Thanks u/Plemethrock
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists. Discuss if every action we do is already predetermined by how our brain is wired, with the environment around us being the inputs.
We can also have a discussion on whether or not humans have souls and analyze the evidence for and against us just being our bodies
(I made an error and had to repost, apologies)
I believe humans have souls and my evidence is biblical which i'm not sure many in here appreciate as a source. I also believe free will exists because God declared it.....correct me if i'm wrong about people not seeing the Bible as a trusted source.
Where did God declare it? The Bible in fact says the opposite that God has numbered all your days before you were born (Psalm 139), that he directs everyone's steps and the apparently random casting of lots (Proverbs 16) and that God creates people for the purpose of saving them or sending them to hell (Romans 9).
Note that free will is not the same as the ability to make choices or personal accountability. Romans 9 says that God holds people accountable even though their choices were predetermined (like the hardening of Pharaoh's heart by God). If one wishes to claim that a person's choices being predetermined entails that they are not morally accountable for their choices then this needs to be argued rather than assumed like free will proponents always do.
I've been under the impression that evil things occur in this world because God gave us free will. I do agree that God has seen past present and future but would that HAVE to mean free will doesn't exist?
The eastern philosophies deal with this quite elegantly imo. They divide things into:
-The Will of Heaven, aka Tianming - this is the path laid down for each soul by God. Call it Destiny, Fate, Predestination, whatever.
-Karma - this is a result or effect of the free will choices we make over our lifetime
So if life is a “Choose your own adventure book” that God authored for us (Will of Heaven), our karma is simply the journey we took along the way
If God knew the future when he created the world then he created things knowing that they would devolve into evil. So then God purposely went ahead and caused all the evil in the world. Does that make God evil? I don't think so, because I think this decision could be justified by the good also caused, but most people aren't comfortable with God being the author of evil.
The idea that God merely permits evil doesn't make sense given that God set everything up knowing how it would turn out, meaning he actively caused everything we witness, not merely permitting it.
As to whether free will exists, that depends how you want to define it and what other things are true. See my top-level comment on this post.
A loving father doesn't coddle his children and make them weak. So why wouldn't our Heavenly Father be the same and give us things to struggle against and grow stronger?
I never said that life doesn't have struggles. Clearly it does. That's separate from whether our will is free or not.
God created all things good. His foreknowledge doesn't make Him an accomplice. What you're saying is basically this: you having children makes you evil, because you have them while knowing they will inevitably suffer and experience evil. But having children is still a net good and you go ahead. What appears bad to us, God uses to make good. Christ was betrayed and crucified but out of this a much greater good came to the world. This is how God operates and us having limited knowledge means we can't foresee and judge how thing ultimately end up. God can do only good because that's His nature.
No, that's a common mistake when critiquing theodicy (problem of evil). Knowing something in advance doesn't make you the cause of it. You conceive of only one type of causality (the domino effect one) - this is the result of materialism being the ruling paradigm in our modern world. But there are other types of causality that were widely accepted before metaphysics was done away with. Humans are secondary causal agents, meaning our will is separate from God's will and what we cause in the world is separate from God's causes.
There's no love without free will but free will inevitably leads to the possibility of evil (not choosing the good). God made us in His image having free will and being capable of love, even at the cost of evil and suffering entering His creation. Therefore love is greater than evil and triumphs in the end when all evil will be destroyed at the final judgement.
The key difference is you or I did not create the universe and all the conditions within it. Evil arises due to the nature of things. We live in a world where essentially every single thing must kill or at the very least rely on death (plants needing decaying organic matter in the soil) to survive. Where primal desires fuel all, or almost all (depending on your perspective) behaviors. Equivocating someone born into this system reproducing to a Being that ostensibly constructed the system this way is not honest
That's the world as we know it after the fall which is cosmic in scope. Before that there was no death or evil. The Earth was paradise, Eden.
Exactly. I'm not the one equivocating though - I specifically said God's uncreated will is the primary cause and our created wills are secondary causes. There's a very clear distinction between God's nature and our human nature.
You are equivocating them by using your hypothetical question of "if your son becomes a murderer are you responsible?" in response to the argument you're responding to. The person having a son did not create the world where murder is possible, where the son will have instincts that drive him to want to commit murder, the human father does not know his son WILL commit murder and let it happen anyway, etc etc. it's a false equivalence whether you want it to be or not
Scripture and tradition alike tell us that it wasn't always that way and science tells us all these things are designed to live optimally in a world without death, but that the use of death is always an adaptation.
Either there is evil and so there is free will, or there is no free will and so there is no evil. You are free to choose the horrid consequences of the latter.
I would be interested to understand how the physiology of say a lion or cheetah work better without death. Remember, plants are alive too so anything eating plants is killing them, they cry out for help when being cut down. And what of decaying organic matter? It seems like you must be working towards a foregone conclusion to find such evidence but I'm open to it so let's get into it.
You are presupposing those are the only options and in doing so you are limiting God's power from omnipotence. Your assertions, to be true, require that He could only create things with either free will and evil or neither. That doesn't sound reasonable for a Being to Whom all of existence is ascribed
You just agreed with my position (that God causing all the evil in the world doesn't make him evil) while claiming to be arguing against me.
That was never my argument. My argument is this. If a non-deterministic action A makes outcome X a certainty when an alternative action B would have made not-X a certainty then A is the ultimate cause of X. If additionally A is performed by an agent who is aware that A will make X happen while B would have avoided X then the agent deliberately causes X. Therefore if God wasn't pre-determined to create a universe that certainly (as proved by his foreknowledge) led to evil (action A leading to X) and could have chose not to create (action B leading to not-X), but yet he did, it follows that God creating the universe was the ultimate cause of evil in the universe. Additionally God was aware this action would lead to evil in the universe while the alternative would have avoided it, so therefore God deliberately caused evil in the universe.
Which part of this argument is wrong? Notice I said nothing about causing evil being evil, God being morally accountable for causing evil or humans lacking accountability for their role in bringing the evil about.
You need to define what a secondary causal agent is. In a row of dominoes ending with a button you can call the second domino a "secondary causal agent" but it doesn't change the fact that if laws of physics are deterministic then the fall of the first domino causes the button to get pressed. Same thing if a general orders a soldier to kill someone - we say the general caused the death, regardless of the fact that there was a soldier who also caused the death and could have opted to disobey orders.
Citation needed. We all know people can love and make choices yet it is conceivable that these things happen via deterministic mental processes. If you say that a deterministic love cannot be love then you are simply defining love to be something that humans may not be capable of.
That's a strawman. I explicitly said God doesn't cause ANY evil in any way shape or form because it's contrary to His nature. Everything God does is good, true and just.
The part that's wrong is that you equivocate between primary and secondary causation. But the argument is not even valid when talking about secondary causation (created causes). Here's a very clear example:
If I have a son and I do a great job being a good father, but still my son, who's now an adult, falls into bad habits and eventually commits murder, am I responsible for the evil caused by him?
I'd say the whole argument as you put it begs the question because it assumes determinism and takes away the ability of real choice from the equation. Just like I said in the comment above - you presuppose physicalist domino-effect causality (A-> B-> C) where each each cause is the predetermined effect of a previous cause and acts a certain with no free will - basically it behaves like an inanimate physical object (so naturally, you arrive to determinism and the circle is complete).
Aristotle is cool and all, but like all ancient philosophers, he took a lot of things for granted because at that point no one was questioning the foundational ideas about metaphysics and epistemology. Many centuries passed before Descartes and later Hume, Kant and the existentialists had the ball rolling questioning foundational beliefs.
Secondary causation refers to the created causes we normally talk about (fire causes heat, choices cause actions, medicine causes healing, etc.) These causes are real and effective, operating according to their own natures.
No, you can't because a domino is an inanimate object and not an agent. Agent refers to a rational being capable making choices which influences other objects and agents in the universe.
That's because in that context, the soldier is supposed to defer his personal assessment and act as a tool, an extension of the higher-up's will. Also, in the many cases soldiers are also held responsible for not disobeying orders on some occasions like the nazi executions. This a deontological and ethical question about when "I was just following orders" is appropriate and when it's not (and who gets to decide where the line is drawn).
But if determinism is true, the general isn't responsible too, because he's simply a domino down the causal chain. Responsibility, justice or any moral judgement is nonsensical in that system.
First of all, if determinism is true it's not simply about people not having free will and choice - that's just the surface of the problem as normies see it. Philosophically, it also leads to the impossibility of knowledge and truth. Why? Because truth necessitates a choice between the true and the false. But if every mind in existence is predetermined, no real evaluation of a given proposition ever takes place (I'm predetermined to say A is true, and you - B is true and at no tie-breaker is possible because C is also predetermined to output either A or B).
