The Reality of Free Will

[childeye 2]

The question is, how can something be "voluntary" without free will.

Answer: It's the right thing to do. <-- In the moral/immoral context this is contingent on being a child of God, a will/determination free from sin and led by The Holy Spirit.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

 

[Fervent]

Answer: It's the right thing to do. <-- In the moral/immoral context this is contingent on being a child of God, a will/determination free from sin and led by The Holy Spirit.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

What are you on about?

 

[childeye 2]

What are you on about?

I'm asserting that a true free will in the moral/immoral context is not merely the ability to choose, but the ability to desire and choose rightly between right/wrong. Moreover, I am using the Greek meaning of the term 'will' in scripture, 'Thelema', which objectively means the determination or desire.

This implies that the character of the children of the devil will display sinful desires, determinations because they are doing their father's desires, determinations. And the children of God show God's Love in their heart in their desire, determinations.

 

[Fervent]

I'm asserting that a true free will in the moral/immoral context is not merely the ability to choose, but the ability to choose rightly between right/wrong actions. Moreover, I am using the Greek meaning of the term 'will' in scripture, 'Thelema', which objectively means the determination or desire.

Thelema is only one of the words for will, and it is the "natural" will that is drawn to God. Generally the question is the freedom of the gnomic will, not the thelemic will.

This implies that the character of the children of the devil will display sinful desires, determinations. And the children of God show God's Love in their heart in their desire, determinations.

None of this seems relevant to my statement about "voluntary" requiring free will in order to be a sensible statement.

 

[childeye 2]

Thelema is only one of the words for will, and it is the "natural" will that is drawn to God. Generally the question is the freedom of the gnomic will, not the thelemic will.

I'm not familiar with a gnomic will. Objectively speaking if Thelema is the natural/innate will/desire/determination that came from God and is drawn to God, then the gnomic will would be subjective, deliberative, and not compulsive. Is that correct?

None of this seems relevant to my statement about "voluntary" requiring free will in order to be a sensible statement.

Fervent said:
The question is, how can something be "voluntary" without free will. <-- It comes across as a genuine query, and it did not come across as a rhetorical question.

The problem here is terminology. If you had made a statement, I would assume it would look like this --> Something voluntary cannot happen without free will. <-- If by free will you mean a voluntary determination, this sounds like circular reasoning.

None of these terms are qualified -> something, free, will.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not familiar with a gnomic will. Objectively speaking if Thelema is the natural/innate will/desire/determination that came from God and is drawn to God, then the gnomic will would be subjective, deliberative, and unnatural. Is that correct?

Not unnatural, but is more the ordinary will. The thelemic will is the will that is pointed towards our natural good, so it is directed toward God. The gnomic will is our basic sense of voluntary choice.

Fervent said:
The question is, how can something be "voluntary" without free will. <-- It comes across as a genuine query, and it did not come across as a rhetorical question.

The problem here is terminology. If you had made a statement, I would assume it would look like this --> Something voluntary cannot happen without free will. <-- If by free will you mean a voluntary determination, this sounds like circular reasoning.

It's not circular, it's analytic. The concept of a voluntary action has within it an intrinsic implication of free will.

None of these terms are qualified -> something, free, will.

Philosophizing about it simply complicates matters, free will is nothing more than agency.

 

[childeye 2]

Not unnatural, but is more the ordinary will. The thelemic will is the will that is pointed towards our natural good, so it is directed toward God. The gnomic will is our basic sense of voluntary choice.

It sounds like you're saying that the Thelemic will is the objectively true desire/will in mankind. And it sounds like you're saying the gnomic will is the personal faculty of reasoning. Is that accurate?

 

[Fervent]

It sounds like you're saying that the Thelemic will is the objectively true desire/will in mankind. And it sounds like you're saying the gnomic will is the faculty of reasoning. Is that accurate?

Not quite, though you're mostly on track with the thelemic will which is a natural inclination to do God's will present in the imago dei...the gnomic will isn't exactly a will at all, just the power to make choices. Reasoning can play into it, but the gnome is principally responsible for our ability to deviate from the thelemic will.

 

[childeye 2]

Not quite, though you're mostly on track with the thelemic will which is a natural inclination to do God's will present in the imago dei...the gnomic will isn't exactly a will at all, just the power to make choices. Reasoning can play into it, but the gnome is principally responsible for our ability to deviate from the thelemic will.

Thank you for the clarity. I mentioned in an earlier post that the 'free will' described as the freedom to choose between right and wrong does not qualify as a will, because for all intents and purposes, it is a situation where a person is trying to discern right from wrong.

