[W:280] Free Will

[Aunt Antifa]

The existence of hell doesn’t control people. The possibility of partying for eternity in hell as punishment isn’t inconsistent with free will.

Of course it is. It’s not free will. If I tell you to sit in a chair if you want ice cream or you can sit in a scalding bathtub and get burned - except FOREVER - that’s not free will. That sounds more like ignorant men trying to control even more ignorant people.

Yipes.

 

[Nickyjo]

Free will is limited to a certain degree by our circumstances, abilities, and options. But we do travel our life's path in an undetermined manner guided by our desires, genetics and attitude.

I agree with hermit that there have to be consequences for our actions, both positive and negative, for us to learn. I don't believe there's any punishment after this life, death is enough.

Good analysis. But granting there is a God, and he is the God of Allah’s mercy or of the Sermon on the Mount, doubt he condemns anyone to eternal fire. Yes, God the Father was a vengeful right-wing SOB who supported genocide, but his Son balanced him as a bleeding heart liberal. The Holy Spirit was like ignored Fredo from The Godfather, there to run errands (Pentecost, the Annunciation) and to break the inevitable tie votes.

 

[NotreDame]

Of course it is. It’s not free will. If I tell you to sit in a chair if you want ice cream or you can sit in a scalding bathtub and get burned - except FOREVER - that’s not free will. That sounds more like ignorant men trying to control even more ignorant people.

Yipes.

Free will means, in its simplest iteration, the choices made by a person are result of the person, i.e. the person is the cause of the choice, the person is the only cause of the choice. In your example, the person is the cause for choosing between ice cream or a scalding bathtub, and they can and do make the choice, and they alone make the choice between the two. Your example doesn’t demonstrate free will doesn’t exist, but rather your example at best illustrates a person will choose one or the other, and the person alone is the cause for one of the two choices. So, even in your example, free will exists and cams exist. Free will doesn’t mean freedom from consequences of decisions.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Free will means, in its simplest iteration, the choices made by a person are result of the person, i.e. the person is the cause of the choice, the person is the only cause of the choice. In your example, the person is the cause for choosing between ice cream or a scalding bathtub, and they can and do make the choice, and they alone make the choice between the two. Your example doesn’t demonstrate free will doesn’t exist, but rather your example at best illustrates a person will choose one or the other, and the person alone is the cause for one of the two choices. So, even in your example, free will exists and cams exist. Free will doesn’t mean freedom from consequences of decisions.

The decisions the bible punishes for are arbirtrary with logic born of the time the book was written. It’s designed for control. Morality is dictated by the times, not the bible.

Always has been.

 

[Daisy]

Free will doesn’t mean freedom from consequences of decisions.

That is it in a nutshell...people falsely believe free will is void of all consequences, that they can do as they please, with no ill results, which it is not...

 

[calamity]

That is it in a nutshell...people falsely believe free will is void of all consequences, that they can do as they please, with no ill results, which it is not...

Yeah, we get it. It's like disobeying a parent, a rather Freudian conundrum, if we look at it psychoanalytically.

 

[Lovebug]

Yeah, we get it. It's like disobeying a parent, a rather Freudian conundrum, if we look at it psychoanalytically.

Too much time on your hand?

 

[Daisy]

Yeah, we get it. It's like disobeying a parent, a rather Freudian conundrum, if we look at it psychoanalytically.

C'mon Cal...you're smarter than that...it is a law of nature set in motion by Jehovah God Himself...you reap what you sow...fact...

 

[Cordelier]

Except, as Alvin Platinga explains, the quality of omnipotent doesn’t literally mean God can be expected to do anything. God cannot create square circles. Neither can God be expected to create beings with free will that would never choose evil. Satan chose to rebel, not necessarily because of any weakness, but because he’d rather rule in exile than serve any longer in Heaven.

I look at it this way - God represents perfect wisdom; Satan represents perfect intelligence. This dichotomy explains why each of them perceive "imperfection" differently. To Satan, imperfection is a weakness to be exploited. To God, imperfection is a strength in itself - to be perfect in all things is to make even yourself a prisoner of determinism. When you look at the Hebrew God, He isn't perfect... He makes mistakes, He displays remorse, and He even sometimes changes His mind. It is only in Christianity that we demand God be perceived as being perfect in all things. I think this is a fundamental flaw in Christianity (probably resulting from our relative lack of wisdom in comparison to Judaism) that has no real bearing in either Old Testament or New Testament scripture.

Look at the dichotomy in our own mortal existence - man's capacity to do evil is measured by the extent his intelligence outstrips his wisdom; his capacity to do good from the converse - does not the wise man always ask "Just because we can, does it necessarily mean we should?"

Satan's downfall resulted from his relentless pursuit of perfection... not being content with never being able to attain God's perfect goodness, he contented himself with attaining perfect evil. This quest is mirrored in the fall of man from the Garden of Eden... no matter how good things were for Adam and Eve, they sought ways in which it could be even better. Of all the creatures of the Earth, we are the only ones who display this trait, and it is part and parcel with the nature of our sentience. It is our original sin.

 

[beancounter]

IMO, people have free will within limits. Those limits are a combination of social norms/expectations and personal experiences that "push" them in certain directions when making choices.

 

[calamity]

Too much time on your hand?

Nah, kind of busy tonight. Hence, I’m only doing drive-bys.

 

[humbolt]

No. I’m familiar with the studies discussing chemicals in the brain and stimuli and while it’s been awhile since I explored those studies, undergraduate class exploring the theory of human moral development and behavior, the studies fell short of alleging causation. Rather, the studies inferred the chemicals can create predispositions, but the chemicals didn’t determine our choices, and it is important to note the studies didn’t say a predisposition always existed.

I was being sarcastic. I understand the physiological effects of chemicals and their reactions within us - at least in an educated layman's sense. It may well be that an indicudual's preferences - in diet selection, for example - are somewhat chemically driven. Such influence is not evident in rational and moral decision making. Arguements to the contrary are circular.

 

[NotreDame]

I was being sarcastic. I understand the physiological effects of chemicals and their reactions within us - at least in an educated layman's sense. It may well be that an indicudual's preferences - in diet selection, for example - are somewhat chemically driven. Such influence is not evident in rational and moral decision making. Arguements to the contrary are circular.

I agree. I wasn’t suggesting you didn’t have such an understanding in my post.

 

[NotreDame]

IMO, people have free will within limits. Those limits are a combination of social norms/expectations and personal experiences that "push" them in certain directions when making choices.

Those are not limits on free will. They may influence decision making but the person and the person alone is still making the decision. Free will isn’t being free from influences.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

That is it in a nutshell...people falsely believe free will is void of all consequences, that they can do as they please, with no ill results, which it is not...

That’s not it even a little. We all understand this notion, the problem is the consequences the Bible promises for trespassing it’s antiquated sense of morality suggests that there is one “true” path and any divergence results in an eternity of suffering.

A supreme being holding a gun to your head in order to control behavior is not free will.

 

[beancounter]

Those are not limits on free will. They may influence decision making but the person and the person alone is still making the decision. Free will isn’t being free from influences.

I disagree. External influences and personal experiences can limit your range of choices whether you're aware of it or not.

 

[NotreDame]

The decisions the bible punishes for are arbirtrary with logic born of the time the book was written. It’s designed for control. Morality is dictated by the times, not the bible.

Always has been.

If saying it only made it so! You can claim arbitrary punishment for some decisions exists in the Bible, but such a generic remark, without reference to any specific Biblical example of what you’re talking about, is hollow.

It’s designed for control.

So what? Unless you reside on an island all by yourself, you and everyone else is going to live under and experience something “designed for control” of people. Even in a state of nature, as contemplated by Nozick, Locke, Hobbes, one can encounter at some point a phenomenon “designed for control.” One such phenomenon, in the state of nature, would be people living in groups for, inter alia, to deter people outside their group from certain behaviors. Of course, the group itself is “designed to control” people in the group. The hunting and gathering societies is a good illustration.

So, the Bible “designed for control” is but a truism, hardly a criticism.

Morality is dictated by the times, not the bible.

Do you realize why this is an inconsistent statement?

 

[NotreDame]

I disagree. External influences and personal experiences can limit your range of choices whether you're aware of it or not.

But your disagreement is flawed. Limiting a range of choices leaves choices to be made! If I only have two options to choose from, as opposed to ten, then I still have two options, and the fact I lack 10 doesn’t change the fact I have two, and lacking more doesn’t mean I am not the one making the decision between the two and I alone am not the one making the decision.

If I walk into an ice cream shop and they serve only chocolate, nothing else, I’m presented with choosing chocolate ice cream or no ice cream in that moment. I and I alone will make the decision between the two in that moment and I alone am the cause for whatever choice is made of ice or no ice cream. The fact the shop doesn’t have 32 flavors like Baskin Robins doesn’t mean I’m no longer making the choice and doesn’t mean I alone am not the cause for the choice.

We very much have free will, whether the choices are several or two.

 

[RAMOSS]

Those are not limits on free will. They may influence decision making but the person and the person alone is still making the decision. Free will isn’t being free from influences.

That's an interesting speculation. How can you test that? Can you prove or disprove that thesis, or even theoritically come up with a way to show that free will exists or does not exist?

 

[NotreDame]

That's an interesting speculation. How can you test that? Can you prove or disprove that thesis, or even theoritically come up with a way to show that free will exists or does not exist?

Well, I have no evidence I’m a robot. I have no evidence this reality and myself are all a result of Cartesian’s Demon. When I decide to call a specific witness, I have no evidence someone else preprogrammed me to make such a decision. When I choose to visit Florida for vacation, I have no evidence I was preprogrammed to choose Florida. Which is to say the lack of evidence gives me good reason to believe I’m not preprogrammed, this isn’t a Cartesian Demon reality, and I’m not a robot.

At the present, what I have available to me based on my life long experiences in this reality is that I and others are the cause for our choices. Can I be 100% positive? Of course not, not even science and the most confident scientific belief or scientist can be 100% positive. But a lack of 100% certainty isn’t an impediment to drawing specific conclusions about this reality.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

If saying it only made it so! You can claim arbitrary punishment for some decisions exists in the Bible, but such a generic remark, without reference to any specific Biblical example of what you’re talking about, is hollow.



So what? Unless you reside on an island all by yourself, you and everyone else is going to live under and experience something “designed for control” of people. Even in a state of nature, as contemplated by Nozick, Locke, Hobbes, one can encounter at some point a phenomenon “designed for control.” One such phenomenon, in the state of nature, would be people living in groups for, inter alia, to deter people outside their group from certain behaviors. Of course, the group itself is “designed to control” people in the group. The hunting and gathering societies is a good illustration.

So, the Bible “designed for control” is but a truism, hardly a criticism.



Do you realize why this is an inconsistent statement?

So “free” will is about control and you’re *still* arguing the point with me.

Okay?

 

[NotreDame]

So “free” will is about control and you’re *still* arguing the point with me.

Okay?

How you deduce, from my remarks, that free will is about control is a mystery.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

How you deduce, from my remarks, that free will is about control is a mystery.

From your own words on the screen that I read which said the bible is designed for control.

 

[OrphanSlug]

How you deduce, from my remarks, that free will is about control is a mystery.

Because free will is just a concept, in the absolute it does not exist. Just a term to make a point about something else, usually that something else is controls.

 

[NotreDame]

From your own words on the screen that I read which said the bible is designed for control.

Designed for control doesn’t mean control, such that a person does X because they are preprogrammed to do X or are a robot. Hence, the fact there’s quite a bit of not being controlled in the Bible despite the Bible designed for control. Why? Free will.

Government is designed for control. Despite this design, there’s quite a bit of non-conformity, and the non-conformity is the product of free will.

Again, free will is the person is the cause for the choice, for their actions, and the person is the only cause. The fact there are phenomenon designed to control people isn’t inconsistent with free will. Rather, the phenomena designed to control are conceived because of and in response to free will.

Again, how you conclude free will is about “control” from what I said is a mystery.