I need a proof for free will.

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

If it is an irrational question, then what you are actually saying is, 'No, God does not have free will in the sense that humans do.' Right?

Yes, exactly.

The term "free-will" only applies to people, animals and such limited creatures.

This type of limited use of concepts holds throughout science and religions, but is seldom explained.

In science, the second law of thermo-dynamics only really applies to macroscopic systems (and not really to all of those). But on the microscopic scale of watching molecules freely collide in a chamber, the law becomes meaningless and useless.

The issue of free-will and the issue of benevolence apply to the Holy Spirit, but not actually to God.

The Holy Spirit has the most free-will achievable as God has allowed for anything. It just so happens that the Holy Spirit is designed specifically to cause achievement. Thus because a man's will is all about his ability to make a decision and carry it out, the Holy Spirit is his best hope allowed by God.

The fact that the Holy Spirit is assisting the man in the absolute best way achievable is what determines it to be "benevolent". Love is the desire or effort to support the needs of the loved. The last thing that the Holy Spirit would want or try to accomplish would be the demise of its host. Hence the Holy Spirit is as benevolent as it can be and as successful as God would have allowed anything in the situation that the man might be in.

Have I made that as clear as mud yet?
[/FONT]

 

[Emmy]

Dear Danhalen, God` s Law is such, that whatever you do, you reap the consequences. God gave the Ten Commandments, and Jesus, God-Son, gave us two Commandments, which contain all Ten Commandments, God gave us, for OUR own good. " Love your God with all your hearts, with all your souls, and with all your minds. Love each other, as you love yourselves." God gave us free will, to follow His loving advice, or to ignore it, the choice is ours. Jesus told us while He dwelled among us," Unless you believe as a child, you will not inherit God`s Kingdom." That is straightforward and easy to understand. The best proof you can have, Dan, is to try it out for yourself. Use your God-given free will to do and say only GOOD, and experience the rewards, and if you still wish to find out what the results and harvest for using your free will is, I can assure you, Dan, you will find the proof for using your free will, to do bad or evil, absolutely fitting your deeds. Perhaps not immediately, but you may be sure, you will reap the consequences. At times, it might look as if the evil-doer, gets away with his or her wrongs, but God will remember, and His Law is JUST. I say this humbly and lovingly, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[elman]

Is it possible for God to not be benevolent? You seem to be saying that it is not possible, and yet possible, so can I get a clear answer?

Anything is possible for God but some things He can do He will not do. Lying and being unloving for example.

 

[elman]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, exactly.

The term "free-will" only applies to people, animals and such limited creatures.

This type of limited use of concepts holds throughout science and religions, but is seldom explained.

In science, the second law of thermo-dynamics only really applies to macroscopic systems (and not really to all of those). But on the microscopic scale of watching molecules freely collide in a chamber, the law becomes meaningless and useless.

The issue of free-will and the issue of benevolence apply to the Holy Spirit, but not actually to God.

The Holy Spirit has the most free-will achievable as God has allowed for anything. It just so happens that the Holy Spirit is designed specifically to cause achievement. Thus because a man's will is all about his ability to make a decision and carry it out, the Holy Spirit is his best hope allowed by God.

The fact that the Holy Spirit is assisting the man in the absolute best way achievable is what determines it to be "benevolent". Love is the desire or effort to support the needs of the loved. The last thing that the Holy Spirit would want or try to accomplish would be the demise of its host. Hence the Holy Spirit is as benevolent as it can be and as successful as God would have allowed anything in the situation that the man might be in.

Have I made that as clear as mud yet?
[/FONT]

If we sin and kill our soul do we have the Holy Spirit?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

If we sin and kill our soul do we have the Holy Spirit?

I have concidered going through each of the possible meanings that you might be asking here and see that such would lead to a lot of unnecessary explanation and discussion. Could you perhaps rephrase or be more specific to exactly what you are asking?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Is it possible for God to not be benevolent? You seem to be saying that it is not possible, and yet possible, so can I get a clear answer?

