Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Faith

Baseball Star-Turned Theologian Exposes All You Need to Know About ‘Free Will’ (& Claims It Proves God’s Existence)

Oct. 8, 2012 5:43pm Billy Hallowell

Frank Pastore Claims Free Will Proves Gods Existence

Photo Credit: YouTube

Former Cincinnati Reds pitcher-turned conservative theologian Frank Pastore has quite a lot to say about the concept of free will. This week, the radio host and commentator teamed up with Prager University to release a new video exploring the concept. In the clip, entitled, “Do You Have Free Will?,” Pastore uses logic about personal choices and the complexity of the human mind to make the case for the existence of a higher being.

“If you are just a brain, you cannot have free will,” Pastore explains in the five-minute video course. “But if you’re something more than your brain — if you’re the thing that has the brain — then when I ask you, ‘Where do you want to do to lunch?,’ you’re going to start deliberating…weighing various reasons to choose one place over another.”

The Christian commentator’s point is that human beings are in control; rather than operaring like drones, people enjoy the right to make choices in their everyday lives. In the clip, Pastore also took the opportunity to rail against materialists, those individuals who believe only in the existence of “physical matter.”

“These materialists believe that we are no more than robots and that free will is an illusion [or] myth,” he continued. ”The moment they acknowledge that free will exists, that there really is an immaterial you beyond the physical realm, that there really is a mind — not just a brain — then there has to be something non-physical that accounts for our non-physical minds.”

While he maintains that the decision to accept or reject God hinges upon each individual’s free will, he concludes by stating that “there’s a great mind that accounts for the origin” of each individual.

Watch the video, below:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (91)

davecorkery
Posted on October 9, 2012 at 1:52pm
Pastore also took a LOT of baseballs to the head, which explains everything.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Pontiaku
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 9:26pm
  “God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That sir, is not free will. It would be akin to a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man says this we call him a psychopath and cry out for his imprisonment/execution. When god says the same we call him ‘loving’ and build churches in his honor.” — William C. Easttom II
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:55am
  Wow, . . . that is a profoundly true quote, Pontiaku. Thanks.
  
  It is similar to the “love letter” analogy. In short, if you were given a box of “love letters” from someone who wrote them to a general audience, would you find it personal? What if the letters told you a few things about them? Would that make you feel you have a “relationship”? What if it required you to return the “love” this person has for you?
  
  Another “love letter” analogy that may be more true. You receive a letter from someone you’ve never met and do not know. The letter expresses a deep “love” for you and want you to return YOUR unyielding love. But, it says, “if you don’t love me back, I will break into your house on some undisclosed night, and torture you slowly until you die.”
  
  You see, the problem is, . . . the christian god fails in calling ‘himself’ “love” when this “free gift” is forced on you upon the eternal pain of “Hell”. I can hear the christian now. . . “Yeah, but he is also a god of justice!” There is no justice when the other side of the argument is ALSO “the judge”. True justice? . . . . . If a judge was wronged by “the defendent”, that judge MUST remove himself/herself from the case. Regardless, JUSTICE is never served when the punishment infinitely surpasses the “crime”.
  
  The only moral stance is to have a god who does NOT “punish those who don’t return love”, but is okay with it anyway.
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiaku
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 11:36am
  DeavonReyem, the judeo-christian god is more worried about his own vanity than sensible morals. The first four commandments are evidence of this.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:58am
  Word!
  
  Report this comment
- AntonW
  Posted on December 18, 2012 at 8:45am
  Until there is proof to support Pastore’s opinion, it’s just his opinion and has no bearing on reality. Religion is a highly personal belief and believing in the supernatural without any real proof is a choice we’re free to make. Hopefully, people will take advantage of the easy access to incredible amounts of scientific and historic information available and use that to make an informed decision, rather than just believe what they’re told by others.
  
  Report this comment
AlwysReady
Posted on October 9, 2012 at 1:03pm
I am not sure if any of you people that deny free-will have read the New Testament; do you only read what you are given by your organizations? John 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that “whosoever” believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. These verses prove your theory wrong and not only these but a score of others from Matthew to Revelation all say the “whosoever” and some say “will”: meaning “anyone” and “to have in mind”, “to purpose”, “intend”, “to will”, these are all choices made and some refer to the choice of not accepting or believing, willing to deny, etc. The approach you take to reality is disconcerting to say the least, come out of the darkness you are in and receive His marvelous light. The Truth of Jesus Christ is: Isaiah 9:6 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- davecorkery
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 1:59pm
  John spread the “word” as he remembered it, orally until he died. Then the story was repeated, and changed, to others, over campfires for almost 100 years before it was anonymously written down. Even if we had the originals (we don’t), they would still be the opinions of men, not god. You want to base your life on the meanderings of strangers from 2000-3000 years ago? Go right ahead. Whatever eases your fevered brain. I’m serious: If it comforts you, and helps you make it through the night, you’ll have no problems from me.
  
  Report this comment
ChrisDiamond
Posted on October 9, 2012 at 12:31pm
The assertion that God is omniscient precludes the supposition that we have free will. If God knows everything and knew everything about us (for even the hairs on our head are numbered) before we were even a glint in our parents’ eyes, then it is impossible for us to make a choice that He didn’t already know about, meaning that salvation is not so much a choice as it is being pre-chosen as someone who would believe and come to Him. As God is the creator of all things, and if He is omniscient, then people who are not called will end up in hell because God chose to not ‘call’ them. It fits, given that God created the devil and hell, sin, our rebellious nature, our susceptibility to beguilement, the temptation of the flesh…

If God already knows what we will choose, then we can’t have free will because our trajectory is already set, as determined by God, the creator of all things. If you buy Christian or Judean theology, who else could determine what my choices would be before I was even born? Only God could… If we could make a choice that was not in line with God’s foreknowledge of our path, then He is not omniscient. If He is not omniscient, then He (or his prophets) is also a liar. If He is omniscient, then we cannot have free will, and the promoters of this fallacy are charlatans acting in His name.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- davecorkery
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 3:06pm
  Agreed. No one knows if there is a god, but the one the christians/jews/hindus/muslims/etc. talk about simply cannot be. Too many inherent contradictions, which would be expected, since over 300 men had input into the bible.
  
  Report this comment
- jmart1232
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 9:33pm
  ChrisDiamond,
  
  I have to respectfully disagree with you. You say that if God is all knowing, that free will is not possible, but Him knowing what choices we make does not mean He caused me to make that choice. Let us assume that God had a “first thought”, (obviously He lives outside of time so this is not possible but just go with me on this), when He thought His first thought He thought ALL thoughts. He knew every thought, action, or inaction for all of eternity. He did not cause them to take place; He only knew what was going to take place. It’s like if I record a football game and then come back and watch it days, weeks, or months later. I already know the outcome of the game, not because I caused the outcome, but because it already played out in front of me. I cannot be surprised by a different outcome because there isn’t another outcome. The same applies to God. He knows the outcome of this “game” we are living in. Obviously, because the prophets have foretold a lot of it by His inspiration. If there was no room for free will in God’s plan for us, why would we need the 10 Commandments? Why would Jesus say the greatest commandment of the all is “Love the Lord you God with all of your heart, with all your soul, and with all you mind”? Wouldn’t this be a waste of time, breath, and even paper when He makes us love Him? These are just some simple questions I have about “predestination”. Take care.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 1:58pm
  JMart1232
  
  Thank you for a well-thought out and kind response. It is refreshing to find people with whom you disagree who do not resort to nastiness.
  
  I understand where you’re going with your argument, and I appreciate the perspective. What I think has been left out, or isn’t given enough consideration is that God is responsible for all the elements that influence the action and results of that football game. So if, for example, a big gust of wind popped up and made the kicker miss what would have been the winning field goal, then wouldn’t God’s ‘thoughts’ prove to be more important in the end than the actions of the kicker?
  
  Additionally, and for consideration’s sake: were I a Christian, I would be extremely ticked off with God. He makes us weak to temptation. He makes us susceptible to beguilement. He makes us rebellious. These things are in our nature, which He is responsible for creating, yes? Then He creates the devil, he allows the devil to come to earth, and we learn that the devil is the Great Deceiver, making his encounter with Adam and Eve (on whom the damnation of all humanity now stand) a veritable cake walk. He KNEW Eve would fail, and knew Adam would fail. They had to, to necessitate redemption through JC. So God is responsible for it all, but He loves us? Setting us up to fail is love? Given what we know of His grand design, how can we argue that we have free will? We’re only damned because He set us up to be damned.
  
  Report this comment
yerffej
Posted on October 9, 2012 at 10:35am
With my obviously limited neurological capacity, some of these ideas are really, too deep for me to understand. I prefer to keep it fairly simple..”For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” WE have the choice…end statement.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- davecorkery
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 2:00pm
  Yeah, men wrote that.
  
  Report this comment
louise
Posted on October 9, 2012 at 7:33am
Who does the choosing…?

When man does the choosing he will choose from (and for) self every time.
When God does the choosing man will be turned to God. Unless a person hears he/she will not be turned around. Jesus said this, “All that are mine will come to Me”.

Personally speaking, I did not turn myself around. I was going along my merry little way in this world until I heard the Word of God from behind which caused me to turn around.
It was the Word speaking to my heart that was the cause that made me turn. I had no choice. I had to turn to my Father.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- memyselfandi
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 3:52pm
  My Calvinist friends tell me I’m wrong about free will so to be fair I have been looking into it and I have come to the conclusion that it is a gross misinterpretation of the scriptures.
  
  If you take a single statement made by Jesus or Paul in the NT and don’t examine the full context, it is easy to buy into the doctrine of Augustine and Calvin.
  
  In John, Jesus has an argument with the religious leaders for 5 chapters and in that discussion He told them they are not “in the Father” because, “you WILL not come to me”. He also said these people; the leaders of the Jewish religion didn’t really even believe Moses and that is why they were not part of the Kingdom, not because they weren’t chosen or elected by God. (John 5:38-46)
  
  Romans chapters 9-11 Paul makes statements concerning the fate of Israel and most of them are direct quotes from the OT so in order to understand the context of what he’s talking about you have to go back and look these passages up which most Calvinist’s fail to do.
  
  The potter and the clay in 9:21 is in direct relationship to Jeremiah Ch. 18 which declares that God will respond appropriately to the will and the decisions of man.
  
  Relationship with God simply involves a positive response to the draw of the Holy Spirit. Calvinism turns God into the author of sin where He punishes people for doing exactly what He programed them to do. It also makes God into a monster of a being that can save anyone He chooses, but He simply
  
  Report this comment
- memyselfandi
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 5:35pm
  …chooses not to and I don’t believe that for a minute.
  
  STUDY to show thyself APPROVED unto God!!!
  
  Report this comment
- louise
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 7:27pm
  Memyselfandi,
  
  You said, “STUDY to show thyself APPROVED unto God!!!”
  
  To that comment I can only say, amen.
  
  Report this comment
- rghtwngcrzy
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 12:19am
  Monergism vs Synergism 101
  
  Matthew 13 – The Parable of the Sower. The Holy Spirit is the sower. Saving faith is the seed. We are the dirt. Some of the seeds the Sower plants will be snatched immediately by birds (Satan), some seeds will spring up quickly but die quickly because they have no root (cannot withstand persecution), some seeds will grow for awhile then are choked by weeds (sins), and only those seeds planted in good soil will grow and produce an abundant crop. The Sower knows exactly what each seed will produce – even those that will ultimately fail – yet He sows them anyway.
  
  Monergists believe that dirt is unable to plant seeds in itself. Planting is the job of the Sower.
  
  Synergists believe the dirt decides whether or not it will receive the seed and can tell the Sower when and if He is allowed to plant a seed.
  
  Synergism doesn’t make sense because it is doesn’t come from scripture.
  
  Report this comment
rghtwngcrzy
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 11:12pm
Animals who act mainly on instinct also make choices based on previous experience (think mouse in maze). How does that prove there is a God?

In matters of day to day living, yes we have the free will; in matters of the Spirit – not so much. If you have saving faith it is because God chose you to have it – you are one of the elect. It has nothing to do with brain chemistry, or reasoning, or science, or logic. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

That’s why people end up looking silly when they try to explain God & faith with “facts” and “reasoning”. To the non-elect faith is nonsense.

“…but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Cor. 1:23-24)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ShyLow
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 12:41am
  Sorry folks but free-will is just an illusion. God just typed this using the village idiots fingers.Yep, you’re looking at God’s typing right here. Not really a big deal because God will control your typing to any response he may feed you. Now set God’s street quads free, and try to make some affordable housing already. God would like his people to own and not rent if possible.and stop wackin it to Bella Thorne you pervs. If you can that is
  
  Report this comment
- strewth_cobber
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 2:30am
  Amen.
  
  Thank God for His grace and gift of faith.
  
  Report this comment
- damon_k
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 5:57am
  I believe that God is a scientist, not one of our so-called men of science, but truly a reasoned and rational being. Look at how the world was created, our own DNA and tell me He is not a scientist. Read more insights at: http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com/
  
  Report this comment
- davecorkery
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 2:04pm
  Wow! God chose you to have it? So you’re right there beside god, knowing what he’s thinking. You’re the first.
  You might want to adjust your meds.
  
  Report this comment
Ohello
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 10:34pm
There is no free will, all men are fallen and corrupted, all are predisposed to rebellion against GOOD at least “Good” as God has defined it. No one is “free” to choose good or to choose God. Everything that men do is corrupt in some manner. That was the result of pride demonstrated in the Garden of Eden, when Adam chose to rebel against God at the prompting of the prideful Lucifer. That said a merciful God has graced man with the ability to choose and the obligation to take responsibility for those choices.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Ohello
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 10:42pm
  The last example of Man exercising free will was right before Eve listened to Satan, and Adam listened to Eve. Prior to that their Will was uncorrupted, after paying attention to Satan their DNA and Spiritual DNA were tainted. Only God can cover that problem for us, and did so through His method, Christ Jesus. It is why rebirth and the resurrection are necessary.
  
  Report this comment
- Blacktooth
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 10:49pm
  Excuse me but are you suggesting no one has the ability to choose to do good?
  Are you saying we do not have the free will to conquer bad if we desire too?
  
  Your last sentence; “a merciful God has graced man with the ability to choose and the obligation to take responsibility for those choices.”
  Are you not contradicting yourself?
  
  Report this comment
- Elena2010
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 12:46am
  He’s taking the hardest line of Calvinism out there.
  
  In Torah, Moses tells the people that God has given them a choice this day…choose to obey and be blessed or disobey and lose it all. And the people did chose to disobey and were exiled in Babylon for it among other disciplines and punishments.
  
  Report this comment
- nilo
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 8:41am
  It was Adam and Eve’s FREE WILL that they exercised when they disobeyed God’s Command not to eat of the tree. We all have free will — the right that God gives us to choose or not to choose. One example: (Joshua 24:15). Joshua told Israel to “choose this day whom you will serve”. They exercised their God-given free will, as have men ever since Adam and Eve.
  
  Report this comment
- TheCalvinistPastor
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 10:49am
  Amen
  
  Report this comment
- rememberthis
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 11:03am
  I agree. What is the will of the lost man? Ephesians 2:1-3 states his will is to walk according to the course of this world, to live in the lust of the flesh. Only Adam and Eve had a free will. They were created in the image of God (Genesis 5:1). After the fall, the Bible speaks of their first born Seth (Genesis 5:3), he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his own image, and they named him Seth. We do not understand the effect of sin on all human kind. Our will is not free.
  
