Free will. What is it?

[makesends]

Both statements are incorrect.

Demonstrate the assertion.

 

[makesends]

I think you missed the point

who determines its a false definition.

me, you, another person?

we all think your right. so arguing based on another person is in error. defeats the person of discussing. The person has already made up their mind.

then like we have seen, they will come out and say your wrong. period.. etc etc..

that does not help in any discussion, it hurts the discussion.

and sadly, I have found out. you can not even say anything bout it.

But that would seem to mean there is no valid definition.

I personally don't like the word, "free", in the term 'free will'. But I use it in order for those who wish to argue with me, to, from the outset, show that I do believe that choice is real.

But, my larger point is not whether or not the definition is valid. Often, in debate, a person will, for the sake of argument, allow "for now" the person is right, or that their assumption is right, and then go to show how it is logically self-contradictory, or inconsistent with other agreed-upon facts. We can do that here.

 

[makesends]

your the first person I ever met who would say this..

not calling you a liar. Just saying I have never met anyone who did not do something they really did not want to do. to serve someone else.

Thats an extreme example.. And not even close to what I was trying to draw out

Does it not demonstrate the principle? I think it demonstrates my point very well. Whether it is to serve someone else, or not, we do make choices, and rather often, as a matter of fact, that are made on the moment, and go against what we would otherwise have preferred to choose. It doesn't at all mean that what we did choose was not what we preferred at that particular moment. We change our minds all the time. Look at a drunk. When he is sober, he may decide that drinking isn't worth it. But it won't be long before he has changed his mind, no matter how much he hates the next morning.

I disagree.

if I could only chose what I wanted. I would agree.

But I wake up alot of mornings, and do not want to get out of bed or come to work. But I do it against my actual will or desire. because if I do not. i will not be able to take care of my family..

Getting out of bed to do what you must is what you most wanted at that particular moment. No? You are choosing it against what you FEEL LIKE, maybe, but not against what you want most.

 

[Hazelelponi]

what is sin?

Someone said earlier it came from the flesh. what does this mean.

maybe we need to delve into this.. it may open things up

Sin is any failure to conform to God's moral law whether in act, attitude, or nature..

 

[Arial]

Interesting question. If it was strictly held to, the conversation would be short, I think. I am, at present, in the throes of trying to get across that the definition as stated means several different things to several different people.

And I'm not saying that the definition is valid. I am only saying that we can accept that definition, as a given, only for the sake of argument.

I find it interesting that the title of the OP is Free Will. What is It? and then gives the only definition everyone must adhere to if he is going to be able to understand what they are saying. ANd announces an interest in the views of others. When people begin to post answering the question of the title from their view, (I got personally attacked for doing so) there seems to be a resistance to anyone doing that.

 

[Eleanor]

Both statements are incorrect.

Not according to post #157, which is describing what I call "what one prefers."

 

[Arial]

Please, everyone slow down a second. Are we going to argue about mere, "will", or "uncaused choice"?

The OP asks a question about free will.

So, (if I may extrapolate), you may be thinking that the oxymoron would be enough to defeat the notion, and we're done? —and so you suggest we find a better definition?

It is enough to defeat the notion. I suggest that as defined in the OP it be demonstrated why that is an oxymoron. Which I have attempted to do. Once that is done it could well segue into a discussion on Libertarian Free Will and uncaused causes vs first causal cause. The OP itself promotes an automatic free for all.

 

[makesends]

I find it interesting that the title of the OP is Free Will. What is It? and then gives the only definition everyone must adhere to if he is going to be able to understand what they are saying. ANd announces an interest in the views of others. When people begin to post answering the question of the title from their view, (I got personally attacked for doing so) there seems to be a resistance to anyone doing that.

Well, let's pursue it to show the logical fallacies. (Lol, and that, one by one, according to rule 4.4). You said that his definition (roughly, that free will is the ability to choose what one wants) was oxymoronic. I don't know if @Eternally-Grateful mistook that for some derivative of 'moronic', but he obviously mistook it for an insult of some sort. Maybe you can show him what you meant, and why you think the notion is self-contradictory, or at least, turns on itself, if that's more like what you meant.

 

[makesends]

how do you define free will?

it does appear to go against the T in tulip..

Not disagreeing with you here—just asking. Can you show just how you mean, that it goes against the T in Tulip? Might help us come to some consensus of meaning.

 

[makesends]

The OP asks a question about free will.

It is enough to defeat the notion. I suggest that as defined in the OP it be demonstrated why that is an oxymoron. Which I have attempted to do. Once that is done it could well segue into a discussion on Libertarian Free Will and uncaused causes vs first causal cause. The OP itself promotes an automatic free for all.

I must've missed somehow, you attempting to show it is an oxymoron. I will look for it a bit. But, lol, this thread has exploded.

Later: Ok I think I found it. (Lol you might have written more plainly, by using an i.e. like @Eternally-Grateful did, or some other way! "[I.e. the Duality of:] either man has a will that is free, or he has no will at all.")

Eternally-Grateful said:
I will start by saying in my view, free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. IE, ADAM had to chose between following God or following his wife. And chose to follow his wife.

And that is where the duality mentioned in another thread comes in. Either man has a will that is free, or he has no will at all. As though our will is an entity of its own, operating on its own. To say that man has a will does not automatically imply that the will is free. If it were, it would not actually be a will at all, since the definition of will would be negated.

"Oxymoronic" definition:

adjective​

1. Of or pertaining to an oxymoron, in which contradictory terms are combined.

Ok, so what I take you to meaning as self-contradictory, is the two ideas: "To say that man has a will does not automatically imply that the will is free. If [the will were free], it would not actually be a will at all, since the definition of will would be negated." Is that what you were referring to?

Can you show how, if the will were free, the definition of will would be negated?

I agree that free will is a self-defeating notion, if it means that it is uncaused. But "uncaused" is apparently not what he is trying to say.

 

[Arial]

I must've missed somehow, you attempting to show it is an oxymoron. I will look for it a bit. But, lol, this thread has exploded.

Later: Ok I think I found it. (Lol you might have written more plainly, by using an i.e. like @Eternally-Grateful did, or some other way! "[I.e. the Duality of:] either man has a will that is free, or he has no will at all.")

Eternally-Grateful said:
I will start by saying in my view, free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. IE, ADAM had to chose between following God or following his wife. And chose to follow his wife.

"Oxymoronic" definition:

adjective​

1. Of or pertaining to an oxymoron, in which contradictory terms are combined.

Ok, so what I take you to meaning as self-contradictory, is the two ideas: "To say that man has a will does not automatically imply that the will is free. If [the will were free], it would not actually be a will at all, since the definition of will would be negated." Is that what you were referring to?

Can you show how, if the will were free, the definition of will would be negated?

I agree that free will is a self-defeating notion, if it means that it is uncaused. But "uncaused" is apparently not what he is trying to say.

Thanks for the grammatical instruction. And for the showing me how to write more plainly.

The will is not a free standing agent. It is always worked upon and the very fact that it is worked upon, makes it not free. It responds to whatever is working on it. That sentence of necessity relates to there being a cause. If it is free that means nothing is working on it and therefore it is not a will. I personally think he is avoiding saying what he is trying to say. To avoid attaching free will to a discussion of the doctrines of grace (TULIP) he defined free will as being able to choose between two or more options. Then used two Bible situations as an example. Adam and Abraham.

But the topic of free will in biblical terms smacks right up against the doctrines of grace in Calvinism. Without that, all we have is a philosophical, secular discussion of free will. Man chooses between options. Something no one denies.

 

[Arial]

Well, let's pursue it to show the logical fallacies. (Lol, and that, one by one, according to rule 4.4). You said that his definition (roughly, that free will is the ability to choose what one wants) was oxymoronic. I don't know if @Eternally-Grateful mistook that for some derivative of 'moronic', but he obviously mistook it for an insult of some sort. Maybe you can show him what you meant, and why you think the notion is self-contradictory, or at least, turns on itself, if that's more like what you meant.

What is the logical fallacy? And I did show him. He doesn't listen to me.

 

[Josheb]

Not according to post #157, which is describing what I call "what one prefers."

Hmmm... so we're inventing definitions as we go along? Post 157 was written by @Carbon in response to something @Arial posted in Post 156. Perhaps you are referring to Post 97 or some other post(?).

 

[Arial]

@makesends

I just added an edit to post #191.

 

[Josheb]

For what it is worth, bro: This is a spin off from another thread, where the subject was migrating rather voraciously off-topic. @Eternally-Grateful was good enough to see it get taken back up, here.

I don't think he intended to own the thread. Just saying.

Never thought he did intend to own the thread. I do think his definition of "free will" is his to prove. On the multiple occasions when asked to do so the response has been a fallacious attempt to shift the burden ("you prove your view") .

Demonstrate the assertion.

I already have. Reread the thread, particularly Post 140, but I am not alone is asserting various controls on the human will. Post 141's " amounts to "nunh unh." Its "nonetheless" contains no substance.

 

[makesends]

Thanks for the grammatical instruction. And for the showing me how to write more plainly.

Lol, sorry. Can't help it. "It's in my generics".

The will is not a free standing agent. It is always worked upon and the very fact that it is worked upon, makes it not free. It responds to whatever is working on it. That sentence of necessity relates to there being a cause. If it is free that means nothing is working on it and therefore it is not a will. I personally think he is avoiding saying what he is trying to say.

@Eternally-Grateful , are you hearing this? Your thoughts? Do you consider the will to have free-standing agency?

 

[Josheb]

Lol, sorry. Can't help it. "It's in my generics".

LOL! So much for free will .

 

[makesends]

I think you missed the point

who determines its a false definition.

Our arguments should begin to skinny down to something. Hopefully. It's not a matter of opinion. There is absolute fact, even if we can't find it.

me, you, another person?

we all think your right. so arguing based on another person is in error. defeats the person of discussing. The person has already made up their mind.

then like we have seen, they will come out and say your wrong. period.. etc etc..

that does not help in any discussion, it hurts the discussion.

and sadly, I have found out. you can not even say anything bout it.

Our arguments haven't gone far enough to show that you or anyone else, is right, to the satisfaction of the opposition. It has a long way to go. We are still going on terminology—look at all the words we are throwing around and trying to figure out what the other means by it!

 

[Carbon]

This seems a good explaination.

In Reformed theology, "free agency" refers to the ability to make voluntary choices, while "free will" is understood as the ability to choose what is moral and good, which is believed to be lost due to the fall of humanity.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Free Agency:
  • Reformed theology, particularly Calvinism, affirms that humans are free agents, meaning they have the ability to make choices and act according to their own inclinations and nature.
  • This includes the ability to choose between different options, but not necessarily the ability to choose what is morally good or pleasing to God.
  • Free agency is understood as the ability to act, but not necessarily the freedom to choose what is good or pleasing to God.
  • The Reformed view holds that humans, due to the fall, have lost the ability to freely choose what is morally good and pleasing to God.
  • While humans can still make choices, they are inherently inclined towards sin and cannot choose to follow God without divine intervention.
  • This is often contrasted with the Arminian view, which affirms that humans retain the ability to freely choose what is good and pleasing to God.

In essence, Reformed theology distinguishes between the ability to act (free agency) and the ability to choose what is good (free will), arguing that humans have lost the latter due to the fall, but retain the former.



Hope this helps with how I understand it.

@Arial Also, I agree with what Calvin teaches on the subject of free will. Have you read his treatment of it?

 

[makesends]

Eternally-Grateful said:
It came from God. (i think I have answered this also)

Yes. That is correct. The faith came from God. It was not of yourself.

Hey, Josh. What @Eternally-Grateful qualifies what he means by "from God", in post uh, uhm, nevermind: He means that it came from God just as trust in his wife came from his wife. That is, she has proven herself, and God has proved to him that Christ is trustworthy.