Something voluntary cannot happen without free will. <-- If this is the gnomic will, then it's not even a will, free or otherwise. It's ambiguous language, even falsehood (no offense intended). The statement is inferring that a voluntary decision is predicated on having the option to be wrong and go against God. The Thelemic will does not consider going against God as an option because wrong means wrong.

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

carnal​

adjective​

car·nal ˈkär-nᵊl

Synonyms of carnal
1
a
: relating to or given to crude bodily pleasures and appetites
gluttony and other carnal activities

b
: marked by sexuality
carnal love


2
: bodily, corporeal
seen with carnal eyes


3
a
: temporal
carnal weapons

the superiority of the spiritual and eternal over the carnal—H. O. Taylor

b
: worldly
a carnal mind

 

[Fervent]

Thank you for the clarity. I mentioned in an earlier post that the 'free will' described as the freedom to choose between right and wrong does not qualify as a will, because for all intents and purposes, it is a situation where a person is trying to discern right from wrong.

Not all choices are black and white,

Something voluntary cannot happen without free will. <-- If this is the gnomic will, then it's not even a will, free or otherwise. It's ambiguous language, even falsehood (no offense intended). The statement is inferring that a voluntary decision is predicated on having the option to be wrong and go against God. The Thelemic will does not consider going against God as an option because wrong means wrong.

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

In order for something to be voluntary, there must be a real option on the table. If there is only one possible outcome, there is no freedom. You seem to be trying to define free will in a way that is totally foreign to the basic understanding of it by setting moral weight on the options where no such weight need be laid. The concept of free will doesn't speak to right and wrong, only the real possibilitiy of selecting any of the available options at the moment of a decision.

 

[childeye 2]

Not all choices are black and white,

In order for something to be voluntary, there must be a real option on the table. If there is only one possible outcome, there is no freedom. You seem to be trying to define free will in a way that is totally foreign to the basic understanding of it by setting moral weight on the options where no such weight need be laid. The concept of free will doesn't speak to right and wrong, only the real possibilitiy of selecting any of the available options at the moment of a decision.

In my first post, I said any comments I made on the will would be strictly in the moral/immoral context. I realize you are not under those limitations, which is why I'm qualifying my statements as I go.

The reason I prefer the moral/immoral context is because for many people free will implies being held responsible, culpable, accountable, blameworthy. That runs counter to Jesus who on his cross said forgive them Father for they know not what they do.

We make choices moment by moment. The term voluntary doesn't typically denote the presence of options; The term is usually intended to describe an unforced decision or to act out of one's own initiative.

 

[Fervent]

In my first post, I said any comments I made on the will would be strictly in the moral/immoral context. I realize you are not under those limitations, which is why I'm qualifying my statements as I go.

I prefer to stick as close to the way terms are used in ordinary conversation as possible, and free will is only tangentially related to moral culpability.

The reason I prefer the moral/immoral context is because for many people free will implies being held responsible, culpable, accountable, blameworthy. That runs counter to Jesus who on his cross said forgive them Father for they know not what they do.

Are you saying that Jesus' words imply people will not be held blameworthy?

We make choices moment by moment. The term voluntary wouldn't denote the presence of options if the term is intended to describe an unforced decision or to act of one's own initiative.

If there is only one possible outcome, then there is no decision. Voluntary implies freedom, though that freedom may be couched as unforced decision or acting of one's own initiative. Both of those framings imply the ability to not act/choose what becomes the actual choice that is made. Live options are necessary for there to be a decision or initiative to act.

 

[childeye 2]

I prefer to stick as close to the way terms are used in ordinary conversation as possible, and free will is only tangentially related to moral culpability.

As I said and you conveyed that you confirmed, it's not even a will. So why assert it exists?

Are you saying that Jesus' words imply people will not be held blameworthy?

I'm saying that there's a just reason why Jesus said people will be judged by what measure they use to judge others. And I'm saying that he qualified his meaning by saying the merciful will receive mercy. And I'm saying that we are justified by grace through faith. And I'm saying that the apostles who said we are all sinners also spoke of being found blameless by God.

If there is only one possible outcome, then there is no decision.

I'm talking about choosing between options like turning the other cheek or returning evil for evil. If we look at the course of mutual distrust, we can see why grace and faith are more reasonable than cynicism.

Voluntary implies freedom, though that freedom may be couched as unforced decision or acting of one's own initiative. Both of those framings imply the ability to not act/choose what becomes the actual choice that is made. Live options are necessary for there to be a decision or initiative to act.

