Christianity and Free Will?

[drich0150]

I am assuming that this is what you mean by an example of free will. This is not a specific example of free will, this a vague theological idea. What I am asking for is something that happened during the course of your day that shows that you were able to have free will. Anything you can think of would be great, I will show how it is not free will but rather a series of cause and effect proving that it was a deterministic event.

Again you misunderstand the biblical representation of Free will. Free Will as the bible describes it has nothing to do with one's ability to choose a path resulting in a cause or an effect. Biblically based free will is the ability to choose one's own will over that of God's expressed will. This is free will as the bible describes it, not if we have the ability to choose our own destiny as pop culture would dictate.

As I have already said even if you believe that we are locked into a destiny. biblically based freewill still exists, in that even if we have a planed out existence we get to choose whether or not and/or how much we sin. we also get to choose redemption for that sin.

Here is your example:
Jimmy was playing in the house with his bat. Jimmy accidentally put his bat through his dad's new flat screen. Dad comes home and asks Jimmy what happened. Jimmy took an opportunity to exercise his free will, and lied to his father about the hole in the TV.

This was an opportunity for Jimmy because we have been given the command "You shall not Lie." Jimmy took the opportunity to lie. Jimmy's will supersede The Father's expressed will.

 

[jonmichael818]

Again you misunderstand the biblical representation of Free will. Free Will as the bible describes it has nothing to do with one's ability to choose a path resulting in a cause or an effect. Biblically based free will is the ability to choose one's own will over that of God's expressed will. This is free will as the bible describes it, not if we have the ability to choose our own destiny as pop culture would dictate.

Biblically based free will, if it exists as a part of reality, must be evident in our everyday lives. If biblical free will has nothing to do with the way reality actually works, then it should be thrown out and we should not even be talking about it. Another thing I do not understand, is why you keep referring to free will as biblically based free will? Is there such thing as different kinds of free will? We either have free will or we don't, period. If someone's interpretation of free will is not consistant with reality, then it is a non-issue.

As I have already said even if you believe that we are locked into a destiny. biblically based freewill still exists, in that even if we have a planed out existence we get to choose whether or not and/or how much we sin. we also get to choose redemption for that sin.

If we have a planned out existance, then that would mean that we cannot stray from that which has been planned, which means that a choice based in free will cannot exist. And whether or not those so-called choices are considered a sin or not has to do with one's moral beliefs, not whether free will or determinism exists.

Here is your example:
Jimmy was playing in the house with his bat. Jimmy accidentally put his bat through his dad's new flat screen. Dad comes home and asks Jimmy what happened. Jimmy took an opportunity to exercise his free will, and lied to his father about the hole in the TV.

This was an opportunity for Jimmy because we have been given the command "You shall not Lie." Jimmy took the opportunity to lie. Jimmy's will supersede The Father's expressed will.

If your definition of free will is simply disobeying "The Father's expressed will," then yes you are consistant with "your definition" of free will.

Free Will- freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.-Merriam/Webster Dictionary

Based on this definition of free will Jimmy was simply acting according to prior conditions such as: genetics, upbringing, life experiences and possibly fear or the lack of a desire to get into trouble. This series of experience and thoughts went through his mind to produce the output of lying. This is an example of cause and effect and therefore is actually evidence in favor of determinism.

 

[jonmichael818]

Jonmichael,

I'm sorry my friend, you didn't actually answer my question. Please look at your answer. You didn't address whether the act of knowing is equivalent to direct influence. Well, yes or no?

Sorry, I try to make it a point to be clear.

To know a fact about someone does not influence an individuals actions.
I think I know where you are going with this, but I will wait for your response.

 

[drich0150]

Biblically based free will, if it exists as a part of reality, must be evident in our everyday lives.

Do you not see sin as apart of our everyday life?

If biblical free will has nothing to do with the way reality actually works, then it should be thrown out and we should not even be talking about it.

Why not? Because it does not fit the argument you are prepared to fight? why would anyone be apposed to expanding their vocabulary and simply shut off or close off their mind?

Another thing I do not understand, is why you keep referring to free will as biblically based free will? Is there such thing as different kinds of free will? We either have free will or we don't, period. If someone's interpretation of free will is not consistent with reality, then it is a non-issue.

