Free will, Science, and the Bible

[SkyWriting]

It while I am still in the dark as to the nature of human free will, I can now at least release the narrow notion of picking a side before the evidence is complete and clear. Perhaps there is free will perhaps not.

From the human perspective, we have a future and the ability to exercise free will.
From God's perspective, you were born and your life has been lived out.
The two cannot be reconciled, by humans.
27 Looking at them, Jesus said, "With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."

 

[twin1954]

Drew, you ask the key question here. I'm afraid I don't have an answer you're looking for and I doubt there is one that will satisfy your want of a coherent Christianity for the modern day. Main stream science is pretty set on the idea of a soul-less, biochemical, cause and effect conscience. And as for @twin1954's answer, I think you'll find it more full of opinionated interpretations of the bible than hard evidence (as well as a few baseless assertions), and it seems to me what you really want is hard, undeniable proof to support your beliefs or at least quell your fears. That's not really how the scientific method works though. No matter how much we want to believe in something, if we can't find enough evidence to support that belief and/or we find a substantial body of evidence that supports a counter claim, it is up to us as rational human beings to put aside our biases and move toward the truth. Arguments do not carry a lick of evidence within them.

It seems to me that you are stuck between two places. In one hand, you hold your faith which gives your worldview order and stability; it makes you feel safe. And on the other hand, you have logic and evidence which also gives your worldview order and stability, though it doesn't come with that warm nurturing feeling. You cannot have both. You might seek to fuse them, but they are diametrically opposed and will only cause you stress if you try. The bible is pretty clear on the notion of faith as a firm conviction in the unknown/unseen, whereas science is the exact opposite.

I encourage you to follow the evidence that is hard proven and tested. An argument is no way to find truth in anything, it is only a tool for persuasion and if you keep searching for answers in this medium, then I think it's safe to say that you just want to be convinced of your own preconceptions.

Edit: had wrong video up

If you want to continue using your reasoning skills, I suggest looking at https://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3 channel on youtube. Sure it's a guy's deconversion story, but I think you'll find it informative nonetheless, especially this video:

Life and will are more than just physical and chemical cause and effect of course. A stone being thrown by a human and killing another human has a cause and effect but you would never charge the stone with a crime. It is made up of chemical and mineral atoms but it has no life nor can it make choices. Now a brute beast is another story. It does live according to the physical and chemical causes that direct what it does. It makes choices as well but again if it eats its young you do not charge it with a crime. You may put it down for attacking and harming a human but that isn't a punishment for a crime but in order to ensure that it doesn't attack someone again.

Man is on a whole different level than rocks and trees and brute beasts. Each is a product of physical cause and effect in its being but only man is set apart by his moral capacity. That is just undisputable fact. Man has a conscience and that conscience is a very important part of what makes up the will.

Volition, or will, is not a product of chemical reactions as such but one of moral qualities. There are no people, no matter how remote, who do not know that it is wrong to steal or murder and other such moral qualities. You can argue against it and refuse to believe it but the fact is that our moral nature is a reflection of our Creator. No other being on Earth has such a moral nature and it cannot be the product of cause and effect.

 

[Larniavc]

My take on it is that most of the time we bumble along through life in a deterministic way mediated by our genes and environmental reactions.

But we can override this basic behavioural milieux if the concept of free will is brought to our attention.

So we could say 'normally I would react in way x to stimulus b but I will choose to act in way z, instead.

A bit like breathing: normally it is not under conscious control but we can choose to make it so.

I've no evidence beyond my own observation for this.

 

[Urlawyer]

Life and will are more than just physical and chemical cause and effect of course. A stone being thrown by a human and killing another human has a cause and effect but you would never charge the stone with a crime. It is made up of chemical and mineral atoms but it has no life nor can it make choices.

The obvious answer to this is that the initial cause of the transgression was the human. The rock would have been inert and caused no harm if it weren't for the human who threw it. But you give a more complex example next, let's watch.

Now a brute beast is another story. It does live according to the physical and chemical causes that direct what it does. It makes choices as well but again if it eats its young you do not charge it with a crime. You may put it down for attacking and harming a human but that isn't a punishment for a crime but in order to ensure that it doesn't attack someone again.

When a person in an African tribe kills their own baby, does an American official step in to bring justice? Most of the time, when the tribe isn't officially within the jurisdiction of American law, the answer is "no". We treat animals like we treat foreign cultures, for the most part.
If a tribesman were to kill an American, you bet your bottom dollar he's under the jurisdiction of American law. But whatever they do to their own tribesmen, we have no say because they have their own culture and it's not our place to insert our own values where theirs are. Take that train of thought and bring it down to beings that are less intelligent and knowledgeable than us and that's why we treat animals the way we do. Not because we think that they have no free will whereas we do.

