Free will, Jenyar doesn't think we have it. Do you?
- Thread starter GodLied
- Start date
Free will is always a messy topic. I believe "free will" isn't really free.Here is why. A free will decision would mean that you were completely unbiased and making a decision without taking sides or without any selfish inclination. Any other decision would be a mentally preordained decision. I don't think any decision in life is not mentally preordained for us, even the decisions like giving money to a beggar. You may think at that moment, man I bet it would make him feel good to have this money and I would be doing a good thing. You give the money out of a decision to make your self feel better and him feel better. It is weird that this sort of giving is a selfish giving huh. So, can you have a free will in voting. Yes and no. Yes because it will appear that you are just making your own choice, but no, because you will make the choice out of your own inclination and own observation and how it would benefit society in your own eyes. Make since?
Free will may be an illusion
Free will may be an illusion. When all is said and done, and the value of the Universe is shown--whether or not there's anyone to witness the revelation--will there have been any other way for things to have gone?
The Universe may well be determinist, and we humans simply lacking the requisite brainpower to figure out all the factors involved.
And if the Universe is determinist, I would hope for a rather complex scheme, or else we might have to give fortune cookies a certain quantum credibility, or perhaps daily horoscopes.
Free will may be an illusion. When all is said and done, and the value of the Universe is shown--whether or not there's anyone to witness the revelation--will there have been any other way for things to have gone?
The Universe may well be determinist, and we humans simply lacking the requisite brainpower to figure out all the factors involved.
And if the Universe is determinist, I would hope for a rather complex scheme, or else we might have to give fortune cookies a certain quantum credibility, or perhaps daily horoscopes.
No, because if you were dead, then you couldn't exert any decision or will.
I am just saying that free will doesn't exist amongst humans or with animals. Animals are in prison to their instinct. They do what is in their nature to do. Survival has exerted its will upon them and thus they forfeited their right to lollygag around and now they must hunt and eat and protect...
Well, judging from some stuffs already written here, looks like a human can have a free will if he is a perfect loner who also cares nothing about everyone else.....
Degrees and presumptions
Does God have free will?
Yes?
Then free will exists in a Universe where God exists.
But human free will? That's a much stickier issue.
Fair enough. But it can exist in potential. The problem is that "true free will" need not lie within the grasp of human faculties.
Does God have free will?
Yes?
Then free will exists in a Universe where God exists.
But human free will? That's a much stickier issue.
Yes but recognizing free will at that level would legalize rape.
For the word free will to mean anything, it must be described in terms relevant and existant somewhere if not in our own minds. Since we have the perception of free will within us, we could just as well doubt the existance of everything.
This depends entirely on how you define God. What is clear though is that if God is omnipresent and knows all of the future, which necessary includes what he does within the universe, then he cannot have free will within this universe. At it's core, I suspect that free will involves lack of knowledge. A God knowing everything must know himself and thereby would not have free will. If God does have free will then God does not have complete knowledge of everything, thus implying that parts of his creation have free will over what God does not know.
I'm uncertain what you mean. If the man does not have control over himself, I'm uncertain whom we would find guilty. God and nature are difficult to punish.
free will is the ability to make decisions, whether foolish or wise. oh, well, i could ignore this thread by my free will. now i think whether to press the 'submit reply' button or not. in both case i don't gain or loose anything. may be others who read this might do. who cares.? ok hit it. ... *thanks for posting*....
prior conditions and awareness of consequences can only restrict whether to exercise free will or not. they don't disable the free will.
prior conditions and awareness of consequences can only restrict whether to exercise free will or not. they don't disable the free will.
Narrow or broad? What kind of boundaries to set on God?
Furthermore, I've long been known for saying that if we can conceive of something, then it is, after a fashion, possible.
Just as the determining factors of a determinist Universe may be too numerous for human faculties, so too might the necessary foundation for free will elude humanity. Certainly, we can conceive of free will. Certainly we could conceive of flight before we achieved it.
Yes, free will is a theoretic possibility. But whether or not it's a reality?
If God creates all things and all times, then what God knows of the future is God's will.
And while deities of this variety exist, do we let the small deities of various paganisms (e.g. an earth goddess) represent the "God" we discuss here? It seems to me that the matter before us is a little more alpha/omega, a little more toward the omnipotent.
Now, in the abstract, I agree, God does not have free will insofar as God does nothing. But are we to let the nameless totality of monistic representation stand for the God we discuss? If so, I'm willing to rewrite my argument accordingly.
However, in the more limited and applicable scope of the topic, I was of the opinion that we were working more with a God idea that involved personality, will, and perpetual action. Something along the lines of the Abramic deity, for instance.
And this God does have free will, as it cannot be bound by anything but self-nullification.
There's also an issue of time I'm presently unable to express clearly. Is God bound by time? Again, it depends on the God, but how small or how abstract do we wish to get?
- There can be no self without free will and thus no selfishness
I generally disagree because this is a nihilistic point. Relatively speaking, as an American, I look out at the world and see people with less freedom than I do. I can definitely say that they do not have free will. Except for the fact that they do not choose to die in a revolution or commit suicide to escape their misery.
To me this is a little like dealing with the redemptive God: It is by God's will that man fell; it is by God's will that man is saved. Salvation is only required because man has been corrupted by the fall. Therefore life is the standard. And the choice is to either obey or be punished and deprived. That's not a free will decision.
And we're back to the rape in the parking lot example.
If a woman with a knife to her throat chooses to not scream in order to save her life, her continued existence is her selfish benefit. There is no grounds to prosecute as she made a free will choice to have sex with the man.
These are still people. There are still selves in there.
If you're taken by the sinister world conspiracy and locked in a tiger cage do you have free will because you can piss yourself now or in thirty minutes? If you're being tortured for your beliefs is it a free will choice to capitulate?
We have free will within a certain range. But in principle, the diversity of nature and its circumstances which limit us is functionally no different than the knife at a woman's throat. It's not free will at the low end. It's not free will at the high end.
Humanity may have to evolve before it can have truly free will.
Some people do doubt the existence of everything.
Furthermore, I've long been known for saying that if we can conceive of something, then it is, after a fashion, possible.
Just as the determining factors of a determinist Universe may be too numerous for human faculties, so too might the necessary foundation for free will elude humanity. Certainly, we can conceive of free will. Certainly we could conceive of flight before we achieved it.
Yes, free will is a theoretic possibility. But whether or not it's a reality?
If God is the only thing that limits the power of God, then God has free will. If external factors limit God, those become the supreme reality and the limited God is not God, so to speak.
If God creates all things and all times, then what God knows of the future is God's will.
A lack of knowledge is what limits free will.
God would have created everything according to his will. The condition of God must necessarily be God's will, else God is not the supreme authority.
And while deities of this variety exist, do we let the small deities of various paganisms (e.g. an earth goddess) represent the "God" we discuss here? It seems to me that the matter before us is a little more alpha/omega, a little more toward the omnipotent.
Now, in the abstract, I agree, God does not have free will insofar as God does nothing. But are we to let the nameless totality of monistic representation stand for the God we discuss? If so, I'm willing to rewrite my argument accordingly.
However, in the more limited and applicable scope of the topic, I was of the opinion that we were working more with a God idea that involved personality, will, and perpetual action. Something along the lines of the Abramic deity, for instance.
And this God does have free will, as it cannot be bound by anything but self-nullification.
God's free will is exercised in the existence of His creation. Who or what bound God to the reality He created?
There's also an issue of time I'm presently unable to express clearly. Is God bound by time? Again, it depends on the God, but how small or how abstract do we wish to get?
Well, let's start with what I was responding to:
- There can be no self without free will and thus no selfishness
I generally disagree because this is a nihilistic point. Relatively speaking, as an American, I look out at the world and see people with less freedom than I do. I can definitely say that they do not have free will. Except for the fact that they do not choose to die in a revolution or commit suicide to escape their misery.
To me this is a little like dealing with the redemptive God: It is by God's will that man fell; it is by God's will that man is saved. Salvation is only required because man has been corrupted by the fall. Therefore life is the standard. And the choice is to either obey or be punished and deprived. That's not a free will decision.
And we're back to the rape in the parking lot example.
If a woman with a knife to her throat chooses to not scream in order to save her life, her continued existence is her selfish benefit. There is no grounds to prosecute as she made a free will choice to have sex with the man.
These are still people. There are still selves in there.
If you're taken by the sinister world conspiracy and locked in a tiger cage do you have free will because you can piss yourself now or in thirty minutes? If you're being tortured for your beliefs is it a free will choice to capitulate?
We have free will within a certain range. But in principle, the diversity of nature and its circumstances which limit us is functionally no different than the knife at a woman's throat. It's not free will at the low end. It's not free will at the high end.
Humanity may have to evolve before it can have truly free will.
Before I get totally misrepresented in this thread, here's what I think.
Free will (whatever it might be, illusion or not) is manifest in our daily decisions - Will I do this or won't I? But I don't want to turn this into a debate about existentialism. We aren't talking about who we make ourselves, but from the perspective of who we already are as image of God, and whether we are conforming or rejecting His image as exemplified in Christ.
At GodLied's question, I thought the political analogy could be useful, but not representative. The reason is that God is not running for office - He has already established his position. The "elected" are those elected by God, it's not the other way around. That's why I said it's not a democratic decision whether we belong to God (or his "religious political party") or not - it's His decision. He made that very clear when He chose Israel. They had no king, no status, no land - the least likely candidate. And God did this repeatedly, as if to emphasize the point.
What this means to us, as Jews and Muslims have noticed, is that our lives are the "vote". But Christ is our representative, pleading our case before God. That's a human way of saying God has provided freedom from His own laws - laws that were necessary to protect and represent our freedom while we were exiles, outside his mercy - until He had established his kingdom and provided his salvation.
The voting has been done, and God's party won. We are only voting "in retrospect". In everybody there is some part which voted against God, votes that went to the opposition. What Christ did in a sense was to let the opposition win under God's rules, and suffer the consequences, thereby affirming His authority and demonstrating our promised victory.
Free will (whatever it might be, illusion or not) is manifest in our daily decisions - Will I do this or won't I? But I don't want to turn this into a debate about existentialism. We aren't talking about who we make ourselves, but from the perspective of who we already are as image of God, and whether we are conforming or rejecting His image as exemplified in Christ.
At GodLied's question, I thought the political analogy could be useful, but not representative. The reason is that God is not running for office - He has already established his position. The "elected" are those elected by God, it's not the other way around. That's why I said it's not a democratic decision whether we belong to God (or his "religious political party") or not - it's His decision. He made that very clear when He chose Israel. They had no king, no status, no land - the least likely candidate. And God did this repeatedly, as if to emphasize the point.
What this means to us, as Jews and Muslims have noticed, is that our lives are the "vote". But Christ is our representative, pleading our case before God. That's a human way of saying God has provided freedom from His own laws - laws that were necessary to protect and represent our freedom while we were exiles, outside his mercy - until He had established his kingdom and provided his salvation.
The voting has been done, and God's party won. We are only voting "in retrospect". In everybody there is some part which voted against God, votes that went to the opposition. What Christ did in a sense was to let the opposition win under God's rules, and suffer the consequences, thereby affirming His authority and demonstrating our promised victory.
Methinks you two are onto something profound here. Could this be related to what Jesus said in Luke 17:33 "Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it."?
Free will might be something similar to faith. Nothing stops you from thinking you have it or not, or recognizing it as valid or not. From a Christian perspective, I know that submitting to God's will means in a sense to give up your own will - limiting what you deemed as "freedom". Tiassa is right that at the opposite ends, every freedom is equally "free" or "not free" - it comes down to the same thing: anything is permissable. If you are the final authority on your own freedom, then only self-imposed morals, self-control and maybe character prohibits or qualifies some things above others. But by all accounts it's open season.
So, to summarize before it's too late
. To believe in your own freedom and put it above everything, is to lose it, but to give it away to some authority could be to gain it. Why do we vote for one politician and not for another? Because we believe one will represent/protect/advance our freedom better than the other. But it's still a choice based on your own freedom. If I could borrow from my other post on "religious democracy", surrendering our freedom to God means conforming to His standards, by exercising self-control and making choices as if we weren't free. Because we realize that freedom in this world is a cul de sac.By finding ourselves guilty, we surrender to the authority by which we are guilty, and free will becomes limited to a road that leads to freedom - the evolution tiassa mentioned. It's the difference between being free to roam the desert of Nevada and free to follow Route 66 out of it.
