Questions for those who believe in free will

[Rational Atheist]

I'm trying to understand the belief in free will. For those who believe in free will, do you believe that your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes or not? If you do, you're a determinist and do not believe in free choice, since you can't control the causes that took place before you were born. If you don't believe your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes, or don't believe that that causal chain extends to before your birth, then you believe that at some point before your action, an event occurred for no reason whatsoever (purely random). How could this possibly get you free will either? No combination of determinism nor indeterminism (randomness) gives you "free will" in the sense of authorship of and responsibility for your actions. How can you believe anyone is ultimately responsible for what they do?

[The Tanager]

Your use of the star wars analogy shows me your confusion on this issue.

If you pick up a stone and throw it into a lake, is it the lake or the stone that caused the ensuring ripple effect?

You are the ultimate cause. You acted upon the potency of the stone to be hurtled through the air, which then acted upon the potency of the water to ripple because of the stone thrown by you.

[William]

Your use of the star wars analogy shows me your confusion on this issue.

If you pick up a stone and throw it into a lake, is it the lake or the stone that caused the ensuring ripple effect?

You are the ultimate cause. You acted upon the potency of the stone to be hurtled through the air, which then acted upon the potency of the water to ripple because of the stone thrown by you.

Thus the one who caused something to become something is responsible for that something happening.

Going back to your Star Wars analogy;

"I know how Star Wars turns out but I didn't cause it to turn out that way."

In this instance my argument re The Creator who also is omniscient and omnipotent, Created the universe, and placed consciousness into forms is the one who threw the rock.

Is the one who 'caused it to turn out that way'

The argument I gave was that 'this is fine' because I understand that we are [in relation to this creation] at the inception end of the experience, not nearer its completion, and also we have no idea how the movie will turn out in regard to that.

Thus, if said Creator is benevolent and full of lovingkindness, The Creator would not have place consciousness into forms if The Creator did not know everything would eventually turn out very good for those consciousnesses who went through suffering and pain etc...those so-called negative [evil] aspects of experience which the universe provides alongside those so-called positive [good] experiences the universe provides.

We are like the one reading a book. We don't know the stories ending, but if we believe that the stories author only writes happy endings, we at least know the author is not evil.

In the case of this particular book, one human lifetime is only a tiny part of the story...thus there are other phases of the story the individual 'reader' will need to go through in order to 'finish reading the book'...

[The Tanager]

In this instance my argument re The Creator who also is omniscient and omnipotent, Created the universe, and placed consciousness into forms is the one who threw the rock.

Is the one who 'caused it to turn out that way'

"That way" referring to things who have the choice whether to throw the rock or not. What they choose is up to them. The Creator allows it and makes such a choice possible, yes, but they make a choice, often times a choice that The Creator does not want them to make, but allows them to, because Love is not controlling.

Thus, if said Creator is benevolent and full of lovingkindness, The Creator would not have place consciousness into forms if The Creator did not know everything would eventually turn out very good for those consciousnesses who went through suffering and pain etc...those so-called negative [evil] aspects of experience which the universe provides alongside those so-called positive [good] experiences the universe provides.

A being that only allows its creatures to live if they do everything right "in the end" is not loving to me. It's controlling. It's not as controlling as a being who makes sure every step along the path is done right, but it's still controlling. True love risks the choices of others even if that creature will not reach goodness in the end, while true love wills their good the whole time.

We are like the one reading a book. We don't know the stories ending, but if we believe that the stories author only writes happy endings, we at least know the author is not evil.

I think life is more co-creative than that. God allows us to have a say in shaping the ending.

[William]

In this instance my argument re The Creator who also is omniscient and omnipotent, Created the universe, and placed consciousness into forms is the one who threw the rock.

Is the one who 'caused it to turn out that way'

"That way" referring to things who have the choice whether to throw the rock or not. What they choose is up to them. The Creator allows it and makes such a choice possible, yes, but they make a choice, often times a choice that The Creator does not want them to make, but allows them to, because Love is not controlling.

Which is precisely my argument re my world view we are also discussing in another thread [Why does God have a gender?]