Man is on a whole different level than rocks and trees and brute beasts. Each is a product of physical cause and effect in its being but only man is set apart by his moral capacity. That is just undisputable fact. Man has a conscience and that conscience is a very important part of what makes up the will.

You got it right when you said man is on a totally different level from rocks and beasts, and it's because we have such huge brains. What you say is indisputable fact is no more than your own assertions based on your own personal biases. You say that man is set apart from the rest of Earth because of our "moral capacity" and I say that our "moral capacity" originates from our ability to imagine which is a direct result from our truly gargantuan (proportionally speaking) brains. We are able to imagine what it would be like to be in someone else's shoes and therefore empathize with them. Just tack on a couple millennia of law making and philosophy and you've got the basis of human-animal/culture-culture interaction.

Volition, or will, is not a product of chemical reactions as such but one of moral qualities.

And where do these "moral qualities" come from if not complex reactions in the brain? Can you map out precisely how moral come about physically? (I'm looking for something other than bible verses or personal inferences, of course.)

There are no people, no matter how remote, who do not know that it is wrong to steal or murder and other such moral qualities. You can argue against it and refuse to believe it but the fact is that our moral nature is a reflection of our Creator.

OR it could be a natural result of our need to survive as a species. After all, a species that is more social and trustworthy amongst its members are more likely to cooperate, propagate, and survive.

No other being on Earth has such a moral nature and it cannot be the product of cause and effect.

To end a string of baseless personal assertions, why not use another baseless personal assertion?
Part of the reason this is wrong is because you are putting a vastly superior intellectual standard on a more primitive lifeform. Would you expect a two year old to be as selfless and empathetic as a fully grown adult? Of course not, the child does not possess the faculties to think as another person, it is merely trying to survive into maturity.

I need to go to sleep now.

 

[twin1954]

The obvious answer to this is that the initial cause of the transgression was the human. The rock would have been inert and caused no harm if it weren't for the human who threw it. But you give a more complex example next, let's watch.


When a person in an African tribe kills their own baby, does an American official step in to bring justice? Most of the time, when the tribe isn't officially within the jurisdiction of American law, the answer is "no". We treat animals like we treat foreign cultures, for the most part.
If a tribesman were to kill an American, you bet your bottom dollar he's under the jurisdiction of American law. But whatever they do to their own tribesmen, we have no say because they have their own culture and it's not our place to insert our own values where theirs are. Take that train of thought and bring it down to beings that are less intelligent and knowledgeable than us and that's why we treat animals the way we do. Not because we think that they have no free will whereas we do.


You got it right when you said man is on a totally different level from rocks and beasts, and it's because we have such huge brains. What you say is indisputable fact is no more than your own assertions based on your own personal biases. You say that man is set apart from the rest of Earth because of our "moral capacity" and I say that our "moral capacity" originates from our ability to imagine which is a direct result from our truly gargantuan (proportionally speaking) brains. We are able to imagine what it would be like to be in someone else's shoes and therefore empathize with them. Just tack on a couple millennia of law making and philosophy and you've got the basis of human-animal/culture-culture interaction.



And where do these "moral qualities" come from if not complex reactions in the brain? Can you map out precisely how moral come about physically? (I'm looking for something other than bible verses or personal inferences, of course.)



OR it could be a natural result of our need to survive as a species. After all, a species that is more social and trustworthy amongst its members are more likely to cooperate, propagate, and survive.


To end a string of baseless personal assertions, why not use another baseless personal assertion?
Part of the reason this is wrong is because you are putting a vastly superior intellectual standard on a more primitive lifeform. Would you expect a two year old to be as selfless and empathetic as a fully grown adult? Of course not, the child does not possess the faculties to think as another person, it is merely trying to survive into maturity.

I need to go to sleep now.

The fact is that if you put a bunch of children in a room full of toys and tell them that they can play with all of them to their hearts desire but give them one single thing that they cannot do, such as open the door of the closet, then when you leave the very first thing that they do is open the door. That is man's nature. The only thing that restrains us is fear that we might get caught. It isn't a product of chemicals and reactions but one of natural inclinations and morals. Deny it all you want but it is true. Man's nature is not morally good but morally evil. Even when men do things that seem good to other men he does so for his own sake in some way. He does it in order for other people to think well of him, to give himself a "good" feeling", in order to exert some sort of control on the receiver of his "good" and many other reasons. Our self is not a product of our brains but of our souls. We are not unique individuals because of differences in our brains nor just in the qualities of our genes, the influences of our parents, schools, friends and many other things. We are unique in our beings as a product of our souls.

