jayriginal:


Coercion doesn't necessarily have to be physical. By making alternatives unattractive you are coercing a person into making the choice you wish.

LOL. Are you saying Humans don't have FREEWILL?

Please, come out clean lets understand you.

Peace.

truthislight:


LOL. Are you saying Humans don't have FREEWILL?

Please, come out clean lets understand you.

Peace.

The Christian concept of free will is an illusion.

slimytrikt:
If I am creating humans then I'd have no option but to grant them freewill, otherwise I'd be creating toys or something close to that.

Humans, by definition, are gifted with the ability to think for themselves and act based on their thoughts. Without this ability, a human siezes to be that...human.

However, if I am responsible for creation, would I grant any being the ability to act in a manner most pleasing to it? Irrespective of whether the beings choices are not in consonance with mine? I'd probably not.

I am a very impatient person, and I have very little tolerance for rubbish. Based on this, I would not grant any other being the freedom to choose. Otherwise I'd be destroying and creating humans every other day.

But again that would pose a major problem for me. If there are no free beings then I will be responsible for everything. I'd bath them, cloth them, do their jobs for them etc...that would be very tiring for me.

So maybe because of that, I may just grant the freedom and stick with destroying them, every other day when I find their Bshit intolerable. Lol.

I just realised that granting that kinda freedom presupposes a being that is necessarily Holy. I don't know about you mehn but that's my thought.

LOL. Actually, I really did enjoyed reading your post as your mind was working extra time to resolve a perceived conflict-ion conflicting from deep withing you. Good one.

I agree with you for the Most part, especially on this: "Granting such kind of freedom presupposes a being that is necessarily Holy". To me, the above is a rational conclusion.

However, will withholding of freewill implies that humans will not wash their clothes even when they are still told to do so?

slimytrikt:

But again that would pose a major problem for me. If there are no free beings then I will be responsible for everything. I'd bath them, cloth them, do their jobs for them etc...that would be very tiring for me.

Well, as interesting as your take is, a close observation on nature and meditating on it may seem to point to the possibility that they can be told what to do and they will just follow. that can imply telling them to go wash their clothes, take their baths, etc. LOL. How
will they know when to stop

SMH seriously. Well, what say you?

Do i here see love in the endowment of humans with freewill??

Waiting.

Peace.

jayriginal:


The Christian concept of free will is an illusion.

Actually, you seem to be the one that brought here the mention of "Christian FREEWILL".

I was talking about the human person.

Please, answer, are you by any means insinuating that the human person of any kind normal, exist without freewill to personal choices/a mind of his own?

Please, devoid of religious coloring, am talking of the human person as in HUMAN.

Peace.

truthislight:


Actually, you seem to be the one that brought here the mention of "Christian FREEWILL".

I was talking about the human person.

Please, answer, are you by any means insinuating that the human person of any kind normal, exist without freewill to personal choices/a mind of his own?

Please, devoid of religious coloring, am talking of the human person as in HUMAN.

Peace.

Bros why evils na?

Reconcile your topic with what you're asking me. There's creation in your topic which places the discussion firmly within a religious framework.

I stated earlier that I have neither the inclination nor the strength for tenuous arguments (today at least).

truthislight:




LOL. Actually, I really did enjoyed reading your post as your mind was working extra time to resolve a perceived conflict-ion conflicting from deep withing you. Good one.

I agree with you for the Most part, especially on this: "Granting such kind of freedom presupposes a being that is necessarily Holy". To me, the above is a rational conclusion.

However, will withholding of freewill implies that humans will not wash their clothes even when they are still told to do so?



Well, as interesting as your take is, a close observation on nature and meditating on it may seem to point to the possibility that they can be told what to do and they will just follow. that can imply telling them to go wash their clothes, take their baths, etc. LOL. How
will they know when to stop

SMH seriously. Well, what say you?

Do i here see love in the endowment of humans with freewill??

Waiting.

Peace.

Well when I mentioned the washing of clothes, bathing etc I actually wanted to paint a scenario where no human being can be held accountable for its actions. No matter what the person does, whether a decision to be clean or dirty, the individual cannot be held accountable because all its decisions are made by me.

If I make all the decisions, it follows that I am the one who is actually doing the cleaning and the rest of the chores. Is it not amazing that in military court marshals, the individual who gives the orders, bears the full burden of guilt, depending on the extent of freedom at the disposal of the lower ranking officer?

Love and freewill?

Well, I don't believe love can exist without freewill. If I meet a girl whom I am desperately in love with but I put a gun to the ladies head and in the process, she professes love to me. How would I be able to tell if she actually loves me or she is just afraid of me? Precisely, it is impractical for me to say without giving her the freedom to choose.

If freedom is essential for showing love, then think of the individual who created freewill. It is only so true that freewill can only be created by one who is desperately in love and who is all too willing to find out the extent to which it's love is reciprocated. This being cannot definitively know those who return its love without granting them the freedom to decide whether to love it or not.

PS: I can only conclude that freewill is an act of love.

jayriginal:


Bros why evils na?

Reconcile your topic with what you're asking me. There's creation in your topic which places the discussion firmly within a religious framework.

I stated earlier that I have neither the inclination nor the strength for tenuous arguments (today at least).

slimytrikt:


Love and freewill?

Well, I don't believe love can exist without freewill. If I meet a girl whom I am desperately in love with but I put a gun to the ladies head and in the process, she professes love to me. How would I be able to tell if she actually loves me or she is just afraid of me? Precisely, it is impractical for me to say without giving her the freedom to choose.

If freedom is essential for showing love, then think of the individual who created freewill. It is only so true that freewill can only be created by one who is desperately in love and who is all too willing to find out the extent to which it's love is reciprocated. This being cannot definitively know those who return its love without granting them the freedom to decide whether to love it or not.

PS: I can only conclude that freewill is an act of love.

Fantastic!

Am in agreement with that ^
The above makes a lot of sense.

slimytrikt:


Love and freewill?

Well, I don't believe love can exist without freewill. If I meet a girl whom I am desperately in love with but I put a gun to the ladies head and in the process, she professes love to me. How would I be able to tell if she actually loves me or she is just afraid of me? Precisely, it is impractical for me to say without giving her the freedom to choose.

So, from the above, it is very clear what your own deduction is.

you have made the following obvious from your post:

1. That giving of free will is a function of love.

2. that it will be impossible to know if some one loves you from the heart or that their show of love is an expression of fear.

3. That it will be impossible to know if the person's affinity is because of selfish accruement.

4. Hence, the giver of freewill is then not necessarily Slow considering that rationally most people feel they should not create what that could decide to destroy them.
,.............,..........................................

All that ^ haven't been considered.

1. Will you give freewill to your creations? the ability for them to turn against you should they so wish?

2. Does it make sense to do that to you considering the above? ^^^

3. To you, will it make business sense to do so? (give freewill to your products that they can turn against you).

Let's talk.

truthislight:


So, from the above, it is very clear what your own deduction is.

you have made the following obvious from your post:

1. That giving of free will is a function of love.

2. that it will be impossible to know if some one loves you from the heart or that their show of love is an expression of fear.

3. That it will be impossible to know if the person's affinity is because of selfish accruement.

4. Hence, the giver of freewill is then not necessarily Slow considering that rationally most people feel they should not create what that could decide to destroy them.
,.............,..........................................

All that ^ haven't been considered.

1. Will you give freewill to your creations? the ability for them to turn against you should they so wish?

2. Does it make sense to do that to you considering the above? ^^^

3. To you, will it make business sense to do so? (give freewill to your products that they can turn against you).

Let's talk.

1) Will I give freewill to my creatures, such that they can turn against me if they so desired?

Well, I can only give freewill to creatures I love specially. I repeat, I MUST love them specially to grant them the freedom to go against what I want them to do, as it would require a great deal of patience to do this. Without that much love, I would be destroying and recreating those creatures, all too frequently.

Its just like having my vehicle choose to do whatever it likes, even doing stuff that I did not design it for, all in the name of freewill. I will definitely destroy the car in no time because it is useless to me. But if I have a special love for the car, I may just choose to allow it do stuff with the hope that it would, some day, love me enough to do as I ask.

2) The only sense I can make of it is LOVE. With love, I can understand why it is necessary for the creatures to have freewill, even if it means going against my will.

3) Hehehehehe...give freewill to my products?

No rational businessman would attempt to do that. Every rational businessman is out to make profit. To do this, there is a need to make products the consumers believe they need. For them to need those products, the products would necessarily need to conform with the desire(s) of the consumers.

If the products are granted freewill, then it would mean they can decide to please the consumers or not. Not pleasing them would lead to a dip in profit which may in turn put the businessman out business. So it won't make much business sense to give products the freedom of choice.

slimytrikt:


1) Will I give freewill to my creatures, such that they can turn against me if they so desired?

