dheddle
Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007
|
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,09:27) | Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,09:21) | Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,08:59) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 18 2010,08:41) | Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47) | To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God. |
I have not read philosophy (translation: bullshit) on free will, but most of the intarweb arguments are looking at the matter from the wrong perspective. It is irrelevant to me whether I have a choice in how I be me, but it matters a great deal that my choosing is not determined by what is outside. Otherwise the word freedom has no meaning. |
I'm confused. Heddle believes he has free will - the one god chose for him? |
OK, Since you keep asking about my view, it is briefly sketched here.
It is based on the concept of moral inability, as opposed to coercion.
I always give the same example—not perfect but I think it works to illustrate the principle. A mother of sound mind sits at the kitchen table holding her baby. Though possessed with a free will, she is morally incapable of making the choice to place her baby in the microwave and turning it on. Her free will is not violated—yet she does not have the liberty to make that choice—because her morality will not permit her. Likewise, in this model preferred by Calvinists, though we have a libertine free will, we lack, in our fallen state, the moral ability to choose God, so we never will.
EDIT: typo |
And God lacked the moral ability to author those who only choose not to put babys in microwaves, effectively putting the baby in the microwave? |
Yes.
Quote | God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (WCF III.I) |
Poor Judas. His actions were ordained--and yet he chose and must, barring some unrecorded conversion, pay. Thems the rules.
-------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|