Does Free Will Exist?

[Exiledoomsayer]

This is an impossible task. It cannot be done. All I can say is what the Bible says is true. No one can prove whether what is says is true or not.

Same go's for harry potter ofcourse.

Nice. The most efficient way to turn off your opponents is to resort to name calling and insults. Fortunately, I'm already plenty teed off, so there's not much you can do to affect me.

When did I call you names or insult you? I only said that I felt it was the most sick Idea ive seen in a while. You should really made a seperation between YOU and your IDEA.

You as a person I have no problem with at all and I made no attempt to insult you personally. If you feel otherwise please show me the part you thought was insulting and I will apologize if you are correct.

We are what we are. What is it that makes me different from a mass murderer? Is it because I have some magical ability to manipulate the world around me to my all powerful will? Is it possible for a vase to mold itself?

It's not that we were all created equal, and God at some point selected us randomly for certain tasks. We and our tasks are one and the same. When God created me, He also molded my destiny. Evil men are evil because they are evil. The fact that they didn't have a choice doesn't make them any less evil.

The idea is disturbing for reasons I outlined while summerizing your position, is there anything that I said that you feel does not follow from your idea?

1. You have no choice or will, god controls you. you are a puppet.
2. Anything and everything you do is not your fault or choice. its the part god decided for you.
3. All the horrors of the world are god's doing.
4. God will you do something bad or good, you have no choice in the matter.
5. God will make you suffer eternaly for what HE made you do.
6. If god so wanted he could have made the universe all good, for we are all puppets there is clearly no point in having any sort of learning experience.
7. the entire universe is pointless and serves mearly for gods amusement in the form of his plan.

I thought I made a rather fair summery and from what I see so far you confirm that I did so or atleast have not said anything to the contrary. Feel free to do so however.

The only other option is random selection, which would result in complete chaos. The fact that God is in charge means that there is a plan. If God's not in charge, then we're all in trouble, and there is no reason to find hope or comfort in a God who cares too little to step in and bring order.

The difference between random events and a god choosing to inflict harm. is the difference between getting hit by a car in an accident or murdered with intent.
Sure the end result is the same, somebody died.
But one involved a plan to bring about suffering and the other did not.

As such by your view point we live in a universe created by a god that wilfully planned out the most horrific events we have seen in history and all that are yet to come for no clear purpose other then that he can do it and it is his right to do so for he created this puppet universe.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Randomness does not equate to free will. Not only would a god not have control, but we would not either. Randomness is simply what it means, random.

Yeah, precisely. And what does that tell us about a free will where decisions by definition have to be causeless and not random?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

But different environmental experiences did not take place because your environment was determined partly by genetics and by a series of causal events

That is not the point. The point is whether *you* and escpecially your mental faculties have a significant impact on what happens or whether that is not the case. The point is whether you control your future or whether you don't.

no free will.

Again, compatibilism is just complex determinism. Everything within the compatibilists idea of free will can ultimately be reduced to determinism.

So? It was still your decision to do X, Y, or Z.

And if I may pick up an example that somebody brought up somewhere upthread, it was still your decision to eat those chocolate bars, or to not eat those chocolate bars.

Again, compatibilism is just complex determinism.

Yes and no. Yes, it is determinism. No, it is not "just" determinism. It is a special case that involves human desire, will, responsibility etc.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is an attempt to place the discussion at http://www.christianforums.com/t7522607-4/#post56475269 where it belongs.

1. The discussion becomes pointless at latest when you change the horses midstream. So far the issue in question was not whether you or I can do something about it, but your statement that it´s not happiness. Unless you are heading for something like "someone can only be happy when I can do something about it" I actually fail to see the relevance of this most recent point of yours.

2. Since I have absolutely not means to discern whether I am programmed to be happy/suffering (or in other words: since I couldn´t tell the difference between programmed and not programmed happiness) it seems to me that this point is moot.

3. Of course I can do something about someone else´s happiness/suffering even if being a robot myself - e.g. when I am equipped with a program such as "empathy". In fact, I can´t even help doing something about it.

Yes, it would make you happier - even if you were but determined to wish it to be so and to believe it. After all, you couldn´t tell the difference.

As I said in the linked post, it was just some amusing wandering. I questioned whether a robot could be happy. I didn't claim anything. So, you might be able to persuade me either way, but it seems all your points are predicated on the consciousness of the robot. I think it is a property of a robot that it is not conscious.

 

[quatona]

That is not the point. The point is whether *you* and escpecially your mental faculties have a significant impact on what happens or whether that is not the case. The point is whether you control your future or whether you don't.




So? It was still your decision to do X, Y, or Z.

And if I may pick up an example that somebody brought up somewhere upthread, it was still your decision to eat those chocolate bars, or to not eat those chocolate bars.




Yes and no. Yes, it is determinism. No, it is not "just" determinism. It is a special case that involves human desire, will, responsibility etc.

Like jonmichael I am trying to understand this concept but am not sure I do...
Would what you call "compatibilist free will" be covered by the the simple phrase "we act intentionally", or is there more to it?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Like jonmichael I am trying to understand this concept but am not sure I do...

Would what you call "compatibilist free will" be covered by the the simple phrase "we act intentionally"

Sure, it can be covered by that simple phrase. It can also be covered by the even more simple phrase "compatibilism."

or is there more to it?

What do you mean, "more to it"? There are no magical, mysterious ingredients, if that's what you're after.

 

[Rex Lex]

I believe in God's Sovereign will and human free will at the same time. That is not a contradiction, it is divine paradox.

God planned it that way.

 

[quatona]

Sure, it can be covered by that simple phrase. It can also be covered by the even more simple phrase "compatibilism."

Yeah, you know, I´m a simple guy, and "intention" is a word I understand better than "compatibilism". My learning processes tend to explore the unknown from the known, or the unfamiliar from the familiar.

What do you mean, "more to it"?

Like, something that would justify or suggest the use of the term "free" -as in "free will".
(You mentioned, for example, that "compatibilist free will" had implications concerning "responsibility". Since, in my understanding, there is no link between mere "intentionality" and "responsibility" I was wondering if there were more to "compatibilist free will" than the mere stating of intentionality.)

There are no magical, mysterious ingredients, if that's what you're after.

Err, no, that was not what I was after (although, come to think of it, the "free" in "free will" so far strikes me as somewhat magical and mysterious).

 

[quatona]

That is not a contradiction, it is divine paradox.

If it´s so easy to explain away a contradiction...

 

[AlexBP]

Let me ask you a question: do you believe god is omniscient?

Yes.

Still no free will. The availability of choices, and the outcome(decision) does not equate to free will. As you said:

You just listed the very reasons why a decision would have been made, in each case you listed those would be the causes to the effect(decision.) A genetic predisposition is not the only thing that determines ones behavior, I also said environmental conditions determine also(i.e. family upbringing, freinds, social groups etc.)

Lets say a person chose not to eat the sweets because he was on a diet. Why is he on a diet? He needs to lose weight for health reasons, or he wants to look good. The health reasons are there because of his genetics or because he was frivolous in the way he lived his life, perhaps he contracted some disease. His reasons for wanting to look good could be because he wants to attract a mate, raise his self esteem, thinks highly of the way others look at him etc. And each of those reasons also have reasons. All a result of causality, no free will.

Four points:

First, to say that all motivations from liking to sugar to being on a diet result either from genetics or the environment doesn't bring you any closer to having an explanation for how I make the decision to eat or not eat the chocolate bar. Let's suppose for a second that I had only two motivations: genetic disposition to eat sugar and environmental motivation to lose weight. Even then, I must choose between the two. I can choose to follow the genetic disposition or the environmental motivation.

Second, many of the things you list as resulting from genetic and environmental factors actually result from choices. We are not conditioned to like sugar no matter what our genes say in the matter. I've known plenty of people who enjoyed sugar as kids but then grew up and laid aside that childish thing. Likewise the decision of whether or not to desire a slimmer body as a result of social pressures is a free decision. Some people desire on. Others don't.

Third, even if accepted for the sake of argument that individual factors such as desire for sugar or desire to lose weight are determined without any presence of free will, that doesn't mean that everything in the mind is determined by free will. Perhaps this is obvious to me because as a mathematician I had to learn so much about the relationship between finite and infinite things. For example, any union of a finite collection of closed intervals is always closed, but a union of an infinite collection of closed intervals may be open.

Fourth: Even if your list of motivations caused by genetics and environment was correct, there are obviously plenty of other actions we take that aren't caused by genetics or environment. Everybody whistles while they walk, or sings in the shower, or tosses their head just 'cause.

