I meant that I thought I would not get a reasoned explanation for your statement and I was right.

Regards
DL

We all have egos. It is who we are. Even your imaginary God.

Regards
DL

And just as unhelpful as the last.

If I am wrong, it is the fault of your God.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Regards
DL

Just the ability to manipulate information in the mind.
Some past the point of physics and nature.

The same power you give your God without any evidence that He has done so.

Regards
DL

Your God is ----

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78H-tRFShiY

How nice. Not.

Regards
DL

I don't know why but I have this urge to say, ok man but keep digging a little deeper to find why you're really mad at him.

created by man to keep him locked in a box

There is no God,no Evil,no Angels,it is down to who wants to succeed more than others!

So.......... this is your way of saying, "Yes I admit this is personal to me"...?

or

is this you responding with "We all have egos" because you thought I was asking if you would admit to having an ego (in the physical(?) sense)? Which isn't what I meant.

It was meant to read, "I (BigErf) admit to falling into the temptation of displaying myself as proud to be able to show another man down, while accusing him of the same crime. I (BigErf) humbly admit to this. Do you (Greatest I am) humbly admit to coming here in this forum and displaying yourself as someone with information that could be useful for all to know, when really your reasons for being here are vindictive.. do you admit to this?"

That's the real question I wanted answered.

So let me see if I understand this. You're claim is that free will does not exist in the situation I'm quoting (waiter offering steak or explosives), correct?

If yes, then this is as wrong as you've been from the start. You did not discover the counter argument that ends the free will debate. Therefore, you know that your example does not really show that free will does not exist. So you're just talking nonsense. Seriously, what is it about the definition of free will that you don't get? It is a rather simple concept but you're twisting it to mean something that it's not. I've explained and defined it, but you haven't. Why don't you step up and tell me what you think it is so we can identify where you're going wrong.

If no, then you're disagreeing with yourself and saying nothing.

Also, God wanted to say thanks for another opportunity to get this message out: If you are unwilling to use your imagination to "invent" scenarios, how do you expect to hear God when he shows you the way out? However, it is only for those with minds that work.

Well, since Greatest I Am refuses to debate with more than rhetoric, I will go ahead and start quoting real definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

"Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias)."

So it would appear that I was arguing the position of incompatibilism, which holds that everything he's said to be irrelevant to the discussion of free will (as I've been saying). Greatest I Am, on the other hand, is arguing either against religion or compatibilism (basically saying that at least one of those needs to be false). I'll admit, I didn't realize that this was the compatibilist's view (I see that my personal views are somehow somewhere in the middle).

Still, we now have definitions from my side showing that Greatest I Am's stance need to hold any weight. You want to admit to this too, or finally come up with your definitions?

LOL.
You have to believe in something before you can be mad at it.

The only anger I have is with silly literalists and fundamentals.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a God but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9...eature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s

Regards
DL
Regards
DL

Free will God style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...&v=aUtSM2oVy_E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...&v=Nv9IvCpiHxA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...&v=H0wSjJAsrAk

If God gave a hoot about the free will that He supposedly gave us, He sure is an Indian giver all over the O T where He tramples all over man’s free will to live as He went about killing us at Sodom and using genocide on us in Noah‘s day.

God is quite the immoral -------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78H-tRFShiY

So for the 3rd time, you 'respond' to my post with the same post of yours. You don't address anything I've said. You show no signs of even considering what I've said. You show no signs of thought besides "copy/paste."

You are the definition of a troll and should be banned already. Though I would prefer if instead you started saying something real that shows a willingness to consider other points of view and responding to them appropriately.

Refuting your drivel is an appropriate response.

You might try refuting mine as an appropriate response.

I repeat posts that you ignore and do not speak to.
Hard to get to step two if step one is not taken care of first.
If you do not like my style then ignore me.

Regards
DL

I have been replying to your post, you just don't understand me. You claim that by killing us, God is taking away our free will. I just explained how, in the incompatibilits' view, what you described isn't an infringement on free will, therefore God is not shown to be taking away free will by your examples.

Your response is sticking your fingers in your ears and saying you're right without any explanation.