As I have pointed out, your concept of Free will is not consistent with the biblical concept of "Free will." It is important to make the distinction so as to minimize your confusion.
As you have posted your query in the Exploring Christianity section of the web site. I assume (unless you have misrepresented your true intentions) you would want a Christian/biblical take on the subject you have inquired about.

If we have a planned out existence, then that would mean that we cannot stray from that which has been planned, which means that a choice based in free will cannot exist.

In the popular culture definition of free will yes. But as I have demonstrated true free will or biblically based free will is not bound to the confines of this logic.

And whether or not those so-called choices are considered a sin or not has to do with one's moral beliefs, not whether free will or determinism exists.

I agree in your philosophical doctrines take, based on your stated assumptions. But again as i have demonstrated the biblical definitions on this subject have been at best, misunderstood by those who originally pioneered this line of thought, and therefore have tainted your fore gone conclusions. you have been misinformed.

If your definition of free will is simply disobeying "The Father's expressed will," then yes you are consistent with "your definition" of free will.

I may have made the observation, but "my definition" is the one found in scripture.

Based on this definition of free will Jimmy was simply acting according to prior conditions such as: genetics, upbringing, life experiences and possibly fear or the lack of a desire to get into trouble. This series of experience and thoughts went through his mind to produce the output of lying. This is an example of cause and effect and therefore is actually evidence in favor of determinism.

You may attribute his decision making to any one of these things listed, or several other that are not listed, but bottom line is Jimmy knew the differences between right and wrong and simply choose sin. So no matter if you believe if jimmy simply chose to lie of his own accord or if he was a victim of circumstance, the choice and the actual lie was his to make.

Again you can classify his choice either way and yet Jimmy still lied/sinned.

 

[jonmichael818]

Why not? Because it does not fit the argument you are prepared to fight? why would anyone be apposed to expanding their vocabulary and simply shut off or close off their mind?

I suppose you are right, maybe it should not be completely thrown out, but if biblical free will does not exist as part of reality it is only useful in the same way that any fictional idea or story is useful. It would not fit the argument that I am prepared to fight because if it is not a part of reality, then it is not the "truth" and as such would not be what I am seeking in this thread.

As you have posted your query in the Exploring Christianity section of the web site. I assume (unless you have misrepresented your true intentions) you would want a Christian/biblical take on the subject you have inquired about.

You are right, I do want the christian perspective of free will, but in order to get to the nitty gritty of what that perspective is, I have to put it under intense scrutiny. And the reason why I want the christian perspective on free will is to see whether or not it may be a perspective that exists in reality. If it does not then as I said, it is as useful to me as any fictional idea or story.

In the popular culture definition of free will yes. But as I have demonstrated true free will or biblically based free will is not bound to the confines of this logic.

I think the issue is a matter of definitions. You are presenting what you say is "biblical based free will," and I am presenting what you call "pop cultures" defintion of free will. So then I guess the question now is which definition is the defintion that truly exists as a fundamental part of reality? (assuming that one of the definitions is true)

but bottom line is Jimmy knew the differences between right and wrong and simply choose sin. So no matter if you believe if jimmy simply chose to lie of his own accord or if he was a victim of circumstance, the choice and the actual lie was his to make.

Again you can classify his choice either way and yet Jimmy still lied/sinned.

I think there may be a definition issue here as well? Depending on how you are using the word choose, choice or any of its forms, makes the difference. Choice can be a concept attached to free will, or it can exists in a deterministic setting as well. Let me explain: at any given moment an individual may have a "choice" to do this or that, but whether or not that "choice" is rooted in free will or it is an effect of a prior cause(i.e. determinism) is the question? So, did jimmy really have a choice based in free will? I can't see how if each thought and action can be reduced to a streeming series of cause and effect, almost as if we were watching some kind of script being acted out, or watching a mathematical eqution progress.

 

[jonmichael818]

Predetermination is certainly involved in our lives (to deny it is to deny God's involvement in our lives), even our eternal fate (Acts 13:48), but it is not complete; not everything that happens is predetermined by God. God grants periods, intervals, instances during which we can have free will.

