Free Will

[James_S_Saint]

Also, where are you getting this stuff? It might be true. But did you make it up? Is it from Plotinus? Is it Baha’i? Or is it all completely taken from Christian writings that I don’t know about? I want to know.

I am Melchizedek

And no, creating a different realm like Hinduism does not mean that it has been accurately constructed, but merely differently architected.

And your “will” is your thrust or your desire to act. And does follow causal principles within the physical realm. That is why “free-will” is meaningless unless you reconsider what you mean by it because in a causal reality, there is no freedom from cause at all.

 

[pzona]

No, He couldn’t. God’s omnipotence does not extend to creating metaphysical absurdities. When we say “God can do anything” it implies (correct me if I’m wrong) any real thing. That is, He can do anything that does not result in a contradiction in the thing’s essence. For example, a square circle is a thing with a contradictory essence, because by the very natures of a square and a circle, then two cannot go together to form a “square circle.” A square circle hence is not a real thing (you could say it’s a “logical thing,” i.e. an idea that can only exist in any way in the mind and not in reality), and thus God cannot create a square circle.

Now, Islam would disagree with me and the Church and say that God’s omnipotence can extend into logical absurdities. Islam, however, also tends to think it is okay if faith and reason contradict each other. Catholicism, on the other hand, firmly holds that faith and reason work together.

This leads me to the question: did God create logic and reason? If so, what is stopping him from violating his own rules? If not, and logic is an inherent quality of the universe, then this means it existed “from the beginning” just like God. And nothing is that old, except for God…right?

I apologize in advance if I seem like I’m splitting hairs or being sarcastic. This is an honest question which I hope someone can answer.

 

[Areopagite]

This leads me to the question: did God create logic and reason? If so, what is stopping him from violating his own rules? If not, and logic is an inherent quality of the universe, then this means it existed “from the beginning” just like God. And nothing is that old, except for God…right?

I apologize in advance if I seem like I’m splitting hairs or being sarcastic. This is an honest question which I hope someone can answer.

No need to apologize! I like it when people ask hair-splitting questions (even when I don’t know the answer … but it inspires me to find out). It’s a sign of intelligence and a sign that you care about reality (which is always encouraging to see). No shame.

It’s a good question. Aquinas would say something like the following (I’m pretty sure) …

God contains all being (that is, He has every kind of thing that can exist). Every power, quality, etc. exists in Him in some way. When He creates something, He gives “copies” some degree of His being to it. Everything is a reflection of God, in that way, some things more than others (as some things have more being than others). One thing that is in God’s nature is reason and logic. A thing cannot exist if it contradicts logic, as it would be a contradiction of God’s nature.

A square circle is a classic example of something that cannot exist because it contains a logical contradiction. Not even God can create it. God can only do “real” things, that is, He can only create things that can be conceived as real possibilities.

Logic and reason are, in a sense, part of God, and God cannot contradict Himself by going against Himself (i.e. going against logic).

That’s the short answer. It deserves one entirely more clear. Does that sort of make sense?

 

[James_S_Saint]

This leads me to the question: did God create logic and reason? If so, what is stopping him from violating his own rules? If not, and logic is an inherent quality of the universe, then this means it existed “from the beginning” just like God. And nothing is that old, except for God…right?

God IS that [real] logic and reasoning.

God is the consistency itself. It is what keeps you alive and gives you hope. It is what allows you to accomplish anything at all. It is the Love that **is **God.

 

[seeker_of_God]

James, I disagree with several of your definitions.

You have come to the belief that there is “something” that you are calling “free-will” that has to ability to guide your decisions and yet is not a part of the physical universe and you relate that to your “soul” even though I’m sure you didn’t that thought from an educated source.

That thought is actually your “superstition”. You really do have a free-will and a soul, but your misunderstanding of their relationship is creating confusion, literally “con-fusion” as in “with-fusing of the parts”.

