Free will and determinism

[Jo555]

I understand i am speaking to atheists, but just like they are coming from their perspective, i am doing the same and thought they knew that, but in case, it's great to bring it up again.

From an atheist point of reference, it may help to substitute heart for Holy Spirit. A Christian believes the heart, as in what we love, not the biological heart, is a spiritual force.

I agree with 2 and 3. Although i believe that one doesn't not necessarily have a choice prior to faith and receiving the Holy Spirit. But, when God comes calling, one can open or harden the heart.

The knowledge of good and evil affects the heart, but it is just knowledge that influences the conscience, which affects the heart as in love or fear.

Not sure on 1 as i need time to process what you are saying and short on time now.

Truth to me is what God has revealed to me through his Spirit, Word, and life because his creation, including spiritual properties, speaks of Him. I believe atheist can learn a lot about God by studying creation and its properties, although they may not recognize him as such.

Romans 1 speaks of this, regarding how no one will have an excuse because his creation and its properties that testify to his existence, but some will refuse to acknowledge him therefore he will give them over to depravity and their lusts.

I don't believe if i an a believer and they are atheist that we can't see similar things, even if we may not agree on all of it.

I don't fear science and other forms of studying the spiritual laws at work because i believe the more they come to the truth in that regard, the more it will testify to the existence of God.

Hey, thanks again.
I just want to point out that the Bible says at Galatians 5:22, 23, that there are certain aspects of the fruit of God's spirit, which contrasts with the works of the flesh, described from verse 19.
One of the qualities of the fruit of the spirit is love - that would be love for God, as well as neighbor.

So, to be truly influenced by holy spirit, would one even consider buying a pack of cigs... even once a decade? No.
It is good you are making the effort though. If you keep at it, you will win the fight Paul mentions at Galatians 5:16-18.

16 Now I say, walk by the Spirit, and you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves / you should not gratify the desires of the flesh / you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.​

17 For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you want.​

18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.​

Would this not demonstrate that you are making free willed choices to
go against the spirit, and satisfy the fleshly desires
give into the desires of the flesh, which you said dominated your thinking, before

How would you explain the going from point Z to A, but yet still going back to Z?
If one is in between A to Z, say L, but trying to get far away from Z, and reach A, how is it that they are not making free willed choices?
Are their choices being determined by two forces to make one decision? How would that work out?

Please note, that this is not about you, but using your presentation in the discussion

Would love to get into this one more, it is just going to take some time short on that now. Will try and revisit soon.

 

[CoreyD]

Excuse me??? How not?

Show me please, or rather, explain, how this is antecedent.
John 16:13 - However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.

Also this:
Philippians 2:13 - For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose.

If it is influence, it is causal in some regard or other.

No, but, how is a cause that has nothing to do with past causes, support of your argument, anyway?
An influence does not cause anything. An influence has the potential to affect, but it does not drive one in that direction. It's the will of the individual to be guided by the influence, or not.

For example, the Devil and his agents influence people to disobey God, and many choose not to.
Similarly, the influence of God's spirit in people's life, is often opposed, rejected, etc., by that person's desires.
James 1:13-15
13 Let no one being tempted say, "I am being tempted by God." For God is unable to be tempted by evils, and He Himself tempts no one.
14 But a man is tempted, being drawn away and being enticed by the own desire.
15 Then desire having conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin having become fully grown, brings forth death.

But, it is quite a bit deeper than that. The Holy Spirit changes the nature of some, from bondage to passions and desires, to the ability to choose according to morality and further "promptings" (shall we say). Yet, even that ability is still going to play out according to what the believer prefers at whatever moment (s)he makes that choice.

Huh?
Okay, let me chew over that.
The holy spirit changes the nature of the person... so the person is of a different nature.
So the nature the person now has, makes him a robot? No, the person can still act freely, but his choices are not free willed. His choices are determined.

Did I understand you correctly.
If I misunderstood, I am sorry. Please correct me, and explain even simpler.

But they do generally understand sequence of causation, and the principle of causality, back to a necessary logical "turtles all the way down" or "mechanical first cause" or even "sentient first cause" (that they insist is not what we call God).

