Does choice imply more than one actual possibility?

[QVQ]

What does "fundamental state" have to do with whether or not a choice has been made? I suppose you are attempting with your posts to get across your definition of 'choice', 'option', 'selection' etc but I'm just not following.

The fundamental State is the cicumstances at any given moment.
The selection between red or green trucks does not change the fundamental State of Truck.
The selection of potatoes or rice does not change the fundamental State, dinner
Adam's choice did change his fundamental State.

All that aside, the point I am trying to make is that within circumstances (providence) we have selections that are provided by God but our selection of an option does not change our fundamental state.
We do not have choice. We have options to select within what God has chosen.
God provides the circumstances and we can select options within God's providence.

So per the OP does choice have more than one possibility. No because choice is God's and there is only one possibility, God's path as per God's plan. We are entertained by selecting options but the selections do not fundamentally change the State of God's plan.
God provides the options we can select and the selections are alway within the path and are part of the plan.

 

[makesends]

The fundamental State is the cicumstances at any given moment.
The selection between red or green trucks does not change the fundamental State of vehicle.
The selection of potatoes or rice does not change the fundamental State, dinner
Adam's choice did change his fundamental State.

By what I understand you to mean by "fundamental State", I don't see what that has to do with the question of "choice".

All that aside, the point I am trying to make is that within circumstances (providence) we have selections that are provided by God but our selection of an option does not change our fundamental state.
So it is not a choice. God provides the circumstances and we can select options within God's providence.

It IS a choice. It is also a choice from among options presented, whether or not the options are all truly available possibilities. WE call them possibilities, but we are ignorant, not knowing which will be chosen until the choice is made.

So per the OP does choice have more than one possibility. No because choice is God's and there is only one possibility, God's path as per God's plan. We are entertained by selecting options but the selections do not fundmentally change the State of God's plan.

Now that last paragraph, I completely agree with! God doesn't have any question what will be, and nothing happens in a vacuum. Nothing happens by itself, except God.

But, "selecting options" is 'choice'.

 

[makesends]

The fundamental State is the cicumstances at any given moment.
The selection between red or green trucks does not change the fundamental State of vehicle.
The selection of potatoes or rice does not change the fundamental State, dinner
Adam's choice did change his fundamental State.

By what I understand you to mean by "fundamental State", I don't see what that has to do with the question of "choice".

All that aside, the point I am trying to make is that within circumstances (providence) we have selections that are provided by God but our selection of an option does not change our fundamental state.
So it is not a choice. God provides the circumstances and we can select options within God's providence.

It IS a choice. It is also a choice from among options presented, whether or not the options are all truly available possibilities. WE call them possibilities, but we are ignorant, not knowing which will be chosen until the choice is made.

So per the OP does choice have more than one possibility. No because choice is God's and there is only one possibility, God's path as per God's plan. We are entertained by selecting options but the selections do not fundmentally change the State of God's plan.

Now that last paragraph, I completely agree with! God doesn't have any question what will be, and nothing happens in a vacuum. Nothing happens by itself, except God.

But, "selecting options" is 'choice'.

 

[John Bauer]

Whether a person puts fuel in the car when he is out of gas is not a choice. It is not an option.

I don’t understand your logic. As I see it, there are at least two options available to someone whose car is out of fuel: add fuel and don’t add fuel. With two options, either x or ¬x, that is a choice.

Edited to add: To select one option over another is to choose.

The only choice is to have the car stop and walk away.

See? You recognize that it’s a choice.

But it’s actually not the only choice. In fact, it’s not even the only rational choice. For example, the person could call a tow truck (not abandon the car). Or he could call a friend to pick him up (not walk). And so on.

Are you saying that is his greatest desire? Perhaps.

His greatest desire could be any number of things. Granted, if his greatest desire is to drive the car to destination A, then choosing to not refuel is an irrational choice—but nevertheless a choice. But maybe his greatest desire is to reach destination A; with the car out of fuel, he now faces a range of options to realize that desire: refuel, walk, call a friend, run, hitchhike, etc. The goal does not eliminate choice; it multiplies the option set.

The OP [asks], “Does choice imply more than one possibility”?

In the case above, if fueling the car is the choice, then stopping is the only one possibility, unless you include towing or pushing.

Stopping is not the only possibility. If an F-15 Eagle can refuel without stopping, so can a Ford F-150.

But, again, the question is, “What is the agent’s greatest desire?” If his greatest desire is reaching destination A, then he has many options from which to choose when his car runs out of fuel. Stopping to refuel is just one of them. He could also refuel without stopping. He could decide against refueling and choose an alternate mode of travel (which presents a host of options). He could even change his destination (and his greatest desire), opting for destination B instead because it’s just right over there.

There is far more than one practical or deliberative possibility.

But only one metaphysical possibility—that which God has ordained.

 

[QVQ]

It IS a choice. It is also a choice from among options presented, whether or not the options are all truly available possibilities. WE call them possibilities, but we are ignorant, not knowing which will be chosen until the choice is made.

In a sense, yes.
If you are in a restaurant, you are handed a menu. The items listed are options you can select.
In a grocery store, the produce department has a list of items that are available for selection
It is availablity. Select and option are statements of limitation and select is decision, not choice.
Choice is infinite, the possibilities are endless
In our world, we have a available options and we make selections.
What is available and how the decision affects subsequent events, that choice is God's according to His good pleasure and plan.

 

[John Bauer]

At least one dictionary uses a vague term, "constraint", in defining 'freewill'. I wish I could find it, but...

Are you thinking of Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary? It defines “freewill” as “the power of directing our own actions without restraint by necessity or fate” (source).

 

[QVQ]

But it’s actually not the only choice. In fact, it’s not even the only rational choice. For example, the person could call a tow truck (not abandon the car). Or he could call a friend to pick him up (not walk). And so on.

The choices multiply without ceasing and the possibilities are to the magnitude of known number
What is the point?
It is not a choice between all the possibilities
It is a selection of available options, here and now. What is available at this time and place, circumstances (providence)
And providence is by the will of God according to His plan. What is available to select advances His plan along the path He created.

 

[John Bauer]

In a sense, yes.
If you are in a restaurant, you are handed a menu. The items listed are options you can [choose].
In a grocery store, the produce department has a list of items that are available for [choosing].

“Select” and “choice” are synonymous. See above edit. Selecting from a menu simply is making a choice from the available options. I mean, look at how the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines choose: “To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out.” Or the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary: “To select freely and after consideration.” And so on.

“In our world, we have available options and we make selections.” Yes, those are choices being made.

Choice is infinite, the possibilities are endless.

This defies both logic and experience. If you present me with only two options—either strawberry or chocolate ice cream—I can choose one or the other. Choice does not require an infinity of possibilities. The moment you have more than one option, you have a choice.

What is available and how the decision affects subsequent events, that choice is God's according to his good pleasure and plan.

No argument from me on that one.

 

[John Bauer]

It is not a choice between all the possibilities.

Of course not. It is impossible to know what all the possibilities are.

But the word “all” doesn’t need to be there. In other words, “It is a choice between possibilities.”

It is a selection of available options, here and now.

Right. And to select is to choose, and to choose is to select. They are synonyms. That is why dictionaries define “choose” with that word.

What is available at this time and place, circumstances (providence)
And providence is by the will of God according to His plan. What is available to select advances His plan and the path He created for you.

Fully agreed.

 

[QVQ]

“In our world, we have available options and we make selections.” Yes, those are choices being made.

Yes, you use whatever words you so wish, choose, select, like, prefer
Those are synonomous but that is a list of available options and you select the word you will use
I prefer select and option for circumstances (providence) reserving choice and possibility for God
The dictionary defines "choose' for general such as career choices and "select" for a list of available options such as school.
"you choose a career and select a school."
But this is merely a difference in the manner in which we express ourselves and in the larger picture The Op, not of much consequences.

 

[Josheb]

I stand by my post #66

A) Choice as an expression of free will and agency:
Individual's inherent ability to exert their will and make decisions without external constraints, even in abstract situations not bound by a specific list of options.

How then do you explain human ignorance of all prior choices and experiences of others' choices and experiences bearing down on a person's moment of choice? How do you explain the likelihood a person would make a different, better decision if he or she had more information? Do you believe the more information one has the better decision one makes, or the more information one has the more likely that decision will be the best decision possible?

If any if these influences are acknowledged, then the individual does NOT have an inherent ability to exert their will and make decisions without external constraints. If any of those questions are answered in any way that has even a hint of determinative influence, then you've just contradicted yourself and if those questions are answered negatively then that evidences a profound lack of understanding about the world.

Humans are bound by time and space. We do not understand all of what has preceded us. Neither do we fully understand all the consequences of any one decision. We do not know what else our decisions may cause and effect. We do not know all that any one decision has for our future, much less all the consequences any one decision will have on all the other people. Our ignorance of the future is an external constraint. If one single decision would be different if we knew all the future, then that ignorance versus that knowledge is a determinative control. If this is acknowledged then your posts contradict each other and if not, then there's a lack of understanding about the world.

Only God knows past, present and future and has an inherent ability to make decisions without the past and present having any effect on the ability to exert will and make decisions.

Post #66 is deeply flawed. It is, in fact, irrational. I, for one, NEVER let my gas gauge get close to empty . Pst experience has taught me to avoid circumstances like Post #66 and if I'd unknowingly hit a piece of debri on the highway causing a puncture in my gas tank then all decisions to refill it 1) won't have the desired effect and 2) would be different if I knew of the puncture and wasn't ignorant of the unknown facts. Post #66 is a bad analogy.

B) Selection as a structured, constrained process:
Decisions are limited to a predefined set of options and often require a rational, evaluative process to determine the "best" fit based on certain criteria.

You just got done stating an "inherent ability to exert their will and make decisions without external constraints" exists and implied situations bound by a specific list of options" also exist. It cannot be had both ways. It cannot rationally be said there are no constraints on ability and then say constraints exist. That would violate the law of non-contradiction.

2) Forced choice is not choice

It is if it contains multiple options. Let's be clear here. A controlled choice is not a choice. A forced choice is still a choice. A choice, by definition, must contain two or more options any of which can be selected. The necessity of making a decision is forced upon the driver by the empty gas tank but he has multiple options and opportunities to address the circumstances forced upon him. Post #66 is a bad analogy.

If I "choose" chocolate or vanilla ice cream, the essence remains the same so ice cream is the State and flavor is an Option to be Selected.

No. Hunger or desire would be the state. Ice cream would be the object satisfying the hunger or desire, and the myriads of flavors would be the options from which a selection can be made. Even the multitude of flavors is a constraint because there aren't an infinite number of flavors. Even the multitude of flavors does not inform they buyer of the macro-economics in which a person is engaging, so he has no idea how flavor A or flavor B influence the dairy farmer, the fruit grower, the processing plant, and a large pile of influences that would alternatively liberate or constrain a person's decision when choosing something as simple as ice cream. Some guy made a decision, or failed to make a decision about protecting his chickens and HS Bird Flu infected his birds, leading to an epidemic that spread to the point it compromised poultry stocks and eventually led Tyson's foods just closed down a processing plant that put hundreds of people out of work (40% of them were immigrant of unknown documentation) in a town that greatly relied on that plant's existence. You've heard of the "Butterfly Effect," yes? It's a real thing. Had a small handful of poultry breeders made a different situation none of the ensuing consequences would have occurred. Had they known the effect their respective decision would have on the entire nation's economy they would have made a different decision. Their ignorance was a constraint. This sort of thing happens every day in every decision of every person's life.

If I "choose" chocolate or vanilla ice cream, the essence remains the same so ice cream is the State and flavor is an Option to be Selected.

Now both Posts 66 and 71 are bad analogies.

 

[Josheb]

Freewill "independently of any prior event or state of the universe"

No. The word "free" means "autonomous" or "unfettered, absent any control or controlling influence." The two-word phrase, "free will" means a will that is autonomous, unfettered, absent any and all control or controlling influence. Such a will does not exist in humans, especially not sinful humans. The word freewill simply means "voluntary," "voluntarily, or willingly." It does NOT mean the will is autonomous. That is the case in both Hebrew (H5071), and in Greek (G1595). Look it up. The word "freewill," is found in scripture. The two-word phrase "free will" is nowhere to be found in scripture. The phrase simply does not exist. Look it up. The phrase is a man-made phrase; a human invention imposed upon scripture.

1) Please give example of a decision or action independent of the state of the universe.
And no decision or action is independent of prior event because as Freyman pointed out, now is a prior event in new clothes.

Ask someone who believes such a condition exists. I have repeatedly stated I do not believe in autonomous, unfettered will. I have also repeatedly stated I do not collaborate with posters who ask already answered questions.


This exchange just became something more than a mere exchange of viewpoints. It just became an object lesson. I have just provided you with the correct definitions of the one-word word "freewill" and the two-word phrase "free will." This information is the equivalent to the empty fuel tank warning on your dashboard. You will either correct your own mistaken understanding of "freewill" and then adjust your thinking and posting accordingly, or you'll choose to ignore this correct information. That decision will be made based on other influences beside the facts of the definitions provided. Those influences might be things like an allegiance to some unstated doctrinal position (like synergism or monergism), an appreciation or disdain for me personally, a childhood history of correction, the realization some past teacher taught poorly, or maybe even God forcing ignorance or enlightenment on the moment. That list of influences is very long and much of it is unknown (or simply not considered). Any way this moment is examined, the next post will prove the points I've asserted. A decision will be made to accept the correct information or deny it. The same thing holds true with the two episodes of self-contradiction in Posts 66 and 71. The contradictions will either be corrected or they will not, and the next post(s) will demonstrate the decision in both episodes of contradiction and the correct definitions of freewill and free will. The next post will demonstrate what we're talking about......

...just as the posts themselves did with @makesends.


This sort of thing happens every day in every person's every choice. If people made perfectly informed decisions this op would not exist.

 

[Josheb]

First, the dispute is not about whether influences exist. Of course they do. The dispute is about causal sufficiency, whether the agent’s total motivational state at the moment of choice—beliefs, desires, values, character, reasons, dispositions, circumstances—is sufficient to explain why this choice occurred rather than another.

No, that would be the case among those not believing in non-meticulous control. @makesends is a subscriber of meticulous control. He's more Pinkian than Sproulian. This op is not about compatibilism. It's about strict determinism. This op is not about the degrees of compatibilism; it's about strict determinism - one individual's strict determinism.

Compatibilists answer yes.

Which is a change of topic. ALL the compatibilists should be directiing their various views to the op, and NOT hijacking the thread to have discussions about compatibilism among compatibilists.

You, along with incompatibilists, answer no. (I am not calling you an incompatibilist; I am pointing out a shared commitment, namely, the denial of causal sufficiency and the discreet affirmation of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities.)

Great. I appreciate not being labeled but the fact still remains this op is about determinism, not compatibilism or cosmological synergism or cosmological human volitional autonomy. That conversation should be deferred to a separate op.

Second, if influences do not determine.....

Then you'll have to take that up with someone who believes influences do not determine. That would not be me, and if that is what my posts have been construed to say then go back and re-read them.

I can see how, on your account, these causal forces and influences may constitute necessary conditions of an action, but evidently, they are not sufficient conditions, for the agent can act contrary to them all. That leaves the choice underdetermined by the agent, at which point only two explanatory options remain: The choice is explained by (a) something external to the agent, or (b) nothing sufficient at all, which yields arbitrariness. You have already ruled out the third option (something internal).

That is incorrect. Re-read my posts. Re-read @makesends posts, too because this op is asserting God and God alone as a control, not anything else and not "influences." There are no influences other than God and God isn't influencing; He is controlling EVERYTHING. There are a few sentences in the defense of this op that seem to say otherwise but they are inconsistencies and contradictions - flaws - in the assertion and defense of the op. I do not know why this isn't being grasped but this op is asserting what I have called the "action figure" God, the action figure cosmology and the response to that analogy was, "call it what you want..."

I am calling it what it is.

The action figure metaphor also illicitly assumes that determined willing is not real willing, which is the very point at issue. To say that determined choices are “choices in name only” is not an argument; it’s a stipulative definition designed to exclude compatibilism by fiat.

That is incorrect. None of what I posted was by "fiat." I alone started with and provided the definitions of terms (something every op should do for the sake of all involved whenever the possibility of ambiguity or false equivalence exists). Words mean what they mean and the word "choice," by definition, means act of selecting or making a decision where two or more possibilities exist. That has been amended - with a consensus of the posters - to say "options" instead of "possibilities" because of the ambiguity of "possibilities," but, again, I provided definitions of terms involved, not the op. None of what I posted was by fiat. The op is by fiat. Direct all your concerns about fiat to the op, not my posts.

That is bad form. This sort of thing is eristic pugilism, Josh....

Thank you for your time but I am not collaborating that. That was a poor choice.

 

[makesends]

How then do you explain human ignorance of all prior choices and experiences of others' choices and experiences bearing down on a person's moment of choice? How do you explain the likelihood a person would make a different, better decision if he or she had more information? Do you believe the more information one has the better decision one makes, or the more information one has the more likely that decision will be the best decision possible?

If any if these influences are acknowledged, then the individual does NOT have an inherent ability to exert their will and make decisions without external constraints. If any of those questions are answered in any way that has even a hint of determinative influence, then you've just contradicted yourself and if those questions are answered negatively then that evidences a profound lack of understanding about the world.

Humans are bound by time and space. We do not understand all of what has preceded us. Neither do we fully understand all the consequences of any one decision. We do not know what else our decisions may cause and effect. We do not know all that any one decision has for our future, much less all the consequences any one decision will have on all the other people. Our ignorance of the future is an external constraint. If one single decision would be different if we knew all the future, then that ignorance versus that knowledge is a determinative control. If this is acknowledged then your posts contradict each other and if not, then there's a lack of understanding about the world.

Only God knows past, present and future and has an inherent ability to make decisions without the past and present having any effect on the ability to exert will and make decisions.

Post #66 is deeply flawed. It is, in fact, irrational. I, for one, NEVER let my gas gauge get close to empty . Pst experience has taught me to avoid circumstances like Post #66 and if I'd unknowingly hit a piece of debri on the highway causing a puncture in my gas tank then all decisions to refill it 1) won't have the desired effect and 2) would be different if I knew of the puncture and wasn't ignorant of the unknown facts. Post #66 is a bad analogy.




You just got done stating an "inherent ability to exert their will and make decisions without external constraints" exists and implied situations bound by a specific list of options" also exist. It cannot be had both ways. It cannot rationally be said there are no constraints on ability and then say constraints exist. That would violate the law of non-contradiction.

It is if it contains multiple options. Let's be clear here. A controlled choice is not a choice. A forced choice is still a choice. A choice, by definition, must contain two or more options any of which can be selected. The necessity of making a decision is forced upon the driver by the empty gas tank but he has multiple options and opportunities to address the circumstances forced upon him. Post #66 is a bad analogy.

No. Hunger or desire would be the state. Ice cream would be the object satisfying the hunger or desire, and the myriads of flavors would be the options from which a selection can be made. Even the multitude of flavors is a constraint because there aren't an infinite number of flavors. Even the multitude of flavors does not inform they buyer of the macro-economics in which a person is engaging, so he has no idea how flavor A or flavor B influence the dairy farmer, the fruit grower, the processing plant, and a large pile of influences that would alternatively liberate or constrain a person's decision when choosing something as simple as ice cream. Some guy made a decision, or failed to make a decision about protecting his chickens and HS Bird Flu infected his birds, leading to an epidemic that spread to the point it compromised poultry stocks and eventually led Tyson's foods just closed down a processing plant that put hundreds of people out of work (40% of them were immigrant of unknown documentation) in a town that greatly relied on that plant's existence. You've heard of the "Butterfly Effect," yes? It's a real thing. Had a small handful of poultry breeders made a different situation none of the ensuing consequences would have occurred. Had they known the effect their respective decision would have on the entire nation's economy they would have made a different decision. Their ignorance was a constraint. This sort of thing happens every day in every decision of every person's life.

Now both Posts 66 and 71 are bad analogies.