If determinism is the case, all that there is is matter governed by predetermined chemical reactions, that are effects of previous reactions and so on going back to the First cause. Where is love in that equation? Do you mean more predetermined chemical reactions? I highly doubt many people will agree on that definition (not an appeal to majority, just saying). Is the water boiling at 100 degrees any different than love? What's the meaningful distinction between me loving something vs the opposite?
You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Love could be defined as an emotion one feels or as a disposition one has towards a thing or as actions one does in service of a thing. None of those definitions would require free will.
https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARwwogdGc/round-table-free-will-does-it-ex/c/4eZDpIRpjE1
You and u/Zyxl are arguing a semantic, primarily the meaning of "cause", but also perceived but unnecessary attributes of limited freewill. The related points above indicate the direction of resolution.
Free will of choice can only operate in-between over/under aka as above/so below aka at the center of balance....others suggest good vs evil to tempt choice into imbalance aka against one another.
Good or evil implies a measurement TAKEN (possession) while ignoring God GIVEN (impression) choice. Given implies knowledge (perception); taking implies forbidden knowledge (suggestion).
Agree implies versus disagree aka a conflict binding free will of choice into imbalance against one another.
God implies delineation given...suggested past; present and future implies measurements taken. One cannot take without ignoring given.
While alive (present)...one cannot perceive ones inception (past) or death (future). Others suggest past and future to invert PRESENCE into PRESENT...the former implies ones essence within motion, while the latter represents an affixed position.
Free cannot "have"; hold onto "meaning" or "do nothing (doesn't)" without contradicting itself aka without binding itself.
Others tempts free will of choice with nothing; meaning and things to have into taking a chance...for the price of given choice.
Neither having; meaning, nor doing nothing represents a natural state, but artificial descriptions to distract from nature...only ones free will of choice can discern the difference between reality (perception) and fiction (suggestion).
De (to divide) clare (to clear) aka clarity by division/divination of all (perceivable) into each one (perception).
...binds clarity within covers if consented (to read) to the suggestion (to author) thereof.
God implies the sound within which speech can be shaped; the line within which words can be drawn, and the giver of choice to bind and cover oneself within books by another.
...implies F (icticious) ACT (action). God implies action; anything within a reaction to either God or one another depending on ones free will of choice. Action sets reaction free...fact binds reaction to one another if held onto.
Name/number/nombre implies the designation of a unit/unus/uni - "one"....there can be only one aka all (singularity) and each one (singular unit) within aka God (all father) and each Christ (anointed one).
a) To note implies "to mark"...which tempts ones free will of choice to take notice by marking self, both of which are confining ones free will of choice to another.
b) God implies same...each being within implies a differentiation aka divination from one another. It's the markings suggested as notes by others which equalizes differences by making alike.
God implies all (sound) for each one (person aka per sonos; by sound) within...few suggest creationism and pluralism to tempt many to ignore God.
If God could create, then that implies more than God...that's a contradiction of the one and only God. All generating each one within implies a transference (inception towards death) of essence (life) aka not a creation, but a transformation aka a transfer (momentum) of form (matter) within action (motion).
God implies motion; Spirit implies momentum, Christ implies matter...suggested creationism aka creatio ex nihilo puts "nothing" aka nihil-ism to the mix, which tempts ones de-nial of everything perceivable.
Claiming contradicts FREE will of choice. If one claims, then one generates denial. If one holds onto, then one binds self. If one takes into possession, then one gets possessed. If one counts, then one becomes accountable to accountants.
To wish implies "to want" while ignoring need aka wishing for more than all God offers...that's denial, which generates fulfillment (filling the mind) aka the burden of sin/syn (together with, jointly; alike).
Free implies apart from one another aka differentiated from one another aka anointed (christened) from one another....others suggest likeness to destroy differences.
Matter (life) within motion (inception towards death) has to be separated from one another to reduce friction against one another. Christ (anointed one) implies the lubrication of each matter aka of each seed within s-oil.