Also your analogy of a tribesman in Africa is apples and oranges. There is no country in the world who charges an animal with a moral crime because of what it does or does not do. Only man does that and it is right to do so. Again you can deny it all you want but man is a moral being and no other earthly creature is. We do not charge man with a moral crime if he kills an animal for food but we sure would if he killed another man for food. We do not charge animals for killing even their own kind nor do they charge each other for it. They are following instinct not reason or moral qualities. Man is much more than his instinct but the size of our brain has nothing to do with it.

One last thing, I am not trying to convince you of anything. If I could convince you to believe anything by the power and evidence of my argument someone else can convince you out of it. I am not trying to change your mind on any issues for that is not what I am called to do. I will not have to answer for your unbelief you will.

The Op asked a question and expressed a desire for a Biblical response and that is what I gave him. Simple as that.

 

[Job8]

I want to begin with the Bible if possible when receiving comments. I specifically am searching for texts that show support for free will. This doesn't include texts like "...Choose you this day who you will serve..." Joshua 24:15
Texts showing people make choices does not indicate they made them with free will just that they did action.

On what grounds do you arrive at this conclusion? If people were given a choice, it means that they could freely choose. Period. As to the thousand and one factors which affect people, they are irrelevant. When a sinner hears the Gospel and is convicted and convinced, that person can choose to believe or disbelieve. That is precisely what the Bible reveals.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:17,18).

As you can see above, there are two groups of people, and they freely make the choice to believe on Christ, or not believe on Him. And the ones who do not believe are held accountable for their unbelief. God will not hold someone accountable if they cannot be held accountable.

 

[twin1954]

On what grounds do you arrive at this conclusion? If people were given a choice, it means that they could freely choose. Period. As to the thousand and one factors which affect people, they are irrelevant. When a sinner hears the Gospel and is convicted and convinced, that person can choose to believe or disbelieve. That is precisely what the Bible reveals.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:17,18).

As you can see above, there are two groups of people, and they freely make the choice to believe on Christ, or not believe on Him. And the ones who do not believe are held accountable for their unbelief. God will not hold someone accountable if they cannot be held accountable.

As you already know but deny, man's ability to choose has nothing to do with his accountability. We are accountable to God because we are His creatures and subject to His dominion and covenants. While it is true that unbelief is utter insanity man is utterly insane by nature. It takes an act of God in us and for us to enable us to choose Him over our evil will and nature.

 

[Job8]

As you already know but deny, man's ability to choose has nothing to do with his accountability.

That is totally incorrect. Every criminal is held accountable for his crimes because he could have chosen not to commit them. Every sinner is held accountable for his sins because he could have chosen not to commit them. And since God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent, it is crystal clear that He holds all men accountable for either obeying or disobeying that command. If a person is incapable of making moral choices, he cannot be held accountable by a just God. How can God judge the world in righteousness, unless His expectations are righteous.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:30,31).

 

[twin1954]

That is totally incorrect. Every criminal is held accountable for his crimes because he could have chosen not to commit them. Every sinner is held accountable for his sins because he could have chosen not to commit them. And since God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent, it is crystal clear that He holds all men accountable for either obeying or disobeying that command. If a person is incapable of making moral choices, he cannot be held accountable by a just God. How can God judge the world in righteousness, unless His expectations are righteous.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:30,31).

(Rom 1:18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;


(Rom 1:19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

(Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


(Rom 1:21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


(Rom 1:22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

(Rom 1:23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

It is clear from this passage that man's responsibility is not because of his ability to choose but from the fact that God is God and they are responsible to know and obey Him because they know it and hold down that knowledge and change the uncorruptible God into a figment of their imagination.

As you can see I can match you scripture for Scripture. I am able to back up my theology with the Scriptures as you well know.

Now this is not the place for that debate as it doesn't help the OP. If you want to continue this debate start another thread in the Baptist forum.

 

[Colter]

I have been wrestling with the popular concept of free will, but I am running into walls due to my premed studies.

Note: If I argue back like a none believer, it isn't because I don't believe, but because I am probing for unbiased truth.

I want to begin with the Bible if possible when receiving comments. I specifically am searching for texts that show support for free will. This doesn't include texts like "...Choose you this day who you will serve..." Joshua 24:15
Texts showing people make choices does not indicate they made them with free will just that they did action A instead of action B. I personally have never found any free will texts but would be happy to find some if they exist.

