The Bible: No Free Will

By Nicolas Vale

Lets face it. There will nothing be bigger than the forthcoming Free Will vs. No Free Will debate. This topic is now finally starting to hit the mainstream. According to this new kind of BIBLE, HUMAN BEINGS DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL. The implications of this bombshell discovery will shatter how people go about their lives and will be talked about everywhere all the time for there is no more important topic. Free Will is a faulty belief / premise and as human beings we must own up to the fact that weve got it all wrong.
Amen.

www.thebible.co.uk
www.illusionfreewill.com

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jun 18, 2014
• ISBN: 9781499034912

Nicolas Vale

Nicolas Vale graduated Emory University and has a Masters from Fordham University. He is a member of Mensa and is the host of the “Free Will?” television show in New York. He is also the co-host of “Exploring The Illusion of Free Will” television show in White Plains, NY.

Book preview

Copyright © 2014 by Nicolas Vale.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 07/29/2014

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

603442

Contents

Foreword - Part One

In The Beginning…

Foreword - Part Two

In The Beginning…

Book One by The Steward

Definition

Book Two by The Introducer

Introduction

Book Three by Nicolas Vale

Understanding

Book Four by Nicolas Vale

The Word Free Confuses

Book Five by Nicolas Vale

The Illusion of Free Will

Book Six by The Absorber

How It All Works

Book Seven by The Causer

Law Of Causation

Book Eight by The Conditioner

Everything Conditions You

Book Nine by The Conduit

Paradigm Shift

Book Ten by The Custodian

Myth Of Free Will

Book Eleven by The Gifter

The Greatest Gift

Book Twelve The Reality Teller

It Is What It Is

Book Thirteen by The Reflector

Reflections

Book Fourteen by The Reporter

Man Does Not Have Free Will

Book Fifteen by The Reviewer

Review

Book Sixteen by The Simplifier

150 Quotes

Book Seventeen by The Unconscious

The Unconscious

Book Eighteen by The Vindicator

Vindication

Book Nineteen by The Harmer

Why Free Will is Bad for Society

Book Twenty by Occam’s razor

The Law of Parsimony

Book Twenty One: by Nick Vale

Epilogue

Book Twenty Two

About the author, Contact the author, Dedication, Many Thanks

Book Twenty-Three by Quick Summary

Why Free Will Is Impossible

New truth is often uncomfortable.

This is especially true for the holders of power the new truth threatens.

New truth is often looked at as blasphemy.

Amen,

www.causalconsciousness.com

www.TheNewerTestament.net

www.ElliotRodger.com

Foreword - Part One

In The Beginning…

• The #1 reason why people believe in free will is because they want it to be true. Wanting something to be true does not make it true.

• As of the publication date of this Bible, the vast majority of people on planet earth do in fact believe in free will. People believe in free will because conformity and feeling normal is a form of pleasure.

• People have no choice but to always go towards pleasure and away from pain. People who believe in the nonsense of free will reflect this psychological law.

• When do this—to get that no longer works you will need a belief system to accommodate that reality.

• People are always doing the very best they can at the time.

• Law and Order will not break down with the advent of the knowledge contained in this book. Actions will always still have consequences.

• We were taught that man’s will is free. We were taught all wrong.

• We could not have done otherwise with who we were at the time, the knowledge we had at the time, and the way the entire state of the universe was at the time.

Once you fully internalize that there is no such thing as free will will you then understand that all of life is pre-determined. You simply have no choice but to always be doing the very best you can AT THE TIME with the knowledge you had at the time. You do not get to choose how intelligent you are, were, or will become.

You must become ready for everything (including reading this new kind of Bible). Physical, emotional, mental, and psychological states all have a causal history to them (cause and effect). You cannot control when you become ready for things. You cannot control when you change your mind, beliefs, or perspective about something. Once again, you did not choose how intelligent you are.

You are not a failure if you fail at something because you do not have free will.

If you could have done otherwise, rest assured, you would have done otherwise.

Trading Places Theory also refutes free will:

How can there be ultimate moral responsibility?

