Free Will

[_Themis]

Sub you change your beliefs to suit the topic you are debating...

+1

[_subgenius]

I asked for evidence or proof of a big bag of assertions, not another big bag of assertions.

and evidence was given, if you are unable to read and understand the definition of the word supernatural as was provided, then little can be done about that. Additionally, i made no assertion, but rather made conclusions based on known concepts. Links were provided showing that chemistry is bound to natural laws...and by definition if something is not bound by natural laws, it is supernatural...that is not an assertion, it is a fact.
Also, human beings are either solely composed of chemical reactions and processes bound by natural laws or they are not solely composed of chemical reactions and processes bound by natural laws.
If you consider human life to be composed of part "natural law" and part something else, OR just all "natural law" OR jut all "supernatural", then feel free to explain it...but the conclusion will still be the same.
And the attempted "well we don't know everything yet" has no influence on the conclusion, because the ability to choose otherwise is either true or it is not, regardless of how many more "natural laws" are discovered...the restraint is the same.
Again, i have made reasonable conclusions and provided the reasoning and support for those conclusion..and that is why they are not Assertions.

Part of those big bag of assertions includes your assertions about supernatural abilities. Also why do you think people are still debating free will, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.

i did not make any assertions about "supernatural abilities" but rather i simply conveyed the definition of supernatural - if you have a problem with that definition then take it up with the guys who publish the dictionary. The conclusion is rather obvious, i am sorry you do not like it, but apparently your long held position has certain logical and reasonable consequence with which you are not comfortable with...and that is not surprising is it? Why would your brain organ want "you" to contradict itself?

i am not sure why you mention the "ongoing debate" over free-will...is it meant to be some sort of "proof"
but
The debate for free-will still occurs, quite simply, because it can...and ironically, because people "choose" to continue it.

[_subgenius]

Sub you change your beliefs to suit the topic you are debating...

nope, never have. how about kicking a little CFR for this one.
you are likely confused, currently i am illustrating the logical and reasonable conclusion to one "option" or manner of considering the topic. I have maintained, consistently, what my belief is on the subject.

And when you get things wrong you blag your way to try and convince people with links to mildly related topics, hoping to confuse people.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
you almost had a trifecta there..
i don't hope to confuse anyone...if you are getting confused then perhaps you should slow down and read for comprehension....
exactly what are you potentially confused about with what i have stated here?
would that not be the more appropriate response for you to make? rather than claiming i am obfuscating why not ask for a specific clarification?
i have my own speculation as to why you have not, and so o most who are reading your post.

Hmm beginning to sound like your defence of your Religion too?

huh?

We are biological / chemical creatures,
Due to our biological and chemical brain structure certain sympathetic reactions effect us and are inevitable, through stimuli.
So it is true that some people are born to think, act and feel a certain way?

irrelevant and inaccurate. Given your initial assumption all reactions are inevitable and unable to be deviated from.

Example: genetic defects, or environmental / chemical problems during mitosis, excess alcohol or drugs during pregnancy resulting in physical and chemical / neurological imbalances in the brain / brains,
altering ones long term behaviour therefore having an impact on eternal progression. and also physical defects conjoined twins, there are no 2 separate spirits, just brains and therefore minds.

and my conclusion still rings true. You are describing variations of my theme. Regardless of what environmental influence stimulates where and when, the reaction, the fundamental reaction, is always the same and is incapable of being anything else...there is no way for you to allow the ability to choose otherwise.
Behavior, defective or not, is just an expression of chemical reactions. A car can not choose otherwise, regardless if the oil level is low, or if the manufacturer assembled the transmission incorrectly, or if it is in textbook working order. If you claim that our bodies are nothing more than a complex system of reactions, then so is the brain...and therefore these chemical reactions, defective or not, are what is responsible for telling you that you are you....and these reactions are bound to obey the laws of chemistry, natural laws...and therefore are unable to ever choose to react otherwise, thus meaning that there is, in fact, no "you".

Some things are beyond choice, and therefore predestined, birth defects, life changing accidents or illness, natural disasters? or acts of GOD?

according to your premise, everything is beyond choice. You may "think" you have chosen to wear a red shirt today, but you did not...by your own premise, a series of unwavering chemical reactions were initiated by external stimuli which resulted in an inevitable "mental" cue for your body to wear a red shirt. There was never a choice to be made, it was just the product of a variety or very complex chemical reactions which could not have concluded any other product...because they are bound to the laws of the universe.
A rock falling can not choose to defy gravity.

