Free will seems rather deceptive...

[Non sequitur]

As much as I hate analogies, I feel it's the best way to get the thought out there:

Let's say you were faced with a choice of vehicles to get, because you felt it was the time you got one. They seem useful and can benefit you in many ways.

They all have different traits and characteristics. Some were made in the USA, some made in Japan... well, you get the picture. Many choices.

Some have no warranties, others limited warranties, and some lifetime.

Well that helped narrow things down, so you start glazing over the vehicles (we'll call them Geronimo's) that had the lifetime warranty and they also appear to be predominant in the dealers selection. Again, must be good vehicle; you've seen many on the road and heard many positive things about them.

Lucky for you, the owner of the dealership (we'll call him Hoss) is actually there at the moment and shows you all about the vehicle.

While he appears like the kind of individual to have a sketchy past, he seems to be a rather honest and nice guy.

You look over all the information about it... but honestly you still aren't sure.

He notices you now looking at another model of vehicle and pulls you aside.

"I have to tell you something. Now I can't verify this for you in any tangible way, but I believe that if you pick any other vehicle besides the Geronimo, when the vehicle ceases to function, the remainder of your existence (and then some) will be consisting of the most imaginable horror your could conceive... plus one. Pick freely."

I would now be left with two thoughts, not necessarily in this order:

1) Is this guy a lunatic?

2)
a) If I have the free will and the ability to choose the vehicle, didn't him mentioning the horrible outcome of my decision now heavily weigh in my decision making process?

b) Am I not now incredibly influenced by his statements and therefore my decision influenced?

c) Could I reasonably, now, arrive at any other conclusion?

d) If the best vehicle to pick was inherently the best, regardless of outcomes, isn't it unnecessary to mention that part? Unless he is kinda forcing me into a corner?



To summarize all of this, my question is:

If there is the possibility of a horrible outcome, aren't you going to now be biased in your decisions? If so, how can one make a proper assessment of their reality or its legitimacy, if you include the bias that fear brings?

 

[ebia]

"free will" means we get to make choices. It does not mean those choices are without consequences v

 

[Non sequitur]

"free will" means we get to make choices. It does not mean those choices are without consequences v

Well, I see you didn't answer either question, but interjected a statement.

Can you please just simply answer the questions? I mean, if you don't want to that's fine.

 

[pinkputter]

As much as I hate analogies, I feel it's the best way to get the thought out there:

Why, because Christians use them?

Let's say you were faced with a choice of vehicles to get, because you felt it was the time you got one. They seem useful and can benefit you in many ways.

They all have different traits and characteristics. Some were made in the USA, some made in Japan... well, you get the picture. Many choices.

Some have no warranties, others limited warranties, and some lifetime.

Well that helped narrow things down, so you start glazing over the vehicles (we'll call them Geronimo's) that had the lifetime warranty and they also appear to be predominant in the dealers selection. Again, must be good vehicle; you've seen many on the road and heard many positive things about them.

Lucky for you, the owner of the dealership (we'll call him Hoss) is actually there at the moment and shows you all about the vehicle.

While he appears like the kind of individual to have a sketchy past, he seems to be a rather honest and nice guy.

You look over all the information about it... but honestly you still aren't sure.

He notices you now looking at another model of vehicle and pulls you aside.

"I have to tell you something. Now I can't verify this for you in any tangible way, but I believe that if you pick any other vehicle besides the Geronimo, when the vehicle ceases to function, the remainder of your existence (and then some) will be consisting of the most imaginable horror your could conceive... plus one. Pick freely."

I would now be left with two thoughts, not necessarily in this order:

1) Is this guy a lunatic?

2)
a) If I have the free will and the ability to choose the vehicle, didn't him mentioning the horrible outcome of my decision now heavily weigh in my decision making process?

b) Am I not now incredibly influenced by his statements and therefore my decision influenced?

c) Could I reasonably, now, arrive at any other conclusion?

d) If the best vehicle to pick was inherently the best, regardless of outcomes, isn't it unnecessary to mention that part? Unless he is kinda forcing me into a corner?