Trading Places Theory: Say this to yourself . . .

"If I were an ‘evil’ other person, I’d be that ‘evil’ other person. Atom for Atom, Quark for Quark, Neuron for Neuron, Neutrino for Neutrino, Boson for Boson, and the same exact ‘evil’ mind and soul and all… I’d have that person’s same exact consciousness.

With his/her exact same genetics, his/her exact same conditioning (how he/she was raised), and his/her exact same ‘evil’ mind and soul. I’d be him/her in every exact and conceivable way and would’ve acted the same exact way in every regard possible. ‘Free Will’ is nowhere to be found."

Q: Why do people continue to believe in free will?

A: They have an emotional/psychological attachment to it. They feel better believing in it than not believing in it. The opposite is also true—these people become psychologically and emotionally disturbed or unhinged by not believing in it (free will). Simply put, not believing in free will greatly depresses them. People have no choice but to believe in free will because to do otherwise would inflict severe psychological and emotional damage upon themselves and in effect would shatter their entire life paradigm (world view). Amen.

• Everything is conditioning. You have no choice but to always go towards pleasure and away from pain. You also have no choice but to always be doing the very best you can at the time. Amen.

• Free Will is a very harmful belief. It makes people believe they are failures when they cannot succeed at something. Amen.

• We are not free to choose things that do not occur to us at the time. Amen.

• Society will soon have to learn something called pragmatic blameless responsibility or just simply put blameless or faultless responsibility. Amen.

• Man can self-cause nothing. Not even a single thought. Amen.

• Yes you are pragmatically responsible for your karma (cause and effect). But ultimately and fundamentally you are not responsible for your karma (cause and effect)." Amen.

• Human beings are an overly pragmatic species. Believing in free will is simply the most pragmatic way of being in this world. This is one of the reasons why human beings incorrectly believe in the magical quality of free will. Amen.

• Human beings are really human computers. The two most important programs or operating systems that we are running are the pleasure principle and the optimization imperative (always doing the very best we can at the time). In a nutshell, this means we always have no choice but to do what we do and we could not have done otherwise (with the knowledge we had at the time). Amen.

• When an accident or mistake occurs and you did everything in your power to avoid it, then it must be called fate. There is no other choice in the matter. Amen.

• Law and Order will not break down with the advent of the knowledge contained in this book. Actions will always still have consequences. Amen.

Dear Reader,

Since most people have been conditioned to believe in free will, changing the world’s point of view will be extremely hard. Our educational and mental health system need to be changed as soon as possible with regard to this free will issue. I believe that deep down people always prefer the truth over lies and this leaves a window of hope. If people can become intrigued they’ll investigate, try to find the truth, and eventually come to the inevitable conclusion that free will is a lie. Please join me in this effort.

• Change is a causal process. Just because human beings don’t have free wills doesn’t mean they cannot change. As soon as human beings internalize that there is more pleasure in not believing in free will than there is in believing in it, will they be ready for this change. In fact change is what living in the universe is all about.

People are constantly changing based on the stimuli they encounter in their lives. You can help someone change by clearly explaining to them the teachings of this new kind of Bible (you become the new stimuli they encounter).

• Change = (Cause and Effect) x Time

One moment in time creates the next moment in time. Look at the back cover and just picture each domino as a moment in time. Each domino falling causes the next domino to fall so on and so forth. You can be the domino that helps another person change their mind and go from believing in free will to not believing in free will.

• Human beings are in and part of the cause and effect universe.

• Human beings cannot escape this simple concept of causality.

• Please help change one person’s mind about this free will issue.

Very Truly Yours,

Nicolas Vale

Foreword - Part Two

In The Beginning…

Openly refuting free will, will be the most important taboo subject matter ever discussed and debated in the history of time when it finally comes out of hiding. Enough with academia and philosophy class already. Let’s bring this topic to the people (Main Street). The illusion of free will is so prevalent in our society that many people don’t even know that they have been living all these years in a lie. Believing in free will is the mythical monster of the times we currently live in. This new kind of Bible (The Bible: No Free Will) can prove and persuade you to the truth that free will doesn’t exist. This book can also show you how a planet without free will is actually a better and more compassionate planet to live on.