If they are acts of GOD then he is controlling everything and so knows everything including your choices, so are they really choices if he knows what you'll do?

false dichotomy - i can build a car, but that does not imply that i can control the driver. I can influence how far he can run that car on a gallon of gas, but i certainly can not make him buy gas.

if predestination exists then what is the purpose of life? if it doesn't then GOD is unable to plan anything, like Jesus Christ and Joseph Smiths (predestination)

i think you have confused predestination with determinism. Purpose of life?...according to Drifting "have a good time" - what more do you possibly need to know?

to be the prophet of the restoration as contained in the Book of Mormon. surely life is not fair as GOD has intervened and therefore shown to be bias?

i am unclear on the point you are making here.

Do you still clinging to the medieval notion that evil spirits cause mental illness, disease and disability?
and that people make wrong choices because the devil and his evil spirits are retarding them?
Who hath sinned that this man be born blind?

still? i have never claimed that i ever believed that way.
However, i can state that people make wrong choices on their own, with/without the influence of Heavenly Father, or with/without the influence of Satan.
But i figure that the manner by which i understand the character and nature of God, Satan, and Man are different than yours.

Please do explain your Jesus logic?

i am unclear on the point you are making here.

[_PrickKicker]

Everytime you cannot defend your standing you resort to playing dumb,
You cannot reply to a single post without a

huh?

CFR?

i am unclear on the point you are making here.

people can see right through you.
You skirt round the issues and don't address the roots of the problem.
You then write the ramblings of your mind and try and back it up by dumb parables or analogies.

false dichotomy - i can build a car, but that does not imply that i can control the driver. I can influence how far he can run that car on a gallon of gas, but i certainly can not make him buy gas.

Genius! You can build a car, (therefore you restrict the driver to the cars limitations and capabilities you are therefore governing the use) and therefore controlling the driver.
You can influence how far the car can run (also limiting the driver.) You build a car to run on GAS, (you are limiting the driver to purchase GAS!)

You really are sure of yourself even when you are clearly delusional. You are convinced your leavings don't stink.
Your narcissistic tendencies are you undoing.

[_subgenius]

Everytime you cannot defend your standing you resort to playing dumb,
You cannot reply to a single post without a

huh?

CFR?

i am unclear on the point you are making here.

actually, those responses are genuine, and anyone reading may or may not agree with the sentiment. But i will offer no apology for asking a question when i am not sure about what a post means....or if i would like to see the source for a claim in order to understand better.

people can see right through you.

because i have nothing to hide

You skirt round the issues and don't address the roots of the problem.

How exactly did i skirt around the issue which i, in fact, brought up?
exactly what is the root of the problem here? As i understand it, i have proposed a really simple premise...chemical reactions, no matter how complex have no ability to "choose otherwise".....if human beings are nothing more than complex chemicals reactions, then they have no ability to choose otherwise.
Yes, that does seem simple to me...but apparently there is both a problem with that premise, and a 'root' to that problem.....i would appreciate you stating what it is, since you brought it up.

You then write the ramblings of your mind and try and back it up by dumb parables or analogies.

you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

false dichotomy - i can build a car, but that does not imply that i can control the driver. I can influence how far he can run that car on a gallon of gas, but i certainly can not make him buy gas.

Genius! You can build a car, (therefore you restrict the driver to the cars limitations and capabilities you are therefore governing the use) and therefore controlling the driver.

not a valid conclusion. I may be limiting the driver of the car, much like the law of gravity limits my ability to jump.
However, you do seem to agree with my original premise...that human beings, being simply a complex machine (car) have no ability to choose otherwise.
BUT, you fail to recognize that while a car may provide "limitations" to a driver it does not control the driver....the car does not tell the driver to go right or left, the driver tells the car. The speed, though limited by laws of physics, is controlled by the driver...one driver may choose to go fast while another chooses to go slow and yet another chooses to stop. As the car maker i am no more in control of those decisions than the maker of your computer is in control of the thoughts you are typing.