I don't see the significance in saying he "appears to have a sketchy past" while also "appearing honest"??

I'm assuming youre referring to Christianity with this analogy. If so, why would you want to believe in a God you had no choice in believing in? God wants us to know him because we want to not because we have to. Now, since God is an all-powerful God his ways are supreme, an like already mentioned there are consequences for not acknowledging him because he reveals himself to all nations. "All who seek, find."

 

[Biker Angel]

To summarize all of this, my question is:

If there is the possibility of a horrible outcome, aren't you going to now be biased in your decisions? If so, how can one make a proper assessment of their reality or its legitimacy, if you include the bias that fear brings?

Your trying to corner free will and place it in your neat little box of semantics and understanding. There is nothing deceptive about the free moral agency that God created for humans. You will be a believer in God to fully understand it.

Solders are trained to make proper assessment of reality under the bias of fear all the time. So it can be done and makes your question look silly if your trying to discredit free will.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

So your saying the choice is now made under duress?

Do you know that not all Christians believe in "free will" ?

 

[ebia]

The questions are too much along the "have you stopped bashing your wife yet?" line.

The assumptions behind them need challenging.

Free-will does not mean no consequences.
Free-will does not mean without influence.
Free-will does not mean perfectly informed.

 

[drich0150]

As much as I hate analogies, I feel it's the best way to get the thought out there:

Let's say you were faced with a choice of vehicles to get, because you felt it was the time you got one. They seem useful and can benefit you in many ways.

They all have different traits and characteristics. Some were made in the USA, some made in Japan... well, you get the picture. Many choices.

Some have no warranties, others limited warranties, and some lifetime.

Well that helped narrow things down, so you start glazing over the vehicles (we'll call them Geronimo's) that had the lifetime warranty and they also appear to be predominant in the dealers selection. Again, must be good vehicle; you've seen many on the road and heard many positive things about them.

Lucky for you, the owner of the dealership (we'll call him Hoss) is actually there at the moment and shows you all about the vehicle.

While he appears like the kind of individual to have a sketchy past, he seems to be a rather honest and nice guy.

You look over all the information about it... but honestly you still aren't sure.

He notices you now looking at another model of vehicle and pulls you aside.

"I have to tell you something. Now I can't verify this for you in any tangible way, but I believe that if you pick any other vehicle besides the Geronimo, when the vehicle ceases to function, the remainder of your existence (and then some) will be consisting of the most imaginable horror your could conceive... plus one. Pick freely."

I would now be left with two thoughts, not necessarily in this order:

1) Is this guy a lunatic?

2)
a) If I have the free will and the ability to choose the vehicle, didn't him mentioning the horrible outcome of my decision now heavily weigh in my decision making process?

b) Am I not now incredibly influenced by his statements and therefore my decision influenced?

c) Could I reasonably, now, arrive at any other conclusion?

d) If the best vehicle to pick was inherently the best, regardless of outcomes, isn't it unnecessary to mention that part? Unless he is kinda forcing me into a corner?



To summarize all of this, my question is:

If there is the possibility of a horrible outcome, aren't you going to now be biased in your decisions? If so, how can one make a proper assessment of their reality or its legitimacy, if you include the bias that fear brings?

It seems you are confusing the "free will" spoken of by the bible with the free will of philosophy.

Here are the actual biblically based definitions of the following words:

Sin, is anything not in the expressed will of God.

Evil, is a malicious intent to be out side of the Expressed will of God.

Not all sin is Evil, but all evil is sin.

Free Will is the ability to be in a will not expressed or approved by God.

In other words "Free will" is the ability to Sin.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

That's a particularly narrow definition of free will, purposely so. Libertarian free will might be believed in by a Christian, but it might not. They may be compatibilists in some sense, more likely, since they would want to believe according to the Bible that God has a plan and determines events in a certain sense, but they'd also want to believe people can choose between alternatives.

 

[drich0150]

That's a particularly narrow definition of free will, purposely so. Libertarian free will might be believed in by a Christian, but it might not. They may be compatibilists in some sense, more likely, since they would want to believe according to the Bible that God has a plan and determines events in a certain sense, but they'd also want to believe people can choose between alternatives.