We agree they do not believe in God, nor gods, nor holy spirit.

 

[Jo555]

Corey. Having problems with this quoting thing so just going to address your points where you quoted galatians here.

I care for mom and she is my priority, but she fell asleep so diving in again for now.

First, I need to be cautious of what i say because i firmly believe in not hurting a weak conscience, as the apostle Paul speaks of and this is a public forum.

But let us go to the cigarette example.

One more "but" ... But before that every believer should realize what Jesus said, if thou lust, that's adultery. If thou hate, murdered.

Think about it for a moment as life speaks of God's truth. God sees the heart and just because we don't physically murder our neighbor doesn't mean we haven't murdered them at heart.

You don't have to believe in God to see that. Some people even say of someone they may hate, "They are dead to me." At heart they cease to exist for us. As the song goes. "You 've lost that loving feeling."

And let us not get so specific as to describing if love is more than a feeling and such because i am trying to speak as to Christians and atheist alike so my choice of words may not fit to a tee, depending on what side of the fence you are on.

So let us say that smoking is a sin. I personally don't feel bad about smoking. Probate mind some may accuse me of, maybe, maybe not. I prefer to see it as fully secure in my Heavenly Father's love while i am being perfected in love. But as i said, I don't like to speak of these things on public forums due to sensitive conscience.

I will say that i do believe smoking is a sin against my own body, and in that sense may be a sin also against God, but i believe Christ has me covered while I grow in his love. If i died with a cigarette in my mouth while i am a believer growing in love, i believe i will be with Jesus when i am absent from the body.

So this is where i see Bradskii's point of view, which I don't see it as necessarily disagreeing with scripture.

If history were to repeat itself and i am in the same place that i was when i chose to have that cigarette, not more mature in love for God and myself, then my decision would probably be the same.

Christ sacrifice on the cross has us covered while we come into his full stature, which we are told won't be fully realized of ourselves, but as we come together in Him.

She's awake again and i still have to do more things for her today, but will revisit as time allows.

 

[Bradskii]

Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.

Yes. That's the definition that's being used.

You did not explain anything.

You want some ice cream for desert. Call it a first order desire. A proximate desire. It's loaded with calories and tastes great. But you prefer to lose weight. We'll class that as a second order desire. Which is your ultimate desire. They are not compatible. And you decide that you'll skip desert. What you prefer overrides what you want. If the discussion is free will then it's necessary to understand that.

So in the earlier example, there's a war and you definitely don't want to get killed. A first order, proximate desire. But you feel that it's necessary to protect your country, to stand up against aggression. A second order, ultimate desire. So despite the fact that you don't want to get killed, your preference is to join up.

One hundred and fifty pages, is enough time to wrap it up, don't you think...

Then please stop adding to the post count.

 

[Bradskii]

Give us a break. After 100 pages, it's expected that we will forget, or be distracted.

If you forget what the thread is about then it's helpful to remind people to check the very first post to jog their memory.

 

[Bradskii]

What you have done here is taken out of context what I said.

The request still stands. I'd like you to explain how you think the decision making process works. We can then investigate it to see if free will is involved or not.

 

[Bradskii]

Try to get you to listen?
How will I do that?
How many times have I said to that reason is not a problem where free will is concerned, and does not disqualify it...

I'm not talking about how you reason. I'm talking about the reason (noun) why you do something. What caused you to do it. So if you decide to do X then I want you to tell me what caused you to do X. What was the reason you did X.

You can pick any example. I mean , this isn't difficult...

 

[Jo555]

A quick stop in to say that i think (as I'm still learning the language) the problem is that most are looking at it on a moral level that shapes the conscience.

Scripture teach that was not God's goal for us, but we disobeyed the command. Therefore, God, working within man's decision to go at it apart from God, brought in the law as a shadowy version of his Heart / Spirit as a temp measure.

This is just a temporary measure due to our choice to disobey.

So did we really have a choice in the garden of Eden?

I've often said i don't know whether i would have made a different choice than Adam and Eve because it is apparent to me, as scriptures also teach, that although they were created in the image of God, they were not of yet God-like. They chose the wrong tree.

