Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[MG 2.0]

Leaving God out is my preference. The trouble is some folks just can't do that. I wonder why?

Simply because I think it is unreasonable to do so. Essentially it is a waste of time to not bring into the discussion the very ‘crux of the matter’. That which on everything might depend. Pulling out the axle and expecting the wheel to turn is an interesting exercise in creativity but ultimately futile.

Sure, you can try and explain your away around God. But it’s an exercise in futility. Although an interesting exercise in creativity.

Free will as a gift from God that surpasses all other gifts explains so much of why and what we see in the world.

The mistake many non religious people make, in my opinion, is blaming God for the results of human agency. I would imagine that there very well might be some here who do that very thing.

How that impacts one’s belief in free will is another interesting question.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Consider the fallacy of sunken costs and whether that is what drives you. All you have left in life is today and the days remaining thereafter until you die. Make good use of them; don't resign yourself to the shackles of a religion simply because you may have foregone living life to its fullest for the years you've been under the spell of a religious cult.

The arguments on this board against free will all come down to this constant refrain that you and others make after all is said and done. That “living life to the fullest” demands that one leave the CofJCofLDS.

How that might apply to free will and making choices is an interesting question in and of itself.

We ALL have only today and the days remaining thereafter “until [we] die”. We all should “make good use of them”. Are you saying that because one has made what they believe to be covenants with God that they are somehow at a disadvantage in making good use of time and that we are somehow caught in shackles that keep us from being the kind of person we have the potential of being?

I’ve mentioned the arrogance a time or two on this thread. Your comments seem to demonstrate the fact that those, such as yourself, that have “left the cult” are somehow privy to special knowledge that allows you to judge your fellow human beings and call them deluded and something ‘less than they can be’ because they adhere to religious doctrines and principles. As I mentioned to another poster, this the height of conceit, arrogance, and hubris.

This conversation about free will and the adamant condemnation of its existence seems to be attached to feelings and judgements being made in regards to whether or not a creator God exists to whom we owe allegiance and are accountable. After all, if we are not accountable to a God we are perfectly willing to define free will however we want even to the point of explaining it away.

Life can then be, as you say, “lived to its fullest” as one discards the chains of obedience or conformity to religious doctrines, principles, and practices. Me thinks that this choice of “living life to its fullest” is an exercise of free will in and of itself.

I would like to think that you’re being honest with yourself and others but there is a part of me that doubts your sincerity and confidence in the path you’ve taken and are out to ‘convert’ others to your worldview/lifestyle.

The paragraphs I’ve quoted from you seems to point towards this as being a distinct possibility.

Anyway, as I’ve said, I think I’ve said just about all I have to say in this thread directly discussing free will and such. But I have to take issue with what you have said and simply say that I think you are confused and mistaken. If not dealing without outright half truths and lies.

Regards,
MG

Your "aggrievement" is noted, even though in my opinion you haven't understood or discussed the various opinions expressed and have instead opted for your usual broad brush condemnation of the 'other,' which for some reason you have defined as everyone on this board. You have expressed your "personal reasons" and "ulterior motives" and you have "disparaged" all you assume are different than you as obviously as you possibly could, given your "limitations." [Quotation marks indicate your recently projected terms.] Try to "rest," now.



Anyway, back to the actual discussion:

The argument is if it's an illusion and what does that mean if it is? God only gets inserted when a party in the discussion inserts God as evidence there must be free will. It's a subject that gets debated by non-theists and, frankly, more honestly because the prior need to include God interferes with the ability to consider the evidence. Case in point, this thread.

Leaving God out is my preference. The trouble is some folks just can't do that. I wonder why?

ETA: I should acknowledge I made the point your inability to exclude God or consider positions that require Mormonism to be a lie are evidence against free will. So in that case I did insert the topic tangential to the point I was attempting to make that your options for making choices were obviously bounded. But that applies to all of us. I was just talking with you in that instance.

I like to consider that everyone potentially may have at least one non-universally supported belief that influences their ability to consider how much influence they really have over their choices. At some point, those beliefs may need to be coldly evaluated in terms of their long term efficacy, if only to further one's education and rational thinking skills. (I believe 'free will' is overwhelmingly influenced by conditions, but I also believe we should make an effort to act as though we can influence our ability to be our best selves.)

