johnydon22:
Freewill is deciding if to get dressed or not to.... One can decide to get wear a cloth or decide not to wear a cloth, that is freewill, freedom of will....Now you are talking about freewill when you have presupposed an end point that must be reached, have never seen someone naively murder his own analogy any more than this.

But in your naive analogy you have predetermined that the person must wear a cloth without putting into mind if he decides to stay naked, why take out that option? Taking out that option is same as killing the concept of freewill..

I repeat again, there is no predetermined end point on freewill, it only means doing what you want, once an end point that must be reached is added to it then where is the freewill.

If everything has been predetermined and one can do nothing to change it then it is not freewill, if there is freewill then nothing is predetermined but rather everything happens in relation to the choice of what the subject choose..

PastorAIO:


What? So exercising a choice between wearing red and wearing green is not freewill to you anymore? or have i got something wrong.

So since we are all going to die and that is predetermined that must mean that nothing we do in our lives is free willed.

johnydon22:
I think the misrepresentation of my assertion lies with your own cognitive ability.

First they must be a choice to wear a cloth or not before choosing what to wear.. You can not predetermine one must wear a cloth taking out entirely the option of not wearing it and term that freewill.


My assertion was based on what he postulated by "predetermining that one must wear a cloth" By taking out the option of not wearing a cloth, you have taken out that person's choice of choosing not to wear a cloth, In that premise; Do you call that a free choice?

PastorAIO:


Okay, but must you choose to exist? Or choose to die?

johnydon22:
First of all you never chose to exist, that the particular spermatozoa carrying your biological nfo fertilized the egg was in fact a slim chance of 1:2,000,000, if another sperm out of the 2,000,000 did the result would have been totally different. . .

When there is no existence there is no choice, there can only be choice when there is perception.

You can choose to either keep on living now or to die immediately by killing yourself.

johnydon22:
First of all you never chose to exist, that the particular spermatozoa carrying your biological nfo fertilized the egg was in fact a slim chance of 1:2,000,000, if another sperm out of the 2,000,000 did the result would have been totally different. . .

When there is no existence there is no choice, there can only be choice when there is perception.

You can choose to either keep on living now or to die immediately by killing yourself.

benELOHIM7:
I strongly believe in destiny. The case of jacob and esau where God told rebecca dat she would give birth to twins and the elder shall serve the younger simply puts that there is such concept as destiny and somehow God is behind it.




This na big issue you bring up so o

arvinsloane:


To me, this is mere prophecy. There is a big difference between the so-called destiny and prophecy.

benELOHIM7:
Whats prophecy then?

PastorAIO:


But ultimately you don't have the choice of living forever. You may have the choice to some extent of when you die, but not on whether you die. So according to you that is not Free Will.

You seem certain that sperm and eggs meeting is a completely random event.

I think I've read your writings on this freewill matter before. What is your bone of contention? That there is no such thing as freewill? Or that we ought to truly have freewill rather than a limited ranged of options?
It seems that when you see limited options instead of thinking of degrees of freedom, you seem to think that freedom is binary, ie you either have freedom or you don't.

This would suggest a totally misunderstanding of the very idea of freedom.


In many scientific fields, the degrees of freedom of a system is the number of parameters of the system that may vary independently. For example, a point in the plane has two degrees of freedom for translation: its two coordinates; a non-infinitesimal object on the plane might have additional degrees of freedoms related to its orientation.

In mathematics, this notion is formalized as the dimension of a manifold or an algebraic variety. When degrees of freedom is used instead of dimension, this usually means that the manifold or variety that models the system is only implicitly defined. See:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom