/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13873501]

>blocks your free will

[Anonymous No.13874001]

>>13873501
OP is the dumbest person to have ever walked the earth

If they deny this, they are exercising their will freely

[Anonymous No.13874010]

>>13874001
>free will is the same as will
No

[Anonymous No.13874016]

>>13873501
>punishes humans for acting deterministicly
>Blocks Christianity from making any sense
Based Prot Heretics

[Anonymous No.13874062]

>>13874010
Free will and will that is free are the same thing. Free action and free will are not the same thing. Free action is merely the means by which we can exercise our free will. Free will is not necessary for free will not is it sufficient for the existence of free will. I think Frankfurt is right about free will being an issue of deliberation where you have desires over desires which motivate you to act although I don’t deliberate on every single action I take so it seems odd that I have free will only half or less of the times in which I act.

[Anonymous No.13874156]

>>13874016
There is no component of "free will" required for punishment to be logically necessary. Punishment is necessary the moment an entity sins - it does not matter if said entity's will is free or un-free. What matters is if the requirements for "sin" are met.

[Anonymous No.13874196]

>>13874156
So basically it's RNG whether or not you go to hell? Uhhhhhh based?

[Anonymous No.13874239]

>>13874196
yeah. God is like the dev of the ultimate MMO. the noobs are all crying because they wipe on trash mobs (gluttony, pre-marital sex, etc.) or they're erping in city hubs. they keep spamming the forums, demanding patches that'll make their trash spec (materialist/catholic/nietzschean) viable and whine that the rare loot (Sola Scriptura, covenant of grace) is rep locked while the real epic stuff (eternal salvation) hardly ever drops. meanwhile me and my bros grind rep, BiS, max professions, hardcore dungeons, and farm pvp ranks like mad.

[Anonymous No.13874240]

>>13873501
Give me a quick rundown on Calvinism.

[Anonymous No.13874245]

>>13874016
This. If Calvin was right, he singlehandedly refuted Christianity.

>>13874156
For punishment to be logically necessary it naturally requires moral responsibility on the part of the wrongdoer; that's how justice works. There can be no moral responsibility in a deterministic system.

[Anonymous No.13874254]

>>13874245
Read Romans 9

[Anonymous No.13874277]

>>13874239
>can't think without using pop culture references
This is your brain on a man-made denomination.

[Anonymous No.13874285]

>>13874254
>lmao read romans 9 you little arminian haha checkmate
even if romans 9 is exactly how you interpret it, it doesn't make predestination any less illogical. then paul is just handwaving and doesn't really address the issue

[Anonymous No.13874286]

>>13874196
>RNG
Nah, God chooses before you're born.
>>13874245
>For punishment to be logically necessary it naturally requires moral responsibility
Yes, and the existence or non-existence of free will has no bearing on moral responsibility.
> There can be no moral responsibility in a deterministic system.
Proofs?

[Anonymous No.13874291]

>>13874286
Free will is the one thing that is required for responsibility.

[Anonymous No.13874298]

>>13874285
There's really no other logically consistent way to interpret Romans 9, let alone that the deterministic interpretation is the most intuitive as well. Interpreting it non-deterministically is anti-intuitive and requires a shitload of dubious mental gymnastics.
As for Paul, yeah he does kind of handwave it but he does it to make a greater point - who gives a shit what you think? The dude wasn't an analytic philosopher and he himself admitted as much, after all he got BTFO by the Stoics.

[Anonymous No.13874300]

>>13874291
I continue to ask for proofs and I receive none, only repetitions of the claim! Do YOU even understand why you think this?

[Anonymous No.13874304]

>>13874298
If it's so intuitive, why did no one interpret it that way until Calvin?

[Anonymous No.13874312]

>>13874300
Because it's the only way to make sense of it. Once you disregard that, then all of justice is undermined. People can be punished for all kinds of things completely outside of their control.

[Anonymous No.13874331]

>>13874016
Yea it's absolutely retarded.