]Thus, if said Creator is benevolent and full of lovingkindness, The Creator would not have placea consciousness into forms if The Creator did not know everything would eventually turn out very good for those consciousnesses who went through suffering and pain etc...those so-called negative [evil] aspects of experience which the universe provides alongside those so-called positive [good] experiences the universe provides.

A being that only allows its creatures to live if they do everything right "in the end" is not loving to me. It's controlling. It's not as controlling as a being who makes sure every step along the path is done right, but it's still controlling. True love risks the choices of others even if that creature will not reach goodness in the end, while true love wills their good the whole time.

Correct and in line with my image of The Creator only my argument re that you seemed to have skipped over in order to reach the conclusion you have.

We are like the one reading a book. We don't know the stories ending, but if we believe that the stories author only writes happy endings, we at least know the author is not evil.

I think life is more co-creative than that. God allows us to have a say in shaping the ending.

As does The Creator. I see no conflict here.

[The Tanager]

A being that only allows its creatures to live if they do everything right "in the end" is not loving to me. It's controlling. It's not as controlling as a being who makes sure every step along the path is done right, but it's still controlling. True love risks the choices of others even if that creature will not reach goodness in the end, while true love wills their good the whole time.

Correct and in line with my image of The Creator only my argument re that you seemed to have skipped over in order to reach the conclusion you have.

I don't understand what you mean about me skipping over something to reach my conclusion.

I understand you to have said that The Creator would only be loving if The Creator knew that everything would come out right in the end. If so, then what I said above is not in line with your beliefs about The Creator. Above I am saying that a Creator who will only bring life about if the Creator knows all will end perfectly good for every creature, is controlling. That Creator isn't risking anything and without the risk, there is no true love.

I think life is more co-creative than that. God allows us to have a say in shaping the ending.

As does The Creator. I see no conflict here.

That isn't how it seems. From your beliefs, it seems that the Creator doesn't create unless the Creator's end game picture (of all people reaching perfection) is guaranteed to occur. That's determining the ending, the ending must be X or the Creator won't create. In your view, sure, we help shape the beginning and middle, but the ending is determined.

Even moreso, the only way to guarantee the ending is to do away with actually free will. In your view, people do not have the free will to ultimately keep from the Creator's desired ending of them choosing truth, life, whatever terms fit best. We wouldn't have free will.

[bjs1]

There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused.

I have looked over your argument, and here is where I find the fatal flaw. You have left out a third option: Intentional choice. Intentional choice is neither completely random nor caused. Choice means to evaluate circumstances and conditions, consider competing actions, and then make a decisions to take a specific action based on those factors.

You have given no reason why choice was not included as one of the ways that an action can take place. You have left it out without justification.

In logic this is called begging the question. You have assumed that your position is true, and then used that assumption as a premise in your argument. You argument cannot establish that there is no free will without first assuming a priori that there is no free will.

[Miles]

There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused.

I have looked over your argument, and here is where I find the fatal flaw. You have left out a third option: Intentional choice. Intentional choice is neither completely random nor caused. Choice means to evaluate circumstances and conditions, consider competing actions, and then make a decisions to take a specific action based on those factors.

Because choice doesn't qualify as an option. Choice and choosing do not exist. They are illusions, which are no different than any other concept demanded by free will: "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." Thing is, you didn't wish differently because of the nature of the antecedent cause/effect events that led up to the moment of doing. Had the nature of these cause/effect events been different perhaps you would have done differently, but they weren't, so couldn't have.

Like all other actions they arise because they are brought into being by prior casual events. As I replied to Mrs.badham in post #4, "So why do you "choose" one over the other? Just an instance of pure randomness?" No.
What you're doing by suggesting that choice as some kind of alternative is to forget why we do what we do---or, to put it in your vernacular, why we choose what we choose. The WHY being the issue of contention here. If you posit choice as an alternative the question still remains, "Why did you choose this rather than that? There has to be some kind of operative agent behind it, so what do you suggest? Why does "pick up the orange" come to mind and not "pick up the apple"? Simply asserting that it was a choice says nothing because choosing has to have a reason behind it that answers the "WHY does it operate as it does?"