Do you have any idea how close you sound here to how I believe? WHERE in this post (#91) is the dynamic you uphold and claim that I deny? You keep saying you have shown repeatedly how I deny it, but to now I still don't see where I deny there is dynamic. At this point, I don't even know what you mean by dynamic. Sounds like another word for "possibility", which is, to me, only an expression endemic to human-thinking-by-way-of-ignorance of the myriad causes that effect everything that comes to pass. Every argument you launch against me depends, one way or another, either directly or indirectly, on your axiom, that if a thing is determined, it is not choice. You have tried several ways to show that axiom valid, every way of which, to my knowledge, is a circular argument still depending on the notion that if it is determined it is not choice.

 

[QVQ]

Ask someone who believes such a condition exists. I have repeatedly stated I do not believe in autonomous, unfettered will. I have also repeatedly stated I do not collaborate with posters who ask already answered questions.

The original quote was posted by @makesends on Post #71.
The Britannica AI on 'freewill' begins by saying, "free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe."

I was asking him if he could provide an example and he could not We both treated it as amusing and neither of us agreed with it

You just got done stating an "inherent ability to exert their will and make decisions without external constraints" exists and implied situations bound by a specific list of options" also exist. It cannot be had both ways. It cannot rationally be said there are no constraints on ability and then say constraints exist. That would violate the law of non-contradiction.

It is not A and B. It is A or B.

A) Choice as an expression of free will and agency:
Individual's inherent ability to exert their will and make decisions without external constraints, even in abstract situations not bound by a specific list of options.

B) Selection as a structured, constrained process:
Decisions are limited to a predefined set of options and often require a rational, evaluative process to determine the "best" fit based on certain criteria.

I choose B as selections, decisions are limited by a set of option.

If you didn't understand the two examples above, one where a quote from Britanica was being discussed and another where two descriptions, definitions were being compared then it is little wonder the posts exceeded the limits of your understanding

 

[makesends]

That is incorrect. Re-read my posts. Re-read @makesends posts, too because this op is asserting God and God alone as a control, not anything else and not "influences." There are no influences other than God and God isn't influencing; He is controlling EVERYTHING. There are a few sentences in the defense of this op that seem to say otherwise but they are inconsistencies and contradictions - flaws - in the assertion and defense of the op. I do not know why this isn't being grasped but this op is asserting what I have called the "action figure" God, the action figure cosmology and the response to that analogy was, "call it what you want..."

Where have I said, "God and God alone as a control, not anything else and not 'influences'."?

God's decree, plan, creating, controlling to the nth degree, does not rule out dynamic, unless by 'dynamic' one means that God does not control and/or cause all things. I have yet to hear from you what there is that God does not cause. Reading your recent posts, I'd be inclined to say that you do not think there is anything that God does not cause. Yet, you (in what seems to me a contradiction) claim that God is not in meticulous control of all things.

If I'm misstating, misinterpreting, misrepresenting what you do say, I don't follow your reasoning any better than I'm following what @QVQ is trying to get across.

Again, for GOD to control (decree, plan, begin and uphold), all things fits Scripture and reason perfectly. It does not deny responsible choice. God is that much above us.

 

[John Bauer]

Every argument you launch against me depends, one way or another, either directly or indirectly, on your axiom, that if a thing is determined, it is not choice. You have tried several ways to show that axiom valid, every way of which, to my knowledge, is a circular argument still depending on the notion that if it is determined it is not choice.

Bingo.

 

[Josheb]

The original quote was posted by @makesends on Post #71.
The Britannica AI on 'freewill' begins by saying, "free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe."

I was asking him if he agreed with it and he did not. Neither do I

Great. The salient points are:

• freewill and free will are two entirely different concepts and only the first one is found in scripture,
• nothing in creation is autonomous, especially not human volition, and especially not the will of the sinner,
• a choice is, by definition a condition that exists only when two or more options exist (or "possibilities" if the dictionary definition is used),
• using the word "choice" AND saying God meticulously controls everything in a singular, linear static causality is self-contradictory.
• so, too, saying constraints don't exist and constraints do exist is also self-contradictory.

There is a way to understand everything the op mentions, and everything you mention, but Posts 66 and 71, nor the defense of this op, reconciles these seemingly disparate premises.

It is not A and B. It is A or B.