[Anonymous No.13874360]

>>13874304
There is no proof that no one interpreted Romans 9 deterministically until Calvin, and we don't have many writings from theologians of the original church. Cultural basis, as usual, determines how one chooses to interpret Scripture - Scripture is interpreted to one's own values. Most people are deeply attached to the concept of free will and so they forcibly interpret Romans 9 away from determinism, when determinism is the only point Romans 9 can conceivably be written to make - this was true ages ago as it is true now.
In other words the answer is simply and self-evidently that determinism is a very uncomfortable idea for the vast majority of humans, who want to believe that there is an "I" that determines actions.
>>13874312
Again there is no proof here, not even an attempt.
>Because it's the only way to make sense of it. Once you disregard that, then all of justice is undermined.
Why?
>People can be punished for all kinds of things completely outside of their control.
Yes, and? Did you decide to incarnate as a human with evil tendencies? No? Then why should you be punished for giving in to those tendencies?
Can it not be said that criminals, by and large, have a greater psychological tendency towards crime than non-criminals? If so, why are they disproportionately punished even though their will is comparatively un-free?
Take the case of Charles Whitman. Should he be punished for his mass shooting, even though many think that his brain tumor caused his aggressive tendencies? The answer is yes.
Justice doesn't care for the will, justice only cares for the character of the person. If your character is murderous by default then Justice will condemn you even so. It is obvious both Biblically and Scientifically that we do not live in a free universe.

[Anonymous No.13874374]

>>13874304
Also notice - in the entirety of the Bible, the phrase "free will" is never uttered. The will is never implied to be free and the incredibly popular "free will" argument is never once used as a solution to the Problem of Evil by the Biblical writers. Not once, in 66 books! Not once in the entirety of the New Testament! And yet this teaching is the bedrock of Christian philosophy today.
However, many times throughout the Bible the idea that God controls all events is implied numerous times.

[Anonymous No.13874412]

>>13874360
Most people don't give a shit about whether there is an "I" or not. It's natural to not want to believe the fact that God created people and then arbitrarily predestined them for eternal torture out of no fault of their own. Such a despair-inducing teaching is obviously not "good news."

>>13874374
Because even if you're not a determinist, the free will defense is just dumb and sophomoric. The Book of Job solves the problem of evil without resorting to deterministic handwaving.

[Anonymous No.13874430]

>>13874300

If I cut your hand off and then use your hand to beat someone to death. Are you guilty of murder?
No, because you did not freely "will" your hand to do the crime nor were you able to prevent the murder by willing it to stop....although the man literally died "by your hand" you could not refuse or stop what transpired, so how could you be blamed for it?

Similarly a deterministic being that has no free-will isn't culpable for the evil his body causes, his will is not his own, his actions are thus not his own, he has no ability to stop or refuse the evil he engages in, so he is being pushed around like a puppet, manipulated by hidden forces, much like the severed hand used in a murder.


Furthermore, punishment has a corrective aspect to it, it is not purely cruel to inflict pain, but to teach and correct sinners so that they may chose the good over the evil.

But punishment is not corrective or educational when dealing with robotic, deterministic beings who lack freewill. Who cannot refuse evil because their nature is so utterly corrupt...Then punishment is useless. It's simply an exercise in cruelty.

Now man has a propensity or predisposition towards sin, because of the fall, but he also retains his nature which is made in the image of God, although clouded temporarily in this world...in the traditional Christian worldview man has to work with God to achieve good ends, there is a synergy involved. Man can choose to obey God and avoid evil, or he can choose to sin. The more he chooses sin the more corrupt he becomes and the harder it is for him to choose the good.
But freedom to choose, between good and evil, is fundamental to Christianity and to how God judges man.

[Anonymous No.13874432]

>>13874412
>Most people don't give a shit about whether there is an "I" or not.
I completely disagree, I find that most want to believe that they exist and find the supposition that they don't to be deeply uncomfortable.
>It's natural to not want to believe the fact that God created people and then arbitrarily predestined them for eternal torture out of no fault of their own.
Yes, I believe so too.
>Such a despair-inducing teaching is obviously not "good news."
The "good news" is good news should you choose to accept it. If you do not accept it, it is a curse to you (you indicated that you already believe this yourself!) If you do accept it though, it really is good news - you're being spared this horrible fate and its completely not of your own power, you can't "screw it up". What a relief!
Yes this teaching to natural ears sounds horrific, I once disbelieved in it too for the same reasons. But the Gospel is meant to be unnatural, not natural. That's kind of the whole schtick.
>Because even if you're not a determinist, the free will defense is just dumb and sophomoric
Yeah glad we agree, I always found it retarded both pre-determinist and determinist.
>The Book of Job solves the problem of evil without resorting to deterministic handwaving.
Well I'm not suggesting that determinism solves the Problem the Evil, please don't mistake me on that. I also like Job, just for fun please expand on why you think it solves the PoE if you would.

