What Would be the Purpose of Free Will, if Free Will Existed?

[dfnj]

I am not sure whether choices exist as such, but the OP makes a very good presentation of why the concept of free will seems useless or worse to me.

It is literally never helpful, serving no better purpose than to appear to explain some central contradictions of certain god-concepts. In so doing, it furthers theistic-fueled delusions that are ultimately destructive.

Human nature is destructive. It has nothing to do with theistic-fueled delusions. If religion did not exist at all then there would be just as many wars and senseless acts of violence.

There are plenty of atheists I know who are full category d-bags.

 

[dfnj]

Love it! Don't agree with the rationale behind it, but what a great phrase.

It may be fun to read but it's wrong. See my previous post.

 

[WalterTrull]

If you believe

A good lead-off. Since I don't believe many of the popular assumptions, but am yet a "believer", I should probably butt-out. Yeah, well...
We are the children. Within the context of law, we may do as we wish. Consequences are what we make of them. However, the law is the law and can't be broken. I prefer pleasurable consequences and will push for them. "Free will" is somewhat misleading in that it requires assumptions contrary to fact.

 

[sun rise]

If god wanted to give us free will, why didn't he give us much better foresight?

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that there truly is such a thing as free will which is being scientifically debated I'll speculate a bit.

Imagine picking up a mystery story and knowing the entire plot and the ending. Would you read that book? Hardly.

So too in life. Wouldn't it be terminally boring to know too much too soon? Where would be the high adventure of discovery, the joy and pain in learning and the ultimate feeling of pleasure in finally understanding how and why it turned out the way it did?

So is it possible that God's greatest gift is the gift of ignorance along with the wish to understand?

 

[dfnj]

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that there truly is such a thing as free will which is being scientifically debated I'll speculate a bit.

Imagine picking up a mystery story and knowing the entire plot and the ending. Would you read that book? Hardly.

So too in life. Wouldn't it be terminally boring to know too much too soon? Where would be the high adventure of discovery, the joy and pain in learning and the ultimate feeling of pleasure in finally understanding how and why it turned out the way it did?

So is it possible that God's greatest gift is the gift of ignorance along with the wish to understand?

If the glory of God exists then certainly Satan and evil exists.

 

[sun rise]

Reading another thread, I think the answer to this question is the question you asked here: Sometimes, Thinking Should Hurt.

 

[ronandcarol]

If god wanted to give us free will, why didn't he give us much better foresight?

He gave us the best foresight He could, His God Breathed Words of Life. And, He doesn't want any robots in Heaven to automatically worship Him. He wants and desires worshipers that love Him and worship Him on their own free-will.
ronandcarol

 

[Nous]

If you believe god gave us free will, then why did god not give us more reliable and comprehensive abilities to calculate the consequences of our actions?

It seems to me that, given how the average person's abilities to foresee the consequences of their actions is often unreliable, and always grossly limited, that if free will exists, it serves little or no genuine purpose.

Even making a choice whether to follow a deity's alleged teachings or not in order to obtain salvation is absurdly handicapped by the fact we cannot be certain that salvation is certain, that the teachings are genuinely those of the deity, or that the deity even exists. All must be taken -- not as fact -- but as faith.

Moreover, if the purpose of free will is so that we may choose to do good or evil in this world, the problem only becomes more difficult of any sane resolution. How can you legitimately say you have chosen to do good or evil when you don't even know all the consequences of your action, and beyond that, don't know how reliable is your knowledge of the few consequences you do think you know?

If god wanted to give us free will, why didn't he give us much better foresight?

Sunstone, does your question here depend on the theistic issue by which you have phrased it? In other words, are you asking this question also: If we have free will, why don't we have more reliable and comprehensive abilities to calculate the consequences of our actions?

 

[InChrist]

God is Love (1 John 4:8-16). God is a God of relationship, so free will to obey or disobey, love or hate, submit or rebel, is essential to the human relationship to God. He calls us to love, obey, serve, and worship Him and to do so by choice: "Choose you this day whom ye will serve" (Joshua:24:15). Real love and relationship with another is only possible when freely given, willingly from the heart.

 

[Faithofchristian]

If you believe god gave us free will, then why did god not give us more reliable and comprehensive abilities to calculate the consequences of our actions?