During these instances, nothing that we do is predetermined by God (although God has foreknowledge of our choices and can intervene and can influence our decisions anytime). The duration of the instances is controlled by God.

If God is omniscient, then he knows every series of events that will take place. If any single event happens any different than that which he knew, than he is not omniscient. If God is omniscient, then every single event that he knows is going to happen(which also means every event) must by definition and by necessity take place. Because if they did not take place, then he is not omniscient. And since every event must take place just as he must know they will take place, this prevents any other agent from being able to deter from that which he knows will take place. Which means that free will would not exist.
So either God is omniscient and free will does not exist, or God is not omniscient and free will does exist.

 

[drich0150]

I suppose you are right, maybe it should not be completely thrown out, but if biblical free will does not exist as part of reality it is only useful in the same way that any fictional idea or story is useful. It would not fit the argument that I am prepared to fight because if it is not a part of reality, then it is not the "truth" and as such would not be what I am seeking in this thread.

Then you must admit that the "truth" you seek or the "truth" that you seemed to be prepared to argue is predicated on the idea of a supreme being in control of our actions. If this is the case and there is a supreme being who has set this existence in motion. then wouldn't it be logical that He did all of this for a reason. If there is indeed a reason and "we" are all players in a big game, then isn't there some need for the players to have a copy of the rule book?
Christianity calls this being God and this rule book the bible. In the bible we are not told specifically in a modern/popular understanding if predestination is apart of our life or not. But it does specifically outline freewill as I have described it for you. So, if your are willing to accept that God has predestined us to behave or act in accordance to a script, and it is truth and reality that you seek, then why are you so ready to dismiss the Truth found in scripture, and have held to the "truth" found in our popular culture? If you can accept that there is a master script writer, then why can you not accept the other "script" He has penned?

You are right, I do want the christian perspective of free will, but in order to get to the nitty gritty of what that perspective is, I have to put it under intense scrutiny. And the reason why I want the christian perspective on free will is to see whether or not it may be a perspective that exists in reality. If it does not then as I said, it is as useful to me as any fictional idea or story.

Have you place your current understanding of "Free Will" under the same scrutiny?

I think the issue is a matter of definitions. You are presenting what you say is "biblical based free will," and I am presenting what you call "pop cultures" definition of free will. So then I guess the question now is which definition is the definition that truly exists as a fundamental part of reality? (assuming that one of the definitions is true)

As I see it, the popular understanding of "free will" is a simply matter of philosophy, one that will never be definitively proved on way or another. How can truth and reality be accept with out poof, or faith? Which one supports what you currently believe?

Even if you take or believe the popular understanding of "free will' it still points to God, and as God has written down His "thoughts" on free will, then i would say even the popular version of free will underlines the legitimacy of the biblical definition of it. Which in of itself points to a completely new understanding of the term.
If your definition pointed to the bible's definition, then I ask again why are you not questioning your definition as eagerly as you question the biblical account? Why hang on to a "reality' that only exists in academia?

I think there may be a definition issue here as well? Depending on how you are using the word choose, choice or any of its forms, makes the difference. Choice can be a concept attached to free will, or it can exists in a deterministic setting as well. Let me explain: at any given moment an individual may have a "choice" to do this or that, but whether or not that "choice" is rooted in free will or it is an effect of a prior cause(i.e. determinism) is the question? So, did jimmy really have a choice based in free will? I can't see how if each thought and action can be reduced to a streaming series of cause and effect, almost as if we were watching some kind of script being acted out, or watching a mathematical equation progress.

Again if you believe there is a script, then who wrote it?

 

[Jpark]

If God is omniscient, then he knows every series of events that will take place. If any single event happens any different than that which he knew, than he is not omniscient. If God is omniscient, then every single event that he knows is going to happen(which also means every event) must by definition and by necessity take place. Because if they did not take place, then he is not omniscient.

So you're saying God can't intervene in predetermined instances?

He can't change what is about to happen?

Then you're implying that He is not Omnipotent. Scripture shows that He can change predetermination.

Besides, I didn't say that a event can happen any different than what He knows. I said that God can change His mind about something so that it will happen differently yet remain in God's perfect will.

