
and cannot be contemplated in a vacuum.

In any case, I should make clear that these are only ideas, or idols. The only difference between philosophy and theology, as I understand them, is in how we choose to conceive of the universe. Theological images are symbols, just as philosophical ideas are symbols. Theology is a pictoral language, and philosophy is a literal one. I do not know which is better than the other, or if both have equal benefits and drawbacks. I think, for the most part, whether you become a theologian or a philosopher, is really a matter of personal taste.

Having said that, it ought to be clear that, when I speak of "God", I am speaking of a great idea, a vision, an image, and a symbol, intended to convey a number of inter-related ideas. As a see it, an idea is just as real as any "thing"; just as powerful and just as influential. In many significant ways, an idea is more vital, more alive, more eternal, and more essential than any "thing", for things are merely the imperfect representations of ideas. The more things change, the more ideas remain the same.

hsc

posted September 19, 2006 06:37 PM            

In this dual world free will does exist. And I do not undertstand still with what reason you deny it? I cannot conclude with your thoughts the lack of free will.

In this world envy and love exists also.
It is a drama to which man voluntarily plays too. Energy exists but how it vibrates is left to Man.

Hope it makes sense. Will be back later.

posted September 19, 2006 08:32 PM              

The article I felt made many good points that could be discussed. What did you think about the article itself, regardless of the source it came from, and what do think regarding the points it made?

A debate offers pro and con. The article pretty much supported what those of us who believe in free will have stated on this thread regarding it so we have given our argument and proof in favor of free will. In this debate you are the one who does not believe in free will so now the ball is in your court to support the cons of the argument and proof we have offered and give us your arguments and proof that free will does not exist. It is not enough to just say that you do not believe in free will and that you do not believe in a good God but look instead outside of this world. That tells us nothing. I, and I think some others here, would like for you to tell us why you do not believe in free will, give us your argument against it and offer the proof that you see that we do not have free will. What proof do you have that we don't have free will?

We have named our experience alone as the basic proof and the way our minds function as another proof of the existance of free will in humankind. We offered the proof of free will in the fact that when faced with a choice of conscience we give it thought and humankind will always choose that which they see to be the good. There has to be some good in it or we choose not to follow through on the act. We have given the fact that mankind acts on motives. There are motives behind all of our acts. We see the effects in our lives and in the world of mankinds free will. As the article states, the cause is the mind. So we know the cause.

It is my belief that human beings were created good. Evil repels us for that reason. Even when we do sin it not because we want to purposefully do evil or bad things, it is because we find some good in it for ourselves or others. That's why sin as well as culpability is not black and white. It has a lot of grey areas. But it always comes from our free will. It just happens that sometimes we make the wrong choices.

I know I am attempting to pin you down but we could go on and on arguing over who is right and who is wrong and giving our opinions without any proof to back them up. I have posted my proof from both the fields of philosophy and theology and even touched on ethics and psychology. That backs up my opinions and why I believe in free will. Now I have to pass the ball to your court and the courts of others.

Incidently it is not that I don't agree with anything you say. I do agree with many things you say such as this statement to Mannu:

quote:

---

We can speak of God as one,
and we can speak of God as two,
but, either way,
we are still only speaking of
our own ideas of God.
God is not limited by our ideas of "Him".

---

posted September 19, 2006 09:32 PM            

It reminds us that we are limited in our thoughts.

Although this world is illusive it does not mean it is not intelligent. We must strive to suck that wisdom from our observations. Its the only way to grow.

For the record, my own beliefs and ideas are also philosophies based on personal observation. Thomas Acquino, stopped writing one day after giving us all food for thought. Truth is like that. When it really fills you the entire books of the world may not be able to hold one word of that truth.

Now that last statement my friends was another crooked philosophy of mine ...Hehehee....

Cheers.

posted September 19, 2006 11:32 PM            

Neither can I. The so-called Christian God makes no sense whatsoever. I have not spoken on behalf of this figment. I have only identified God as the imminent and the transcendant. You have just now agreed that the cause/reason of things lies in the transcendant. You have also spoken of Jesus as the son of God (I have not). Are you now telling me that you do not identify the transcendant with the Christian God?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you calling Lia a fool?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Is that really what you got from that verse?

I was being ironical.

