Free Will

[Skwim]

Its implied since god acts as if we have a choice in the matter.

And this would be an act so as to perpetuate the illusion of freewill.

Other verses suggest god could take choice away by hardening hearts.

Care to cite them, because I don't recall anything of the sort?

 

[idav]

And this would be an act so as to perpetuate the illusion of freewill.

I think omniscience allows freewill not negates it but that would be gods not humans. Is god just giving adam and eve an illusion, the story suggests choice in the matter.

Care to cite them, because I don't recall anything of the sort?

The Pharoah could have had the choice to freely let moses go but scriptures suggest he hardened the pharoahs heart to show his all mightiness.

Romans 1 suggests something similar that god puts people into depravity for not believing. Believing is supposed to be some choice.

 

[Skwim]

I think omniscience allows freewill not negates it but that would be gods not humans.

So, how does omniscience allow freewill, and its implied inversion, non-omniscience not allow freewill?

Is god just giving adam and eve an illusion,

Is this a question?

the story suggests choice in the matter.

As read it, it suggests alternatives.

The Pharoah could have had the choice to freely let moses go but scriptures suggest he hardened the pharoahs heart to show his all mightiness.

In other words, god made the Pharaoh hold the Israelites in Egypt.

Believing is supposed to be some choice.

Care to explain how?

 

[idav]

So, how does omniscience allow freewill, and its implied inversion, non-omniscience not allow freewill?

One argument of will is that determinism has the course set out and not knowing all the nuances hinders the ability to have a choice in the matter. Knowledge is the only way out or it surely is determined without even knowing it. I dont think omniscience is knowing what happens but knowing what can happen.

Is this a question?

Rhetorical but would you suggest god was just playing a game?

As read it, it suggests alternatives.

Then punishment for it is malevolent.

In other words, god made the Pharaoh hold the Israelites in Egypt.

Which means he had the choice not to until god intervened. I dont remember it saying he made it like that from the beginning, but intervened for some future event where he would intervene more.

Care to explain how?

By god letting go of some sovereignty.

 

[Thief]

Took a look, but didn't see anything to suggest "free Will actually was there at the beginning of creation." What verse do you see as supporting this?

Genesis1:28-31...

These words describe Man as a species....no names, no garden, no law...

Dominion over all things.

That's about as free as it gets.

 

[Skwim]

Genesis1:28-31...

These words describe Man as a species....no names, no garden, no law...

Dominion over all things.

That's about as free as it gets.

All this means is that nothing impeded what he did, not that he had a free will. Freewill is the ability to have done differently. So, could Adam have done differently than he did? NO.

Two things can be cited as relevant to his situation.

1) All acts/events are deterministic: they are caused to be what they are and cannot be otherwise.

2) If one believes in an omniscient god then his knowledge of the future, in essence, makes it impossible for the future to be anything other than what he knows. If he sees you taking a bath next Saturday, then there's no way you cannot take that bath. You cannot "choose" not to take the bath.
​

While I seldom use the second argument to defend the assertion that there is no such thing as freewill---it's too dependent on one's concept of god---I feel the first is pretty unassailable.

 

[Nakosis]

Skwim - This is like saying "Just because I can't hold my breath for an hour doesn't mean I didn't." The import of choice is the supposed equal ability to do one of two or more things. If you couldn't choose then there was no real choice in the first place.

Obviously there where two choices, however the person being who they were in those circumstances made the choice which made the most sense to them. I different person might not have made that choice.

But making a decision in favor of X---arriving at a conclusion to do it---is no different than choosing X---arriving at a conclusion to do it. When you say

"If the first man will choose to go left the second man will shoot the first before he can even make a decision"
​

the first man has already made the choice to go left. Deciding to do one of two alternatives is no different than choosing one of two alternatives.

BUT, OF COURSE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRUE CHOOSING.

No actually the idea here is "will" as something that would have occurred in the future if he hadn't been shot prior to the first person making that decision. The second person knowing the future would have killed before he even had a need to make a decision. Don't know if that clarifies it?

The result of the flip already had a forgone outcome, which was determined by the original position of the coin; the weight of the coin; the force of the flip; the distance of its travel, how it landed (could it bounce); and no doubt several other factors. Had you known the values of all these elements and knew how to factor them in to a certainty, you would have known the outcome of your flip--no randomness at all. The coin HAD to land as it did. It's a matter of pure physics.

The point here is that the outcome was not determined by the circumstances of my past. Like other decisions I made.

Let me ask you, do you believe you chose the words you did to respond to me or that you did not choose those words?

 

[Nakosis]

Skwim - All this means is that nothing impeded what he did, not that he had a free will. Freewill is the ability to have done differently. So, could Adam have done differently than he did? NO.

This is not a workable definition. If you have a will to do something it is the result of your desire to do it. You can be prevented from doing what you want to do. If you are not being prevented then you are free to act according to your will. That's the only true sense of freewill.

Otherwise you want to define freewill to an unworkable definition and say it doesn't work. Ok, yes your unworkable definition of freewill is not possible.

