Does Free Will Exist?

[Exiledoomsayer]

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.

No, I notice this alot and you really should try to understand there is a immense difference between me disrespecting your idea, and disrespecting you. I really do not care to gently and respectfully allow a (seemingly)wrong idea to persist, I'd rather confront such an idea and see where it go's.

To borrow a example from another thread.
You might think pedophilia is okay, and I will respect your right to hold that idea. But I sure as heck wont respect that idea itself and I wont restrain myself from dismantling it.

You and your idea are two seperate things, it is not my fault that you choose to take it personally while there certainly are other ways to take it.

I am not nessisarily saying "If you hold that idea you must be a retard and a sicko"

I might just be saying "You hold that Idea but I disagree, I wonder if you have looked at it from different angles, here is one example.."

The first, sure I am insulting you as a person and your thinking capability. The second, I am respecting your ability to reason and assume that perhaps you made an oversight and in pointing that out will either convince you or give you the chance to respond to that and show that you did consider that objection and share your results. Perhaps I made an oversight myself in my original assumption that you can bring to light for me.

Personally I would have prefered if you had given me the benefit of the doubt and ascribed the second motivation to me and answered my concerns. rather then assume I held the first and consider yourself under personal attack.

That was a tad rambly but did that make sense?

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

Well that is good then. I did feel I summarized it quite reasonably.
As for weither the negative connotations are deserved or not I suppose is debatable.

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.

Well there can never be a perfect analogy, they will always break down when carried deep enough.
But it would perhaps be more accurate to describe us all as robots, preprogrammed with how to act, thinks, feel, learn. Our paths set in stone the moment we are made without further need of direct control, rather then constantly controllled by strings.

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.

I am not sure if I would call it a choice if we could not have chosen differently, our choices where made for us the moment we were 'programmed' However, Only the illusion of choice exists for the robot that is unaware of its programming.

Though I cant hold that against you since I hold the same view with regards to natural lack of freewill.

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.

If you program a robot to build a bomb, drive itself into a building and detonate, are you innocent?

I most certainly do not think so. Ultimately it is the building programmer that is responsible for any action its creation under takes while following the programming it was given.

With regards to gods intentions being good, they are only good because you defined him as good. It does not matter what he does he will always be good too you.

Everything god does is good.
Something is good because god does it.

Its quite circular would you not agree?

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.

Since this came up during #1 already I will just respond to the final part.
How do you know you where meant to be good? Perhaps you where made to be evil by snapping suddenly and going for that school. Its not random evil acts its all part of his plan after all?

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.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. God does not base his plan around how we where created. We are created to fit his plan are we not?
And again, If the robot commits evil by following his programming, who is responsible the robot or the creator? I would say the creator. The robot is mearly a tool to commit evil with. It is not itself evil, it could have been programmed for good just as easily. Thus the programmer is at fault.

If you disagree I would like to have that explained.

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.

Clearly, God could have programmed us with the ability to appreciate perfection to the fullest in the first place.
He choose not too, He is all powerful he surely would have had the ability to do so without contrasting it against suffering. If he was unable to do so he is not allpowerfull. If he choose not to do so we can only guess at his motivations but from a human stand point its either "Malice" or "I do not know, but I hope its for a good reason"

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.

Indeed, as I said it does not matter if he wanted us just to torture us for his own amusement. That would be what he created us for and if do not like it. too bad. It does not matter that god might be a sadist he is in control for might makes right in this picture, and god is the mightiest. (or so we assume, maybe at 8pm his mother tells him to put his toys away and come to dinner? Interesting thought.)

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

Yeah I was thinking that actually but wasnt sure what else to make of it.

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.

I have nothing to argue with here really.

I would point out that the "mystery for our health" bit I view as the things we do not know yet that we are working on, I would consider uncovering mystery as a healthy thing. As such you would need mystery to uncover. But i certainly do not consider the mystery itself as a healthy thing to be left alone.

Oh, kind of like how weights are good for your health if you lift them regulary and move on to heavier weights eventually. but they do nothing for you if you just leave them lying there.

Yeah i like that analogy.

 

[GrayAngel]

No, I notice this alot and you really should try to understand there is a immense difference between me disrespecting your idea, and disrespecting you. I really do not care to gently and respectfully allow a (seemingly)wrong idea to persist, I'd rather confront such an idea and see where it go's.

To borrow a example from another thread.
You might think pedophilia is okay, and I will respect your right to hold that idea. But I sure as heck wont respect that idea itself and I wont restrain myself from dismantling it.

You and your idea are two seperate things, it is not my fault that you choose to take it personally while there certainly are other ways to take it.

I am not nessisarily saying "If you hold that idea you must be a retard and a sicko"

I might just be saying "You hold that Idea but I disagree, I wonder if you have looked at it from different angles, here is one example.."

The first, sure I am insulting you as a person and your thinking capability. The second, I am respecting your ability to reason and assume that perhaps you made an oversight and in pointing that out will either convince you or give you the chance to respond to that and show that you did consider that objection and share your results. Perhaps I made an oversight myself in my original assumption that you can bring to light for me.

Personally I would have prefered if you had given me the benefit of the doubt and ascribed the second motivation to me and answered my concerns. rather then assume I held the first and consider yourself under personal attack.

That was a tad rambly but did that make sense?

What you're saying isn't much different from I've said. It's perfectly fine to not like someone else's ideas, but the person who holds those ideas should be treated with respect.

But I don't see how you can insult someone's ideas and expect them not to take it personally. To me, that's like taking a key down the side of someone's car and saying, "Hey, I'm not scratching you. I'm scratching your car. It's okay as long as I don't do you any harm."

As long as you're not trying to offend me, I'll just try to keep that in mind from now on.

Well that is good then. I did feel I summarized it quite reasonably.
As for weither the negative connotations are deserved or not I suppose is debatable.

I agree.

If you program a robot to build a bomb, drive itself into a building and detonate, are you innocent?

I most certainly do not think so. Ultimately it is the building programmer that is responsible for any action its creation under takes while following the programming it was given.

With regards to gods intentions being good, they are only good because you defined him as good. It does not matter what he does he will always be good too you.

Everything god does is good.
Something is good because god does it.

Its quite circular would you not agree?

I do agree that the definition of the word good is, like all other words, reliant on the user. I think everything God does is good, because I trust He knows what He's doing.

Since this came up during #1 already I will just respond to the final part.
How do you know you where meant to be good? Perhaps you where made to be evil by snapping suddenly and going for that school. Its not random evil acts its all part of his plan after all?

I suppose this is one possibility, but I doubt this could be the case.

God knew my purpose before I was born. Either He created me as an object of love, or an object of hatred. In my life, I have seen God's love towards me.

I don't just mean my life has been easy. Certainly not. But He has gone out of His way to prove His love for me. If God created me for evil, I don't think I would feel quite the same way.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. God does not base his plan around how we where created. We are created to fit his plan are we not?
And again, If the robot commits evil by following his programming, who is responsible the robot or the creator? I would say the creator. The robot is mearly a tool to commit evil with. It is not itself evil, it could have been programmed for good just as easily. Thus the programmer is at fault.

If you disagree I would like to have that explained.

This analogy is of a human compared to God, so it's problematic. In this case, the man's only intention for creating an evil robot on purpose would be to cause pain in the world.

But intention itself is not all that matters. There's an old saying: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

We don't know the future. Only God does. God's good intentions are based on His foreknowledge, and the vision of a future He's had in mind since the beginning.

Clearly, God could have programmed us with the ability to appreciate perfection to the fullest in the first place.
He choose not too, He is all powerful he surely would have had the ability to do so without contrasting it against suffering. If he was unable to do so he is not allpowerfull. If he choose not to do so we can only guess at his motivations but from a human stand point its either "Malice" or "I do not know, but I hope its for a good reason"

Yeah, God could have created us with an euphoria for the perfection of Heaven, but it would seem meaningless and empty to feel that way without reason. It wouldn't be the same.

Indeed, as I said it does not matter if he wanted us just to torture us for his own amusement. That would be what he created us for and if do not like it. too bad. It does not matter that god might be a sadist he is in control for might makes right in this picture, and god is the mightiest. (or so we assume, maybe at 8pm his mother tells him to put his toys away and come to dinner? Interesting thought.)

Ignoring that blatantly blasphemous statement at the end... Erhem.

Sure. Fortunately, I don't think those are the intentions God has for us. He's not just some kid with some playdough who builds us up just for the amusement of smashing us.

It's not just that God is stronger than we are. The only reason we exist at all is because He made us. We belong to him.

I have nothing to argue with here really.

I would point out that the "mystery for our health" bit I view as the things we do not know yet that we are working on, I would consider uncovering mystery as a healthy thing. As such you would need mystery to uncover. But i certainly do not consider the mystery itself as a healthy thing to be left alone.

Oh, kind of like how weights are good for your health if you lift them regulary and move on to heavier weights eventually. but they do nothing for you if you just leave them lying there.

Yeah i like that analogy.

Interesting analogy. Certainly, the pursuit of knowledge is a healthy thing, but we may be better off not knowing some things.

I can think of a few mysterious shows I've seen in the past. Have you ever seen the cartoon called Big O? That show used to give me a thrill before I saw the ending. The mystery's gone now, so the show doesn't interest me as much.

Same as with a lot of scary movies. They lose their appeal after watching them the first time.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

What you're saying isn't much different from I've said. It's perfectly fine to not like someone else's ideas, but the person who holds those ideas should be treated with respect.

I agree.

But I don't see how you can insult someone's ideas and expect them not to take it personally. To me, that's like taking a key down the side of someone's car and saying, "Hey, I'm not scratching you. I'm scratching your car. It's okay as long as I don't do you any harm."

