About the idea of 'Free Will"...

[William]

In recent discussion with forum member 'The Tanager' and also in relation to the thread "Did Christ have free will?" where I answered that he did indeed have free will and forum member EBA argued that free will doesn't actually exist - which essentially I eventually had to agree with, given the definition of both 'free' and 'will'.

The end of our interaction went like this:

[Replying to post 131 by EBA]

Fair enough. May I ask why you think it is so important that Jesus possess free will?

No, because it does not matter, given you think free will does not exist...for anyone.

As I contemplated the discussion I began to understand that 'free will' is an incorrect description which adds confusion to any discussion about will.

It isn't that people do not have WILL, for they certainly do, but that given our circumstances, our WILL can never be FREE, because our circumstances - our situation in this physical universe in these physical instruments suppresses any true freedom that we might imagine we could experience and so freedom becomes relative.

One can, of course, argue for philosophical ideas to do with ones internal sense of freedom despite the external bondage and that may relate and align more to the idea of 'free will' but in relation to the will and the external reality, isn't it more appropriate to refer to the will, simply as the will without adding confusion to the mix by introducing the word 'free' in front of the word 'will'?

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'?

Thoughts?

[ttruscott]

If you would address my arguments so far, that would be unusual, but a step in the best direction.

I stand by post 15...

Which I already addressed and debunked - but here, I will repeat myself.

[Replying to post 15 by ttruscott]

If a hypnotist hypnotises you to always chose the red pill, when you are given the choice to choose the blue or the red pill, are you really choosing the red pill?

Is it the case that we are all hypnotized?

Since when has argueing against the analogy become stylized as a debunking? I don't think you know what that word means...

If your dna has given you a taste for seafood over red meat, are you really choosing it when you reject the red meat?

Are you declaring that our dna forces us to choose only seafood? If so, are you also declaring that if we have choices as to which seafood we will eat and which we will not, is that also because of our dna?

Sill falsely arguing the analogy, sigh....

[ttruscott]

If you would address my arguments so far, that would be unusual, but a step in the best direction.

Banter opinions about like a game of badminton? I think not. I state my pov and then I correct errors about it as I can to those who listen. Then I stop because I do not believe that seeking the wily woozle is a beneficial use of time no matter how much evidence accrues we are on the hunter's path.

Anyone can create arguments, even Satan in heaven.

[William]

[Replying to post 29 by The Tanager]

As in physical limitations as a species?

Correct.

As in political governing bodies, religious institutions and that kind of stuff?

Also correct.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by ttruscott]

Is it the case that we are all hypnotized?

Since when has argueing against the analogy become stylized as a debunking? I don't think you know what that word means...

As the reader can plainly see, I was asking a question about that particular analogy.

Do you have an answer as to why you used the analogy of being hypnotized?

Are you declaring that our dna forces us to choose only seafood? If so, are you also declaring that if we have choices as to which seafood we will eat and which we will not, is that also because of our dna?

Sill falsely arguing the analogy, sigh....

I see that you are having trouble distinguishing between a question and an argument.

The questions I asked are for the purpose of gaining clarity as to why you used those particular analogies. If clarity comes once you decide to answer the questions, perhaps then I can argue the analogy, but until then, the questions remain unanswered and the analogies remain a mystery to me and I can treat them as irrelevant.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 33 by William]

And so your argument is that because we have physical limitations as a species and social institutions influencing us that our wills are not free (either in a complete or limited sense)? That our wills are coerced into making the decision they do?

[William]

[Replying to post 35 by The Tanager]

And so your argument is that because we have physical limitations as a species and social institutions influencing us that our wills are not free (either in a complete or limited sense)?

Correct. I am suggesting that our circumstance means that using the word 'free' in relation to the will, is erroneous.

That our wills are coerced into making the decision they do?

Why speak of our wills as separate entities?

WE are coerced into making the decisions we do.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 36 by William]

I wasn't speaking of our wills as separate entities from us. As to your main point:

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?

And those are sufficient for fully explaining why I choose to steal from my neighbor or not? And that I have no freedom in believing if what they say is true is true or not? And all of those supposed kinds of choices?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 35 by The Tanager]

And so your argument is that because we have physical limitations as a species and social institutions influencing us that our wills are not free (either in a complete or limited sense)?

Correct. I am suggesting that our circumstance means that using the word 'free' in relation to the will, is erroneous.

But aren't there examples of individuals who have chosen to get out from under the circumstances they find themselves in?

It seems to me that your "theory" here is not well fleshed out.

There are examples of brothers born to the same parents, in the same poverty-stricken neighborhood, with the same criminal influences and peer pressures. One brother falls into the rut he was born into, the other brother chooses to escape that fate and makes a better life for himself. You could probably even find a situation where this happens to twin bothers.

So I think it would be difficult to argue that our circumstances force our choices.

[William]

[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.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 33 by William]

And so your argument is that because we have physical limitations as a species and social institutions influencing us that our wills are not free (either in a complete or limited sense)? That our wills are coerced into making the decision they do?

While I tend to accept this line of thought, the most compelling argument that humans have no free will is that Jesus said that we are enslaved to evil. I think enslaved equates to the modern idea of an overriding addiction.

An addict can indeed sometimes choose and act against their addiction but on the whole it is always in the back of their mind pushing them to do whatever will make fulfilling their addiction easier and better. Their addiction becomes their nature, that which is who they are. It compels and coerces their desires which inevitably leads to sin. Thus their free will is destroyed by their first free will decision to sin. Since we are all conceived / born sinners, no one on earth has a free will.

Since our free will is an absolute theological necessity to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil against HIS desires, and to make the sinful truly guilty of evil and to therefore make their condemnation just...

I contend that we had a time of free will pre-earth, before the creation of the physical universe, in which some chose to rebel against YHWH and self created themselves as evil. These sinners by their free will, some elect (the good seed called the people of the kingdom) and some non-elect (the tares called the people of the evil one, condemned already Jn 3:18) are then sent / sown into the world: Matt 13:36-39 to live predetermined lives (no free will) to redeem HIS sinful elect.