 

[AlexBP]

I believe in God's Sovereign will and human free will at the same time. That is not a contradiction, it is divine paradox.

God planned it that way.

That's an excellent answer and it immediately reminded me of Chesterton's statement in Orthodoxy:

Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say “if you please” to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

The moment you would rather collect arbitrary statements, label them 'truth' and accept all contradictions with them is the moment that your sanity has truely left you.

Let me be the first to tell you that the color of my skin is only yellow. It is also only red. If that seems contradictory to you just accept the mystery and look no further. Its divine paradox.

While we are at it lets just assume that killing a person will cure their illness, if that seems contradictory ..Meh its a paradox?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Like, something that would justify or suggest the use of the term "free" -as in "free will".

There is plenty of room for justification. From wiktionary:
free - Wiktionary

1. Not imprisoned or enslaved.

a free man​

3. Unconstrained.

He was given free rein to do whatever he wanted​

6. Unobstructed, without blockages.

The drain was free.​

Those are all good examples for freedom as it is found in compatibilist free will. You are what you are, full along with your wishes and desires etc, and you can act according to those wishes and desires. And not only that. You are also free to act according to counterfactual wishes, i.e. wishes that in fact you don't hold in reality, but easily could if things were slightly different.

For instance, those chocolate bars that somebody used as an example. You are free in the compatibiliest sense, if the sole deciding factor is what you want. You eat them, if you think they are yummy and tasty and would make a really good snack right now. Or you don't, if maybe you think they would make you too fat.

You are not free to do as you wish, if for instance you can't even manage to unpack those chocolate bars, or if somebody takes them away from you, or if somebody comes and literally shoves them down your throat.

(You mentioned, for example, that "compatibilist free will" had implications concerning "responsibility". Since, in my understanding, there is no link between mere "intentionality" and "responsibility" I was wondering if there were more to "compatibilist free will" than the mere stating of intentionality.)

Why would there not be a link between intentionality and responsiblilty? But I guess, it does depend on what understand by responsibility. In the real world, I think compatibilist considerations are in fact what we use to ascertain whether somebody is responsible, or whether not.


OTOH, if you have some sort of higher justice in mind, compatibilism is a little light. I don't think that for example compatibilist free will can serve as a theodicy, i.e. as a solution to the Problem of Evil. That would take some magical, mystical ingredients. (And sometimes people are indeed under the illusion that a freedom, which is indistinguishable from randomness, is just that ingredient. It is not, of course. )

 

[GrayAngel]

In a deterministic universe where god is the author of said determinism, nothing can happen that is not apart of what he had determined. So, if something took place where he needed to step in and bring about order means that something did not happen as he determined it to happen. If something took place that he did not determine, than either another will other than his own was involved, or randomness took place(which means he does not have control).
You could say that god stepping in to bring about order was part of what was determined. Then why not just create a universe where there was no need for him to step in and restore order? Unless he is just creating the illusion that there is no order so he could come in and save the day. If this is the case, is he just trying to amuse himself?

There were no accidents, but God is not simply trying to amuse Himself, either. In order to reach His ultimate goal, sometimes something has to happen that God does not like.

Some explain it by saying that God really has two wills. There's His perfect will, and then there's His permissive will. The perfect will is that everything is ultimately under His control. But the permissive will states that some things must be allowed to happen, even though God finds them unpleasant, in order to be consistent with the kind of outcome He seeks.

Most of what's been said against me is that the idea of predestination doesn't sound nice. But the reality is that there are only three possible options:

1. There is no god. Everything happens by chance. In which case, you're a slave to whatever this random world chooses to do with you.

2. There is a god, but he decided just to get the ball rolling, then step back as his random creation takes over. In this case, we're not any better off than we were if there were no god. And we still have to ask this question, why does God allow bad things to happen?

3. There is a god, and he set out a plan for all of creation from the very beginning, and nothing can trump his infinite power. In this case, for those of us who are chosen by God, we have the assurance that even though God allows bad things to happen, they are ultimately for our benefit.

For you, number one probably seems like the best option, but I find number three to be the most comforting for me.

Nope. You still have to explain Matthew to me. If God knows we have no will, why would he ascribe that word to us?