I do understand how you might precieve it that way but I think that is not the right way to percieve it, to take your example of the car.

You compare it to me causing damage to your car, but is a negative remark damaging your idea? I do not think so. Rather I see it as this, going back to your analogy:

What if instead of keying your car, I said that it was a terrible choice for a vehicle because that type of engine has been known to explode? I have done no harm but I've called you car terrible and dangerous.

Would the proper reaction be..
View it as an insult, take offense, get in you car and drive away?
Or would it be to go into discussion perhaps you where unaware of this hazard and this was valuable information?
Or perhaps you where aware and had in fact replaced the engine something you can let me know.
Or even it might be that I am wrong and that I simply bought into a mythe that needs clearing up by you?

Ofcourse as I read this I am over doing it here. But I hope the overal point is clear. I am not damaging your idea or your car by saying something negative about it.

As long as you're not trying to offend me, I'll just try to keep that in mind from now on.

Thank you. I am of the opinion that most conflicts at the root stem from a missunderstanding of one another. I hope we found ours and resolved it.

I do agree that the definition of the word good is, like all other words, reliant on the user. I think everything God does is good, because I trust He knows what He's doing.

Then, there really is no point in carrying it on though is there since by definition everything he does will be justified and good. Or is there something that would change your mind on this?

I suppose this is one possibility, but I doubt this could be the case.

God knew my purpose before I was born. Either He created me as an object of love, or an object of hatred. In my life, I have seen God's love towards me.

I don't just mean my life has been easy. Certainly not. But He has gone out of His way to prove His love for me. If God created me for evil, I don't think I would feel quite the same way.

Im sorry but, did you just sugjest that god makes certain people to hate them?
I do not think you did but if not that then you must have meant..

That god makes certain people to express love to the world (presumably the good) and certain people to express hatred to the world (the evil).
But god has been established as all loving so his love for you is equal to his love for the evil people.

What I am saying is.. Just because god loves you does not mean you where not made for evil, he loves all of us after all. And there is nothing that says he cannot show the evil that he loves them. So you still would have no way of knowing.

You suspect that you would not feel the way you do if you where evil but since you have only experienced one, you do not know what the other even feels like correct? Perhaps it feels a thousand times more pleasant to be the other type and you would never have known.

This analogy is of a human compared to God, so it's problematic. In this case, the man's only intention for creating an evil robot on purpose would be to cause pain in the world.

But intention itself is not all that matters. There's an old saying: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

We don't know the future. Only God does. God's good intentions are based on His foreknowledge, and the vision of a future He's had in mind since the beginning.

You do not know this though, as you said you trust that god has good intentions with his foolproofplan. But you could be wrong about that aswell and perhaps he has evil intentions we cannot know one way or the other for certain correct?

Also you agree that the only reason the maker of the robot is not evil is because he has the status of god correct? Because as god, he must be good?

Yeah, God could have created us with an euphoria for the perfection of Heaven, but it would seem meaningless and empty to feel that way without reason. It wouldn't be the same.

That is an assumption though, are you actually sugjesting god could not make it meaningfull and fulfilling in another other way? That seems like limiting his power to your own imagination if i might be so bold?

Ignoring that blatantly blasphemous statement at the end... Erhem.

I had not quite considered that,I meant no offense.
Is it blasphemous to consider there might be a power higher then god though? As I remember it the commandment just says you are not allowed to worship anything other then god I believe?

I spend a bit of time contemplating this now and I cannot quite see the answer so I hope you could enlighten me as to how this is blasphemous.
(In light of the fact that just earlier I tried to call god evil which I would have sooner expected to be blasphemous so you will have to forgive my confusion in the matter.)

Sure. Fortunately, I don't think those are the intentions God has for us. He's not just some kid with some playdough who builds us up just for the amusement of smashing us.

It's not just that God is stronger than we are. The only reason we exist at all is because He made us. We belong to him.

Just so that I understand this quite correctly, carrying this on in the same reasoning.. Would it be fair to say that the only reason I exist is because my parents and there for I belong to them? Keeping in mind I do not belief god is the reason for my existance, using the same logic I would belong to what I consider to be my creators?

I keep noticing this trend where dispite the thousands upon thousands of possibilities there might be, you have picked on that suits you seemingly arbitrarily and are sticking with it by the power of faith with little else to go on.

So I figure I will just have to ask it directly, What do you base this belief on?

Interesting analogy. Certainly, the pursuit of knowledge is a healthy thing, but we may be better off not knowing some things.

I can think of a few mysterious shows I've seen in the past. Have you ever seen the cartoon called Big O? That show used to give me a thrill before I saw the ending. The mystery's gone now, so the show doesn't interest me as much.

Same as with a lot of scary movies. They lose their appeal after watching them the first time.

I have not seen the Big O.

However I just realized this serves me up a wonderful question that I just have to ask since it relates so well.