I think Bradskii has a good argument, for lack of a better word, but being an atheist (yes?), he is trying to confine spirituality to morality and they are two different things.

I also think his model is problematic because life evolves. Yet, if everything was to remain the same, then i see his model as more right than wrong.

I'm still trying to understand the concepts being raised so not sure if I am on target, but from what i see it appears that most are trying to cone at this from a moral standpoint, but what one needs to understand is that was never how God intended it to be.

Let us say we really don't have a choice, which I don't believe that is totally the case, especially for the believer. Yet, for debate's sake, let us say say that is the case. Does that make God unfair and unjust?

We haven't come to the conclusion of all this so that would be, for those that have judged him as such, a premature judgement.

What the believer knows in scripture is that without God know one was seeking Him. He stepped on to continue with his plan of making us like Him.

That may sound like heresy to some, but that is what scripture teaches. Not that we are the Almighty, but as his children embodied by his Spirit and reliant on Him.

As his chosen come into the fullness of Christ, others will be drawn to Him.

I do believe as believers we can resist the call of the flesh empowered by God's Spirit. How one sees the mechanics of that may affect whether they believe that choice exists or doesn't.

I see in layers and i do believe both exist. But again, some may not see it that way.

Ok, that took longer than time i had today so done for today. Great topic though.

 

[Jo555]

A quick stop in to say that i think (as I'm still learning the language) the problem is that most are looking at it on a moral level that shapes the conscience.

Scripture teach that was not God's goal for us, but we disobeyed the command. Therefore, God, working within man's decision to go at it apart from God, brought in the law as a shadowy version of his Heart / Spirit.

This is just a temporary version of our choice to disobey.

So did we really have a choice in the garden of Eden?

I've often said i don't know whether i would have made a different choice than Adam and Eve because it is apparent to me, as scriptures also teach, that although they were created in the image of God, they were not of yet God-like. They chose the wrong tree.

I think Bradskii has a good argument, for lack of a better word, but being an atheist (yes?), he is trying to confine spirituality to morality and they are two different things.

I also think his model is problematic because life evolves. Yet, if everything was to remain the same, then i see his model as more right than wrong.

I'm still trying to understand the concepts being raised so not sure if I am on target, but from what i see it appears that most are trying to cone at this from a moral standpoint, but what one needs to understand is that was never how God intended it to be.

Let us say we really don't have a choice, which I don't believe that is totally the case, especially for the believer. Yet, for debate's sake, let us say say that is the case. Does that make God unfair and unjust?

We haven't come to the conclusion of all this so that would be, for those that have judged him as such, a premature judgement.

What the believer knows in scripture is that without God know one was seeking Him. He stepped on to continue with his plan of making us like Him.

That may sound like heresy to some, but that is what scripture teaches. Not that we are the Almighty, but as his children embodied by his Spirit and reliant on Him.

As his chosen come into the fullness of Christ, others will be drawn to Him.

I do believe as believers we can resist the call of the flesh empowered by God's Spirit. How one sees the mechanics of that may affect whether they believe that choice exists or doesn't.

I see in layers and i do believe both exist. But again, some may not see it that way.

Ok, that took longer time than I had today so done for today. Great topic though.

 

[Bradskii]

Free will in the Bible is not the same as free will, in philosophy and science.

This is not a theological discussion. And the definition that you yourself gave is the one being discussed:

'Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.'

 

[Jo555]

A quick stop in to say that i think (as I'm still learning the language) the problem is that most are looking at it on a moral level that shapes the conscience.

Scripture teach that was not God's goal for us, but we disobeyed the command. Therefore, God, working within man's decision to go at it apart from God, brought in the law as a shadowy version of his Heart / Spirit as a temp measure.

This is just a temporary measure due to our choice to disobey.

So did we really have a choice in the garden of Eden?

I've often said i don't know whether i would have made a different choice than Adam and Eve because it is apparent to me, as scriptures also teach, that although they were created in the image of God, they were not of yet God-like. They chose the wrong tree.