A) Choice as an expression of free will and agency:

Free will does not exist. This op asserts God as the sole constraint but saying God does not control every aspect of every choice does not preclude the existence of other constraints. Saying neither God nor sin controls every aspect of every choice does not preclude the existence of other constraints, either. I provided a list of constraints, and they have not been addressed. We are, therefore, not having a conversation. Try addressing some of the undeniable constraints I posted to the two of you.

B) Selection as a structured, constrained process:

You stated no constraints exist in the human ability to make choices. Twice!

I choose B as selections, decisions are limited by a set of option

Limits are constraints.

If you didn't understand the two examples above...

I understand the examples. It is because I understand them that I can say they are flawed and in need of redress. Self-contradictory statements are always and everywhere irrational. All explanations of creation containing contradictions are incorrect. That is axiomatic.

 

[QVQ]

You stated no constraints exist in the human ability to make choices. Twice!

I have stated that humans don't make choices. Humans make selections from options which exist in circumstances (providence)
Since humans cannot make choices then there aren't any possibilities (actualization) other than what God wills

All human can do is select from what God provides. The result of the selection conforms to the Will of God
An analogy
I want you to eat your vegetables so I put corn, brocoli and peas on the table.
You can select corn or brocoli or peas. those are your options
No matter which one you select I have accomplished my plan for you to eat your vegetables.

So no matter what your "choice" or how many theoretical possibilities, it is God's plan and path, His will.
And so there is only one possibility, one actualization and that is the will of God

 

[Josheb]

I have stated that humans don't make choices.

Then stop using the word "choice."

Humans make selections from options which exist in circumstances (providence)

Which is the definition of the word "choice."

This is one of the problems existing in your posts. It is not rational to say choices do not exist but the definition of choice does. It is the equivalent of saying, "I do not believe in choices, but I do believe the definition of 'choice' exists. That is self-contradictory. I have cited multiple occasions in which contradictions exist. Not one of them has been corrected. If humans can make selections from existing options, then that is, by definition, a choice. That is what the word "choice" means!

Since humans cannot make choices then there aren't any possibilities (actualization) other than what God wills

All human can do is select from what God provides. The result of the selection conforms to the Will of God
An analogy
I want you to eat your vegetables so I put corn, brocoli and peas on the table.
You can select corn or brocoli or peas. those are your options
No matter which one you select I have accomplished my plan for you to eat your vegetables.

So no matter what your "choice" or how many theoretical possibilities, it is God's plan and path, His will.
And so there is only one possibility, one actualization and that is the will of God

That is little more than a rewording of two already existing posts. It does not matter how many times the same position is restated. It does not resolve any of the existing contradictions and it does not further the discussion. It just argumentum ad nauseam. The same problem exists with the defense of the op. There has to be something more than self-contradictory premises and repetition to make a sound case. The analogies in Posts 66 and 71 (?) where evaluated and shown to be faulty. It's not okay to change the words and re-present the same argument. It does not matter that gasoline, ice cream, or vegetables are used because the rationale itself, not the items used in the rationale, is faulty. It's not okay to deny the existence of choices and assert the existence of selectivity from options because a choice is a selection from two or more options. It's not rational to say constraints don't exist but limits and constraints do exist. That is a pair of contradictory statements, and I should not have to repeat that. What I should be able to do is is read a correction of the contradiction so we can both move forward in the discussion. This is the third time I have said this. It's not rational to digress, either. This op is about strict determinism. It's not about "God's plan." Whether God does or does not have a plan, does God meticulously control every minute aspect of creation with a single linear, static causality in which choices do not actually exist (only the appearance of a choice exists)? The op argues for the affirmative. Does choice imply more than one actual possibility? Well, since the word "choice" literally means more than one possibility exists the answer is Yes. We can change the word "possibility" to "option," but that doesn't change the answer to the question because multiple options often lead to completely different outcomes..... which is the definition of "possibility." In other words, the title is, at best, poorly worded. The question itself refutes the determinism being asserted in the op.

Argumentum ad nauseam did not solve that problem, either .

I will not collaborate further with argumentum ad nauseam. Would you please correct the contradictions and post something new that doesn't contain those same mistakes? Thx