You also have to explain the contradiction (and I don't think you can) of how God does not do evil, yet by your view He does evil.

Further, you have to explain the contradiction of refuation. In philsophical terms, refuation without free will is like a body that accelerates in the opposite direction of the forces applied to it.

I think I've explained the verse's meaning very well. God can want one thing, but for a greater purpose will choose not to make it happen. This is God's permissive will.

God does not do evil things, but He creates evil beings who will commit evil acts. In this way, God is able to keep His hands clean. But at the same time, He'll fully strong enough to stop them, if He chooses to do so.

We can try to bring God down to our level and say, "But if He could stop it, isn't He still doing evil by choosing not to?"

It is wrong for a finite human being to allow evil things to happen, if they do have the power to stop them. But God is not human. Only God has the kind of infinite wisdom to see the ultimate result of His actions. If God chooses not to interfere, it's for good reasons, not evil.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to explain by refuation.

If you're speaking about the law of the physical energies of our world, that when one object interacts with another, it causes a polar opposite effect, and if you're trying to apply this to God, I'd have to disagree with you. God is not a physical energy. When He spoke into creation, things happened as He said, not the opposite of how He commanded.

Here are some more verses for you:

Ephesians 1:3-12 - 3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.​

When did I call you names or insult you? I only said that I felt it was the most sick Idea ive seen in a while. You should really made a seperation between YOU and your IDEA.

You as a person I have no problem with at all and I made no attempt to insult you personally. If you feel otherwise please show me the part you thought was insulting and I will apologize if you are correct.

When you insult my ideas, you insult me, the one who holds such opinions. When you talk the way you talk, regarding my ideas are ridiculous claims, you are in essence insulting my ability to reason, inferring through your behavior that I am so stupid for believing such a thing.

To disagree is one thing, but one's ideas should be treating like any other possession which belongs to another: that is with respect and gentleness.

The idea is disturbing for reasons I outlined while summerizing your position, is there anything that I said that you feel does not follow from your idea?

1. You have no choice or will, god controls you. you are a puppet.
2. Anything and everything you do is not your fault or choice. its the part god decided for you.
3. All the horrors of the world are god's doing.
4. God will you do something bad or good, you have no choice in the matter.
5. God will make you suffer eternaly for what HE made you do.
6. If god so wanted he could have made the universe all good, for we are all puppets there is clearly no point in having any sort of learning experience.
7. the entire universe is pointless and serves mearly for gods amusement in the form of his plan.

I thought I made a rather fair summery and from what I see so far you confirm that I did so or atleast have not said anything to the contrary. Feel free to do so however.

The way you summarize my ideas are almost right, except for the negative connotations you attribute to them.

1. We have a choice and a will, but they are not free to act on their own. It is not possible for anything other than God to act on their own free will, because we were created, and our entire history was known before our creation. To say that we are like puppets, however, is not exactly accurate. Puppets are empty shells, with no drive or internal purpose. God gives us our drives, and our purpose. So we feel, and we act out, according to the way God purposed us.

2. The fact that God is in control doesn't mean that we didn't choose. Rather, we choose act according to the conditions God created for us. We are creatures created and moves by outside influences. But an evil man is just as evil no matter the why of how he got to be that way. Either it was chance which made him that way, or he was designed that way. Either way, it wasn't him who created himself, but he's still just as evil.

3. All the horrors of the world are under God's jurisdiction, but He is not making them happen with His own hands. He creates evil beings to commit evil acts so He Himself can remain pure. Yes, He can stop them, but as I said in my reply to Resha Caner above, God is the only one who can morally choose not to prevent evil from happening. This is because only He knows the end result, and His intentions are good.

4. God does not pull our strings, per say, but he does create our very nature, which results in our actions. We act because of who we are. Who we are was designed by God. It's not that God makes a habit out of creating good people just to override that and make them do random evil acts whenever He feels like it.

5. We and our actions are not separate. When we were created, all of our history was already known. Based on this knowledge, God designed us with a plan in mind. The fact that GOD had a plan in mind does not justify our actions. Evil is still evil.

6. Clearly, God has a more perfect plan in mind than one where all of creation begins in paradise and stays in paradise. We can only learn to appreciate perfection more if we've seen what imperfection is like. And life is never as sweet as when it has been saved from death.

7. The "point" of creation is as God defines it, as He's the one who started it in the first place. If you don't like it, that's too bad, but creation is not your design anyway.

The moment you would rather collect arbitrary statements, label them 'truth' and accept all contradictions with them is the moment that your sanity has truely left you.

Let me be the first to tell you that the color of my skin is only yellow. It is also only red. If that seems contradictory to you just accept the mystery and look no further. Its divine paradox.

While we are at it lets just assume that killing a person will cure their illness, if that seems contradictory ..Meh its a paradox?

Well, technically, killing someone would mean curing the illness, but it defeats the purpose.

I kinda see a point on both sides here. On one hand, I don't think we were meant to know everything. A little mystery is good for our health. But at the same time, just accepting something as a "divine paradox" and not trying to understand it is a major cop-out.

 

[AlexBP]

The moment you would rather collect arbitrary statements, label them 'truth' and accept all contradictions with them is the moment that your sanity has truely left you.

Let me be the first to tell you that the color of my skin is only yellow. It is also only red. If that seems contradictory to you just accept the mystery and look no further. Its divine paradox.

It is quite easy to have a thing which looks yellow in some circumstances or to some persons, red to others. Recognizing that, as opposed to believng that one can authoritatively assign a definite color to every object, is a definite increase in understanding.

(But that is beside the point; Chesterton was referring to the paradoxes that lie at the heart of all wisdom, those where seemingly contradictory statements lead to a higher truth, as has been recognized by great minds from Socrates to Hegel. Trying to muddle the issue by pointing out low-level contradictions in the physical world will accomplish little.)

 

[GrayAngel]

It is quite easy to have a thing which looks yellow in some circumstances or to some persons, red to others. Recognizing that, as opposed to believng that one can authoritatively assign a definite color to every object, is a definite increase in understanding.

(But that is beside the point; Chesterton was referring to the paradoxes that lie at the heart of all wisdom, those where seemingly contradictory statements lead to a higher truth, as has been recognized by great minds from Socrates to Hegel. Trying to muddle the issue by pointing out low-level contradictions in the physical world will accomplish little.)

I see. I've actually heard of this before. It's not exactly the same thing as mystery, which cannot ever be understood.

There's a similar theory I learned of in one of my classes (I can't remember the name of the guy who thought of it). The theory involves a thesis (an idea) and an anti-thesis (a contrary idea). From the conflict of these ideas emerges a synthesis, which is a more accurate truth taking elements from both the thesis and the anti-thesis.

We've applied this kind of thinking before in my Bible study group.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think I've explained the verse's meaning very well. God can want one thing, but for a greater purpose will choose not to make it happen. This is God's permissive will.

It has not been explained to my satisfaction. You have not answered my question. The Greek word in Matthew 23:37 is "ethelo", which can be translated as will, wish, choose, and a few other synonyms. Regardless, all of these imply a will. If your position is correct, then it was God who created the concept of "will." Also, by your position, that concept only applies to God himself. If so, then why would Christ (God incarnate) apply a word meant only for himself to people? Either Jesus knew people had a will, or he made a mistake. Which is it?

If we are not to take words for what they mean, no form of communication means anything.

God does not do evil things, but He creates evil beings who will commit evil acts. In this way, God is able to keep His hands clean. But at the same time, He'll fully strong enough to stop them, if He chooses to do so.

I can ask a hundred questions about this statement. Was Adam created evil? Did Adam do evil?

Why would God create an evil thing? If your answer relates to the coming of Christ, I would them ask: does Christ's purpose necessitate evil?

It is wrong for a finite human being to allow evil things to happen, if they do have the power to stop them. But God is not human. Only God has the kind of infinite wisdom to see the ultimate result of His actions. If God chooses not to interfere, it's for good reasons, not evil.

I completely disagree with this. That God created evil things, yet is not responsible for the evil they do is illogical ... unless you are claiming you can negate the chain of causation without free will.

When I go bowling, is it I who knocks down the pins or the ball? All logic says I am the agent and the ball is the means. Therefore, I am responsible. That is the chain of causation. The only things that can break that chain are free will and randomness. If God is not responsible, we must either be driven by free will or randomness.

Or, I guess there is your special mandate. So, God has a special mandate (I'd like to see some scripture to justify this mandate you claim). Does that mean he can do evil if He chooses to?

