Free Will

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Human brain activity is caused by the spirit as it interfaces with the body...brain activity does not cause thinking but only shows mirrors of the spirit's thinking...

If the spirit does the thinking how is it that we can change all aspects of consciousness & thinking (including moral values) by manipulating the brain? and why doesn't a person coming round from general anaesthetic have any memory of while they were 'out', or even a sense of time having passed?

How else could your hypothesis be tested?

If the spirit is holy its thinking is by a free, uncoerced, will.

IF the spirit is sinful then its thinking is enslaved to the addictive power of evil which can only be broken / cured by a rebirth into Christ to be free, ie uncoerced.

OK...

If the spirit is more than a figment of your imagination - if it exists...

IF GOD set it up so HIS new creation had no coercion or constraints upon their choices, forcing them to choose anything, they had free will.

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:

1. Free will can't be coerced:
Nothing in their created nature could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all genetics...

Nothing in their experience could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all, cultural or familial experience...

Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could FORCE them to choose good or evil, love or hate.

In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.

[Ref: definition of ingenuous: ingenuousness as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.

2. Consequences must be known but not proved:
The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a true choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.

But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,” “life there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.

If it were proven you would die if you went left, are you truly free to choose to go right? No, you are forced by your knowledge to go right. Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice.

Only then are they following their desires, their deepest hope in the nature of reality, defining the reality they most hope to enjoy.

Point 2 seems an obvious stumbling block - we cannot know, let alone understand, the full consequences of any decision, however small. But in any case, knowledge entails truth; proof is simply evidence sufficient to establish knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, sure, a God can explain anything and everything for everyone.

Including you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Making the same choice under the same circumstances doesn't disprove free will, it simply means that our free will choices are based upon a certain set of conditions, and if the conditions are the same then the choice will be the same.

True, it doesn't disprove free will - I can't offhand think of any experiment that could. But many people use exactly that example to describe free will - the ability to have chosen differently in situation X.

The question is how/why they would choose differently - as Bradskii says, something would have to be different (e.g. how they felt about the options) so it wouldn't be strictly the same situation. OTOH, some people say that is what they mean by free will, the ability to make one choice or other, only depending on how they feel about it - which is fine if you're willing to accept that (compatibilist) definition.

"We must believe in free will, we have no choice" - Isaac Bashevis Singer

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Including you?

Yes, if I believed there was such a thing. But I don't, and I don't think it's a better explanation than 'magic'. As I've said before, I'm curious to know if anyone can give any argument for how God is a better explanation than magic by any reasonable criteria for a 'good explanation' (suggested criteria available for discussion & agreement on request).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, if I believed there was such a thing. But I don't, and I don't think it's a better explanation than 'magic'. As I've said before, I'm curious to know if anyone can give any argument for how God is a better explanation than magic by any reasonable criteria for a 'good explanation' (suggested criteria available for discussion & agreement on request).

What is an exact definition of "magic" other than a completely fictitious and serendipitous notion bandied about by superstititious people from century to century?

The Answer: No one knows because where "magic" is concerned we just make up our own definitions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is an exact definition of "magic" other than a completely fictitious and serendipitous notion bandied about by superstititious people from century to century?

The Answer: No one knows because where "magic" is concerned we just make up our own definitions.

Indeed - the similarity is remarkable - which is why I ask for suggestions as to how God is the better explanation by reasonable criteria.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I've said before, I'm curious to know if anyone can give any argument for how God is a better explanation than magic ...

That's easy.

Ex 7:11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
Ex 7:22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
Ex 8:7 And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt.
Ex 8:18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.
Ex 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Notice that Pharaoh's magicians could only go so far, then couldn't go any further.

God can go the full distance.

And believe me, Pharaoh's magicians were not the typical magicians we have around today, who pull those Chriss Angel stunts.

Pharaoh's magicians had access to ... well ... a source of power that is myopic to science.

You know? not subject to thermodynamics, no ON/OFF switch, wires, or anything of that sort.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed - the similarity is remarkable - which is why I ask for suggestions as to how God is the better explanation by reasonable criteria.

Comparing magic to God is like comparing a rubber duck to a submarine.

Push the duck in the bath tub, and it can only go so far, until natural forces quickly bring it to a halt.

But a submarine goes much further on its own power.

(Yes, I know. Natural forces will eventually bring it to a halt too. But humor me for the sake of seeing a light bulb come on.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Indeed - the similarity is remarkable - which is why I ask for suggestions as to how God is the better explanation by reasonable criteria.

To some extent I agree with you, but if we ponder the figure of Jesus, it becomes a bit less conceptually open to just interpret "Him" with any and every notion about sorcery that we might conjure up.

Sure, we might not be convinced that "Jesus is the Christ" or that He was anything more than a mere humanly historical figure who was reputed with works of wonder, but at the same time I don't think we should equivocate the nature of Jesus' reported miracles and His reported Resurrection with some silly, meandering notions of "magic" which have been culturally variable through time and all too easily conflated with each other and amalgamated.

So, I'm going to disagree with the thesis of someone like, say, David E. Aune in his book, Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity (2006).

 

[partinobodycular]

OTOH, some people say that is what they mean by free will, the ability to make one choice or other, only depending on how they feel about it - which is fine if you're willing to accept that (compatibilist) definition.

But what if we begin with a completely different understanding of free will. One which is based solely upon whether or not my own personal preferences, ideologies and beliefs are a predominant factor in my choices, then I absolutely do have free will, and what we're really discussing is how I came to have those preferences, ideologies, and beliefs in the first place.

Did I come to have those preferences of my own accord, or were they simply the product of deterministic processes?

I could argue that it doesn't make any difference. No matter how I came to have them, they are MY preferences, ideologies, and beliefs. My existence, and everything about it may be completely deterministic, but it still constitutes ME.

I'm not an uncaused cause, but it doesn't matter, I still am what I am, and my preferences, ideologies, and beliefs are still mine, and any choices that arise because of them are completely the product of what I am. They are the product of MY will, no matter how I came to have that will.

Now you may or may not accept this argument, and I'm not saying that you should, but it is an alternative to the belief that determinism invalidates the idea of free will.

 

[TedT]

Sorry, I have given you seven evidences that it is the brain that thinks. You have not attempted to address a single one. All you did is declare victory.

Again, the seven are listed here: Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free in the section, Have you got Soul?

As the atheists like to constantly remind Christians - evidence is not proof!

When challenged on your stance that it is proven, read what I wrote, you suddenly move the goalposts of there being evidence...sigh.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's interesting that we feel consciously in control of our actions, but our language is peppered with admissions that we're not - "I didn't mean to...", "The words wouldn't come...", "I couldn't help myself ...", "I don't know why I did that...", and so on.

Good point.

Not only do such expressions admit we are not really in control, but we don't even know where the words come from to make those sentences. Something had to look through our internal dictionary of English words and select the words and put them together. Our brains must have considered hundreds of words to use before selecting these. But somehow words such as, "I didn't mean to do that" are suddenly just there, and we speak them, without the slightest awareness of the immense computation needed to create that sentence.

 

[TedT]

I guess the real question is: Are you willing to accept that God is not fully all-knowing...?

I have been championing the need for a remake of the definition of omniscience, ie, what GOD knows, for many years now...

GOD's omniscience, Calvin's failure:
Calvin followed the pagan Greek widom definition of omniscience brought into the church by the Greek idolizers and Augustine: ie, GOD knows everything from eternity past to eternity future. Certainly sounds all Godly and all eh? To bad it is a blasphemy...

GOD is Love, holy, righteous and Just before all else. All doctrine must conform to HIS nature. All doctrine that impugnes HIS nature is a blasphemy.

This definition of HIS omniscience implies that HE knew before their creation who would end in hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY!!! This is not loving; it is not righteous; it is not just - no matter how many books of theo-babble have been written to try to make it so...therefore it is blasphemy.

GOD does all things for HIS pleasure but HE takes NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked - therefore HE did not create them evil to go to hell! Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked...

Also, HE wants all people to be saved, 1 Timothy 2:4...who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. so whether HE will get this want fulfilled or not, HE obviously did NOT create anyone evil and without hope for salvation, ie, destined to hell at creation!

So what do I offer in its place? Acts 15:18 KJV Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. To be precise, HE knows all HIS works, usually accepted to be referring to all that HE was created by HIS creative decree, which implies that IF HE did not create something by HIS creative decree, HE does NOT KNOW IT.

Also, these things HE knows from, since, the beginning of the world. Therefore we have good Biblical reason to reject the pagan wisdom the ancient Church idolized, that HE knows everything in all time, but rather HE knows all that can be known but not that which cannot be known, ie, because HE did not create it.

This biblical definition of what HE knows also implies that If HE did NOT create the results of our free will decisions but let us create those results by our free will according to what we most wanted, THEN HE did not know these results of our free will decisions UNTIL we created them for ourselves and brought them into reality.

Therefore NO ONE was created evil; not before Adam (Satan etc) nor after Adam (you, me) but all sinners were created with a free will and an equal ability and opportunity to choose to become holy or eternally evil and then all sinners created by their free will decision to rebel, were sown into the world as per Matt 13:36-39.

 

[TedT]

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:

1. Free will can't be coerced:

2. A free will cannot be constrained from choosing any viable option.

What smells fishy to me in all of this is the red herring that the ability to choose is the definition of free will. It is not. Free or determined, we chose, ie, we experience choosing.

It is not our experience of choosing that defines the freedom of will that is an absolute necessity to condemn the criminal and create a perfectly loving marriage but the FACT that the choice had to be by our hopes and desires not someone else's and that we are not forced to make any choice forced upon us by anther's will, nor forced from being able to choose any option within the options of the choice.

Edited to add:
- a free will must be able to choose either a moral good or a moral evil or it cannot be considered to be free
- a will enslaved to evil by choice or by creation is not free to choose a moral good but can only choose variations of degrees of evil
- the hidden physical determinators of our choices such as our dna and our early life experiences do not determine the choices of spirits who have no dna until they are sown into a body as taught in Matthew 13:36-39.

 

[Trivalee]

I am going to spin this off as another thread, because this topic might have a mind of its own.

Regarding free will, it is molecules that do the thinking. Since those molecules together make up a person, Daniel Dennet says that we, that is, the physical collection of matter that makes up our brains, choose to do things and are free to do what "we" want. Sam Harris, for instance, would not call that free will. But I think both are essentially saying the same thing: Molecules form our brains, and that mind that comes as a result of that mass of matter between our ears is free to do what it chooses. Whether we should call that free will is a question of semantics.

Regardless, our molecules are running the show. They create the illusion after the fact that there is a consciousness in charge. But that consciousness actually occurs a split second after the fact, so that consciousness is not in charge.

None of that removes responsibility. I am still the same me, regardless of whether I am made up of atom-stuff, consciousness-stuff, or soul-stuff. Either way, if that stuff inside me were to choose to act in unacceptable ways, then the resulting me would need to take responsibility for that decision.

Do other animals have free will? Ask my dog. It is clear to me that he had a mind of his own and choose to do what he wanted to do when he wanted to.

My problem with your Post is that I quite can't decide whether it's a scientific or theological article. I'm going to ignore the scientific (molecules) bit and focus on the theological question. So do we as humans have free or self-will? I would categorically say, yes. With regards to salvation, how an unbeliever exercises his free or self-will determines whether they accept or reject the gospel.

Often, people believe that an unbeliever has nothing to do with their salvation. This viewpoint posits that God is partial and picks and chooses who to save while condemning others to eternal damnation. This view is biblically untrue. I believe that every man has a role to play in whether they are saved or not. And that role is to respond positively to the gospel. We are saved by hearing the gospel, right? The unbeliever is required to decide one way or the other afterwards - and God doesn't interfere with this decision. Thus, after receiving the gospel, a man uses his free or self-will to decide whether to accept or reject Christ.