[Anonymous No.13874445]

>>13874374
>in the entirety of the Bible, the phrase "free will" is never uttered.
The bible references "freewill" offerings quite a few times. https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Freewill-Offering

More importantly freewill is presupposed by humans in every normal setting. If determinism was true it would have to be revealed to man and explicitly explained in revelation.
But none of the stories in the bible make sense if beings are incapable of choosing good over evil on their own, as if God has to create a miracle or predestine them to avoid evil via his power.

If I create robots that only turn left and can never go right (until I make them go right) what exactly would there be to judge and punish? Why get angry when one goes left instead of right, when I withhold my power from him...why ask for offerings when I know they are incapable of pleasing me until I give them my power to please myself...

[Anonymous No.13874452]

>>13874430
The Book of Job solves the problem of evil without resorting to deterministic handwaving.
No.
>No, because you did not freely "will" your hand to do the crime nor were you able to prevent the murder by willing it to stop
These are both true but they have nothing to do with why I am not guilty of murder. I am not guilty of murder because I didn't murder anyone, you doing it with my hand really has nothing to do with anything. False analogy, might save some time if you just argue the case straight instead of using an analogy again.
>so he is being pushed around like a puppet, manipulated by hidden forces, much like the severed hand used in a murder.
Wait, are you trying to say that the hand should be considered non-guilty whereas a determinist would consider it guilty? Lmao, pretty sure the hand is non-guilty either way.
>punishment has a corrective aspect to it, it is not purely cruel to inflict pain, but to teach and correct sinners so that they may chose the good over the evil.
No, it doesn't. Let's be strict with our definitions here.
Punishment = the negative recompense that Justice demands be given due to sinful or evil action.
Justice = That principle which determines when Reward or Punishment should be administered, and furthermore what is evil and what is good.
Discipline = Corrective pain or negative consequence administered in order to instruct the subject in proper behavior, i.e. to discourage further negative behavior.
Punishment =/= discipline, punishment has no corrective aspect, it simply is the rebalancing of the scales of Justice.
>It's simply an exercise in cruelty.
1st for your argument, this is because correction is not the point of punishment. 2nd, define "cruelty" please.
The traditional Christian worldview as you are terming it is false and unbiblical.

[Anonymous No.13874457]

>>13874432
>If you do accept it though, it really is good news - you're being spared this horrible fate and its completely not of your own power, you can't "screw it up". What a relief!
But if Calvinism is true, your salvation is not dependent on your accepting the gospel. It doesn't matter how faithful of a Christian I am if I wasn't predestined for salvation in the first place.

>please expand on why you think it solves the PoE if you would.
Well the premise of the whole book is that God allows suffering to fall upon an essentially innocent man. Job's friends offer explanations for why that is, i.e, that he deserves it. After Job accuses God, then God explains his arrogance in doing so and says that Job's friends have not spoken the truth. The point is that we're in no place accuse or question God about what he does since we're so lowly in knowledge and power in comparison. At least that's how I understood it.

[Anonymous No.13874473]

>>13874452
>I am not guilty of murder because I didn't murder anyone, you doing it with my hand really has nothing to do with anything. False analogy, might save some time if you just argue the case straight instead of using an analogy again.
If you were determined to murder, moved by forces outside your will, making you incapable of refusal, then you are a tool, a means to an end, you are not the agent responsible for the act. You might as well have been severed from your body, because your body is not your own to control, just like the severed hand used in a murder. A deterministic being is no longer a person. And so deserves no punishment and no merit or credit either, for he is not even his own to control.

The analogy shows the importance of the will and the ability to refuse to act, intention is necessary not just for morality but to be a complete and coherent "person".

>Punishment = the negative recompense that Justice demands be given due to sinful or evil action.
There is no justice to levy against robots. Determinism reduces man to a automaton. Speaking about justice, punishment, salvation, and evil is incoherent if the beings we are talking about can't even control themselves and refuse evil over good.