I don’t trust the Bible as a trusted source because the Bible is fairly explicit in its outcomes - that all mains and peoples shall be subservient to the Israelites ie Jews which is what you see unfolding in the modern world. I think that those who see the Bible as a trusted source are subject to trust most fundamental lie. The ‘god’ that you speak of, declared himself god over only one race and decreed that they alone should have sovereignty and stewardship over all other races. He acknowledged the existence of other gods and even declared his tactics to ruin empires and overthrow other cultures and these were so successful that you have people in the modern day swearing fealty to a hostile foreign god and declaring him ‘god’ above all others. Until the god of Israel (ie biblical god) is eradicated from consciousness, I don’t believe there is any push back to true free will
hmmm that doesn't sound like the Bible I've been reading. ESV.
You’ll need to read it more carefully.
Read Isaiah 19 for example. Their blueprint is laid out there quite starkly and they have repeated the trick multiple times throughout history and continue to do so today.
Yeah, welcome back. I don't recall if you ever answered why you named your account after the people you claimed to hate (Jacob/Israel). It's almost like you're revealing who you are in your alleged anti-Semitism. But don't mind me, I won't make a big deal about it.
When the Biblical god is eradicated then pushback to freewill begins, and that's a good thing why? Fatalism or something?
What an unexpected treat, welcome back! Remind us all, who is it that you think is greater than the Most High God?
For Dante Alighieri, the author of the Divine Comedy, the answer lies in a simple yet grand principle; God's love is absolute freedom. Dante explains that the greatest gift God gave humanity was free will.
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:28-39 ESV)
I am speaking the truth in Christ--I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit-- that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’“ “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’“ And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.” (Romans 9:1-29 ESV)
The LORD has made everything for its own end— yes, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16:4 WEBPB)
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.” (Romans 11:1-10 ESV)
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5 ESV)
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. (Psalm 139:13-16 ESV)
Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away. And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” But I said, “I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the LORD, and my recompense with my God.” And now the LORD says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him-- for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength-- (Isaiah 49:1-5 ESV)
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (Galatians 1:11-17 ESV)
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14 ESV)
When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’-- for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:23-31 ESV)
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:1-10 ESV)
If you believe that a certain demographic or entity has the right to control you or govern when you will live or die, you are never free.
Ah, but I've been gifted freedom from even death itself!
Hmmm, don't you govern yourself and accord yourself the right to control yourself? And didn't you grow up needing that right accorded to your parents and caregivers? It seems that somewhere between Self and Other there must lie a claim of greatest right to govern.
Here's a 2min proof of free will's existence.
Free will really needs to be defined in order to have a proper debate about.
For example, if you define free will to simply mean the ability to make "choices" and by a "choice" you mean to pick an option from a variety of possible options then even computers would have free will. If you instead define free will to mean the ability to make a choice in which you could have done otherwise, you need to define what "could have done otherwise" means. A computer could have done otherwise if it were programmed differently or it were hit by a cosmic ray that flipped one of its bits.
Often where this attempt to define free will ends up is with the idea that a person's choices are non-deterministic and thus even a being with perfect knowledge of everything in the present (physical, mental and otherwise) would be unable to know with certainty what choice (whenever you consider a choice really takes place) you will make a fraction of a second later. But this is a problem if you also want to believe the principle of sufficient reason: that nothing can happen without a sufficient reason. Abandoning the principle of sufficient reason you kind of need an alternative explanation for why things don't just constantly happen for no reason, like why doesn't an elephant just appear in my living room every 5 seconds? This idea of free will also appears incompatible with an all-knowing God who is able to interact in time. Because then God would know what choice you will make in the future and be able to tell that to people in the past, thereby contradicting the pre-established fact that no knowledge of things in the present would allow someone to know your choice ahead of time.
Another problem with this definition of free will is that there's an element of your choice that comes from absolutely nowhere for no reason, while any remaining elements of your choice are pre-determined. So which part of your choice comes from you without being predetermined? None of it does. Your choice is part random and part pre-determined, but none of it comes from some non-deterministic part of you.
Yes, on c/TrueConspiracies.
It does. Denying it reduces to absurdity because it makes knowledge and truth claims impossible. This is basic philosophy shit and yet I see so many pondering this when people in the past have figured it out easily through divine revelation. People are so much dumber now, it's scary.
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:3-8 ESV)
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:37-44 ESV)
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him. (John 6:60-71 ESV)
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:1-2 ESV)
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13 ESV)
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-10 ESV)
These will war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with him are called, chosen, and faithful.” (Revelation 17:14 WEBPB)
I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I am the LORD, who does all these things. (Isaiah 45:7) evil: ra‛/râ‛âh (H7451)—bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]. From H7489.
who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before times eternal, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Saviour, Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the Good News. (2 Timothy 1:9-10 WEBPB)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been killed. (Revelation 13:8 WEBPB)
Of course it does. If it did not, sin could not exist. Predetermination is the original cope.
