what free will is and is not

[bricklayer]

A free will is a will free to do what ever it can do.

Humans do have free wills, but we do not have secret wills.
A human free will is a will free to do whatever it can do;
it is not a will free from being known.

Humans cannot conceive of an idea that is not eternally present in the mind of God. Quite frankly, humans cannot conceive ideas at all.
All of our ideas are intellectual perceptions not intellectual conceptions.
God is the original conceiver of all ideas. God is the conceiver of all ideas; man is a perceiver of ideas. One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and man's ideas is the fact that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

God has a free will; He is free to do whatever can be done.
God's free will is unchanging; it is necessary. God's free will exists necessarily; it is not contingent; it is not subject. God's free will is sovereign.

Human free will is subject to change. Everything that is subject to change is subject. Our free wills are not necessary; they are contingent; they are subject.

I am left to believe that this creation is exactly the combination of our free will choices that God chose to create.

 

[serenity now]

So would you say free will is, in a sense, relative? From God's perspective, humans have no free will; we are bound to the path he knows we will take. From our perspective, we can't see all of our decisions like God can, we are bound by time and make our decisions one at a time in the illusion of choosing our own path.

 

[bricklayer]

So would you say free will is, in a sense, relative? From God's perspective, humans have no free will; we are bound to the path he knows we will take. From our perspective, we can't see all of our decisions like God can, we are bound by time and make our decisions one at a time in the illusion of choosing our own path.

I would not say that free will is relative. Our wills do not merely appear free; they are free. Our choices are not illusions; they have acuality and existence.

Our wills are free, however, they are contingent. They do not exist necessarily.

 

[quatona]

A free will is a will free to do what ever it can do.

This is painfully banal.
As opposed to what:
A will that can do what it can´t do?
A will that can not do what it can do?

 

[bricklayer]

This is painfully banal.
As opposed to what:
A will that can do what it can´t do?
A will that can not do what it can do?

Banal perhaps, but often over looked.

 

[Gracchus]

If what we choose is a consequence of our nature and nurture, then do we have free will? I have said it before and I'll say it again: Some people have to believe in free will, but I choose not to.

 

[underpressure]

If what we choose is a consequence of our nature and nurture, then do we have free will? I have said it before and I'll say it again: Some people have to believe in free will, but I choose not to.

I like it.


I do wonder though, if we replaced the term 'free will' in every sentence ever uttered with another term.. like "thought process" or "imagination", in every sentence ever uttered, would these new updated sentences still make sense and be telling you the same thing or be clearer or would we have lost some information?

Anyway, I think the 'free' part of the word, is the contentious part of the term, we know we can make choices, but what is the difference between a choice and a free choice? What is a choice free from in a free choice?

 

[jayem]

In the naturalistic view, human behavior, like everything else in the universe, is deterministic. That doesn't mean it's pre-determined. It means that within the bounds of quantum uncertainty, the exact same circumstances will always produce exactly the same results. Suppose that I find myself in situation A, and I choose to act in manner X. If, at another time, every detail of situation A, including the state of my brain, could be reproduced exactly, I would again act in manner X. Thus, there is no absolute free will.

 

[bricklayer]

If what we choose is a consequence of our nature and nurture, then do we have free will? I have said it before and I'll say it again: Some people have to believe in free will, but I choose not to.

Your explicit attempt to deny free will implicitly affirms it.

 

[bricklayer]

I like it.


I do wonder though, if we replaced the term 'free will' in every sentence ever uttered with another term.. like "thought process" or "imagination", in every sentence ever uttered, would these new updated sentences still make sense and be telling you the same thing or be clearer or would we have lost some information?


Anyway, I think the 'free' part of the word, is the contentious part of the term, we know we can make choices, but what is the difference between a choice and a free choice? What is a choice free from in a free choice?

A free will is a will free to act according to its nature. A free will choice is a choice that does not violate the nature of the one choosing.

 

[bricklayer]

In the naturalistic view, human behavior, like everything else in the universe, is deterministic. That doesn't mean it's pre-determined. It means that within the bounds of quantum uncertainty, the exact same circumstances will always produce exactly the same results. Suppose that I find myself in situation A, and I choose to act in manner X. If, at another time, every detail of situation A, including the state of my brain, could be reproduced exactly, I would again act in manner X. Thus, there is no absolute free will.

In the Christian view, there is no uncertainty; there is only that prescribed by God, including those portions known and unknown by man. There is no undetermined will, nothing yet to be known by God. The contingency of human will does not negate its freedom any more than the necessity of God's will negates His freedom.

Most people equate a free will with a necessary will, in other words, a will to which God is contingent (subject).

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

In the Christian view, there is no uncertainty; there is only that prescribed by God, including those portions known and unknown by man. There is no undetermined will, nothing yet to be known by God. The contingency of human will does not negate its freedom any more than the necessity of God's will negates His freedom.

