Free will. What is it?

[makesends]

Josheb said:
That is a shifting onus. That question attempts to shift the burden of proving the op's assertion onto someone else to prove an alternative. That is fallacious. The new forum rule requires me to prove the fallacy so HERE and HERE are two sources defining the fallacy. It is up to you to prove scripture attributes what happened in Genesis 3:6-7 to Adam's free choice, not up to me to prove something different.

So, please either provide the scripture requested, or correct the fallacious statement (or both).

this is called an illogical falacy. and hypoocricy

You demand I prove it by the word. and I demand you prove it by the word.

The problem you fail to realize is NEITHER ONE OF US CAN!

that's makes it invalid.

You will not find a passage of scripture that says adam had the ability to resist the sin of temptation and not eat of the tree.. Nor will you find in the word anything that says he had no choice in the matter, He had no ability to not chose to sin.

But carry on..

Been here done that many times..

Ok, boys. Per rule 4.4 please settle on one of these fallacies to work through to agreement, and don't engage in other claims of fallacy until you have agreed on that one. If I am misusing that rule, then report my post here, and I will leave it to someone else to approve and correct me. I would like to say, don't even talk to one another, until then, but I'm not sure 4.4 should be used to mean that.

[From the moderator who drafted rule 4.4: Makesends is enforcing the rule correctly. Josheb identified a logical fallacy committed by Eternally-Grateful and explained how it was committed. Eternally-Grateful must either confirm that he shifted the burden of proof and answer Josheb's original request for a biblical reference, or deny the allegation with a careful explanation of how he didn't shift the burden of proof. And neither person can allege any other logical fallacies until this allegation is resolved.]

 

[Carbon]

Eleanor said:
Nevertheless, it is their choice at the time. . .no external force made them do it.

Indeed it was.

Not in the philosophical sense (power to make all moral choices). . .but in the Biblical sense, it is simply choosing what one prefers.

Yes

Both statements are incorrect.

Would you explain how? Don't just say so, explain it.

Can you show in scripture where man's choice isn't self-determined? If he does anything evil, it's out of his own voluntary choosing, is it not? Of course, the natural man's "choice" is not free, because man is fallen and wicked, his choice is driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. "This choice is of necessity, not force." Who would say that man is drawn forcefully into unwillingly sinning? But because his will is evil and corrupt, he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore, under necessity wills in an evil way. Wherever there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a big difference whether the bondage is voluntary or forced.

 

[makesends]

I think that a necessity, not just a highly commendable suggestion.

EVERY good case begins with defining its terms....... correctly.

A lie never makes sense. Just saying.

Cannot a debate be conducted on what a word supposedly means? Can't we debate on an assumed meaning for the sake of argument? We do this all the time. It may be arguing from silence, sometimes, but we often say, "If that is what he meant, then he would have....!" So, if free will is only the ability to choose whatever one wants, we can say, "That implies then, that the word, "free", doesn't belong, and we are free to demonstrate how not. And you have ably done that below. Now, convince the opponents. Nicely.

Welll... if the opening post's definition is incorrect then the thread was "ruined" before it started and that ruining did not occur at the hands of the respondents.

The definition of the word "free" (as I have already posted) is "autonomous" or "not subject to the power or control of other influences."

Does anyone here dispute that definition? Does everyone affirm that definition?

The definition of the word "will" is, "the faculty of faculty of wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending."

Does anyone here dispute that definition? Does everyone affirm that definition?

Put together, the two words form the phrase being discussed, "free will," which, according to the dictionary definition of the terms constituents means, "the faculty of wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending not subject to the power or control of other influences."

Does anyone dispute that definition? Does everyone affirm that definition?


I affirm every word of it AND I can make an impeccable case to prove there are many influences having power or control over every choice we make.

That is why I think "volitional agency" is the better, more accurate, more valid, veracious, efficacious, and wholly scriptural alternative. We can and do make choices, but they are never made without the power or control of outside influences.

OR, you may wish to engage in another way around, like I am trying to do, deal with facts related to the OP, but not directly engaging the definition.

