Free Will

[Mathias]

In daily life, a discussion about free will often concerns itself with whether we are able to make choices independent of outside influences. A more interesting and worthwhile question, however, would be whether our choices are decided by our consciousness. For the sake of the argument, I will take the liberty to define free will as an act or choice determined by the consciousness. If our consciousness is our thought process, then free will would require that it is through thinking that choices are made. At first glance that doesn’t seem to contradict the existence of a free will. However, it does imply that if the thinking is to be done by a free will, then it is through thinking that the choice to think must be made, but then the first thought couldn’t have come through free will. Thusly a choice made by thinking cannot have come from a free will. If we are to expand on the term “consciousness”, I can see little else than emotions to include under that term, but emotions are certainly not chosen by free will. If you don’t agree with my reasoning on thoughts, then I pose the following question: have you ever chosen what to think? And if you did, did you not do it through a thought that you didn’t choose to think?

Obvious to all, our choices are influenced by our emotions, experience and knowledge. For it is from our experience and knowledge that we determine the result of a choice (e.g. that pulling the switch on the lamp turns the light on), and the desired result is often based on emotions. If our choices weren’t influenced by these factors, then our choices would be completely random, or we wouldn’t be able to act beyond instinct. The problem lies with the word influenced. Influenced by these factors implies that there are also some other determining factors. What are these? These factors cannot possible determine the choice of action, as any other factor than experience and knowledge can only lead to random actions. These factors might influence what we want to achieve, and thusly the choice of action made out of our experience and knowledge. But that doesn’t mean that the factors are independent of natural processes. If they are to be so, they would either have to be random or betray the principle of causality. We know that they cannot be completely random, as our actions are not completely random. If the factors do exist, they must have a cause, for without something causing them, they cannot be said to relate to free will, as they just appear, without the person they appear within having anything to do with it. As such they cannot lead to an act determined by the person’s free will, if they are to be without a cause. They must have a cause, but there is always a relation between cause and effect, our use of experience (see above example) is based on that simple principle.

Discuss.

[Ummon]

We have no way to know: better do our duty and worry about more resolvable problems.

[Mathias]

We have no way to know: better do our duty and worry about more resolvable problems.

That didn't stop the "existence of god" thread from becoming a 381 pages long discussion.

[motiv-8]

That didn't stop the "existence of god" thread from becoming a 381 pages long discussion.

Which, if you cut out the repetition and unnecessary remarks, would be probably two pages long.

[Vladimir Lenin]

God gave us Free Will expecting us to be good etc... but we disobeyed him (metaphorically in the eating of the Forbidden Fruit) and thus he was dissapointed.

Mankind kept ignoring God and sinning, but God loved us all so much that he sent his spirtual son, Jesus Christ to die for our all of our sins past and present.

Jesus Christ's spirit was resurrected and he is seated at the right hand of the father.

Today, when we are baptised all that we are doing is simply accepting the gift God and his Spiritual Son gave us.

[eventhorizen]

As the original poster points out, what we can know is that concept of "Free Will" is logically contradictory when analysed. The only support for this concept are superficial appearances taken at face value by generations of people lacking accumulated understanding, and embroiled within dogmatic religions.

Like all such questions, one does not only struggle with reasoning a conclusion, but one must also struggle with lifetimes of preconceptions, assumptions and faith.

[Mathias]

God gave us Free Will expecting us to be good etc... but we disobeyed him (metaphorically in the eating of the Forbidden Fruit) and thus he was dissapointed.

Mankind kept ignoring God and sinning, but God loved us all so much that he sent his spirtual son, Jesus Christ to die for our all of our sins past and present.

Jesus Christ's spirit was resurrected and he is seated at the right hand of the father.

Today, when we are baptised all that we are doing is simply accepting the gift God and his Spiritual Son gave us.

I fail to see an argument concerning free will in your post.

[Astaroth]

A question: how do Christians explain God interfering in the Old Testament when he was supposed to let everyone have "free will"?

The argument is used the other way around, "evil things arent stopped/hindered by god because he gives us free will", so what about "why does god hinder some things/why does he interfere if free will exists?"