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to explain by refuation.

I am referring to the law of contradiction. A physical object cannot "contradict" force. A being who speaks truth cannot contradict himself and remain truthful. If a contradiction occurs, at least one of the conditions stated must be false. So, if you insist God has done no evil, then any bound thing he creates is bound to the same course. It cannot contradict that course. As I've said above, that makes God the agent, and hence he is responsible for the result.

I would really like to know what convinced you to change your mind about free will ... oh, wait, it was determined.

 

[Rex Lex]

If it´s so easy to explain away a contradiction...

One cannot wish away an eternal truth with a mere opinion.

 

[quatona]

There is plenty of room for justification. From wiktionary:
free - Wiktionary

1. Not imprisoned or enslaved.

a free man​

3. Unconstrained.

He was given free rein to do whatever he wanted​

6. Unobstructed, without blockages.

The drain was free.​

So, I am understanding this correctly:
"Comaptibilist free will" is not a philosophical concept (in that it does not describe the condition humaine) but rather a societal ideal (in that it postulates that people should be free of certain constraints)?
​

Those are all good examples for freedom as it is found in compatibilist free will.

Again, do I understand correctly: "Compatibilist free will" states that certain humans are free from certain constraints under certain conditions?

You are what you are,

uuum, yes, I guess I am,

full along with your wishes and desires etc, and you can act according to those wishes and desires.

Except when I can´t, of course.

And not only that. You are also free to act according to counterfactual wishes, i.e. wishes that in fact you don't hold in reality, but easily could if things were slightly different.

Again, do I understand correctly: "Compatibilist free will" does not state that my will is free but that I am free to exert my will (except when I happen to be under certain constraints)?

For instance, those chocolate bars that somebody used as an example. You are free in the compatibiliest sense, if the sole deciding factor is what you want.

Is there ever a case when the sole deciding factor is what I want?

You eat them, if you think they are yummy and tasty and would make a really good snack right now. Or you don't, if maybe you think they would make you too fat.

Just to get the idea:
Do non-human animals have compatibilist free will?

You are not free to do as you wish, if for instance you can't even manage to unpack those chocolate bars, or if somebody takes them away from you, or if somebody comes and literally shoves them down your throat.

Ok, so it seems there is a very complex system of individual, situational conditions for there to be compatibilist free will.
I´m beginning to wonder if the threshold is clearly defined.
If someone is trying to shove the chocolate down my throat but I have the opportunity to kill him - does that reinstitute my lost free will to eat the chocolate or not?
If I am threatened by punishment in case I eat chocolate - is that enough to do away with my free will?
If someone says "I´m gonna call you names in case you eat chocolate" - is that enough to do away with my free will?
You get the idea: I am trying to find out if there is an intelligible system.

Why would there not be a link between intentionality and responsiblilty?

Feel free to explain the link.

But I guess, it does depend on what understand by responsibility. In the real world, I think compatibilist considerations are in fact what we use to ascertain whether somebody is responsible, or whether not.

Yes, to be honest, that´s what I am suspecting: "compatibilist free will" is merely a societal concept that enables (and actually is mutually defining and defined by) concepts such as "responsibility" and "guilt").

OTOH, if you have some sort of higher justice in mind, compatibilism is a little light. I don't think that for example compatibilist free will can serve as a theodicy, i.e. as a solution to the Problem of Evil. That would take some magical, mystical ingredients. (And sometimes people are indeed under the illusion that a freedom, which is indistinguishable from randomness, is just that ingredient. It is not, of course. )

No, personally I don´t have anything like justice in mind.
However, it has been my suspicion that religious/philosophical "free will" is an illogical concept created solely for the purpose of defending otherwise indefensible, self-contradictory theistic paradigms of higher justice (punishment for something we are determined to be and do).
Now, when it comes to "compatibilist free will" I must confess that I am under the impression that - while being some sort of "free will light version" - it suffers from the same inconsistencies in regards to its purpose of establishing lower (i.e. earthly, societal) justice.

 

[GrayAngel]

It has not been explained to my satisfaction. You have not answered my question. The Greek word in Matthew 23:37 is "ethelo", which can be translated as will, wish, choose, and a few other synonyms. Regardless, all of these imply a will. If your position is correct, then it was God who created the concept of "will." Also, by your position, that concept only applies to God himself. If so, then why would Christ (God incarnate) apply a word meant only for himself to people? Either Jesus knew people had a will, or he made a mistake. Which is it?