That implies evil exists as a consequence of free will. Is that what you're saying?
That's the correct Christian doctrine on free will and evil, yes. Evil doesn't have a positive existence but it's the negation of the good and the result of our own free will failing to choose the good.
So, are you saying this only applies to the New Testament? the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh, begs to differ. He admits to creating evil himself. Look at Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil.". The Hebrew word used here is raw. It means adversity, calamity, disaster, evil. He does not say he allows evil. He says he creates it. He authors it.
So, if Yahweh creates evil then how could evil exist as a consequence of free will?
u/SmithW1984 clarified your statement, noting evil doesn't have a positive existence. Evil in the abstract refers to something else from which goodness is absent. Because of this, the Hebrew word typically refers to evil events (adversities, calamities, disasters). It is not contrasted to good (abstract), but to shalom (physical wholeness).
You have taken "create" and "author" as synonymous, but they are used separately. To create is to bring into physical existence, but to author in this sense is to speak or carry out in reference to actions. So Yahweh "creating evils" isn't incompatible with humans being responsible for doing evil, because Yahweh is not evil when he selects just calamities as part of his created narrative.
So, you must be the spin doctor. And possibly a spokesman for u/SmithW1984
Yes, well said. All their arguments are based on word-concept fallacies.
There you go. Does God create calamity and disasters, which are perceived evils for men? Yes. Is this evil by itself? No, because God is the standard for the good and not man. If God wills to flood the entire effin planet and purge it from the abominations, then He's justified in doing so and it's good. If He wills that the jews wander in the desert for 40 years so that the entire generation dies out before getting to the Promised land - He's justified. If He allows His Son to be tortured and crucified by the roman and the jews, He's still justified (keep in mind the Trinity has one will so the will of the Father is the same as the Son's).
Quote mining won't help you proving much. The Bible is a liturgical text that is understood holistically and not piece by piece standing alone. I mean, I can find quotes to prove any thesis you can think of but the Scriptures are to be understood within context. And the correct context is only understood when you have the correct presuppositions which are the result of having the correct doctrines which are found within the living tradition of the Church, created by God.
If you're doing internal critique of the Christian position, you must be consistent with that position and not strawman it. Seems like your critique applies to the freemasonic/talmudic manichean Architect and not to the Christian Trinitarian God.
Mind-boggling. First thing what is Trinity? it's the monotheistic revolution. Before, societies were paganistic or polytheistic then with Constantine God became the Holy Trinity. Trinity is the weirdest idea in human history. The Holy Trinity is this God is nothing and everything. And what this means is God is both real and not real. God is a symbol and reality itself. And because of this idea, people are now forced to think abstractly about the world. And it gives rise to money, nation state and science. Whereas people before could think concretely about the world.
The idea of the Holy Trinity is that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit these are different forces that are independent of each other but they are equal to each other and they're part of the same thing. So for the human mind, the way that our human minds are designed, it is impossible for us to understand this concept of the Holy Trinity. It's like saying this chair it is here and not here. Your mind has to believe that this thing is here and not here and your mind can't do that, your mind has to believe in one thing and and cannot believe in contradictions. But this is inherently a contradiction. The only way that our mind can process this is by believing that this is a symbol.
Also to remind you, the official religion of the Byzantines was the Holy Trinity. But most Christians didn't believe in the Trinity, and they were persecuted for the refusal to believe in the Holy Trinity.
"the Byzantines"? Are those supposed to be some of the Epstein islands? Sure, buddy. Did the clockwork elves tell you that? I was about to explain how the Trinity is conceived of in Christian theology but I see now it's a waste of time and you obviously are very knowledgeable about it all. Call me when you're back from lala land.
So, you are totally clueless. Maybe this will help. The Byzantine religion was based on Christianity, which became the defining feature of Byzantine culture. The Church was headed by the Patriarch or bishop of Constantinople, who was appointed or removed by the emperor. The doctrine of the Trinity was not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, but it was implicit in John, and the New Testament possessed a triadic understanding of God and contained a number of Trinitarian formulas.