[Anonymous No.13874480]

>>13874445
>https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Freewill-Offering
Half of these verses don't even have the phrase in them. In addition the Hebrew phrase this is derived from doesn't necessarily connotate a metaphysical belief in free will but just means "voluntary". Although you did catch me - there are mentions of the phrase in the English translation I was referring to, I won't try and sophist my way out of that. However I think the mistake is superficial and doesn't actually deal with my core ideas. Thanks for the correction.
>More importantly freewill is presupposed by humans in every normal setting.
Again, I don't necessarily disagree but I think an extreme statement such as this is a bit of a stretch. Define "normal setting" for instance. I would say that I think that it is natural for humans to believe in free will because our subjective experience of life is best explained by belief in it, and it also feels "good" to believe it. However, many teachings which are unnatural to us actually end up being true. The Earth not being flat for instance, even though from our subjective experience it seems to be (which is exactly why in "normal settings" must humans believed it) or a belief in Newtonian physics vs. Quantum mechanics.
>But none of the stories in the bible make sense if beings are incapable of choosing good over evil on their own
Why not? I would contend that they make even more sense.
>what exactly would there be to judge and punish?
What do you mean? The robots, of course.
>Why get angry when one goes left instead of right,
Well, let's look at Romans 9 for the answer here, shall we?
>Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
>One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
Sounds like exactly your complaint. What does Paul say?
>But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
Okay, pretty unsatisfying but it is true, we can't hope to explain God's thoughts. They are higher than ours and don't have to make sense according to human notions.
However, he continues:
>Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Interesting. So the people God wishes to condemn still serve a purpose? What is that purpose?
>What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
Aha.

[Anonymous No.13874494]

>>13874480
It doesn't matter how you interpret the verses to be honest, since you are not interpreting the bible in the traditional Christian way, nor reading it as it was meant to be read.

And since you believe you're a determined "thing" then whatever conclusions you come to aren't even your own, they aren't the result of your own mind or judgment, but consequences of hidden forces beyond your control, probably satanic, but to you they might seem divine at the moment.

[Anonymous No.13874499]

>>13874480
>Why not? I would contend that they make even more sense.
The same reason you find it strange to blame someone for what their severed hand is doing.
A deterministic being, with no freewill to refuse evil, is being manipulated not by themselves, but by something "other" than themselves.
Their body is not their own.

Anyway I won't continue since I have better things to do. Keep seeking.
Calvin isn't the way to Christ.

[Anonymous No.13874506]

>>13874473
>If you were determined to murder, moved by forces outside your will, making you incapable of refusal, then you are a tool, a means to an end, you are not the agent responsible for the act.
Yes, I am the agent responsible for the act. You have it all wrong - and this is indeed where most anti-determinist slip up - you imagine an "agent" who is "compelled" to commit acts "against his will". And then you say that a disservice is being done to the agent who is being held accountable for these acts. However, it is not that the agent is BEING compelled, it is that the agent IS compelled. By that I mean there is no "will" the agent possesses to go against. He was created with the "will" to do what he was going to do. From the ground up, one might say. And therefore he is guilty.
>The analogy shows the importance of the will and the ability to refuse to act
I don't say this to be insulting but its a terrible analogy bro. It doesn't show what you want it to show but I know what you mean so let's just talk about that. Let's just drop analogies, alright? Just talk straight, if you can disprove me you shouldn't need an analogy anyway and I don't want to get bogged down talking about made-up hypothetical situations, and then get further bogged down talking about whether they apply or not, just a colossal waste of time. Just engage with the principles themselves.
>There is no justice to levy against robots. Determinism reduces man to a automaton. Speaking about justice, punishment, salvation, and evil is incoherent if the beings we are talking about can't even control themselves and refuse evil over good.
All these are just claims with no logic put forward. Notice that my definition of Justice I offered to talk about makes no mention of will, only of good and evil.

