Free will and determinism

childeye 2 · Apr 1, 2026

TGGIL said:
You’re describing exactly the problem I pointed out. The OP’s definition is incompatibilist, but your own description of free will (“self‑determinism”) is compatibilist. Those are two different frameworks.

My critique wasn’t semantic — it was structural. If determinism is true, then accepting evidence, rejecting evidence, being open‑minded, being closed‑minded, and forming beliefs are all predetermined. That eliminates the epistemic distinction he keeps trying to rely on.

If we use the OP’s definition, free will is impossible by definition. If we use the compatibilist definition you just invoked (“self‑determinism”), then free will is coherent. But what you can’t do is switch between definitions mid‑argument to avoid the contradiction.

There are still other semantical hurdles --> HOW MUCH of the 'self' in 'self-determinism' itself is an antecedent event in time? The term self-determined is just another subjective derivative of free will. One has to have a sound semantic taxonomy to reason upon and articulate objectively.

Mark Quayle · Apr 1, 2026

TGGIL said:
I keep repeating my opinion, and maybe it goes places, maybe it doesn’t, but I’m exhausted from explaining that free will is caused by the individual—the “agent.” This is caused, yes, but it is inside choice. This is my free will. Free will is real, it exists, and I choose my actions internally. And yes, those choices can be influenced by external causes, but that’s still my free will, because nothing predetermines the choices I make.

All I can say is that the God I believe in and have faith in does know my steps and the choices I will take, but that’s how I grow into the person God chooses to develop me into. I am not saying God makes the choices for me. I am saying God gives me choice, and many—if not all—of the choices I make shape who I am. All the external data I take in influences me, but I am the one who chooses freely, hopefully making wise decisions that affect my life. And there is nothing wrong with these choices.

If someone wants to call that “predetermined,” then I’ll accept their label, but let me freely choose my own decisions and live a free‑will‑chosen life. We will all die one day—that part is predetermined—but let me make my choices until that happens.

To me, I have free will.

You are redefining 'free will'. We should use the OP's use of it. Not so long ago I used to say that I believed in free will, but I always qualified it by saying that all meant is that the choosing is real, with real—even eternal—consequences. (In less religious terms, "real—even infinite—effects".) But it seemed most people were confused by what I said. Most people, by "free will", mean they were not actually caused to choose. In religious debate on the matter, that is often referred to as "libertarian free will".

Your choices are indeed yours. And you are responsible for them. But they were, nonetheless, (and as you seem to admit), caused by precedent causes. And I agree, if this is what you are getting at—the notion that you are not actually choosing, such as the caricature of 'Hyper-Calvinism' is said to claim, is rather obviously void of empirical evidence.

Bradskii · Apr 1, 2026

Fervent said:
It's not that I never consider arguments, it's that the arguments clearly rest on premises that are less secure than the premise that I have free will.

If you find that the arguments against free will aree weaker than those supporting it, then you have no choice other than to maintain your position.

Fervent said:
Would you consider arguments about how reason is untrustworthy, or would you simpy write them off as illusory doubts?

I think that arguments for it being untrustworthy are weaker than those which say that it is trustworthy. I then have no choice in maintaining my position.

Fervent said:
Same with arguments against free will, because nobody who claims to believe free will is an illusion lives as if free will is an illusion I can only conclude that it is the doubts that are an illusion.

Then perhaps you can illustrate the apparent differences between someone who thinks that free will exists and someone who doesn't.

Bradskii · Apr 1, 2026

childeye 2 said:
There are still other semantical hurdles --> HOW MUCH of the 'self' in 'self-determinism' itself is an antecedent event in time?

All of it. There's no dualism here. 'You' are part of the process. Your wants and desires, your IQ, your education, your age, your gender, your geographical position, your upbringing...it's endless. All antecedent conditions.

Mark Quayle · Apr 1, 2026

childeye 2 said:
There are still other semantical hurdles --> HOW much of the 'self' in 'self-determinism' itself is an antecedent event in time?

Might be worth noting a small distinction here. The [theoretical] determinist only says that all things are determined by antecedent causes. "Self-determinism" is a word full of prejudiced assumptions.

