How the subject in your opinion is being discussed is not your concern if you are not involved in the discussion. I do not intend to get into another pissing contest with you and your rude remarks.

But I have been involved in the discussion. I left the discussion because of the observation I made. I'm all for a rational and reasonable discussion of free-will, but when there is an underlying rationalization, I don't see the point.

I'll come right out and say it, many have implied that people who belong to organized religion lack "free will". That's a rationalization of the subject, based (at best) on personal bias. I suppose one could argue that it's "just an opinion", but then I would have to say it's my opinion that opinions should be based on reasoning, rather than rationalizations.

My background in debating prevents me from being comfortable discussing an issue when the terms are defined differently by each person and most of the definitions aren't even standard. "Free will" is "the freedom of the will to choose a course of action without external coercion but in accordance with the ideals or moral outlook of the individual" Using this, widely accepted defintion, the debate is over. We have free will. The fact that we might believe something that leads us to ignore certain choices is a moot point. Notice that the definition already covers that gound "in accordance with the ideals or moral outlook of the individual" Beliefs are part of what makes us individuals. Beliefs do not limit free will, they are intrinsic to the individual, just as free will.

So really, I feel that some of the people in the discussion are angling the discussion into the realm of "Organized religion results in no free will", which is a specious belief. Members of an organized religion have no less free will than anyone who makes up their own beliefs on the fly. If there is a single choice, then there is free will. Free will cannot be quantified as someone having more or less.

Does someone who is willing to murder children have "more free will" than someone who won't murder children? By the definitions used by many in this discussion, the answer is clearly "Yes". But using the actual defintion of free will, we see that those who choose to not kill children are choosing (using free will) to ignore that possibility. Every decision and conscious act is a result of free will. Ignoring the viablity of certain actions is an act of free will. Ignorance of certain possible actions does not effect free will, so long as there are other actions which can be taken (and there always are). Free will requires the ability to choose your own actions, it does not require awareness of all possible actions. If the individual is free to choose which actions to take, then the individual has free will, regardless of the individuals ignorance of other possiblities or moral constraints.

You've got to be kidding Spider.

By you very own definitions you are the one who uses rationalizations to try to rationalize a pre-chosen conclusion.

You’re pre-chosen conclusion is that the Bible it the verbatim word of God.

All you ever do is try to rationalize that delusional conclusion.

I can’t even believe you posted this. You seem to know the technical difference between reason and rationalization, but you can’t see that rationalization is all you ever do.

Rationalization of your predetermined conclusion that the Bible is the verbatim word of God is your hallmark. You’ve even stated on many occasions that to look outside of the Bible would be futile.

It’s perfectly clear that you’ve already chosen a conclusion to support. You’re not in search of truth, you’re just trying to rationalize the delusion that you already have it in your hands.

Like Jeannie has said many times, if you actually believed that on faith then you wouldn’t be so desperate to try to rationalize it. And you certainly wouldn’t become emotionally upset when other people don’t buy into your rationalizations. The fact that you become insulted when other people point out potential flaws with your rationalizations clearly shows that you can’t even handle the idea that your conclusion might be false!

Abracadabra,

Rationalizations are inherit to personal beliefs on religion and the afterlife. That's because we cannot study those subjects to gain information, so we have no basis for reasoning. But other subjects, subjects for which we have information, can and should be reasoned.

(For spider:)
Thank you for your opinion and for sticking to the subject of "Will" or "free will." If the opinions and discussions or reasoning or (lack thereof) annoy you, you are not obliged to take part of course.

I disagree that all decisions are influenced by the will. Most are automatic conditioned response, programmed DNA, Instint etc.

If you would like a free ebook called "The Power of Will" I intend to post a link on this thread for anyone who would like to download it.

The Will has been defined in the book as "The power of self direction." (among other things) It is quite extensive and very interesting.

To me it represents "to think independently and to "think for ones self." Anyone who takes direction from an outside authority because of fear or ignorance is not directing them self at all and is not using their own will. You can say that they chose not to use their own will, and this is true, but they are still not using it.

Jeannie

And Jeannie has been giving reasons. Including the her reference to quantum mechanics and the fact that science (observation of the real world) does indeed point to the idea that the world may very well be observer created.