To follow up, I want to give detail of the issue I am dealing with philosophically.
In Biology and Behavioral science, it becomes clearly apparent that behavior is determined by outside influence and hormones and other chemical factors. These hormones are often regulated by DNA, diet, activities, and situations. This isn't a problem as long as free will trumps all of this. However, the psychiatric industry has provide clear examples that it doesn't.

Depending on whether a patient is on their medication or not, the patients in psychiatric wards can have personality changes so drastic that it could mean the difference between breaking the commandments or keeping them. It can mean the difference in wanting to loving Jesus or being spiteful towards him.

The overall issue becomes apparent as scientific research shows that our surrounding situation, the body we are born with, and the chemicals we pump though our blood are more or less the deciding factor of many choices. The scientific creationist community accepts a nature and nurture approach to this. From this logical perspective, everyone could be saved just by being given the correct body and the best environment.

The common counter argument to this is cyclic and claims God has to keep us out of his control so he doesn't interfere with our free choice. The issue even here is two fold.
1). God made Adam with his hands and technically also made you and I. This already means God has directly been involved in the body type one has. He is also directly involved in giving a person an aggressive or passive personality for example.
2) Hypothetically, given God isn't involved in interfering with "free will," Then regardless your friends and parents determined what your choices would be though their influence. Also your parents determined your personally based on contributing to your genetic material and ultimately the personality.

In conclusion,
It would almost seem as if we are predestined to be saved and Free Will is a farce. People are influence to make choices in numerous ways so that one who believes they are freely making their own choice is simply unaware of all the factors that led to that choice. Yet is is sad to say that I am drawn to ask for reason not to accept this apparent truth because it questions the validity of sin and condemnation of sinners. In other-words, Hell would mean the sentencing of people without a choice in the matter since birth.

We have a limited free will but free we are.

 

[twin1954]

We have a limited free will but free we are.

In what way? Are we free to determine our destiny or is our destiny up to God? We have a limited will but we are not free from the dictates of our sinful natures unless and until God does a work in us and for us.

 

[Colter]

In what way? Are we free to determine our destiny or is our destiny up to God? We have a limited will but we are not free from the dictates of our sinful natures unless and until God does a work in us and for us.

We are free to eternalise or destroy ourselves.


"The moral will creatures of the evolutionary worlds are always bothered with the unthinking question as to why the all-wise Creators permit evil and sin. They fail to comprehend that both are inevitable if the creature is to be truly free. The free will of evolving man or exquisite angel is not a mere philosophic concept, a symbolic ideal. Man's ability to choose good or evil is a universe reality. This liberty to choose for oneself is an endowment of the Supreme Rulers, and they will not permit any being or group of beings to deprive a single personality in the wide universe of this divinely bestowed liberty—not even to satisfy such misguided and ignorant beings in the enjoyment of this misnamed personal liberty." UB 1955

 

[com7fy8]

@Drew Blake > before I start, I will begin with the first thing I thought . . . after reading the last thing of yours which I quoted >

You have more to learn.

We have more to learn . . . discover with God. It won't be only intellectual and logical and theoretical, but in experience with God in His love.

This doesn't include texts like "...Choose you this day who you will serve..." Joshua 24:15

I offer that this is God's word saying to choose. And Isaiah 55:11 says God's word will do all that God means by His word, I offer. So, it is like how God said let there be light and other things, and then what He spoke was caused by Him.

So . . . "He has the free will." If we have "any", it is in sharing with Him But in sin . . . the Bible says we were "slaves" > Romans 6:17 < and the thanks is "to God", that we became free.

In Biology and Behavioral science, it becomes clearly apparent that behavior is determined by outside influence and hormones and other chemical factors.

This is what people arrive at, by judging by outward appearances of physical things. They "might" not consider how there is spiritual existence with power to effect people. They have discovered certain patterns of coincidence, but they have not proven that spiritual beings had nothing at all to do with it, and science physical can't prove about this, one way or the other, I consider.

These hormones are often regulated by DNA, diet, activities, and situations. This isn't a problem as long as free will trumps all of this. However, the psychiatric industry has provide clear examples that it doesn't.

If a person is a slave of sin, then the person can be connected to how things are going physically, because the person is so overly concerned about what's happening in the physical realm.

About the "hormones" > yes, there might be physical hormones involved in things . . . for example, sex. And there are people who believe we humans only have physical existence; so they are prejudiced to suppose that hormones can cause and control sexual interest and drives.