  Report this comment
- davecorkery
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 3:09pm
  I love that fable.Magic apples, talking snakes, gullible women. Can’t wait for the movie!
  
  Report this comment
mayihelpyou
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 10:13pm
His “logic” follows presumption with nothing to back it up.
That’s not logic. That’s dogma.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Blacktooth
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 10:37pm
  We do not need Frank Pastore to prove the existence of our Creator God.
  
  Soon, everyone will know of His existence and the existence of His Son Jesus, the King. – Revelation 19:11-21
  
  Report this comment
- davecorkery
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 3:12pm
  Blacktooth
  
  Soon? We’ve been waiting 2000 years. How about another 2000? Probably never, since He is imaginary.
  
  Report this comment
- Blacktooth
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 3:31pm
  davecorkery,
  
  So you scoff and belittle the prophecies from our Creator God, Jehovah (YHWH) and His Son Jesus Christ. You consider it all just one big joke don’t you?
  
  Well, have it your way if you wish but know this my foolish friend; Soon, everyone, even you, will know of His existence and the existence of His Son Jesus, the King. – Revelation 19:11-21
  
  Report this comment
DeavonReye
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:32pm
Some observations. I find it interesting that he goes through quite the production to present a point that he really can’t even make with any authority. He leads you to “only be able to make the conclusion he wants you to make”. I find it a bit dishonest . . . even if he personally believes what he’s saying. However, in reality, . . . it is basically LIKE the argument “it can’t be anything else other than, god did it”.

We know quite a bit about the brain. But not everything. Just because something isn’t fully known, it is a bit absurd to summarily jump to “an immaterial brain” as the only answer.

Now, I understand why he does what he does. He is selling something. It helps his case if he can influence the hearer and get them to come to a conclusion based on his words alone. I have seen it a lot when I was a christian who was [embarrassed to say] was taken in by the pseudo-science of “YEC evangelists”. Actual science rightly poked major holes in my beliefs. I’d suspect that actual neuro-scientists understand quite well “why we can make decisions”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
grickm
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:29pm
The brain is a physical thing, and exists in a finite space, therefore it must have a finite number of possible states. That leads to the idea that free will does not exist. On the other hand, the brain is so complex that even as a finite thing, the number of possible states it can be in is so huge that for all intents and purposes, we do have free will. There is no need to invoke the supernatural to reach this conclusion.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jms292
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:17pm
Voluntary choice is much different than free will choice. I’ve never seen anyone make a free will choice.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Blacktooth
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:27pm
  Didn’t you just make a free will choice, by choosing to post your comment?
  
  Report this comment
- jms292
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 10:18pm
  I was caused to post due to the subject matter. God will have all mankind voluntarily choose Him due to exogenous and internal influences. Just as Paul was caused to believe.
  
  Report this comment
- louise
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 8:03am
  There is a difference between free-will, and predestination.
  
  “We know that God causes all things to work together for the good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
  For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born of many brethren;
  and whom He presdestined, these He also called;
  and whom He called, these He also justified;
  and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
  What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
  He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, ho wwill He not also with Him give us all things?Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the One who justifies; who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shal tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril or the sword?
  Just as it is written:
  “For Thy sake we are put to death all day long;
  We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
  But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. I am convinced that neither
  death
  nor life
  nor angels
  nor principalities
  nor things present
  nor things to come
  nor height
  nor depth
  nor any created thing
  shall be able to separate us from the Love of God.
  
  Report this comment
- jms292
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 7:15pm
  Yes. The first is a myth. The second means “to be picked out beforehand.” That is real.
  
  Report this comment
hi
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 8:08pm
Awesome video! I was trying to explain that to my son over the weekend but wasn’t able to articulate it at all. I can’t wait to watch some of the other videos on the website.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
hades3
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:31pm
Any person who chooses not too believe in free will, is himself, or herself exercising that very thing.,
while at the same time denying it !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- servant_of_the_most_high
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:29pm
  Excellent statement!!
  
  Report this comment
rob_a
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:13pm
I agree to a point, People have free will. With or without a creator, we do make our own choices it seems. In a more theological sense, I believe man took on free will when he became separated from God or when sin entered into the world. So as a Christian, I completely Give up my free will to take on the will of God.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- davecorkery
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 3:17pm
  So, if someday you lose it, get drunk and rape someone, that would be god’s will? Hardly. If god knew that eventually you were going to rape somebody, and didn’t do anything to stop it, then he’s a jerk. But he’s not. Cause he exists only in your imagination.
  
  Report this comment
- Blacktooth
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 3:39pm
  davecorkery,
  
  God does not exist, only in your imagination.
  