Free will is a power that we have, just as the angels have, for instance. It is part of what makes us human. I don’t know what you mean by free will guides our decisions, but that makes no sense whatsoever, because free will is the ability to make this decision or that, freely from causality, or forces or processes that work on us. A thing does what it does because it is acted on, and that is the entirety of that thing. However we are separate from those forces, that causality. We are certainly influenced, but we are also self-creating, and that’s what makes us different from things.

Existence
The ONLY way that we know of any existence is by something having effect upon us. This is not an issue of the senses being the ONLY source of knowledge. It is an issue of what we declare exists and how we (all of humanity) ended up declaring it as such.

If something truly seems to have no effect at all, we say that it does not exist. And if something does have effect, we say that it does exist. That is how we gain our concept of what exists in reality.

Interesting premise, but I would ask for support for it, because I’ve not seen such a definition of existence before.

But that understanding does not deny the divine or the supernatural at all. It merely says that if the divine is going to be said to exist, then it must have effect. No one who accepts that God exists argues against God having effect.

This was already refuted. Many people think God might exist, yet leaves well enough alone with physical matters.

Physical Realm
Similar to the understanding of how we declare existence is that of how we declare what is physical. Again, the idea that it is physical only if we can see or touch it, is not the issue and not really true either.

What is physical is what has effect within the physical realm, thus it “physically exists”. This does not deny the existence of any other realm. It merely qualifies what is a part of the physical realm. Anything and everything that has physical effect is a part of the physical realm (at least, not necessarily exclusively).

I can’t agree with this, so again will have to ask for support. This would define God as physical, and the soul as physical, both of which are untrue.

Spirit
Realize that “spirit” does not mean “divine”. spirit is the “energy” or the “motion within” and it is also not the same as the “soul”. God exists in both the divine world (as Principle) and also the physical world (as Spirit). The word “spirit” is often in texts, improperly used in place of “divine” and this leads to common confusion and often people say, “divine spirit” just to clarify. Spirit is a physical thing which is governed by a divine thing. Spirit is the action itself.

Again I must disagree. You may define it as such, but I don’t think it is the common definition.

God is spirit, and the angels are spirit. Our souls are spirit, too (more on that later). The spirit is non-physical, because it is not comprised of parts.

Divine
The entire universe of the “supernatural” and the “divine” are what could also be called the “principles that govern the universe”. We say that they are “above” because they govern and thus they are the “super” of the natural. They are not directly a part of the physical universe and it is a misunderstanding that the divine actually push the universe in any way.

Snip…

Not exactly sure what you’re talking about here, but we define things very differently so that may be part of the problem.

Superstition
What happens in the communication process, especially over thousands of years and little precise education, is that people get these concepts convoluted and especially in the sense that a divine being actually causes “on its own” a physical occurrence that had no other physical instigation. This is a mental temptation to “stitch the divine” into one universal understanding and is called “super-stition”. But the divine is not ever actually causing the physical to alter in any way else it would be a part of the physical universe merely due to the fact that it has effect on it.

True, according to your own definitions. But I disagree with these definitions, and so also disagree with this argument.

Soul
Your soul is not the same as your spirit. Your spirit is a part of the physical world. It is your “behavior” both inside and out. But your soul is your part of the divine universe. It is the principle that represents exactly what you are in essence.

No not at all. Soul and spirit can be differentiated. For instance God is spirit, and the angels are spirit, but do not have souls. Plants and animals have souls, but those souls are not spirit. Humans have souls, which are spirit.

The soul is the animating force of a living being. This almost seems like how you are defining spirit, but I can’t be sure. Our souls are also spirit because we have the faculties of free will, and the ability to know, and to will/love. Also our souls are spirit because they do not die with the body.

Now the result of getting these definitions straight is that there can be no effect on your decisions that is not a part of the physical realm and also that everything in the physical realm follows cause and effect just as everything in the divine realm follows perfect logic.

Thus either free-will means “free to exercise your will” or free-will does not exist in either realm.