Would you say that I should watch the Big O?
Or would it be better if I never watched it since once I do the mystery will be gone.
Yet right now I have the mystery of not knowing what the Big O even is.

I would argue that the best thing is to watch the Big O, experience it for myself and once It is over I move on to the next movie, there are many more scary movies after all.

Just like there are many more mysteries for us to solve, the experience of solving them or watching the movie and ending up losing the mystery might still be better then never even hitting play.

 

[GrayAngel]

Extremely long post alert!

I do understand how you might precieve it that way but I think that is not the right way to percieve it, to take your example of the car.

You compare it to me causing damage to your car, but is a negative remark damaging your idea? I do not think so. Rather I see it as this, going back to your analogy:

What if instead of keying your car, I said that it was a terrible choice for a vehicle because that type of engine has been known to explode? I have done no harm but I've called you car terrible and dangerous.

Would the proper reaction be..
View it as an insult, take offense, get in you car and drive away?
Or would it be to go into discussion perhaps you where unaware of this hazard and this was valuable information?
Or perhaps you where aware and had in fact replaced the engine something you can let me know.
Or even it might be that I am wrong and that I simply bought into a mythe that needs clearing up by you?

Ofcourse as I read this I am over doing it here. But I hope the overal point is clear. I am not damaging your idea or your car by saying something negative about it.

I see your point.

Then, there really is no point in carrying it on though is there since by definition everything he does will be justified and good. Or is there something that would change your mind on this?

Well, I might change my mind if God one day said, "To heck with it. I'm tired of dealing with these people. I'm just going to scrap everything and start over."

In that case, I'd lose confidence in Him. The same might happen if God decided to give in and let everyone into Heaven. There are some people I cannot ever be happy with. Heaven wouldn't be any better than earth if the gate was just let open.

But if God is timeless, then He can't possible be inconsistent with Himself. He's not going to say one thing then change His mind and do another thing.

Im sorry but, did you just sugjest that god makes certain people to hate them?
I do not think you did but if not that then you must have meant..

That god makes certain people to express love to the world (presumably the good) and certain people to express hatred to the world (the evil).
But god has been established as all loving so his love for you is equal to his love for the evil people.

What I am saying is.. Just because god loves you does not mean you where not made for evil, he loves all of us after all. And there is nothing that says he cannot show the evil that he loves them. So you still would have no way of knowing.

You suspect that you would not feel the way you do if you where evil but since you have only experienced one, you do not know what the other even feels like correct? Perhaps it feels a thousand times more pleasant to be the other type and you would never have known.

Actually, God does not love anyone. In fact, by being sinners, we are by default "objects of God's wrath."

Because Himself is perfect, He cannot stand imperfection. He absolutely hates sin, which is by its definition imperfection.

But God is also extremely in love with His people. Because of His love, He did the only thing that could be done to justify allowing us imperfect and rebellious people to be a part of His family. And that was to allow a perfect sacrifice to take the place of our wrath. This is Christ, the Saving One, also called the second Adam because He undoes the curse of the first Adam.

You do not know this though, as you said you trust that god has good intentions with his foolproofplan. But you could be wrong about that aswell and perhaps he has evil intentions we cannot know one way or the other for certain correct?

Also you agree that the only reason the maker of the robot is not evil is because he has the status of god correct? Because as god, he must be good?

It is possible that God could be evil, but if this is the case, we really can't do much about it. If His mission is to give some of us a false hope just to send us all into infinite torture, there's nothing we can do to stop Him. So living in fear and hatred for such a possible evil God is completely pointless.

If it was a good God who created an evil robot, He would have to have good reason. But if it is an evil god, then it was probably for his own amusement.

That is an assumption though, are you actually sugjesting god could not make it meaningfull and fulfilling in another other way? That seems like limiting his power to your own imagination if i might be so bold?

This seems like the all too familiar paradox: can God make a rock so heavy He could not lift it?

The answer is no. It's logically impossible. Being all powerful means that God has complete control. He cannot make a boulder He cannot lift, because as soon as He wills it, He'll lift it again.

I know that God can do many things that I could never wrap my mind around. All of creation itself is a complex world I cannot understand. But there are some things that are just not possible.

I had not quite considered that,I meant no offense.
Is it blasphemous to consider there might be a power higher then god though? As I remember it the commandment just says you are not allowed to worship anything other then god I believe?

I spend a bit of time contemplating this now and I cannot quite see the answer so I hope you could enlighten me as to how this is blasphemous.
(In light of the fact that just earlier I tried to call god evil which I would have sooner expected to be blasphemous so you will have to forgive my confusion in the matter.)

It might seem more blasphemous to say something about the God of the Bible rather than a hypothetical evil God who might exist.

I didn't find any offense in it, actually. I admit I did chuckle a little.

Just so that I understand this quite correctly, carrying this on in the same reasoning.. Would it be fair to say that the only reason I exist is because my parents and there for I belong to them? Keeping in mind I do not belief god is the reason for my existance, using the same logic I would belong to what I consider to be my creators?