'Self-determining' is, in its purest form, only meaning what we all do, in looking out for our own interests—there's nothing in and of itself wrong with that. We are hungry, we procure food. We want people to like us, we act in socially acceptable fashion. We want to feel good about ourselves, we try to live up to our consciences.

But the people I refer to as, "those who insist on self-determinism" (not self-determination, quite), are those who reject with prejudice notions of causation as to choice. They vacate logic as to causation, in order to maintain notions of personal responsibility, etc.

Fervent · Apr 1, 2026

Bradskii said:
If you find that the arguments against free will aree weaker than those supporting it, then you have no choice other than to maintain your position.

And I never will have any reason not to, since any doubts about it depend on premises that are less secure than the basic experience.

Bradskii said:
I think that arguments for it being untrustworthy are weaker than those which say that it is trustworthy. I then have no choice in maintaining my position.

And how could it be any other way, since arguing against reason requires employing reason. Just like arguing against free will requires exercising free will.

Bradskii said:
Then perhaps you can illustrate the apparent differences between someone who thinks that free will exists and someone who doesn't.

Someone who didn't believe free will existed wouldn't put any thought into their actions and would instead simply plow forward with the conviction that they lack the capacity to change anything. No sense of ownership of any of their beliefs, actions, decisions.

Bradskii · Apr 1, 2026

Fervent said:
That's not a premise, it's a modus ponens.

It's wrong.

Fervent said:
You say I can't choose to believe things, but then how can I deliberate and shift my beliefs if there isn't choice involved at some level?

Good grief, man. How many times do I have to keep repeating myself! It's really beyond a joke. Excuse me, but I'm going to have to shout this out to get it across:

YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT EVIDENCE.

Your beliefs will then alter automatically.

Fervent · Apr 1, 2026

Bradskii said:
It's wrong.

How so? What's the structural error?

Bradskii said:
Good grief, man. How many times do I have to keep repeating myself! It's really beyond a joke. Excuse me, but I'm going to have to shout this out to get it across:

YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT EVIDENCE.

So you've kicked the issue down a level.

Bradskii said:
Your beliefs will then alter automatically.

Considering the issue is whether the capaciity to choose is genuine or an illusion, it doesn't matter what level I am choosing my beliefs. The only thing that matters is that disputing the premise requires accepting the conclusion.

childeye 2 · Apr 1, 2026

Bradskii said:
All of it. There's no dualism here. 'You' are part of the process. Your wants and desires, your IQ, your education, your age, your gender, your geographical position, your upbringing...it's endless. All antecedent conditions.

I get that. I still see the term free will in the op as subjective.

Bradskii · Apr 1, 2026

Fervent said:
Someone who didn't believe free will existed wouldn't put any thought into their actions and would instead simply plow forward with the conviction that they lack the capacity to change anything. No sense of ownership of any of their beliefs, actions, decisions.

So you think that's what I do? No...you actually don't. You don't know anyone like that. It's a nonsensical thing to say. But if that's what you need to say to help you feel that you are right, then so be it. But realise that it's a position from the schoolyard: 'See? I can change things. I have ownership of my beliefs. I control my actions. But you can't!'

Well done.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 1, 2026

Bradskii said:
How about 'causes'? What antecedent conditions caused you to do X? What were the antecedent conditions that 'resulted' in you doing X? Even more simply: 'Why did you choose X?' Your answer will reveal those antecedent conditions which caused your decision. Which resulted in it.

How about that final authority of who gets to exhaustively determine the full meaning of 'determine' (or of 'free will,' for that matter) ?

I'm just going to stop there, Bradskii, 'cuz my own existential view of epistemology, history and life precludes absolute knowledge about comprehensively itemized lists of antecedent determiners or causal webs which may be affecting or influencing my own personal decision making processes. The problem here is that you're wanting to play verbal chess, but I only brought a tennis racket.

