Those who don't believe in free-will, why do so many verse's claim it??

[childeye]

To quote a line from a famous movie, "You're talkin' Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby!"

You keep conflating the capacity to choose with a specific choice. Try to focus on the former.

But that is not morality. All moral decisions are based on the concept of light or dark, a binary proposition of either or. So as to say if light is not there, darkness is present. And as we know the eyes are the lamps of the soul.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

So Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and so he was without sin and unblemished, yet he was in a world of sin. Are all men then capable of not sinning? Only through the same Spirit that dwells in the Christ. For he came in the likeness of sinful flesh so as to condemn sin in the flesh.

The difference between "us" and Jesus is, He's the Son of God and incapable of sin, whereas, we are "mere" mortals lost in our sins, until we are made "righteous" before God, because of His Son...Unless we "reject" Christ then we will be separated from God and suffer "eternal punishment."

 

[Stormcrow]

But that is not morality. All moral decisions are based on the concept of light or dark, a binary proposition of either or.

Yes, and it's the capacity to make such choices that defines free will! Ergo, free will exists as you have - once again - just admitted!

I pray you never enter a casino because I'm afraid you wouldn't know when you were losing the farm.

 

[childeye]

I can. If free will didn't exist, we would have no conception of it. We wouldn't even be able to discuss it. It would be like trying to describe "being wet" to a fish or the color "red" to someone born without eyes. Without a frame of reference from outside our own, personal experience, discussing such abstractions would not only be pointless: it would be impossible.

That's why I find it amusing that people who don't believe in free will keep using the word "choice" to deny it's existence.

You are lost in semantics. For instance choices exist without any man reasoning. Just being alive is constant choices simply because we must be doing something at all times. If I close my eyes to sleep or choose to get up, or choose to scratch my head or choose not to, but if I havn't chosen to go to bed I must stay awake and if I have chosen not to eat ot eat it is because I have hunger that requires I choose and yet if I have nothing to eat I cannot choose to eat. So what all of life is a constant choice. That is the consequences oif simpl having a will and being sentient. All animals do this. But a moral will needs God just as we need food to live. We do not choose this by our freewill it is a fact we must accommodate our wills around so as to continue being sentient.

 

[childeye]

Yes, and it's the capacity to make such choices that defines free will! Ergo, free will exists as you have - once again - just admitted!

I pray you never enter a casino because I'm afraid you wouldn't know when you were losing the farm.

No, the capacity to choose defines a will,not a freewill. You are simply describing a deliberation of the mind or reasoning capability. Ones reasoning however is subject to ones knowledge of Truth therefore making the term freewill relative to light and dark, not light and dark are relative to a freewill.

 

[Jam]

External factors play a role in every decision we make BUT it is ultimately WE who have to make the decision. Otherwise, there would be no law, no courts, and no accountability for the choices we make, as we would not be responsible for them!

I'll humour you for a minute, as it may be that we are simply disagreeing on what constitues the freedom of will. Yes; we make decisions. But, no matter what decision we make, there will always have been something that caused us to make that decision. This factor will either be external or it will not be external. If it is external, then we can safely say that the decision was not free. If it is not external, then it will necessarily rely upon something else either external or not. We could keep on looking after causes of things until we reach entirely external factors - given that we have not existed forever, all causal paths will eventually lead to external factors.

Is my "free" decision to eat a bagel really free, given that I did not choose to have a preference for bagels, I did not choose to have the sort of personality that easily gives in to my preferences, I did not choose the path of events that led me to be in the possession of bagels, I did not choose to be able to eat at all etc etc?

I can. If free will didn't exist, we would have no conception of it. We wouldn't even be able to discuss it. It would be like trying to describe "being wet" to a fish or the color "red" to someone born without eyes. Without a frame of reference from outside our own, personal experience, discussing such abstractions would not only be pointless: it would be impossible.

That's why I find it amusing that people who don't believe in free will keep using the word "choice" to deny it's existence.

You are conflating the idea of will with the idea of free will. That is a logical fallacy. Period.

 

[Gazelle]

You are conflating the idea of will with the idea of free will. That is a logical fallacy. Period.

Me thinks it is you who is confused. Want to begin again?