> That verse is in relation to my response after a couple days thinking about your latest work of genius where you chose to be so insulting. You'll notice that I decided not to be personally offended, but decided instead to point out that you were generally insulting to anyone that would read and disagree with you.

I never claimed to be a genius. I have stated my understanding. I have not insulted you. I have stated facts which are unflattering to you, but not insulting. If you were not "personally offended" by these unflattering remarks, I dont see how you could even interpret them as insulting. You might disagree with me, when I say that "The
belief in individual autonomy is the result of man's inability to view components as part of the whole," but there is no reason for you to view this as an insult, unless you feel that simply to point out a person's weakness is the definition of an insult. I would disagree. I think it is the duty of a reformer to point out weaknesses, as well as offer remedies. If you disagree with me, disagree with me. Do not satisfy yourself with "you cant say that; that hurts my feelings". The intellectuals you speak of would address my point, first and foremost, before taking issue with my delivery. You sited a proverb about overlooking insults, but, it seems to me, the vast majority of your responses are directed at the consideration of the fact that you feel insulted, your various concerns surrounding what constitutes an insult, what right one has (or does not have) to speak unflattering truths (which you evidently deem insults), the popularity (or lack of popularity) one may expect in return for speaking unflattering words, and the more or less supreme value of popularity as a commodity in our society.

>Speaking the truth would be admitting that while you believe everything is directly dictated by God, you don't know for certain whether or not it's true. That would not only be true, but humble as well.

My, you are being presumptuous. I do know it is true. I would be a liar and a sycophant if I concealed my confidence in this position out of a concern for your good opinion of me. I believe I have clearly demonstrated that all things are dependent upon a larger context of which they are a part. This only leaves God, the transcendant, the context of contexts, as the ultimate cause/reason for all lesser things. You seem to have agreed with me, and, perhaps, only disagreed with me on the naming of this transcendant reality "God". But I can find no better name. Can you? Or perhaps you have misunderstood me by thinking that, when I say God, I have a particular god in mind? I do not. I am not Christian or any thing like that. I am using the term in its purest form. I place no characteristics upon it, for "all characteristics are no characteristics". I do not even affirm its being, as such, but only as that incorruptible ideal, which is apparently left, after the negation of all things.

>You've not been able to prove anything in regards to this debate that adequately sates the people that disagree with you. It's absolutely true that some people won't listen no matter how much sense you make. However, when you KNOW something it's quite easy to explain away any argument to the contrary. Then it just becomes a matter of pride whether or not the person in error gives up. I don't think your arguments have been compelling. I don't say that to put you down. I say that, because your arguments don't necessarily lead to the point you're trying to prove. Instead, they offer a vague inference of the possibility that God is the ultimate hands-on micro-manager of every detail of what happens on earth.

Okay... Again, in your first paragraph, you seem to have agreed with me. I have argued that all things have a reason, a cause, a larger context, which transcends and includes them. I have tried to show that, when we examine any thing, we are forced to view it as separate from its environment, while, in fact, no such separation exists. By enlarging upon the picture, we find that all things are, in fact, relative parts of a vast, infinitely larger, organism. That this organism must be One, makes it possible to assign to this organism one name. The most appropriate, I feel, is "God". I am not saying that God is the hands-on micro-manager of every detail of what happens on earth, any more than a human being is the hands-on micro-manager of every detail of what happens within the cells of his or her body. The difference is that God is not merely the tenant of the "body" (the universe, the "body of Christ"), but, also, the laws by which it is governed. So, it is unnecessary for God to supervise the universe, in order to be responsible for everything that takes place within it. Having designed the laws of dynamics, which all things obey, "He" needn't micro-manage all the ways in which they work themselves out. It's like the parable of the Centurian, who asked Christ to heal his servant... Christ said, "Take me to him,
and I shall heal him," but the Centurian answered, "Oh, no, Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter my house, but, if you merely say the word, I know that my servant shall be healed. I myself am a man in authority, and I know that, if I say to a man under my command, 'go here', I know that he will go. And if I say 'do this', I know that he will do it. I neednt see; I know." And Christ says, "Seldom have I found such faith among my own people. Go now; your faith has healed your servant." It's like that. God commanded from the beginning. Like a Centurian, "He" gave The Word. "He" does not need to see all that happens. "He" knows.

posted September 19, 2006 11:40 PM            

>You were being insulting. You said for example, "The belief in individual autonomy
is the result of man's inability to view components as part of the whole." I know this to be untrue with regard to me. It is, in fact, one of the things I'm gifted at. I have no way to illustrate this better than showing you my IQ test results, which can be found here: http://www.freewebs.com/acousticgod/personalityiqreports.htm You actually continued with your insistence on your readership's inability to see the larger picture, so I guess this was a major theme of your insults.