I think Bradskii has a good argument, for lack of a better word, but being an atheist (yes?), he is trying to confine spirituality to morality and they are two different things.

I also think his model is problematic because life evolves. Yet, if everything was to remain the same, then i see his model as more right than wrong.

I'm still trying to understand the concepts being raised so not sure if I am on target, but from what i see it appears that most are trying to cone at this from a moral standpoint, but what one needs to understand is that was never how God intended it to be.

Let us say we really don't have a choice, which I don't believe that is totally the case, especially for the believer. Yet, for debate's sake, let us say say that is the case. Does that make God unfair and unjust?

We haven't come to the conclusion of all this so that would be, for those that have judged him as such, a premature judgement.

What the believer knows in scripture is that without God know one was seeking Him. He stepped on to continue with his plan of making us like Him.

That may sound like heresy to some, but that is what scripture teaches. Not that we are the Almighty, but as his children embodied by his Spirit and reliant on Him.

As his chosen come into the fullness of Christ, others will be drawn to Him.

I do believe as believers we can resist the call of the flesh empowered by God's Spirit. How one sees the mechanics of that may affect whether they believe that choice exists or doesn't.

I see in layers and i do believe both exist. But again, some may not see it that way.

Ok, that took longer than time i had today so done for today. Great topic though.

Shoo. I forgot to say that i do believe part of God's plan in putting us through all this is to show us we can't do it without Him because all that is good and light is found in Him.

Yet, He has said what we go through here is nothing compared to the glory that will be revealed in us at the conclusion of all this. For now we have it in measure, not fully realized.

 

[Jo555]

Shoo again.

Momma mia, forgive me.

I also do not believe the unbeliever is totally depraved because on some level, whether we believe in Him or not, we all have a knowledge of God and hos Spirit is at work within humanity so that evil doesn't fully flourish. On their level unbelievers can experience the goodness of God and act accordingly, but the standard, or character and essence of God is impossibly high and unreachable by humans. It is only attained through Christ.

Scripture teaches that there will be a time when his Spirit is removed, allowing evil to flourish.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It's been determined at least back to the Big Bang. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be able to work backwards to that point (what caused this, and then what caused that, and what mthen caused that etc etc). Unfortunately we can't go back past Planck time so we don't know what cause(s) existed before that time. I assume that you think it was God. Wen'll agree to disagree on that point.

Either way, it has no input on how you make decisions.

The remarkable statement is that regarding determination. Determination cannot exist unless there is someone or something "determining" outcomes. I would expect an athiest to assume that everything happens by chance, not by determination. Unless you consider yourself a panthesist in which the universe is God or that God is the universe.

 

[Bradskii]

The remarkable statement is that regarding determination. Determination cannot exist unless there is someone or something "determining" outcomes. I would expect an athiest to assume that everything happens by chance, not by determination. Unless you consider yourself a panthesist in which the universe is God or that God is the universe.

If you want to claim that God was the uncaused first cause then for the sake of the argument I'll accept that. Everything is determined from that point onwards.

If you want to suggest that God determines every decision that we make (although I'm not sure why he'd be interested in me choosing tea over coffee a few minutes ago) then there's no free will there.

 

[Jo555]

If you want to claim that God was the uncaused first cause then for the sake of the argument I'll accept that. Everything is determined from that point onwards.

If you want to suggest that God determines every decision that we make (although I'm not sure why he'd be interested in me choosing tea over coffee a few minutes ago) then there's no free will there.

Oomster, Bradskii will correct me if I'm wrong, but i do believe he does believe there is something determining outcomes, but think he credits it more to conscience, which he sees as shaping desires.

I don't see conscience shaping desires. Is there a possibility that it does? On a smaller scale there may be a case, but within the larger scheme of things it as a force outside of conscience.

Bradskii.

Mon ami. Ok, a bit premature, but I'm optimistic after our shaky start.

Did you say God?

Are you now ready to convert to Christianity so you don't fry, mon ami?

Just jesting. Besides, i can think of a million better reason than frying. And, not here looking to convert anyone. I do enjoy the topics.

And, guessing it was just your way of defining it, for the sake of argument.