 

[makesends]

Josheb said:
That is a shifting onus. That question attempts to shift the burden of proving the op's assertion onto someone else to prove an alternative. That is fallacious. The new forum rule requires me to prove the fallacy so HERE and HERE are two sources defining the fallacy. It is up to you to prove scripture attributes what happened in Genesis 3:6-7 to Adam's free choice, not up to me to prove something different.

So, please either provide the scripture requested, or correct the fallacious statement (or both).

this is called an illogical falacy. and hypoocricy

You demand I prove it by the word. and I demand you prove it by the word.

The problem you fail to realize is NEITHER ONE OF US CAN!

that's makes it invalid.

You will not find a passage of scripture that says adam had the ability to resist the sin of temptation and not eat of the tree.. Nor will you find in the word anything that says he had no choice in the matter, He had no ability to not chose to sin.

But carry on..

Been here done that many times..

Ok, boys. Rule 4.4 please. One fallacy at-a-time.

 

[makesends]

Eleanor said:
Nevertheless, it is their choice at the time. . .no external force made them do it.

Indeed it was.

Not in the philosophical sense (power to make all moral choices). . .but in the Biblical sense, it is simply choosing what one prefers.

Yes

Josheb said:
Both statements are incorrect.
Hey, Josh, which are the two statements @Eleanor made that you say are incorrect? I see three, and possibly four, there.

Would you explain how? Don't just say so, explain it.

Can you show in scripture where man's choice isn't self-determined? If he does anything evil, it's out of his own voluntary choosing, is it not? Of course, the natural man's "choice" is not free, because man is fallen and wicked, his choice is driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. "This choice is of necessity, not force." Who would say that man is drawn forcefully into unwillingly sinning? But because his will is evil and corrupt, he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore, under necessity wills in an evil way. Wherever there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a big difference whether the bondage is voluntary or forced.

Carbon, speaking for myself, and you may remember this from a ways back, and Eleanor agreed with me, but didn't change how she said it, that the unbeliever is free to do as he will, aaarugh. Eleanor help me out here! Free to do as he will within certain bounds, or something like that. Their free will is encumbered and limited by their sin nature. They can only do rebellion. To me the word, free, there, is imprecise. She agrees with what I insist on but doesn't find it necessary to insist on it. This dictionary definition sounds a lot like how she put it, but I don't think she means what this does:

free will

noun

1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion

You (Carbon), here sound like that to me. It is not a question of whether man is self-determining. It is a question of whether man's self-determination falls within the absolute determination by God. God uses means to accomplish his ends. Man's self-determining is one of those means. I am worse than Josh in this. From several different directions of thought, I find no other logical recourse than to believe that God is in absolute control of every most miniscule detail, to the smallest and most supposedly insignificant fact. He caused it all; but that does not mean that they had no other causes. But God caused those causes too, and those, mostly by far, by means of earlier causes, and so on. And none of it by accident or without his purposes being forwarded.

There is no such thing as uncaused, except for God himself. Nothing can come to pass in a vacuum. Something caused it.

 

[Carbon]

Eleanor said:
Nevertheless, it is their choice at the time. . .no external force made them do it.

Not in the philosophical sense (power to make all moral choices). . .but in the Biblical sense, it is simply choosing what one prefers.

Josheb said:
Both statements are incorrect.
Hey, Josh, which are the two statements @Eleanor made that you say are incorrect? I see three, and possibly four, there.

Carbon, speaking for myself, and you may remember this from a ways back, and Eleanor agreed with me, but didn't change how she said it, that the unbeliever is free to do as he will, aaarugh. Eleanor help me out here! Free to do as he will within certain bounds, or something like that. Their free will is encumbered and limited by their sin nature. They can only do rebellion. To me the word, free, there, is imprecise. She agrees with what I insist on but doesn't find it necessary to insist on it. This dictionary definition sounds a lot like how she put it, but I don't think she means what this does:

free will

noun

1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion

You (Carbon), here sound like that to me. It is not a question of whether man is self-determining. It is a question of whether man's self-determination falls within the absolute determination by God. God uses means to accomplish his ends. Man's self-determining is one of those means. I am worse than Josh in this. From several different directions of thought, I find no other logical recourse than to believe that God is in absolute control of every most miniscule detail, to the smallest and most supposedly insignificant fact. He caused it all; but that does not mean that they had no other causes. But God caused those causes too, and those, mostly by far, by means of earlier causes, and so on. And none of it by accident or without his purposes being forwarded.