The Holy Trinity Byzantine Catholic Church even has a website: https://www.byzcath.org/HolyTrinity/
I won't call or ever reply to you again. It would be a waste of my time.
It doesn't imply that.
I suspect it depends on if you have an internal monolog. Those with think, decide, and exercise their will while those without simply react to stimuli.
I heard somewhere that a third of people do not have an inner monologue. wouldn't that be terrible? NPCs??? hehe
At least five percent of the population doesn't have an imagination. It's called aphantasia.
They say ignorance is bliss, so maybe from their perspective it's not so bad.
Husks.
a) Round implies a shape confining free will of choice. Using the round table for discussion should also ring alarm bells in terms of conspiracy, since it was Rothschild agent Cecil Rhodes who set up the Round Table Movement in Britain to orchestrate WWI, out of which came for example the Royal Institute of International Affairs (1920); the Council on Foreign Relations (1921); the Bilderberg Group (1954) and the Trilateral Commission (1972).
b) Does implies DO (to do) ES (essence) aka action doing reaction aka choice reacting to an enacting balance.
c) IT implies the third person, which distracts one from second/seco - "to divide"...only within a divide can there be choice.
All sets each one within free by division aka divination.
d) Exist aka EX (to express) IST (to consent to an -ism) STENCE (to stand)
Ex implies ones expressing choice within impressing balance, while stance implies balancing as choice, as in...to stand requires one to balance in-between left/right + front/back + up/down, which implies adaptation by free will of choice.
It's the IST (ex-ist) which tempts one into imbalance by tricking choice to hold onto a side within an ISM (existential-ism). Consenting to any suggested -ism also inverts ones choice into a chosen one.
-ist implies consent given; -ism implies a suggested consensus...it's a racket by few to tempt many together by sacrificing free will of choice.
d) FREE implies within dominance, WILL (want) implies within need; OF implies out of; within; in response to, and CHOICE implies within balance.
Few suggest "free will" without choice as to tempt many into sacrificing one choice by consenting to a liberty offered by a chosen one.
a) We (pluralism) confines one (singular)...if consented to by free will of choice.
b) Whether or not implies suggested creationism aka creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)...only within everything can each thing wield free will of choice.
c) Discuss aka dis (to divide apart) quatere (to shake) implies a separation from one another....not turning against one another (weather or not) in conflict. Discussion implies analysis...taking a side within a discussion implies a synthesis. That's why no discussion among many can ever lead to more than more conflict among them.
a) Every implies action; each implies re-action aka responding to being enacted upon. All nature acts; each being within reacts to either to natural (perceivable) or artificial (suggested). How does one react? By free will of choice.
b) We aka the royal we aka the majestic plural aka nosism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we That's a trick by few to collectivize many together aka tempting each ones free will of choice into a binding consensus within one another. That's also the origin of commonwealth under a sovereign.
c) Choice (free) can only come into being within balance (dominance)...that's the origin of free-dom aka dominance (inception towards death) setting free (life). That's the predetermination for each ones free will of choice...which one ignores when consenting to suggested terms by another.
If one consents to any suggested terms, then the chosen one suggesting can a) shape the terms by free will of choice, and b) utilize the predetermination of nature against the ignorant being who willingly chose to follow artificial terms.
Notice the jewish rite of Kol Nidre aka "repudiating all vows, and prohibitions, and oaths, and consecrations, and konamei and kinusei and synonymous terms, that we may vow, or swear, or consecrate, or prohibit upon ourselves"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre
This day of atonement is utilized to set free will of choice free from any self imposed boundaries...gentiles using "free will" without choice are willingly ignoring the choice to set oneself free from bondage to jewish contracts.
Wire/wei - "to turn"...that implies self confinement aka turning within self (logic) and against another (reason). Only during delineation (input towards output) can a brain come into being. It's ones consent to suggested pluralism (our), while mentally taking possession of it, which tricks ones brain into self confinement.
En (within) viron (circle) ment (mind)... once again self confinement by shaping a mental circle, while ignoring physical (life) delineation (inception towards death).
Now guess who gets rid of surrounding environment by erecting at center while cutting off circumference during the rite of circumcision? Few are centralizing control by tricking many into a mental (logic) and physical (reason) environment.
Being implies pouring out (expressed reaction) while being put into (enacting impression). The process of dying implies input; living within implies output, hence being put in (inception) and out (death) of being (life).
a) Soul/sole implies "one and only" aka singularity...not plurality.
b) Hu/hue implies "color" aka spectrum (momentum) of light (motion) for each ray (matter) within. It's the light dividing into a spectrum through each ray within, which implies the soul aka the singularity moving through each singular unit.
Motion (inception towards death) implies the soul of each matter (life).
a) Few suggest for vs against as a conflict to distract many from nature FORwarding (inception towards death) A GAIN of being (life).
b) Evidence implies perceivable distinction from one another (analysis)...not suggested evidence shared with one another (synthesis). Synthesizing during analysis establishes "analysis paralysis"...few suggest pluralism (us; our) to tempt many into analysis paralysis by willingly joining a synthetic group, which confines each analytical being within a consensus.
The origin of artificially putting together what nature sets apart from one another is a game called "puzzle"...formerly known as "mosaic" aka mosaic law aka moses/mosheh - "to mosh; mash".
Going back to Adam and Eve. If we didn't have free will, than God knew man would eat upon the forbidden fruit of the garden. Therefore, the forbidden fruit was planted knowing that it would be eaten. Apple = Sin
Saying that we don't have any free will pushes the responsibility of our actions externally. "I didn't hurt that person, as I don't have free will and it was pre-ordained"
That being said, I think we are all time travelers that can only change the future with the choices we make in the present.
The soul exists. Energy can't be created or destroyed, only transferred. The life force that is piloting the bodies must go somewhere. After all we are spirit, driving what is the Ferrari's of the universe.
Through iterations of form we gain experience of different lives, emotions, lessons and experiences.
TLDR;
Free will yes. Consequences of actions (good or bad) are presented during the life review at the end of that cycle.
Soul Yes. I am one of the souls that remembers their time before this body's life cycle.
I think free will exists because without it we would be robot toys of God and not living creatures that can choose to love Him back.
Real love requires free will and the risk of free will is the potential to sin. The fall of man was not inevitable but always possible.
If we lived in a multiverse with many dimensions then free will would echo across them and God would see every possible outcome but that doesn't mean He's controlling the choices even though He controls all universes and can condescend into them and effect changes. It is a boundary He has given Himself not to cross, I think.
The Shocking Alternative by C.S. Lewis Doodle (BBC Talk 8, Mere Christianity, Bk 2, Chapter 3)
Edit: added 2nd c in condescend
Aristotle presented an argument against free will from logic that is also worth considering, as described here: https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/freewill1.htm#ldeterminism
If one consents by free will of choice to any suggestion presented by another, then one shapes an argument against one another, while ignoring ones free will of choice.
An argument implies one side versus another side aka turning against one another aka binding free will of choice into imbalance instead of being free will of choice within balance.
The arguing mind (argument) represents the self inflicted conclusion, because one already concluded to choose a side to argue from.
Only in-between sides does one wield the possibility aka potential aka essence within all of free will of choice....choosing any side binds free will of choice to it until ones chooses to let go. Few suggest both sides of any argument to trick many into a dual/duel against one another called "reason".
I'll try to keep points brief and edit as needed.
To nihilists, nothing exists, but nobody likes nihilism.
To everyone else, whatever entity is greatest (God) has unlimited, perfect freewill, so freewill exists.
Humans have limited, imperfect freewill: not everything we will happens as we will it.
Other definitions of freewill turn out to be inconsistent and semantic.
The first Biblical proof of limited freewill is Gen. 2:16-17.
Pharaoh freely willed his own hardening alongside God's participation, Ex. 8:15, 32, 9:34.
One can will to suppress one's freewill sufficiently to be indistinguishable externally from an NPC.
God has total sovereignty and power (many Scriptures) and so anything less is not God, despite rationalist objections.
Only one thing happens and God knows it, so predestination ("proorizo", 6 texts) exists. Nothing is random.
Predestination and freewill are not contradictory: God wills unlimitedly that we will limitedly (AnotherInTheFire).
The word "cause" is ambiguous: rather, God is the author of authors of evil, but not an author of evil.
Specifically, in Is. 45:7, God creates calamities to punish evils justly, but he does no evil because just punishment is good.
Gen. 50:20 shows God can will, with perfectly good will, that people would will with evil will.
However, humans who rationalize evil that good may result are imperfect at it, Rom. 3:5-8.
Aristotle says willing is inefficaceous: this argument partakes of ambiguity of "cause". Willing is relative alignment.
Predestination permits evaluation: our confluent freewill is an imperfect subset of God's, one will, free in both views.
Therefore love is the degree of perfection (alignment) of one's freewill: one's loving less is one with God's loving less.
And we are "able not to sin" when we and God agree; and not "able" when, coordinately, we fail and God withholds.
"Otherwise" doesn't happen, but willing as relative alignment with one case over another does usually happen.
The unexpected-egg paradox shows even if people are told what will happen they cannot perfectly believe it.
Science shows unknowns beyond matter and energy, so humans participate in that (soul).
Nihilism implies a suggested -ism selling nothing (nihilo); a nihilist implies ones consent buying into suggested nothing, while denying (de-nihilo) everything perceivable.
Nihilism implies ones denial sold to one by another by tricking one to sell self out. One cannot be a nihilist without denying perception for suggestion aka reality for fiction.
Will implies "want"...only within need (balance) can one choose want or not want (imbalance). For choice to remain free (in balance) it has to resist the temptation of both sides (imbalance), because holding onto either binds free will of choice.
a) Definition/definite (to affix) binds free will of choice...if one chooses to hold onto it. Consenting to any definition establishes the inconsistencies based on semantics.
b) Balance generating choice implies linear procession...choosing to hold onto a side turns into a circular conflict.
If definite (affixed); then how could there be an other? What moves one apart from one another if affixed?
Free implies within dominance; will (want) implies within need; of implies out of; within; in response to; choice implies within balance.
Since only within limitation (inception towards death) one can be free (life)...the proof is in the pudding/putting.
As soon as one freely chooses to posses...one becomes possessed. Possession bind free will of choice.
Choice implies given; choosing to take tempts one to ignore that.
Suppression implies under (sup) the pressure (press) of action (ion) hence being given a free will of choice to react, which implies expression.
God implies total for each partial within...partials tempt one another into a has vs hasn't conflict to distract from total.
If a partial says that God HAS, then that implies a HASN'T, which contradicts the totality of God.
God implies total procession generating partial potential...HAS implies potential taking into possession, which establishes HASN'T aka a temptation for other potential to try to take out of possession. Meanwhile...the procession of God gives and takes any potential within in total disregard of any possession.
If everything was predestined, then each thing within wields the free will of choice to ignore that for random (chance over choice) nothingness (denial).
God implies unlimited need for each limited want/will within. What could totality want? Only partiality is tempted to want from one another, while ignoring the given need of totality.
We implies partials summoned together to mimic totality. If one (singular) consents to we (plural); then the one suggesting it becomes the chosen one aka the ruler of a summoned totality (consensus).
Cause implies effect...a linear procession. Ambhi (around) implies a circular shape. It's ones free will of choice ignoring sound for words (logos) which establishes an inwards (logic) and outwards (reason) circle.
Cause generates effect...words tempt affection.
Willing implies at odds (want vs not want), while ignoring to be in-between (choice) even (balance). A jew suggests relativism to tempt the mind of gentiles into alignment (order following), while shaping a circle inside (logic) and outside (reason) of it.
Both contradicts one. God implies oneness moving through each one within. It's the separation from all into each one which establishes the need of free will/want of choice among one another.
God implies dominance (cause; action; motion; need) setting free (effect; reaction; matter; want). Only at the center of dominance (inception towards death) can one be free (life).
God only gives (inception) and takes (death) difference potential (life) during the same process...withholding implies holding within a process.
Holding implies potential ignoring procession by holding possession aka religion...re (to respond) ligo (to bind).
To believe implies one holding another...perfect implies "complete" aka without separation from one another. Few suggest many to believe in completion aka in putting partials together to make whole again aka tikkun olam.
Science/scio - "to know" implies each ones perception within all perceivable...a show implies any suggestion by another tempting one to behold aka a being to hold onto by free will of choice. Holding onto anything shown transforms science (perception) into science-fiction (suggestion).
Energy implies the internal separation of motion into matter...AND tempts one to ignore the singularity of energy.
Energy and what else? God and what else? Action and what else? Cause and what else? Motion and what else? All and what else?
And/en - "in"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/and hence energy and anything within.
Soul aka sole (one and only), hence the one and only totality moving through each participating partial matter within.
If that, then this...a duality contradicting the singularity of soul/sole. If one chooses to hold onto this or that, then one sells ones soul.