  You see how that works? You criticise what you know nothing about and then someone else can criticise your foolishness.
  Justice is good!
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:03pm
“The Christian commentator’s point is that human beings are in control; rather than operaring like drones, …“These materialists believe that we are no more than robots …The moment they acknowledge that free will exists…then there has to be something non-physical that accounts for our non-physical minds.””
Further demonstration of the prejudicial conclusion he has about the nature of brain that is based upon an assumption of the very thing he is trying to prove. Nothing about the brain being purely material or physical, entails it cannot be “freely willed” inasmuch as that very vague term means anything (he doesn’t bother to define what he means by it, by I take it to mean broadly that we make choices). He commits the same ancient errors as Descartes (who did so more eloquently besides) in assuming dualism from nothing other than prejudices about the meaning of “mind” and linguistic essentialism. Nothing novel here to see. Also, nice spelling error blaze editors (assuming he didn’t say “operaring” himself, LOL).

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:47pm
  Again, the prejudice is yours:
  >Nothing about the brain being purely material or physical, entails it cannot be “freely willed”
  That’s an assumption YOU’RE trying to prove. And you’re missing the point because you’re thinking too far beyond the mark. I get it, though: you’re arguing from OUTSIDE his premice that the brain is merely mechanical. Fine. I think you’re ignoring a whole ton of evidence to do that, but it’s fair logic. From WITHIN his assumption, though, the existence of a causal, reflective agent that science has not been able to account for, quantify, or by all other scientific means define actually makes HIS point, not yours–the best explanation is a non-material entity at the switchboard–the theory simply holds.
  So really: why DO you assume that only material evidence should be allowed on matter of meaning, belief, and agency? That’s the REAL error of assumption, it seems to me. Science and logic do a great job of describing material phenomena, but never even ATTEMPT to attach meaning to the designs it uncovers. Isn’t that missing a whole lot?
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 8:35pm
  No, I present two exhaustive mutually exclusive alternatives–I happen to think that he is wrong, and the alternative is correct, but it is unimportant to the overall point that HE has not made a sufficient argument (or ANY argument at all in fact) to close off one of these two possibilities, them being that:
  EITHER
  (1) The brain, or perhaps the whole body to be physically exhaustive, IS sufficient to explain “choice” (what he refers to in the alternative occasionally as the much vaguer term “free will”)–the naturalist theory.
  OR
  (2) The brain/physical structures is/are INSUFFICIENT to explain “choice”–the supernaturalist theory (as it requires postulation of non-physical “spiritual” entities).
  By the rules of logic, ONE of these must be false and the other true, because they are contradictions which represent the whole domain of possibilities (i.e. physical explanation either ARE or ARE NOT sufficient to explain, in this case, mental phenomena–there is not alternative, and they CANNOT be BOTH sufficient AND insufficient). That’s the scope of possible answers.
  
  As to why I only invoke material evidence and explanations–point to IMMATERIAL (or non-physical if you prefer) evidence if you can. Everything appears to behave in unified way, which is to say, by shared physical principles–unless it does NOT (an EARTH-SHAKING proof that MERE religiously motivated empty speculation does not satisfy), there is no room, or need, for “ghosts in the machine.”
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 8:46pm
  The simplest efficient explanation is the most probably true one, and that is the best we can do as humans is determine what is most PROBABLY true (obstinate religious nonsensical assertions to the contrary notwithstanding) when it comes to matters of FACT. All this unnecessary metaphysical speculation you engage in about “design” and “spirits at the switch-board” (ghosts in the machine) is just that–unsubstantiated metaphysical speculation. One can always IMAGINE metaphysical alternative explanations (which is why we can never fully eliminate empirical risk), but unless we absolutely CANNOT reconcile explanations of all observable phenomena within one internally consistent explanatory framework, these added redundancies are not NECESSARY to do so. Furthermore, being metaphysical, there is not, by definition, any DIRECT evidence of their existence–WERE there such, they would not BE metaphysical, but in fact PHYSICAL since their phenomenological effects could be OBSERVED and thus, reconciled (or not). The ONLY way we can INFER the NECESSITY of their existence is IF, and ONLY if (otherwise they will remain nothing more than imaginative, and indefinite, POSSIBILITIES), we find obstinate and irremovable contradictions in naturalism (a unified physical explanatory framework). If this turns out to be so, then we would be forced back into dualism. But in the absence of such, and much success pursuing the contrary, I doubt dualism shall be necessary.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:03pm
  All that being said, I must remark that:
  (a) The dispute is impossible to settle with CERTAINTY because ontology can only be determined by inference from epistemology, and thus carries with it irreducible empirical risk (if there is such a thing as a “universal” perspective, it is not accessible to us by any means known to us). Ultimately, these conclusions come down to some degree of faith, but that is not the problem per se–the problem, or rather the “resolution” thereunto (the presumption of truth, i.e. more-or-less conclusion, that we reach) is which explanation is supported by the preponderance of evidence. This is not “Truth,” but rather our best guess at it (the best we have if we are honest with our assessment) in regards to matters of “fact.” Is the lack hitherto of irremovable contradictions in a naturalist explanation more convincing, or are there convincing enough irremovable contradictions therein (the INABILITY to explain without contradiction–different than the mere lack of an explanation hitherto)
  (b) It is very refreshing, and very much appreciated, to meet a mind willing and able to delve into the “meat” as it were, of these fundamental philosophical problems with rigor. These are tricky questions, and they entail a great deal of question and many potential pitfalls in their navigation. Nevertheless, some insight, I hope, is to be gained in the attempt to work them out, and I am appreciative of your intellectual rigor in doing so.
  
  Report this comment
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 10:06pm
  That you have argued effectively that Pastore’s logic is insufficient to settle the two exhaustive possibilities is not in question. I only refer to my previous point that abduction is not a logical fallacy per se, it is only the possibility of logical fallacy. When it’s right, it’s not illogical such that based on his assumption, he draws a logical conclusion. I admit readily that not everyone is willing to concede the point of his premice.
  On the absence of immaterial evidence, I think is where you make your biggest mistake. Evidence of the immaterial ABOUNDS, and although is only indirectly available (as with much of what we know of the physical world as well by your own admission, keep in mind), it IS available through the testimony of SUBJECTIVE experience. Of course the nature of this kind of truth doesn’t allow for it to approach objectivity during a mortal experience, but just because YOU won’t ADMIT it into evidence doesn’t mean you’re right to discard it as such. Even with the material there broadly two kinds of proofs: 1. the testimony of a single powerful authority (i.e. we trust Einstein is telling the truth when he says E=mc2 even if we can’t follow his math); 2. the testimony of multiple less powerful authorities (different perspectives notwithstanding, witnesses of an accident from all corners of the intersection are admissible in court). You’re making a HUGE assumption, probably based on a false definition of religion to…(cont.)
  
  Report this comment
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 10:31pm
  …discard the subjective experience entirely. Religion and faith are NOT completely interchangeable equivalents for the concept of supernatural and/or metaphysical. And so when you make the unstated, but unavoidably underlying assumption that faith is somehow categorically opposed to unified scientific explanations of physical phenomena. Your best assertion is a probablistic and materialistic wager on Occam’s razor in favor of materialism without even seeming to entertain the notion that a metaphysics which is true is also the best and simplest explanation and doesn’t contradict the physical laws in the slightest.
  And yet…You keep making these claims in terms of the first person PLURAL, suggesting that deep down, there’s either a belief in the universal you’re hesitant to let reach the surface or some psychological projection of your own subjectivity you don’t mind imposing on the rest of humankind.
  I too have enjoyed our discussion, and I hope its clear in my language that I respect your intelligence. I leave you only with this: that I KNOW there is a loving God because I’ve FELT His influence. One might adduce that it’s merely mass delusion that there are many millions who can make the same testimony, but then again, a respectable logical person like me claims to KNOW this. I humbly submit that it may be your abduction that needs revisiting.
  
  Report this comment
- louise
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 7:42pm
  the third archon,
  You said, ” and that is the best we can do as humans is determine what is most PROBABLY true.”
  
  How can man grasp what is “probably true”, if he does not know who or what is truth…..?
  Unless men know who and what Truth is…all these discussions are moot.
  
  What is your foundation for truth, the third archon? If it is not God, you are ****** in the wind.
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:49pm
Also, he doens’t even consider (seems unable to fathom) the possibility that the “you” to which he refers IS what the brain does–the “mind” is what the “brain” does. He assumes that the abstract concepts of “brain” and “mind”, like all words mere referents with only as much meaning and attachment to the physical world as is put into them by their users (to name something does not mean to understand it, nor does it mean to have accurately picked out a unique and discrete entity of existence–it is nothing more than a representational scheme for understanding and explaining the world, like a map, and only so accurate as the cartographer, that is US, makes it), MUST each refer to ontologically distinct entities. But there is no “matter-of-fact” about things fiated simply by the way to which they are referred. Whether or not language accurately explains in its current form, or has proper referents to the things described, by the ontology of the mind (the true nature of entities which comprise our thinking selves) has nothing to do with whether or not the brain, and natural physical structuralism, is sufficient (or insufficient as he would like, but fails, to prove) to produce the phenomena of “mind” (or choice, or thinking, or whatever “name” you would like to use to REFER to “it”, whatever “it” IS) we, ostensibly, observe and experience.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:36pm
  You’re a veritable conundrum wrapped in a contradiction, Archon. First you claim that words are inadequate to objective explanatory power because labeling isn’t equivalent to comprehension, and then you proceed to insist that there ARE such things as categories and concepts that DO require some kind of accuracy (even if the actual words don’t capture their essence or the fullness of their important distinctions) as if Pastore wasn’t accomplishing EXACTLY THAT.
  Look: it should be self-evident to the admittedly subjective experience of every human being that the brain and the mind have some kind of fuzzy boundary, and that no mechanical force from the outside is responsible for my arm raising when that which is me (i.e. my mind) voluntarily wills it to raise (you cited Descartes, I’ll give you Rousseau on that one–are you going to come back with Diderot?).
  Just because we haven’t exhausted the full mysteries of what makes energy in the universe doesn’t mean we can’t distinguish light from dark, silly. Pastore’s categories are admittedly crude, but your insistence on ontological accuracy is both petty and misplaced, because the categories ARE distinct, even if crude.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 8:21pm
  I have not asserted that anything can necessarily be gleaned from the categories of language–merely that to ASSUME that they MUST correspond to ontological reality is foolishly misguided. In some instances, they more or less SEEM to, but to me I am convinced it is only probablistic at best. Nothing can be FULLY or TRULY separated out from the ontological underlying reality because we view it THROUGH representational schema, and it is our experience of the schema itself that comprises OUR worlds. The only things we can be CERTAIN about are the tautologous abstract representations themselves–not the “objective” reality that purports to underlie them. Now, it seems reasonable given consistency in many areas of these representations that their IS, in fact, some factual ontological reality underlying these representations, and so are representations are PROBABLY more accurate (i.e. predictive) in some instances, and less so in others (they APPEAR to us at least to function in consistently nomological ways in some instances). But that fact that there SEEMS to be some basis SOME of the time, does not necessitate that there is ALWAYS an ontological basis for our epistemological representations thereof–we remain quite capable of being mistaken, and quite incapable of peeling back the veil to eliminate empirical risk.
  