You haven't once taken my invitation to explain your own view and give us your definition of free will so that we may discuss it. Why are you so afraid to expose your views in this forum? Are you actually interested in a debate, or even finding out how someone with different beliefs from you understands the same situation differently from you?

What exactly is your goal with this thread?

You presently have free will.
Right?
Let me assume that your will says that you wish to live for many more years.

If God kills you today, is that not negating your will to live?
Further, if God kills you, is He not breaking His own commandment of not killing.

I know that slave mentalities will say that God owns them anyway but that is not the issue. It is not ownership I speak to but to God breaking His own law.
If the phrase, on earth as it is in heaven means anything, then would you follow a human law maker who breaks his own laws?
If he is not allowed to then why would God?

If God is to be our greatest example then our human law makers should be allowed to break the laws they write for us. Not a good moral position.

Regards
DL

OK, I'll take a chance and try to take you seriously.

You don't seem to understand the concept of free will. If you will your bowels to stop yourself from dropping a deuce, or will yourself to fly like superman, that's not what free will means. Free will has to do with choice. Those choices are constrained within the confines of our reality and the laws governing it, and our environmental circumstances, of course.

Once you understand free will, then you can start thinking about God's will and how that interrelates with the will given to us. You'll then see that if God decides to end your life in your roaring 20's while your still out getting smashed and laid every other weekend with your whole life ahead of you waiting to hatch from its cocoon, that isn't going against your free will. That is simply the will of God. Why He decided as such is known to Him only, as His wisdom is infinitely greater than ours.

Thank you for your serious reply.

Yes, but that doesn't speak to the free will discussion. There's a difference between 'will' and 'free will.' Your will is simply what you want to do. Free will is the idea that your will was chosen freely by you. These words are not interchangeable. In fact, you used the correct words in the above, which shows that you at some level understand this but just don't realize it yet.

And again, are you seriously implying that gravity proves that free will does not exist since it prevents you from flying even if your will says that you wish to fly?

God commands us not to kill each other. He does not command himself not to kill, so he is not breaking any commandments.

The analogy of a human law maker doesn't fit so well since he is still human, just like those of us the laws are made for. Closer would be how we make laws for animals that we don't hold. That is, I don't allow my dog to use any of my house as a bathroom, but I don't go outside myself when I need the bathroom.

And anyway, I think that it's reasonable for one to enforce rules through doing what those rules don't allow. For instance, we are not allowed to kidnap others. But when you break the law, the police basically kidnap you. It's just not quite possible to do it any other way.

God would have the same free will we do unless you think He will go about breaking the other laws that He has put in place in nature and physics.

As to infinitely greater than ours, you can believe that if you wish but if A & E can be as Gods, knowing good and evil, then we can and in fact, scripture urges us to do just that.

Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?-----Jesus.

Regards
DL

So God's first rule then is do as I say and not as I do. Smooth.
You think this a good example for a law maker and for yourself do you?
Remember that we are to emulate God.

As to your will or your free will, if they are not both under your control then who is controlling them? What is the duference between the two. Try not to get semantic on me.

Within the bounds of nature and physics is understood by all except for you who believe in fantasy miracles. Notice how that has complicated getting even this far.

Regards
DL

No, I made it clear that the will of God and the will of man are entirely separate and different. The latter is a subset of the former; it was God that gave man this free will, so His will is not bound to ours in some universal sense.

I don't subscribe to this, so it's n/a.

Yes, but we can never be God, nor should we try to be. We should strive to live perfectly as He commands, but we can't create universes as He did, for example.

I don't know why you'd think that it would make sense for God to follow the rules He created for us as if they applied to Him. Again, not even governments do this, and I don't see you complaining about that.

What do you mean by "both under your control?" Free will, if it exists, means that your will is under your control. Free will itself is not under someone's control -- it is the idea that you have control.

If this is semantics, then fine, but the difference is hugely important. I've explained over and over how they are different. If you still don't get it, then it's likely because you are not using the right definitions. So for the millionth time, why don't you define the term already so we can see where you are going wrong?

I have no idea what these 2 sentences are saying.