Free Will Considered

[anonymous1515]

I find the topic of Free Will to be an interesting one, and I wanted to hear your opinions on it. I'm not sure if this will spawn some sort of discussion or not, but anyways, here are some of my thoughts...

I think that we would all agree that a world in which we had free will would be better than a world in which we did not (after all, God created humans with a free will.)

However, in providing us with free will, He then allowed us to commit evil acts (for if we had no free will, nobody would commit evil deeds). A consequence of free will seems to be evil.

Is it possible for humanity to have free will without evil?

 

[Bernie02]

howdy anon,

I think that we would all agree that a world in which we had free will would be better than a world in which we did not

How would you define "free will"?

Is it possible for humanity to have free will without evil?

I think this, too, depends on one's definition.

 

[anonymous1515]

howdy anon,


How would you define "free will"?


I think this, too, depends on one's definition.

Well, I would define free will as the ability to choose what one wants to do, given the situation.

 

[Bernie02]

Hi anon,

Most seem to think of free will as the ability to make primarily or wholly free moral choices from among good and evil variables. This usually seems to assume a) the good/evil state of affairs from which one chooses is a natural state; b) a high degree of human autonomy or ability to choose in the midst of this state of affairs.

Another way to look at free will might be a measurement of the ability to choose freely based on the notion of a corrupted reality. In this view, perfection would mean the hypothetical perfection assumed to have existed in the garden of Eden. This supposes that all unhindered choice would be logically only choices for each and every good, individually and corporately, as the idea of perfection solicits consumate unity and harmony.

In the first view, good and evil are components of a natural environment and the chooser maintains a more or less stable equalibrium or ability to choose within this state.

In the second,choice is always and only hindered by some content of internal (mental/physical dysfunctions) and external (false information) corruption, with perfection the principal standard of measurement by which to judge how "free" any choice might be. The only truly free choice in this scenario is one wholly unhindered by falsity and error--which is not compatible with the definition of free choice in option #1.

Personally, I tend to favor the second view. Hence, my position in answer to your question...

Is it possible for humanity to have free will without evil?

...would be to suggest that to choose freely means to me that one could/would only choose perfectly in a perfect state of affairs. Since "free" equals "perfect" (zero tension and resistance in choice), yes, it'd be possible to choose freely without evil. It would theoretically be possible to choose freely/perfectly even when confronted with circumstances in which evil is introduced for consideration from an external source, as in Adam's choice to eat from the forbidden tree. But it also seems to me that choosing wrongly would introduce internally the pathology of falsity into reality (as Adam did), again shackling the ability to choose freely.

Does this make any sense?

 

[HighwayMan]

Heaven is ultimate freedom and it is without evil. So most definitely it is.

 

[anonymous1515]

Hi anon,

Most seem to think of free will as the ability to make primarily or wholly free moral choices from among good and evil variables. This usually seems to assume a) the good/evil state of affairs from which one chooses is a natural state; b) a high degree of human autonomy or ability to choose in the midst of this state of affairs.

Another way to look at free will might be a measurement of the ability to choose freely based on the notion of a corrupted reality. In this view, perfection would mean the hypothetical perfection assumed to have existed in the garden of Eden. This supposes that all unhindered choice would be logically only choices for each and every good, individually and corporately, as the idea of perfection solicits consumate unity and harmony.

In the first view, good and evil are components of a natural environment and the chooser maintains a more or less stable equalibrium or ability to choose within this state.

In the second,choice is always and only hindered by some content of internal (mental/physical dysfunctions) and external (false information) corruption, with perfection the principal standard of measurement by which to judge how "free" any choice might be. The only truly free choice in this scenario is one wholly unhindered by falsity and error--which is not compatible with the definition of free choice in option #1.

Personally, I tend to favor the second view. Hence, my position in answer to your question...

...would be to suggest that to choose freely means to me that one could/would only choose perfectly in a perfect state of affairs. Since "free" equals "perfect" (zero tension and resistance in choice), yes, it'd be possible to choose freely without evil. It would theoretically be possible to choose freely/perfectly even when confronted with circumstances in which evil is introduced for consideration from an external source, as in Adam's choice to eat from the forbidden tree. But it also seems to me that choosing wrongly would introduce internally the pathology of falsity into reality (as Adam did), again shackling the ability to choose freely.

Does this make any sense?

I'm not exactly sure I follow, haha. Maybe you could elaborate?

I think that the concept of free will is very interesting because it sort of gives God an "out" per se. It also poses several problems too.

Firstly, it lets God off the hook for the problem of evil. Evils (such as murder, rape, theft, etc.) are a consequence of human free will, and are therefore not a direct consequence of God's actions.

On the other hand, it provides a serious problem for God's foreknowledge, or omniscience. If God laid out the universe, and already knew in advance what the future would be, that may mean that we are not truly free. Our future is already decided if God knows the future, and hence our choices were predetermined.

Lots of philosophers have grappled with the concept. It's tricky.

 

[SpiritDriven]

The Doctrine of Free Will, is a teaching of the Demon.