[basics]

I have said this before and say it again, there is no such thing as free-will. Paul proves it in Romans. Calvin and Luther among others proved it too by the Scriptures.

And talking of the Scriptures nowhere does it say that God gave us free-will. No, not even to Adam and Eve in the garden that was type and shadow of heavenly places, do they have free-will.

What every human being has is a will that is subject to the curse of sin and the jurisdiction of him that rules them by his invisible power. I speak of the serpent here. What man does not have is the power to save himself or herself from that.

As Paul says, all are adjudged to have fallen short of the glory of God, and as such all are under wrath. You cannot get round this no matter what, simply because Scripture never said what many infer.

Free-will is spoken of some seventeen times in the Bible and in each case but one refers solely to sacrifices and the one by permission to go to a sacrificial ceremony in Jerusalem. Never is it accorded to the condition of man as being free of anything.

That is why it took God Himself to come as man because He was not restricted by the curse, nor did He have any sin to block the path of sacrifice set out for Him so that what bound man to sin could be erased.

Man cannot and never could save himself. No, not by altar calls or even asking Jesus into their lives can this be done yet when it is tried by modern evangelism the longterm results are fruitless. The people just fall away from the demands of work then placed upon them.

The same can be said of church type organisations having twisted the Scriptures then claim to make or break " Christians." They have stolen what is God's to do and the results are ignorance of both the Holy Spirit and real salvation.

It is Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, who builds His church through the faith that was His alone to give. It is God who justifies, sanctifies, regenerates, makes perfect them that will ever see heaven and there isn't another thing ever created or will be created that can take this out of His hands.

[motiv-8]

A question: how do Christians explain God interfering in the Old Testament when he was supposed to let everyone have "free will"?

Unless I am mistaken (and surely someone will point it out), the last time God was shown to have directly interfered with the workings of Man was with Noah. And then, if you recall, he made a new covenant in which he said he would no longer do such a thing. That's why the nature of Christ's mission was so much different.

Paul proves it in Romans. Calvin and Luther among others proved it too by the Scriptures.

That's a rather schizophrenic argument.. Aren't you Catholic?

[Astaroth]

Unless I am mistaken (and surely someone will point it out), the last time God was shown to have directly interfered with the workings of Man was with Noah. And then, if you recall, he made a new covenant in which he said he would no longer do such a thing. That's why the nature of Christ's mission was so much different.

You are in fact mistaken. God told Mose to leave Egypt, God destroyed the Egyptians' armies (using the ocean), he caused the plagues in Egypt, he told the Israelis to do this and that, he destroyed Soddom and Ghomorrha, he talked to many guys telling them to sacrifice their own people (once he actually let a father sacrifice his daughter and that time he was "pleased", lol) etc etc.

[Mathais]

he talked to many guys telling them to sacrifice their own people (once he actually let a father sacrifice his daughter and that time he was "pleased", lol) etc etc.

Uh he never did have anyone sacrificed? I am not sure where you read that? He commanded the pepole to sacrifce a lamb to repesent the son of god. Other wise there was no human sacrifce made that where commanded by god.

[basics]

motiv-8,

When Paul wrote the book or letter to the Romans basically he was clarifying many misrepresentations regarding man's state before God, especially for the benefit of Gentiles who knew very little of the history behind the Gospel, referring to Israel from the very beginning.

What Luther and Calvin, among many others, did was to show, bring out the certainty, that all men from the fall fell/fall short of the glory of God. And, only a God, a Saviour, could change that situation. Why, because it is not only a curse but one set in legal title. In other words the Law enforces the curse making man always at odds with God.

So man has no choice that can be made, why? Because there are no excuses that can cover sin, no excuses that can evade the Law. And that is the whole point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Men can choose whatever they want but, and here is the crunch, they can not choose God. The Serpent won't let them, sin won't let them and the Law won't let them.

That is what Paul examines within the book and what the two great preachers elaborate on in their own works. Why, because in the latters' cases the Roman Church preached something quite different, something that they had no jurisdiction to do. And they did it by using Scripture of the dead letter. By taking what was God's they introduced another gospel, something Paul warned of in his letter to the Galatians.