I'm having a hard time again, in trying to wrap my head around determinism. I get predestined and freewill, and determinism to an extent, but i think i would need to understand how it would be a useful application in exploring life.

That said, from what i can grasp, i think a good deal of your theories (the ones I've come across anyway) line up more with scripture, than against. Not perfectly, but have merit.

Although, as i learn the language further, i reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[Bradskii]

Oomster, Bradskii will correct me if I'm wrong, but i do believe he does believe there is something determining outcomes, but think he credits it more to conscience, which he sees as shaping desires.

I was going to say it's simpler than that. But you are right in some circumstances. Obviously there's no conscience involved in me having tea as opposed to coffee or deciding not to go to the beach because it's raining. But there may well be times when your conscience plays a part in your decisions.

To use an example that's already been raised, you might not want to put yourself in harms way and get shot at in a war situation. So you'd want to avoid that. But others are going to war in effect to protect you and your family. So...guilty conscience? Quite possibly. So you might prefer to 'do your duty' as opposed to wanting not getting shot at.

 

[Jo555]

Anywayzzzz, if you are interested, this is where i stand on the topic of choices, which i do believe is also being explored. It is from a Christian perspective, but i did not go shopping at a second hand store. In other words, not adopted due to what others beliefs, but in my own asking, Knocking, seeking with God.

May be of some use to you.

Do We Really Have a Choice?

Do We Really Have a Choice? Have you ever considered that question? The topic of choices is all over the bible. Others tell us love is a choice and we can choose to forgive. Unfortunately, we human beings have perpetually gravitated...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Jo555]

Here is where i believe we were created to live.

Moving to Higher Ground in Christ

My favorite secular novel is "War and Peace". There is one particular passage that I absolutely love because it wonderfully describes how, as believers, are lives are to be lived. We were never meant to live partaking of the knowledge of good...

www.christianforums.com

I see you've responded with a more simplistic example. Going to look into that further another day as time permits, but upon quick glance, looks like morality again. As Christians, we see forces at work outside of morality.

But i have yet to dive into it. Get back with you when i can because i know you are holding your breath with anticipation.

 

[CoreyD]

@Jo555 I'll be with you as soon as I finish talking to @Bradskii. Just give me a moment.

Yes. That's the definition that's being used.

If Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future, then free will exists.
Your argument is that it does not. So something is wrong with your argument.
Either that, or you don't know what your argument is anymore.

You want some ice cream for desert. Call it a first order desire. A proximate desire. It's loaded with calories and tastes great. But you prefer to lose weight. We'll class that as a second order desire. Which is your ultimate desire. They are not compatible. And you decide that you'll skip desert. What you prefer overrides what you want. If the discussion is free will then it's necessary to understand that.

So in the earlier example, there's a war and you definitely don't want to get killed. A first order, proximate desire. But you feel that it's necessary to protect your country, to stand up against aggression. A second order, ultimate desire. So despite the fact that you don't want to get killed, your preference is to join up.

You are misunderstanding.
The soldier prefers to be with his family.
He does not feel it is necessary to protect his country.
He feels obligated to a duty that he accepted... whether willingly, or unwillingly.
He prefers to be with his family. That is what he wants, but he chooses to fulfill his obligation, as a soldier.

Do you see why you are repeating yourself. You will feel the need to do so, if you do not understand what is being said, especially if you missed an important detail.

Then please stop adding to the post count.

I will, after t's clear that you clearly understand the flaw in your 'logic'.

 

[CoreyD]

The request still stands. I'd like you to explain how you think the decision making process works. We can then investigate it to see if free will is involved or not.

Have I not done that?
Are you saying you do not understand how a person's thought process works to evaluate conditions that can exist, or will exist, based on what one decides to do?
Perhaps you are overthinking the idea you support, but in any case, you cannot change facts, and prove imagined concepts.

I have repeatedly shown you free will in reality, and I have repeatedly asked you to prove otherwise.
Obviously, you can't, so there is no need for me to repeat, or repost what I have already posted, is there.
That would be adding posts to the thread, unnecessarily, would it not... and you don't want that.