If we are not to take words for what they mean, no form of communication means anything.

It hasn't been explained to your satisfaction, or to your liking? Sounds like you just want me to agree with you.

We have a will, the wish of a certain outcome for our lives, but how did we obtain those wills and those wishes? They were given to us. We didn't make them for ourselves.

Why haven't you responded to the verse I presented? I'm curious to know how you would respond to a passage that even uses the word predestination in it. And based on its context, it seems to mean exactly what I've said it does.

I can ask a hundred questions about this statement. Was Adam created evil? Did Adam do evil?

Why would God create an evil thing? If your answer relates to the coming of Christ, I would them ask: does Christ's purpose necessitate evil?

When God created Adam, He knew exactly everything He was going to do from the time he was formed to the time he died and beyond. If God had created Adam differently, or if He had put Adam in a different environment (say... one without the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), then Adam would have behaved differently.

He created Adam with the full knowledge of his disobedience, and the fall of all mankind through him. But he also knew that Adam would turn back to Him and wait patiently for his redemption.

As for Christ, Christ doesn't need us for anything. Jesus always existed, because Jesus is God.

His sacrifice, however, would mean nothing if there was nothing to save.

I completely disagree with this. That God created evil things, yet is not responsible for the evil they do is illogical ... unless you are claiming you can negate the chain of causation without free will.

When I go bowling, is it I who knocks down the pins or the ball? All logic says I am the agent and the ball is the means. Therefore, I am responsible. That is the chain of causation. The only things that can break that chain are free will and randomness. If God is not responsible, we must either be driven by free will or randomness.

Or, I guess there is your special mandate. So, God has a special mandate (I'd like to see some scripture to justify this mandate you claim). Does that mean he can do evil if He chooses to?

Was God too stupid to know that Satan would betray Him and lead 1/3 of all the angels in rebelling, and that this demon would come to Eve to corrupt her and send all mankind into a state of sin and in danger of Hell?

Either He was too weak and incompetent to stop it, or He was strong and competent enough to set it in motion with a greater plan in mind. Which is it?

If you would read the Bible with a clear mind, you would see it spelled out for you all over scripture.

Everything works together for the good of those who love God. We were chosen before the beginning of time, in accordance with HIS will and HIS plan. Does any of this sound familiar?

Just open it up and see what it says. Or look at the passage I've already provided that you seem to have overlooked.

I am referring to the law of contradiction. A physical object cannot "contradict" force. A being who speaks truth cannot contradict himself and remain truthful. If a contradiction occurs, at least one of the conditions stated must be false. So, if you insist God has done no evil, then any bound thing he creates is bound to the same course. It cannot contradict that course. As I've said above, that makes God the agent, and hence he is responsible for the result.

I would really like to know what convinced you to change your mind about free will ... oh, wait, it was determined.

Only the physical realm is bound by this law. Everything in this world, including us, follows a logical order. What we do is based on what we are. What we are is created by the only free and independent spirit we call God.

I changed my mind for a variety of reasons. Through all my years, I've taken in the ideas of several different denominations, I evaluated their pros and cons, and came to my own conclusions.

I let scripture guide my thinking, and not just what I thought it would be convenient for me to believe. And when I hear preachers read the word "predestination" and then just shrug it off because "God doesn't make us do anything," I find it insulting.

I've tried for years to come up with some logical explanation for how free will could possibly exist, but it doesn't make any sense. Either our own decisions are random, or purposed by God. We cannot create ourselves. From the time we are born, the world around us and the genes within us program us to think and behave in certain ways. Both nature and nurture came from God Himself.

If you take two people with identical genetics, you'll find a lot of surprising things they have in common. There was one particular set of identical twins I read about. Both boys were separated at birth, and both were given the same name. They were both religious, they looked the same, they had the same mannerisms, they were both Christians (but different denominations). But what was really strange was this: they both married women with the same name, and both were divorced.

The few differences you find in their behavior can be attributed to their experiences. The people they met, their physical environments, everything they did was due to something outside of themselves.

This was not a strange case, either. Identical twin studies have shown quite a lot of similarities between individuals due to genetics alone.

There is no room for free will. In my view, it is illogical.