If it is God who justifies, the Hebrew meaning being to make perfect, where is it that any church organisation, or any single-minded man or woman, can make themselves justified? They cannot. And the only way into heaven is by justification, that being by the renewing not only of the soul but the nature too, what of the above has the ability to make such a choice?

But that concerns only having choice, it does not make God subject to the will of man even if man could. To get round this some Protestant church organisations claim that God whilst in heaven is in such a tearful state, that He begs people to accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour and when they do He cannot do other than accept them.

Now this for a start is a downright lie and for seconds is not at all what Scripture teaches. It too is another gospel and we know what Paul decrees on them. To imagine Almighty God being subservient to the whims of man is preposterous beyond belief especially since only God can draw men to Christ. And then there comes the condemnation leading to a broken and contrite heart of which the Holy Ghost plays on the mind of any recipient.

All this before the Father makes regenerate them that are called so that what they once belonged to, they no longer do. They have been bought by Jesus Christ through shed blood and man says that he or she has the choice to believe. Yet Scripture tells us that fallen man can only be saved by the power of God to save, that being the Gospel itself, but fallen man knows better, at least in his own eyes.

If you belong to the serpent then you are bound by his rules until you are bought by Jesus Christ and then you are bound by His. That is what regeneration is about and it is about a one to one with God, none other involved. The Bible is quite clear on this, perhaps why no mention of free-will is made in connection to the state of man. That is why there is no such thing as free-will.

[PacSubCom]

Neurology has started to establish that there is no free will. The brain already decides before consciousness knows the decision. Free will as we know it is an outdated concept. The plot thickens that it's all determined.

[dwringer]

Neurology has started to establish that there is no free will. The brain already decides before consciousness knows the decision. Free will as we know it is an outdated concept. The plot thickens that it's all determined.

All that means is that our perception of consciousness lags behind the actual decision-making process. It doesn't mean it isn't still a conscious decision, only that we don't perceive it until after it's already happened.

Of course this is very confusing and raises more questions than answers.

[PacSubCom]

All that means is that our perception of consciousness lags behind the actual decision-making process. It doesn't mean it isn't still a conscious decision, only that we don't perceive it until after it's already happened.

The thing you describe as "me" is notified later, and can't change the subconscious decision. No conscious control = no free will, since you don't decide. It is all happening "under the hood".

[motiv-8]

Neurology has started to establish that there is no free will. The brain already decides before consciousness knows the decision.

I don't see how the second sentence provides evidence of the first.

[Ummon]

Neurology has started to establish that there is no free will. The brain already decides before consciousness knows the decision. Free will as we know it is an outdated concept. The plot thickens that it's all determined.

A gross misinterpretation of the results. The brain is the vessel in which you exist.

Besides, the first part of the process of decision is unconscious, but this doesn't stop conscious processes to give a feedback and modify it in many circumstances. The matter is very complicated: we cannot know and possibly we never will.

If I were to bet, I would say that we are neither totally free nor predetermined. But that in a way means nothing, you might rebate.

[Kiljaden]

If free will means that we make choices, then free will exists.

If free will means that the choices we make are independant of our brain chemistry and\or environment, then free will does not exist.

/thread

[Astaroth]

There was. I came upon it by accident and forgot where it is, but the story basically went like that:

1) a man was fighting his enemies during war and he begged god for help (I think he was about to lose/die or whatever)
2) God said ok, let's do that but when you get home from war, you have to sacrifice the first thing that comes out of your house's door
3) the man came home and his little daughter (like 8 years old) came out to welcome him
4) he told her he had to sacrifice her, she was a bit sad but ok do as god commanded
5) he sacrificed her and god was pleased

quite sad story.

Oh and of course the golden calf - God told Moses to kill 3000 people for praying to the calf. Lmao, talk about religious freedom

Any Christians here who can explain this obvious contradiction between free will/god doesnt change what the humans do and what god did in the old testament?
This contradiction seems to make the "free will" explanation often used by chrisitians to explain why god doesnt hinder the evil in the world rather pointless.