Definition of WILL
transitive verb
: desire, wish <call it what you will>
verbal auxiliary
1
—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one would take the job> <if we will all do our best> <will you please stop that racket>
2
—used to express frequent, customary, or habitual action or natural tendency or disposition <will get angry over nothing> <will work one day and loaf the next>
3
—used to express futurity <tomorrow morning I will wake up in this first-class hotel suite — Tennessee Williams>
4
—used to express capability or sufficiency <the back seat will hold three passengers>
5
—used to express probability and often equivalent to the simple verb <that will be the babysitter>
6
a —used to express determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness <I have made up my mind to go and go I will> b —used to express inevitability <accidents will happen>
7
—used to express a command, exhortation, or injunction <you will do as I say, at once>

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I'll humour you for a minute, as it may be that we are simply disagreeing on what constitues the freedom of will. Yes; we make decisions. But, no matter what decision we make, there will always have been something that caused us to make that decision. This factor will either be external or it will not be external. If it is external, then we can safely say that the decision was not free. If it is not external, then it will necessarily rely upon something else either external or not. We could keep on looking after causes of things until we reach entirely external factors - given that we have not existed forever, all causal paths will eventually lead to external factors.

Is my "free" decision to eat a bagel really free, given that I did not choose to have a preference for bagels, I did not choose to have the sort of personality that easily gives in to my preferences, I did not choose the path of events that led me to be in the possession of bagels, I did not choose to be able to eat at all etc etc?




You are conflating the idea of will with the idea of free will. That is a logical fallacy. Period.

Is my "free" decision to eat a bagel really free, given that I did not choose to have a preference for bagels, I did not choose to have the sort of personality that easily gives in to my preferences, I did not choose the path of events that led me to be in the possession of bagels, I did not choose to be able to eat at all etc etc?


Yes, it is "free" due to the fact that, there is, "more than a chance" that you've partaken of that particular food item in the past, and enjoyed it...Your "preference" was created by a past experience, therefore, repeating that same "experience" would be considered a "choice" at a latter time...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I'll humour you for a minute, as it may be that we are simply disagreeing on what constitues the freedom of will. Yes; we make decisions. But, no matter what decision we make, there will always have been something that caused us to make that decision. This factor will either be external or it will not be external. If it is external, then we can safely say that the decision was not free. If it is not external, then it will necessarily rely upon something else either external or not. We could keep on looking after causes of things until we reach entirely external factors - given that we have not existed forever, all causal paths will eventually lead to external factors.

Is my "free" decision to eat a bagel really free, given that I did not choose to have a preference for bagels, I did not choose to have the sort of personality that easily gives in to my preferences, I did not choose the path of events that led me to be in the possession of bagels, I did not choose to be able to eat at all etc etc?




You are conflating the idea of will with the idea of free will. That is a logical fallacy. Period.

( I did not choose to have the sort of personality that easily gives in to my preferences)

We, as human beings will, "more times than not" give into our "preference." Personality does not play a part, it is "inherent" to the human desire, to experience pleasure, when opportunity avails...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I'll humour you for a minute, as it may be that we are simply disagreeing on what constitues the freedom of will. Yes; we make decisions. But, no matter what decision we make, there will always have been something that caused us to make that decision. This factor will either be external or it will not be external. If it is external, then we can safely say that the decision was not free. If it is not external, then it will necessarily rely upon something else either external or not. We could keep on looking after causes of things until we reach entirely external factors - given that we have not existed forever, all causal paths will eventually lead to external factors.

Is my "free" decision to eat a bagel really free, given that I did not choose to have a preference for bagels, I did not choose to have the sort of personality that easily gives in to my preferences, I did not choose the path of events that led me to be in the possession of bagels, I did not choose to be able to eat at all etc etc?




You are conflating the idea of will with the idea of free will. That is a logical fallacy. Period.

(I did not choose the path of events that led me to be in the possession of bagels, I did not choose to be able to eat at all etc etc?)