Some of these objectively non-rational beliefs might be like a blankey or a pacifier a child might use, to self soothe, because that's all they've known their whole lives. At some point re-evaluating those beliefs inculcated since birth may be necessary, if it is within one's abilities. Everyone deserves that opportunity.

When my youngest was very young I knew I needed to ween him off his nightly pacifier. It was a comfort for him, but the long term outcome was not optimal. One night i explained to him that his dentist said he shouldn't use it anymore because it would be bad for his teeth in the future. I was hoping to ween him away from it over time, but with tears in his eyes he took it out of his mouth, said "okay, Mommy," and handed it to me. It was never in his mouth again. It was the most mature thing I had ever seen a child (or even many adults!) do, and I was legitimately in shock.

(On the other hand, his "angel cat," a small stuffed animal he had had since birth is now safely preserved in his memory box, and he knows it. Not all self soothing needs to be eliminated. )

[honorentheos]

(I believe 'free will' is overwhelmingly influenced by conditions, but I also believe we should make an effort to act as though we can influence our ability to be our best selves.)

This is largely where I land as well. One addition I'd make is that I see the real ability to affect choices occuring prior to the moment of choice so making consequences more clear and adding information or considerations to a person's thinking all get into the complex mix. When I listen to my better angels it helps me temper honesty with kindness.

[honorentheos]

Leaving God out is my preference. The trouble is some folks just can't do that. I wonder why?

Simply because I think it is unreasonable to do so. Essentially it is a waste of time to not bring into the discussion the very ‘crux of the matter’.

Except it isn't. For you, sure. But you assert this is a universal condition. I assert you bring God in to the discussion because God only exists in your mind. Whatever objective reality may be, I don't believe the evidence demands God be a part of it. Rather, God belief is a matter to be accounted for when interacting with folks who have that belief.

You explain the world as you see it through that lens. Not the other way around. Which is why I view the very nature of this discussion to be a point against free will.

[Gadianton]

I haven’t abandoned God. In fact, I seek to know more of Him.

I do think that God is much bigger than you would like to think.

You abandoned "God" and now believe in "god" in order to preserve your belief in free will. I think that's fine. Yes, you contradicted yourself and deserve a couple of laughs given your boastful profession of the "omni's" in this very thread even after the topic of free will got brought up. But, you presented a very cogent argument for why you made that change and so like Adam in the Garden of Eden, your inconsistency led to the greater good, which was to follow the demands of reason and embrace "god". I applaud that, I wasn't lying when I said it was a great observations.

And as I’ve said, I think I’m done on the topic of free will. I would like to hear from others that are either on the fence or support the belief, that many people have, in regards to the inherent ability that humans have to consciously exercise their will to make choices between good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong, etc.

I just finished listening to a 10 minute clip of Jordan Peterson on free will that YouTube recommended to me. It's probably the best 10 minutes of Jordan Peterson I've ever heard, and shows he's not an idiot when he's in his lane. It was supposed to be Jordan's response to Sam Harris. There was only one problem with it: it had nothing to do with free will. lol.

The philosophical discussion of free will is very narrow. It puts the microscope on one tiny patch of abstraction that seems to blow up and create outsized consequences. Philosophical discussions aren't supposed to have that effect even though they are more often than not agenda driven. If I have a philosophical problem, then I have something that shouldn't help me predict the results of science or psychology. It's no surprise then, that the extraordinary 10 minutes of Jordan speaking about consciousness and will from a psychological perspective, could all be agreed upon as valid independent of whether one accepts or rejects the causal closure of the universe. Likewise, psych experiments say nothing we don't already know about causal closure in the abstract, and do nothing to back up the case for determinism. If Dan Peterson and Sam Harris are saying almost the same thing, as I tried to show, it becomes a distinction without a difference.

To me, free will exists. I’ve experienced its effects in my life. Those that would explain it away I think have either ulterior motives or personal reasons to do so. And I’ll leave it at that.

You haven't experienced any such thing. You could almost certainly still be Mormon and also reject libertarian free will and become a compatibilist. Instead, you've thrown out God. Some Mormons might choose to keep God omnipotent, maintain compatibilism, and affirm moral agency. If I were Mormon, I know exactly how I would do this, and I could delineate my views carefully enough to avoid click-bait wording that sets people like you off, I could deny libertarian free will, maintain moral agency, and people would think I'm this great orthodox Mormon. Do you remember Clark Goble? He rejected libertarian free will. Do you think he had an ulterior motive to drag people out of the Church?