There is no such thing as uncaused, except for God himself. Nothing can come to pass in a vacuum. Something caused it.

Well if you believe God is the cause of every single thing ever to happen then there is simply no room for debate. To believe God is in control of every minuscule detail to the smallest and most insignificant thing which would include even a Nazi tossing a Jew into a furnace, I am not so sure I can agree. I do know all things work to God's good pleasure and will, but I also believe there are areas that are just too profound and too wonderful for us to engage in, it is beyond our means, as we were not there when God spoke the universe into existence, So I would refrain from saying God is involved in every single smallest detain in life as if He wasn't things would spin out of His control. In other words, God did not have to make that Nazi toss that Jew in the furnace to keep things on the path. But instead, just God lifting His hand of sustaining grace would be more than enough to want the Nazi to follow his orders and more willingly at that.

Now I believe all things will go according to God's plan, and divine providence is real, but whether I choose vanilla ice cream or chocolate, I do not believe will make a difference.


I also believe Scripture teaches man is a free agent. Or why would there be passages like, Come to me, obey or disobey, choose between good and evil, etc... Scripture presents man with the capacity to choose. Of course, it does teach according to their nature. Because of our nature there is a necessity to choose a certain way, but we are not forced. Scripture teaches also, we are responsible for our actions. If we weren't free agents, how could we be responsible? I'm not talking about free will, choice is not free. But once we say our will is forced, we make a contradiction because it contradicts the nature of will.
And if we are not dragged unwillingly to carry out a sin, then we cannot pass the buck to anyone else.

 

[Carbon]

free will

noun

1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion

Modern definitions? Bah Humbug

1828 Noah webster​

Will​

---

WILL, noun [See the Verb.]

1. That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action; the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue. The will is directed or influenced by the judgment. The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue. In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable. These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual part of man. Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will will is often quite a different thing from desire.

Free​

---

FREE, noun [Heb. See Frank.]

1. Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral; a word of general application to the body, the will or mind, and to corporations.

 

[makesends]

Modern definitions? Bah Humbug

I wasn't going by that definition. I disagree with it. I was using it as the term, 'constraint', is sort of like what @Eleanor says

1828 Noah webster​

Will​

---

WILL, noun [See the Verb.]

1. That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action; the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue. The will is directed or influenced by the judgment. The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue. In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable. These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual part of man. Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will will is often quite a different thing from desire.

Free​

---

FREE, noun [Heb. See Frank.]

1. Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral; a word of general application to the body, the will or mind, and to corporations.

With a name like 'Noah Webster', he should have lived longer than Methuselah. But, hopefully, his dictionary will.

 

[makesends]

Well if you believe God is the cause of every single thing ever to happen then there is simply no room for debate. To believe God is in control of every minuscule detail to the smallest and most insignificant thing which would include even a Nazi tossing a Jew into a furnace, I am not so sure I can agree. I do know all things work to God's good pleasure and will, but I also believe there are areas that are just too profound and too wonderful for us to engage in, it is beyond our means, as we were not there when God spoke the universe into existence, So I would refrain from saying God is involved in every single smallest detain in life as if He wasn't things would spin out of His control.

I would say that if he wasn't, they would cease to exist at all—not 'spin out of control'.

In other words, God did not have to make that Nazi toss that Jew in the furnace to keep things on the path. But instead, just God lifting His hand of sustaining grace would be more than enough to want the Nazi to follow his orders and more willingly at that.

How did those orders come about? How did Satan just so happen to be sauntering by God there, in Job? Did God call a meeting, there in Ahab's story? NOthing can happen by mere chance. It is all ordained by God.

Now I believe all things will go according to God's plan, and divine providence is real, but whether I choose vanilla ice cream or chocolate, I do not believe will make a difference.


I also believe Scripture teaches man is a free agent. Or why would there be passages like, Come to me, obey or disobey, choose between good and evil, etc... Scripture presents man with the capacity to choose. Of course, it does teach according to their nature. Because of our nature there is a necessity to choose a certain way, but we are not forced. