What is Free Will?

defcon

New member
Clete said:
This is completely unacceptable. By this one would have to concede that God is indeed the direct creator of every single evil event that has ever taken place. God is not the author of evil and thus your position here is wrong.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Ok, so if God is not the author of evil - who is? Satan? Didn't God create Satan? Isn't Satan's action completely at the mercy of God (see the Book of Job here)?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
docrob57 said:
Fair enough, let's add a little further information to our model. Let's say that the choice is contingent. In words, "I go to bed when I am sufficiently tired, unless I prefer to do something else." Does this put us back in the realm of free choice?
Contingent? You'll have to define that term more before I'll agree. There is a particular argument that hinges on this word and so I am a littel hesitent about it's use.
I would be sitified that it is a free choice as long as it is understood that the ability to do otherwise is real.

In going through this exercise, please do not infer any information from the sentences that isn't there. Remember, you decided the sentence that we first started with was a free choice, however, the equation developed says the exact same thing. :)
I said it was a free choice IF you could have done otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

docrob57

New member
Clete said:
Contingent? You'll have to define that term more before I'll agree. There is a particular argument that hinges on this word and so I am a littel hesitent about it's use.
I would be sitified that it is a free choice as long as it is understood that the ability to do otherwise is real.


I said it was a free choice IF you could have done otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

By contingent I mean the person will go to bed when he is tired unless he wants to do something else The bolded part would be the contingency. It would seem that we have now incorporated the possibility of doing otherwise. Agreed? Or not.

There is a method to my madness here, but our discussions tend to suffer from lack of common perspective, so I am trying to produce common perspective here.
 

shadrach

New member
So, lets see if thsi makes sense in laymans terms, since im a total n00b

Free will is supposedly negated by election, since God already knows those that will choose him and they are the elect, there fore meaning that they have no real freedom of choice.

So then thsi would mean that our actions are then guided and chosen by God; therefore meaning that God had Adam and Eve eat the apple, Cain murder Abel etc etc etc

Now here is my main question then: how does omnipotence turn into choosing for us? Isnt it more just God chose us, as he already knew we would choose him?

*feel free to bash me if im wrong, not better way to learn*

Just another :sheep:
 

docrob57

New member
shadrach said:
So, lets see if thsi makes sense in laymans terms, since im a total n00b

Free will is supposedly negated by election, since God already knows those that will choose him and they are the elect, there fore meaning that they have no real freedom of choice.

So then thsi would mean that our actions are then guided and chosen by God; therefore meaning that God had Adam and Eve eat the apple, Cain murder Abel etc etc etc

Now here is my main question then: how does omnipotence turn into choosing for us? Isnt it more just God chose us, as he already knew we would choose him?

*feel free to bash me if im wrong, not better way to learn*

Welcome Shadrach. I think that is a fair assessment of some of the positions represented. However, right now I am trying to arrive at a common understanding of free will with my brother Clete and whoever else may want to participate, including you, of course!
 

shadrach

New member
Thanks, maybe Im starting to get the hang of all of this.

For me, Id think that free will started all the way back at Adam and Eve, as shown by them eating the apple. To me its akin of being a parent. If I leave my 5 year old son in the kitchen with candy sitting in front of him, hes got the choice of wether or not he eats it. But I KNOW hes going to, and still make that choice available to him to do the right thing. Eventually he learns, and doesnt eat the candy when that happens.
 

docrob57

New member
shadrach said:
Thanks, maybe Im starting to get the hang of all of this.

For me, Id think that free will started all the way back at Adam and Eve, as shown by them eating the apple. To me its akin of being a parent. If I leave my 5 year old son in the kitchen with candy sitting in front of him, hes got the choice of wether or not he eats it. But I KNOW hes going to, and still make that choice available to him to do the right thing. Eventually he learns, and doesnt eat the candy when that happens.

I agree with this, however, there are those who don't. I am trying to bridge the gap, and who knows, maybe it will happen!
 

shadrach

New member
docrob57 said:
Well, don't get too cocky, we will tear you to pieces soon enough. :)

Well, thats kind of like taking candy from a baby.....

Anyway, cant there only be a limited amount fo views on free will? Essentially its either we have it or dont. There cant be a such thing as limited free will, because then it just wouldnt be free.
 

docrob57

New member
shadrach said:
Well, thats kind of like taking candy from a baby.....

Anyway, cant there only be a limited amount fo views on free will? Essentially its either we have it or dont. There cant be a such thing as limited free will, because then it just wouldnt be free.

We're getting there junior, just be patient.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
docrob57 said:
By contingent I mean the person will go to bed when he is tired unless he wants to do something else The bolded part would be the contingency. It would seem that we have now incorporated the possibility of doing otherwise. Agreed? Or not.

There is a method to my madness here, but our discussions tend to suffer from lack of common perspective, so I am trying to produce common perspective here.
As stated, I see no problem with what you've said. So I think we are free to procede (I love punns! :D )

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
shadrach said:
Thanks, maybe Im starting to get the hang of all of this.