Yes, you did. There's two possible "scenarios" involved here. Either you made a conscious decision to, pleasure yourself (from past experience) therefore, you go and purchase the bagel. Which is a "choice" on your part. Or you are thrown into a position of "crossing paths" with that same bagel and you respond accordingly, and "choose " to purchase that which brings you pleasure... Most,have "multiple choices of which to contend with. Shall I have a bagel or perhaps a hamburger or maybe I'll order a pizza. This scenario requires you to, "choose" which one appeals to you at that point in time...

 

[Gazelle]

Something that is being missed here is that the idea of "free will" is even accepted by secular philosphers. In the theology of Kierkegaard, when he discusses anguish and anxiety he says it refers to a being with total free will who is in a constant state of spiritual fear that his freedom will lead him to fall short of the standards that God has laid out for him.

Some act as though this is a foreign concept to them, and pertinent only to religious people of a particular mindset. Not so.

 

[Jam]

Me thinks it is you who is confused. Want to begin again?

Definition of WILL
transitive verb
: desire, wish <call it what you will>
verbal auxiliary
1
—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one would take the job> <if we will all do our best> <will you please stop that racket>
2
—used to express frequent, customary, or habitual action or natural tendency or disposition <will get angry over nothing> <will work one day and loaf the next>
3
—used to express futurity <tomorrow morning I will wake up in this first-class hotel suite — Tennessee Williams>
4
—used to express capability or sufficiency <the back seat will hold three passengers>
5
—used to express probability and often equivalent to the simple verb <that will be the babysitter>
6
a —used to express determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness <I have made up my mind to go and go I will> b —used to express inevitability <accidents will happen>
7
—used to express a command, exhortation, or injunction <you will do as I say, at once>

I fail to see the relevance of your definitions. They are only defining will, and I was under the impression that we had already established that free will was the exercision of the will apart from external factors. Stormcrow was arguing for the existence of the will, and then concluding that free will exists. This is a non-sequitur.




Grubal, you have still not addressed my argument about causal paths, upon which my comments about bagels rested. Yes, I choose the bagel... but not apart from external factors. Any chain of causality will inevitably lead to external factors, and so all decisions are necessarily the (direct or indirect) result of external factors and are thus, by your definition, not the exercision of free will.



As I have stated numerous times now, free will cannot exist.

1 (1)If a set is exhaustive, all elements are contained within that set. [A]
2 (2)The probabilism-determinism set is exhaustive. [A]
3 (3)If an event is probabilistic or deterministic then it is not free [A]
1,2 (4)Events are either probabilistic or deterministic [1,2 MPP]
1,2,3 (5)Events (such as the exercision of will) cannot be free [3,4 MPP]

 

[Gazelle]

I was building on other information in the thread. You are trying to make some distinction between will and free wiil. I merely posted the going defs of will since the defs of free will have already been posted.

What you missed was the idea connected to the words of coercion and or force by any non internal elements.

 

[smaller]

Smaller, I can agree that there are charlatans in the religious realm..as in every area of mankind. However, I would caution you to consider that it is the Holy Spirit who bestows mercy so that one can gain heaven.

I don't provide blanket coverage under Grace for the presence of evil within mankind. Sorry. It's just a lot more of an interesting subject than freewillers seem to be able to come to grips with.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Paul admitted he had a DEVIL.

Paul was under GRACE.

that DEVIL was not nor will it ever be under GRACE nor was the 'evil present' with Paul under GRACE.

See 2 Cor. 12:7 and Romans 7:21 for examples of the above and same 'not being' Paul but being 'with' Paul.

The same can be said for 'sin' which is in fact 'of the devil.' This clearly places the devil in the middle of 'all sins.' There is grace for man, but NOT for the devil.

Few theology positions take the facts into account and only revolved around 'man' when there is just a lot more going on 'with man' than just MAN.

The interactions of devils IN mankind are written on just about every page of the New Testament.

Any form of Christian theology that does not accurately divide the parties is faulty. And any that ignore the facts are also faulty.

When blanket statements are thrown about it doesn't work.

And, that mercy will not always be available to any particular individual...meaning that if the Holy Spirit impresses you to come to God, if you choose not to, you may miss your opportunity.

Again, if you think the DEVIL with Paul or the EVIL PRESENT with Paul cared two hoots about Grace you would be wrong. If you just look at Paul and miss 'the other' you are simply not looking close enough.

It is the same principle that keeps people from 'hearing' the Gospel. It is the DEVIL who blocks their minds from being able to hear. Only those whom God ALLOWS are allowed to 'hear.' Otherwise the blocker remains upon their MINDS and that will is 'not theirs.'

"My spirit shall not always strive with man." Genesis 6:3
"Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart." Hebrews 3:15

Again, what may be 'true' for MAN scripturally speaking can be the EXACT OPPOSITE for what is 'with man.'

One truth...TWO opposing positions. The devil does not care for Gods Words or Grace or Mercy or LAWfulness. The devil 'in man' resists 'all these Godly Matters.'

Listen closer to Jesus Words...

IF you cannot hear Jesus speaking to 'children of the DEVIL' in MAN you yourself are being BLOCKED IN YOUR MIND....and you will falsely think Jesus is only speaking to Pharisees.

That is in short what the DEVIL does in men's minds. The devil(s) STOP men from being able to hear, to read, to see and to understand, that they are NOT alone in these matters.

That fact is basically 'why' freewill positions are logically faulty and should be rightfully derailed. Freewillers think it is 'just them' there in their heads and that is simply not the case, scripturally.

The instant you 'truthfully' acknowledge the insertion of SIN THOUGHTS into your own head and they being OF THE TEMPTER it should dawn on you that your WILL is not 'alone' therein. You are welcome to discount the FACT and brush the FACT away, but the fact remains that 'another will' that is not 'yours' is operational 'in your mind.'

And we are told to :

NASB (©1995) Jude 1:23,,,
save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh

That sounds pretty urgent to me.

You can preach to people all the day. IF God does not allow them to hear they will remain UNbelievers and the 'god of this world' remains in control upon THEIR MINDS, keeping them from hearing.

That is 'why' people do not believe. And it is by Gods Sole Choice as to 'who hears' in this present life.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Jam]

I was building on other information in the thread. You are trying to make some distinction between will and free wiil. I merely posted the going defs of will since the defs of free will have already been posted.

What you missed was the idea connected to the words of coercion and or force by any non internal elements.

Wait wait... so now we're saying that a will is still free if it is caused by external factors, as long as these external factors do not use "force" or "coercion"? If that's how you're going to define it then fine; "free will" exists. But so do flying unicorns if I define "flying unicorn" as a pencil with a rubber on top... we haven't really demonstrated anything.

 

[childeye]

=Stormcrow;586689]By the way, the capacity to make an immoral choice implies the capacity to make a moral choice.

I understand how in a person's reasoning one would say that. But as one needs to identify Love to know right from wrong. good and evil are directions relative to Love. So since good and evil are directions away and towards God the fact we must navigate a course is an antecedent event requiring us to choose by necessity and therefore one's knowledge of God dictates one's course.

The very idea that we know something is wrong implies we have a sense of what right is. Therefore, implicit in this idea of "immoral" is a standard against which such behavior is measured. That standard is what we call "morality."

Yes but when the standard we hold to be true is not, then we have no sound basis to distinguish right from wrong. That is why the righteousness revealed in the Christ changes a man.

Therefore, the ability to choose between right and wrong is that which separates us from the animals and is what we call "free will."

Yes I know that this is what you believe freewill is. We believe or see the same Truth. I see it as determinism since we don't determine the standard of righteousness called Godliness. Christ is proof of that. Nor do I count it freedom when one cannot accomplish that righteousness that he knows is right, so knowing right and being able to not accomplish it cannot be labeled a freewill by a false virtue of discretion based on an ability to sin. One must be able to not sin so as to have a freewill. So knowing does not necessarily mean one will act out of such knowledge. There is a bondage that exists before one can be free and a freedom to lose when one is put in bondage. Hence the Old Testament freewill narrative comes from the bondswoman through works, while the New Testament freewill narrative comes from the freewoman through promise. These two freewills deny one another for only one is truly free.
Other than that, I do know animals can know right from wrong and I do know some men can not. God used an ass to rebuke a man. What does that tell you?

I really don't understand how this can be so complicated for some people.

It's simple to me. God is Love. That's it.