Again, we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "insulting". I'm not going to speculate on why you would post your IQ test results (with or without the score given), but I do not see how it is relevent. There are many kinds of intelligence, the most abstract of which is not likely to show up on any standard test. Many people have a mechanical intelligence, which allows them to view components as parts of a whole, to a limited extent. But, it takes a certain depth of perception, to see this law in the abstract, as it operates within the greater scheme of phenomena. It may be that my eyes are sharper, or, it may just be that I am less easily satisfied with surface appearances, and am moved by a Plutonian desire to follow the trail of clues which connect, not merely a man's actions to his will, but, his will to the reasons for which it operates as it does in the first place; and, beyond that, to the reasons for these reasons, and the reasons for the reasons for these reasons, ad infinitum. I believe you said so yourself, although you suggested that there is perhaps a compensatory value in seeing only what lies on the surface of life. I would agree, there is, if nothing else, a security and complacency which I, most likely, shall never know. But, perhaps you think it is an insult for me to say so? My friend, must we abandon our free exchange of ideas, or water them down to nothing, whenever we reach the point at which we truly differ? I hope not.

> You weren't simply stating the facts, nor the obvious. You were suggesting that somehow your view is larger, and therefore better. It makes it ironic for you to have spoken about ego, and giving up your self for the sake of the Kingdom. What pride are you operating under that you'd feel compelled to be insulting in order to boost your own feelings about your intellect?

Again, we can debate this matter until the cows (what cows?!) come home. I was not pointing out your short-sightedness simply to cause you distress, and to fan the flames of your indignation, or my ego. I would not have mentioned this at all, but, would have, as you suggest I ought to have, stuck to the argument for determinism which is my prime objective, if I had not found it relevant to do so. I believe it is another indication of my stringent requirement for reasons. I sought and, having found, sought to express, what the reason must be for the difficulty you experience in contemplating my argument. Understand, it makes little sense for me to continue to state my argument, if my argument is founded on a core principle of which you cannot even conceive. Hence, I found it necessary, or, at least, helpful, to illucidate, not only this principle, but, how one's inability to grasp it can be the only explaination for a belief in free will (just one consequence of the "ability" to imagine, albeit vaguely, a thing as independent of the whole of which it is, in reality, a part).

You seem to think this is all a matter of personal taste, as if we are disussing nothing more essential than our own favorite pieces of art or music. No wonder you take such offense with me, when I say that my perception in this matter is clearer than your own. The thing is, we are not discussing ourselves, and our tastes, which are subjective. We are discussing universal laws, first principles. Let us say that there is a garden... Let us say that this garden is surrounded by a wall, over which you cannot see. Let us say that I just happen to be taller than you, and capable of seeing over this wall. Now, I try to tell you that there is a world beyond the garden, of which you are ignorant. You say, "That is your opinion, sir. Who on earth could possibly know whether or not there is anything beyond these walls? I do not see it. How could you possibly know it is there?" I respond, "Because I am taller than you, and I can see over the wall. Here, let me lift you up." You say, "Unhand me, sir! Why, that is entirely arrogant and boastful of you. Behold, my I.Q scores! I can see further than most of the other people in this garden. You will have to provide me a better reason than that." I say, "Here, let me lift you up, so you can see over the wall." You say, "Just a minute. Let us discuss this insult of yours for another week or two. How dare you tell me you are taller than I am?!? What audacity!! What nerve!!!" I say, "Please, dont be offended, I meant no offense. Do not think that I pride myself on being tall. Is it my fault if I am tall? Should I deny it? Should I crouch down to your level, and pretend that I am only speculating on the existence of something beyond these walls?" - "My 'level' indeed! How dare you, sir!! Have you seen my test scores!!?!?! No, I will not let you lift me up. You have offended me with your self-serving offer, and I will not budge from my place. I have not found your descriptions adequate to convince me, and, therefore, I conclude that you are not privy to anything of which I myself am ignorant, and you are, furthermore, quite out of line to bring up this matter of 'lifting me up.' Good day!"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you are referring to Jesus,
who was rejected by nearly everyone,
and left to die upon a cross?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> How many people on how many continents follow Jesus?

