You haven't presented an argument. You made an assertion - and I pointed out why it was not true.
Lets see if that is the case
And you're wrong. Free will has to be FREE. And coercion negates freedom. According to the Bible God tampered with the Pharaoh's mind to force him to decide a particular way. That constitutes coercion, and therefore interferes with free will.
Once again a lesson in the use of reality is necessary. Terms do not dicate reality, reality dicates the use of terms. Free will is a term that helps us humans understand the reality of what we call free will
The reality is, that a simple biological process is happening called the decision making process. I have now demonstrated by example and illustration (none of which have you attempted to address) that it is possible to make a counter decision, whether under duress or any other circumstance, unless the complete mental process is taken away.
It should be clear, even to the simple observer like yourself, that if examples in both directions, can be given, where two choices can be made in the opposite direction, of the same circumstance, that the things you claim are not true. Now watch, pay very close attention. Pharoah made two different choices under the same circumstance.
Pharoah could have easily stuck to his decision tonot let them go, even after the 10th plauge. Now watch pay close attention. According to the story, he did change his mind again and pursued the Iraelites. He changed his mind, exercised his free will all in the same conditions and circumstances
Actually pharoah is both an exercise in the demonstration of exacally what free will is and why your conclusions about free will are non-sense
Actually dealing with the illustrations and examples I provided you, would be considered debating. Skipping over them and pretending they dont have application is not objective
You can disagree with the Bible all you like, but it still says what it says.
Is your intimation that everybody else is allowed to speak metaphorically, but the bible's writers are not? Jesus said, "I have not come to bring peace but a sword". Are we to believe jesus was not a peaceful man and that he carried a sharp metal object stabbing people with it. Or is Jesus using metaphor to demonstrate another point. Point, No pun intended?
Bertot writes: Again there is no such thing as a "forced decision", since there is as much possibility to choose even under duress, in the opposite direction
It would seem that the law disagrees
Unfortunately, the law at times like terms themself, dont get to the heart of the matter. It takes skilled thinkers to bring things into thier actual perspective. I dont disagee with the dictionary definitions that you provided, only that they reflect a human understanding and perception, that is lacking an actual perspective from reality. The dictionary difinitons are legal difinitons not logical applications
Interfering with the mind to guarantee that a particular outcome occurs would seem to work equally well. The decision is forced in that no other is possible. That is the whole point of the interference.
Since I have demonstrated by the example of Pharoah, illustrations and other examples in life why this is not possible, possibly you could provide an example of what you are asserting. Its for sure that repeating this is not helping your cause.
Perhaps you could provide an example of interference, where chemical alteration, mental alterations or removal of the thinking process is not involved, where a person still does not have the choice to amke a decision in the opposite direction.
It dseems that a "forced interference". could only come in the form of actually biological interfernce, otherwise the person could make a choice even in an example of extreme duress. That is unless you can provide an example otherwise. Feel Free willed to do
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