But there is lust. Lust is a drive which comes from deeper than physical. Satan is the being of lust . . . of driving and dictatorial and won't-take-no-for-an-answer feelings and thoughts and passions. He is dictatorial; so are his drives and ways of reacting in someone's personality. And there are torments of getting no for an answer. Sexual sensations are a treasured pleasure of ones in sin, because in sin they have nasty and nagging stuff and are desperate to feel some physical pleasure to make them feel better. So, lust for sex is not a God-given drive.

Their deep weakness of sin makes them able to give in to trying to feel relief by feeling nice pleasures of God's creation, and the same weakness for pleasure makes them also weak enough to suffer the torments of their personalities. Often, people in their weakness of seeking sexual pleasure are staying weak enough to later suffer pain and arguing and other trouble and torment. This is not God-given.

Depending on whether a patient is on their medication or not, the patients in psychiatric wards can have personality changes so drastic that it could mean the difference between breaking the commandments or keeping them.

First, if someone is able to do harm to oneself and others, this is a spiritual character trouble. Therefore, no physical medication can cure the person's deep problem. Plus, the person can spiritually react to the effect of a physical medicine. But the person does not get truly changed. But the person can react to the medicine, then react without the medicine.

the body we are born with, and the chemicals we pump though our blood are more or less the deciding factor of many choices.

This is not what the Bible says, to my knowledge. This is what secular people are saying, but a number of people claiming to be Christian scientists and medical professionals have accepted this. But not all Bible claiming people are into this, and I do not know of scripture which directly says things like this.

But we do have how there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (in Ephesians 2:2). And if you consider how Satan is known to be, and how his children can be and behave, you can trace a number of evil emotions and lusts back to Satan's evil spirit. It says, the spirit of evil "works" in people > those drives and feelings for pleasure and reactions about not getting pleasure can work very hard in a personality . . . dominating, controlling the person.

I include > "bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking" "with all malice" (in Ephesians 4:31), and lusts which would mean the dominating and driving and dictatorial passions, including for sexual sensations > I offer, that a number of people have been driven by lust to sex and they confuse this with what is God-given guiding of an obedient person's sexual choices. In God's love we are guided by gentle and humble passions and emotions, first of tender affection for one another . . . not driven just to get a sexual sensation with a lot of focus on the pleasure and excitement > ones perhaps even use someone else to feel what we want. Love does not have us just using each other!!

The scientific creationist community accepts a nature and nurture approach to this. From this logical perspective, everyone could be saved just by being given the correct body and the best environment.

I am "betting" that not all "creationists" agree on a number of things. And I am certain, that a number of creationists in no way believe that getting saved or not depends on what body a person has.

He is also directly involved in giving a person an aggressive or passive personality for example.

I offer > we all were born in sin. So, as we first have developed in our personalities, we have tended . . . each of us . . . to be either more aggressive > like the sinner more predatory and victimizing > or we have tended to be more passive . . . more of the victim sort of sinner. And personalities can tend to develop their emotions and ways around whatsoever becomes each person's treasure pleasures. Some will succeed with aggression to get what they desire; and others can submit, and perhaps go after what is available without competing so much. And so various personalities develop in sort of puzzle-piecing with one another's personality and what each one is seeking.

There are sinners more the hurters, while others are more the hurt. But "Love does no harm to a neighbor," we have in Romans 13:10. Plus >

"And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?" (1 Peter 3:13)

So, in Jesus we are not hurting or staying hurt, not aggressing or passively giving in to ones bossing and controlling us. Leaders win us by feeding us their example >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

You "might" already know how numerous pairs of identical twins have developed clearly different personalities than their twin siblings. So, I offer this is because no way does DNA and body decide personality and emotions. Personality is spiritual . . . deeper than physical; so physical DNA does not control what is spiritual. And desires . . . preferences . . . are of the heart which is spiritual. So, I will offer > "scientists" at best have observed some number of coincidences . . . but they are not seeing the true causes.

your friends and parents determined what your choices would be though their influence.

The example of parents certainly can effect children. But how a child reacts to and is formed by parental example has its roots in the child's own character which is spiritual with its ways of seeking and reacting and selecting treasure pleasures or better.

Also your parents determined your personally based on contributing to your genetic material and ultimately the personality.

I have offered enough to clarify why I don't buy this.

It would almost seem as if we are predestined to be saved and Free Will is a farce.

There is destiny > Romans 8:29 < but I think this scripture can help us see that God's destining of people involves so much more and better than just an issue of if humans have free will or not. There is so much more than this concern, to find and feed on, in the Bible.