Of course, I fully admit that newly minted atheists go headlong into the click-bait in order to be as shocking as possible.

Sock puppet’s response and others along the way lead me to think that this is true.

I have never told you that you have to reject Mormonism to have a fulfilling life. I'm sure your life is great, it might be better than mine, who is to say? But you can have a good fulfilling life for all of the hours a day you're away from this board, thinking whatever you want to think. When you're posting on this board, I'm interested only in what I perceive to be the quality of the ideas. Even if you maintain belief, that's fine. I've respected the ideas of a lot of people who are believers. Believer is God, that is.

[honorentheos]

Tangential thoughts:

It was the mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace who most clearly stated the concept of universal determinism shortly after d'Holbach, In 1778:

"We ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of Its anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow. Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose It - an Intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis-- it would embrace in the same formula the motions of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for It nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to Its eyes."

Laplace is also famous for his exchange with Napoleon asking about his work: “You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.“ To this Laplace responded: ”Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.“
(Prior link up thread)

...

"Then what makes a beautiful human being? Isn’t it the presence of human excellence? Young friend, if you wish to be beautiful, then work diligently at human excellence. And what is that? Observe those whom you praise without prejudice. The just or the unjust? The just. The even-tempered or the undisciplined? The even-tempered. The self-controlled or the uncontrolled? The self-controlled. In making yourself that kind of person, you will become beautiful—but to the extent you ignore these qualities, you’ll be ugly, even if you use every trick in the book to appear beautiful.” —EPICTETUS, DISCOURSES, 3.1.6b–9

[Res Ipsa]

Are you claiming that you know enough about God to proclaim his limits? What is your basis for claiming that God's knowledge is limited? Is this one of those objective truths that God has communicated to you?

In God’s recipe book does he have a recipe for making an ice cream sundae out of sand?

LOL! This is perhaps the worst argument you've made in the thread. This is the God whose son literally changed water into wine. The God who changed a staff into a serpent. The God who touched ordinary rocks and made the glow without producing any heat. The God who created billions of galaxies full of stars and planets. The God who can bring dead people back to life.

And you're telling me he is incapable of turning ice cream into sand? Is your God not a God of miracles?

Who are you to tell God what he can and cannot do?

I mean, wasn't it your God who said this?

38Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: 2“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone 7when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? 8“Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb?— 9when I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, 10and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, 11and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stopped’?

12“Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place, 13so that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? 14It is changed like clay under the seal, and it is dyed like a garment. 15Light is withheld from the wicked, and their uplifted arm is broken. 16“Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? 18Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this. 19“Where is the way to the dwelling of light, and where is the place of darkness, 20that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? 21Surely you know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great! 22“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, 23which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war? 24What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

25“Who has cut a channel for the torrents of rain, and a way for the thunderbolt, 26to bring rain on a land where no one lives, on the desert, which is empty of human life, 27to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground put forth grass? 28“Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew? 29From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the hoarfrost of heaven? 30The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. 31“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion? 32Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children? 33Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth? 34“Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, so that a flood of waters may cover you? 35Can you send forth lightnings, so that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’? 36Who has put wisdom in the inward parts, or given understanding to the mind? 37Who has the wisdom to number the clouds? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens, 38when the dust runs into a mass and the clods cling together? 39“Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, 40when they crouch in their dens, or lie in wait in their covert? 41Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God, and wander about for lack of food?

39“Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you observe the calving of the deer? 2Can you number the months that they fulfill, and do you know the time when they give birth, 3when they crouch to give birth to their offspring, and are delivered of their young? 4Their young ones become strong, they grow up in the open; they go forth, and do not return to them. 5“Who has let the wild ass go free? Who has loosed the bonds of the swift ass, 6to which I have given the steppe for its home, the salt land for its dwelling place? 7It scorns the tumult of the city; it does not hear the shouts of the driver. 8It ranges the mountains as its pasture, and it searches after every green thing. 9“Is the wild ox willing to serve you? Will it spend the night at your crib? 10Can you tie it in the furrow with ropes, or will it harrow the valleys after you? 11Will you depend on it because its strength is great, and will you hand over your labor to it? 12Do you have faith in it that it will return, and bring your grain to your threshing floor?