The problem that I see is that you are not distinguishing between the all-mighty God and the benevolent Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is practically the very definition of love. They are almost one and the same thing. The Holy Spirit (the holy effort within) is 100% benevolence and can exist as nothing less. If it were not totally benevolent then it would not be what is being referred to as the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is that effort within which makes the maximum possible effort to cause your success. The Holy Spirit has no agenda of its own except to cause the greatest degree of success. It is much like an PCs operating system designed to maximize the efficiency of the PC. The OS has no agenda other than to attempt maximum performance of your needs. By doing so, it must restrict many actions that you might wish to do, but when you defy its design, you necessarily lose probability of success.

Unlike the OS in your PC, the Holy Spirit is defined to be the optimal possible, not necessarily what anyone has proclaimed to be the best. But the benevolence or love aspect is merely the aspect of supporting your needs, and thus an inherent qualifier for any proposed design of a Holy Spirit.

God is entirely another matter. God is what allows you to exist at all, in any form or situation. God is NOT benevolent to you individually. God is such that you are given the Holy Spirit with which to work, but whether you can handle it or deal with it or choose to even try is already in your make. God places even broken life where ever God chooses regardless of its future possibilities of pain or joy.

God kills, God creates, God does what God does and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it except to cling to the Holy Spirit such as to have the maximum probability of surviving until Heaven can be established and every threat of death and misery can be removed.

But all of this has nothing to do with mythical beliefs or trying to scare people into obedience. It has to do with the definition of concepts and terms. God is DEFINED as that which has those properties of being totally unavoidable, undeceivable, and absolutely undefiable.

The Holy Spirit is DEFINED as that which is the absolute optimal effort toward your survival - benevolent.

Being angry at what has been defined as God is like being angry with your car for not doing as you wish. The car is exactly as it is and nothing else. God is exactly as God is and complaining can not change it any more than complaining to your car would cause it to change. The difference is that your car can be changed by other forces, God has nothing outside of God so as to cause any change, and thus will never be anything but what God always was.

God is your situation, deal wth it with the Holy Spirit.

The best thing to do with the Holy Spirit - your utmost strategic defense strategy (just as it advices), is to spread it into your surrounding situation such that all around you are doing the same kind of thing. Two instances of the Holy Spirit cooperate rather than contend, thus you not only have the efforts of your maximum strategic defense adding you, but also the cooperation of all of those around you who are also utilizing their maximum defense strategy. If everyone in the entire world is doing that same kind of thing, then what is left capable of harming you?

This is why they knock on your door and say, "Let me introduce you to the Holy Spirit." Because if you are doing anything else at all, necessarily you are doing less than what is available and God (your situation) is very likely to kick your ass.

 

[quatona]

I need a proof for free will.

Forget it.

 

[MN John]

The original title of the thread is impossible because of free will. The OP has free will and so can choose to believe what they want to. If they choose to disbelieve in free will, then there is no proof that will be sufficient for them.

 

[quatona]

The original title of the thread is impossible because of free will. The OP has free will and so can choose to believe what they want to. If they choose to disbelieve in free will, then there is no proof that will be sufficient for them.

That´s a nice technique of argumentating. Let me try it, too:
Your post is impossible because of the lack of free will. You have no freewill and so cannot choose to believe that you do not have it. But the fact that you believe falsely can at least not be blamed on you.

Anyways, I agree that asking for proof is pointless. But a consistent definition and concept would be sufficient, for starters.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The following on a different thread concerning the acceptance of evidence might help...

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24756404&postcount=16

 

[elman]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, exactly.

The term "free-will" only applies to people, animals and such limited creatures.

This type of limited use of concepts holds throughout science and religions, but is seldom explained.

In science, the second law of thermo-dynamics only really applies to macroscopic systems (and not really to all of those). But on the microscopic scale of watching molecules freely collide in a chamber, the law becomes meaningless and useless.

The issue of free-will and the issue of benevolence apply to the Holy Spirit, but not actually to God.

The Holy Spirit has the most free-will achievable as God has allowed for anything. It just so happens that the Holy Spirit is designed specifically to cause achievement. Thus because a man's will is all about his ability to make a decision and carry it out, the Holy Spirit is his best hope allowed by God.