People are influence to make choices in numerous ways so that one who believes they are freely making their own choice is simply unaware of all the factors that led to that choice.

Well, yes people can effect one another. People are spiritually connected, "in one kingdom or the other" > so deeper than how physically humans can effect one another. In Satan's kingdom, much of the effecting is by means of fear and insecurity and desperation for treasure pleasures. But in God's kingdom, there is so much better to discover, of how our example in the sight of God can do one another very great good.

Yet is is sad to say that I am drawn to ask for reason not to accept this apparent truth because it questions the validity of sin and condemnation of sinners. In other-words, Hell would mean the sentencing of people without a choice in the matter since birth.

I will offer > we humans don't need what our "free will" has been able to get for us. Only God has ever made any really good choice, with us. Our own nature has been our dictator of if we can and what we can choose. Only God could change our nature so we have become deeply love-natured and obedient. In sin, we were not. So, the thanks is to God, as Romans 6:10 says

 

[Urlawyer]

The fact is that if you put a bunch of children in a room full of toys and tell them that they can play with all of them to their hearts desire but give them one single thing that they cannot do, such as open the door of the closet, then when you leave the very first thing that they do is open the door. That is man's nature. The only thing that restrains us is fear that we might get caught. It isn't a product of chemicals and reactions but one of natural inclinations and morals. Deny it all you want but it is true. Man's nature is not morally good but morally evil. Even when men do things that seem good to other men he does so for his own sake in some way. He does it in order for other people to think well of him, to give himself a "good" feeling", in order to exert some sort of control on the receiver of his "good" and many other reasons. Our self is not a product of our brains but of our souls. We are not unique individuals because of differences in our brains nor just in the qualities of our genes, the influences of our parents, schools, friends and many other things. We are unique in our beings as a product of our souls.

Fact huh?

What you've got is conjecture. You invite me to deny your "facts" all I want and yet you have not provided any evididence that might convince me do otherwise. Neither of us has provided any sources or links to studies done that might support a "factual" claim. All I've been doing is using anecdotal evidence to support a soft, purely philosophical, counter-arguement. If you want to claim facts, site some sources.

Also your analogy of a tribesman in Africa is apples and oranges. There is no country in the world who charges an animal with a moral crime because of what it does or does not do. Only man does that and it is right to do so. Again you can deny it all you want but man is a moral being and no other earthly creature is. We do not charge man with a moral crime if he kills an animal for food but we sure would if he killed another man for food. We do not charge animals for killing even their own kind nor do they charge each other for it. They are following instinct not reason or moral qualities. Man is much more than his instinct but the size of our brain has nothing to do with it.

You seemed to have missed the entire arguement here, let me outline it: You used how we treat animals as support for your claim that animals have no free will but humans do. I used a culture to culture comparison to show that it is only how we treat things and people that hold different values and behaviors from us and in no way indicates whether or not something has free will.
Think of it like this: imagine the entire human race as Engilshmen; there are no other countries, no other ethnicities, and no other law. Now imagine animals are all just as intelligent and free as humans and under their own, seperate culture. We would treat them exactly the same as we treat them now (forget about the eating and breeding them for now). That is why we treat them how we do; we see that they are alive and apply the golden rule to the best of our ability.
It's counterintuitive to say they are not subject to higher human law therefore they are empty of free will.

One last thing, I am not trying to convince you of anything. If I could convince you to believe anything by the power and evidence

What evidence?

of my argument someone else can convince you out of it. I am not trying to change your mind on any issues for that is not what I am called to do. I will not have to answer for your unbelief you will.

The Op asked a question and expressed a desire for a Biblical response and that is what I gave him. Simple as that.

I totally understand that. I'm glad someone gave him what he asked for.
For the record I'm not actually trying to convince and/or deconvert anyone (it'd be a bonus if I could, though). This is just straight intellectual fun for me.

 

[Urlawyer]

Edit: double post

 

[twin1954]

Fact huh?

View attachment 169394

What you've got is conjecture. You invite me to deny your "facts" all I want and yet you have not provided any evididence that might convince me do otherwise. Neither of us has provided any sources or links to studies done that might support a "factual" claim. All I've been doing is using anecdotal evidence to support a soft, purely philosophical, counter-arguement. If you want to claim facts, site some sources.