13“The ostrich’s wings flap wildly, though its pinions lack plumage. 14For it leaves its eggs to the earth, and lets them be warmed on the ground, 15forgetting that a foot may crush them, and that a wild animal may trample them. 16It deals cruelly with its young, as if they were not its own; though its labor should be in vain, yet it has no fear; 17because God has made it forget wisdom, and given it no share in understanding. 18When it spreads its plumes aloft, it laughs at the horse and its rider.

19“Do you give the horse its might? Do you clothe its neck with mane? 20Do you make it leap like the locust? Its majestic snorting is terrible. 21It paws violently, exults mightily; it goes out to meet the weapons. 22It laughs at fear, and is not dismayed; it does not turn back from the sword. 23Upon it rattle the quiver, the flashing spear, and the javelin. 24With fierceness and rage it swallows the ground; it cannot stand still at the sound of the trumpet. 25When the trumpet sounds, it says ‘Aha!’ From a distance it smells the battle, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting.

26“Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars, and spreads its wings toward the south? 27Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up and makes its nest on high? 28It lives on the rock and makes its home in the fastness of the rocky crag. 29From there it spies the prey; its eyes see it from far away. 30Its young ones suck up blood; and where the slain are, there it is.”

40And the Lord said to Job: 2“Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Anyone who argues with God must respond.”

Job 38:1--40:2.

Could God make a baseball into a football simply by wishing it so?

Why not? I don't think your God cares at all about your arguments from incredulity. I suspect he knows they are logical fallacies.

Two quick and random examples off the top of my head. God has limits. A whole lot of them. He cannot do what is impossible.

This is you simply making things up about your God to fit the argument you want to make right here in this thread. The ultimate exercise in subjecting.

What you've presented is a horribly mangled version of a recognized limitation on an omnipotent God: God cannot act in logically impossible ways. He cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it. You've mangled that into a 100% fallacious argument from personal incredulity: you personally cannot believe that sand can be made into ice cream, therefore it's impossible for God.

It's not only fallacious. It's laughably so. God's son can turn water into wine, but sand into ice cream is "right out." Who, other than yourself, are you trying to kid with this nonsense.

When it's convenient for you, your God is powerful enough to create the universe. When it's convenient for you, God is just as impotent as you.

Your God is 100% ad hoc rationalization.

The ‘big deal’ is trying to fathom what might be impossible vs. possible.

But not to you. Water into wine is possible. Sand into ice cream is impossible. Creating the universe is possible. Changing a football into a soccer ball is impossible. Bring dead people back to life is possible. Millions of other things that you can just assert are impossible.

How do you know that God can't change sand into ice cream? Is this something he communicated to you?

Folks have been trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for a long time.

Red herring. Free will is a foundational, critical part of your belief system, not just mental jerking off.

I think it is advantageous, at least in the short term, for agnostics and atheists to take the hard line and insist that God can do ALL things.

Because then when He doesn’t or can’t then well…

Compare that with the advantage of simply pulling facts about God out of your nethers to fit your needs in any specific situation, casting any notion of consistency or coherency to the winds. The problem is that your claims about your God are self-contradictory and incoherent.

[huckelberry]

The arguments on this board against free will all come down to this constant refrain that you and others make after all is said and done. That “living life to the fullest” demands that one leave the CofJCofLDS.

How that might apply to free will and making choices is an interesting question in and of itself.

The argument is if it's an illusion and what does that mean if it is? God only gets inserted when a party in the discussion inserts God as evidence there must be free will. It's a subject that gets debated by non-theists and, frankly, more honestly because the prior need to include God interferes with the ability to consider the evidence. Case in point, this thread.

Leaving God out is my preference. The trouble is some folks just can't do that. I wonder why?

ETA: I should acknowledge I made the point your inability to exclude God or consider positions that require Mormonism to be a lie are evidence against free will. So in that case I did insert the topic tangential to the point I was attempting to make that your options for making choices were obviously bounded. But that applies to all of us. I was just talking with you in that instance.