And since every event must take place just as he must know they will take place, this prevents any other agent from being able to deter from that which he knows will take place.

But God has the capability to control what happens. He has the ability to intervene in them, change them, influence them. He is not confined to predetermination.

 

[jonmichael818]

Then you must admit that the "truth" you seek or the "truth" that you seemed to be prepared to argue is predicated on the idea of a supreme being in control of our actions. If this is the case and there is a supreme being who has set this existence in motion.

This is my ultimate question, whether or not a God does exists? Which is why I am agnostic, and as such my search for truth is not predicated on anything except where the evidence leads me.

Have you place your current understanding of "Free Will" under the same scrutiny?

I believe that I have. Like I said, I was a christian for most of my life, and use to argue against athiests, agnostic and others. I scrtinized there points of views and logic as best I could, and in light of the evidence I lost my faith. My "divorce" with christianity was a very nasty one, and it was probably the biggest event in my life. In this thread I am simply trying to see if there was anything I may have missed when I was a christian.

Most people hate to be proven wrong, I on the other hand love to be proven wrong, because if it is the "truth" you seek, then when you are proven wrong you are one step closer to the truth. Of course it sometimes takes some time to get used to the idea that you may be wrong.

Again if you believe there is a script, then who wrote it?

I am not sure if a script was written at all, let along who may have written it. Reality may exist as it does for no other reason than thats just the way it is. Reasons and purposes may be nothing more than an anthropomorphic phenomenon.

 

[jonmichael818]

So you're saying God can't intervene in predetermined instances?

If God were to intervene then that would mean that he forced his will onto us, meaning that in that moment we did not have free will. This senario is at best limited free will, which is something I think you agree with based on your previous statements. Secondly,if God intervened then he must have known that he would intervene. If he did not know, then he would not be omniscient.

Then you're implying that He is not Omnipotent. Scripture shows that He can change predetermination.

This does imply that he does not have the ability to change his mind, which would also imply that he is not omnipotent. I do not believe what the scriptures say, so to use them as a means of evidence would be futile unless you proved that which ever event you are referring to actually happened.

 

[Jpark]

Secondly,if God intervened then he must have known that he would intervene. If he did not know, then he would not be omniscient.

This does imply that he does not have the ability to change his mind, which would also imply that he is not omnipotent. I do not believe what the scriptures say, so to use them as a means of evidence would be futile unless you proved that which ever event you are referring to actually happened.

God's Omniscience doesn't apply to Him. He isn't subjected to it.

2 Kings 20:1-6 shows that God can change His mind, plans about a person's future.

1 John 5:18 shows that God can intervene in a person's life.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

God's Omniscience doesn't apply to Him. He isn't subjected to it.

2 Kings 20:1-6 shows that God can change His mind, plans about a person's future.

1 John 5:18 shows that God can intervene in a person's life.

So he couldn't create a rock so big he couldn't move?

 

[Jpark]

So he couldn't create a rock so big he couldn't move?

God's Omnipotence doesn't mean that He can do anything.

Can He be tempted? He can't.

Can He sin? He can't.

Can He die? He can't.

God's Omnipotence means that He has no limit (i.e. uncontainable; 2 Chronicles 6:18).

"Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" is based on a poor understanding of what His Omnipotence is and sets a limit on Him by confining Him to the man-made definition of Omnipotence.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

God's Omnipotence doesn't mean that He can do anything.

Can He be tempted? He can't.

Can He sin? He can't.

Can He die? He can't.

God's Omnipotence means that He has no limit (i.e. uncontainable; 2 Chronicles 6:18).

"Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" is based on a poor understanding of what His Omnipotence is and sets a limit on Him by confining Him to the man-made definition of Omnipotence.

Was Jesus tempted?
Did Jesus die?

Could you elaborate on your statement that being omnipotent necessarily precludes certain acts?

 

[jonmichael818]

God's Omniscience doesn't apply to Him. He isn't subjected to it.