Well, I can only give freewill to creatures I love specially. I repeat, I MUST love them specially to grant them the freedom to go against what I want them to do, as it would require a great deal of patience to do this. Without that much love, I would be destroying and recreating those creatures, all too frequently.

Its just like having my vehicle choose to do whatever it likes, even doing stuff that I did not design it for, all in the name of freewill. I will definitely destroy the car in no time because it is useless to me. But if I have a special love for the car, I may just choose to allow it do stuff with the hope that it would, some day, love me enough to do as I ask.

2) The only sense I can make of it is LOVE. With love, I can understand why it is necessary for the creatures to have freewill, even if it means going against my will.

3) Hehehehehe...give freewill to my products?

No rational businessman would attempt to do that. Every rational businessman is out to make profit. To do this, there is a need to make products the consumers believe they need. For them to need those products, the products would necessarily need to conform with the desire(s) of the consumers.

If the products are granted freewill, then it would mean they can decide to please the consumers or not. Not pleasing them would lead to a dip in profit which may in turn put the businessman out business. So it won't make much business sense to give products the freedom of choice.

OK, Fair enough.

But, Then, Business sense may not always take the buyer into consideration, but what the business man stands to gain.

And that is my question, what does the giver of freewill stand to gain by endowing his design with the capacity to attack him. Imagine human designing a system and endowing it with the capacity and choice to destroy mankind 'should it so wish'. What would humans stand to gain in designing such a system?
o
Now, that gain is what my question is gearing toward.

What should be the gain for the creator to give humans freewill that should endow us with the capacity to turn against him should we wish to?

What is that thing that the designer can gain that can incite us to deprive him of such benefit because we have the freewill to?

If none, why do humans rebel, why do humans imagine that rebelling or going contrary to the designers instruction is a reasonable thing to do? Or, that it is a wise course of action?

Is it possible that there is no inherent gain for the designer for giving us such but he went ahead to endow us with it all the same?

peace

Do we humans really discern our place in relation to the giver of freewill, that the giver of this seemingly ordinary gift (to the undiscerning mind that does not know freewill is a superlative gift) is devoid of self?

At no cost to us, We have been endowed with one of the greatest gift possible to make us who we are.

Have we ever taken time out to imagine the sort of entity that can resolve to bestow such a gift to humans?

It is unimaginable on my part to contemplate that "Chance" did endow me with such a gift, NO! Not when I am still human with a mind that I can arrive at such a conclusion, unless I don't exist.

Such a giver first and foremost, have to be absolutely devoid of selfishness, is selfless, transcend mundanity. Unlike we humans that are 101% mundane.

It is then not surprising that such ineptitude is our lot, that we act in the most irrational ways towards the application of such a gift since we are selfish entities. At best, we are rebellious with such a gift, and toward the giver of such inestimable gift.
Does such action of ours shows that we know better? how can we even know better if we never knew that such is a wonderful gift at the first place? that such gift is not a common denominator as is obvious from observing nature. That such a gift ordinarily could not come by chance?

Hence, we indulge in stupidity as though it is a competition. Yes, stupidity! How then should the rebellion be explain?

Why would the description not fit? because if we were not stupid, we would have been able to recognised the gift ab initio. why not? are you not smart enough?

Since we have agreed that our action most often is a display of naiveness, what would have been the legit thing we would had done had it been we were not this lot?

Now, if we or someone were to give a gift in our day to day living, what would have been the rational thing to do or respond? What is the usual thing polite people do?
Simple! they say thank you! thank you in appreciation for a gift. But, animals don't say thank you, that shows that our inability to have recognised the right thing to do shows how limited we are in comparison with the superlative giver of freewill.

Hence, is our continual deviant nature really a WISE course of action in relation to the giver?

truthislight:
Yes, Think. If you create thinks, will you give them Freewill ?

Give them the ability to disobey you and insult you if they so wish, acting contrary. Will you build such a capacity into the things you create?

And why should you do such?

I MADE THEM I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS EXCEPT IF I DIDN'T MAKE THEM

Lilbrown007:
I MADE THEM I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS EXCEPT IF I DIDN'T MAKE THEM

Is there any message you wish to pass to us? Try again, right now it is not obvious.

Freewill comes with responsibilities.

truthislight:


Is there any message you wish to pass to us? Try again, right now it is not obvious.

Freewill comes with responsibilities.

MESSAGE LIKE WAH AV ALREADY SAID MY OWN

Lilbrown007:
I MADE THEM I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS EXCEPT IF I DIDN'T MAKE THEM

Nope!

Not when the things you created have Freewill. Having of Freewill makes all the difference.