The fact that the Holy Spirit is assisting the man in the absolute best way achievable is what determines it to be "benevolent". Love is the desire or effort to support the needs of the loved. The last thing that the Holy Spirit would want or try to accomplish would be the demise of its host. Hence the Holy Spirit is as benevolent as it can be and as successful as God would have allowed anything in the situation that the man might be in.

Have I made that as clear as mud yet?
[/FONT]

If we sin and kill our soul-spiritual existence, then we would not have the Holy Spirit indwelling in us, would we? If that is true and occured, would we be able to be loving without the Holy Spirit in us?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

If we sin and kill our soul-spiritual existence, then we would not have the Holy Spirit indwelling in us, would we? If that is true and occurred, would we be able to be loving without the Holy Spirit in us?

Having the Holy Spirit within you basically means that your spirit is that same spirit (of maximum potential to achieve).

Your spirit is there to maintain your soul. If your spirit is such that you intentional destroy yourself, then obviously by definition, that wasn't the Holy Spirit but your effort to achieve being tricked or confused into turning on itself (pretty common today).

If you mean that you have merged with the Holy Spirit yet sin (which merely means that your ability to do the best possible was limited and you erred) then it becomes immediately a question of the "grace of God".

The Grace of God issue is a prime distinction between the Christian and the Jew. The Jew could not see how God could become forgiving for mistakes. Jesus not only explained that God is already extremely forgiving of a great deal, but with the Holy Spirit being spread, God becomes extremely forgiving even to a final point of literal eternal life.

The issue of being loving is not the entire issue of the Holy Spirit. The Holy-ANYthing means “totally considerate of ALL things.” Thus the benevolence of the Holy Spirit is involved in the effort to truly consider (as in watch, understand, and compensate exactly for) all things.

A person can be loving to only their child. This has very little to do with the Holy Spirit because their child is only one part of all that is about them. In affect, to love your child is basically just loving the obvious extension of yourself and possibly ignoring the less obvious constituents of your soul. This would be paramount to loving only one of 3 of your children. So if you love ONLY your offspring, then you most certainly are not living the Holy Spirit.

IF you are asking whether you could possibly be totally benevolent (agape) even though you are not following the Holy Spirit, then "No" simply because the Holy Spirit is that same thing.

IF you are asking whether a non-Holy Spirited person could possibly be generally loving, then "yes most certainly"

IF you are asking if a non-Holy Spirited person could be loving to the point of being totally self-sacrificing, then again, "yes". Realize that Jesus (the example of the Holy Spirit incarnate) did not sacrifice himself, God sacrificed him. The reasoning for this seemingly odd action of God is another story. (and don't believe everything you read about such)

(have I "considered ALL" of the possible intentions of your question?)

 

[birdan]

It might help to realize what the term "free will" really means. It is referring to your ability to actually accomplish something that you willingly chose – your ability to make a decision and carry it out unencumbered -what you often call your "will power".

Nope, free will is not the same as will power. This has really muddied up the thread. Free will is the ability to choose from among mutliple outcomes, not whether or not one has the internal cajones to make a right choice.

The crux of the OP is based on the question: If God already knows all the outcomes to choices we [will] make, do we really have any control when we "choose" an outcome? For example, if I am at a restaurant looking at a menu and choose the salad, but God already knew I would choose the salad, did I really have any choice? Since the outcome was already known [salad], no actual choice was involved, and hence no free will existed, regardless of my perceptions to the contrary.

