When does persuasion trample free will?

[Peter]

I'm confused... perpetually, but that's another issue.

If the Christian god exists then He knows exactly how to persuade me of His existence. I can tell you that it would take much less than the clouds parting and God coming down in a flaming chariot like some kind of biblical Santa Claus.

I know this persuasion happens all the time because I'm told that it does by Christians. Was their free will violated when God convinced them He exists? Are they simply "robots" now that they're convinced that the Christian god exists?

Please, I don't want to be a robot so clear this up for me! How much divine persuasion is acceptable before my free will is violated?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 20 by Peter]

No, because it's a choice in the sense that it's consciously acknowledged.

You never know the true consequences of anything, and I don't see why you'd need to know them to any degree at all for it to be a free choice.

"Inconsequential"? For all you know that might decide between giving money to charity and launching a ballistic missile. (While it could be said that you didn't choose between charity and the missile, it can still be said you chose between A and B)

[Peter]

[Replying to post 20 by Peter]

No, because it's a choice in the sense that it's consciously acknowledged.

You never know the true consequences of anything, and I don't see why you'd need to know them to any degree at all for it to be a free choice.

You need to know the consequences for free will. Free choice is easy, amoeba have it.

"Inconsequential"? For all you know that might decide between giving money to charity and launching a ballistic missile. (While it could be said that you didn't choose between charity and the missile, it can still be said you chose between A and B)

You lost me. If a is giving money to charity and b is launching a missile then they aren't inconsequential. What's your point again with this scenario?

I get that you consider free choice and free will to be one and the same. IMHO the simple ability to make a choice is not what most people mean when they say free will. At least it's not what I mean. Does that make any sense or should I have another drink?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 22 by Peter]

To be fair, it's a very, very vague term.


One other (dictionary) definition:
"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

In other words, indeterminism. Which to me says that it is true randomness. (I actually don't think indeterminism is logically consistent but that's besides the point)

[Peter]

[Replying to post 22 by Peter]

To be fair, it's a very, very vague term.


One other (dictionary) definition:
"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

In other words, indeterminism. Which to me says that it is true randomness. (I actually don't think indeterminism is logically consistent but that's besides the point)

For me it always comes down to biblical/religious free will. You know, the kind where your immortal soul hangs in the balance over a choice you make. Biblical free will is (conveniently)provided by the soul (which is why we don't have it). The soul is like that little angel sitting on your shoulder that talks you out of the decision you were going to make which would have put your soul at risk. It's like the ability to step outside of yourself, understand all the reasons you would use to make a decision along with it's consequences, and countermand the decision you would have made on your own.

I can't do that and I'm pretty sure anybody who thinks they can is confused (or hearing voices). I'm confident that nobody has that kind of free will.

[ttruscott]

"Worship me or spend eternity in hell" is not a free-will choice.

1. Why is it not a free will choice?

Coercion

Good answer - but what if the information about hell was only was shared with no proof it existed nor proof this person was a GOD nor proof HE could banish anyone there?

If someone holds a gun to your head and says that if you do not smile s/he will put a bullet in your brain -- do you have "free will choice" in the matter?

Nope - coerced ends free. But here we have a visible gun and an obviously emotionally driven person demanding your smiles so the coercion is immediate, overt and with the obvious abilitiy to fulfill the threat.

What breaks the freeness of the will just in these options?

Coercion

May I suggest that the difference between a bad option and a coercive non-option lies in the PROOF of the threat, whereas a non-threat, with no proof of the outcome of the threat but just a telling of its inevitability as a natural consequence of your choosing that way...is not coercive but is what we call a warning?

Bridge out is a warning - ignore it and the natural consequence will be to crash.

Trespassers will be shot - is also a warning... no one will be shot if they do not trespass. It is not considered a threat as it has no immediacy and the ability to carry out the warning is not present.

Give me your money or I'll shoot - is a threat intended to be coercive by its immediacy, and the person's obvious ability to shoot, that is, you can see his gun after all.

Reject me as your GOD and you will become addicted to evil and will someday end your days banished to hell - is not a threat as it has no immediacy, and no obvious ability to bring about the consequences or, that it is a natural consequence for rejecting HIM at all, is not proven either.

2. What definition of free will do you accept?

Free and independent choice; voluntary decision; without force / coercion

Me too - in fact I might have cribbed this from you when I developed my definition.


But if I want you to make just such a decision, giving you your free will, but at the same time wanting to warn you about the dangers of choosing one way over another, is there no way to achieve both, to allow your uncoerced free will and to give you fair warning?

NOT all warnings are coercive or force the issue to go with the warnings. Some warnings are open to judgment calls and so cannot be labelled coercive which forces the issue with no choice.

I contend that there are uncoercive warnings. In fact, I contend that if you do NOT know the consequences of your 'choices' then you are not actually choosing but are merely guessing as to which option is the best to to take. It may be by free will but it is not a true choice.

So the warning must contain full understanding of all the dangers that option entails but without any proof or immediacy so it remains in our minds as theoretical and not causing an emotionally driven knee jerk reaction of compliance. Not all warnings are coercive and force the issue. Trespass or be shot may be ignored because of the hopes of the gold to be found behind the fence is just too powerful to resist OR due to a perceived lack of heart in the land owner to carry out the threat

So while ""Worship me or spend eternity in hell"" does seem to fit the bill as offering two options with one warning, it is not a coercive threat as there is no immediacy mentioned nor proven ability to put someone in hell.

[As well, it is not supported by the Christian understanding of GOD at all nor our earthly experience of how HE likes to slowly bring people to awareness of HIMself and HIS wants for them in a very organic way, a different topic.]

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

So how can we be punished forever because of a choice we didn't fully understand the reasons for making so were unable to make the "right" choice?

You are correct of course...a choice without understanding the reasons pro and con for each option is a mockery of the word choice.

That is why the PCEC theology I follow explains our free will decision to accept YHWH as our GOD or not contained a full understanding of the pros and cons of each option, 'Yes I accept YHWH as my GOD' or 'No I do not accept YHWH as GOD at all.' No person's choice was considered final and irrevocable as long as they had any question about any consequences, including the possibility of the need for some to have a human life here on earth.

This was all worked out in a very organic way by a lot of discussion and trying on different attitudes and listening to everyone else etc etc., not in a "line up and state your choice" kind of way at all.

It was also very academic, no fire and brimstone, just ideas about the right thing to do IF HE might be GOD or if not... ideas with no coercion behind them but with some warnings of natural consequences.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

If someone holds a gun to your head and says that if you do not smile s/he will put a bullet in your brain -- do you have "free will choice" in the matter?

Yes you do. In fact, this has nothing to do with free will. You'll freely consider the situation and freely decide that smiling is probably the best option in those circumstances.

"Worship me or spend eternity in hell" is not a free-will choice.

In my opinion it is. Person is free to choose. I understand that the choice may be tough for you, but none the less you can choose freely what you want.

I contend to the contrary: a true coercion leaves no choice available it is so damaging. If you not only considered your own death but felt the pain of the shot, and had a "live run" prediction (full emotional involvement) of the suffering of your family with them and saw the consequences to your children as they grew up without you down through time...this might be a coercion but the analogy still falls short.

A full or true coercion forces the decision to go one direction only with no other option. This can be because we were created to only go that way, or our family genetics forces us to only go that way, or whatever, coercion makes it impossible of you to go a different way. So of course we see different levels of coercion are available to be put against someone's will and all coercions can be gone against by a committed choice but the coercion that means something in a discussion about the necessity of free will being free of coercion is the full on coercion that can't be resisted.

This is the supposed nature of our supposed enslavement to the addictive power of evil...it can't be denied or resisted, therefore sinners do not have free will here or anywhere else.

Peace, Ted

[1213]

I don't think we have free will for another reason. We never consciously understand all the reasons that influence a choice. I can demonstrate. Pick a random number between 1 and 100. Do you know why you picked the number you did or did it just bubble up from your subconscious?

Personally I think free will doesnt mean that person can do and know everything. I think it means only that person is able to want freely whatever he wants. If person dont know something, it doesnt limit free will, because in that case person can want the unknown thing that he thinks is more desirable than other option.

I picked number 7 because I like it. I dont think I can make random picks.

True free will would give us insight into every nook and cranny of our mind to determine exactly why we make a certain choice and, if necessary, countermand that choice. Simply put, free will is the ability to make a choice that we wouldn't, or didn't, make. I don't know about you but I can't do that.

I think you have strange meaning for free will. I think free will means that you can freely want whatever, even unknown things. I think it has nothing to do with the ability to also choose or do or have it.

And at least I have nothing or no one who limits what I want.

So how can we be punished forever because of a choice we didn't fully understand the reasons for making so were unable to make the "right" choice?

Firstly eternal life is for righteous, according to the Bible. It is more than choice. And secondly, I think you should understand not to make choices that you dont fully understand, unless you want to take the random consequences.

I think all people can make the right choice. And it is to remain in truth. If truth is that you think there is not enough evidence for you to believe that God is real, that is fine, if you honestly admit that. The point is not to believe that God is, but to receive what he said for example about good and right and that do not depend on is God real. If you agree about good and right, then I think you will not have any problems and disbelief to his existence can be forgiven.

[Zzyzx]

.

A full or true coercion forces the decision to go one direction only with no other option. This can be because we were created to only go that way, or our family genetics forces us to only go that way, or whatever, coercion makes it impossible of you to go a different way.

If there is "no other option" and "impossible to go a different way" that is NOT a decision and no will of any kind (including "free will") is involved.

[ttruscott]

.

A full or true coercion forces the decision to go one direction only with no other option. This can be because we were created to only go that way, or our family genetics forces us to only go that way, or whatever, coercion makes it impossible of you to go a different way.

If there is "no other option" and "impossible to go a different way" that is NOT a decision and no will of any kind (including "free will") is involved.

Agreed, please don't hit me with a one-liner...