Do we have free will?

[Wiccan_Child]

Do we have free will, either in whole or in part? Is it even possible to answer this question?

 

[Jig]

Do we have free will, either in whole or in part? Is it even possible to answer this question?

Your question can not be correctly answered without assuming what you mean by "free will". Please define.

Do you define "free will" as to mean we all have the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect our destiny?

One thing is for certain. Free will cannot mean that humans can do whatever they please. Our choices are limited to the scope of what nature will allow. Can I choose to jump over the moon? No.

Also, since our conclusions on this matter and interpretation of the evidence requires many philosophical presuppositions, we walk on the wide road of subjectivity and not on the narrow road of objectivity.

My belief: Yes, based on my above definition of free will. I have not been convinced by opposing arguments. Either because of my bias or their weakness, I can not truly know. What is interesting, however, is that regardless of the vast range of philosophical foundations, the idea that we control our destiny is widely believed to be true. My position sits within the circle of the majority.

 

[Chesterton]

Do we have free will, either in whole or in part? Is it even possible to answer this question?

I contend we have free will. Did you read my last post in your long-running Exploring Christianity thread? If you had perfect and complete information, you should be able to predict my every thought and action. But if you made the prediction known to me, what could possibly prevent me from willfully doing other than what your prediction predicted?

 

[bibleblevr]

Absolutely not,

First, everyone acts on a personally formed system of preferences which results from nature, and nurture. You can not do anything that you do not most prefer. If You prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream, you will choose chocolate, unless another preference is at work that can override your choc. preference, for example, your might have run to your freezer just now for some vanilla in order to prove me wrong. If you did this, then you have only proved that you prefer to prove me wrong over eating Choc ice cream, and again, you are bound by your system of preferences, because no matter what you do, it requires a motive and that motive, stems from, and gains it's strength from ether your basic nature or your nurture.

Second, in the future, there will only be one of you, just like now. And that one of you can only travel down one path. If the future will happen, then you will follow that one path of the future.

Thirdly, If I knew everything, then I could predict everything you do, just like a pair of dice seems random, to us, but would not to a man who knows and calculates all the forces involved in the rolling of the dice, so it would be with an all knowing man, and you. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, this is true both physically and psychologically, anything that happens to you has an effect. If there is no effect, then that is an effect in it's self. These effects could be identified and calculated by the all knowing man, just like the dice and the result can be predicted. the equal and opposite reaction is also happening on a physical and chemical reaction in the process of your mind, the all knowing mind could examine the chemicals in your brain and know what your next actions will be, based on his knowledge of the workings of your brain and your subsequent reactions which will result in added information from your environment, in turn effecting the brain in a predictable manner, repeating the cycle.

Fourthly, Free-will is only attractive because it adds power to the image of Man, it makes us feel sovereign, and gives us a feeling that even though influence can be heavily laid upon us, we never have to yield to it. It paints us like Gods. It is an attractive idea because it feeds into the weakness of all men, pride. Pride has not place in the realm of logic, and it only serves to prevent discovery, and to discourage adoption of truth. Examine yourself O free-willers and separate pride from you logic, then look with fresh eyes.


And don't even get me started on the biblical reasons we don't have free-will!

 

[Chesterton]

Absolutely not,

First, everyone acts on a personally formed system of preferences which results from nature, and nurture. You can not do anything that you do not most prefer. If You prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream, you will choose chocolate, unless another preference is at work that can override your choc. preference, for example, your might have run to your freezer just now for some vanilla in order to prove me wrong. If you did this, then you have only proved that you prefer to prove me wrong over eating Choc ice cream, and again, you are bound by your system of preferences, because no matter what you do, it requires a motive and that motive, stems from, and gains it's strength from ether your basic nature or your nurture.

You're using the word "prefer" as if it were something that happens to us. That may have truth to it, but it is different from what a man actually does. Do you really think you cannot choose to do that which you do not prefer? Do you not see the mistake in the backwards reasoning of saying of an action, "Well I did it, so therefore I preferred it, therefore I had to do it"?

Second, in the future, there will only be one of you, just like now. And that one of you can only travel down one path. If the future will happen, then you will follow that one path of the future.

We can only travel down one path? What's your evidence or reasoning for that idea?