Make this promise to yourself before you begin:

I am now going to look at the issue of free will. Do we as human beings have the ability to make our own decisions in all matters of life? Is it left up to you and me to decide how our lives will be lived or it up to God (the entirety of the universe)?

We either have free will or we don’t. Many people love to say they have a little free will. A little free will means you do in fact believe in free will. This is a black or white issue. You either have free will or you don’t.

We cannot have two truths fighting against each other; if two truths do fight against each other then what you have is not truth. There can only be one truth in this matter and it’s about time to understand that free will doesn’t exist and is categorically and axiomatically impossible.

Some people like to say that cause and effect doesn’t apply to them because they are made of a non—material or non—physical spirit or soul.

There are two possibilities of a non-physical entity within you:

1. If there is a non-physical entity within you (soul or sprit), you are not in conscious control of it. Free Will is not saved.

2. Even if your non-physical entity is just an advisor of yours (trying to push you in one direction or another), free will is not saved. Your advisor just becomes part of your causal chain (chain of causality in one moment in time) just like any other person would be.

Either way:

• Non Physical causation (if you believe in such a thing) still must happen in a moment in time. Moments in time are linear as one moment in time is the cause of the next moment in time. So on and so forth.

• Conclusion: Free Will is not saved.

The Bible: No Free Will. Amen.

Book One by The Steward

The Book of

Definition

Chapter One

BEFORE we begin, let me introduce you to what the term free will means.

Free Will Defined

The American Heritage College Dictionary:

"free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice. 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."

Meriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary/Eleventh Edition:

"free will n. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention."

2. It is useless to have a refutation of this term free will unless we define it first. As can be seen from our dictionaries, the term free will means the ability to make free choices. Not just choices, but free choices.

3. Notice that our dictionaries are specific in stating that it is free choice that is the definition of free will, rather than just choice alone.

Reviews for The Bible

[jameshold-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Excellent book. Wonderfully researched. Can be enjoyed by believers and non-believers alike.

