Does Free Will Exist in the Bible?

[LuftWaffle]

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

 

Where in scripture can I see that Adam and Eve were forced to eat of the forbidden tree? They were influenced, yes, but as I pointed out influence doesn't negate free will.

I would say that scripture actually shows the opposite, that mankind does have free will. Mankind are generally the initiators of their own actions, which is precisely why the bible contains numerous commands. Commands do not make sense unless the agents in questions are capable (in principle) of keeping those commands.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

I am also confident that a judge doesn't define free will to mean "the ability to do anything".

[LuftWaffle]

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, you are not showing me that man doesn't have free will, if you equivocate "free will" with maximal autonomy.

 

I define free will simply as the capability to make choice with a framework of possibilities. This is roughly in line with the standard definition of libertarian free will.

 

Thus far free will has been defined in many different ways such as "free from any other influence", "the ability to do whatever one desires" etc. I don't subscribe to those definitions, and if you do, then I agree that man doesn't have free will.

Free will however, in a philosophical discussion on the nature of man, doesn't mean any of that. Instead it asks whether man is generally the initiator of his actions(free will) or whether man's actions are wholly caused by forces outside the agent (determinism).

[LuftWaffle]

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

 

Again free will doesn't mean the ability to control all situations, but rather the capability of making choices within a framework of possibilities. I agree that our choices are dependant on circumstances, but we have choices nonetheless. If there is no free will then nobody makes any choices. Instead our actions would simply be events caused by other events, like dominoes falling.

[LuftWaffle]

God 'IS' The Will...

 

If that is true, then by whose will do I believe in- and argue for the existence of free will, God's will or my own?

 

In other words, are my posts about free will my own or are they really determined by God?

[Guest]

God 'IS' The Will...

 

If that is true, then by whose will do I believe in- and argue for the existence of free will, God's will or my own?

 

In other words, are my posts about free will my own or are they really determined by God?

 

lol

 

~

 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

~

 

Perhaps The Core Question Isn't Really About Man's Free Will

 

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22:17

 

But Whither Or Not God Keeps His Word

 

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

 

Perhaps?

[LuftWaffle]

EnochBethany and Quantrill,

 

It seems both of you define "Free will" in terms of what philosophers call maximal autonomy. Both of you have given examples of where a person is in a situation they don't desire to be in and as such are forced to make a decision they'd rather not make. This you both claim, is proof that mankind has no free will. Am I correct so far?

 

I have a question regarding that: When God faced the choice of sending His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world, or letting His Son live and losing the rebels whom He loved, is that a situation that God wanted to be in, or was that decision necessitated by our disobedience?

 

Would God have preferred that mankind not sin, so that no sacrifice be needed, or did God prefer that mankind do sin, so that a sacrifice would be necessary?

[Quantrill]

EnochBethany and Quantrill,

 

It seems both of you define "Free will" in terms of what philosophers call maximal autonomy. Both of you have given examples of where a person is in a situation they don't desire to be in and as such are forced to make a decision they'd rather not make. This you both claim, is proof that mankind has no free will. Am I correct so far?

 

I have a question regarding that: When God faced the choice of sending His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world, or letting His Son live and losing the rebels whom He loved, is that a situation that God wanted to be in, or was that decision necessitated by our disobedience?

 

Would God have preferred that mankind not sin, so that no sacrifice be needed, or did God prefer that mankind do sin, so that a sacrifice would be necessary?

 

In all of your posts all you have shown is that what you describe as 'free will' is nothing but the 'will' of man.  Man making decisions and is responsible for those decisions. Man has a will.

 

Explain why you need the term 'free' added to it.

 

I am saying man has a will.  Which is what you are calling 'free will'.   I am saying man has no control over things coming into his life which act upon his will.  Because of these things, man is forced many times to make decisions that he does not want to make.  His will is in play, but it is not free.  God's will is free.   Nothing influences His will.  

 

God faced no decision whether or not He should send His Son.  That was always His will.  Free from any influence.

 

If  the fall was not part of God's plan , then why did He put Satan there in the garden?  And why place the command on the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Did Satan sneek up on God? 

 

Quantrill

Edited March 3, 2014 by Quantrill

[LuftWaffle]

 

EnochBethany and Quantrill,

 

It seems both of you define "Free will" in terms of what philosophers call maximal autonomy. Both of you have given examples of where a person is in a situation they don't desire to be in and as such are forced to make a decision they'd rather not make. This you both claim, is proof that mankind has no free will. Am I correct so far?

 

I have a question regarding that: When God faced the choice of sending His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world, or letting His Son live and losing the rebels whom He loved, is that a situation that God wanted to be in, or was that decision necessitated by our disobedience?

 

Would God have preferred that mankind not sin, so that no sacrifice be needed, or did God prefer that mankind do sin, so that a sacrifice would be necessary?

 

In none of your posts have you shown that what you describe as 'free will' is nothing but the 'will' of man.  Man making decisions and is responsible for those decisions. Man has a will.

 

Explain why you need the term 'free' added to it.

 

I am saying man has a will.  Which is what you are calling 'free will'.   I am saying man has no control over things coming into his life which act upon his will.  Because of these things, man is forced many times to make decisions that he does not want to make.  His will is in play, but it is not free.  God's will is free.   Nothing influences His will.  

 

God faced no decision whether or not He should send His Son.  That was always His will.  Free from any influence.

 

If  the fall was not part of God's plan , then why did He put Satan there?  And why place the command on the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Did Satan sneek up on God? 

 

Quantrill

 

 

I'm using the standard philosophical definition of libertarian will commonly referred to known as free will. If my definition is foreign to you then perhaps it is because you've been using an incorrect definition, or that you misunderstood what the term "free will" means. While I can't speak for the OP I'm almost certain that the OP isn't asking whether or not maximal autonomy exists in the Bible, but instead is asking whether or not we're the originators of our own actions, or whether they're deterministically caused by God.

 

God faced no decision whether or not He should send His Son.  That was always His will.  Free from any influence

Are you saying that Christ's sacrifice was because of our sin, or that our sin is because God wanted to sacrifice Christ?

 

If  the fall was not part of God's plan , then why did He put Satan there?  And why place the command on the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Did Satan sneek up on God? 

Are you saying that Adam's fall was decreed by God, which is why God put satan there?

[Quantrill]

Luftwaffle

 

You didn't answer the question.  Explain why you need 'free' added to 'will', when all you are doing is describing the 'will'?   What makes 'free' necessary?

 

I am saying Christ's sacrifice was always the will of God.  God did not have to react.  It was always His plan.

 

Why do you keep asking me questions but refuse to answer mine?

 

Answer mine first, then I will finish answring yours.

 

Quantrill