[Anonymous No.13874534]

>>13874494
> since you are not interpreting the bible in the traditional Christian way, nor reading it as it was meant to be read.
Can you prove this with logic, or are you merely going to assert it with no proof? You seem to be very confident in your interpretation and yourself if you think you have the ability to determine how the Scriptures are meant to be read...nothing wrong with that I suppose, but would you mind sharing your wisdom with me?
>since you believe you're a determined "thing" then whatever conclusions you come to aren't even your own
Yes, of course.
>they aren't the result of your own mind or judgment
Wrong.
>but consequences of hidden forces beyond your control
This is where the mistake is made again. It is my "mind" and my "judgement" that themselves are consequences of forces beyond their control. For I did not create myself, nor did I create my mind, nor my judgement.
>probably satanic, but to you they might seem divine at the moment.
I don't ask this for myself because at this point I know how you're going to respond, but please consider for yourself to think on later why you feel the need to insult me in this moment. And also think on the fact that I have not insulted you. If you're a believing person I'd also encourage you to pray on that. I mean all this sincerely and not as a concealed insult.
>>13874499
I think my response to the other poster covers your post as well but since you've left the thread I guess we'll drop it.
>Calvin isn't the way to Christ.
I agree, I don't actually consider myself a Calvinist, I came to these thoughts independently through prayer. I also would never suggest that a person is the way to Christ - I don't see what anyone's beliefs have to do with that.
>Keep seeking.
Thanks, same to you.

[Anonymous No.13874555]

>>13873501
If there is no free will, God would have no reason to let evil exist. Why did Eve eat the apple?

[Anonymous No.13874558]

>>13874555
Read the Birth of Tragedy for answers on that. Not that everything in it is gospel but it will help you consider the Problem of Evil in a new way.

[Anonymous No.13874566]

>>13874506
> By that I mean there is no "will" the agent possesses to go against. He was created with the "will" to do what he was going to do. From the ground up, one might say. And therefore he is guilty.
What you call will isn't even will. Will implies ability to choose between two or more options, to refuse or to accept X, you reject the possibility of refusal, you reject the ability to choose freely between two options. So the beings you talk about don't even have "will" in any sense. What they have is destiny or programming. They are simply acting out a predeteremined script that they were placed into, that they were given, that they can't refuse, before they were even created.

Blaming a detereministic being for their bad actions is like blaming a sleeping man for waking up with an involuntary boner. Just because it "happened" to him doesn't mean he willed it. Willing implies choice, implies being able to do otherwise.

In your universe there is no "willing" going on, there aren't even any agents, there are just actors and events happening to them.

[Anonymous No.13874571]

>>13874558
>read nietzsche to understand Christianity

[Anonymous No.13874581]

>>13874566
>What you call will isn't even will.
Correct, that is why I put it in quotes.
>
Blaming a detereministic being for their bad actions is like blaming a sleeping man for waking up with an involuntary boner. Just because it "happened" to him doesn't mean he willed it.
Now we are speaking about the lens through which we view our subjective world, rather than the objective world that God created and "sees". They are two different ballgames and the same logic does not apply to both, if you follow me.
So in this world you are right, we make a distinction for the purposes of earthly justice between what we consider to be an expression of a person's "will", i.e. a man killing another man "purposely", and events or actions which do not follow from this will, i.e. sleeping guy waking up with a boner. Not a crime to have a boner or not have a boner, so idk why that was chosen, but w/e.
However we have to note that this lens of belief is based on sense-observation and not philosophical reflection. It comes naturally to us and there are flaws in it if we examine nature carefully. For instance - there is growing evidence that behavior is linked heavily to genetics, we have even identify genes that disproportionately prime individuals to addictive behaviors.
We suppose that there is a "free will" and then to explain our evils we invent "temptation", which supposedly exists apart from this "will" and seeks to compel it - fine. But then we must acknowledge that in some the "temptation" is much greater than in others - and this is not by their choice. So why then, are they punished equally for the same crime as another who is not as severely tempted? If Justice must take will into account then surely it must fairly parse this situation as well?
>In your universe there is no "willing" going on, there aren't even any agents, there are just actors and events happening to them.
Well there is one Willer - God. But yes otherwise this is accurate.

[Anonymous No.13874586]

>>13874571
Might seem funny, yeah but I do believe there is a lot of wealth in Nietzsche and many of his ideas can shed further light on the Scriptures. He was a deeply intelligent man regardless of his personal beliefs.

[Anonymous No.13874590]

>>13874581
Are you even christian? Is Christ God?
When did you convert?

Because I'm getting a sense that you're not even Christian and just like the idea of detereminism.