In logic this is called begging the question. You have assumed that your position is true, and then used that assumption as a premise in your argument.

Not at all, I simply don't see any other reasonable options. The only feasible ones being determinism and utter randomness. However, if you have a credible third option I'm all ears, but "choice" simply doesn't qualify.

You've left your "choice" hanging in the wind without explanation. Can't do that.


.

[William]

A being that only allows its creatures to live if they do everything right "in the end" is not loving to me. It's controlling. It's not as controlling as a being who makes sure every step along the path is done right, but it's still controlling. True love risks the choices of others even if that creature will not reach goodness in the end, while true love wills their good the whole time.

Correct and in line with my image of The Creator only my argument re that you seemed to have skipped over in order to reach the conclusion you have.

I don't understand what you mean about me skipping over something to reach my conclusion.

The doesn't surprise me.

I understand you to have said that The Creator would only be loving if The Creator knew that everything would come out right in the end.

I understand that I have said that The Creator would not have created this universe if The Creator didn't know that everyone would eventually find their way through its complexity...

If so, then what I said above is not in line with your beliefs about The Creator.

Only because you appear to have misunderstood what I wrote. I said I agreed that "A being that only allows its creatures to live if they do everything right "in the end" ..."

Because to me, that is the general Christian belief about The Creator and I reject that belief about the Creator because I agree that, that image of The Creator is false...

"...is not loving to me. It's controlling."

Is correct and I agree.

Above I am saying that a Creator who will only bring life about if the Creator knows all will end perfectly good for every creature, is controlling. That Creator isn't risking anything and without the risk, there is no true love.

To me the above captures the essence of General Christian Thinking and consequential beliefs.

"Without risk there is no 'true love' " One would have to assume then that Risk will have to be present in all situations if in all situations there has to exist "True Love".

The Creator is never at Risk and The Creator is always in a state of "True Love"...so in that your argument needs to be expanded in order that confusion does not have the opportunity to nest...

We are like the one reading a book. We don't know the stories ending, but if we believe that the stories author only writes happy endings, we at least know the author is not evil.

I think life is more co-creative than that. God allows us to have a say in shaping the ending.

As does The Creator. I see no conflict here.

That isn't how it seems. From your beliefs, it seems that the Creator doesn't create unless the Creator's end game picture (of all people reaching perfection) is guaranteed to occur. That's determining the ending, the ending must be X or the Creator won't create. In your view, sure, we help shape the beginning and middle, but the ending is determined.

It is like aligning two lenses. The lens which represents The Creator [the Author of the book] who knows the how the story ends - with the individual readers lens who happens to be a character in The Creators story.
It is up to that individual character to come to that realization, and the story is long enough that this is allowed to occur...for the story does not end for the reader just because she/he shehe ends their experience in this universe [chapter of] said story.

So one can say that how the story unfolds is up to each individual to decide and have the experience of writing their own "endings" but those endings are never 'The End'.
So there are two perspectives - the one which 'already knows exactly how each of these stories is going to go [in relation to the overall story] and the one who does not already know because they are actually within the story and can only read the page they are on and any clues they have gained from the Chapter they are in which allows them to realistically anticipate something of the next chapter...

Even moreso, the only way to guarantee the ending is to do away with actually free will.

Only in relation to particular endings wherein the individual Character gets to decide it wants an actual ending with in mind this 'ending' is simply the same as saying 'this is the ending I prefer for myself." Free will all the way to that point where the character no longer requires 'Free Will' - such as for those who want to spend all eternity simply on their faces worshiping a particular image of The Creator atop of a Glorious throne construction...but still this is end of chapter not end of story.

[There is no end of story]

These become a sideline note in relation to the overall story - something along the lines of "And those who chose that end, are left to that experience while all others continued to be aligned to the greater story being experienced..."

In your view, people do not have the free will to ultimately keep from the Creator's desired ending of them choosing truth, life, whatever terms fit best. We wouldn't have free will.

I do not understand how you reached that conclusion in relation to my view, other than you seem to be confusing my view with your own view.