Seriously? Very few.
Millions follow the Church, and the Church's pervertions of Jesus' teachings.
Very few people understand and follow the teachings of the real Jesus.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont understand your logic here.
I think an intellectual would put his/her feelings aside, and listen to my reasoning.
He/She would not need me to "grace" his/her ego, in order to consent to listen to reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Simpletons will go for anything that sounds right in the moment. Intellectuals will dissect everything you say for validity.

I disagree. "Simpletons" (a very derisive word, if you ask me, - but, then, what do I know; I told people they were "ignorant"; whereas I'm sure you would never suggest than any real-life individual could actually be a "simpleton", - at least, not to their face, - or that you yourself are in any position to discriminate; why, you might be accused of cruelty, arrogance, and audacity!!), eh-hem, - where was I? - Ah, yes,... Simpletons respect power, and whatever makes them feel powerful. They tend to agree with the popular beliefs of the day, and the ones espoused by those whom they find powerful and attractive. They are generally more stubborn than intellectuals, especially when it comes to listening to reason, for which they will rarely even sit still, let alone pay attention, or, God forbid!, give consideration to. I agree, an intellectual would dissect my words (and not just the ones he/she found threatening to his/her ego). I'd love to meet one. ((Which, for anyone out there who may be waiting to pounce on the slightest perceived insult, is not to suggest that the world is populated with only simpletons and intellectuals.))

> Your reasoning hasn't been sufficient. Your post on "'FREE WILL' And The Emperor's New Age Clothes" didn't provide reasoning, at least not where the debate over Free Will and Predestination are concerned. (Are we even arguing predeterminism any more, or are we onto Determinism?) Instead of arguing a point, you insist that everyone must not have enough perspective to see things as you do. Any intellectual would wonder why you've veered so far off course that instead of bringing substance you instead resort to insults. You've tried to reason that they're not insults, but rather casual observances. These observations aren't well-founded or based on compelling evidence, though, and you'd have as difficult a time trying to prove these things as you are in your efforts to prove Predestination.

For the most part, I have adressed these concerns in the above paragraphs. I agree, I did not restate, although I did summarily indicate, my arguments in the post you refer to. I was primarily considering the reasons for their hasty dismissal. The argument itself, again, has to do with relativity, and the relation of parts to the whole. I have tried to show that, when a man makes a choice, he does so for a specific reason, or for a number of specific reasons. He does not "prechoose" this reason out of thin air. He acts in accordance with his nature; that being the particular degree and type of intelligence, disposition, and awareness of data available to him at the time. People think we must have free will for a number of ill-considered reasons, one of which is that two individuals appear to make different choices when presented with identical circumstances. But, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that no two circumstances are ever identical. Every situation is unique, and what may appear to be minor details, are, in fact, the very straws that tip the scales in one direction or another. The most significant thing to take note of, is the fact that the individuals ARE different, and these differences are themselves circumstances, essential in detemining the phenomenon we call "choice". We like to think that, in another man's shoes, we would have chosen differently, or similarly, but, the fact is that, it is not enough to stand in a man's shoes, to perceive the choice through his eyes. We must stand inside him, we must become him, until there is nothing left of ourselves (for, surely, there was nothing of us in him when he made the choice!). The result is that we would choose precisely as he did!! This is what Job means when he says, "I also could speak as ye do: if your soul were in my soul's stead, I could heap up words against you, and shake mine head at you." (16:4) In fact, this is the whole importance of the book of Job; that all things are in the hands of God; that God determines the shape of a man's soul, and whether it will lean this way or that; and that no man should blame himself or any other man for their sins, or credit himself or any other man for their virtues, for all things, sin and virtue alike, are determined by God. This is why Job has a crisis of faith. This is why he curses his God, saying "I have done nothing to deserve this!" And eventually he reconciles himself with God, because he sees the futility of a man arguing with The Most High (not because God is right or good, but, because God is God, and to argue against God is to play to lose). This is why the book was such a favorite among the existential and absurdist philosophers of the 20th century. At the end of the book, God rebukes the men who tried to argue that "He" was not to blame, "My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath."(42:7) They could only honor God so long as they could believe that He was good and blameless. But Job said otherwise, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him."(13:15) In other words, 'Even if his ways are not my ways, and even if he hurts me for no good reason, I will still call him my God, - but I will not pervert my own understanding, so as to deny the evil he is capable of.'