You seemed to have missed the entire arguement here, let me outline it: You used how we treat animals as support for your claim that animals have no free will but humans do. I used a culture to culture comparison to show that it is only how we treat things and people that hold different values and behaviors from us and in no way indicates whether or not something has free will.
Think of it like this: imagine the entire human race as Engilshmen; there are no other countries, no other ethnicities, and no other law. Now imagine animals are all just as intelligent and free as humans and under their own, seperate culture. We would treat them exactly the same as we treat them now (forget about the eating and breeding them for now). That is why we treat them how we do; we see that they are alive and apply the golden rule to the best of our ability.
It's counterintuitive to say they are not subject to higher human law therefore they are empty of free will.


What evidence?
I totally understand that. I'm glad someone gave him what he asked for.
For the record I'm not actually trying to convince and/or deconvert anyone (it'd be a bonus if I could, though). This is just straight intellectual fun for me.

I am not trying to prove free will. In fact I am seeking to show the opposite. But I am not really interested in intellectual debates or arguments. I don't have enough intellect to even begin one. My pappy told me many years ago to never enter into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed, me being the one unarmed of course. I bow to your superior intellect.

 

[Urlawyer]

I am not trying to prove free will. In fact I am seeking to show the opposite. But I am not really interested in intellectual debates or arguments. I don't have enough intellect to even begin one. My pappy told me many years ago to never enter into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed, me being the one unarmed of course. I bow to your superior intellect.

Well... this feels wholly unsatisfying. There was never supposed to be a winner. I return your bow, but with reserved disappointment, while cringing at the notion of "superior intellect" (I subscribe to the "multiple types of intelligence" school of thinking and therefore have no way to judge myself or anyone else's intelligence against another's).
Also, my whole point was that you wouldn't be able to prove free will either way through arguements. Unless you have done research and controlled experiments that have been peer reviewed, at best, all you have is a hypothesis, well thought out though it may be.
Watch the first youtube video I posted in this thread and it'll explain what I mean.

 

[zippy2006]

In conclusion,
It would almost seem as if we are predestined to be saved and Free Will is a farce. People are influence to make choices in numerous ways so that one who believes they are freely making their own choice is simply unaware of all the factors that led to that choice. Yet is is sad to say that I am drawn to ask for reason not to accept this apparent truth because it questions the validity of sin and condemnation of sinners. In other-words, Hell would mean the sentencing of people without a choice in the matter since birth.

Edit: I think I missed a key portion of your statement. Free Will runs into a serious issue if it can be overpowered. It becomes a paradox of who is really in control. If free will can't overcome certain manipulations than is it truly free? For example: If my friend doesn't want to be friendly to anyone while off medication, and he is put on medication to balance his depression. As a result, due to the medication he is friendlier now. Would I call him a friendly person as a choice of his free will or the medication?

I think what you require is a clarification of the moral act and the nature of culpability.

Suppose Ben is free. Joe takes Ben's hand and throws it into Sue's face. Is Ben no longer free? Does he no longer have control of his actions? Now suppose Ben is slipped a drug that causes him to act in a way that he would never have previously acted. Is Ben no longer free? Does he no longer have control of his actions?

In both cases we can say that Ben was not acting, but was rather being acted upon. Yet sin always requires an act. If Joe or a drug acts upon Ben, then Ben has not done anything, he has merely been acted upon, and thus cannot have sinned. Certainly his freedom was not exercised, for the exercise of freedom presupposes that we act.

The drug situation is more complicated since both the drug and Ben act simultaneously, and the drug influences the nature of Ben's acts. There are times when a drug affects Ben so strongly that it is akin to Joe throwing his hand, and there are other times when it does not affect Ben enough to significantly impede or destroy his free will. God knows the difference.

If free will can't overcome certain manipulations than is it truly free?

The answer is always on an act-by-act basis. We are material beings and can be overpowered in certain circumstances. In the moment we are being overpowered, we are not free to not be overpowered, but we are free in any number of other ways, and when the overpowering force ceases we will again be free in that way. But this question should have nothing to do with salvation, for salvation is related to free acts and the scenario where we are overpowered is not considering a free act.

 

[twin1954]

I think what you require is a clarification of the moral act and the nature of culpability.

I believe your clarification is in error. Morality has no basis in actions it has a basis in nature or the essence of what makes us human. We were created a little lower than the angels yet as created being we are above the beasts in the fact that we are moral beings. We are moral beings in that we instinctually know that it is wrong to murder and steal and other acts of a moral nature. Action is not required to be moral and it is not required to be culpable. That is why our conscience bothers us when we even think things that are against our moral nature.

Suppose Ben is free. Joe takes Ben's hand and throws it into Sue's face. Is Ben no longer free? Does he no longer have control of his actions?