In a moral/immoral context it's about caring or not caring how one's actions affect others. If I volunteer to sin, I'm deceived or drawn away from reality through vain imaginations. Since God is the Truth, as a matter of pragmatics any act of sin is based on first believing something untrue. The freedom to sin is therefore based on a lie.

 

[Fervent]

As I said and you conveyed that you confirmed, it's not even a will. So why assert it exists?

Stating it "exists" is a bit of a misnomer, because it's not some detached object. It's a genuine reflection of our ability, though not an independent entity.

I'm saying that there's a just reason why Jesus said people will be judged by what measure they use to judge others. And I'm saying that he qualified his meaning by saying the merciful will receive mercy. And I'm saying that we are justified by grace through faith. And I'm saying that the apostles who said we are all sinners also spoke of being found blameless by God.

Ok...I'm not sure what this has to do with a discussion on free will.

I'm talking about choosing between options like turning the other cheek or returning evil for evil. If we look at the course of mutual distrust, we can see why grace and faith are more reasonable than cynicism.

Again, not sure how this relates.

In a moral/immoral context it's about caring or not caring how one's actions affect others. If I volunteer to sin, I'm deceived or drawn away from reality through vain imaginations. Since God is the Truth, as a matter of pragmatics any act of sin is based on first believing something untrue. The freedom to sin is therefore based on a lie.

There's no reason to suppose that freedom of choice is either non-existent or sinful. Questions of moral/immoral are more tangential to the discussion or at least are second-order issues

 

[childeye 2]

Stating it "exists" is a bit of a misnomer, because it's not some detached object. It's a genuine reflection of our ability, though not an independent entity.

Every moment a choice is being made either voluntarily or involuntarily simply because I must be doing something at all times so long as I am alive.
The existence of the faculty of reasoning <-- The mechanism to weigh pros and cons is not in question. The New Testament expresses a will as a desire in the moral/immoral context, and is not referring to the existence of the faculty of reasoning as a will.

Ok...I'm not sure what this has to do with a discussion on free will.

Fervent said:
Are you saying that Jesus' words imply people will not be held blameworthy? <--This is what I am responding to. It has to do with the will being expressed as a desire/determination.

There's no reason to suppose that freedom of choice is either non-existent or sinful. Questions of moral/immoral are more tangential to the discussion or at least are second-order issues

The existence of the mechanism by which we weigh pros and cons does not indicate the will. The determination would indicate a will either misguided nor not. I would say that the freedom to form an opinion is a form of slavery compared to the freedom of knowing what is factually true.

 

[Fervent]

Every moment a choice is being made either voluntarily or involuntarily simply because I must be doing something at all times so long as I am alive.
The existence of the faculty of reasoning <-- The mechanism to weigh pros and cons is not in question. The New Testament expresses a will as a desire in the moral/immoral context, and is not referring to the existence of the faculty of reasoning as a will.

Reasoning only plays into deliberation and planning, not the ability to select among the options

Fervent said:
Are you saying that Jesus' words imply people will not be held blameworthy? <--This is what I am responding to. It has to do with the will being expressed as a desire/determination.

Yeah, and you didn't really answer my question.

The existence of the mechanism by which we weigh pros and cons does not indicate the will. The determination would indicate a will either misguided nor not. I would say that the freedom to form an opinion is a form of slavery compared to the freedom of knowing what is factually true.

War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!

 

[childeye 2]

Reasoning only plays into deliberation and planning, not the ability to select among the options

To me your statement above implies a will/desire/motive/intent that the ability to reason is serving. That would be consistent with what Jesus said in the OP John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

However, the OP is framing a free will -->(singular), as a freedom of 'choice' in a moral/immoral context which means to me a deliberate and voluntary choice to do either right or wrong which would indicate contrary motives/wills. <--(plural)

Yeah, and you didn't really answer my question.

I saw it as a loaded question. Whether I responded definitively yes or no I would be wrong.

Fervent said:
Are you saying that Jesus' words imply people will not be held blameworthy?

childeye 2 said:
I'm saying that there's a just reason why Jesus said people will be judged by what measure they use to judge others. And I'm saying that he qualified his meaning by saying the merciful will receive mercy. And I'm saying that we are justified by grace through faith. And I'm saying that the apostles who said we are all sinners, also spoke of being found blameless by God.

War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!

Not sure what you're trying to convey here. It reminds me of how a lie can be a subtle deviance.