Gadianton and perhaps others have pointed out that there are different ideas of what free will is discussing and different sort of questions it gets involved in. It is not a simple singular subject but a variety of subjects. I am puzzled a bit on what MG is confirming and whether anybody is rejecting this.

Sometimes I have seen the difference between our consciousness and decision making process as an argument showing freewill does not exist. I can easily see in my own thinking that consciousness is only a small portion of my thinking. An easy example is memory, I try to remember something and some portion of my mind is rummaging about I do not know where. There are times a delay happens when the appropriate idea is not immediately found. I might also consider as a simple example the fact that my mind has to construct the image I see with my eyes out of nerve data and prior knowledge of how things are fitting together. It does not surprise me at all to hear that tests show a decision is made prior to the conscious mind knowing that decision. Because I think all parts of my mind and body are as much me in making a decision I do not see their role as contradicting me making a free decision(the decision I wanted to at that time)

This unity of person is not something all people and time have agreed with. Especially in the past there have been inclinations to see self as pure intelligence or spirit hampered by the body. Questions about free will have circled that idea. It may be that a person considering religion thinks of themself as a spirit inhabiting a body. That bifurcation creates freewill questions. I think MG see freewill as primarily a power of the spirit and thus closer to god. The body and the world it sees can be an impediment to freewill which in that view more easily sees god.

Because i see freewill as most meaningful in the ability to learn and change in relation to learning I view the division of self with suspicion. My whole being , body, feeling, memory, trying to understand change is part of the learning process. I do not trust thinking of myself as something separate from my body doing all of that.

[honorentheos]

Hey huck, suppose we remove "free" and first discuss "will" given your statements above. You note that the subconscious decision making can readily result in the thing you "want" whether it is decided by reason or some other way. Fair enough. But what does that mean for agency in enacting this thing we call will? Is will merely acting on wants?

[Res Ipsa]

The Mormon God is not all knowing and omniscient like the traditional God of Christianity is, and that has implications.

The doctrine that God in in and through all things and knows the end from the beginning gives Him the ability to know what is necessary to bring us back into His presence. That is all we really need to know and understand.

It isn’t necessary that we know how the sausage is made.

We need to trust that God knows. So much rests on the trust that God and Jesus Christ have the ability and power to save. To bring us from a state of mortality to a state of continued everlasting life.

And that we’ve been given the gift of agency to choose to believe or disbelieve.

Really, it all comes down to that. This is why I continue to be a bit amazed that this seems to be such a hot topic.

If you don’t believe it…move on!

Regards,
MG

LOL! Such a lack of self-awareness. It's a hot topic for the same reason that any thread you get involved in is a hot topic. You can't seem to stop making more and more absurd claims on the fly. Then people naturally respond. If you don't want it to be a hot topic, just walk away. If you can.

Notice that none of your claims is prefaced by: this is what Mormons believe. Or even even "this is what I believe. You are telling every reader of the board what you claim is objective truth.

Here's some truth to chew on:

You don't have a say in what other people need to know and understand.

You don't have a say in whom other people need to trust.

You don't have a say in how important trust in your Gods are to other people.

You don't have a say in what "it all comes down to" for other people.

You don't have a say in whether people should "move on."

But this is a perfect illustration of how you make derogatory remarks about others in that classic Mormon culture passive aggressive style. There is absolutely nothing amazing about people wanting to spend time discussing an issue that they are interested in. It's a silly rhetorical move that says "the fact that you keep objecting the obvious truth of my claim means there is something wrong with you." Your personal incredulity about other people's decisions about how much to participate in a discussion has no relevance whatsoever to the topic being discussed. It's a cheap ploy to close off discussion.

It's the same with your "move on" comment. You actually can't accept the fact that people see the world differently than you do, including deciding for themselves what to talk about and what not to talk about. So, you imply that everyone else's interest in discussion is somehow unreasonable or abnormal.

You do this constantly. Threads in which you participate are literally riddled with your "processs comments," with which you try to control what others post. Commonly, you do this as what you might imagine is some kind of clever zinger at the end of a post. The subtext is always "I know the real truth and if you disagree there is something wrong with you."

If you sincerely believed your whole "I'm okay, you're okay," schtick, you wouldn't do that. You could communicate what you believe without putting others down for their beliefs.

So why can't you?