Free will and determinism

Bradskii · Apr 6, 2026

Jerry N. said:
The path you are describing assumes that only one definition of free will is correct, and you exercise your nonexistent free will to follow that path. It is a leap of faith in the definition. It is no different than choosing a religion, including atheism. I may die and find out that Islam was the correct way, or there may be nothing after death. We take a leap of faith in choosing, unless you believe in complete predestination, which is constantly discussed in other threads.

I didn't formulate a definition half way through this thread to try to make it fit my position. It's in the OP. It's the basis for this thread. I have given you three common examples which precisely match it.

It's not a 'leap of faith' in stating it. But anyway, if you want to redine free will then start another thread with that definition and go for it. But if it's not the one I stated in the Op, if it doesn't match the standard, run of the mill examples that you have been given, then I won't be joining in because I won't agree with it. It would be a waste of my time debating the premises of an argument when I disagree with the very definition of what you are trying to prove.

Others have ended up doing the same because they've realised that they have no good arguments against it and resort to try to deny the definition itself.

It stands. As it has for all these posts and umpteen posters.

Bradskii · Apr 6, 2026

Jerry N. said:
I understand completely what you are saying, but I disagree. I have looked deep into myself and seen the hateful evil person I am capable of being. It is not a pleasant task.

It's not who you are capable of being. It's who you are when you make that decision. That decision will be based on reasons. Those reasons are the antecedent conditions (including your character and your mood at the time).

You make no decisions without them.

Jerry N. · Apr 6, 2026

Bradskii said:
It's not a 'leap of faith' in stating it.

True, but it is a leap of faith to follow it.

Jerry N. · Apr 6, 2026

Bradskii said:
It's not who you are capable of being. It's who you are when you make that decision. That decision will be based on reasons. Those reasons are the antecedent conditions (including your character and your mood at the time).

You make no decisions without them.

We covered that already. Antecedent conditions only negate free will in the definition you proposed in the OP.

Bradskii said:
I didn't formulate a definition half way through this thread to try to make it fit my position. It's in the OP. It's the basis for this thread. I have given you three common examples which precisely match it.

It's not a 'leap of faith' in stating it. But anyway, if you want to redine free will then start another thread with that definition and go for it. But if it's not the one I stated in the Op, if it doesn't match the standard, run of the mill examples that you have been given, then I won't be joining in because I won't agree with it. It would be a waste of my time debating the premises of an argument when I disagree with the very definition of what you are trying to prove.

Others have ended up doing the same because they've realised that they have no good arguments against it and resort to try to deny the definition itself.

It stands. As it has for all these posts and umpteen posters.

I guess my mistake is that I thought the discussion of determinism postulated in the OP had run its course several times. This would lead to the obvious step of considering opposing definitions of free will, e.g. Cartesian dualism or something else. Several posts have tried to do that. You have obviously sparked the interest of several people willing to think about the relationship between free will and determinism, so I thought you might be pleased to see where it goes.

Bradskii · Apr 6, 2026

Jerry N. said:
True, but it is a leap of faith to follow it.

Gee, of course. I've spent heaven know how many (literally) hundreds of posts explaining the logic behind it...and then you declare it a 'leap of faith'. Why on EARTH would I want to have faith in it. There's zero benefit in coming to the position I hold. In fact it only gives me more problems to solve.

Bradskii · Apr 6, 2026

Jerry N. said:
We covered that already. Antecedent conditions only negate free will in the definition you proposed in the OP.

And that definition stands.

Jerry N. said:
I guess my mistake is that I thought the discussion of determinism postulated in the OP had run its course several times.

It's petered out a few times.

Jerry N. said:
This would lead to the obvious step of considering opposing definitions of free will, e.g. Cartesian dualism or something else.

No. That hasn't been entertained. Dualism would come under compatibilism. That is it would be compatible with determination. Good luck trying to argue that!

Jerry N. said:
. Several posts have tried to do that. You have obviously sparked the interest of several people willing to think about the relationship between free will and determinism, so I thought you might be pleased to see where it goes.

Fot a lot of posters it's gone nowhere. Except for plaintive versions of 'But of course we have it. It's so obvious!'.

Jerry N. · Apr 6, 2026

Bradskii said:
Gee, of course. I've spent heaven know how many (literally) hundreds of posts explaining the logic behind it...and then you declare it a 'leap of faith'. Why on EARTH would I want to have faith in it. There's zero benefit in coming to the position I hold. In fact it only gives me more problems to solve.

Maybe you made the wrong choice.

I would argue that logic does not always lead to the best solutions in life.

Jerry N. · Apr 6, 2026

Bradskii said:
No. That hasn't been entertained. Dualism would come under compatibilism. That is it would be compatible with determination. Good luck trying to argue that!

I was thinking you would encourage discussions among people whose views you don’t agree. You have that skill, which I don’t.

Mark Quayle · Apr 6, 2026

Jerry N. said:
Since you quoted AI and only one of three or more definitions of free will, I will also add a quote from AI:

Definition of Love

Love can indeed be defined as an act of free will. This perspective emphasizes that genuine love requires the ability to choose freely. Without the capacity to choose against love, the act of loving loses its true significance.

Importance of Choice in Love

Genuine Love: For love to be authentic, it must be freely chosen. If individuals are compelled to love without the option to choose otherwise, their love lacks depth and meaning.

Moral Responsibility: The ability to choose is essential for moral responsibility. When people can decide to love or not, they engage in a meaningful relationship that reflects their true feelings and intentions.

The Role of Free Will

Free Will and Relationships

Capacity to Choose: Love involves the freedom to act against one's feelings. This capacity allows individuals to express love genuinely, as they are not merely following instinct or obligation.

Examples in Life: In human relationships, such as between parents and children, love can emerge naturally without a conscious choice. However, the ability to choose to act lovingly is what solidifies that bond.