I am just making the distinction between biblical based free will and what is being discussed. Whatever one believes is truly not the issue I am highlighting. If one want to believe in the "libertarian version" then he is completely free to do so. However this person should know that the libertarian version is not the free will of the bible. As such I believe it is a little redundant to reinvent an established standard just so that this person can feel comfortable levying an unfair judgment against God. If one is so bold as to judge God then I challenge him to do so against the standards God has established.

 

[food4thought]

That was a poor analogy because it does not represent the true choice and the information given. It is not without reason that every other chopice has dire consequences. The whole of Christianity rests upon the necessity of humans needing to be saved, and Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf. No other religion deals with sin and our lost state, they only give us precepts to live by (often times good, sometimes not so good).

The horrible consequence of not choosing correctly is not akin to a shady salesman's statement without proof, it is intrinsic to the difference between choices. A better analogy would be to compare automobiles that actually run and automobiles that do not run. Without Jesus' death in our place we would still be accountable for every minor transgression of the law, and thus the other automobiles would not accomplish the necessary function.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I am just making the distinction between biblical based free will and what is being discussed. Whatever one believes is truly not the issue I am highlighting. If one want to believe in the "libertarian version" then he is completely free to do so. However this person should know that the libertarian version is not the free will of the bible. As such I believe it is a little redundant to reinvent an established standard just so that this person can feel comfortable levying an unfair judgment against God. If one is so bold as to judge God then I challenge him to do so against the standards God has established.

You think libertarian free will is not found in the Bible at all? I suppose my hypothesis was right that Christians would tend to believe in compatibilism or determinism in terms of human freedom or lack thereof. Free will in terms of the bible is both vast and tiny in the span you give.

 

[Non sequitur]

I am just making the distinction between biblical based free will and what is being discussed. Whatever one believes is truly not the issue I am highlighting. If one want to believe in the "libertarian version" then he is completely free to do so. However this person should know that the libertarian version is not the free will of the bible. As such I believe it is a little redundant to reinvent an established standard just so that this person can feel comfortable levying an unfair judgment against God. If one is so bold as to judge God then I challenge him to do so against the standards God has established.

Happily.

Name some for me?

 

[Non sequitur]

As much as I hate analogies, I feel it's the best way to get the thought out there:

Why, because Christians use them?



I don't see the significance in saying he "appears to have a sketchy past" while also "appearing honest"??

I'm assuming youre referring to Christianity with this analogy. If so, why would you want to believe in a God you had no choice in believing in? God wants us to know him because we want to not because we have to. Now, since God is an all-powerful God his ways are supreme, an like already mentioned there are consequences for not acknowledging him because he reveals himself to all nations. "All who seek, find."

Thanks for not answering either questions. You guys do so well at that.

If I had no choice in my belief of your god... then I'd have no choice but to believe in your god. So what? That sentence is nonsensical.

And if I believed in this god, that I had no choice in not believing, it would be because this god made him self apparent in some way.

Not a supernatural, feel-his-tingly-presence or how-could-there-be-ANY-other-possible-answer way.


Also, I don't want to know your god.

I also don't want to know about unicorns and leprechauns, other than for amusement.

I want to know the truth.

But for most, it appears, that's a bad way of thinking...

 

[Non sequitur]

Your trying to corner free will and place it in your neat little box of semantics and understanding. There is nothing deceptive about the free moral agency that God created for humans. You will be a believer in God to fully understand it.

Solders are trained to make proper assessment of reality under the bias of fear all the time. So it can be done and makes your question look silly if your trying to discredit free will.

Thanks for not answering either questions. You guys do so well at that.

Ok, so what is your definition of free will?

 

[Non sequitur]

So your saying the choice is now made under duress?

Do you know that not all Christians believe in "free will" ?

Thanks for not answering either questions. You guys do so well at that.

Yes, I was aware. Rather odd...

I wouldn't say duress, but possibly duress-like... coerced persuasion seems more appropriate.

I would say these things most certainly and severely impact my ability think clearly and to pick what honestly makes sense to me.