I think what the OP was looking for was an explanation that wasn't based on such statements as "God works in multi-dimensional time", "God works in unfathomable ways", etc. In other words, an explanation that wasn't simply an appeal to faith. JMHO

 

[Emmy]

Dear Danhalen, we all have will of our own, you have heard of those self-willed children, sometimes grown-ups too, who insist of doing what they want. Jesus taught us, that the Kingdom of God, belongs to them who accepts it as a child does, simple and straightforward. DO as you will, and pay the consequence. Why is it so hard to understand, Dan? If we did not have the gift of freely choosing, what we like, ornot like doing, we would either have to be Automaton, or very, very, very obedient. That is why God gave us the choice, to freely follow our will and follow His loving Advice, His Law, or Commandments, or follow that song Frank Sinatre made famous, " I do it my way." The best proof, life itself will give, Dan, do as you will, as you like doing, and see what you will reap. God`s Law is unchangeable, do good to others, and good will be done to you,( insome form or other,) illtreat, ignore, or do worse, and you surly will get your rewards, (in some form or another) I say this humbly and kindly. Danhalen, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[birdan]

Dear Danhalen, we all have will of our own, you have heard of those self-willed children, sometimes grown-ups too, who insist of doing what they want. Jesus taught us, that the Kingdom of God, belongs to them who accepts it as a child does, simple and straightforward. DO as you will, and pay the consequence. Why is it so hard to understand, Dan? If we did not have the gift of freely choosing, what we like, ornot like doing, we would either have to be Automaton, or very, very, very obedient. That is why God gave us the choice, to freely follow our will and follow His loving Advice, His Law, or Commandments, or follow that song Frank Sinatre made famous, " I do it my way." The best proof, life itself will give, Dan, do as you will, as you like doing, and see what you will reap. God`s Law is unchangeable, do good to others, and good will be done to you,( insome form or other,) illtreat, ignore, or do worse, and you surly will get your rewards, (in some form or another) I say this humbly and kindly. Danhalen, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

Emmy, your reply only addresses our perception of having free will, and does not address the central question of the OP: If God, being omniscient, already knows the outcome of "choices" I make, how can I have free will in making those "choices"? If God already knows the totality of how my life will be played out when I am born, what free will do I have in living my life?

 

[elman]

Emmy, your reply only addresses our perception of having free will, and does not address the central question of the OP: If God, being omniscient, already knows the outcome of "choices" I make, how can I have free will in making those "choices"? If God already knows the totality of how my life will be played out when I am born, what free will do I have in living my life?

Why is God unable to both know what I am going to do and allow me to chose to do it?

 

[birdan]

Why is God unable to both know what I am going to do and allow me to chose to do it?

By definition, if an outcome is pre-determined, no choice is involved in arriving at that outcome.

 

[bob135]

I think the biggest problem with the whole concept of free will, in addition to the problem of definition, is the problem of verifiability. While you are naturally inclined to believe your actions are free, there is no way to check this. I don't see how you would tell the difference between a universe where actions were truly free and a universe where actions appeared to be free.

In order to prove free will is compatible with an omniscient being, Iwould have to prove the existence of an omniscient being. I cannot which does not mean of course the being does no exist, just that we cannot prove its existenc. Free will on the other hand is observable if we are talking about the ability to be either kind or unkind to someone as being evidence of the free will we have.

You can observe will, but I don't understand how you can tell if its free or not. If you say "oh I changed my mind, so thats proof of free will" there is no way for you to say whether or not you were going to change your mind all along. That is, there is no way to check if you genuinely had a choice, since you can't replay time many times to see if there are multiple possilbe outcomes. Even then, you couldn't tell if you caused these outcomes, or if they were the result of a random process. If you'd like to offer another test for free will, please present it.

You keep assumping God is subject to time just as we are. That is an invalid assumption. Plus God can know what we are going to chose and still not be a factor in our chosing it--part of being omnipotent.

What about God being timeless makes us somehow free from the iron grip of his omniscience? The iron grip, remember, comes from the fact that his knowledge means that it must be the case that our behavior is consistent with his knowledge.

In simplest terms, free will could be defined as being the originator of one's own actions. It doesn't mean there aren't influences, that we don't have biological or spiritual influences, simply that when it comes down to making a choice, we are free to will this or that. It also doesn't imply that we can do everything. I can't fly like superman simply because I will it. I have limited choices, but in that set of choices I have a self-observed or self-evident freedom to choose whichever choice I want.