You can influence how far the car can run (also limiting the driver.) You build a car to run on GAS, (you are limiting the driver to purchase GAS!)

limitations are not necessarily "controlling" in the context of my premise...they are actually givens...i have never proposed that free-will equated with a human being being able to choose to be an elephant...or that a human being could choose be 32 feet tall today and choose to be 3 feet tall tomorrow. You are being absurd and illogical - all i have said is that if a person considers human beings to be nothing more than the product of chemical reactions, then they are incapable of choosing otherwise.
You are trying to introduce scenarios that are, in fact, not choices at all.

You really are sure of yourself even when you are clearly delusional. You are convinced your leavings don't stink.
Your narcissistic tendencies are you undoing.

I appreciate your concern for me and obviously you have some strong feelings and thoughts on the matter, which is interesting...but obviously as walking skin bag of chemicals none of that is your fault and you are helpless to "control" yourself.

[_Themis]

and evidence was given. Additionally, i made no assertion, but rather made conclusions based on known concepts.

You gave no evidence. Your conclusions are not on evidence, but on assumptions that free will exists, and also that free will cannot exists on the natural laws of the universe, which you don't even know most of them.

Links were provided showing that chemistry is bound to natural laws...and by definition if something is not bound by natural laws, it is supernatural...that is not an assertion, it is a fact.

The assumption is that if we don't understand something it must be supernatural. You don't know whether anything is supernatural since you don't know everything about the universe.

Also, human beings are either solely composed of chemical reactions and processes bound by natural laws or they are not solely composed of chemical reactions and processes bound by natural laws.

Just another assumption you don't really know.

And the attempted "well we don't know everything yet" has no influence on the conclusion, because the ability to choose otherwise is either true or it is not, regardless of how many more "natural laws" are discovered...the restraint is the same.

Is this your weak attempt to get out of this major problem. The ability to choose may juts be an illusion, and if if we do, we still cannot eliminate natural laws explaining it. by the way when I say natural laws, I include here both what we think we understand and what we don't yet understand.

i am not sure why you mention the "ongoing debate" over free-will...is it meant to be some sort of "proof"
but
The debate for free-will still occurs, quite simply, because it can...and ironically, because people "choose" to continue it.

It's obvious I never brought it up as proof or evidence, only that it is not something that has or will be settled in the foreseeable future. The reason is lack of evidence.

[_PrickKicker]

How exactly did i skirt around the issue which i, in fact, brought up?
exactly what is the root of the problem here? As i understand it, i have proposed a really simple premise...chemical reactions, no matter how complex have no ability to "choose otherwise".....if human beings are nothing more than complex chemicals reactions, then they have no ability to choose otherwise.
Yes, that does seem simple to me...but apparently there is both a problem with that premise, and a 'root' to that problem.....i would appreciate you stating what it is, since you brought it up.

I am not contesting the majorities ability to move/act/listen/speak/choose, but the ROOT that governs those 'physically restricted' movements/actions/hearing/speech/choices.

If you are TBM you believe that you are a 'spirit-being' animating your puppet-like body, retaining information brought to your spirit via your physical medium (body)...
I, have come to disagree.

This is the ROOT of the problem! Are you now able to see the ROOT?

I now believe there is only a physical side, my belief is based on what little evidence medical science has to offer.
You on the other hand have an inability to accept that you are delusional self confident and narcissistic, you believe your words are more healing, than modern medicine.

But you contradict yourself again and again by using science when it suits you and God when it does not.

What evidence are you putting forward that we are spirit beings? Personal Opinion? The Opinion of others from Ancient text?

It is quite clear from this...

Example: genetic defects, or environmental / chemical problems during mitosis, excess alcohol or drugs during pregnancy resulting in physical and chemical / neurological imbalances in the brain / brains,
altering ones long term behaviour therefore having an impact on eternal progression. and also physical defects conjoined twins, there are no 2 separate spirits, just brains and therefore minds.

Some things are beyond choice, and therefore predestined, birth defects, life changing accidents or illness, natural disasters? or acts of GOD?
If they are acts of GOD then he is controlling everything and so knows everything including your choices, so are they really choices if he knows what you'll do?
if predestination exists then what is the purpose of life? if it doesn't then GOD is unable to plan anything, like Jesus Christ and Joseph Smiths (predestination)
to be the prophet of the restoration as contained in the Book of Mormon. surely life is not fair as GOD has intervened and therefore shown to be bias?