Thirdly, If I knew everything, then I could predict everything you do, just like a pair of dice seems random, to us, but would not to a man who knows and calculates all the forces involved in the rolling of the dice, so it would be with an all knowing man, and you. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, this is true both physically and psychologically, anything that happens to you has an effect. If there is no effect, then that is an effect in it's self. These effects could be identified and calculated by the all knowing man, just like the dice and the result can be predicted. the equal and opposite reaction is also happening on a physical and chemical reaction in the process of your mind, the all knowing mind could examine the chemicals in your brain and know what your next actions will be, based on his knowledge of the workings of your brain and your subsequent reactions which will result in added information from your environment, in turn effecting the brain in a predictable manner, repeating the cycle.

You're not presenting any argument here. The question is "is man like a pair of dice", and all you're doing is making the assertion "yes he is". But, I completely agree that in the absense of supernatural intervention, man must be as you describe.

Fourthly, Free-will is only attractive because it adds power to the image of Man, it makes us feel sovereign, and gives us a feeling that even though influence can be heavily laid upon us, we never have to yield to it. It paints us like Gods. It is an attractive idea because it feeds into the weakness of all men, pride. Pride has not place in the realm of logic, and it only serves to prevent discovery, and to discourage adoption of truth. Examine yourself O free-willers and separate pride from you logic, then look with fresh eyes.

You have it backwards. Free will adds omnipotence, sovereignity and love to the image of God. Only a very great and magnanimous Being could create lesser beings with the freedom and dignity to reject Him. Anyone with a little electrical engineering knowledge can make a robot.

 

[bibleblevr]

You're using the word "prefer" as if it were something that happens to us. That may have truth to it, but it is different from what a man actually does. Do you really think you cannot choose to do that which you do not prefer? Do you not see the mistake in the backwards reasoning of saying of an action, "Well I did it, so therefore I preferred it, therefore I had to do it"?

Preferences are something that happens too us, they are formed due to circumstances out side of our control, mostly in early childhood ,and/ or are imprinted on us from birth. If you disagree, name something that doesn't fit into one of those categories

And yes, I don't think that one can choose something that they don't prefer. Everyone does what they believe is right, in fact the Bible says that Every way of a man is right in his own eyes. Again, if you can think of an exception, tell me what it is.

We can only travel down one path? What's your evidence or reasoning for that idea?

Are you contesting my assumption that there is only one future? The law of conservation of matter limits us to having one future not more, as that would result in matter from nothing. IF you agree that there can be only one thing that will happen, and we call it the future, since the definition of the future is, what will happen, then you agree that man is only choosing between what will happen, and what will happen. That is to say, Man has only one choose, that is to proceed into what will happen, or, rather, the future.

You're not presenting any argument here. The question is "is man like a pair of dice", and all you're doing is making the assertion "yes he is". But, I completely agree that in the absense of supernatural intervention, man must be as you describe.

Then the burden of proof is on you to show me in the Bible were my logic is nullified, and where it says that God has given us the supernatural ability of free-will, distinct of course, from the ability to simply decide.

You have it backwards. Free will adds omnipotence, sovereignty and love to the image of God. Only a very great and magnanimous Being could create lesser beings with the freedom and dignity to reject Him. Anyone with a little electrical engineering knowledge can make a robot.

Free-will could do nothing to add to the image of God, nor can anything else. We are the image of God not because we are like him, but only because he shines his light on us and he is reflected in us. We are not paintings that gain their beauty from the intricacy of our construction, we are mirrors, and we gain our beauty from the accuracy with which we reflect the face of God.

 

[d'Sasster]

Absolutely not,

First, everyone acts on a personally formed system of preferences which results from nature, and nurture. You can not do anything that you do not most prefer. If You prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream, you will choose chocolate, unless another preference is at work that can override your choc. preference, for example, your might have run to your freezer just now for some vanilla in order to prove me wrong. If you did this, then you have only proved that you prefer to prove me wrong over eating Choc ice cream, and again, you are bound by your system of preferences, because no matter what you do, it requires a motive and that motive, stems from, and gains it's strength from ether your basic nature or your nurture.

Second, in the future, there will only be one of you, just like now. And that one of you can only travel down one path. If the future will happen, then you will follow that one path of the future.

Thirdly, If I knew everything, then I could predict everything you do, just like a pair of dice seems random, to us, but would not to a man who knows and calculates all the forces involved in the rolling of the dice, so it would be with an all knowing man, and you. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, this is true both physically and psychologically, anything that happens to you has an effect. If there is no effect, then that is an effect in it's self. These effects could be identified and calculated by the all knowing man, just like the dice and the result can be predicted. the equal and opposite reaction is also happening on a physical and chemical reaction in the process of your mind, the all knowing mind could examine the chemicals in your brain and know what your next actions will be, based on his knowledge of the workings of your brain and your subsequent reactions which will result in added information from your environment, in turn effecting the brain in a predictable manner, repeating the cycle.

Fourthly, Free-will is only attractive because it adds power to the image of Man, it makes us feel sovereign, and gives us a feeling that even though influence can be heavily laid upon us, we never have to yield to it. It paints us like Gods. It is an attractive idea because it feeds into the weakness of all men, pride. Pride has not place in the realm of logic, and it only serves to prevent discovery, and to discourage adoption of truth. Examine yourself O free-willers and separate pride from you logic, then look with fresh eyes.


And don't even get me started on the biblical reasons we don't have free-will!

^ apparently written under force, coercion, or as an agent of some pre-determined plan.

Arguing (freely, as irony would have it) against free-will is like asserting "there are no absolutes" - the assertion itself a contradiction of itself.

...off for a bowl of ice cream before bed; I'm thinking vanilla this time - for a change.

 

[Chesterton]

Preferences are something that happens too us, they are formed due to circumstances out side of our control, mostly in early childhood ,and/ or are imprinted on us from birth. If you disagree, name something that doesn't fit into one of those categories

I'm not necessarily arguing the point that preferences happen to us. Even the New Testament notes that different men have different dispositions; some men are tempted by things which others are not. But that is not at all to say that preference determines every action. There is a term we use - "self-control". The very term recognizes that we are selves which can control our selves, despite our preferences.

And yes, I don't think that one can choose something that they don't prefer. Everyone does what they believe is right, in fact the Bible says that Every way of a man is right in his own eyes. Again, if you can think of an exception, tell me what it is.

I hate brussel sprouts, but I could still choose to eat them. It's as simple as that really. And you're interpreting one sentence out of context. Obviously everyone does not do what they believe is right. I spent a good part of my life doing things I knew were wrong, but I did them anyway.

Are you contesting my assumption that there is only one future?

For man, yes. For purely material things, I don't know, that's up to God.

The law of conservation of matter limits us to having one future not more, as that would result in matter from nothing. IF you agree that there can be only one thing that will happen, and we call it the future, since the definition of the future is, what will happen, then you agree that man is only choosing between what will happen, and what will happen. That is to say, Man has only one choose, that is to proceed into what will happen, or, rather, the future.

By applying to man a law which pertains to mere matter, you are saying that man is a purely material being. (An almost literal piece of clay, I'm sure you'd say.) The only difference between your view and the atheistic, naturalistic view, is that you throw in a deity to create the material! (And of course it gets much worse than that.) In today's terminology, you're actually a kind of deist, rather than a theist. But this is why I've pretty much stopped debating with Calvinists on CF. By saying what you've said in the above paragraph you pretty much proclaim that Calvinism and Christianity are different things. But I'm not allowed to say that lest I get in trouble with staff.

Then the burden of proof is on you to show me in the Bible were my logic is nullified, and where it says that God has given us the supernatural ability of free-will, distinct of course, from the ability to simply decide.

If you're a good Calvinist you already know what verses I'll toss at you, and I know what verses you'll toss back at me. You have to consider the totality of the message, not just draw conclusions from a few sentences here and there. But just for the fun of it, what do you make of the story of Adam and Eve? Did they choose to willfully disobey God (as the narrative says), or did God create them to intentionally disobey Him?

Free-will could do nothing to add to the image of God, nor can anything else. We are the image of God not because we are like him, but only because he shines his light on us and he is reflected in us. We are not paintings that gain their beauty from the intricacy of our construction, we are mirrors, and we gain our beauty from the accuracy with which we reflect the face of God.

If you believe that God is love, and that He wants us to love Him, we have to have free will. Creating beings programmed to love is a contradiction which can't be. Love has to be freely given, or else it's not love. For real love to exist there has to be a choice not to love.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Arguing (freely, as irony would have it) against free-will is like asserting "there are no absolutes" - the assertion itself a contradiction of itself.

No it isn't. I would say that there is no true free will, and in the same situation I would always give the same answer because I cannot be truly random. That does not contradict itself because you don't need free will to say that you don't have any.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your question can not be correctly answered without assuming what you mean by "free will".

Therein being the point of the thread. I like to leave such key words vague .

Please define.

Do you define "free will" as to mean we all have the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect our destiny?

That itself requires a working definition of 'destiny'. Arguably, the concept of destiny flies in the face of free will, or at the very least renders our will moot.

One thing is for certain. Free will cannot mean that humans can do whatever they please. Our choices are limited to the scope of what nature will allow. Can I choose to jump over the moon? No.

Actually, you can. But that doesn't mean it'll happen .

Also, since our conclusions on this matter and interpretation of the evidence requires many philosophical presuppositions, we walk on the wide road of subjectivity and not on the narrow road of objectivity.

My belief: Yes, based on my above definition of free will. I have not been convinced by opposing arguments. Either because of my bias or their weakness, I can not truly know. What is interesting, however, is that regardless of the vast range of philosophical foundations, the idea that we control our destiny is widely believed to be true. My position sits within the circle of the majority.

One could argue that, if we don't have free will, then what is widely believed to be true is entirely independent of whether or not we have free will; rather, it is only dependent on how well the illusion of free will manifests itself. We may not have free will, but we nonetheless act as if we have it; we may not have any control over what we conclude, but our conclusions are nonetheless made. Somehow, person X concludes that we have free will, either because he actually does have free will, or because some natural mechanisms controlling his thoughts inevitably lead to that conclusion.In other words, are you quite sure you came to that conclusion, or was it drawn for you by Mother Nature?

I contend we have free will. Did you read my last post in your long-running Exploring Christianity thread?

Yes, and I keep meaning to reply to your last post. I haven't forgotten you!

If you had perfect and complete information, you should be able to predict my every thought and action. But if you made the prediction known to me, what could possibly prevent me from willfully doing other than what your prediction predicted?

What indeed. Perhaps, instead of proving you have free will, this just proves that we can't have complete information on your every thought and action. But perhaps, if this information was beamed to us from an outside source, that 'beaming' would alter the universe; the atoms in my body would react differently (information in the brain, after all, is just neural synaptic relays, which are just atoms and molecules), which would interact the world differently, which would alter your atoms differently (namely, the ones used to see and hear my words). Thereafter, your brain would be different, and the natural mechanisms which have evolved to make decisions (not unlike a system of logic gates in a primitive computer) would come to a different conclusion.

Consider this device:

YouTube - Marble adding machine

If you alter the input, you alter the output. But that doesn't mean the device has the free will to choose the output. Likewise, perhaps it is the case that omniscience cannot be acquired by an individual, since the mere existence of that information would alter the universe it pertains too. After all, how could the information be used, or even exist, without modifying what it pertains too?

My head hurts. I need a drink.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Arguing (freely, as irony would have it) against free-will is like asserting "there are no absolutes" - the assertion itself a contradiction of itself.

Unless he doesn't have free will, in which case his actions are the result of (say) natural mechanisms:

YouTube - Joueuse de Tympanon - automate

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, and I keep meaning to reply to your last post. I haven't forgotten you!

Oh okay. I thought maybe you'd gotten bored with it or something.

What indeed. Perhaps, instead of proving you have free will, this just proves that we can't have complete information on your every thought and action. But perhaps, if this information was beamed to us from an outside source, that 'beaming' would alter the universe; the atoms in my body would react differently (information in the brain, after all, is just neural synaptic relays, which are just atoms and molecules), which would interact the world differently, which would alter your atoms differently (namely, the ones used to see and hear my words). Thereafter, your brain would be different, and the natural mechanisms which have evolved to make decisions (not unlike a system of logic gates in a primitive computer) would come to a different conclusion.

You lost me with the "beaming" part; I didn't say anything about beaming. I rather sort of had in mind the endgame of science. Plus you'd have to elaborate for me on how the possession of knowledge could cause the atoms in your body to alter the atoms in my body. That sounds weird. (Was that some kind of relapse into Wicca? )

Consider this device:

If you alter the input, you alter the output. But that doesn't mean the device has the free will to choose the output. Likewise, perhaps it is the case that omniscience cannot be acquired by an individual, since the mere existence of that information would alter the universe it pertains too. After all, how could the information be used, or even exist, without modifying what it pertains too?