As for a proof of free will itself... I will simply say that occam's razor suggests that unless we definitively find a cause for an action external to the person and the person being the origin of the cause/choice is sufficient enough to explain the situation, then we should assume that the person is the origin. I may have worded that poorly (I'm tired as I mentioned). But the bottom line is that free will, or the notion that *I* am making the decisions unforced by external things is the default view.

In the two bold portions, you seem to be presenting two different views of free will. In the first, free will simply means you originate actions, so it is completely compatible with a deterministic universe, since you can originate actions deterministically. The second view is that free will means not only do your originate action, you choose between possible actions. However, if your wants are not free, then i suppose your choices aren't either, since you choose what you want, so you choose what your wants dictate.

Are you sying that the deity being absolutly loving is a problem?

I think he is. I would say this is a problem because it means he can't choose not to love, even though he is omnipotent, so everything should be in his power, unless of course you redefine omnipotent to include the abillity to do everything except love.

It might help to realize what the term "free will" really means. It is referring to your ability to actually accomplish something that you willingly chose – your ability to make a decision and carry it out unencumbered -what you often call your "will power".

This definition is compatible with God's omniscience if it allows for determininistic willing choices. So I may make a choice, the choice I was going to make all along, and my degree of free will is really just how well I achieve that goal? I think thats kind of a strange definition, but it is compatible.

I don't see that as a logical conclusion. I think God has free will but He also has complete self control and will not be other than benevolent because He choses to not be un beneovlet.

The point that people are making here is that if, say, god woke up one day (excuse the anthropomorphism), and decided nhe didn't want to be benevolent anymore, he couldn't. Ability to choose the other option (in this case non-benevolence) is key to free will, and here God cannot choose the other option.

However, if you're going to take ReluctantProphet's solution that its just a stupid question to ask about God's free will, then I think you're ok.

 

[elman]

By definition, if an outcome is pre-determined, no choice is involved in arriving at that outcome.

By definition if it is a choice it is not predetermined by knowledge of the outcome.

 

[elman]

You can observe will, but I don't understand how you can tell if its free or not. If you say "oh I changed my mind, so thats proof of free will" there is no way for you to say whether or not you were going to change your mind all along. That is, there is no way to check if you genuinely had a choice, since you can't replay time many times to see if there are multiple possilbe outcomes. Even then, you couldn't tell if you caused these outcomes, or if they were the result of a random process. If you'd like to offer another test for free will, please present it.

Emperical evidence is accepted by Science. Why would I doubt that what appears to be my decision is not my decision?

What about God being timeless makes us somehow free from the iron grip of his omniscience? The iron grip, remember, comes from the fact that his knowledge means that it must be the case that our behavior is consistent with his knowledge.

His knowledge is consistent with our behavior, not our behavior being consistent with His knowledge, in other words there is no iron grip. God is able to give us the ability to chose and at the same time He is able to know what we are going to chose.;

In the two bold portions, you seem to be presenting two different views of free will. In the first, free will simply means you originate actions, so it is completely compatible with a deterministic universe, since you can originate actions deterministically. The second view is that free will means not only do your originate action, you choose between possible actions. However, if your wants are not free, then i suppose your choices aren't either, since you choose what you want, so you choose what your wants dictate.

We can empircally observe again that we are able to chose against our wants. We are not controlled by our wants.

I think he is. I would say this is a problem because it means he can't choose not to love, even though he is omnipotent, so everything should be in his power, unless of course you redefine omnipotent to include the abillity to do everything except love.

It does not mean He cannot chose to be unloving, it means He will not chose to be unloving.

The point that people are making here is that if, say, god woke up one day (excuse the anthropomorphism), and decided nhe didn't want to be benevolent anymore, he couldn't. Ability to choose the other option (in this case non-benevolence) is key to free will, and here God cannot choose the other option.

However, if you're going to take ReluctantProphet's solution that its just a stupid question to ask about God's free will, then I think you're ok.

I am not saying it is a stupid question. What I am saying is that God is trustworthy and dependable. This means He will not chose to be unloving and we can depend on that. Being trustworthy is not saying one is unable to be bad, just that one will not be bad.