[Anonymous No.13874613]

>>13874581
>rather than the objective world that God created and "sees".
>. They are two different ballgames and the same logic does not apply to both, if you follow me.
>I know detereminism is true because I look at the world through God's eyes
Ok i"m done.
Go make a buddhism/nietzsche thread instead. You're a goof.

[Anonymous No.13874685]

>>13874590
I am a Christian. Currently 24, converted when I was 17. Well I "converted" a few years earlier, but 17 is when I had my first personal experience with God so I consider that my true conversion.
>Is Christ God?
Yes.
>and just like the idea of detereminism.
I hated the idea of determinism until about a year ago. I have an ESV study Bible and the commentary under Romans 9 endorses determinism - I put an X through that portion of commentary. Now whenever I see it I kind of chuckle at my own arrogance. I had two Calvinist friends who I used to debate with hotly about free-will, never accused them of being non-Christians just because they were Calvinists though. Currently my closest friends still believe in free will. I don't really talk about it outside of message boards because I don't see the point. I told my closest friends when my viewpoint had switched and they were surprised but cool with it and afterwards I never brought it up again.

[Anonymous No.13874686]

>>13874613
I'm not claiming that I see the world through God's eyes, that was just an expression. Why are you being so inflammatory and disingenuous? If you disagree that's fine, if you don't want to continue that's fine too, I'm not grappling at you to debate me.

[Anonymous No.13874703]

>>13873501
>Unimpeded and undeterred, my free will walks on, and the awful swiss tumbles backwards, taken by surprise by my Will's forceful gait. Out of balance, he stumbles directly into a puddle, full of mud and dogshit, and can only kneel in there, seething, where he belongs; while my Will soars High and achieves the unachievable by God's Grace.

[Anonymous No.13875018]

>>13874298
Where does Paul admit this?
And when is he BTFO by stoics?

[Anonymous No.13875029]

>>13875018
>And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
>And when is he BTFO by stoics?
In Acts, they invite him to speak and then don't believe him, then invite him back, and he never returns.

[Anonymous No.13875063]

>>13874374
>Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently but they will not find me, Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD. "They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof."
"So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way And be satiated with their own devices. "For the waywardness of the naive will kill them, And the complacency of fools will destroy them. "But he who listens to me shall live securely And will be at ease from the dread of evil."

[Anonymous No.13875090]

>>13874240
here you go

[Anonymous No.13875098]

>>13875090
Rosicrucian?

[Anonymous No.13875119]

>>13875098
more like TULIP

[Anonymous No.13875543]

>>13875063
What are you trying to say here?

[Anonymous No.13875570]

>Implying Calvin denies free will
If you mean libertarian free will, sure. But Calvinism is compatibilist.

[Anonymous No.13875629]

>>13875570
Compatibilism and predestination are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.13876117]

>>13874062
go back to /pol/ or /b/ brainlet

[Anonymous No.13876153]

If you are an atheist:
free will would mean accepting effects w/o cause

If you are a christian/jew/muslim:
God already knows every decision that will ever be made, therefore you never had a choice.

[Anonymous No.13876482]

>>13875629
They aren't, at all. What do you understand predestination to be?

[Anonymous No.13876492]

How is libertarian free will even supposed to make sense? I literally cannot conceive of rejecting the causal theory of reasons. Probabilistic causation is no more libertarian either. Literally what is the way out of compatibilism?

[Anonymous No.13876506]

[Anonymous No.13877374]

>>13876153
Is cause/effect even a optime way of understand reality anymore? It appears that the more we see into nature the less this dichotomy make sense.
A.G.Krishnamurti say phenomena is all just one big movement, which is separated in cause and effect by the mind

[Anonymous No.13877463]

*blocks your determinism*

[Anonymous No.13877490]

Freedom of will is not necessarily freedom of action.

[Anonymous No.13878242]

>>13873501
isn't calvinism just a really dumb theology in general?

>denies countless mentions of freewill in the bible
>says Christ died only for the elect when there are multiple scriptures that said he died for all men
>gospel literally means good news but lol you can't go to heaven because it's predtermined and you have no choice.

talked to a calvinist pastor recently and showed him Ephesians 2:8-9 and he flat out denies that salvation is a gift. dunno how people can fall for stupid ideas like these.