For me, Id think that free will started all the way back at Adam and Eve, as shown by them eating the apple. To me its akin of being a parent. If I leave my 5 year old son in the kitchen with candy sitting in front of him, hes got the choice of wether or not he eats it. But I KNOW hes going to, and still make that choice available to him to do the right thing. Eventually he learns, and doesnt eat the candy when that happens.
I would have to disagree. But keep in mind that we have to keep a really tight rein on our terminology. I disagree with your statement based on my understanding of the word "know".

You cannot have known that you child would eat the candy. You definately did strongly suspect that he would and predicted his action with a very high degree of certainty but that is not what I mean by saying that one "knows" something.

For the purposes of this discussion I think that it is important that we distinguish "knowledge" as that which is known ABSOLUTELY. That is to say that if you know it, it cannot possibly be incorrect under any circumstance. Thus by this definition of knowledge if your child could have possibly done anything other than eat the candy then you did not know that he would. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Tell me if I need to clarify further.

So to answer your question about how does God's knowledge detroy free will, it does so by removing the abilty of an agent to do otherwise than that course of action which is known to God. Without the ability to do otherwise, there is no freedom.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

docrob57

New member
Clete said:
As stated, I see no problem with what you've said. So I think we are free to procede (I love punns! :D )

Resting in Him,
Clete

Okay, so lets make another equation. We will add a variable P1 that is = 0 when there is another preference and =1 when there is not. So the equation becomes -

Y = P1X

P can represent any number of other preferences (other things to do) up to infinity. To keep things simple, let's say there is only one other. P = 0 when I want to stay up to watch David Letterman, and 1 when I do not.

To demonstrate that we can incorporate any number of preferences, we will add one more. P2 = 0 when my wife is coming home late (and I want to visit with her) and P2=1 when she is not. So the equation now would be Y = X (P1P2). Again, moving up to infinity. the vector of preferences that could exist other than going to bed can be represented as Pn, with n = to the total number of possible preferences, so our general equation would be Y = PnX.

So again, we have a free will choice that is the product of a deterministic process. So what am I missing, if anything.
 

shadrach

New member
Main Entry: free·dom
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another c : the quality or state of being exempt or released from something onerous

Now, as I stated previously, the elect are the elect because God already knows what they will do, in other words, before we make our choices, our choices are already known. Nowhere in there is there implicit or even implyed lack of freedom.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
shadrach said:
Main Entry: free·dom
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another c : the quality or state of being exempt or released from something onerous
Good enough.

Now, as I stated previously, the elect are the elect because God already knows what they will do, in other words, before we make our choices, our choices are already known. Nowhere in there is there implicit or even implyed lack of freedom.
This would be a topic for another thread but the two are mutually exclusive. By your own definition of freedom, either your theology about election is wrong or we do not have free will.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
docrob57 said:
Okay, so lets make another equation. We will add a variable P1 that is = 0 when there is another preference and =1 when there is not. So the equation becomes -

Y = P1X

P can represent any number of other preferences (other things to do) up to infinity. To keep things simple, let's say there is only one other. P = 0 when I want to stay up to watch David Letterman, and 1 when I do not.

To demonstrate that we can incorporate any number of preferences, we will add one more. P2 = 0 when my wife is coming home late (and I want to visit with her) and P2=1 when she is not. So the equation now would be Y = X (P1P2). Again, moving up to infinity. the vector of preferences that could exist other than going to bed can be represented as Pn, with n = to the total number of possible preferences, so our general equation would be Y = PnX.

So again, we have a free will choice that is the product of a deterministic process. So what am I missing, if anything.

You lost me. Can you give me the english translation?

If I understand it (which I'm not sure that I do) then for any set of variables there must be more than one possible value for Y. If not them we do not have free will. This is why I posted that really technical definition earlier...

Necessarily, for any human agent S, action A and time t, if S performs A freely at t, then the history of the world prior to t, the laws of nature, and the actions of any other agent (including God) prior to and at t are jointly compatible with S's refraining from performing A freely.​

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

docrob57

New member
You lost me. Can you give me the english translation?

The English translation is "I go to bed when I am tired unless I have something else I would rather do" The purpose of the equation is to demostrate that this sentence can accurately be modeled as a deterministic process. The equation says the EXACT same thing as the sentence.

If I understand it (which I'm not sure that I do) then for any set of variables there must be more than one possible value for Y. If not them we do not have free will.

Yes, that's right.

Resting in Him,
Clete[/QUOTE]
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
docrob57 said:
The English translation is "I go to bed when I am tired unless I have something else I would rather do" The purpose of the equation is to demostrate that this sentence can accurately be modeled as a deterministic process. The equation says the EXACT same thing as the sentence.



Yes, that's right.
So how is it deterministic if the value of Y can have more than one value regardless of the variables in the equation?
 
Last edited:

shadrach

New member
Clete said:
By your own definition of freedom, either your theology about election is wrong or we do not have free will.

I must be completely lost in what your trying to say, as I am not making the connection that you are. We are elected by the choices we will make, as God knows all, and already knows those that will or will not choose him. Some of us just had to take long convuluted despicable routes to get here.
 
Top