He is able to do what he wants while being under the control of another. He is culpable because he had the power to stop Joe and didn't yet he did what Joe wanted for him to do and what he wanted to do. He wasn't free but he wasn't a robot either.

Now suppose Ben is slipped a drug that causes him to act in a way that he would never have previously acted. Is Ben no longer free? Does he no longer have control of his actions?

He is under the control of a substance beyond his normal nature which changes his willingness to act in a certain way. He still wills himself to act but the substance influence his choices.

In both cases we can say that Ben was not acting, but was rather being acted upon.

Here is part one of the fundamental error. Ben did act though he was being acted upon. In both cases he did what he wanted to do.

Yet sin always requires an act.

Here is the second part of the fundamental error. Sin isn't an act it is a nature or bent. Sin isn't what we do it is what we are by nature. We commit sin because we are sinners. The act of sin is only a result of the desire and nature of sin. We act immoral because we are immoral.

If Joe or a drug acts upon Ben, then Ben has not done anything, he has merely been acted upon, and thus cannot have sinned.

I believe I have shown how this is in error.

Certainly his freedom was not exercised, for the exercise of freedom presupposes that we act.

Actually it doesn't. Freedom is a very equivocal word. Ambiguous to say the least. It can mean many things to as many people as use it. In this case he was free to do as he desired even though his desire was influenced by something outside of himself.

The drug situation is more complicated since both the drug and Ben act simultaneously, and the drug influences the nature of Ben's acts. There are times when a drug affects Ben so strongly that it is akin to Joe throwing his hand, and there are other times when it does not affect Ben enough to significantly impede or destroy his free will. God knows the difference.

I am sorry but this is utter nonsense. If Ben is so under the influence that his will is totally impeded to the point that he has absolutely no control of his desires or acts then he is free from culpability but that would be like an alien taking over your body, mind and soul. It just doesn't happen. Moreover God is not the least bit concerned with your free will He is concerned with your sin. It is either gone because the Lord Jesus Christ put it away by the sacrifice of Himself and you were in Him when He did or you bear your sin yourself before God and will answer to His justice for it.

The answer is always on an act-by-act basis.

Not according to God it isn't.

We are material beings and can be overpowered in certain circumstances. In the moment we are being overpowered, we are not free to not be overpowered, but we are free in any number of other ways, and when the overpowering force ceases we will again be free in that way. But this question should have nothing to do with salvation, for salvation is related to free acts and the scenario where we are overpowered is not considering a free act.

Your answer is a cop out actually and an attempt to mitigate the truth of our sinfulness and culpability.

There is no such thing as a free will. Our wills are as much under the influence and control of our nature to sin as any beings is under the control of its nature. We are slaves to sin because of our sinful nature. we are not free to not sin we are only free to choose which sin we will commit.

 

[zippy2006]

I believe your clarification is in error. Morality has no basis in actions it has a basis in nature or the essence of what makes us human. We were created a little lower than the angels yet as created being we are above the beasts in the fact that we are moral beings. We are moral beings in that we instinctually know that it is wrong to murder and steal and other acts of a moral nature. Action is not required to be moral and it is not required to be culpable. That is why our conscience bothers us when we even think things that are against our moral nature.

It would seem that you are failing to see that a thought is an act.

He is able to do what he wants while being under the control of another. He is culpable because he had the power to stop Joe and didn't yet he did what Joe wanted for him to do and what he wanted to do. He wasn't free but he wasn't a robot either. He is under the control of a substance beyond his normal nature which changes his willingness to act in a certain way. He still wills himself to act but the substance influence his choices.

If Joe is stronger than him and overpowers him then my analysis remains true.

Here is part one of the fundamental error. Ben did act though he was being acted upon. In both cases he did what he wanted to do.

That's false if he didn't want to hit sue, and the presupposition that he did not want to hit Sue should be obvious in my illustration.

Here is the second part of the fundamental error. Sin isn't an act it is a nature or bent. Sin isn't what we do it is what we are by nature. We commit sin because we are sinners. The act of sin is only a result of the desire and nature of sin. We act immoral because we are immoral.

Regardless of one's view of Original Sin, you cannot sin if you do not act. Period.

In this case he was free to do as he desired even though his desire was influenced by something outside of himself.

If he didn't wish to hit Sue then it is perfectly obvious that he was not free to do as he desired.

There is no such thing as a free will.

Fortunately I don't need to address the Calvinist brain-wash, since the OP is in no way under its sway.

But I am not really interested in intellectual debates or arguments. I don't have enough intellect to even begin one.

We are in agreement on this point, at least.