I keep noticing this trend where dispite the thousands upon thousands of possibilities there might be, you have picked on that suits you seemingly arbitrarily and are sticking with it by the power of faith with little else to go on.

So I figure I will just have to ask it directly, What do you base this belief on?

Actually, it's probably by that reasoning that we are asked to honor our parents. I've heard children as described as being more of a "borrowed" property, and that parents are more like the managers of their children rather than the owners.

There are a ton of reason for why I choose to believe the way I do. I've been avoiding the question up until now because I didn't think certain others really cared to know, and I doubted that my explanations would ever change anyone's minds. But I can tell your interest seems to be genuine, so here I go.

One reason I choose (for lack of a better word) Christianity is because it makes the most logical sense to me. I'm not talking about the Bible, and the seven days of creation thing. The Bible is very hard to understand. But it's the Christian God that interests me.

Some lesser gods, such as those of the ancient Greeks, cannot account for the beginning of time. These gods are not even eternal themselves. They reproduce and die and do pretty much everything else we humans do. So if they created us, who created them?

The only god that could possibly exist without having themselves been created would have to be an all powerful god. A god cannot account for the beginning of all things if we can't find a logical starting point in their history, so the god would have to be unchanging and unlimited by time.

Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, there were countless prophecies describing who the Christ would be and the events surrounding him. Jesus fit these prophecies so perfectly that the Jewish officials attempted to edit the scripture and accuse Christians of telling convenient lies. Fortunately, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls ended that argument.

One important prophecy was in Daniel 9:24-26. This one says that the Christ would be rejected before the destruction of the Temple. As predicted, the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. This means the Messiah had to have lived in Jesus' lifetime.

Based on this information, I can eliminate non-Christian Judaism and the Muslim religion, which both claim that Jesus was not the Christ that was promised to them.

But why do I believe in any god at all?

I find it hard to believe that our world could have come about by chance. The idea of the Big Bang, that the universe was created at some point, and that some day all the energy would return to their starting point and then repeat the process could remove the infinite time problem, but it hurts my head just to think about it.

Is there some sort of system that tells the universe to change its laws every time it blows up, or are we just lucky that the universe just happens to act in such an orderly fashion? The chances that a planet could form that is hospitable for life by pure accident are astronomical (no pun intended), and the thought that life would then by chance happen to develop on that planet is just too much for me to believe.

In my own life, I've seen the evidence of God. He's never appeared before my in a talking burning bush or anything, but I have experienced some strange stuff.

On one occasion, I was on a High School church retreat (I was in college, but I was a volunteer for the visual media). From the very beginning, I knew this trip would be unusual, because our leader was making some bold claims that we would experience miracles over the weekend. I didn't believe them at the time, because I was very skeptical of anyone who claimed to have the gifts of healing, prophecy, or anything blatantly powerful like that.

They had us group up with each other. Each person would have a partner, and most of us knew each other already, at least a little bit. I personally got matched up with a guy I knew from the youth band, but I knew very little about his personal life.

One day, they had us stand in two rows, each facing their partner. He told us to lay our hands on our partner (we would take turns doing this), and to pray with our eyes open, watching for signs. During this prayer, we would ask God to give us a message to share with our partner.

When I prayed over my partner, this picture came into my mind of a woman sitting in chair in an unlit room, seemingly very depressed. And for some reason, the word "mother" was stuck on my mind. So I asked my partner if there was anything going on with his mother.

Turned out, her husband had left her a few months before, and she had stopped coming to church because she didn't want anyone to ask her about it.

I had no reason to think there was anything wrong with his mother. I had maybe seen her once or twice before for a brief couple of seconds, and she didn't seem lonely to me.

This was the most bizarre thing I had ever experienced in my life. I could not explain it. And I wasn't the only one who experienced something like this. It seemed like almost everybody was having some sort of experience they couldn't explain.

I knew from this moment on that I was a believer for life. Nothing could ever convince me that my God was not real.

I have not seen the Big O.

However I just realized this serves me up a wonderful question that I just have to ask since it relates so well.

Would you say that I should watch the Big O?
Or would it be better if I never watched it since once I do the mystery will be gone.
Yet right now I have the mystery of not knowing what the Big O even is.

I would argue that the best thing is to watch the Big O, experience it for myself and once It is over I move on to the next movie, there are many more scary movies after all.

Just like there are many more mysteries for us to solve, the experience of solving them or watching the movie and ending up losing the mystery might still be better then never even hitting play.

I'd say it would be better to watch the show, but to never see the ending. It's better to watch the beautifully written show without its godawful ending.

Someone once said, and I think I agree with this, that the best mystery is the one unsolved. Some stories will leave you guessing, even after to the show or movie has ended. These kinds of stories drive me to keep rewatching them, trying to think up every possible answer. But I'll never know for sure. That's what makes it so exciting.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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)?

Never had the impression of any ideals within compatibilism. So, I guess no.

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

Yes, of course.

uuum, yes, I guess I am,

Except when I can´t, of course.

Yes. In case of which you are not free.

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)?

Emphatic yes.

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

Of course there is. Seems perfectly natural to me.

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

Only if anthropomorphized, i.e. in fiction. Otherwise, I think we don't ascribe things like free will to animals.

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?

After you successfully killed him? Yes, I would think that you are then free to do as you please with the chocolate.

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?

That is where it gets interesting, and the gray area begins. Issues like these are being hashed out time and again in front of the court of laws (both actual metaphorical ones) of this world.

You get the idea: I am trying to find out if there is an intelligible system.

I think that it is quite intelligible, some gray area and murkyness nonwithstanding.

Feel free to explain the link.

The succeeding paragraph of what you are responding to here drew a rough sketch of that link.

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").

Yes, that I can agree to. (Above somewhere you said "societal ideal" and I am not so sure about that.)

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.

To my mind it does not so much establish this "lower (i.e. earthly, societal) justice", it rather describes it. It is a refection of the world we live in.

 

[jonmichael818]

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.

A decision or choice, desire or will does not equate to free will. They are all determined by prior causes and effects.
The choice you make amongst several possible choices is determined by what took place prior to your choice.
The choice you make is an effect of a prior cause, at which point that effect becomes the cause of the next effect(choice). That choice is not free it is determined.

And as for randomness, again, it is not your free will at work, it is an external agent causing you to effect which then becomes the cause or your next effect. Its just a big domino effect.

 

[jonmichael818]

So, physically I believe there is NO FREE WILL. Spiritually, we have free will - which is why paradoxically we have some margin of physical free will.

I dont understand what it means to spiritually have free will?

 

[jonmichael818]

Free will means the ability to choose. Determinism means you can predict what will be chosen (and, in principle, anything else about the future). That I can predict you will move your hand away from a hot hob, doesn't mean you don't have free will.

Ok, lets say you make a choice.
Why did you make that choice?
You made that choice for a reason, correct?
That reason is the determining factor for that choice. That reason(s) is an accumulation of prior choices, which had prior reasons etc. Its all causality, just dominos. No free will.

In principal if you knew all the variables, yes you could predict all future events. But determinism is not just about the future, it is also about the past.
If you knew all the variables you could predict that I would move my hand away from a hot hob. So, I would not be able to do anything other than to move my hand because you took into account all the variables. The only way I would be able to do otherwise is if you did not take into account all the variables. Note: it was not your prediction that inhibited me to move my hand, it was all the variables that exist that lead me to move my hand.

 

[jonmichael818]

I think you're arguing semantic differences with me. If you insist that a "free" will means free of all influence, I would agree such does not exist. But I take "free will" to mean freedom to make a choice - even if that choice requires conscious organization of energy to escape a potential that a body without will would not escape.

But it is not me that insists that free will means what I am presenting. It is the 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/Freewill

FREE WILL-the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.-Dictionary.com

 

[jonmichael818]

Yes.

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.

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.

It may not be one or the other that causes you to make the choice, it may be a combination of the two. If your genetic dispostion is overcome by environmental factors, than it was those environmental factors that caused the choice. If your genetic disposition overcame your environmental factors, then it was your genetics that caused you to make the choice.

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.

Ok, lets say you make a choice.
Why did you make that choice?
You made that choice for a reason, correct?
That reason is the determining factor for that choice. That reason(s) is an accumulation of prior choices, which had prior reasons etc. Its all causality, just dominos.
The choice you make is an effect of a prior cause, at which point that effect becomes the cause of the next effect(choice). That choice is not free it is determined.

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.

I think the issue here is that you are assuming that people do things "just 'cause." Why did the person whistle while they walk? Why did the person sing in the shower? Why did the person toss their head?
I can think of a ton of different reasons why anybody would do any one of these things. There were thoughts going through their heads at the moment they decided to do these things. Those thoughts are the causes. Unless a person did these things involuntarily, which would mean either someone else controlled the action for them, they had some kind of muscle spasm(in which case there could be some kind of physiological explaination) or it happed out of true randomness. If it was truly random, then they were not in control of the action either, it would have been an external agent that caused the randomness.

 

[UnReAL13]

I feel like the denial of free will is just a ridiculous excuse to not take moral responsibility for one's actions.

"Oh no officer, you clearly don't understand. I didn't decide to brutally rape and kill that woman. My BRAIN made me do it. I was held hostage by my own deterministic impulses!!!"

It doesn't get much more absurd than notions like these.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Do you think free will exists?.

Yes, God. Also, yes, the image of God (man).

If yes, how does it exist if cause and effect determines everything?.

If one is dead, there is no cause and effect (the lost). The living are in the image of free will and true freedom (our Father in Heaven).

If you do not think cause and effect determines everything, then give an example.

What is the glory of God, if he or us can not decide for ourselves anything?