"By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent. Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand? (26:13-14)

posted September 19, 2006 11:50 PM            

> The confidence of fools can be won many ways. Look at politics.

Flattery is not enough. But flattery is indispensible. Look at politics.

>However, the overarching point is that it's impossible to win the confidence of people of intellect through insult. The foolish may agree with that tack, but the rest won't.

You are mistaken. As you yourself pointed out, "A wise man overlooks an insult,". People of intellect wish only to know the truth. If you tell them they are ignorant and foolish, they will be all the more inclined to listen to your reasons. They do not identify with the ignorance or foolishness, and take offense; on the contrary, they seek any means to rise above it, and to disdain it right along with you. I have posted this quote many times, but I think it has never been more apt than it is now, "When a man contradicts me, he arouses my attention, not my anger. It is enough for me if he adress his responses to the substance of my inquiry. Agreement is utterly boring... True friendship is opposition." - Michel de Montaigne (a Pisces, and one of the very greatest intellects of all time)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because strait is the gate,
and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
- Matt 7:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> I did honestly search multiple times for that verse without finding it. I guess we all need a little humility sometimes.

No problem.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not dismissing the argument that determinism would result in social chaos.
I do not believe that it would, but, to prove or disprove, or even to dismiss this concern, is not my business.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> If it's not your business, then why the call to cast aside that argument without even tackling it? It would make more sense to have skipped it altogether if you wished not to speak on it again.

I wished to make clear my understanding of what appear to be the only objections offered thus far against my claim. I did not wish to skip over them without at least acknowledging that I had heard them, and what they sounded like to me. The argument you raised sounded thusly, "if an idea is likely to be misused, it must be untrue". Now, I see this as clearly absurd. But, if you require some proof, I would argue only that it is not necessary to deal with this objection directly in order to reject it. It is sufficient to prove the validity of my claim, on my own terms. The various objections will shrink and vanish of their own impotence in the face of it. Why should I bother with your pawns, when I can have your queen? I thought it prudent to indicate their puny stature, to justify the act of passing them by. Otherwise, I would be accused of having ignored them altogether, concerned with nothing but making my own point. Only time will tell how making my point concerns the lesser points raised against it (i.e. "when that which is perfect is come, then, that which is in part shall be done away"), but, for that, I would need your patience, so, it seemed appropriate to give at least a passing glance.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I disagee with is the notion that, the argument that something is inexpeditious is a valid reason to declare it untrue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think I've called your views on predestination untrue. I've simply stated that I believe that the evidence shows something different than your conclusion.

Which conclusion? That the belief in determinism would be a great benefit to society? What evidence are you referring to?

> It's really ironic for you to have made the above comment in light of the number of times you've advocated logic and intellect. You've sought to make people out as illogical as well as unintellectual for disagreeing with you, and now you're asking that people consider an argument, your argument, that is 'inexpeditious.'

I have not sought to make people anything. I have sought to show them to themselves ("the audacity!!"). And I have not asked them to consider an inexpeditious argument. I have asked them to value truth for its own sake, and to trust themselves to make good use of it. If you are hung up on this idea of expeditiousness, I would be willing to discuss the political and social ramifications of free will and determinism between ourselves. But, in the meantime, I will continue to demonstrate the math for anyone who is brave enough to take a peek without the guarantee of safety you hold to be a prerequisite.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not think to disprove this, because I figured that, simply to state the assertion clearly, would make its ridiculousness self-evident.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Hardly, obviously.

Then I will provide a quick demonstration for you. That the knowledge of the law of gravity can be used to drop things on people's heads is an insufficient reason to conclude that gravity is a fallacy. Satisfied? Can we proceed?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First things first. My first point is that man is not the cause. Man is a finite entity, and therefore, cannot be the transcendant reason for his own nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> This is debatable, not fact. How often have people testified to a change of mind creating a change of circumstance?

Plenty, but that does not disprove, or even begin to threaten my point. How often have people testified to a change of circumstance creating a change of mind, which could, only then, create a change of circumstance? Let us return to the basic laws of dynamics: "An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force." "If nothing changes, nothing changes." We would not change our minds, unless circumstances made a change of mind agreeable.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the principle I stated is valid (which you have not yet considered) then, it certainly proves my point, that nothing finite can be the penultimate reason for itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> I consider everything faster than most.

