What do you mean by "free will?"

[Koldo]

I've never heard anyone who believes that God does not recognize evil... and I think they are wrong if they do. Good and evil are relative terms, like left and right, they define each other.

It's not that he doesn't recognize evil. It's that evil is defined as whatever is against his will.

 

[Asiya Lisa]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

Hi, I think you miss the point about free will, it does not equate to the ability to see your will put into action. So, for example, a person has the will to commit a crime, of any kind, however, because of the decree of God, he may be prevented from actualising that desire or will, this does not change the fact that his intention, and will is for wrong. It is this which is important. He had free will.

So for example.
A man goes to the bank, he intends to rob the bank,and he does so. His intention was to commit the crime & he was able to do so.

A man goes to the bank with the intention to rob the bank, he is prevented from doing so.

Both are equally blameworthy in their intention so in that sense, both will have earned sin do their exercising their free will.

A man goes to the bank and intends to rob the bank, but, when he gets there, his heart softens and he thinks, what was I thinking? I am not even going to go there.

His freewill came into play, he changed his mind, and because he intended something criminal but held himself to account and prevented himself from doing so, he is praiseworthy and in this case earns a good deed.

Freewill is the choices we make, not the actions that stem from that intention.

For each stage of the crime planned, there is a possibility to either be limited in the harm we can do [as God decreed exactly what He permits], or permitted to continue with the crime [God tests everyone in a test like this, the victim, the perpetrator too, so though a crime may be committed, the criminal is blameworthy, however, the victim may obtain mercy and paradise because of that.

When a person intended harm and then by freewill did not do so, [whether able to or not] but that intention, or desire was curbed, he is rewarded.

All scenarios are demonstrations of free will. Actions are according to intentions. Each person is rewarded or punished - according to what he intended, no matter what the outcome is.

That means equally, that a person may be seen to do an act that is praiseworthy, but if the intention is not praiseworthy, then the *intention* [freewill] is blameworthy. God knows best.

 

[Willamena]

Yeah I get that. My point, however, is about the actual "will." How can people claim we have "free will" if we can't even control our own memory? If we forget something that we wanted to remember, then it's an indication that humans don't really have that much control over their "will." If God exists, then He is actively interfering in our thought processes and making us forget things. If God is actively interfering in our minds, then "free will" is just an illusion.

Will isn't control and we don't control it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's not that he doesn't recognize evil. It's that evil is defined as whatever is against his will.

And I'd agree, where's the conflict there?

 

[LuisDantas]

I never use the concept of "free will" myself, because as best as I can figure it out it has no true meaning.

It is just a couple of words that are brandished in an attempt to explain a contradiction of a popular conception of deity.

I don't think I know of anyone who truly believers and sees logical sense in the concept beyond "it is the human insistence in not being as God wants us to be", apparently due to having an emotional attachment to the idea that there must be a perfect God who would be our infallible protector "if only we let him".

Of course, conforting as the concept must be for certain people, it has just enough meaning to directly contradict the necessary implications of those same conceptions of deity, and no more.

 

[blü 2]

free will still applies though, it includes the inevitability that we all give in to temptation

If temptation can routinely overwhelm the will, in what sense is the will 'free' then? It sounds more like a hostage.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

Okay, if there is a creator God I can understand how He would give us free will so that we're not just robots programmed to only do right. However, why does giving human's free will mean that God no longer has control over when a person dies? Take a serial child killer for instance. I can understand that since God gave this killer free will that He can't simply snap His fingers and take the killer's desire to kill again away. But after the first victim... or the third... or the tenth, why doesn't God simply give this degenerate a heart attack and put an end to him? How would that violate free will in any way shape or form? After all, no one gets to decide for themselves when they die. It's completely up to God, right?

 

[Enoch07]

I never use the concept of "free will" myself, because as best as I can figure it out it has no true meaning.

It is just a couple of words that are brandished in an attempt to explain a contradiction of a popular conception of deity.

I don't think I know of anyone who truly believers and sees logical sense in the concept beyond "it is the human insistence in not being as God wants us to be", apparently due to having an emotional attachment to the idea that there must be a perfect God who would be our infallible protector "if only we let him".

Of course, conforting as the concept must be for certain people, it has just enough meaning to directly contradict the necessary implications of those same conceptions of deity, and no more.

So you don't believe people have Agency (philosophy) - Wikipedia then?