[Anonymous No.13878258]

>>13873501
>turns Christianity into a form of materialism


Rien de personnel, gamin

[Anonymous No.13879321]

>>13878242
Imagine being this profoundly low IQ. Why can internet theologians do nothing but throw up strawmen? Calvinists believe justification is a gift. They believe in the five solae of the reformation. Calvinists base their entire theology on an in depth and holistic reading of scripture. Please meaningfully engage with other viewpoints before you slander them. Nuke the internet.

[Anonymous No.13879327]

>>13878258
Calvinism is not metaphysically materialist. Whatsoever. Where did you even get this impression?

[Anonymous No.13879338]

lel believing in god means you have a free will

[Anonymous No.13879418]

>>13873501
There is no free will because there is no such thing as absolute freedom, and no such thing as an absolute in general. There are wills and some of them are more free than others.

[Anonymous No.13879673]

>>13879418
>There are wills and some of them are more free than others.
That's free will retard, the moment you can deliberate between two options is free will

[Anonymous No.13879812]

>>13874245
This, the Calvinist moron in this thread has to be a troll. Seriously the only way they could even conceivably argue for this idea is by God having prescience due solely to being outside of time so everything happens at once for him or something.

[Anonymous No.13879831]

>>13879673
Yeah, but why do you deliberate the way you do? Underlying mechanisms are always in control of human behavior. Natural selection elected for a human that is shaped by contingencies of which he has no control over. Therefor, man can never be free in the sense we currently hold.

[Anonymous No.13879843]

>>13879321
i still can't buy what calvinism is selling, he wrote like 3 books and now all the calvinists are doing is just debating each other instead of evangelizing. What good is debate when Jesus gave a great commission to teach all nations of the glorious gospel? When you show plethora of bible verses that clearly go against the teachings of calvinism all i get is you're just too dumb to understand it. Ever wonder that you might be looking at the bible through the lens of the books written by some baguette centuries ago?

[Anonymous No.13880132]

>>13879843
John Calvin did not start the reformed tradition. He does not own it. Reformed theologians have dealt with all of the verses you will mention. They are rigorous biblical theologians. You don't have to agree. But you don't have to be an arrogant prick, either.

[Anonymous No.13880143]

>>13879812
Humans voluntarily choose to commit every evil act. They are not coerced or forced. The evil emerges entirely from their nature. Of course they have responsibility. They are rightfully punished for their misdeeds. Why should responsibility be tied solely to a libertarian scheme?

[Anonymous No.13880409]

>>13874010
Free will means that a thought, impulse, or desire can never be prevented or limited. In other words, we can always choose something different.

For example, if one wanted to have sex, one could always choose not to; if one wanted to drive a car, one could always choose to use a car that worked by a different method; one could always choose the "more pleasant" way by taking a drug instead of the car itself. In other words, one can always stop yourself from doing whatever one wants.
Free will means that one is free to decide what to do—that any decision made is voluntary and can never be resisted. It could be that one wants to eat some ice cream, but wants to take a pill that will make him sick. Free will means that we are free to decide not to eat the ice cream and drive the car. We might choose not to take the pill because we wanted to save the ice cream, just as we might choose not to eat the ice cream if we were really determined to be sick.

[Anonymous No.13880418]

test

[Anonymous No.13880519]

>>13880409
And the problem is that, even if we were able to change our will, we would still do that based on what we think will benefit us. But we’re not even on that level. Even if causality applied and we were still ultimately doing what we were determined to do, at least we would be able to live a good life for ourselves. There would be no harmful addictions, laziness, procrastination, violence, etc. Sure, that isn’t technically free will, but why should anyone complain for not having it? Either way, we are all just trying to benefit the self. So whether or not we are given desires or creating them ourselves, our satisfaction is still derived from completing those desires. We should not be concerned with whether or not our actions are determined, but with how to benefit ourselves as much as possible with what we’re given.

[Anonymous No.13880754]

>>13879673
That's not free will, that's "more free will" or "less free will." There is no "free will" absolutely. It's not between two options, it's between innumerable shades on an infinite gray-scale where solid black and white can't be reached.

[Soren Kierkegaard No.13880935]

>>13874571
you have never read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.13882820]

>>13875029
Thanks bro