First of all, as far as I know, this is pure speculation. Please correct me if I am wrong.
For the sake of argument lets assume that your statement is true. This would mean God may not necessarily know about what he himself may or may not do outside of that which he created, but he would be omniscient about his creation.
However, since he would be omniscient about his creation, he must surley know if something within his creation changed, and what changed it. In other words, once he inserts himself into what he supposedly is omniscient about, he must know that he was the one who intervened to cause a change. If he knew that he was the one that intervened, than he would be omniscient with respect to himself and his actions that he took within his creation. Anything that he does outside of his creation(which is our reality) has nothing to do with us.
So, his omniscients as it applies to us, would also apply to himself.

2 Kings 20:1-6 shows that God can change His mind, plans about a person's future.

1 John 5:18 shows that God can intervene in a person's life.

Again, I do not believe what the scriptures say, so it is futile to use scriptures as proof. You must prove that these events are a historical fact.

 

[drich0150]

This is my ultimate question, whether or not a God does exists? Which is why I am agnostic, and as such my search for truth is not predicated on anything except where the evidence leads me.

Then how does a philosophical exercise answer the question if God exists or not? At best it only tests your understanding of God. If you truly seek proof then you will have to turn to God Himself..

I believe that I have. Like I said, I was a christian for most of my life, and use to argue against atheists, agnostic and others. I scrutinized there points of views and logic as best I could, and in light of the evidence I lost my faith.

One could argue that if belief in shaky evidence could have you trade one faith for another, then the faith you traded was never yours to begin with. Or, this time in your life could be seen as your time spent in the wilderness. Nearly all of the men used by God spent time away from Him, (even the not so great ones.) The answer to this question lies in your intentions.

My "divorce" with Christianity was a very nasty one, and it was probably the biggest event in my life. In this thread I am simply trying to see if there was anything I may have missed when I was a christian.

Do you honestly believe that your entire faith, lies in the "truth" of predestination? What if your understanding of the Omni aspects of God, or definition of God is in error? One could easily argue and defeat a faith solely built on the religious definitions, rather than biblical fact.
For instances how can we even begin to define God with words that have limitations and finite meanings? At best the words we use to "define" God only point in the direction of God. Meaning if we can "logically" understand encapsulate and defeat a definition of God, then it is not God that has been defeated, but our religious understanding of Him.

This is especially true in this argument. In that you understood God to have a finite or limited capacity in that He was limited to your understanding of the omni aspects you have learn to accept of God. Presumably it was this aspect of God, that "conflicted" with the logical appeal that is found in your current argument. But, for whatever reason you feel rather than to question your understanding of an infinite God it was better and more likely that God simply did not exist.. Because How could you or the one who originally presented you with this argument possibly be wrong (Intentionally or otherwise) about God?

This "pride" (for lack of a better word) in your understanding of God is made clear in your trivialization of the "truth" found in the scriptural definition of Free Will. How else can one dismiss God's written truth, for his own understanding of truth and reality when dealing directly with the truth and reality of God?

Most people hate to be proven wrong, I on the other hand love to be proven wrong, because if it is the "truth" you seek, then when you are proven wrong you are one step closer to the truth. Of course it sometimes takes some time to get used to the idea that you may be wrong.

I found that "people" love to be proven wrong when it comes to things other that the philosophical/religious "truths" that govern our lives.. Those "truths" are seldom embraced unless that person's heart is in it.

 

[Jpark]

Again, I do not believe what the scriptures say, so it is futile to use scriptures as proof. You must prove that these events are a historical fact.

I guess this means I quit then, since debating anything about God with logic is futile. God cannot be proven by human means.

 

[jonmichael818]

God cannot be proven by human means.

Precisely! Based on this, it is more logical to not believe in one way or another just because someone told me or some book says so. And since things seem to have a naturalistic explaination, there does not seem to be a need to believe in a God anyways. I simply try and live a happy and virtuous life.

However, I still seek and hope to be proven wrong in any way that I can, since it is the truth that I am after. Which is exactly why I keep questioning my self, and is why I started this thread.

 

[jonmichael818]

This is a very interesting short clip that holds some important implications with respect to the issue of free will and determinism.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM[/youtube]

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I guess this means I quit then, since debating anything about God with logic is futile. God cannot be proven by human means.

I agree with you.