Our decisions are freely made, and that is exactly what is meant by free will. We certainly can make decisions that are free of physical causes.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Not exactly sure what you’re talking about here, but we define things very differently so that may be part of the problem.

Oh, not so.
It is the entirety of “the problem”.

 

[Areopagite]

“Effect” means a difference or change of state. It is the resultant state of the verb “to affect” or to “cause change or resist change”.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

Although difficult to conceive, an electron that is 1000 lightyears away swarming around a hydrogen atom on the other side of the galaxy, actually does have an extremely small and insignificant effect upon you. ALL existence affects all other existence.

Yes, I was thinking you might bring that up. Fair enough.

99.99999% of effect occurs without your conscious awareness and is independent of your awareness. The new-age idea that your awareness creates reality is a bit absurd when you consider how long effects were taking place long before you even existed such as to have a consciousness. And the idea that “if you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you” is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

Very true. The modern “philosophers of consciousness” really missed the boat on that one.

Most effects are through a causal chain (El) such that the final effect upon you is via a chain of effects upon other things gradually closer to you in the chain. “Eloha” means the causal chain of spiritual effect. “Elohim” is the sum harmony of all Eloha.

Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, you make sense here.

These are Melchizedek understandings not typical revealed in Abramic Scriptures, but supported none the less.

What, dare I say, might you be talking about?

I am Melchizedek

Oh my. I am overcome by mystery.

And no, creating a different realm like Hinduism does not mean that it has been accurately constructed, but merely differently architected.

Is this a “conceptual realm” or something you’re talking about. What do you mean by realm?

And your “will” is your thrust or your desire to act. And does follow causal principles within the physical realm. That is why “free-will” is meaningless unless you reconsider what you mean by it because in a causal reality, there is no freedom from cause at all.

You said that free-will means “free to exercise your will” awhile back, but does this mean “to pursue the fulfillment of your desire without obstacles?” Because I don’t think we necessarily do have free will in that sense. There are plenty of times when there are obstacles separating us from what we want, including laws of physics sometimes.

The more common understanding of what free-will means is the soul’s ability to determine oneself (in its rational actions and rational desires), rather than being completely determined by corporeal, non-rational factors.

Eh? Or no?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Is this a “conceptual realm” or something you’re talking about. What do you mean by realm?

A divine realm is a conceptual realm depending on exactly what you infer by “conceptual”. That word implies merely something in the mind and is not what I am referring to, rather a realm of the real principles that have been architected by the mind such as to be coherent concepts for the mind to utilize.

You said that free-will means “free to exercise your will” awhile back, but does this mean “to pursue the fulfillment of your desire without obstacles?” Because I don’t think we necessarily do have free will in that sense.

We are not TOTALLY free in that sense. Without the restrictions of laws and morals, we lose even more freedom to accomplish. Without the laws, nothing can be accomplished at all. Reality itself would not exist, much less our ability to do anything with it.

The more common understanding of what free-will means is the soul’s ability to determine oneself (in its rational actions and rational desires), rather than being completely determined by corporeal, non-rational factors.

I agree that this is “the more common” and is why the definitions must get corrected else the more common leads to the falsification of “free-will” entirely, because the words and their concepts have been convoluted into making the claim of free-will into a falsehood dependent upon actual superstition. To continue to accept the wrong definitions will lead to certain apocalypse from those who were supporting free-will by that definition.

 

[seeker_of_God]

James,

You say that the common definitions are wrong, yet don’t say why this is so, or how yours are any better. I posted a lengthy post in reply to your definitions, yet you simply say the problem is that we disagree on definitions, and go no further.

Your definitions of spirit, free will, existence are different than any I have studied, but you won’t explain or substantiate them further.

I do believe the definition of spirit I have given is the accepted theological definition of spirit. Indeed, John 4:24 declares that God is spirit, but that wouldn’t work at all with your definitions. Your view is interesting, but if you are going to dismiss other more commonly accepted definitions, I would like to see more about why you think your definitions are true.