In Rev 3:20 Jesus says he's standing at the door of our hearts and knocking and if any man hears him and opens up, he will come in and sup with him. Notice there is a requirement on the individual to hear (pay attention to the gospel/call for salvation): And open the door (i.e. open the door means to believe in the gospel/Christ), then the Lord will come in to sup with him, i.e., offer salvation.

 

[SelfSim]

Now you may or may not accept this argument, and I'm not saying that you should, but it is an alternative to the belief that determinism invalidates the idea of free will.

Firstly there is abundant evidence for the notion that both free will and determinism are both models conceived by human minds seeking predictive explanations inferred from observations of human behavioural (thinking) characteristics. So rejection of that explanation would seem to imply denial of that evidence.

Secondly, the belief that determinism then invalidates the notion of free will, simply amounts to cancelling the portion of thinking humans who do believe in free will. Claiming the universality of determinism, in choice making, across the entire population of humans, is projection from that truncated cancellation viewpoint.

 

[Bradskii]

Not that I believe that free will exists, but I fail to see how this argument disproves its existence. For example, if you give me a choice between eating liver or eating a cheeseburger, I'm going to choose the cheeseburger every time. But the mere fact that under the same circumstances I'd always make the same choice doesn't in and of itself mean that I couldn't have chosen otherwise, it just means that I wouldn't have.

Making the same choice under the same circumstances doesn't disprove free will, it simply means that our free will choices are based upon a certain set of conditions, and if the conditions are the same then the choice will be the same.

This is my concept of free will. It aligns with some 'soul' or ghost in the machine behind the curtain being able to make decisions outside all the usual causes and restrictions. For what purpose I don't know. It's only useful if you know the future and make a decision that is blatantly wrong at the time but which will result in some indeterminate benefit.

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.

 

[Bradskii]

But what if we begin with a completely different understanding of free will. One which is based solely upon whether or not my own personal preferences, ideologies and beliefs are a predominant factor in my choices, then I absolutely do have free will, and what we're really discussing is how I came to have those preferences, ideologies, and beliefs in the first place.

Did I come to have those preferences of my own accord, or were they simply the product of deterministic processes?

I could argue that it doesn't make any difference. No matter how I came to have them, they are MY preferences, ideologies, and beliefs. My existence, and everything about it may be completely deterministic, but it still constitutes ME.

I'm not an uncaused cause, but it doesn't matter, I still am what I am, and my preferences, ideologies, and beliefs are still mine, and any choices that arise because of them are completely the product of what I am. They are the product of MY will, no matter how I came to have that will.

Now you may or may not accept this argument, and I'm not saying that you should, but it is an alternative to the belief that determinism invalidates the idea of free will.

That they are your choices is a given. But would you make the same ones under the same cicunstances? If the circumstances are the same then what has changed to make you choose differently.

Another way of putting it is that there would only be one 'you' at any time making those decisions. Could there be some 'other' you?

 

[SelfSim]

.. But if all conditions were exactly the same ...

.. a hypothetical criterion there, having no evidenced support(?)
Each moment in spacetime must be unique when you accept randomness (and the existence of 'edges of criticality'), I think.

 

[Neogaia777]

I feel like I have tried my best to explain or describe my views on this position, and I really wasn't even meaning to get into it (again), but I did try again anyway, I might reply to specific posts again in this thread, IDK yet, but it's a dead horse to me at this point, and is like I said way back in post #19, etc, we have no choice to proceed as if we have a choice anyway, because that is the only way to go about it, even if it is only based on or is only because of what we don't know anyway, etc...

I might be back, but for now I'm going to let you guys have it for while, but if I don't come back to this thread, it's probably because I have moved on to other things, and other truths that need to be spread, etc, I would encourage you guys to check out what I linked in this thread though, as I think they pretty much say it all, etc, but for now, I'm bowing out of this thread for a little bit, and might be back, but no guarantees, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!