Implications for Divine Love

God's Love: The concept of free will extends to theological discussions about God's love. It is argued that God's love is genuine because it is freely given, despite His nature as love itself.

Conclusion

In summary, love is fundamentally linked to free will. The ability to choose freely is what makes love meaningful and authentic, whether in human relationships or in the context of divine love.

You do realize, of course, that AI is using common terminology. What you are showing here is like an argument that since dictionaries define "free will", that therefore there really is such a thing. That makes about as much sense as to say that since we don't know all things and are not able to predict all things, and since we can throw math at our notions of probability, that therefore there is such a thing as physical probability that governs all fact.

No. Human love is fundamentally linked to will. The word, "free", is meaningless, there.

Mark Quayle · Apr 6, 2026

Jerry N. said:
Maybe you made the wrong choice. I would argue that logic does not always lead to the best solutions in life.

Of course. Our logic, dependent on what little we can know, is weak. But it prevails wherever it is cogent. Logic is not about solutions in life. It may or may not result in some good solutions, but that is irrelevant as to what is true.

Jerry N. · Apr 6, 2026

Mark Quayle said:
You do realize, of course, that AI is using common terminology. What you are showing here is like an argument that since dictionaries define "free will", that therefore there really is such a thing. That makes about as much sense as to say that since we don't know all things and are not able to predict all things, and since we can throw math at our notions of probability, that therefore there is such a thing as physical probability that governs all fact.

No. Human love is fundamentally linked to will. The word, "free", is meaningless, there.

You are not taking into account the other meanings of "free will" posed by philosophers and theologians.

Jerry N. · Apr 6, 2026

Mark Quayle said:
Of course. Our logic, dependent on what little we can know, is weak. But it prevails wherever it is cogent. Logic is not about solutions in life. It may or may not result in some good solutions, but that is irrelevant as to what is true.

That is correct if you are dealing with deductive reasoning, if the basic facts are known and none missing; however, you admitted that this discussion is inductive reasoning since we cannot know all of the inputs. It is the black swan problem. All swans are white, until somebody finds black ones in Australia. It is irrelevant to the discussion, but some of my best decisions were not logical. Of course, it goes both ways. edit: Maybe it wasn't you that said it is inductive, but I'm too lazy to check.

Mark Quayle · Apr 6, 2026

Jerry N. said:
You are not taking into account the other meanings of "free will" posed by philosophers and theologians.

I most certainly am. So far as I have seen, the only places the word, "free", is necessary to the discussion, is in arguing their baseless notion that "will" operates in some way uncaused.

Jerry N. · Apr 6, 2026

Mark Quayle said:
I most certainly am. So far as I have seen, the only places the word, "free", is necessary to the discussion, is in arguing their baseless notion that "will" operates in some way uncaused.

That is because Hobbs and Hume used the word “liberty” to mean free will.

Bradskii · Apr 6, 2026

Jerry N. said:
Maybe you made the wrong choice.

It wasn't a choice.

Jerry N. said:
I would argue that logic does not always lead to the best solutions in life.

I'll grant that it often doesnt lead to one's preferred solution.

Bradskii · Apr 6, 2026

Jerry N. said:
I was thinking you would encourage discussions among people whose views you don’t agree.

It was the reason for the thread. But if disagreements deep into the thead consist of people whose arguments are going nowhere saying 'well, then I disagree with the definition', it cuts no ice with me.

Jerry N. · Apr 6, 2026

Bradskii said:
It wasn't a choice.

I don't usually use emojis when I make a joke, I guess this is why.

Jerry N. · Apr 6, 2026

Bradskii said:
It was the reason for the thread. But if disagreements deep into the thead consist of people whose arguments are going nowhere saying 'well, then I disagree with the definition', it cuts no ice with me.

If that is the only reason for the thread, it makes some sense. I guess we haven’t cut any ice. I looked up “cutting ice” – “reducing or eliminating shyness, awkward tension, or unfamiliarity.” You seem to mean it doesn’t “pique your interest.” If that is the case, then I don’t understand the purpose of a very successful thread in relation to participation. I’m still learning how this forum business works.

Fervent · Apr 6, 2026

Bradskii said:
Gee, of course. I've spent heaven know how many (literally) hundreds of posts explaining the logic behind it...and then you declare it a 'leap of faith'. Why on EARTH would I want to have faith in it. There's zero benefit in coming to the position I hold. In fact it only gives me more problems to solve.

So then why do you fight so hard to keep it? Why do you continue to employ fallacies in defending your position even after those fallacies have been named and pointed out?

childeye 2 · Apr 6, 2026

Neogaia777 said:
@Bradskii @BelieveItOarKnot

The only way a choice, or anything at all, can be truly random under the theory or teaching of determinism, is only if it has absolutely no prior inputs/causal factors influencing or determining it, which would take us all the way back to the very first "thing/cause" before the BB probably, which none of us knows about what was or might have been before that then, or even the way it would operate or even happen, since we cannot even imagine a thing not having any prior casual influences, or determining factors, etc. So, please stop calling certain things in this reality random, when you know they are not, ok. It's not only incorrect, but it's also very poor language to use if your try to show/convince others of determinism, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

It's difficult to articulate objective language. Anything before time, as we understand 'time', is deemed 'eternal' because we can neither prove nor disprove the eternal as Eternal. Because we cannot prove nor disprove the Eternal is why faith/unfaith get their objective meaning as the first derivative of Agape. In Christianity God is the Eternal and is therefore an axiomatic term identified as Agape Love, a quality of God's Character. Hence faith/unfaith is not an issue of choice, but a condition of either knowing or not knowing God experientially.

1 John 2:5
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

1 John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1 John 4:13
Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

Free will and determinism

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads