Does Free Will Exist in the Bible?

[Quantrill]

Luftwaffle

 

I am not proving your point because my will is that the situation does not occur.   But the situation occurs anyway outside of my will forcing me to exercise my will.  Meaning my will is not free.

 

Only God has free will.

 

Quantrill

Edited March 2, 2014 by Quantrill

[LuftWaffle]

 

 

 

 

 

There is either free will or some form of determinism. So, if you deny that the will is free, then you're left with determinism.

 

If man is unable to do the right thing then it's impossible for man to be guilty of anything. Any deterministic system of the will removes the responsibility from man and places it upon the agent doing the determining.

 

We see this in our legal systems everyday. If a harmful action is outside someone's control, then we call it an accident. For instance if someone drives a car and the tire burst and the car skids into a pedestrian hurting that person, then it's called an accident, because it couldn't have been avoided. If on the other hand the accident could have been avoided, then the driver is culpable.

 

 

If you can't control the things that come your way causing you to make decisions you don't want to, or have to, or want to, then how is it your will is free?  It isn't.  Only God has free will.  We have a will. Again, I am not saying we are not responsible for our actions and decisons.  But our will is not free.

 

Quantrill

 

You're redefining free will to mean maximal autonomy. Such a definition is incorrect.

No standard definition of free will requires that one be able to control every situation.

 

If you wish to continue using a different definition of free will, that's fine, I'll simply replace your word "free will" with "maximal autonomy" and nod in agreement.

But keep in mind that the topic under discussion isn't whether human being have maximal autonomy, but rather whether humans have free will as per the standard philosophical definition of libertarian free will.

 

Determinism vs Free Will

How about a scale, 0-10 with

0= You can't do nothing.

1= You cain't hardly do nothing.

10 = You stand over the Key to Time & dictate omnipotently?

5 = you are impelled by opposing forces to the point that you don't know what to do; so you are stuck forever in a feedback cycle, pecking around the equilibrium.

 

Or you might have an influence scale with the Zeitgeist blowing on you at different intensities.

0 = no Zeitgeist, no persuaders.

10 = completely controlled by the politically correct.

 

 

Hi Enoch,

 

Notice how your summary of free will vs determinism still deals with what one can do, in other words abilities, and not the real issue which is human will?

I'm not sure how to better explain this other than simply stating that no definition of free will involve what actions one is capable of performing.

 

I didn't catch the zeitgeist statement, would you mind clarifying?

[LuftWaffle]

 

 

 

 

For example:   Two of your children are drowning but are so far apart that you can only swim to one and resucue them.  You have to choose.   You have a will, but it is not free.  The situations surrounding you dictate a decision.  

 

This confuses will with ability. One only has the ability to save one, but one might will to save both. I think there is a different between will and ability.

 

 

No, if I am the father, my will is that I am not in that position. Or, my will is that I save both. But my will can't be done.   I don't want to make the decision.  But I have no choice.  I must decide.   My will is not 'free'.  It is locked into the situations I am given.  And the situations we are given are beyond us.

 

Quantrill

 

You're proving my point by when you say "My will can't be done". In other words there is your will, and then there is ability. Those are two separate things.

 

 

No, my will is that such a situation doesn't occur.  That is my will.

 

Quantrill

 

 

If a situation forces you to do something against your will, then isn't it obvious that your will is not the same as what the situation determines?

[EnochBethany]

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is either free will or some form of determinism. So, if you deny that the will is free, then you're left with determinism.

 

If man is unable to do the right thing then it's impossible for man to be guilty of anything. Any deterministic system of the will removes the responsibility from man and places it upon the agent doing the determining.

 

We see this in our legal systems everyday. If a harmful action is outside someone's control, then we call it an accident. For instance if someone drives a car and the tire burst and the car skids into a pedestrian hurting that person, then it's called an accident, because it couldn't have been avoided. If on the other hand the accident could have been avoided, then the driver is culpable.

 

 

If you can't control the things that come your way causing you to make decisions you don't want to, or have to, or want to, then how is it your will is free?  It isn't.  Only God has free will.  We have a will. Again, I am not saying we are not responsible for our actions and decisons.  But our will is not free.

 

Quantrill

 

You're redefining free will to mean maximal autonomy. Such a definition is incorrect.

No standard definition of free will requires that one be able to control every situation.

 

If you wish to continue using a different definition of free will, that's fine, I'll simply replace your word "free will" with "maximal autonomy" and nod in agreement.

But keep in mind that the topic under discussion isn't whether human being have maximal autonomy, but rather whether humans have free will as per the standard philosophical definition of libertarian free will.

 

Determinism vs Free Will

How about a scale, 0-10 with

0= You can't do nothing.

1= You cain't hardly do nothing.

10 = You stand over the Key to Time & dictate omnipotently?

5 = you are impelled by opposing forces to the point that you don't know what to do; so you are stuck forever in a feedback cycle, pecking around the equilibrium.

 

Or you might have an influence scale with the Zeitgeist blowing on you at different intensities.

0 = no Zeitgeist, no persuaders.

10 = completely controlled by the politically correct.

 

 

Hi Enoch,

 

Notice how your summary of free will vs determinism still deals with what one can do, in other words abilities, and not the real issue which is human will?

I'm not sure how to better explain this other than simply stating that no definition of free will involve what actions one is capable of performing.

 

I didn't catch the zeitgeist statement, would you mind clarifying?

 

Isn't exerting will doing summut?

You speak of free will.

I refer to the fact that men are influenced.

The Zeitgeist is the set of beliefs dominant at a given time.

These pressure us to think a certain way.

[LuftWaffle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is either free will or some form of determinism. So, if you deny that the will is free, then you're left with determinism.

 

If man is unable to do the right thing then it's impossible for man to be guilty of anything. Any deterministic system of the will removes the responsibility from man and places it upon the agent doing the determining.

 

We see this in our legal systems everyday. If a harmful action is outside someone's control, then we call it an accident. For instance if someone drives a car and the tire burst and the car skids into a pedestrian hurting that person, then it's called an accident, because it couldn't have been avoided. If on the other hand the accident could have been avoided, then the driver is culpable.

 

 

If you can't control the things that come your way causing you to make decisions you don't want to, or have to, or want to, then how is it your will is free?  It isn't.  Only God has free will.  We have a will. Again, I am not saying we are not responsible for our actions and decisons.  But our will is not free.

 

Quantrill

 

You're redefining free will to mean maximal autonomy. Such a definition is incorrect.

No standard definition of free will requires that one be able to control every situation.

 

If you wish to continue using a different definition of free will, that's fine, I'll simply replace your word "free will" with "maximal autonomy" and nod in agreement.

But keep in mind that the topic under discussion isn't whether human being have maximal autonomy, but rather whether humans have free will as per the standard philosophical definition of libertarian free will.

 

Determinism vs Free Will

How about a scale, 0-10 with

0= You can't do nothing.

1= You cain't hardly do nothing.

10 = You stand over the Key to Time & dictate omnipotently?

5 = you are impelled by opposing forces to the point that you don't know what to do; so you are stuck forever in a feedback cycle, pecking around the equilibrium.

 

Or you might have an influence scale with the Zeitgeist blowing on you at different intensities.

0 = no Zeitgeist, no persuaders.

10 = completely controlled by the politically correct.

 

 

Hi Enoch,

 

Notice how your summary of free will vs determinism still deals with what one can do, in other words abilities, and not the real issue which is human will?

I'm not sure how to better explain this other than simply stating that no definition of free will involve what actions one is capable of performing.

 

I didn't catch the zeitgeist statement, would you mind clarifying?

 

Isn't exerting will doing summut?

You speak of free will.

I refer to the fact that men are influenced.

The Zeitgeist is the set of beliefs dominant at a given time.

These pressure us to think a certain way.

 

Okay, I'm not sure what your point is though, but influences by definition do not determine, but rather "influence".

 

Free will doesn't mean devoid of influence either. Sometimes influences can be very strong, but influences aren't causes. If a young man is influenced by a desire to have sex to go out and rape somebody, such a person is still held accountable, because even though there may be an influence, he ought to have done otherwise. Ought implies can. One cannot be held accountable for a moral duty that one isn't able to keep. So if a person is caused to do something such that they couldn't have done otherwise, then they are not held accountable. Where there is influence though, this doesn't remove accountability.

 

In terms of whether exerting will is an action. It depends what you mean by exert.

[Quantrill]

Luftwaffle

 

Concerning your post #67, when you asked "if it is not assumption, what is it?"  I repeat.  Why do you call it assumption?  Are the Scriptures not proof?

 

When Adam and Eve exercised their will, it wasn't free.  Gods command and Satans influence is proof that it was not free.  Their will was forced into making a decision.  Their will was not free.  It was influenced by outside sources.

 

Quantrill

Edited March 2, 2014 by Quantrill

[EnochBethany]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is either free will or some form of determinism. So, if you deny that the will is free, then you're left with determinism.

 

If man is unable to do the right thing then it's impossible for man to be guilty of anything. Any deterministic system of the will removes the responsibility from man and places it upon the agent doing the determining.

 

We see this in our legal systems everyday. If a harmful action is outside someone's control, then we call it an accident. For instance if someone drives a car and the tire burst and the car skids into a pedestrian hurting that person, then it's called an accident, because it couldn't have been avoided. If on the other hand the accident could have been avoided, then the driver is culpable.

 

 

If you can't control the things that come your way causing you to make decisions you don't want to, or have to, or want to, then how is it your will is free?  It isn't.  Only God has free will.  We have a will. Again, I am not saying we are not responsible for our actions and decisons.  But our will is not free.

 

Quantrill

 

You're redefining free will to mean maximal autonomy. Such a definition is incorrect.

No standard definition of free will requires that one be able to control every situation.

 

If you wish to continue using a different definition of free will, that's fine, I'll simply replace your word "free will" with "maximal autonomy" and nod in agreement.

But keep in mind that the topic under discussion isn't whether human being have maximal autonomy, but rather whether humans have free will as per the standard philosophical definition of libertarian free will.

 

Determinism vs Free Will

How about a scale, 0-10 with

0= You can't do nothing.

1= You cain't hardly do nothing.

10 = You stand over the Key to Time & dictate omnipotently?

5 = you are impelled by opposing forces to the point that you don't know what to do; so you are stuck forever in a feedback cycle, pecking around the equilibrium.

 

Or you might have an influence scale with the Zeitgeist blowing on you at different intensities.

0 = no Zeitgeist, no persuaders.

10 = completely controlled by the politically correct.

 

 

Hi Enoch,

 

Notice how your summary of free will vs determinism still deals with what one can do, in other words abilities, and not the real issue which is human will?

I'm not sure how to better explain this other than simply stating that no definition of free will involve what actions one is capable of performing.

 

I didn't catch the zeitgeist statement, would you mind clarifying?

 

Isn't exerting will doing summut?

You speak of free will.

I refer to the fact that men are influenced.

The Zeitgeist is the set of beliefs dominant at a given time.

These pressure us to think a certain way.

 

Okay, I'm not sure what your point is though, but influences by definition do not determine, but rather "influence".

 

Free will doesn't mean devoid of influence either. Sometimes influences can be very strong, but influences aren't causes. If a young man is influenced by a desire to have sex to go out and rape somebody, such a person is still held accountable, because even though there may be an influence, he ought to have done otherwise. Ought implies can. One cannot be held accountable for a moral duty that one isn't able to keep. So if a person is caused to do something such that they couldn't have done otherwise, then they are not held accountable. Where there is influence though, this doesn't remove accountability.

 

In terms of whether exerting will is an action. It depends what you mean by exert.

 

I am confident that if you sign a contract with a gun to your head,

then you tell the judge in court that you did not sign it of free will, the judge is not going to tell you that you don't use the term "will" correctly.

[Quantrill]

Luftwaffle

 

Concerning your post number 68, Im changing nothing.  I am showing you that man does not have free will.  If you think that I am changing a definition, then what is the 'will' of man?   As compared to what you are calling 'free will'?  

 

All that you describe as 'free will' can be accomplished under the 'will' of man.  It doesn't need the term 'free'.  When you say 'free' then you are saying mans will is free from any other influence.  And that is not so.

 

As I said, only God has free will.

 

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Luftwaffle

 

Concerning your post # 72, situations that force me to do something against my will, prove there is no free will.  My will is determined by the situations to decide from.

 

Quantrill

[enoob57]

God 'IS' The Will... God 'IS' in submission to Himself as He 'IS' The Only One

in boundless exist doing so perfectly in all presence of being...

1 Kings 8:60

1 Chron 17:20

2 Chron 6:14

Ps 100:3

Isa 44:6

Isa 44:8

Isa 45:5

Mark 12:32

1 Cor 8:4

Col 1:16

Love, Steven