My head hurts. I need a drink.

All information does exist of course. But I'm not sure what you mean by "using" the information - do you mean telling me what I'm going to do in the future, as in my hypothetical?.

 

[bibleblevr]

I'm not necessarily arguing the point that preferences happen to us. Even the New Testament notes that different men have different dispositions; some men are tempted by things which others are not. But that is not at all to say that preference determines every action. There is a term we use - "self-control". The very term recognizes that we are selves which can control our selves, despite our preferences.

And some people choose to use self control more than others, this choose to use or not use it is a preference.

I hate brussel sprouts, but I could still choose to eat them. It's as simple as that really. And you're interpreting one sentence out of context. Obviously everyone does not do what they believe is right. I spent a good part of my life doing things I knew were wrong, but I did them anyway.

You eat them because you prefer to eat healthy food over eating tasty food sometimes.

By applying to man a law which pertains to mere matter, you are saying that man is a purely material being. (An almost literal piece of clay, I'm sure you'd say.) The only difference between your view and the atheistic, naturalistic view, is that you throw in a deity to create the material! (And of course it gets much worse than that.) In today's terminology, you're actually a kind of deist, rather than a theist. But this is why I've pretty much stopped debating with Calvinists on CF. By saying what you've said in the above paragraph you pretty much proclaim that Calvinism and Christianity are different things. But I'm not allowed to say that lest I get in trouble with staff.

How Are Calvinism and Christianity different things? I encourage you to not write off Calvinism, I used to be a hardcore Armenian, And after trying to see Christianity from the Calvinist perspective, I changed view points.

If you're a good Calvinist you already know what verses I'll toss at you, and I know what verses you'll toss back at me. You have to consider the totality of the message, not just draw conclusions from a few sentences here and there. But just for the fun of it, what do you make of the story of Adam and Eve? Did they choose to willfully disobey God (as the narrative says), or did God create them to intentionally disobey Him?

I once started a thread asking anyone to give me at very least one verse that proves that we have free-will and not just decision making abilities. No verse was given.

If you believe that God is love, and that He wants us to love Him, we have to have free will. Creating beings programmed to love is a contradiction which can't be. Love has to be freely given, or else it's not love. For real love to exist there has to be a choice not to love.

A major theme in your arguments is that as humans we possess a spirit, that does not need to be bound by the rules of matter, or the implications of the progression of time, instead it is a sovereign entity with the role of giving us the ability to accept or reject God, therefore giving value of our love.

A Dog does not have this spirit though, it therefore has no free-will, for the reasons we already discussed. So I challengle you, next time you see a puppy or a dog, and it runs up exited to see you, wagging it's tail, and licking you, I want you to say to it, "Stop it! your love is worthless because it is not stemming from free-will, and thus it is not love at all. Go away you big rat!"

Dogs love people because of what we are, providers, caretakes and protectors. People love their pets not because the pet freely chose them, but because the owner chose the pet, and decided to enter in the process of adopting it into the family. I believe God and man have a similar relationship, with the exception of the difference between God and man being much larger then man to Dog.

 

[Washington]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh okay. I thought maybe you'd gotten bored with it or something.

Nooo, it's one of my favourite threads!

You lost me with the "beaming" part; I didn't say anything about beaming. I rather sort of had in mind the endgame of science.

Haha sounds like the tagline for a good movie. Well, the 'omniscience' has to exist some where, be it a massive computer or a very smart individual or what have you.

Plus you'd have to elaborate for me on how the possession of knowledge could cause the atoms in your body to alter the atoms in my body. That sounds weird. (Was that some kind of relapse into Wicca? )

Shh, don't tell the Evil Godless Atheist Dominion (EGAD)!!

Basically, if we know something, the information has to exist in some way, shape, or form. It could be magnetic blips in a hard drive, the synaptic patterns between neurons; basically, some configuration of atoms. When I learn something new, that atoms in my brain vibrate about in their funny ways, reacting to local stimuli, bonding and breaking; the overall effect is that electrical charge passes through my brain, and this 'cements' the information. The exact details are unknown, but that's basically what happens.