 

[osgart]

Will is intention and the nature of it. Freedom means you are going to decide the nature of your intentions at some point in your life. The two choices are that which is just, or that which is unjustifiable by any means. Most people make their choice in youth as to the type of person they are going to be.
That is free will. Once you exercise it, than you are bound by the laws of your choice of injustice or become free in the justice of what is good for life.

So once free will is exercised, you become who you are by that choice.

 

[Sleeppy]

A person can learn to squelch evil desires.
If an evil desire shows up a person can choose to ignore it.

It isn't free. Work is involved and work deserves to be paid for.

I think that getting into trouble or staying out of trouble becomes a person's habit.
So, after a while, the person loses choosing. But, the attitude was chosen which I think has been called "free will".

I can put on an attitude of caring or not caring. I can care about some things but not other things.
Such choosing is called "free will".

It's an illusion.

If you have ”eyes to see”, you already know this. Alcoholism for example, is an inheritable disease. Mental capability is inheritable. God gave everyone DNA and RNA. We know that the Spirit of God is sustaining, as well as inhabiting, all material things.

John 10:34-36
Jesus answered them, `Is it not having been written in your law: I said, you are gods?

If them he did call gods unto whom the word of God came, (and the Writing is not able to be broken,) of him whom the Father did sanctify, and send to the world, do you say -- You speak evil, because I said, Son of God I am?

--

We're explorers, not gods. God did however give us His nature, divided. We do not have the capacity for the whole Good, nor do we experience the entirety of God at any time. We explore an infinite expanse, with the illusion that it is expanding before us. Why? Because we cannot contain the entirety of God's Spirit with division, i.e. material emanations, or in our case, flesh and blood.


Matthew 26:41
Watch, and pray, that you may not enter into temptation: the spirit indeed is forward, but the flesh weak.'

--

You are commanded to ask that you may not enter into the temptation of evil. You are not asking yourself; you are asking the Father. And you are asking the Most High Father, and therefore what you ask is known of beforehand. Why does Jesus command this redundancy? Because it is not understood.


We are of one God, and therefore sons of God. We explore the knowledge of God that has always existed.

 

[soulsurvivor]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

It is wrong to say that we do no choose our desires. All individual tendencies are built up over many lifetimes of thinking and acting and making choices - no desire just appears accidentally at any age in this lifetime.

There is nothing wrong with humanity stopping people acting out their evil desires (step 3) - and governments/organizations already do that (maybe not in the case of gun control). However, God does not interfere in any of these three steps - that is what free will is all about.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If temptation can routinely overwhelm the will, in what sense is the will 'free' then? It sounds more like a hostage.

We are free to be overwhelmed if we allow ourselves to be, by all kinds of sins, doing the right thing, for others or even ourselves is not always easy, and again, that's what gives it meaning is it not?

 

[LuisDantas]

So you don't believe people have Agency (philosophy) - Wikipedia then?

It is certainly too much to say that I believe that we have agency.

The appearance of agency exists, but for all I know it is an illusion.

 

[Enoch07]

The appearance of agency exists, but for all I know it is an illusion.

Post modernism is such a useless philosophy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Post modernism is such a useless philosophy.

I somewhat agree... but that does not deny the fact that free will is, at best, a rather questionable idea.

 

[Grandliseur]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

I would hope you understand some or most of the limitations of free will! After all, did you choose your parents, did they choose you, in a sense? They might have wanted a cute little girl with high intelligence, pretty looks, and endearing personality, but they got you!

In brief then, free will is the choice of heart, not the choice of problems as such. If you have the chance to steal money that has been dropped, e.g. $2000, that is a choice of heart, you either take the money and get rid of the wallet, or you find the owner whose address and phone number is found in it and return the money.

Likewise, when someone cuts in in front of you on the highway, you can go all ballistic, or simply say, 'idiot', or some such thing.

When the people who killed so many recently did so, they were not forced to do so. They chose to do so, prepared well, and executed the plan literally and every other way. They demonstrated that they were wicked, or mentally ill - possessed by evil.

 

[Enoch07]

I somewhat agree... but that does not deny the fact that free will is, at best, a rather questionable idea.

So if you are not making the decisions for your life. Who or what is?

 

[Milton Platt]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

There is a darker side to it. When youlook at a subject such as child rape, it would appear that the rapists free will takes precedence over the child’s.

 

[Stevicus]

Will isn't control and we don't control it.

Then, you agree that "free will" is a bogus concept?

 

[Jack Reynolds]

A movie about a killer whale?