To say non-human animals are simple organisms that just hunt, eat and protect, is insulting of the intelligence of non-human animals. It is clear that you have never bonded with an animal to see the ways animals interact with others as a family group. Your observation shows no capacity to recognize emotions of happy, scared, angry, and concerned. Possession of emotions and a capacity to remember, animals become humanized.
Animalizing those whom you cannot communicate with makes you a lonely person.
GodLied.
Okinrus, free will can exist while a person is brainwashed to perform the will of another. Such a person cannot percieve themselves as acting under the will of their mental master; but, a third party can see the loss of free will of the brainwashed subject.
GodLied.
Everneo, free will is a capacity to choose. Clearly one might make a better decision based on prior knowledge; however, as always, one is free to exert the choice they choose to follow. Brainwashers might redirect the options people choose from to have them think they are making up their own minds when their minds have been made up by a Brainwahser.
That fundamental reason why God wanted Israelites to obliterate non-Israelites is because those non-Israelites might alter the option base of Israelites so that some of them wake up and see how their God is not the best option.
GodLied.
Re: Narrow or broad? What kind of boundaries to set on God?
Tiassa, an ignorant person has the greatest realm of free will because they do not know any better. Once one has experiences, one learns to exert better choices. Those who do not remember their mistakes are very free willed and random in action.
GodLied.
Tiassa, an ignorant person has the greatest realm of free will because they do not know any better. Once one has experiences, one learns to exert better choices. Those who do not remember their mistakes are very free willed and random in action.
GodLied.
Jenyar, you are the first person to claim a political party based on the Old Testament Laws of God will win a political race. Thank you for your opinion. You do understand that in so deciding that stance that you support God's Laws as presented in the Old Testament. Such notions show that you support capital punishment. If you do not support capital punishment, you are denouncing God by denouncing his Law.
GodLied.
GodLied.
GodLied,
You do realize that those were the constitutionary laws of a real nation, don't you? And you are aware that we aren't part of that nation politically, don't you?
The Ten commandments (Moses) condemn us for our sins. If you are guilty of even one commandment you are guilty under all of them. But what condemned Israel under Moses was forgiven by God under Jesus. "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17). The was just a symptom of injustice, the death penalty was just an example of what would be needed to erradicate such injustice. The Jews believed they could gain eternal life by upholding all of the laws even beyond the letter, but this was a false hope.
45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. (John 5)
They were a sign of God's justice. You try to make it sound so politically incorrect to "support capital punishment", but the truth is that whether it is enforced or not, we will all die one day. And only God can save you. And because He has shown mercy so do we. Whether it's right or wrong for people to punish murder with the death penalty or "only" with life sentences, is for the courts to decide. Their challenge is whether they can do it without showing favouritsm. But in the end justice will be done either way.
James 2
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
In the meantime, let those who are innocent cast the first stone.
You do realize that those were the constitutionary laws of a real nation, don't you? And you are aware that we aren't part of that nation politically, don't you?
The Ten commandments (Moses) condemn us for our sins. If you are guilty of even one commandment you are guilty under all of them. But what condemned Israel under Moses was forgiven by God under Jesus. "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17). The was just a symptom of injustice, the death penalty was just an example of what would be needed to erradicate such injustice. The Jews believed they could gain eternal life by upholding all of the laws even beyond the letter, but this was a false hope.
45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. (John 5)
They were a sign of God's justice. You try to make it sound so politically incorrect to "support capital punishment", but the truth is that whether it is enforced or not, we will all die one day. And only God can save you. And because He has shown mercy so do we. Whether it's right or wrong for people to punish murder with the death penalty or "only" with life sentences, is for the courts to decide. Their challenge is whether they can do it without showing favouritsm. But in the end justice will be done either way.
James 2
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
In the meantime, let those who are innocent cast the first stone.