Most people equate a free will with a necessary will, in other words, a will to which God is contingent (subject).

Isn't great fun stating things without having to create a coherent philosophy to back them up?!

Please show how the absolute prescience attributed to God does not undermine a classic conception of free will.

 

[bricklayer]

Isn't great fun stating things without having to create a coherent philosophy to back them up?!

Please show how the absolute prescience attributed to God does not undermine a classic conception of free will.

You beg the question. The "classic conception" of free will is a necessary will. That is the error. The "classic conception" is wrong.

God knows our free will choices apart from their existence. God chose to create exactly this combination of our free will choices.

We have free wills, but we do not have secret wills.
We have free wills, but we do not have necessary wills.

Human wills are subject to change; everything subject to change is subject (i.e. contingent, not-necessary, not-sovereign).
God's will is: unchanging, necessary, not-contingent, not-subject, sovereign.

One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and our ideas is that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Banal perhaps, but often over looked.

Yes good point. Free will is free to do what it can do.

 

[sandwiches]

God is the conceiver of all ideas; man is a perceiver of ideas. One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and man's ideas is the fact that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

Why does/did God think of rape, murder, pedophilia, or slavery?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

A free will is a will free to do what ever it can do.

As opposed to?

A human free will is a will free to do whatever it can do;
it is not a will free from being known.

Known?

You beg the question. The "classic conception" of free will is a necessary will.

Define necessary will.

God knows our free will choices apart from their existence.

What does this sentence actually mean?

God chose to create exactly this combination of our free will choices.

So it is just an illusion of free will?

We have free wills, but we do not have secret wills.

What the heck is a "secret will"?

We have free wills, but we do not have necessary wills.

Define "necessary will".

Human wills are subject to change; everything subject to change is subject (i.e. contingent, not-necessary, not-sovereign).

What does this sentence actually mean in practice?

God's will is: unchanging, necessary, not-contingent, not-subject, sovereign.

How can a "will" change or not change? What is a "will"? Doesn't the act of having a "will" imply freedom from the get-go?

One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and our ideas is that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

God is the idea. We are the forms.

All your posts so far are using lots of big words and ideas, but you haven't really defined anything so you're not really saying anything meaningful or concrete.

When I wake up in the morning, can I choose to have a bagel or a piece of toast?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

As opposed to?

¿Howzabout: what it cannot do.

 

[bricklayer]

Why does/did God think of rape, murder, pedophilia, or slavery?

God's primary purpose for His creation is the revelation of His glory.
God's glory is His holiness.
God's holiness is the inviolate balance of His infinite perfections.
(It is "all of the things about Him, all of the characteristics attributable to Him.)

God has used sin and salvation from sin to reveal, among other things: His judgment and His mercy, what He loves and what He hates.

If it were possible that God be unjust toward His creation, and I am left to believe that He cannot, the only real injustice would be if God were to misrepresent Himself.
For example, if God chose to create a creation wherein His love would trump His other attributes, that would violate God's holiness.

God's primary purpose for His creation is the revelation of holy and inviolate balance that is His glory.

 

[bricklayer]

As opposed to?



Known?



Define necessary will.



What does this sentence actually mean?



So it is just an illusion of free will?



What the heck is a "secret will"?



Define "necessary will".



What does this sentence actually mean in practice?



How can a "will" change or not change? What is a "will"? Doesn't the act of having a "will" imply freedom from the get-go?



God is the idea. We are the forms.

All your posts so far are using lots of big words and ideas, but you haven't really defined anything so you're not really saying anything meaningful or concrete.

When I wake up in the morning, can I choose to have a bagel or a piece of toast?

Yes, you may choose a bagel or a piece of toast, but you cannot make that choice by chance.
This creation is exactly the combination of choices God chose to create.
God necessarily knows His creation exhaustively and quite apart from its existence.
God does not come to know your choice; you do.

 

[Bushido216]

A free will is a will free to do what ever it can do.

Humans do have free wills, but we do not have secret wills.
A human free will is a will free to do whatever it can do;
it is not a will free from being known.

Humans cannot conceive of an idea that is not eternally present in the mind of God. Quite frankly, humans cannot conceive ideas at all.
All of our ideas are intellectual perceptions not intellectual conceptions.
God is the original conceiver of all ideas. God is the conceiver of all ideas; man is a perceiver of ideas. One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and man's ideas is the fact that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

God has a free will; He is free to do whatever can be done.
God's free will is unchanging; it is necessary. God's free will exists necessarily; it is not contingent; it is not subject. God's free will is sovereign.

Human free will is subject to change. Everything that is subject to change is subject. Our free wills are not necessary; they are contingent; they are subject.

I am left to believe that this creation is exactly the combination of our free will choices that God chose to create.

Leibniz was wrong. Monads are dumb.