It is designed to have people boasting before God that they saved themselves via an act of their own alledged Free Will.

So you decided the hour of your birth and the times you where born into...?

What prior arrangement did you make to decide the outcome of the Cultural and Family back ground you where born into...?

Please enlighten me as to what arrangement did you make with who about what Gender you would be...?

We have wills yes, and man can be very willfull, yet even your final destiny has already been decided by God....before you where even born....he knew you in the womb.

Please enlighten me ...oh mighty man...as to the scriptual reference pertaining to whose mouth is the source of good and evil ?

 

[anonymous1515]

The Doctrine of Free Will, is a teaching of the Demon.

It is designed to have people boasting before God that they saved themselves via an act of their own alledged Free Will.

So you decided the hour of your birth and the times you where born into...?

What prior arrangement did you make to decide the outcome of the Cultural and Family back ground you where born into...?

Please enlighten me as to what arrangement did you make with who about what Gender you would be...?

We have wills yes, and man can be very willfull, yet even your final destiny has already been decided by God....before you where even born....he knew you in the womb.

Please enlighten me ...oh mighty man...as to the scriptual reference pertaining to whose mouth is the source of good and evil ?

So you would say that free will is an illusion? Would you then consider yourself a fatalist?

 

[Bernie02]

On the other hand, it [free will] provides a serious problem for God's foreknowledge, or omniscience. If God laid out the universe, and already knew in advance what the future would be, that may mean that we are not truly free. Our future is already decided if God knows the future, and hence our choices were predetermined.

The open theistic argument seems logical on the surface, but it would seem upon reflection that knowledge of any restrictions the created intellectual could place on an infinitely capable and self-sufficient mind would be sheerly impossible to know. Not somewhat or even very hard to know, but sheerly impossible. God's ways and knowledge are necessarily so far out of the reach of the understanding of the created intellect, we have to rely on revealed knowledge of God's infinite mind and characteristics to have any knowledge of Him at all.

I don't think the seriousness of the "problem" of free will is as serious as you suggest.

When it boils down between omniscience and the open view, we ought to ask ourselves which doctrine seeks to allow God freedom to reveal Who and What He is, and which seeks to limit Him to human standards. The proper answer, it seems to me, should be our guide.

 

[SpiritDriven]

So you would say that free will is an illusion? Would you then consider yourself a fatalist?

Never a fatalist....just always in recognition of the Soveriegn Power and Will of God.
That mighty man (chuckle) can in no way thwart....

Peace

 

[ClausJohn]

On the other hand, it provides a serious problem for God's foreknowledge, or omniscience. If God laid out the universe, and already knew in advance what the future would be, that may mean that we are not truly free. Our future is already decided if God knows the future, and hence our choices were predetermined.

Lots of philosophers have grappled with the concept. It's tricky.

No, it's simple. Either god cannot know everything about the future, or we have no free will. You can't logically have both.

I do not think humans possess free will, or at least nothing more than the illusion of free will. All our choices are dictated by stimuli and experience/memory. Given the same stimuli and memory, a human being would always do the very same thing. The choices we make are always the ones that are most beneficial to ourselves, directly or indirectly (as we are social beings, we often see helping others indirectly beneficial to ourselves, and most often we don't even notice the reasons for these low-level decisions and merely think "it's the right thing to do").

 

[anonymous1515]

Interesting. I was under the impression that Christians, for the most part, believed free will to be a gift from God. I guess not all do. Very interesting indeed!

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

There is no reason that free will (or some form of free will on this earth) cannot co-exist with God's absolute sovereignty.

 

[ClausJohn]

Define sovereignty. We were talking about omniscience.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Why dont we just cut through all the Human mumbo Jumbo.....


God works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).

 

[Bernie02]

No, it's simple. Either god cannot know everything about the future, or we have no free will. You can't logically have both.

I doubt it's all that simple. There is no way the created intellect can know whether it's possible for an infinite, omniscient mind to allow some variety of freedom of the human will into the reality it finds itself in. The logical conundrum is capable of exploring only this (finite) side of the coin.

Any number of things could logically be possible for an infinite mind to produce which would seem logically impossible from the viewpoint of the finite mind. Scripture says all things are possible with God. Humans don't control and define logic; logic is a structure discerned by us about the world God created for us to live in. It encompasses a set of parameters [logic] based on another set of parameters [reality]. How can those designed to live within the confines of the second set of parameters know with certainty what the designer is or is not capable of doing...including creating a reality in which some variety of freedom of the human will exists within the context of His sovereignty and omniscience?

 

[anonymous1515]

I doubt it's all that simple. There is no way the created intellect can know whether it's possible for an infinite, omniscient mind to allow some variety of freedom of the human will into the reality it finds itself in. The logical conundrum is capable of exploring only this (finite) side of the coin.

Any number of things could logically be possible for an infinite mind to produce which would seem logically impossible from the viewpoint of the finite mind. Scripture says all things are possible with God. Humans don't control and define logic; logic is a structure discerned by us about the world God created for us to live in. It encompasses a set of parameters [logic] based on another set of parameters [reality]. How can those designed to live within the confines of the second set of parameters know with certainty what the designer is or is not capable of doing...including creating a reality in which some variety of freedom of the human will exists within the context of His sovereignty and omniscience?