I am saying that I believe that the delusion of ones spirit is apparent because of the minds inability to understand its own Genesis.
I am also saying that I do not believe that we are all created equally and given the same opportunities,abilities and experiences.
and therefore cannot judge one another, neither be judged by someone who is Bias.
...is this not clear enough for you?

I am beginning to think that all you do is skim the text without concentrating on the written words, without actually 'thinking' about why anyone else's 'thought' processes may differ from your own.
Hence your air of superiority and authority / narcissism.

...Who hath sinned that this man be born blind?...Please do explain your Jesus logic?

Do you cling to the notion that there was a war in heaven and that there were one 3rd of the the hosts Followers of Satan? (Evil Spirits kept not their 1st estate and never gained bodies)
Do you believe that one 3rd followed Jesus? (White and Delightsome)<--------Race predestined?
And one 3rd Fence sitters? (The seed of Cain?/Blacks)<--------Race predestined?

So what about Disabled people?<-------- predestined?

If the urban myths, which are embraced as doctrine and that the Church allow to circulate and which originate as high as Prophet seer and revelator, like the war in heaven, Blacks being less valiant and Disabled people given a easier ride in mortality, by limited agency and accountability because they were valiant.

They shouldn't be surprised when they make up stories claiming to be GODs logic and when challenged on it, it comes back to haunt them.

[_subgenius]

The assumption is that if we don't understand something it must be supernatural. You don't know whether anything is supernatural since you don't know everything about the universe.

You really do need a dictionary, because that is not the assumption...it may be your assumption (which would be wrong), but it most certainly is not mine. The "unknown" has no influence on my premise.

supernatural - "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe" - "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural


not what we have observed or will observe...but beyond that...which has become obvious that you do not believe there is anyway to know anything beyond the "visible observable universe" - which is fine and easy enough to poke holes in.
But it is irrelevant to the point.
Sure, there are plenty of things we don't "know" about the universe...but that does not negate the point i am making about biophysical laws. The law of gravity still governed us when we did not "know' it, and the same can always be said about making a choice....because the ability to choose otherwise has to be exclusive of any natural law, whether we know that law yet or not. So, you see, what we currently know and what we may know does not matter.


here is the simplest way i can put it:
The ability to choose otherwise is a violation of natural law and either natural law can be violated or it can not.

[_subgenius]

I am not contesting the majorities ability to move/act/listen/speak/choose, but the ROOT that governs those 'physically restricted' movements/actions/hearing/speech/choices.

well, then you would be assuming that there is "something" being restricted, and thus that "something" exists independent of the physical restrictions - which might be interesting to explore.
Otherwise, "you" are simply the product of those alleged physical restrictions, wherein they can not be restrictions because without them there is no you...those restrictions are simply your components.
You can not state that "having legs" controls who i am, because that assumes a driver in the car.
Being a car can not be a restriction to being a car.

If you are TBM you believe that you are a 'spirit-being' animating your puppet-like body, retaining information brought to your spirit via your physical medium (body)...
I, have come to disagree.

which is fine to disagree. I happen to believe that our car has a driver, you obviously consider your car to have no driver and possibly you are either a passenger or not at all.

I now believe there is only a physical side, my belief is based on what little evidence medical science has to offer.
You on the other hand have an inability to accept that you are delusional self confident and narcissistic, you believe your words are more healing, than modern medicine.

false dichotomy. I have great faith in the work that the many doctors, engineers, and even recreational pharmacists that i have been exposed to for my life thus far.

But you contradict yourself again and again by using science when it suits you and God when it does not.

please provide a reference where i have contradicted myself.

What evidence are you putting forward that we are spirit beings? Personal Opinion? The Opinion of others from Ancient text?

currently i am not proclaiming that we are spirit this or that. My premise was quite clear and quite concise. Free-will, or the ability to choose otherwise, is a violation of natural law, and therefore fits the definition of being supernatural - for that is the only way to violate natural law. If you, as you state baove consider us to be wholly bio-chemical beings then there can be no ability to choose otherwise - this is the notion that i have been discussing and supporting - whereas it seems to be that you would not like to sacrifice that ability, but you are unable to logically, reasonably, rationally, or otherwise prove that you do, indeed, have any free-will.
Which is fine with me, because it is the appropriate conclusion for your position and likewise you would think that you would be comfortable accepting the product of your own doctrine...but it seems that you are not.

