Right Divider
Body part
I love it when people get childish. So cute.
Sorting out often used expressions
- Thread starter oatmeal
- Start date
oatmeal
Well-known member
You excel at it
Translation: "You won't accept what I believe so you must think you have a superior intellect to God."
Translation: "I've run completely out of anything substantive to say so I'm going to resort to ad hominems."
Oatmeal, if you can't answer the question, just say so! "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to my question.
Resorting to childish insults like you have here only makes you look immature and tells everyone that you're not willing to engage your brain beyond what you currently believe.
Answer the question:
Is there such a thing as a will that is not free?
If not, then "free will" is redundant, because you're essentially just saying "free [will that is free]."
If so, then please provide an example of a will that is not, by definition, free. You cannot, because a will is, by definition, free, and since "A = !A" is false (law of non-contradiction), there cannot exist a non-free will.
oatmeal
Well-known member
I stand on what I said. Seems you do not wish to accept God's use of repetition, that is your problem, not mine.
Is there such a thing as peace that is not peace?
Why would God say, shalom shalom, if not for emphasis?
There are other examples of God repeating words for emphasis.
Why not acccept God's wisdom and put your worldly wisdom aside?
Straw man.
I refer you to this post:
Again: "free will" is redundant, because a will is, by definition, free.
What emphasis do you think you're adding by saying "free will" instead of just "will"? There's a purpose to God repeating a word twice (ie, adding emphasis). There's no need to be redundant (saying "free will").
Repeating a word FOR EMPHASIS is by definition NOT REDUNDANT.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Straw man?
tin man
If you insist that "free will" is redundant, why not consider it simply repetition for emphasis?
It is not that I dont see your point. You do have a valid point. However, the use of the word "free" with the word "will" does emphasize man's ability to choose freely.
Just like shalom shalom.
Or Psalm 136 where God gets a bit "redundant" with the phrase,"for his mercy endureth forever"
136 O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.
3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
4 To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.
5 To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.
6 To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.
7 To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever:
8 The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever:
9 The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.
10 To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever:
11 And brought out Israel from among them: for his mercy endureth for ever:
12 With a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm: for his mercy endureth for ever.
13 To him which divided the Red sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever:
14 And made Israel to pass through the midst of it: for his mercy endureth for ever:
15 But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea: for his mercy endureth for ever.
16 To him which led his people through the wilderness: for his mercy endureth for ever.
17 To him which smote great kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:
18 And slew famous kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:
19 Sihon king of the Amorites: for his mercy endureth for ever:
20 And Og the king of Bashan: for his mercy endureth for ever:
21 And gave their land for an heritage: for his mercy endureth for ever:
22 Even an heritage unto Israel his servant: for his mercy endureth for ever.
23 Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever:
24 And hath redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy endureth for ever.
25 Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy endureth for ever.
26 O give thanks unto the God of heaven: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Educate yourself, please.
Straw man - Wikipedia
What I "insist" has nothing to do with it.
"Free will" IS redundant, because there is no such thing as a non-free will. A will is by definition free. 'A' cannot equal '!A.'
As I stated before, repeating something for emphasis is by definition NOT redundant.
"Free" is being used to describe something that is already defined as free, and is thus redundant.
It's like saying CPU unit. "Unit" is part of the definition. There's no need to say "unit" again. "Unit" is redundant, because there's no need to emphasize that a CPU is a unit.
Something which "will" already does. "Will" is enough emphasis to make the point. "Free will" becomes redundant.
No one could rightly say that the phrase "His mercy endures forever" is redundant in that passage.
But when talking about a will, there is no situation where "free" is needed to provide emphasis, EXCEPT in the context of trying to say that there is such a thing as a non-free will.
This is what I've been trying to say.
By using "free will" rather than will, it implies through it's use of "free" that there is such a thing as a "non-free" will.
Just like saying "I have a full-time job" implies that there exists part-time jobs, in the same way "free" carries specific descriptive information, distinguishing it from the unmarked or default term (will, which is free by definition).
It's called "markedness." By highlighting a specific aspect of a word, you inherently contrast it with the "unmarked" word.
Consider what I said above:
"But when talking about a will, there is no situation where "free" is needed to provide emphasis, EXCEPT in the context of trying to say that there is such a thing as a non-free will."
If I were to have added "human" to that sentence, so that it read, "But when talking about a human will," it would have specified only one kind of will, and would have inherently implied that there are wills that are not human (and there are), but since that would markedly limit the scope of what I say to only human wills, when what I say applies to ALL wills, both human and non-human, I chose not to include the word human.
The same principle applies to "free will."
Since there is no such thing as a will that is not free, saying "free will" inherently implies that something other than a free will exists, which by definition of the word "will" cannot be true, thus putting "free" in front of will is superfluous, redundant, unnecessary. Wills are free by definition, and that is all the emphasis that is needed. Adding more emphasis changes the meaning.
I asked you to provide an example of a "non-free will," for a two-fold reason: one, because it would provide an external reference point from which to test my assertion that there is no such thing as a non-free will in order to avoid confirmation bias, and two, assuming you could not, to show you that your position is untenable, meaning, not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection.
The fact that you have not provided, and continue to not provide, an example of a non-free will only further supports my position, and will continue to do so the longer you refuse, or until you concede the point, at which point my position will have been established, and at which point you should, if you're intellectually honest, discard your position as untenable.
ttruscott
Well-known member
A will enslaved to depravity and a will predetermined by GOD to chose what HE wants no matter what the person wants is not a free will...
Right Divider
Body part
Then it's not a will, period. If it's not free, it's not a will. It's just a robot. Robots don't have wills.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
If what the person wants is predetermined by God, then the person does not have a will.
