Free Will

[AV1611VET]

D. A Carson in his wonderful book "How Long, O Lord: Reflections on Suffering and Evil" concluded that God is Sovereign, Man makes responsible decisions, and in the end, the origin of evil is shrouded in mystery. That is because God cannot be the author of evil, yet he ordains all things.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[John Owen]

That doesn't even make sense.

Oh, but it does. Perfect sense.

 

[partinobodycular]

Those two are the same if your 'own accord' is the product of experiences you have had and/or inherited predispositions. IOW, if there are reasons for your preferences - and if there are no reasons for them, they're random... yes?

But if we take a physical-determinist view, I'm dont see how imagination, the "could be" work, is untethered from the cause/effect chain any more than anything else.

This is true, but it's the same with any emergent phenomena, it's difficult to "untether' it from it's underlying cause. But in this case what we're doing is expanding the explanation for our choices from simply being the predetermined byproduct of a backward looking cause and effect to being something completely different. We're not only the byproduct of what was, but we're also an indispensable component of what will be, and we recognize ourselves as such. This I would argue is where the will becomes an emergent phenomena, when it recognizes what it is.

What happens when the process of cause and effect becomes conscious? When it recognizes the process and its place in it? Surely that must alter the process. The question is, would every choice made after that still be just a matter of cause and effect, or in achieving self awareness would the process have also attained free will?

If we simply take a broader perspective and realize that it's not just "us" that has attained self awareness, but it's the entire process of cause and effect that has attained self awareness, and in doing so, has it attained free will?

Like I said before, it's something to think about.

 

[TedT]

I'm bringing it up because, for example, you and any other randomly selected Christian on this site will have vastly different outlooks on life. I really thought it was a given.

Apparently not.

Ummm: for example, you and any other randomly selected atheist on this site will have vastly different outlooks on life...

So what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, but it does. Perfect sense.

You're right.

It does now.

I see D.A. Carson wrote a piece on the Greek New Testament.

Now I understand.

He's a college man, isn't he?

 

[John Owen]

You're right.

It does now.

I see D.A. Carson wrote a piece on the Greek New Testament.

Now I understand.

He's a college man, isn't he?

He's retired. And he is the president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

 

[AV1611VET]

He's retired. And he is the president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

I'll admit I don't know him, but I'm going to take a guess that he believes Moses authored the book of Genesis?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Most people think free will means simply choosing chocolate over vanila. But if all conditions were exactly the same then you'd always make the same choice. I can't see that in any way being described as free will.

I think you can say that it's an expression of will in as much as it expresses what you want to do, and it's free in as much as you're not coerced or constrained in that choice (e.g. it's not a choice you don't want to make).

ISTM that both are subjective feelings, personal interpretations of a context.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll admit I don't know him, but I'm going to take a guess that he believes Moses authored the book of Genesis?

Yes.

 

[durangodawood]

...But in this case what we're doing is expanding the explanation for our choices from simply being the predetermined byproduct of a backward looking cause and effect to being something completely different. We're not only the byproduct of what was, but we're also an indispensable component of what will be, and we recognize ourselves as such. This I would argue is where the will becomes an emergent phenomena, when it recognizes what it is.....

Very interesting.

But in your explanation I'm not finding the event that should convince a physical determinist that a future-conscious being has stepped out of the chain in any way.

The activity of future-imagination isnt physically special in a determinist view. Nor is the act of deciding among alternatives, even among ones that are freshly thought up. Where is the side door here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

Go figure.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Go figure.

You mean, there's a problem with thinking that Moses wrote Genesis? SAAAAAAY..... WHAAAAAT?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean, there's a problem with thinking that Moses wrote Genesis? SAAAAAAY..... WHAAAAAT?

QV please: Wiseman Hypothesis

And: Tablet Theory

And: Toledoth Colophons

From the Wikipedia link:

The Wiseman hypothesis, sometimes called the tablet theory, is a theory of the authorship and composition of the Book of Genesis which suggests that Moses compiled Genesis from tablets handed down through Abraham and the other patriarchs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

QV please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiseman_hypothesis]Wiseman Hypothesis

And: Tablet Theory

And: Toledoth Colophons

Well, I have no idea what D.A. Carson thinks about the "Tablet Theory," but being that I have a few of his hermeneutic books, I'm sure he's more conservative about Mosaic Authorship of any type ... ... than I am.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I have no idea what D.A. Carson thinks about the "Tablet Theory," but being that I have a few of his hermeneutic books, I'm sure he's more conservative about Mosaic Authorship of any type ... ... than I am.

Does he use Koine Greek, or Classical Greek, in his hermeneutics?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does he use Koine Greek, or Classical Greek, in his hermeneutics?

From what I can tell, he's into a bit of both ... as are some of the other Christian scholars I tend to study from.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think you know that whether or not I indeed "can," either way I will.....

... the operative caveat in this, however, is that as an existentialist, I don't really care two nickels for amorphous notions about either "God/gods" or "magic." Existentially, I sit in the chair of the atheist when general meanings of immaterial notions are casually juggled like rubber balls. In other words, I need to know analytically which 'god' and which forms of 'magic' are considered to be definitive for comparison and contrast. Otherwise, without such specific denotation, we're just playing with the wind.

Meh, pick whichever versions you'd like to compare. But to make it simple, we can forget magic and just assess your preferred God, by reasonable criteria, as a good explanation for events in the world.

I gave some criteria I thought were reasonable in #1146. You're welcome to argue for additions, changes, or deletions, bearing in mind they're intended to be general criteria for assessing any competing hypotheses.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then you'll take that curiosity to your grave, won't you?

Not if someone can present a better argument than pointing to stories in an old book.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Meh, pick whichever versions you'd like to compare. But to make it simple, we can forget magic and just assess your preferred God, by reasonable criteria, as a good explanation for events in the world.

I gave some criteria I thought were reasonable in #1146. You're welcome to argue for additions, changes, or deletions, bearing in mind they're intended to be general criteria for assessing any competing hypotheses.

FB, let's not do this. Not only are you changing the goal posts, but you and I will just be wasting our time with a discussion that neither of us is that interested in. We're both more interested in other things, science being one of them.

Moreover, to continue on this trope would be to hijack this thread, and I have neither the desire nor the time like some others here do with this stuff.

I'll simply state that I don't think any denotation of 'magic' equates with conceptual expectations within the Christian faith and leave it at that.

 

[Astrid]

.