Two things can be cited as relevant to his situation.

1) All acts/events are deterministic: they are caused to be what they are and cannot be otherwise.

2) If one believes in an omniscient god then his knowledge of the future, in essence, makes it impossible for the future to be anything other than what he knows. If he sees you taking a bath next Saturday, then there's no way you cannot take that bath. You cannot "choose" not to take the bath.

​

Doesn't prevent you from being able to take a bath on Saturday because that is what you want to do - freewill

While I seldom use the second argument to defend the assertion that there is no such thing as freewill---it's too dependent on one's concept of god---I feel the first is pretty unassailable.

People create a definition of freewill that doesn't make any sense and then claim it doesn't make any sense.

What you saying is that people could have done other then what they wanted to do. Why would you expect anyone to act against their will?

 

[Nakosis]

There will be ONE desire waiting for you at the hour of your passing.

You will desire to stand up.

We take it for granted...now.
But when the chemistry fails and we fall....we will desire to stand.
The body will not respond.

I say....go with it.
Stand from the flesh.

If you don't you will follow it into the box and into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.

I will act according to my will at the time. Since we can presume God knows what my will, will be, nothing unexpected will occur.

 

[Nakosis]

Freewill - man has the ability to do what he wants to do.

For man to do something other then what he wants to do, something has to cause it. God could presumable prevent man from doing want he wants to do.

So since God doesn't prevent man from doing what he wants to do, God is to blame...

Ok, maybe. God setup the circumstances. So we blame God. That doesn't mean we don't have freewill. However if you do believe in God, you only have to accept there is some purpose in all of this that we don't understand.

 

[Skwim]

Obviously there where two choices,

No there wasn't. There were two apparent options, and I say "apparent" because in reality there was only one thing that would happen; the one that was determined by all of the relevant causes that lead up to the moment of the event.

No actually the idea here is "will" as something that would have occurred in the future if he hadn't been shot prior to the first person making that decision. The second person knowing the future would have killed before he even had a need to make a decision. Don't know if that clarifies it?

Sorry, but I'm not following you. Moreover, as you are using the two terms, "deciding" and "choosing," they are simply synonyms.

The point here is that the outcome was not determined by the circumstances of my past.

To the extent that you played a part in flipping it sure did. Not all of the previous circumstances of course, but certainly those that caused you to flip the coin as you did.

Let me ask you, do you believe you chose the words you did to respond to me or that you did not choose those words?

In as much as there's no such a thing as true choice, No. The words I wrote were the inevitable result of all the impinging causes/effect events that lead up to the writing. I had to write the words I did. I could not have done differently.

All this means is that nothing impeded what he did, not that he had a free will. Freewill is the ability to have done differently. So, could Adam have done differently than he did? NO.

This is not a workable definition.

Why not? And if you feel you have a better one then please share.

If you have a will to do something it is the result of your desire to do it.

And just how did this desire come into being? Was it caused or is it a purely random event? There are no other options.

You can be prevented from doing what you want to do.

Yup. So what?

If you are not being prevented then you are free to act according to your will. That's the only true sense of freewill.

And again, just why did you will as you did? It all comes back to the chain of cause/effect events that lead up to and determined your "willing." You could have not willed differently. To do so the chain of cause/effect events would have had to be different, but because they were not you HAD to "will" as you did. There was no freedom to do otherwise.

Doesn't prevent you from being able to take a bath on Saturday because that is what you want to do - freewill

I don't believe you read my statement right, or have misstated your own.

People create a definition of freewill that doesn't make any sense and then claim it doesn't make any sense.

Okay

What you['re] saying is that people could have done other then what they wanted to do.

What I'm saying is that what people do they HAVE to do---what the chain of prior cause/effect events lead them to do. They cannot do otherwise.

Why would you expect anyone to act against their will?

I wouldn't. All I'm saying is that what they will is not the result of choosing, but what determinism has made them will.

FYI:

DETERMINISM
"The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will."

"Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event."
source: Wikipedia

​

That said, I'm curious as to how you define "will," and "freewill." What ya got?

 

[Nakosis]

Skwim - No there wasn't. There were two apparent options, and I say "apparent" because in reality there was only one thing that would happen; the one that was determined by all of the relevant causes that lead up to the moment of the event.

Options/choices, does this word make a difference?

Apparent means seemingly true.

You are assuming there is an equation that predicts the interaction of every system that exists in the universe. However there isn't. But, because of this belief you doubt what is seemingly true.

Sorry, but I'm not following you. Moreover, as you are using the two terms, "deciding" and "choosing," they are simply synonyms.

Ok, well I'll drop it unless I can dig up the a better explanation.

To the extent that you played a part in flipping it sure did. Not all of the previous circumstances of course, but certainly those that caused you to flip the coin as you did.

Someone else flipped the coin, but whatever. Maybe that is just splitting hairs. In any case it was not according to anyone's will and I dare say the outcome was not predictable unless you can show how it could have been predicted.

In as much as there's no such a thing as true choice, No. The words I wrote were the inevitable result of all the impinging causes/effect events that lead up to the writing. I had to write the words I did. I could not have done differently.

Wow, so you actually believe yourself to be just a cog in the machine? Incapable of any volition? This is apparently not true but you wish to believe this anyway. You believe in determinism. I suspect I won't be able to talk you out of it.

You believe in an theory that is unproven. God is and unproven theory too, but that doesn't prevent people from their certainty. That's not to say there isn't an argument for it, only that it is just an argument, not a proven theory.

 

[Skwim]

Options/choices, does this word make a difference?

It certainly can. Options are alternatives---things (generally taking the form of a noun) whether they're recognized or not. Choices are recognized alternatives that can be, A) an object, like an option, or B) an instance of selection (an action---think verb here). So, whereas the determinist like myself recognize options (alternatives) exist, e.g. A or B, we don't believe choice is involved when one rather than the other is picked. A or B was picked because all the cause/effect events leading up to the moment of that event insured the result would be one rather than the other.

Apparent means seemingly true.

Yup, but not necessarily so.

You are assuming there is an equation that predicts the interaction of every system that exists in the universe.

Wrong, and in spades.

because of this belief you doubt what is seemingly true.

I disbelieve anything that flies in the face of fact and/or logic. With the exception of some subatomic events it is illogical to claim that actions are uncaused, which is the implication of freewill advocates, unless, that is, they believe their freewill events are utterly random.

Someone else flipped the coin, but whatever. Maybe that is just splitting hairs. In any case it was not according to anyone's will and I dare say the outcome was not predictable unless you can show how it could have been predicted.

Predictability is nothing more then an assemblage of pertinent factors and assessing them properly. Unpredictability is a failure of such an assembly and assessment.

Wow, so you actually believe yourself to be just a cog in the machine?

In effect, yes. I don't believe my actions are utterly random in nature.

Incapable of any volition?

If you regard volition as arising without cause, then yes.

This is apparently not true but you wish to believe this anyway.

So why is it apparently not true?

You believe in determinism. I suspect I won't be able to talk you out of it.

I suspect you won't either.

You believe in an theory that is unproven.

What theory is that? I certainly haven't propounded any theory. I've simply stated what I see as the mechanics of actions: determinism.

God is and unproven theory too, but that doesn't prevent people from their certainty.

Don't confuse a thing, in this case god, with the explanation of it. ---a common mistake creationist make when they rail against evolution and the theories that explain it.

That's not to say there isn't an argument for it, only that it is just an argument, not a proven theory.

As I recently mentioned elsewhere, proof only applies to math, logic, and alcohol; not to theories. Actually, determinism and freewill are philosophical constructs that seek to explain certain mechanics of the mind. So far, people have pretty much fallen all over themselves attempting to explain the will and its claimed freedom. On the other hand, determinism is an incredibly simple concept, although greatly despised by those who have a personal stake in the existence of freewill. Sin and salvation fall splat on the ground without it.

 

[idav]

On the other hand, determinism is an incredibly simple concept, although greatly despised by those who have a personal stake in the existence of freewill. Sin and salvation fall splat on the ground without it.

As I had mentioned hard determinism is impossible. Think about the fact everything started quantum and tell me all that from the beginning is hard determinism. It cant be, well it can but has been falsified.

Everyone has a stake in it, repercussions and justice depend on it. Live and let live wont do.

Does seem ignorance is bliss which allows us to not know what every cause is but if we did we would have more freedom not less. So there are degrees, we dont have freedom to do what we will without more knowledge.

 

[Sleeppy]

As I had mentioned hard determinism is impossible. Think about the fact everything started quantum and tell me all that from the beginning is hard determinism. It cant be, well it can but has been falsified.

Everyone has a stake in it, repercussions and justice depend on it. Live and let live wont do.

Does seem ignorance is bliss which allows us to not know what every cause is but if we did we would have more freedom not less. So there are degrees, we dont have freedom to do what we will without more knowledge.

Why do you will one thing over another?

 

[idav]

Why do you will one thing over another?

Cause there is a choice in the matter.

 

[idav]

Why do you will one thing over another?

Why questions are endless, can go all the way back to the beginning and there still wont be a why answered. How can we will something over another is a better question, if its even possible, or chalk it up to "will" of how nature happens to be.

 

[Sleeppy]

Cause there is a choice in the matter.

What makes you choose one thing over another?

 

[Sleeppy]

Why questions are endless, can go all the way back to the beginning and there still wont be a why answered. How can we will something over another is a better question, if its even possible, or chalk it up to "will" of how nature happens to be.

Nature determines will?

 

[idav]

What makes you choose one thing over another?

Multiple simultaneous influence potentials. An influence is only potentially a cause, especially in a mind that works with thoughts in parallel.

Take how memory works for example. A car isnt one picture but multiple simultaneous thoughts that generate an image of something like it.

Edit: without that aspect there would not be the real time type of awareness that we have