[antao-3 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

“The question, after all, is not only who wrote the bible, but who reads it.”In “Who Wrote the Bible” by Richard Elliott FriedmanSome of the texts date to 400 AD or later, such as the second half of Matthew, the whole of John and the whole of Revelation. I would consider a "complete, unabridged Bible" to consist of all texts either used by, or referenced by, any Abrahamic sect whatsoever from 2,200 B.C. through to 1,400 A.D., plus the Book of Mormon (it is as legitimate as any other sect, which isn't saying much). In other words, a document from which you could reconstruct the actual founding of the original sect by Babylonian or Sumerian priests amongst the Canaanite animists and magi, all travels by all the differing groups, and the root causes of every schism, through to the present day. No such book has ever been compiled, but the word "Bible" means "The Book". Singular. The only true singular book you could ever have that can be true to every Abrahamic group (and if it can't be, it's not singular) is a book that includes everything that has ever been relevant to any of them. This is the same way the Saxon Chronicles are treated. There are (ok, were) many versions (a fire destroyed a great number of them), but the Saxon Chronicles as a unified concept refers to the compilation of this material. The abstract concept of the "complete" Saxon Chronicles refers to all of the versions, whether they survive or not, as an entity. Not a physical entity but what a computer scientist or mathematician would call a logical entity. A set is a logical entity, it exists but it doesn't exist in any physical sense. In this aspect I’m siding with Friedman. I can't quite accept that all Bibles are equal, as we can identify authors and therefore can identify later forgeries, material that doesn't belong in a unified collection, etc. We can define a logical entity that truly is The Book, the superset of all material that has ever existed, organized into logical subsets by some means. The Old Testament is a logical subset. It's a collection of material that has enough commonality to be a distinct grouping. But it does not exist, in any sense. Different Old Testaments use different books, so the Old Testament is the superset of all the different books that fit in this grouping. All of the real Old Testaments are subsets of this master set. The universal set, the set that contains all the material ever used in any Bible by ANY Abrahamic sect, contains a great deal of material that no longer exists. So what? The universal set still exists, the fact that we can't establish what's in it would still be true even if all the material survived and all records preserved. It's a limitation of logic. But there has been only one history. At time “t”, person “p” only held specific things to be true. If they had held any other beliefs, we would have a different history. The infinity of possibilities doesn't apply because only one of them happened. Time is sequential, so only a finite number of intervals have ever existed. These produced a finite number of different belief systems. Even if everyone had their own, it was still finite. If you imagine everything ever thought or said by these people as being written down (with duplication removed), you'd have a lot of writing but it would be finite.A lot of these events are of no consequence, so we can imagine those removed as well. For similar beliefs, you only need the common bit once and the differences noted. Keep going and you end up with a stupendous theoretical book, but one which is not only finite but well within human capacity to both imagine and, indeed, record. Bigger volumes of data are handled all the time.The information is lost to humanity, but so what? In order to understand why the Iraqi followers of John the Baptist regard Jesus as a Satanist, you have to have knowledge that doesn't exist. But we still know that we need that information to understand the big picture and therefore we still know we need to have place markers for where the information would have been. The need doesn't vanish because some scroll got burned.Circumstantial evidence cannot scientifically prove that an unobserved phenomenon is true. How did life on earth form? Living cells consist of a number of molecules including proteins and nucleic acids (DNA, RNA). Proteins are chains of amino acids which are linked together with the aid of RNA. There are 20 amino acids which can be linked together to form any number of combinations which in turn determines the type and function of the protein. How were the first amino acids created in the primordial seas without the assistance of RNA? Or maybe RNA was created first? As you can see, a single protein is outrageously complicated (just look up the structure of a protein molecule if you still don't believe me), but nucleic acids, DNA and RNA are even more complicated. DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates are not molecules that randomly come into existence in a chaotic, torrential environment (this is called spontaneous generation, proven wrong by Louis Pasteur), they are the products of an omniscient/omnipresent being. A single prokaryotic cell (bacteria) is more complicated than a space shuttle yet are we to believe the space shuttle was designed but not life? Science tells me that spontaneous generation is impossible. If you want to know how a cult that practiced snake-charming in tombs with saucers of milk acquired a belief that handling snakes was the way to Heaven or that the dead would rise from their graves, you’ll have to read this. Nevertheless, relativism is only true if an objective observer is capable of absolutism.

[martinbodek · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I should not be reading such things.

[siliconopolitan · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is an excellent introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis and the problems - according Friedman's research - with some of the traditional conclusions.Friedman writes engagingly and convincingly, but there are the occasional dubious statements in this work. For one he repeatedly refers to the rules of Saul, David and Salonmon as if there ever were a united kingdom of Israel prior to the post-exile Second Temple. To the best of my knowledge such an entity has been ruled out archaeologically. It may be, though, that these discoveries postdate the 1987 publication date.Secondly, Friedman is understandably proud of his identification of the proportions of the traditional Tabernacle and his hypothesis of of its residing in the Temple of Solomon. Unfortunately, he is inconsistent about these dimensions and it isn't clear to me, if this is due solely to typoes or something more severe.

[reannon_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

My mother introduced me to this book years ago and I loved it. Was reminded of it recently and decided to re-read it. Yep, still good.Friedman first talks about the history of Biblical textual analysis. Doubts that Moses wrote the Torah arose in the Middle Ages but were viciously suppressed. But the question had been raised and became more common, increasing steadily from the 17th century on. The result is that we now know much more about who wrote the Bible, when, what their viewpoint was, and when they wrote. Friedman concentrates on the Torah, or Pentateuch, and the Deuteronic books (beginning with Deuteronomy and going through Judges, Kings, and the Chronicles). There were four authors and an editor who combined the source documents into what we have today. The earliest were the J and E documents, which were then edited together. Following them were the D and P documents. All of these were written before the Babylonian exile, but the editor combined all the documents in the period of the Second Temple.Since I'm a historian, I love the history he talks about, from the time Israel was ruled by judges, then kings, broke into the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel, the fall of Israel, and so on. Then there's the viewpoints of the different authors. The P, or Priestly, document, for example, was written by an Aaronid priest - a descendent of Aaron, who made his living through sacrifices brought to the temple. So in his telling of Biblical stories, Aaron is emphasized more, Moses is slightly denigrated, all sacrifices must come to the temple, God is just and worship must be mediated by the priests, and so on.Excellent book, and a good starting point on the topic. As follow ups I recommend books by John Shelby Spong, especially Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, which covers the New Testament as well as the Old, and almost any of Bart Ehrman's books that concentrate on the new Testament. A friend of mine also recommends Isaac Asimov's book on the Bible.