Part of my own view is that the story does not end for those who want the particular ending they chose for themselves in relation to forever worshiping their image of The Creator...
It would not be an act pf love on The Creators part to allow that illusion to have its way forever - but rather to allow for this to occur for as long as it will.
In this, The Creator has written into The Overarching Story, that from time to time these ones will be visited by those who have chosen to perform the task of visiting in order to give these ones the information required for them to remove themselves from the self enforced illusion they have believed in and created for themselves to experience.

It is therefore an act of lovingkindness to inject information into the individuals creation which has them doubting the sincerity [reality] of that which they have created for themselves to experience.

[The Tanager]

Above I am saying that a Creator who will only bring life about if the Creator knows all will end perfectly good for every creature, is controlling. That Creator isn't risking anything and without the risk, there is no true love.

To me the above captures the essence of General Christian Thinking and consequential beliefs.

Universalism, that all will end perfectly good for every creature, is not general Christian thinking and renders consequences ultimately pointless.

In your view, people do not have the free will to ultimately keep from the Creator's desired ending of them choosing truth, life, whatever terms fit best. We wouldn't have free will.

I do not understand how you reached that conclusion in relation to my view, other than you seem to be confusing my view with your own view.

In my view people can choose eternal separation from God, which keeps them from the Creator's desired ending for them. In your view people cannot choose eternal separation from the Creator. If they could, then (as you've said) the Creator would not have created in the first place.

[William]

Above I am saying that a Creator who will only bring life about if the Creator knows all will end perfectly good for every creature, is controlling. That Creator isn't risking anything and without the risk, there is no true love.

To me the above captures the essence of General Christian Thinking and consequential beliefs.

Universalism, that all will end perfectly good for every creature, is not general Christian thinking and renders consequences ultimately pointless.

That's what I said. We agree.

Where we likely will not agree has to do with consequence being something to go through and grow through - to learn off of.
"Universalism" as you call it, includes the aspect of consequence, and the final consequence is that all involved will end perfectly good.
That - in essence - is why the creator is good and perfect.

In your view, people do not have the free will to ultimately keep from the Creator's desired ending of them choosing truth, life, whatever terms fit best. We wouldn't have free will.

I do not understand how you reached that conclusion in relation to my view, other than you seem to be confusing my view with your own view.

In my view people can choose eternal separation from God, which keeps them from the Creator's desired ending for them.

In my view also - only their choice is not something they will find helpful if it were forever. That is why there are attempts made on occasion to allow for them to have access to more information than they previously had access to when they made the initial choice to "choose eternal separation from" The Creator.

The other evidence regarding that is we are not the flesh. We are the spirit within the flesh having an experience of being human animals.
Because The Creator is not separate from The Creation, all spirits are connected with The Creator as aspects of The Creator which The Creator has used in order to experience The Creation from within The Creation.

[Christian Thinking generally balks at this type of idea as being "Pagan" - "Cultish" - "Evil" ]

So to allow any aspects [spirits] to choose eternal separation from The Creator, cannot be an option. At least not one that is real. But it can be something which can be experienced as real - with the missing information injected into that experience as and when requested...

In your view people cannot choose eternal separation from the Creator. If they could, then (as you've said) the Creator would not have created in the first place.

In my view the whole experience is The Creator losing Itself within The Creation as a matter of personal choice. But the point of the exercise was not to lose anything of The Creator in the process. The failsafe being, that The Creator knew before making and then taking that ride, that everything would work out perfect and good - the process of discovering Oneself from a point of view within a Creation set up to make that happen, would be a real hoot.

In my view people can choose eternal separation from God, which keeps them from the Creator's desired ending for them.

And again - spirits [people as you call them] can also choose to fall on their faces and worship false representations of The Creator for eternity, but eventually they too will be given access to the information they thought they didn't need...and so hid it from themselves...

Both these reactions [consequences] are an expression of those aspects [spirits] of The Creator who are simply not ready to accept what it is they must find within The Creator... and so make up their own images or refuse to acknowledge The Creator in any way. Doing these things 'forever', is not possible in relation to Reality…

Free Will cannot override What Is I Am. It cannot make The Creator into someone The Creator is not. It does not have such power.