 

[smaller]

This is another case of taking a few isolated texts and claiming they support one's personal belief,

It is not my 'personal belief' that the interactions of devils with mankind are on nearly every page of the New Testament.

AND it's giving too much power to satan.

Too much power to satan? Satan has no more power than what God has given to him, that being 'the god of this world.' That might seem a bit powerful to some more than others.

You are certainly welcome to overlook the fact that our UNbelieving fellow man are being blinded in mind by the god of this world and instead only BLAME mankind for their 'lack' of freewill decision making abilities so you can justify condemning their not being able to make an affirmative decision and 'activate' God in their behalves 'before their offer expires' and the coupons lapse.

No man is so blinded that the Light of the glorious Gospel of Christ can't penetrate into the heart of man.

No man comes unless God draws. Til then they remain covered in mind by an entity or entities that are NOT THEM and their decision about that fact is irrelevant.

The 'will' of UNbelieving mankind does not control the mind and will of the blinding party, period, because it's not their will doing that blinding.

Again, one has to be 'able' to hear Jesus on this matter:

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Any form of logical viewing of the above matter should show 'any' person that there is the PERSON and there is SATAN, right there with them, in their HEARTS.

Now, you are welcome to say they are 'free.' But they are NOT free of the fact as Jesus Word shows. That Satan STOLE from within them. That is 'how' the blinder does it. Satan STEALS from them.

Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world........The Gospel is more powerful than any blinding satan may inflict on man through sin.

Right...God can UNblind anyone He wants to.

Freewillers however reside in the place where Spiritual Belief is something that they conjure up ENTIRELY on their own.

I don't buy it in the LIGHT of Gods Words. The fact remains from TEXT that their minds are blinded by an entity that is NOT THEM....and their 'will' in the matter is irrelevant to the WILL of the blinding party.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[childeye]

=Gazelle;586781]Something that is being missed here is that the idea of "free will" is even accepted by secular philosphers. In the theology of Kierkegaard, when he discusses anguish and anxiety he says it refers to a being with total free will who is in a constant state of spiritual fear that his freedom will lead him to fall short of the standards that God has laid out for him.

Interesting post. The bible would describe this anxiety and anguish as the Godly fear of God. The problem with using the term total free will is the definition of free is a relative term as all binary terms are. The word total identifies this as well. To identify what such total free will is refering there also must exist some absolute by which it is measured and defined as free from. That is why I say a freewill is one that is free from the bondage of sin relative to God, not one that thinks it sins freely. Otherwise, if free will is centered in man by sin then light would need darkness to exist.

 

[childeye]

=Stormcrow;586686]Until and unless you were that person, how would you possibly know?

Of course I can only speak for myself, but I recognize there exist people such as this. So as I do not have the vile nature of such a person so as to be able to choose to duplicate such behavior, I would say my will is more free than his.

So you are suggesting because someone made a bad choice means they had no choice at all as to whether they would do what they did?

I'm saying there is something vile in a person that would choose to do something like that. Similar to the man in chains that was full of one thousand demons.

How would you try someone like that - your raping, kidnapping, child-torturer - in any court of law? If they had no choice, they have no responsibility. You sound like a defense attorney to me. lol.

Even though they have no responsibility, it seems to me death to this person would be merciful. I am trying to say there exist demons that make people do things they wouldn't otherwise desire to do. Please don't take it so far as to think I'm saying all men have them. I am just pointing out the term free in front of will is relative not absolute.

Thanks for this forthright response. I appreciate your not ignoring me and asking the pertinent questions regarding this post with sincerity and without guile.

 

[Gazelle]

Interesting post. The bible would describe this anxiety and anguish as the Godly fear of God. The problem with using the term total free will is the definition of free is a relative term as all binary terms are. The word total identifies this as well. To identify what such total free will is refering there also must exist some absolute by which it is measured and defined as free from. That is why I say a freewill is one that is free from the bondage of sin relative to God, not one that thinks it sins freely. Otherwise, if free will is centered in man by sin then light would need darkness to exist.

Thanks childeye... my quoting of Kirekegaard was merely to show that the idea of freewill is not simply one engaged by the religious, but that philosophers as well consider it. ;)I personally do not always agree with Kierkegaard.