What does this mean?

> The principle helps with ideas of Determinism. It does not at all account for predestination. It doesn't specify the unknowns as being God's domain,...

What is "the unknown", if not just another aspect of God (or God's domain)? You are misunderstanding what I mean when I say "God". You would understand me better if you considered me an agnostic who is arguing for Determinism, and not Predestination, as you understand the word. My God is not like any God you have ever heard of. You will have to forget what you have heard about God before you can consider what I intend by that word.

> nor does it negate the processes of the human brain as being controlled from within the human. As such it's difficult for you to use that as a catch-all for the basis of your train of thought.

The point is, if I did not choose to be in a position to have to choose, in the first place, how can I be free? I did not choose to be at a disadvantage. I did not choose to be subject to temptations and ignorant of consolations. I did not choose to be unhappy, lonely, confused, scared, hungry, greedy, ambitious, or any of the other things with which I must contend on a daily basis. You may argue that "I" may have made this choice at some point in the unconscious past, but this is a cop-out, if ever I heard one. Why would I have made such a choice? How could I have knowingly made such a choice, unless there was something worse that this to choose in disfavor of? Is that what you call freedom? If, by "within the human", you mean to suggest the realm of the unconscious mind, I would ask you, how you can hold people responsible for the workings of their innermost minds, of which they are unconscious? Are we not already the prisoners of our unsconscious minds? Would you imprison us for being imprisoned?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that nothing finite can be the penultimate reason for itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> That's not the debate. The debate is whether or not we have Free Will.

Perhaps the debate is whether or not man, or the consciousness of man, is a finite entity. For, if he is a finite entity, or, if he is only conscious of being a finite entity, he is, by reason, subject to a transcendant context far exceeding his personal control. And this is the debate.

posted September 20, 2006 01:24 AM              

quote:

---

My ex was a singer, my new girlfried is a singer. I fear I may end up with divorce again if I marry. Is that logical? Relationships are not mathematical.

---

Never stop trying Mannu! Best wishes... after all, she'll sing for you the "crabby" song, hehe Seriously

quote:

---

Now that last statement my friends was another crooked philosophy of mine ...Hehehee....

---

not crooked!

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted September 20, 2006 02:42 AM            

quote:

---

Are you now telling me that you do not identify the transcendant with the Christian God?

---

Yes. Transcendant happenings aren't necessarily caused by the God of the Bible. They could be, but aren't necessarily.

quote:

---

The intellectuals you speak of would address my point, first and foremost, before taking issue with my delivery.

---

I disagree, and I've already stated why. Consider this... Could you make the points you say you were trying to make devoid any perception of insult? Why did you feel the need to put a disclaimer on your post? Clarification is easy, but even your clarification was a bit absurd trying to say that you're not speaking to small children, and that somehow justifies appearances of disrespect.

quote:

---

You sited a proverb about overlooking insults, but, it seems to me, the vast majority of your responses are directed at the consideration of the fact that you feel insulted

---

Yes, I can be insulted as anyone can, and I can equally be insulting myself when I feel like. If I remember right you're a Scorp Sun in the 10th House, and I'm the opposite: a Cap Sun in the 8th House. It's a really interesting parallel.

But with regard to insults or people getting bullied I have that somewhat Sagittarian trait of defending those who may be incapable of defending themselves. I can take more abuse, and make points others may not be able to articulate as well.

quote:

---

My, you are being presumptuous... I do not even affirm its being, as such, but only as that incorruptible ideal, which is apparently left, after the negation of all things. (I'm condensing to save space. I'll try to answer all parts.)

---

The original debate is about free will. The post most particularly in question you titled, "ON 'FREE WILL' And The Emperor's New Age Clothes." So when you say you've proven that all things are dependent upon a larger context of which they are a part, you're not negating free will. In fact, you confuse the issue of free will by inserting the term 'ego' into the post in the place of free will, which would tend to make one wonder whether you've come around on the concept of free will.

As I just started to check context of a particular line I notice that you've written quite a bit more, which may clarify part of your position. I noticed in a cursory reading that you are indeed moving (or trying to move) the debate away from free will.