Plus science has proven (beyond a shadow of a doubt within it’s structured methods) that the universe is indeed a contiguous single entity in that there are no definite barriers or demarcations between anything.

Science has proven that all-is-one. Science has shown that in-so-far as we can tell we are a manifestation of this universe.

Everything that Jeannie has sated about the universe being a single large entity and that we are all facets of this larger entity is quite reasonable in the face of known facts.

So where do you get off suggesting that she’s ‘rationalization’ a pre-determined conclusion?

She’s clearly arriving at her conclusions using reason. Not just scientific reason, but other reasons based on the observations of humanity.

I just don’t see where your accusations that she might be doing otherwise holds any water.

You, on the other hand, are clearly starting with a conclusion that a particular doctrine is correct and then trying to rationalize that conclusion. Yes, that may well be the nature of some religious faiths, but all investigations into our true spiritual essence don't need to take that form. What you are talking about is only true of dogmatic religions. All religions (or all search for spiritual truth) do not need to be based on dogma.

If anyone is interested in looking at the book called "Power of Will" they may download it here for free:

http://www.queenofcoins.com/download.html

Jeannie

No it's not....because even if you choose to take God out of the equation.....your still left with free will

Free Will to Believe.

Free Will not to Believe.

Free Will to know my Higher self.

Free Will to not know my higher self.

Free Will = choice......and now matter how you think you might know yourself.....you still have choice to either know more or stay stagnant right where you are.

Thank you Abra

I am open to any scientific theories or facts that disprove beyond a doubt that the idea of a holographic reality is possible, or any other scientific knowledge that disproves my "reasoning." I am sure there are many more things to be learned that we have not considered. I consider all possibilities if they have some scientific support.

If anyone would like to explore the subject more they may visit the links at the bottom of the following page on my site. There is a lot of fascinating information there.

http://www.queenofcoins.com/reality.html

Jeannie

Abracadabra,

Can we discuss the topic without the faux outrage and strawman arguments? I posted about free will, not the imagined insult to Jeanniebean's beliefs to which you replied.



Could you quote any scientist who has suggested that?

I listed a book for you to read called the Holographic Universe where remarkable discoveries were made. Read it then get back to us. I don't have the time to educate you in this thread. If you are truly interested in learning you will read the book. If you just want to argue I don't have time for that.


Also, you can go the the website I gave the thread and visit the links at the bottom of the page and ponder that.

Jeannie

P.S. We are not trying to convince you against your will, we are simply discussing and expressing our view point and why we have them. I do not have any desire to prove anything to you or anybody.

If you (anybody) has a question for me about what I believe and why I will answer. If you have an opinion and a reason for it, please post it. This is a discussion not a contest. This is for learning, not for converting people. (and definitely not for arguments, accusations and insults.)

Thank you
Jeannie

I'm sure there are many quotes out there. But I never said that any particular scientist said this. I said that science in general has shown this to be the case.

So far, science has shown that the entire universe is made up of a handful of phenomenon. You can view this from the atomic level in that there appears to only be approximately one hundred different kinds of natural elements that make up everything. (i.e. humans are made out of the same ‘stuff’ as everything else).

You can even take that to the subatomic, or quantum level, showing that everything in this universe is made of leptons, quarks and bosons. And those can be shown to be fleeting with no real boundaries.

We are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. Science holds that we ultimately evolved out of the universe. You may not believe in evolution, but we’re not talking about what you believe here, we’re talking about what science claims to have observed.

On a macro level we know that we came from our mother’s womb. We weren’t bought here from somewhere else by a stork. We emerged out of the universe itself, or out of something else that emerged out of the universe.

It’s is the current stance of science today that we are all made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, and that we evolved out of the universe (i.e. we are a direct manifestation of it), and that ultimately the so-called particles that constitute our make-up are fleeting and have no boundaries. Thus there can be no meaningful boundaries between anything. Nothing can be viewed as being truly separate.

This necessarily has to be the stance of any quantum physicist because this is what quantum physics is saying. This is the very thing that makes quantum physics what it is. Quantum physics says that we can’t draw definite boundaries! That’s why it’s so profound! This is why the old Newtonian view of a universe that has well-defined boundaries had to be abandon.

The fact that there can be no well-defined boundaries between things is the essence of quantum mechanics!

This is why the Eastern Mystics were proclaiming to the Western Physicists, “We Told You So!”.

I think you’re still living in a Newtonian mindset. That ideal can never be reinstated. It’s gone forever. Quantum mechanics has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to correctly reflect the true nature of this universe. It may be improved upon, but it will never be revoked because it has already been experimentally verified to be true. There can be no genuine boundaries between anything. All is ultimately and necessarily seamlessly connected. All boundaries are nothing more than fleeting illusions.

This is the experimentally verifiable fact of science today.

It's not just someone’s opinion, or someone’s ‘theory’. It’s been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is indeed the true nature of the universe of which we are a manifestion.

This is the conclusion of modern science.

Jeanniebean,

I have read up on "Holographic Universe". It tries to explain the supernatural through quantum physics. The book is purely theoretical and is largely based on a single experiment. I don't deny that the author might be right, but any suggestion that this theory is "prove" is incorrect. I know that you didn't say it was proven, but Abra did. It's not. I don't believe that the author or any of the minority of scientists who support his theory would say it's "proven".

Many things in the book were proven. Are you quite sure you read it?

In any case there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that we live in a holographic type Universe and there is proof that all things are made up of vibration and light.

I have not found anything that proves otherwise. Of course the idea of "proof" is a matter of belief and entirely dependent on the observer. Even a trickster or magician can make an elephant disappear before the eyes of a crowd. That does not mean it really happened.

Jeannie
P.S. "Reading up on" does not mean you read it. Looking it up on the Internet and reading a short review does not count.

Jeannie,

I am well aware that "reading up on it" does not mean you have read it. I never said that I read it. I did not imply that I had read the book, but I did read several reviews and I read up on the one experiment that was described as the foundation of the book. But that's a moot point. His theory isn't proven. They are a long way from proving that sort of theory. That's the point I was making. If you like the book and you agree with his beliefs, that's great. But his theories aren't proven from a scientific standpoint. That's the only point I was trying to make.

I don't believe it is a long way from being proven. I think it is proven to some extent, but hard core science has turned a blind eye to it so far, as they always do.

But if your goal in this discussion is to prove that you are right an abra is wrong I would ask that you please stop nit picking and get back to the subject of the thread.

We understand that you choose not to believe in the holographic universe. nuff said.

Proof is, as I said a matter of belief and it is a matter of what authority you support or believe in.

jeannie

And that’s paramount.

No one is claiming that a person is rejecting God or choosing to go the wicked ways of Satan if they don’t care to learn about the true nature of their manifestation in the universe. It ultimately doesn’t matter what they believe, that’s not going to change the truth of what they are.



Quantum mechanics is considered to have been experimentally verified more than any other things we know. There have been quite literally billions upon billions of experiments made in particle accelerators all over the world. Not a single solitary experiment has failed to exhibit the results predicted by quantum mechanics.

Newtonian physics was not abandon on a ‘hunch’.

Yes, quantum mechanics has been ‘proven’ to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt. No serious physicists doubts that. No serious physicists are attempting to resurrect the Newtonian view. Although they had desperately tried to do so in the past.

See the EPR experiments and the work of John Stewart Bell.

Quantum entanglement is verifiably provable.

It’s a done deal Spider. All that exists now are doubting laymen. No one who genuinely knows what’s going on question the results. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is the true nature of our universe, it’s not just a limitation of our ability to measure. Even the universe itself doesn’t know what will happen next on a quantum level.

This totally blows away any idea of an all-knowing God who knows the future. Even the universe itself doesn’t know what will be manifest in the future.

This is what quantum mechanics is telling us. And it is considered to be a proven verified fact that this is the true nature of the universe we live in.

Yes, proven!

Newtonian physics is dead. There's no going back.

What he said!

How do you know something about me that I don't know? I haven't read enough about the theory to know if I believe it or not. You assume that you know how I think, you should instead ask. Contrary to what you and others have said about me, I research and make up my own mind. That's how I became a Christian. That's how I became a conservative. Knowing everything I can about what I believe is very important to me.