Fervent · Apr 1, 2026

Bradskii said:
So you think that's what I do? No...you actually don't. You don't know anyone like that. It's a nonsensical thing to say. But if that's what you need to say to help you feel that you are right, then so be it. But realise that it's a position from the schoolyard: 'See? I can change things. I have ownership of my beliefs. I control my actions. But you can't!'

no, I don't. Because I don't think you actually believe that free wlll is an illusion and instead give lip service to doubts about it out of philosophical confusion.

Bradskii said:
Well done.

There's what we claim to believe, and what our actions show we believe.

Bradskii · Apr 1, 2026

childeye 2 said:
I get that. I still see the term free will in the op as subjective.

In the sense that we personally feel it exists? As opposed to it objectively existing or not whatever we personally feel? Then...yeah. It's been the whole problem throughout the thread. The arguments have been not much more than 'But I really feel as if I have it!' Well...so do I. But I also really feel like the sun dropped below the horizon earlier.

Does either matter? Not really. There's been no difference in me between the time when I thought free will existed and the point at which I realised it didn't. Apart from some mental adjustments about some aspects of morality. But no way did I suddenly become the person as proposed in the post above.

I understand why people argue that it exists. I appreciate their reluctance to deny it (but frustrated at tbe paucity of the arguments). It took me many years to reach this point. And when you get here...you find that it's no big deal.

TGGIL · Apr 1, 2026

Bradskii said:
Determinism is a standard philosophical position. I have not defined it. I have pasted the standard definition of free will as it relates to determinism. That's what this thread is about. Free will is either incompatible with it - my position, which quite a few people hold to, or one holds to the compatibilist view - which appears to be your position. You are yet to support that view. And your only argument against incompatibilism so far has been 'I can make decisions, therefore I have free will'. Heaven forbid you go down the third path of liberalism.

I'm not sure you're folllwing the conversation. I haven't defined compatibilism. I have given the definition of free will.

Now I know you're not following the conversation. I do believe, in the brief flurry of posts over the last 24 hours, that I have specifically said on at least two occasions that you cannot choose to believe.

And at no point have I said, or even intimated, that reasoning is an illusion. It's how we make choices. Which yet again, is not indicative of free will.

One more time. I have defined free will. Determinism doesn't need a definition. I'd assumed from the outset that it didn't need one. I thought it was pretty obvious. Especially in a Christian forum. It's the basis of Aquinas's argument for a first cause. That every event, every condition has a cause.

You've made 5 points in the one post and they were all wrong. I can't see this chat lasting much longer.

I think we may be talking past each other a bit, so let me reset my points calmly and clearly.
You’re saying you’ve simply provided the “definition of free will,” but the definition you’re using is the incompatibilist one — the version that makes free will impossible by definition. That’s fine as a position, but it isn’t the definition; it’s one definition among several major philosophical frameworks. Compatibilism isn’t something I invented — it’s a standard view in the literature. So when I point out that your definition predetermines your conclusion, I’m not rejecting determinism; I’m noting the structure of your argument.
You also said multiple times that we “cannot choose beliefs.” I’m not misquoting you — I’m simply following that claim to its consequence. If beliefs cannot be chosen, then your belief in determinism wasn’t chosen either. That doesn’t make you wrong, but it does mean your position isn’t something you arrived at through evaluation — it’s something you were caused to hold. That’s the only point I was making.
And regarding reasoning: I didn’t say you claimed it was an illusion. I said that if all reasoning is fully determined, then it functions as a causal process rather than a deliberative one. Again, not an attack — just the logical implication of the view you’re defending.
I’m not trying to derail the thread or shift topics. I’m simply pointing out that your argument relies heavily on a single definition of free will, and that the consequences of your own claims about belief and causation apply to your position as much as mine.
If I’ve misunderstood anything, I’m happy to slow down and clarify.
My goal isn’t to win a fight — just to keep the structure clean.
Respectfully,
TGGIL

Bradskii · Apr 1, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
How about that final authority of who gets to exhaustively determine the full meaning of 'determine' (or of 'free will,' for that matter) ?

I'm just going to stop there, Bradskii, 'cuz my own existential view of epistemology, history and life precludes absolute knowledge about comprehensively itemized lists of antecedent determiners or causal webs which may be affecting or influencing my own personal decision making processes. The problem here is that you're wanting to play verbal chess, but I only brought a tennis racket.