Hmmm...I'm not so sure about that. I agree we don't control logic, but we certainly define it, and can explore it.

For example, it is logically impossible for a triangle to have 4 sides. It is a logical impossibility for a 4 sided triangle to exist. Whether or not God is omniscient or not has nothing to do with the impossibility of a 4 sided triangle.

However, I agree with you to some extent: I'm not yet convinced that omniscience necessarily implies a lack of free will.

 

[Bernie02]

Hi anon,

I agree we don't control logic, but we certainly define it, and can explore it.

I'd gently disagree. I don't think we "define" logic, seems to me we discern it as a set of rules. The rules serve to define some aspect of the reality we've been placed in. Mathematics would identify another, and so on.

For example, it is logically impossible for a triangle to have 4 sides. It is a logical impossibility for a 4 sided triangle to exist.

True, but only from this side of knowing. There is no way to get past logical fallacies from this side, because the nature of logic or any set of data humans hold is only able to define the finite parameters we find ourselves in. To say it's not possible for a four-sided triangle to exist in some other reality--a reality in which an infinite mind is sovereign, for example--is something only an infinite mind can know; hence the problems of forcing human logic, based on a finite reality, on infinity.

Whether or not God is omniscient or not has nothing to do with the impossibility of a 4 sided triangle.

Not sure I understand your point, anon. The infinite mind has total knowledge, we do not. By simple definition, it would seem to me that omniscience is pivotal in defining the problems in discussions about free will and logically impossible things.

You never identified whether your definition of free will most closely matches the first or second example. Many differences are subtle, for sure, but it seems to me that God's motives toward man can be seen in different light depending if "free" means sovereign or autonomous ability in a naturally imperfect world, or if it means 'freedom to choose perfectly as measured by the degree to which that choice is hindered'. Open theism appears to me to necessarily demand the first because it seems at base a method of searching for ways to justify human autonomy. The second places man at a decided disadvantage in prescriptive matters, whereupon he awaits (and perhaps, to a small degree, is invited to participate) God's grace to restore choice to the perfection in which it was created.

I never really debate the free will thing, this is probably my first venture into it, but in reading in threads where it's discussed, this is what I've come to believe to date. My two cents only, may not be worth a plug nickel, but as I seem to have little shortage of opinions, some of value and some valueless, thought I'd weigh in. Peace out.

 

[anonymous1515]

Hi anon,


I'd gently disagree. I don't think we "define" logic, seems to me we discern it as a set of rules. The rules serve to define some aspect of the reality we've been placed in. Mathematics would identify another, and so on.


True, but only from this side of knowing. There is no way to get past logical fallacies from this side, because the nature of logic or any set of data humans hold is only able to define the finite parameters we find ourselves in. To say it's not possible for a four-sided triangle to exist in some other reality--a reality in which an infinite mind is sovereign, for example--is something only an infinite mind can know; hence the problems of forcing human logic, based on a finite reality, on infinity.


Not sure I understand your point, anon. The infinite mind has total knowledge, we do not. By simple definition, it would seem to me that omniscience is pivotal in defining the problems in discussions about free will and logically impossible things.

You never identified whether your definition of free will most closely matches the first or second example. Many differences are subtle, for sure, but it seems to me that God's motives toward man can be seen in different light depending if "free" means sovereign or autonomous ability in a naturally imperfect world, or if it means 'freedom to choose perfectly as measured by the degree to which that choice is hindered'. Open theism appears to me to necessarily demand the first because it seems at base a method of searching for ways to justify human autonomy. The second places man at a decided disadvantage in prescriptive matters, whereupon he awaits (and perhaps, to a small degree, is invited to participate) God's grace to restore choice to the perfection in which it was created.

I never really debate the free will thing, this is probably my first venture into it, but in reading in threads where it's discussed, this is what I've come to believe to date. My two cents only, may not be worth a plug nickel, but as I seem to have little shortage of opinions, some of value and some valueless, thought I'd weigh in. Peace out.

Haha, fair enough. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how infinite knowledge has to do with defying logic. If a 4 sided triangle existed in another reality, it still wouldn't be a triangle by our definition. To have a 4-sided 3-sided figure is logically impossible, and I'm not sure I understand how God's infinite knowledge would change that.

Haha, maybe you're just thinking on a higher level than me, I dunno. Very interesting thoughts though!

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

Define sovereignty. We were talking about omniscience.

ok, what I mean by God's sovreignty is that God is more than omniscient (has all knowlegde) but God is the source of all knowledge.

I think perhaps we need to define 'free will' a bit more. Because free will from an earthly, finite stance is one thing, our free will in relation to God's Will is another.
Is it really free will or does it just feel like free will? Is that enough? Does God simple know what we are going to freely choose and orchestrate around it? Or does God predestine our 'choices'? This is a very old and complicated question...