Perhaps, it is best to be blunt: Do you have free-will?

I am saying that I believe that the delusion of ones spirit is apparent because of the minds inability to understand its own Genesis.
I am also saying that I do not believe that we are all created equally and given the same opportunities,abilities and experiences.
and therefore cannot judge one another, neither be judged by someone who is Bias.
...is this not clear enough for you?

not really, it seems contradictory....if the mind has no ability to understand its own Genesis then how can you possibly know that?

[_PrickKicker]

I am not contesting the majorities ability to move/act/listen/speak/choose, but the ROOT that governs those 'physically restricted' movements/actions/hearing/speech/choices.

well, then you would be assuming that there is "something" being restricted, and thus that "something" exists independent of the physical restrictions - which might be interesting to explore.
Otherwise, "you" are simply the product of those alleged physical restrictions, wherein they can not be restrictions because without them there is no you...those restrictions are simply your components.
You can not state that "having legs" controls who i am, because that assumes a driver in the car.
Being a car can not be a restriction to being a car.
Can you explain why you are using a man made object that is made by man for man, to describe US as biological beings, I would understand where you were coming from if you used a example of something biological, But you can't because it doesn't portray your analogies.
CFR?

If you are TBM you believe that you are a 'spirit-being' animating your puppet-like body, retaining information brought to your spirit via your physical medium (body)...
I, have come to disagree.

which is fine to disagree. I happen to believe that our car has a driver, you obviously consider your car to have no driver and possibly you are either a passenger or not at all.
As above

I now believe there is only a physical side, my belief is based on what little evidence medical science has to offer.
You on the other hand have an inability to accept that you are delusional self confident and narcissistic, you believe your words are more healing, than modern medicine.

false dichotomy. I have great faith in the work that the many doctors, engineers, and even recreational pharmacists that i have been exposed to for my life thus far.
Hmm no faith that God can heal you then or that you can heal others?

But you contradict yourself again and again by using science when it suits you and God when it does not.

please provide a reference where i have contradicted myself.
This one AGAIN? I provided one earlier, are you going to ask every time you wish to dichotomise my posts?

What evidence are you putting forward that we are spirit beings? Personal Opinion? The Opinion of others from Ancient text?

currently i am not proclaiming that we are spirit this or that. My premise was quite clear and quite concise. Free-will, or the ability to choose otherwise, is a violation of natural law, and therefore fits the definition of being supernatural - for that is the only way to violate natural law. If you, as you state baove consider us to be wholly bio-chemical beings then there can be no ability to choose otherwise - this is the notion that i have been discussing and supporting - whereas it seems to be that you would not like to sacrifice that ability, but you are unable to logically, reasonably, rationally, or otherwise prove that you do, indeed, have any free-will.
Which is fine with me, because it is the appropriate conclusion for your position and likewise you would think that you would be comfortable accepting the product of your own doctrine...but it seems that you are not.

Perhaps, it is best to be blunt: Do you have free-will?

Park your man made from minerals inanimate object / car out of the sun shine for a second... and think about life.
Does a seed control where it falls? does a tree control where it ROOTs? or where its branches grow, do other animals have free will?
yes I believe in living creatures and reality and free will. Do I believe in Ghosts no not since I started to think for myself instead of believing the vain and foolish traditions of my father

I am saying that I believe that the delusion of ones spirit is apparent because of the minds inability to understand its own Genesis.
I am also saying that I do not believe that we are all created equally and given the same opportunities,abilities and experiences.
and therefore cannot judge one another, neither be judged by someone who is Bias.
...is this not clear enough for you?

not really, it seems contradictory....if the mind has no ability to understand its own Genesis then how can you possibly know that?

Know what? I am not challenging ones ability to think. I challenge the fact that the mind exists prior to the brains formation
Religion like your car started of as an idea, that idea that spreads and then becomes a reality constructed by the hands and minds of men, evolving along with man's increased understanding, it is a false concept, a mind set, a way of thinking it is a mental disorder, It is dangerous for the world to be at peace it needs to be reversed, not through inanimate objects not by physical means, by planting a living seed that will grow, by implanting a concept.