  Report this comment
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:36pm
  No truth, no objectivity, nothing but representation: yup, you’re a postmodern relativist.
  Problem is, in the very same paragraph you claim not to make assertions about the referential function of language with multiple rhetorical hedges and assertions of mere probability in the experience of reality, you can’t resist generalizing the “us” of it all. This “us” you can’t avoid belies your belief that there is only ever a very subjective “I” doing the experiencing.
  Talk to someone and find out if they feel something when something happens. Allow the testimony of another to convince you that similar beings feeling similar things under similar conditions don’t have to be perfectly accurately and scientifically reproducible to be true.
  This mysterious “we” you affirm while denying is telling you there is something universal to our experience that you’re missing out on. Drop the ego and give it a try!
  
  Report this comment
face.chewer
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:46pm
I would like to know what Chuck Wooley has to say on these important matters.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BreeZee
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:44pm
I have an issue with Glenn Beck and the Blaze. I read stories on the Blaze about how oblamer is ruining the country, taking over as a dictator and Glenn has for four years now explained the evils of oblamer on his TV shows and his communistic ties. Now I go on the Blaze and see advertisements to re-elect oblamer! What a bunch of hypocrites at the blaze! I understand the need for the advertising dollar but what about the values, character and morals Beck is always preaching about? I feel sold out. Once it was on the top banner then in “ads by wam” on the righthand menus.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ReviveOurNation
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:51pm
  I’m on the Blaze quite a bit and I’ve never seen an Obama ad.
  
  Report this comment
- myrwo6
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:08pm
  You shouldn’t feel that way. What that is is nothing more than capitalism in action. Have to take the good with the bad. If we exclude liberal ads, then what are we?
  
  Report this comment
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:39pm
  Why do you people use 1st grade level names for the President? Oblamer? Seriously?
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:50pm
  @BREEZE… most of the ads you see are customized for you. They are not the same from user to user. It‘s a system that looks at everything from where you’ve been and are likely to consume to your screen name… (i get ads for Vagasil)…
  
  Been to Huffpo or Media Matters lately? There’s your answer
  
  Report this comment
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:55pm
  Wvernon asks: “Seriously?”
  Here’s the seriousness of it: it’s cute and funny. Learn to take a joke. As if you didn’t use dirty names for our previous president…
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:55pm
  @WV….
  
  Vernon Vernon bo- burnin
  banana fana vo Vernon
  Me My Mo Mernon
  Vernon! :p
  
  Report this comment
RusHube
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:28pm
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that’s clear-
I will choose Free Will.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Blacktooth
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:36pm
  Everybody chooses free will, even if they do not realize it.
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:25pm
““If you are just a brain, you cannot have free will,” Pastore explains in the five-minute video course. “But if you’re something more than your brain — if you’re the thing that has the brain — then when I ask you, ‘Where do you want to do to lunch?,’ you’re going to start deliberating…weighing various reasons to choose one place over another.””
Notice how he slips his conclusion (the thing he wants to ultimately convince you of) into the assumption of his first premise: “If you are just a brain, you cannot have free will.” Really? How do you know? A mere conclusory statement of what you want to prove is not proof per se of that selfsame statement. Given that the brain is not fully understood, and that he offers no additional evidence to base his assumptions about the operations of the brain upon, one can only conclude that this notion he offers as an assumption to prove the truth of the ultimate conclusion he wants to reach (i.e. that human consciousness is somehow supernatural) is nothing more than a prejudicial unsubstantiated assumption HE has about the way the mind works that comes from an abduction from the conclusion that he WANT’S to prove and (and because) he already BELIEVES to be true. But, in lieu of other grounds for so believing (and if he has them, he ought to have offered them), this is not a conclusion one SHOULD adduce from, because it is, as yet, unproven.

Leaving baseball to become a theologian does not, a logician, m

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:49pm
  *make.
  
  Report this comment
- Its Only Dad
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:23pm
  Pontificate often?
  
  Report this comment
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:26pm
  Fun logical prancing from an unconvinceable logician.
  Look, Pastore’s no Descartes, granted, but you’ve made the most uncharitable possible reading of his argument and then proceeded to undo it without even entertaining the notion that he’s not exactly doing what you claim he’s doing. It would be better if he were more artful and clear about it, yes, but it’s equally unbecoming anyone who can correctly use the concept of abduction not to demonstrate understanding before offering a critique.
  Besides, you’re making assumptions about his point yourself. You’ve assumed the categories of the brain as machine that mechanically computes and the brain as agent of the machine’s operation are not self-evidently separate. He doesn’t feel the need to prove that his concept of free will can’t be contained within the “brain as machine that mechanically computes” because that’s not really what he’s arguing (again: you’ve assumed that yourself). If it IS self-evident that there are those separate categories of brain-function, then he can legitimately move on to positing the second as a “spirit” (although he’s too inarticulate to make that point himself). The flaw in his logic isn’t that it’s tautological, but that it doesn’t take into sufficient account other possible explanations.
  
