[
Replying to post 37 by The Tanager]
I wasn't speaking of our wills as separate entities from us.
No? Admittedly, how you wrote it can be taken that way...
So, you are saying that the reason I had a chocolate-peanut butter-banana smoothie for breakfast yesterday instead of a bowl of oatmeal was because I am a human who lives under a republican form of government and am a member of a Christian church?
No, Have you read the thread? Do you remember how we came to this point in our conversation?
The reason you had a chocolate-peanut butter-banana smoothie for breakfast yesterday instead of a bowl of oatmeal is because you used your will to make that choice.
The reason you live under a republican form of government is that people used their will to vote them in.
The reason you are a member of a Christian church is because you made that choice through exercising your will to do so.
Notice that at no time was it necessary to use the word 'free' when using the word 'will' in the above.
And those are sufficient for fully explaining why I choose to steal from my neighbor or not?
Why do you choose to steal from your neighbor or not? Is it because you have choices and you have will and some kind of coercion is also happening?
And that I have no freedom in believing if what they say is true is true or not?
What allows for you to make any decision. Is there not always some form of coercion involved in that process?
You are arguing that you have 'free' will because you have relative freedom, but your will is bound within the scope of that relative freedom, and specifically there is no necessity to argue for 'free will' when arguing for will should suffice. This is the argument presented in the OP.
From the OP
In relation to biblical referencing, is the concept 'free will' to be found within its pages, or is it only ever about the will? I ask this because it is often the case that 'free will' comes into the argument from Christians as if it were relevant and essential to truth, but are they taking liberties in arguing for something they call 'free will' when such does not actually exist, and why argue 'free will' if 'will' would suffice?
Is it because many arguments would fail, if only 'will' was used instead of 'free will'?
And all of those supposed kinds of choices?
You argued in the other thread that coercion involved with the will is not a sign of love, because there is not 'free will' in coercion. You brought the idea of free will into the argument as if it were relevant...[
bold added for emphasis]
Me: In relation to eternity, 'when' is always a potential. 'Never' is not.
You: I am saying that free will REQUIRES the possibility that a when will never occur
Me: Only in relation to impermanence. In relation to eternity, 'when' is always a potential.
You: If you believe in free will, you are logically required to believe that one's self-induced hell may go on forever.
You: But there are two kinds of good beings. Morally prescriptively perfect and those with free will. With the former there is no free will and, therefore, no love.
Now if you read your statements again, this time removing the word 'free' what is seen there...?
You: I am saying that will REQUIRES the possibility that a when will never occur
You: If you believe in will, you are logically required to believe that one's self-induced hell may go on forever.
This would be assuming that anyone would want to live in a hell forever, even after the anomalies were introduced in order that fully informed choices could be made.
In relation to informed choices, without these we are coerced into making choices which are based on missing or hidden information. The anomaly allows for options to be introduced which would offer alternatives will can choose.
You: But there are two kinds of good beings. Morally prescriptively perfect and those with will. With the former there is no will and, therefore, no love.
So this tells me that even with missing or hidden information love is still possible to experience but this would still be relative. It also shows that adding the anomaly does not do away with the ability to choose, which is related to the individuals will.
All in all though, the above tends to show that adding the word 'free' changes the dynamics of the argument, and in relation to the Christian ideas of GOD, beckons a less mature audience for that...apart from those Christians who understand that we are all aspects of GOD - consciousness and base their expressions into the world from that platform and position.
So bringing the notion of 'free' will into any argument is unnecessary and even contradicts truthfulness.