In general, you have implied that either we have 100% control over our actions, or we have 0%. Why does it have to be either/or?
Just look at the definition of the word "free":
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Free \Free\
1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under
restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's
own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's
own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
[1913 Webster]
And yet, what I find interesting about this definition, especially as a Christian Theist, is that even if one is following their own "impulses, desires, or inclinations;", Biblically, this is considered slavery (Rom. 6:16,19). Now, I am sure that Paul had a good understanding of what the term "slave" meant. But we use the terms "free" or "in control" all the time in funny places. For example, In the U.S. many people love touting how we have "freedom of speech", but that freedom is hindered when one wants to excercise their freedom in certain places. Certain words can not be used in certain shows etc. The exact same example can be used for the U.S. claim of "freedom of religion" but I don't want to get off on a rabbit trail here. My point is, partial "freedom" or "control" makes no more sense than God being partially soveriegn. As R.C. Sproul puts it in his book "Chosen by God"; "If there is one rebel molecule outside of God's control, than God has lost his Soveriegnty".
Is it not possible for us to have multiple influences on us? For example, I could have hunger, guilt and laziness all factor into a decision I make.
Well, ofcourse it is possible. The more influences that have played into one's decision making take away freedom from making a decision without any influences. So, what is an influence now:
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Influence \In"flu*ence\ 1. A flowing in or upon; influx. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]
2. Hence, in general, the bringing about of an effect,
physical or moral, by a gradual process; controlling power
quietly exerted; agency, force, or tendency of any kind
which affects, modifies, or sways; as, the influence which
the sun exerts on animal and vegetable life; the influence
of education on the mind; the influence, according to
astrologers, of the stars over affairs.
[1913 Webster]
Notice what I underlined. Now if you define freedom as being controlled by a power quietly exerted, or being swayed, modified, or effected by an agency, force or tendency of any kind, then I guess you are free. What I disagree with is that you may try to reconcile this with logic/philosophy and the Bible as noted above and yet it directly unaffirms itself.
It seems under your line of thought, we could not have multiple influences; that only one thing causes us to do something at a time.
Just because I may catagorize multiple influnces does not mean that I deny the existence of the different characteristics that may define certain influences as being unique and different. For example, I could catagorize "hunger, guilt and laziness" into Physical Impulses and still recognize their different characteristics in influencing one to make the same decision, which is exactly what you did above. The Bible also does that (Gal 5:19-21). So does Philosophy; Monotheism, comprising of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
If we can have multiple things influence us, then why can't one of those things be an internal determination, that if strong enough, can overcome our bodily impulses?
It can. It is still considered an influence by definition, by your definition a "strong enough" influence. Although, I am curious as to what exactly you mean by "internal determination" and if somehow it does not meet the same qualifications of what an influence is, whether internal or external.
Are you suggesting that there is 0% internal creativity that feeds into the art; that it is all just regurgitating what we already have experienced?
As much as human pride would love to boast "no" to this question, I am going to have to disagree. Hows about this, art is almost like hacking in the sense that it takes something one has already experienced whether it is a computer language or a sunset, let their "internal determinations" decide how they want to express it or use it, manipulate it to fit their "internal determination"'s purpose, and "regurgitate" it with their manipulations manifested. In the end, it is what one has already experienced with some manipulation that was "internally determined" or internally influenced.
There are mathematical problems called Diophantine problems that have been solved by mathematicians which are simply not solvable through any algorithmic means. If an algorithm could not solve them, then how does the mathematician without any sort of creativity or freewill?
Algorithms have not always been the only means of solving mathematical problems. Algorithms are originally Arabic. There were obviously other ways of solving mathematical equations before algorithms, take for example, ancient Egyptians obviously used other methods of solving mathematical problems when it came to building things and any construction worker can tell you how it would be almost impossible to build anything without any sort of mathematical solution. The next question then becomes, what method did these mathmeticitions use to solve these equations? I would be very suprised to find that it has absolutely no roots, directly or indirectly in any thing that has already existed.
I do not follow this. Please explain how our consciousness alters our impulses.
Well, lets look at your argument again:
Our bodies impose impulses and desires onto us, and it is from these impulses that we base our actions. Our consciousness is the arena where our impulses are presented to us, and where the will deliberates and manifests itself. Without our conscious being, our freewill would not exist. If we become drunk, or have a sudden fit of rage, our consciousness becomes altered and our freewill becomes impotent.
Alright, I will use the example you gave to further explain myself. According to the example you gave, a bodily impulse, the impulse to get drunk or have a sudden fit of rage, was sent to the consciousness, and the will deliberated and decided to manifest itself in the act of getting drunk or having a fit of rage, thereby rendering the conscious altered. If that is the case, in a nutshell, then those bodily impulses managed to render the conscious altered, and obviously the bodily impulses were in conflict with the conscious. If this could happen, this way, it could also happen the other way around, i.e. the consciousness could deliberate the bodily impulse sent to it and decide
not to get drunk or have a fit of rage, thereby rendering the bodily impulse altered. Either way, since both the conscious and the bodily impulse was in conflict with one another, neither of them wanting to be altered, for one side to gain control, the other has to be altered. Paul addressed this issue in Rom. 7:14-25.
I will believe it when I can read a scientific journal and understand exactly what Pate de Lapin tastes like from a fine restaurant in France. Otherwise, I will just have to go to France and let my consciousness experience it for itself.
Well, here's a whole website dedicated to the science of cognition:
http://cognews.com/
But being as how you concede that your body has to go to France for your conscience to experience what Pete De Lapin tastes like, you won't need much more scientific proof to figure out that your conscience is naturally attached to and a part of your body will you.
But let me turn the question back on you. Do you believe that if we had complete knowledge of all impulses that a person has, we could predict their decision with 100% accuracy? If you believe this, then I am wondering what you are basing it on, and if you do not believe this, then I say we have freewill.
The reason this is not true is not because we have free will but because the only being that has that ability to know every impulse a person may have is God. On top of that, impulses are not the only variable that plays into decision making. Rationality also plays into decision making, but being as how you will probably contend that rationality is part of the consciousness with validity, I will point to my contention above on how the conscious
also renders the bodily impulses altered thereby altering the "freedom" of the will.
Perhaps you could elaborate which passages of the Bible you believe eliminate our freewill first, so I know if I am addressing your contention properly.
As far as this request goes, I tried as much as I could to incorporate scripture refferences where it fit into this post. I will add that the term "free will" is never used in the Bible, but wills are addressed as either human will or God's will which are always in conflict. To add, I will point to Proverbs 16:9, Romans 9:16-23, and philippians 2:13. While there are others that I could point to, I used the ones that were outright to the point because I am sure that this post is long enough as it is.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