Anyway, our brains' decision making software will now act on this new information. In practice, this means that electrical pulses now travel a slightly different route, or take slightly longer, or do something slightly differently, which means our brain 'decides' something different.

In other words, the existence of information in our head alters how the brain makes decisions. The most obvious and pertinant example is this: if I know you are going to say 'pancakes' in one minute's time, and I tell you this, then the act of me telling you is a real, physical change, right? Because, if I didn't know, I couldn't tell you. The word 'pancakes' coming out my mouth is a real, physical phenomenon (wiggles in air molecules, more or less) that wouldn't happen if I didn't posses the knowledge. Thus, knowledge alters the world.

Now, the wiggles in the air reach your ear, which wiggle your ear drum, which wiggle your ear fluid (I forget the name), which sends particular synaptic signals to your brain, which then acts on this new information (mechanistically, mind you, like that calculator I posted earlier). That is how you then 'decide' to not say pancakes: it isn't your choice, but it's what your body's very complex AI 'decides' to do, since it's 'decisions' are algorithmic outputs based on whatever is input; change the input, change the output.

Hope that makes sense.

Allow Cassandra to explain.

YouTube - Introducing Cassandra - Red Dwarf - BBC comedy

All information does exist of course. But I'm not sure what you mean by "using" the information - do you mean telling me what I'm going to do in the future, as in my hypothetical?.

Yes. The act of telling you is just that: an act. It alters the universe, compared to if I didn't tell you. Indeed, merely having the information in my head counts as the universe being altered in some small degree.

 

[quatona]

Do we have free will, either in whole or in part? Is it even possible to answer this question?

1. If my will is free I am not.

2. I can´t help thinking that all actions are a necessary result of all factors involved. I have no idea how to meaningfully figure in a concept that involves "freedom" into that.

3. The hypothetical I find most helpful in answering this question is the scenario:
If a person could encounter the same situation (with everything being the same, including the point in time, his prior experiences etc. etc.) twice, would he act differently? I don´t think he would. Whilst if he did, this would point to random rather than freedom of will.

4. "freewill" may make sense as a societal term, in that it distinguishes actions that were performed at gunpoint from such that weren´t.

 

[quatona]

Arguing (freely, as irony would have it) against free-will is [...] a contradiction of itself.

(emphasis added)
Yes, if that were the case it would indeed be a paradox. However, in order to make that a valid argument you would have to show that people are arguing freely, first.
Of course, the crucial question would be: What exactly do you (or anyone else discussing, for that matter) mean when saying "freedom"? Freedom from what?

...off for a bowl of ice cream before bed; I'm thinking vanilla this time - for a change.

The observation of change does not make a point against determination. Sometimes an apple falls off the tree, for a change. Does not really allow the conclusion that the apple has "freewill".

 

[quatona]

Therein being the point of the thread. I like to leave such key words vague .

I must confess that I am not happy with answering a question in which the keyterm is left vague.
But, ok: If we define "freewill" as this white fluid that cows feed their breed with, most people have "freewill" in their fridges.

 

[tucker58]

Free will is always an interesting topic

The concept started with those who were against the concept of "Destiny." From there it went to, "God will not go against your will." This creates salvation as a choice and explains God as an entity that is not pulling strings, thus we are not His puppets. And again that brings us back the choice to choose salvation.

Now psychologically speaking, if there is not any strong fear attached to something, then were are free to choose that something or not. Strong fear limits our ability to choose. If one fears that they will go to Hell if they are not a Christian, then they will always choose to be a Christian and "free will" is never involved. If one does not fear Hell and still chooses Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, then "free will" is involved.

love,

tucker58

 

[Washington]

Free will is always an interesting topic

Only in so far as there are those who argue for it.

The concept started with those who were against the concept of "Destiny." From there it went to, "God will not go against your will." This creates salvation as a choice and explains God as an entity that is not pulling strings, thus we are not His puppets. And again that brings us back the choice to choose salvation.

Which ultimately emerges as an essential self-deception.

Now psychologically speaking, if there is not any strong fear attached to something, then were are free to choose that something or not. Strong fear limits our ability to choose. If one fears that they will go to Hell if they are not a Christian, then they will always choose to be a Christian and "free will" is never involved. If one does not fear Hell and still chooses Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, then "free will" is involved.

Psychologically speaking. Reality is a whole other matter.