Why is personal freedom worth more than perfect peace to God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter blase6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blase6 said:
I can only understand freedom as “personal randomness”. And since that is the most sense I can make of freedom, my mind gravitates towards that understanding. It is probably just a mystery I cannot understand. However I was hoping at least for my understanding to be cleared up so that I could accept it better.
Click to expand...
But your actions are not random though. When you decide to do something, is it because you flipped a mental coin or because you had reasons to do it?

I’m guessing that the problem you are having is something like this: somebody makes a supposed free choice. But the only way you could know whether this is a free choice would be to rewind time and see if the same choice is made all the time. If it is free, then there is some random probability of performing a different action and the subject may manifest a different behavior randomly. You think that this must be the case because if there’s no call to the random number generator then, since all of the rewound conditions would be exactly the same, the same choice cannot fail to be made all the time. Is this an accurate description of your thinking on the matter?
 
John_Martin said:
The con artist said to the rich young man who went away sad, “You lack one thing, go, sell all you have (in which lie your deepest convictions) and give it to the poor, then come and follow me”.

The man went away sad because he believed the con artist. And in the course of this sorrow he wept at each of his deepest held treasures that he sold and parted with them. Then he looked at the coins as he gave them to the poor, all he had set his heart on being let go of. And he came back after this and followed the con artist. Some say he was the one who ran away naked in the Garden on the night of the betrayal of the con artist.
Click to expand...
It was money. Nothing of real value was given up. Do you really think God would want to tell me “the way you perceive the world is wrong, your senses lie to you.”?
 
balto said:
But your actions are not random though. When you decide to do something, is it because you flipped a mental coin or because you had reasons to do it?

I’m guessing that the problem you are having is something like this: somebody makes a supposed free choice. But the only way you could know whether this is a free choice would be to rewind time and see if the same choice is made all the time. If it is free, then there is some random probability of performing a different action and the subject may manifest a different behavior randomly. You think that this must be the case because if there’s no call to the random number generator then, since all of the rewound conditions would be exactly the same, the same choice cannot fail to be made all the time. Is this an accurate description of your thinking on the matter?
Click to expand...
The problem is that freedom really is people acting “on a whim” at some point. And that really is like flipping a mental coin. Everything else is predisposition.

The situation you present is one way of looking at it.
 
blase6 said:
The problem is that freedom really is people acting “on a whim” at some point. And that really is like flipping a mental coin. Everything else is predisposition.

The situation you present is one way of looking at it.
Click to expand...
Even acting on whim is evidence of freedom. Why wasn’t a more reason used as the basis for the decision?
 
blase6 said:
Reason takes you up to a point in your choice, but then it is up to randomness?
Click to expand...
So you claim. What is randomness? How is it related to choice? You have offered no evidence that any choice is probabilistic. Even choice based on a whim can be attributed to a free agents willed act.
 
davidv said:
So you claim. What is randomness? How is it related to choice? You have offered no evidence that any choice is probabilistic. Even choice based on a whim can be attributed to a free agents willed act.
Click to expand...
Will is random. If it is not determined then it is probabilistic. Those are the only logical coherent possibilities.
 
blase6 said:
It was money. Nothing of real value was given up. Do you really think God would want to tell me “the way you perceive the world is wrong, your senses lie to you.”?
Click to expand...
It is in your reasoning, not your senses, that you are lying to yourself, and yes, he comes to tell you exactly that.
Do you think what you value is a valuing any less than the rich young man? Both of you have incorrect reasoning to abandon - he would not have been sorrowful if he intended to keep his reasoned values. You do not yet know this sorrow because you are holding on to yours. You want your reasoned definition of peace, and you refuse to give it up and learn what Jesus meant when he said, “MY peace I give to you, not as the world gives, I give to you.” It is sorrowful to hear him say, “the poor you will always have with you”, because you are moving into his understanding of the poor and of peace and of freedom and free will. Be the student of the master; don’t stand in front of him and tell him he has got it all wrong.
 
ChainBreaker said:
Why can’t a will be self-deterministic?
Click to expand...
👍 There is no reason whatsoever why it can’t unless one is determined to believe all our conclusions are determined by mindless forces beyond our control - in which case they are unreliable and more likely to be false than true.

If we cannot choose what to think we can be logical but not reasonable. 😉
 
tonyrey said:
👍 There is no reason whatsoever why it can’t unless one is determined to believe all our conclusions are determined by mindless forces beyond our control - in which case they are unreliable and more likely to be false than true.

If we cannot choose what to think we can be logical but not reasonable. 😉
Click to expand...
Self-determinism is not logically coherent or understandable.
 
John_Martin said:
It is in your reasoning, not your senses, that you are lying to yourself, and yes, he comes to tell you exactly that.
Do you think what you value is a valuing any less than the rich young man? Both of you have incorrect reasoning to abandon - he would not have been sorrowful if he intended to keep his reasoned values. You do not yet know this sorrow because you are holding on to yours. You want your reasoned definition of peace, and you refuse to give it up and learn what Jesus meant when he said, “MY peace I give to you, not as the world gives, I give to you.” It is sorrowful to hear him say, “the poor you will always have with you”, because you are moving into his understanding of the poor and of peace and of freedom and free will. Be the student of the master; don’t stand in front of him and tell him he has got it all wrong.
Click to expand...
I cannot just go to an idea of God. I must first start with reasoning by determining that God necessarily exists, and that he is good. I am unable to make the first step with absolute certainty. So to abandon my reasoning is to deceive myself into thinking that I know God certainly.
 
tonyrey said:
According to your hypothesis whether you try depends on whether something makes you try. You have no choice in the matter…:imsorry:
Click to expand...
There is always that possibility. But if it is true who cares. It is still better to believe in God because people with genuine faith are the happiest people. Who am I to destroy what may be an illusion of freedom?
 
blase6 said:
Self-determinism is not logically coherent or understandable.
Click to expand...
So, where is the logical error?

If the problem understanding, could it be that the problem is on your end and not with self-determinism?
 
davidv said:
So, where is the logical error?

If the problem understanding, could it be that the problem is on your end and not with self-determinism?
Click to expand...
Freedom can only be defined with circular reasoning. This does not mean that it is wrong, but it is less logical than believing in determinism or chance. By definition, chance means something that is not fated to happen and has possible outcomes. So a free choice is still a chance-based event.

If there is determinism or chance, and chance is the negation of determinism then either one of them must be correct.
 
blase6 said:
Freedom can only be defined with circular reasoning. This does not mean that it is wrong, but it is less logical than believing in determinism or chance. By definition, chance means something that is not fated to happen and has possible outcomes. So a free choice is still a chance-based event.

If there is determinism or chance, and chance is the negation of determinism then either one of them must be correct.
Click to expand...
Why do you want to argue something which is obvious and primary? Of course your reasoning become circular when you want to argue something which is primary.
 
blase6 said:
Freedom can only be defined with circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
Really? Please show this circularity.
This does not mean that it is wrong, but it is less logical than believing in determinism or chance. By definition, chance means something that is not fated to happen and has possible outcomes. So a free choice is still a chance-based event.
Click to expand...
If there is determinism or chance, and chance is the negation of determinism then either one of them must be correct.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top