You choose freely to love others and trust God when everything is in disarray. Read the stories of the Martyrs for Christ: FOXE: Voices of the Martyrs (Set of 3) books.

Remember that Jesus is the way and none other. Theologies are just interpretations as best as some men can make, but we (individually) are sufficiently supplied to learn by our obedience to Christ alone and with the helper, The Holy Spirit.

 

[quatona]

I feel like the denial of free will is just a ridiculous excuse to not take moral responsibility for one's actions.

"Oh no officer, you clearly don't understand. I didn't decide to brutally rape and kill that woman. My BRAIN made me do it. I was held hostage by my own deterministic impulses!!!"

It doesn't get much more absurd than notions like these.

I understand your feeling. It makes complete sense if you believe in "free will" and certain implications that it has for "responsibility", "guilt" and "punishment".
But you could ask yourself: Would the absence of "free will" indeed and necessarily do away with "responsibility" and such - in practical situations like these. I don´t think so.
I don´t operate with a concept "free will", yet I have no problems feeling responsible for the things I do.

Of course, if you use a couple of logical fallacies (argument from consequence, non-sequitur, argument from insinuated intentions) in order to ridicule and absurdify a world view, the result will be ridiculous and absurd.

Structurally, your argument is the same as "people refuse to believe in god because they don´t want to be held responsible". It´s a trainwreck. You can do better than that.

 

[Resha Caner]

But it is not me that insists that free will means what I am presenting. It is the 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/Freewill

FREE WILL-the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.-Dictionary.com

Did you read these definitions? They're not the same. I would agree with the second definition, but not the first. However, my point was that it seemed your comments were based on a definition like the first one. And, if that is your definition, I would agree such does not happen.

But if you want to argue that I don't agree with you ...

 

[UnReAL13]

I understand your feeling. It makes complete sense if you believe in "free will" and certain implications that it has for "responsibility", "guilt" and "punishment".
But you could ask yourself: Would the absence of "free will" indeed and necessarily do away with "responsibility" and such - in practical situations like these. I don´t think so.
I don´t operate with a concept "free will", yet I have no problems feeling responsible for the things I do.

Of course, if you use a couple of logical fallacies (argument from consequence, non-sequitur, argument from insinuated intentions) in order to ridicule and absurdify a world view, the result will be ridiculous and absurd.

Structurally, your argument is the same as "people refuse to believe in god because they don´t want to be held responsible". It´s a trainwreck. You can do better than that.

Except the Bible tells you that you've been given free will so you can be held accountable by "god" for not choosing Christ as your savior. The sense of free will I'm taking about is for a person to be held accountable for their actions among our society.

Obviously much of our laws are based on Biblical laws. But a deity doesn't necessarily have to be involved with "free will". If a deity existed that created everything and knew what was going to happen, then there's no option for free will. But a deistic god that simply created this universe and then sat back to watch it unfold certainly leaves room for free will.

Ultimately most of us have a choice. The only type of case I could see as a potential "exception" for moral responsibility is a severe schizophrenic. Someone who's constantly hallucinating and cannot distinguish what's real. But otherwise, if you're consciously aware of reality, then you have the freedom of choice.

You could argue that "there is no objective morality", but as a majority many people adhere to the same basic principles of morality. Rape and murder are certainly viewed as bad or "evil" in the eyes of the majority. It's this majority viewpoint that indicates some sense of "morality" within mankind as well.

Plus if you're saying you still feel responsible for your actions, doesn't that mean that you freely chose to perform those actions? And aren't you choosing to feel responsible for yourself, without influence to feel this way?

There can be individual choice within the framework of this universe and its randomness. We aren't "puppets", there are no "strings" pulling us in any particular direction. There is only genetic predisposition, but a person's genome code doesn't determine how that person will live their life.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Long post Snipped for space

This has been very interesting thank you.

This was the most bizarre thing I had ever experienced in my life. I could not explain it. And I wasn't the only one who experienced something like this. It seemed like almost everybody was having some sort of experience they couldn't explain.

I knew from this moment on that I was a believer for life. Nothing could ever convince me that my God was not real.

Thank you for sharing your experience and thoughts on the matter.

I will not argue against your experiences as they are yours personally and I believe you let me in on them to understand you better(Which it did indeed do.) and not so that I could try to discredit them.

I'd say it would be better to watch the show, but to never see the ending. It's better to watch the beautifully written show without its godawful ending.

Someone once said, and I think I agree with this, that the best mystery is the one unsolved. Some stories will leave you guessing, even after to the show or movie has ended. These kinds of stories drive me to keep rewatching them, trying to think up every possible answer. But I'll never know for sure. That's what makes it so exciting.

I can see where your coming from. And I will think about that some more once I get the time.
For now though I do not agree with the notion that it is better to pause the film before the end and forever guess at what the end might have been. I would rather watch the godawful ending and know the truth for sure, then pick a guess and choose to believe that is how it ended rather then watch the whole movie.

 

[quatona]

Except the Bible tells you that you've been given free will so you can be held accountable by "god" for not choosing Christ as your savior. The sense of free will I'm taking about is for a person to be held accountable for their actions among our society.

Hence my qualification "structurally".

Ultimately most of us have a choice.

What do you mean - "ultimately"?

The only type of case I could see as a potential "exception" for moral responsibility is a severe schizophrenic. Someone who's constantly hallucinating and cannot distinguish what's real. But otherwise, if you're consciously aware of reality, then you have the freedom of choice.

I understand that that´s your opinion. I disagree.

You could argue that "there is no objective morality", but as a majority many people adhere to the same basic principles of morality. Rape and murder are certainly viewed as bad or "evil" in the eyes of the majority. It's this majority viewpoint that indicates some sense of "morality" within mankind as well.

Since I haven´t been arguing against a "sense of morality" I fail to see how this paragraph relates to the discussion.

Plus if you're saying you still feel responsible for your actions, doesn't that mean that you freely chose to perform those actions?

No, not at all. I did it - I am responsible.

And aren't you choosing to feel responsible for yourself, without influence to feel this way?

1. Since I don´t believe in such a thing as "free choice/free will", no, obviously I don´t think I choose to feel responsible. I simply do (if there´s something like "free choice" it might be a case of "free choice", and if there´s no "free choice" I am determined to feel the way I feel.).
By the same token I could ask you: Doesn´t the fact that you believe to have free will indicate that you are determined to believe it? (Point: We don´t do justice to a different world view by superimposing our own world view on it. That way it will never make sense.)
2. There´s plenty of influence within and outside us to feel the way we feel.
3. The idea that I am "free to feel how I feel" leaves me with sort of an infinite regression. Which criteria would I choose for making this choice (am I free to choose them), what would be the criteria for my criteria-choice etc.?
4. Here´s a simple litmus test for you: Please use your free choice to believe and feel that you are determined to believe you have free choice - let´s say for 2 minutes. Ready, steady, go!!

There can be individual choice within the framework of this universe and its randomness. We aren't "puppets", there are no "strings" pulling us in any particular direction.

I have a bit of a problem with determinism (mis)represented this way. "Puppet" and "string" somewhat imply a puppet-player who intentionally pulls strings a certain way. This is not how I see things.

There is only genetic predisposition, but a person's genome code doesn't determine how that person will live their life.

I disagree. There are countless determining factors. Every so-called "choice" is the necessary result of all the determining factors involved. That´s how I see it.

 

[sandwiches]

Except the Bible tells you that you've been given free will so you can be held accountable by "god" for not choosing Christ as your savior. The sense of free will I'm taking about is for a person to be held accountable for their actions among our society.

Obviously much of our laws are based on Biblical laws. But a deity doesn't necessarily have to be involved with "free will". If a deity existed that created everything and knew what was going to happen, then there's no option for free will. But a deistic god that simply created this universe and then sat back to watch it unfold certainly leaves room for free will.

Ultimately most of us have a choice. The only type of case I could see as a potential "exception" for moral responsibility is a severe schizophrenic. Someone who's constantly hallucinating and cannot distinguish what's real. But otherwise, if you're consciously aware of reality, then you have the freedom of choice.

You could argue that "there is no objective morality", but as a majority many people adhere to the same basic principles of morality. Rape and murder are certainly viewed as bad or "evil" in the eyes of the majority. It's this majority viewpoint that indicates some sense of "morality" within mankind as well.

Plus if you're saying you still feel responsible for your actions, doesn't that mean that you freely chose to perform those actions? And aren't you choosing to feel responsible for yourself, without influence to feel this way?

There can be individual choice within the framework of this universe and its randomness. We aren't "puppets", there are no "strings" pulling us in any particular direction. There is only genetic predisposition, but a person's genome code doesn't determine how that person will live their life.

You're repeating the same errors that were listed in the post you quoted. You seem to imply that without free will, responsibility cannot be assigned. Also, you seem to think that without a "puppeteer," determinism isn't possible.

Regardless of whether a deity exists or not, absolute free will does not exist as long as actions are preceded by other actions and events.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

A decision or choice, desire or will does not equate to free will. They are all determined by prior causes and effects.
The choice you make amongst several possible choices is determined by what took place prior to your choice.
The choice you make is an effect of a prior cause, at which point that effect becomes the cause of the next effect(choice). That choice is not free it is determined.

I utterly fail to see the relevance of what you point out when it comes to compatibilism (scroll back a little, if you don't believe me that that is the topic). To me it seems a little like pointing out that this --> is just a bunch of colorful pixels. (Of course it is, what do you expect?)

And as for randomness, again, it is not your free will at work,

Coals to Newcastle?

it is an external agent causing you to effect which then becomes the cause or your next effect. Its just a big domino effect.

Randomness and external causal agents? I am pretty sure that is wrong. Be that as it may ...

 

[jennifer 1]

explain have to beleive