Try to crank back on the verbosity. It becomes tiresome. Just saying is all...

2PhiloVoid · Apr 1, 2026

Bradskii said:
Try to crank back on the verbosity. It becomes tiresome. Just saying is all...

Yes, I'm so verbose, especially where eliminative materialism is concerned. :smoke:

childeye 2 · Apr 1, 2026

Mark Quayle said:
Might be worth noting a small distinction here. The [theoretical] determinist only says that all things are determined by antecedent causes. "Self-determinism" is a word full of prejudiced assumptions.

'Self-determining' is, in its purest form, only meaning what we all do, in looking out for our own interests—there's nothing in and of itself wrong with that. We are hungry, we procure food. We want people to like us, we act in socially acceptable fashion. We want to feel good about ourselves, we try to live up to our consciences.

But the people I refer to as, "those who insist on self-determinism" (not self-determination, quite), are those who reject with prejudice notions of causation as to choice. They vacate logic as to causation, in order to maintain notions of personal responsibility, etc.

Right, there are distinctions to be made. Self-determinism as an ideology would be a noun, and self-determined is more of an adjective. Self-determinism is a derivative; Autonomy is more absolute in form, but it too requires a primitive that precedes it.

TGGIL · Apr 1, 2026

I’ve read through the many arguments here — the philosophers, the theologians, the scientists, the authors, the videos, the historical voices.
But I want to offer something much simpler.

Set all of that aside for a moment.
Set aside every book you’ve read, every theory you’ve learned, every authority you’ve quoted.
Go inward — to the part of you that wakes up in the morning and chooses what to do next.

Before any philosophy existed, before any argument was written, you already knew what it feels like to choose.
You decide.
You weigh.
You intend.
You act from yourself.

That inner experience — the one no book can give you and no theory can take away — is free will.
Not randomness.
Not magic.
Not external forces.
Just the simple, direct reality of your own self choosing.

If you want to understand free will, don’t look outward.
Look inward.
Your own experience is the clearest evidence you’ll ever have.
TGGIL

Fervent · Apr 1, 2026

TGGIL said:
I’ve read through the many arguments here — the philosophers, the theologians, the scientists, the authors, the videos, the historical voices.
But I want to offer something much simpler.

Set all of that aside for a moment.
Set aside every book you’ve read, every theory you’ve learned, every authority you’ve quoted.
Go inward — to the part of you that wakes up in the morning and chooses what to do next.

Before any philosophy existed, before any argument was written, you already knew what it feels like to choose.
You decide.
You weigh.
You intend.
You act from yourself.

That inner experience — the one no book can give you and no theory can take away — is free will.
Not randomness.
Not magic.
Not external forces.
Just the simple, direct reality of your own self choosing.

If you want to understand free will, don’t look outward.
Look inward.
Your own experience is the clearest evidence you’ll ever have.
TGGIL

Yes, ultimately it boils down to weighting various premises more heavily than the basic experience. Denying free will comes from imposing a structure on the world rather than letting what we discover shape our structures.

TGGIL · Apr 1, 2026

The OP from post number 1 sums this up like this...

"Free will means uncaused choice.
Choices are caused.
Therefore free will doesn’t exist."

The premise assumes what it needs to prove.
If you define free will as “uncaused choice,” then of course free will won’t exist, because nothing in reality is uncaused. But that definition isn’t neutral—it predetermines the conclusion.
The real question isn’t whether choices have causes.
The question is what kind of causes matter.
If my decision is caused by my reasoning, my values, my long‑term goals, and my internal deliberation, then the cause is me. Calling that “not free” simply because it has a cause erases the very thing we’re trying to understand—the agent.

So the argument reduces to:
Free will means uncaused choice.
Choices are caused.
Therefore free will doesn’t exist

That’s not a discovery; it’s a definition doing all the work.
A definition that makes something impossible isn’t evidence that the thing is impossible—it’s just evidence that the definition is too narrow.

Free will and determinism

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

As I figure it, what comes around....

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Active Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

As I figure it, what comes around....

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads