The Free Will Debate Part I

The free will debate has existed since ancient times. Anyone can read the various ins and outs of the debate as argued by various people. I think what is more important is the debate that goes on inside the individual.

On the surface, if I do not think about it too deeply it does feel as if I have free will. I can choose to turn left or right. I choose to make the moral choice (as I understand it) or not.

But it is conceivable that I am only experiencing the illusion of free will. When a thought pops into my head I take ownership of it. I claim the credit of my creativity. But if I think about it, I really have no idea where this thought originated. Perhaps someone, somewhere sitting at a computer is implanting these thoughts in my head and I assume they are of my own doing. In this model of consciousness there is a “me” capable of observing but that “me” is under the illusion that the thoughts I think are my own. But even under this model I seem to have the choice of choosing whether or not I will take ownership of these thoughts. But then again, this choosing could also be implanted by the guy sitting at the computer.

So I am stuck in the position where I cannot prove or disprove that I have free will. My religion teaches that God endowed man with free will. My hunch tells me I have some degree of free will but it is probably less than what I assume it to be without thinking about it too much.

Recently a white-supremacist who has been regularly commenting on my blog made the argument (if I understand him correctly) that “God ordained free-will” (his term) means actually having the limited choice between choosing to do God’s will or choosing not to do God’s will. See the comments to my blog post Procrastination When Writing is Essentially Laziness Only More Complicated. I am sure if I misstated his theory he will correct me in the comments to this post.

The question that arises in my mind is this: How can I know what is God’s will in order to properly exercise my God Ordained Free-Will in order to make the correct decision? From a Christian perspective the answer is that the Bible is the word of God and tells me what His will is. The only problem with that is the Bible says a lot of things that are open to interpretation. So I am still stuck in the position of not actually knowing the will of God.

This white-supremacist commenter also argued that the opposite of exercising God Ordained Free Will is the exercising of Radical Autonomy (his term). He goes on to say that Radical Autonomy leads ultimately to Self-Annihilation (his term yet again). Again, I am sure he will correct me in the comments if I am misstating his position. From my perspective, there are a great many hoops he needs to jump through in order to square his theories on, God Ordained Free Will, white-supremacy, and Christianity not to mention Radical Autonomy and Self Annihilation.

Of course this white supremacist has the free will to respond or not respond to this post in the comments. If he does respond (which I suspect he will) I assume he will believe his choice to respond is an exercise of “God Ordained Free-Will.” The debate will then proceed from there.


Filed under Uncategorized

18 responses to “The Free Will Debate Part I

  1. thordaddy


    Lol… First, you must distinguish between free will and God-ordained free will. Why, you ask? Just because “we” can. Your free will is about choice and options and invoking physical or mental action. My God-ordained free will is a “gift” from God experienced as such. So with this distinction, one could assume different courses of meta-action. In order to enjoy your free will, one must only be willing to do anything. In order for me to PERHAPS experience God-ordained free will, I must attempt to do all right, ie., be perfect. The question that then arises is who is limited relative to whom? If you will do anything and I will do all right, who is actually more omnipotent… More powerful… Possessing more “Free Will?”

    PS I’m a white Supremacist which is not equal to a white supremacist or a “white supremacist” or a White supremacist or a “white” supremacist or a White Supremacist.

  2. thordaddy


    But as you say, if one has no free will then all action is unwillingly.

    Responding unwillingly is like radical autonomy, man!!!

    • No it isn’t. Responding unwillingly is the lack of autonomy or at least the non exercise of autonomy.

      • thordaddy


        Lol… Buttjew are just saying that one cannot act unwillingly.

        You’re like the banker… When an errancy manifests, there are three participants at play: the depositor, the teller and the system. When errancy is yours, IT IS yours. When the errancy is the banks, they can divide responsibility according to the situation. In effect, the bank can broaden the burden MANY TIMES attributing the errancy to a “system” that takes no offense for the blame.

        This the modus operandi of the radical autonomist… Spread the burden of errancy to the point of rendering any effective blame nonexistent. So if “we” are all errant then none of “us” are to blame. That’s the pact. Never let the normal individuals KNOW if your are acting willingly or unwillingly. Always have those options open at your disposal. Be ready to take credit and assess blame for all “actions” via the free will/no free will paradigm.

      • When did I say “one cannot act unwillingly”?

      • thordaddy

        “Responding unwillingly is the lack of autonomy or at least the non exercise of autonomy.” — wS

        Responding unwillingly = acting without will = lack of autonomy = no free will = one cannot willingly act unwillingly…

        But of course he can… “It” is his radical autonomy.

      • There is a difference between saying “one cannot act unwillingly” and “one cannot willingly act unwillingly.”

      • thordaddy


        Yes… I’m sure there is…


        How can you tell the difference in others?

      • Why do you need to tell the difference in others?

      • thordaddy


        “We” very much need to know who acts with genuine free will and who simply responds to external stimuli in a predictable fashion in order to justify a complete separation. Clearly, an individual who acts with genuine free will CANNOT maintain a society with individuals who have no genuine free will.

      • So you are interested in maintaining a society. It’s not that you want to be able to tell yourself you are superior to others?

      • thordaddy


        I want a society where my children and myself can experience our God-ordained free will and not a society where those who not only reject such an experience, but will violently and forcibly mandate others reject their own experience.

        PS. Think how truly trivial the reality of THINKING THAT BELIEVING that one is better than another is the worst of taboos? In reality, it is because this sickness is so prevalent (no white men thinking he is even better than mere sludge on the street) that “we” are FORCED to inhabit a jungle of human-like animals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s