It seems to me that, given how the average person's abilities to foresee the consequences of their actions is often unreliable, and always grossly limited, that if free will exists, it serves little or no genuine purpose.

Even making a choice whether to follow a deity's alleged teachings or not in order to obtain salvation is absurdly handicapped by the fact we cannot be certain that salvation is certain, that the teachings are genuinely those of the deity, or that the deity even exists. All must be taken -- not as fact -- but as faith.

Moreover, if the purpose of free will is so that we may choose to do good or evil in this world, the problem only becomes more difficult of any sane resolution. How can you legitimately say you have chosen to do good or evil when you don't even know all the consequences of your action, and beyond that, don't know how reliable is your knowledge of the few consequences you do think you know?

If god wanted to give us free will, why didn't he give us much better foresight?

Free will is better than being a program robot. Like the Seraphim's, which like program robots just standing day and night saying nothing more than
( holy,holy,holy, Lord God Almighty)
Repeating over and over and ect-----------?
Isaiah 6:2-3, Revelation 4:8.

 

[Vee]

If god wanted to give us free will, why didn't he give us much better foresight?

I don't think we lack that much foresight, what we lack is the courage to choose what we should do over what we feel like doing. Humans tend to prefer immediate pleasure instead of long lasting well being.

Free will is a gift. We can decide how were are going to act in certain situations. But then, we need to assume the consequences.

Imagine that a father lets his adult son borrow his car. He gives him the keys and tells is son to drive safely. The son goes to a party and even though he knows he's going to drive home later, he keeps drinking. That night he causes an accident and dies. Was that due to lack of foresight from his father?

While I agree that there are some situations where we might not be too sure about what to do, most cases we do know. We just don't want to acknowledge that because it's easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility.
Smokers know that they might get cancer and they keep smoking, people who eat junk food know they are likely to become obese and diabetic and yet they keep eating badly, most people know that we need an average of 7 hours of sleep a night but how many prefer to watch TV or be on their phones instead of getting that such needed sleep? None of those bad choices is because God didn't give us a better foresight.

He could have manipulated us into doing whatever he wanted, which would probably have been much easier for him, but instead he gave us the gift of allowing us to decide for ourselves. We can't blame our failures on his generosity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Human nature is destructive.

Some aspects of it are. Many are not.

It has nothing to do with theistic-fueled delusions.

Free will as a concept definitely has to do with such. It arguably is nothing more than it.

If religion did not exist at all then there would be just as many wars and senseless acts of violence.

That is speculative at best... and if it is an accurate assessment, then it is also a claim of failure of religion on one of its most obvious fronts, don't you think?

There are plenty of atheists I know who are full category d-bags.

Same here. I don't really think that their disbelief in god-figures was at all a factor in making them so, though. Do you?

 

[Skwim]

Very few creatures on this planet function on pure instinct. Even animals have the ability to make choices. Sometimes they make the wrong choices, but they are still choices nonetheless.

The operative agent isn't instinct, but determinism.

.

 

[Skwim]

Put yourself in the shoes of an omnipotent being--one that can think things into existence. What could be more precious to such a being than a gift of compassion freely given, that was not a product of that omnipotent being's mind!

Perhaps he likes creatures that believe they have choices, but really don't. However, that you seem to believe you know what is and is not "precious" to an omnipotent being reads as a bit arrogant. Just saying.

.

 

[sealchan]

If you believe god gave us free will, then why did god not give us more reliable and comprehensive abilities to calculate the consequences of our actions?

It seems to me that, given how the average person's abilities to foresee the consequences of their actions is often unreliable, and always grossly limited, that if free will exists, it serves little or no genuine purpose.

Even making a choice whether to follow a deity's alleged teachings or not in order to obtain salvation is absurdly handicapped by the fact we cannot be certain that salvation is certain, that the teachings are genuinely those of the deity, or that the deity even exists. All must be taken -- not as fact -- but as faith.

Moreover, if the purpose of free will is so that we may choose to do good or evil in this world, the problem only becomes more difficult of any sane resolution. How can you legitimately say you have chosen to do good or evil when you don't even know all the consequences of your action, and beyond that, don't know how reliable is your knowledge of the few consequences you do think you know?

If god wanted to give us free will, why didn't he give us much better foresight?

Free will is what makes sense when reality presents a mortal being within that reality a complex enough environment that causes that being to have more than one way to achieve a desired goal. Or a being with multiple desirable goals with conflicting means.

To have free will you must have in your brain the ability to...

• Model the world
• Anticipate events and actions
• Suspend action while the above is taking place

These capabilities are tied into each other and into instinctual motivations which drive our desire to act. Our choices are an attempt to satisfy multiple goals simultaneously. Our freedom is constrained by our instinctual desires but it is given freedom by the complexity of the pathways to the goals which satisfy those desires. The instincts will not be denied for long...their influence builds if suppressed and choice turns to compulsion in the wake of their climax.

Our lives are spent in the pleasing and challenging management of these instincts...to the extent we plan ahead we may choose the path which we take...if we don't think ahead then our pathos chosen for us.

 

[dfnj]

Some aspects of it are. Many are not.

So you claim religion not human nature is the reason for the wars and unnecessary violence in the word. I don't agree with your opinion. People don't need Jesus to be evil.

Free will as a concept definitely has to do with such. It arguably is nothing more than it.

Of course it's delusion. What difference does that make if it works for people.

That is speculative at best... and if it is an accurate assessment, then it is also a claim of failure of religion on one of its most obvious fronts, don't you think?

No, I don't agree with your opinion. There's no failure of religion. It's doing quite well. People commit acts of evil that's the problem. Evil is more a problem of human psychology than religion.

Same here. I don't really think that their disbelief in god-figures was at all a factor in making them so, though. Do you?

No, they are really d-bags. It has nothing to do with God which is my point. I never said being atheist is why they are a d-bag. My claim is atheists are just as capable and do commit acts of evil in the same frequency as theists. It has nothing to do with religion. Are you saying atheists are better people than theists? Of course you are not. If you are, prove it.

 

[sealchan]

If you believe god gave us free will, then why did god not give us more reliable and comprehensive abilities to calculate the consequences of our actions?

It seems to me that, given how the average person's abilities to foresee the consequences of their actions is often unreliable, and always grossly limited, that if free will exists, it serves little or no genuine purpose.

Even making a choice whether to follow a deity's alleged teachings or not in order to obtain salvation is absurdly handicapped by the fact we cannot be certain that salvation is certain, that the teachings are genuinely those of the deity, or that the deity even exists. All must be taken -- not as fact -- but as faith.

Moreover, if the purpose of free will is so that we may choose to do good or evil in this world, the problem only becomes more difficult of any sane resolution. How can you legitimately say you have chosen to do good or evil when you don't even know all the consequences of your action, and beyond that, don't know how reliable is your knowledge of the few consequences you do think you know?

If god wanted to give us free will, why didn't he give us much better foresight?

The purpose of free will is to afford an increase in the survivability of a species whose cognitive abilities allow it to think ahead and plan an optimal course of action. Free will might be a feature of language itself and not something fundamentally separate from it.

 

[dfnj]

The operative agent isn't instinct, but determinism.

.

Hard determinism has been proven to be superstition.

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps he likes creatures that believe they have choices, but really don't. However, that you seem to believe you know what is and is not "precious" to an omnipotent being reads as a bit arrogant. Just saying.

.

Pardon me for taking part in a speculative discussion.

 

[Ponder This]

I don't understand the OP. Are you asking why God doesn't make our choices so obvious, that you don't have any choice but to make the 'right' choice?

But free will isn't (as it is commonly misunderstood to be) simply a choice a person makes (like believing or not believing). Free will is 'the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion'.

Let's say you are planning for the future and you think that you want to build a house and you want it to be purple. Someone might say that you 'chose' it to be purple, but that's not really accurate. What happens is that you had your own agency to dream, to imagine, and to create. It only looks like a choice when you offer the option of making the house green instead. So it's a trap to think of free will as a 'choice', that would be like saying that you go to the Tarot card reader and the Tarot card reader offers you to pick one a card from the deck to determine your future - but what if your future wasn't in the Tarot card deck? What if your future was something that you determined as opposed to being pre-determined or being one of a set of choices offered by the dealer?

And so, you might wonder why God doesn't just hand you a Tarot deck and say, "Here are your options. choose one." But maybe He's not interested in plagiarists copying the work of others. Maybe He's interested in you actually 'creating your own reality according to natural law'.