  Report this comment
- Two Sheds
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 7:51pm
  Quantum mechanics prove that we have no free will. What goes in (future) must equal what goes out Past). However, It sure looks like free will to me. Nice illusion. I’m OK with that. Ummm… What was the argument again? Oh yeah, Rush should be in the Rock and Roll hall of fame!
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 8:05pm
  They lost ME at Prager University.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 8:11pm
  “Unconvinceable” is not a word–”inconvincible” is, which means “incapable of being convinced” (although how you’d make such a categorical assumption about someone else I don’t know). Also “unconvincing” is also a word, which means “unpersuasive” which makes more sense in the context of the sentence (and as a subjective judgment it is something you could reasonably claim as an impression).
  
  “The flaw in his logic isn‘t that it’s tautological, but that it doesn’t take into sufficient account other possible explanations.”
  (1) Tautologies aren’t “logical flaws” per se–they are a particular structure of logic that refers to two propositions that are definitional equivalents (i.e. they, by DEFINITION cannot have different truth values). The issue is that the tautology he sets up, he sets up with an unproven assumption that is PRECISELY what he’s attempting to prove (that the brain CAN’T be sufficient for choice, which he treats as a synonym for “free will”)–unsubstantiated circular reasoning does not fiat substantiation. It thus proves nothing, since both truth values are the same–indeterminate.
  (2) “not taking into sufficient account alternative explanations” is PRECISELY what a baseless abduction is. He adduces the most probable “cause” of the thing he wants to explain to be his prejudicial conclusion about the cause, based upon conclusory beliefs about the “effect”–probably the worst, most circular, and most useless exercise of abduct
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 8:12pm
  By contrast, the experience of mental phenomena, and the only evidence thereof being physical, is pretty DAMN reasonable grounds for an abduction to the naturalist theory.
  
  Report this comment
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:25pm
  (1) > Notice how he slips his conclusion (the thing he wants to ultimately convince you of) into the assumption of his first premise: “If you are just a brain, you cannot have free will.”
  This is you claiming Pastore’s reasoning tautologically. If you want to quibble about precise definitions of tautology, fine, but you ARE claiming it’s faulty logic. and you’re right, but ONLY if you assume his categories are false and require questioning. The categories are: the mechanical brain vs. the agent of choice. IF those two ARE separate, his theory holds as VALID. You just don’t agree to the “if”.
  (2) What you call abduction, Pastore calls faith. It’s only faulty logic if it’s intended as proof. YOU’RE the one assuming it’s intended as proof. Abduction is only bad when it’s wrong. Just because the grass is wet doesn’t prove it rained last night, BUT if it DID rain last night, the grass would obviously be wet. For all your formalistic jargon, you’re still remarkably shaky on the basics: adbuction isn’t and can never be circular logic. Post hoc ergo propter hoc =/= tautology.
  
  Report this comment
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:27pm
  p.s. evidence for mental phenomena is NOT only physical. Only a relativist with no belief in any kind of objectivity whatsoever could claim that and still make some kind of sense…Wait: did I just peg you?
  
  Report this comment
Sharon Rose
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:18pm
Some don’t use brains or free will! Look at the mess our Country is in.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
WhiteFang
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:16pm
Genesis 2:15; And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of E′den to cultivate it and to take care of it.16And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction.17But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”

This is the gift God gave us, ‘free will’. We can choose the direction we want to go. But with that gift of free will, if not exercised properly, we will suffer consequences.

In the garden Eve was faced with a decision and would she choose the wise course?
Genesis 3:2 – At this the woman said to the serpent: “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat.3But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’”4At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU positively will not die.5For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.”

Genesis 3:6 – Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it.

She and her husband exercised their free will, they chose the disas

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- hi
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 8:12pm
  NOtice he says “when you eat from it.” God already knew they would. Your version is a little different “For in the day you eat from it.”
  
  But He always had a plan for redemption through his son Jesus Christ. NOtice when he curses the serpant He says that a “woman’s seed” (virgin Mary) will crush you. No one ever talked of a woman’s seed , only a man.It is because she is a virgin.
  
  Report this comment
- Blacktooth
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 9:24pm
  Hi,
  
  What do you mean? I do not seem to understand your comment.
  Are you suggesting Mary is the seed?
  
  Report this comment
- louise
  Posted on October 9, 2012 at 7:51pm
  Blacktooth,
  there are two seeds. The seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent.
  
  Report this comment
ChiefGeorge
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 5:52pm
Prager is one if not they best talk radio show host in the nation.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
LeadNotFollow
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 5:49pm
.

Demoncrats are drones.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Exrepublisheep
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 6:04pm
  A post repubs keep using…and using…and using…and using…
  
  Report this comment
MrKnowItAll
Posted on October 8, 2012 at 5:48pm
Jesus Christ saved me from Detroit. Nothing Else.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.