 

[Non sequitur]

The questions are too much along the "have you stopped bashing your wife yet?" line.

The assumptions behind them need challenging.

Free-will does not mean no consequences.
Free-will does not mean without influence.
Free-will does not mean perfectly informed.

Thanks for not answering either questions. You guys do so well at that.

Free-will will always lead to consequences. I never said it didn't.
Free-will will always be influenced. I never said it wouldn't.
Free-will can almost never be perfectly informed. I never said it was.


"I think you should go to college, because it will help you gain better employment and have a more secure future." - Influence

"I think you should go to college, because it will help you gain better employment and have a more secure future. And if you don't, I'll blown your ******* head off." - Influence :o

We are aware of consequences in both statements.
We are not perfectly informed in both statements.
We are influenced in both statements.

Don't know why on earth somebody wouldn't go to college after they heard that last statement... but they did have free-will.

 

[AllIsrael]

“If there is the possibility of a horrible outcome, aren't you going to now be biased in your decisions?”

The answer is, “It depends on the one predicting the horrible outcome.”

First you have to decide if the source who warned about a “horrible outcome” is credible. If the source is credible, the answer to your question for any sane person will be in the affirmative. A person who is warned by someone he knows is credible would be a fool not to give heed to the source and not allow himself to be influenced by him. (By the way, I read somewhere that fear can be the beginning of wisdom.) On the other hand, if the source is known to be not credible, well, you really don’t have to pay him any mind because you know his word cannot be trusted.


Then you have the third, and most common situation, where you don’t know if the person is credible or not. In the case of the auto dealer, your assessment of him sounds pretty shaky. “He ‘appears’ like the ‘kind’ of individual who has a sketchy past,” and “he ‘seems’ to be a rather honest and nice guy.” You are basing your question on something said by someone that you have judged as “he could have a sketchy past” and he “seems honest and nice”?? Your assumption of a horrible outcome is based on a first-time, chance meeting with someone you don’t even know? Wake up and smell the coffee. You can’t make critical judgments based only on surface evidence and outward appearances. Your description of the auto dealer already puts up a red flag. If you found yourself attracted to the car that he warned you away from, you should check it out. Find out about the history of the car manufacturer and determine if the cars it has made in the past are safe and reliable and live up to the claims made. Go online and review the car, find several witnesses, find owners of the car, and do all your due diligence. Do that with all the other cars as well, the ones the dealer was trying to sell you. Then decide whether or not the car dealer words could be trusted.

So, after making a decision on whether the source can be trusted, if you trust it, in your case, if you determine you can trust the car dealer, then heck yes, a person would be a fool not to be influenced by him. On the other hand, if you believe the source is not trustworthy, go ahead and buy that car you were warned against. In that case, the only thing you have to be careful of is that the source might turn out to be more trustworthy than you had decided, even after your due diligence, and you would be…oh, I can’t say it. It’s too horrible to think about.

So there you have it. The choice is yours. In my opinion, before you do anything else, start checking out the source for yourself—thoroughly—the original source. Spend the next several months doing that. Then you will be better equipped to distinguish between a credible and an un-credible source, you will be able to trust with confidence the ones you deem trustworthy, and you won’t have to be concerned whether or not the source is influencing you, because if it is, you have already decided its influence can be trusted. But if you decide the source is not trustworthy, well, you won’t be influenced by it, will you?

 

[Non sequitur]

It seems you are confusing the "free will" spoken of by the bible with the free will of philosophy.

Here are the actual biblically based definitions of the following words:

Sin, is anything not in the expressed will of God.

Evil, is a malicious intent to be out side of the Expressed will of God.

Not all sin is Evil, but all evil is sin.

Free Will is the ability to be in a will not expressed or approved by God.

In other words "Free will" is the ability to Sin.

Thanks for not answering either questions. You guys do so well at that.

I'm talking about your ability to do things and make choices, whatever they may be.

Whether your god likes them or not or whether his construct of what words really really mean, is irrelevant to your ability to make choices.

