Do we have free will?

[capthowdy]

How does our will make a choice then? It must be either random or based on an assessment of the facts.

Put yourself in a position where you have to make a decision. What makes you choose A over B?

Ok let's say a decision comes along and you don't have all the facts, at this point you can choose A or B on a whim, randomness I guess you could say.....or before making the decision you choose to get all the facts in order to make an informed decision. The way you approach the decision can be an exercise in free will.

 

[Tawn]

Ok let's say a decision comes along and you don't have all the facts, at this point you can choose A or B on a whim, randomness I guess you could say.....or before making the decision you choose to get all the facts in order to make an informed decision. The way you approach the decision can be an exercise in free will.

Yet, whether you decide to obtain more facts or just make a random decision is also a choice the same where you choose to get more facts or make a random decision.

If choices are based on facts.. then you arent really in control. You are being manipulated by outisde forces.

If choices are random.. then you arent really in control. Your decisions are chaotic and really have no connection with you as a concious being.

Do you agree or not?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If choices are based on facts.. then you arent really in control. You are being manipulated by outisde forces.

If choices are random.. then you arent really in control. Your decisions are chaotic and really have no connection with you as a concious being.

Do you agree or not?

Exactly. I see no way around this reasoning, nor any reason to posit "free will" in order to explain human behavior.

 

[Ormiston]

Yet, whether you decide to obtain more facts or just make a random decision is also a choice the same where you choose to get more facts or make a random decision.

If choices are based on facts.. then you arent really in control. You are being manipulated by outisde forces.

If choices are random.. then you arent really in control. Your decisions are chaotic and really have no connection with you as a concious being.

Do you agree or not?

Why can't it be the integration of the two? Why does it have to be an absolute? Seems that the very notion of freewill is complicated; why should the solution be so simple?

Perhaps behavior is random, but with a very limited number of choices. Would this give the appearance of patterns and determination?

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I think we are talking apples and oranges...or should I say apples and some really old, dusty, unedible, oranges. And besides, you still haven't enlightened anyone on the subject. The term "freewill" has everything to do with mankind, and nothing to do with religion. I would enjoy a thoughtful response that comes from your imagination versus scripture.

What does my imagination matter . . . all that matters is what the word of God says and teaches . . . your will is held captive to sin.

 

[Loki]

I don't know if we do have free will. I do think "Maybe i could smash this keyboard randomly, and that will be going against free will, but maybe it has been determined that I will randomly smash my keyboard.

I believe that we either have free will, or the illusion of free will.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I don't know if we do have free will. I do think "Maybe i could smash this keyboard randomly, and that will be going against free will, but maybe it has been determined that I will randomly smash my keyboard.

I believe that we either have free will, or the illusion of free will.

If you smashed your keyboard . . . it falls under the predetermined plan of the creator

 

[capthowdy]

Yet, whether you decide to obtain more facts or just make a random decision is also a choice the same where you choose to get more facts or make a random decision.

If choices are based on facts.. then you arent really in control. You are being manipulated by outisde forces.

If choices are random.. then you arent really in control. Your decisions are chaotic and really have no connection with you as a concious being.

Do you agree or not?

I agree but I also add that whether you choose to be informed or random is of your own velition.....that would be construde as free will yes?

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

If you smashed your keyboard . . . it falls under the predetermined plan of the creator

The only pre-determined plan that God had for us is that we be fruitful and multiply. Everything we do, every choice we make will bear fruit and multiply. The seeds we harvest are up to us (lemons or oranges or thornbush), were we grow our garden is up to us, who we share our garden with, is up to us. In the end, we will harvest that which we have sown.

If choices are based on facts.. then you arent really in control. You are being manipulated by outisde forces.

But what if you have the facts, let's say you come from a family of child molesters. It is a fact as you know it that daddy's molest their children. But then you grow up and find out that is not the truth, you find out that it is wrong to molest children, especially your own children, at some point this person has the choice to continue the ole' family tradition, or stop it. And since we know that some people choose to stop the vicious cycle, and others choose to continue it. Doesn't this show an example of free will?

 

[TheGreaterGame]

The only pre-determined plan that God had for us is that we be fruitful and multiply. Everything we do, every choice we make will bear fruit and multiply. The seeds we harvest are up to us (lemons or oranges or thornbush), were we grow our garden is up to us, who we share our garden with, is up to us. In the end, we will harvest that which we have sown.

The above statement is a fallacy when it is applied to a biblical understanding of who God is and the doctrine of God's providence and sovreighnty over His creation. It's rediculous to think that the creator would give up His rights over His creations-- and when you add to the fact that the bible argues not for man's will . . . but for God's will. As Luther said to Erasmus . . . "Your thoughts of God are to human"

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

The above statement is a fallacy when it is applied to a biblical understanding of who God is and the doctrine of God's providence and sovreighnty over His creation. It's rediculous to think that the creator would give up His rights over His creations--

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)

Man is to have dominion over all the earth. The word dominion, as used in that verse, comes from the Hebrew word râdâh that means to subjugate, to reign or to rule over. We thus understand that man is to reign over the earth. I do not see where giving us the world is giving up the rights to his creation.​

God's will is that we be fruitful and multiply.​

 

[TheGreaterGame]

God's will is.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

God's will is.

Why do you say it is not God's will for us to have a free will? Are we simply automotons acting out a drama for His entertainment? Why would He suffer and die for us?

 

[michel]

Why do you say it is not God's will for us to have a free will? Are we simply automotons acting out a drama for His entertainment? Why would He suffer and die for us?

Exactly.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

So you're saying people can't be semi-conscious? Physical things like drugs and other stimulii can't affect consciousness? What about schitzophrenics and people with multiple personality disorder: is their consciousness "holistic and indivisible"?

So are you suggesting our full-consciousness is built out of smaller semi-consciousnesses? I am talking about reductions of consciousness, not altered states of consciousness.

Of course drugs affect consciousness, just like if I were pushed into a swimming pool, or my hand was caught in the garbage disposal, my consciousness would be affected. Our consciousness is not static and it changes according to the feedback from the physical world. As we have discussed before, if a person is unconscious, or if their consciousness is impaired, then likewise, their freewill is absent or impaired as well.

I think you forget that consciousness is, in fact, within the realm of scientific knowledge and experimentation. Like many things, it is no longer constrained to eclectic philosophical speculation.

Take this project initiated by IBM: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7470. They are attempting to create the first full emulation of the human brain on a new custom computer they are building. As a computer engineer I find this project to be very facinating and I am super excited about it. However, I have to chuckle when they state one of their hopes is that it will shed some light on how human consciousness works.

This of course would depend on the computer actually being conscious. The problem is no one has ever proposed a reasonable way of even determining if something like a computer is conscious, much less figuring out whether it is similar to ours. To me, it is kind of like hoping we will figure out a way to build a light bulb out of plastic legos.

Anyway, you may be referring to Daniel Dennett and other behavioralists and functionalists with your reference above to consciousness being within the realm of science. They would just assume the computer is conscious if it seems like it is, and to them that's all we need to know about consciousness. This does not seem to be very scientific to me.

From your perspective, what purpose does consciousness serve? If we do not have freewill, then why did we evolve to have consciousness? Certainly, an organism does not have to be conscious to have a stimulus-response behavior and besides, much of the work the brain does not have any conscious activity.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Yet, whether you decide to obtain more facts or just make a random decision is also a choice the same where you choose to get more facts or make a random decision.

If choices are based on facts.. then you arent really in control. You are being manipulated by outisde forces.

If choices are random.. then you arent really in control. Your decisions are chaotic and really have no connection with you as a concious being.

Do you agree or not?

I think I know what you mean, but it seems odd to term one option as "based on facts". I suppose if the choice was made, then its a fact right? I don't agree with the notion that if it is based on a fact, then you really aren't in control.

Think about it this way. We use F=ma, e=mc2 and other formulas to define the laws of physics. Well, what defines "you"? That definition is happening right now as you make decisions, and at the end of your life, you can have a complete definition of yourself based on those decisions.

 

[Ormiston]

The above statement is a fallacy when it is applied to a biblical understanding of who God is and the doctrine of God's providence and sovreighnty over His creation. It's rediculous to think that the creator would give up His rights over His creations-- and when you add to the fact that the bible argues not for man's will . . . but for God's will. As Luther said to Erasmus . . . "Your thoughts of God are to human"

Who's interested in a biblical understanding of god? All we want is human understanding of freewill, hence the thread. Any REAL suggestions?

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I'm making this thread to continue a debate I engaged Tawn in, over if free will does truly exsist. If anyone else has any thoughts on the subject then your posts are welcome. Anyways where were we?

___________________________
Is this not the original intent of this thread?
Therefore I am interested in espousing the view that their is a God . . . and it His will that supercedes the will of mere man. Humanism is rooted in pride. Christian Theology is rooted in Christ and the Cross.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

___________________________
Is this not the original intent of this thread?
Therefore I am interested in espousing the view that their is a God . . . and it His will that supercedes the will of mere man. Humanism is rooted in pride. Christian Theology is rooted in Christ and the Cross.

Are you saying then that you do not have free will? That everything you do is because God made you do it, with his will?

 

[TheGreaterGame]

Are you saying then that you do not have free will? That everything you do is because God made you do it, with his will?

First, the bible would argue this. Secondly, logic would argue this "If there be a God (at least worth worshipping) then He must be in complete control of His creation.