[fundevogel · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The title is a bit miss leading. Friedman really only addressed the first five books of the Bible traditionally attributed to Moses. However as complicated as those origins become once Moses' authorship is shown to be purely pseudo epigraphical it makes sense to devote a whole book to them. The author (a Biblical scholar studying the origins of the books for ten years prior to this book) presents his version of the Documentary Theory. Simply put the Documentary Theory states that the Bible (at least the parts in question) was compiled from various preexisting sources in such a way that they were literally intertwined. The theory was originally introduced as an explanation for the often contradictory story doublets and inconsistent language and purpose of the text. Essentially, rather than all the Pentateuch being written by a single man it is composed from four separate works known as J, E, P and D.That makes sense to me, Friedman does a fine job of explaining the evidence for this theory and the four sources. After that you dive into his personal attempts to place the sources in time and authorship. He explains that J & E were oppositional texts the appeared when Israel and Judea split. They maintain the important Jewish traditions that had already been established, but have differing emphasis relating to their own political and religious status. Later, once outside invaders crush Israel, the two Jewish sects are reunited and their separate texts are combined in what is likely and political and religious compromise. Then the P source arises which serves to solidify the role of the current priesthood. D is a response to P reflecting shifts in practice and perspective in the time of the second temple. Friedman makes a strong case for these positions, I'm a bit more leary of his attribution of D to Jeremiah and his naming Ezra the redactor of the all five books. There simply doesn't seem to be much available to support such specific claims of authorship.All told I found it terribly informative and easy to read. However the complexity of the research and Friedland's failure to more specifically explain the sources of his theory leave me reluctant to simply swallow all of his assertions. It would have been nice if he had explained what came from literary analysis, what was supported by archeology or outside sources and when he simply relied on the content of the Bible. That's really the shortcoming of the book. It produces a lot of plausible theories that depend on complicated research that is unavailable in the book. It's also really frustrating to read about the intertwining of the various sources without being able to to crack open the Pentateuch and see for yourself where one source stops and another begins. I'd like to be able to do that and maybe get a feel for how the sources were recognized to begin with, at least as well as a non Hebrew speaker can. All and all it's a good read, but I don't think it shuts the book on the subject. There are simply too many unknowns, as far as I can tell, to prove all of Friedman's positions. There is an odd bit at the end. I read the first 13 chapters unable to tell if Friedman was a believer or not. Simply put he was only addressing scholarly issues in scholarly terms. And then at the end the last chapter becomes a plea that his previous arguments do not in any way threaten Christian belief. That really doesn't make sense to me. how could a case that the Pentateuch not only had multiple authors, but that they had significant differences in politics and religion and that they were later combined in a way contrary to their original intent not threaten the veracity of the Bible? I guess ultimately as compelling as his research is, it doesn't really have any bearing on Mr. Friedman's faith. This is a man that can put on his scholar hat and do some good work, and then put on his religious hat and be completely immune to any problems raised by his own research.

[hanuman2_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Very useful historical work.

[apswartz_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I love this book. I have read it three times now and I know I will turn to it again and again. Friedman writes in a clear, concise manner that is highly readable. He provides a clear presentation of the Documentary Hypothesis and traces the various strands providing theological, historical, and political motivations for each strand and for the different steps in the redaction of the text. This would be a wonderful first book for a person new to source criticism.