This may be a good place to call it a night. I see that the reply is of similar style to my own taking each piece on it's own, which may sacfrifice the whole of the message. May not be the best tack for us overall.

posted September 20, 2006 02:34 PM            

Christian God vs. Infinite
One thing that I think requires addressing is using Bible verses, and then deciding that you're no longer speaking of the Christian God. If you don't believe in the God of Christians, then things like salvation are none of your concern.

Personally, I do think I would choose to specify a "Higher Power" or the "Infinite" instead of using the word "God." I'd do this simply, because as far as my experience is concerned "God" is typically associated with an entity.

The Parable of the Centurian
You seem to jump back into God being an entity during this passage. This back and forth description of what constitutes God is confusing to say the least.

posted September 20, 2006 06:37 PM            

quote:

---

The argument itself, again, has to do with relativity, and the relation of parts to the whole. I have tried to show that, when a man makes a choice, he does so for a specific reason, or for a number of specific reasons. He does not "prechoose" this reason out of thin air. He acts in accordance with his nature; that being the particular degree and type of intelligence, disposition, and awareness of data available to him at the time.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

The most significant thing to take note of, is the fact that the individuals ARE different, and these differences are themselves circumstances, essential in detemining the phenomenon we call "choice".

---

Ok.

posted September 20, 2006 06:42 PM            

I find myself agreeing with at least 9 out of 10 things you have to say, and I do not know how you came to believe otherwise. I think you have misunderstood a great deal of what I have tried to say. But you are right, we should not exhaust ourselves trying to explain ourselves.

I will say only that the quote from St. Paul you offer for consideration has always struck me as a clear and direct refutation of the existence of free will. Paul says he does things which he does not wish to do (i.e. unwillingly), on account of his imperfections. There are only two ways that evil is committed, - ignorantly, or unwillingly. In either case, it is not the fault of the man who commits it, but, as Paul has said, it is the sin which dwells in the man.

This is what I have tried to say. It is what has been said by many good Christians throughout history, and all Christians who have thoroughly understood the true Christian teaching. Sin is sickness. The man who falls sick, who coughs when he is sick, and shows the signs and symptoms of his sickness, does not choose to do so. The sickest men are not the ones most deserving of God and man's condemnation, but, most in need of God and man's Love. Christ understood this, which is why he made it his mission not to reward and honor the healthiest among men, but, to bring healing to the sickest of them.

Some of my favorite thinkers have been Christians. Meister Eckhart, Jacob Boehme, Julian of Norwich, and Thomas Merton, to name a few. Do not think that I am blind to the few who have understood, on account of the few who have perverted the teachings and the many who have accepted the perversions as Gospel.

Just as the American government is corrupt, and it has corrupted the understanding of many who call themselves Americans, so is the Church corrupt, and it has corrupted the understanding of many who call themselves Christians. But there is a noble vision which is the real America, and there are many who seek to live in accordance with that vision, and they are true Americans, just as there is a noble vision which is real Christianity, and there are many who seek to live in accordance with that vision, and they are true Christians.

posted September 20, 2006 07:00 PM            

I will respond to a few things now.

I think the word "God", as it appears in scripture, and in the writings of holy people, has been misunderstood, so, I do not wish to come up with a new word (Higher Power, etc.), as if the old word has always stood for something else. I think, by insisting upon using this word (God) in the proper context, it will make clear what this word has always been used to signify in scripture and in holy writings.

I quote from the Christian bible just as I would quote from any writings which express universal truths. You must read between the lines. I could quote the Koran, or the Vedas, or Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, and it would make no difference to me (I just happen to be more familiar with certain parts of the Bible). They are all well-formed and polished mirrors, all compilations of truths and half-truths. At our wisest moments, we find wisdom in them, and at our most foolish moments, they only reflect our own foolishness.

It is difficult, however, to expalin what the Bible means, when it speaks of God as an entity, or as having motive. Again, truth is context, and we have to understand what is meant by "God" in order to know what is meant by "God's motive", etc. If God is a unifying term for all that is, then, God's motive must be the unifying motive for all that is. What this motive is, is, perhaps, one of the eternal questions. The questions you ask at the end of your last post are wonderful questions which ought to be asked. We are back at the beginning, when we begin to ask and offer answers for them. And that beginning is, perhaps, where we are always coming from, and always headed. Our sojourning in this line of questions may be, as you say, endless, but it is not a bad place for you or I to be, my friend.