And this poor example of a scenario was to illustrate the dilemma at the moment when one was arriving at the choice, not after having already accepted it, its definitions and it's dogma.

If you can't even follow order of events, then just don't comment.

 

[Non sequitur]

“If there is the possibility of a horrible outcome, aren't you going to now be biased in your decisions?”

The answer is, “It depends on the one predicting the horrible outcome.”

First you have to decide if the source who warned about a “horrible outcome” is credible. If the source is credible, the answer to your question for any sane person will be in the affirmative. A person who is warned by someone he knows is credible would be a fool not to give heed to the source and not allow himself to be influenced by him. (By the way, I read somewhere that fear can be the beginning of wisdom.) On the other hand, if the source is known to be not credible, well, you really don’t have to pay him any mind because you know his word cannot be trusted.

Good point and I agree.

Typically, it would be an easy thing to do. You could look at all his physical evidence supporting his claims and he would become more credible. The interwebs would be a good place.

Unfortunately, when we go from his natural claims ("See? 40% of these other cars have been recalled for issues." to trying to see his supernatural claims ("See those people/souls burning in hell for buy the bad cars?") he no longer becomes credible about such things.

Then you have the third, and most usual situation, where you don’t know if the person is credible or not. In the case of the auto dealer, your assessment of him sounds pretty shaky. “He ‘appears’ like the ‘kind’ of individual who has a sketchy past,” and “he ‘seems’ to be a rather honest and nice guy.” You are basing your question on something said by someone that you have judged as “he could have a sketchy past” and he “seems honest and nice”??

It was a reference to the NT vs OT.

First, kinda angry and killing quite a bit, then love and forgiveness. Despite his reasons, I would say his actions and manner of doing things changed for the "better".

Your assumption of a horrible outcome is based on a first-time, chance meeting with someone you don’t even know? Wake up and smell the coffee. You can’t make critical judgments based only on surface evidence and outward appearances. Your description of the auto dealer already puts up a red flag. [/FONT]

No, I didn't assume anything based on this first-time meeting.

My original assessment of him was simply that. A first time observation. My description didn't put up a red flag for me.

And it was honestly there to show the contrast from NT god to OT god, not paint in him in any good or bad light.

If you found yourself attracted to the car that he warned you away from, you should check it out. Find out about the history of the car manufacturer and determine if the cars it has made in the past are safe and reliable and live up to the claims made. Go online and review the car, find several witnesses, find owners of the car, and do all your due diligence. Do that with all the other cars as well, the ones the dealer was trying to sell you. Then decide whether or not the car dealer words could be trusted. [/FONT]

Makes perfect sense.

So, after making a decision on whether the source can be trusted, if you trust it, in your case, if you determine you can trust the car dealer, then heck yes, a person would be a fool not to be influenced by him. On the other hand, if you believe the source is not trustworthy, go ahead and buy that car you were warned against.

Flying right along now!

In that case, the only thing you have to be careful of is that the source might turn out to be more trustworthy than you had decided, even after your due diligence, and you would be…oh, I can’t say it. It’s too horrible to think about.

Wait, what?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa...

In either case, you would have to worry about trustworthiness. One case didn't get special treatment.


Unless I'm going for one of them, because I'm playing it safe.

But now, it's not really honest about what I actually believe, because trustworthiness and information about either car didn't matter.

So there you have it. The choice is yours. In my opinion, before you do anything else, start checking out the source for yourself—thoroughly—the original source. Spend the next several months doing that. Then you will be better equipped to distinguish between a credible and an un-credible source, you will be able to trust with confidence the ones you deem trustworthy, and you won’t have to be concerned whether or not the source is influencing you, because if it is, you have already decided its influence can be trusted. But if you decide the source is not trustworthy, well, you won’t be influenced by it, will you?

Well, I hope you will be happy with the choice I made, after doing all that for about 20 years.

Fortunate for me, given our rules for determining things and ending up at making choices based on those, I have made the correct choice


On a side note, one thing I always find rather odd is that most people don't ever use that decision making process and/or spend a little time, if any, seriously looking at other dealers.

I'd think one would want to spend the equal amount of time and effort for all available choices.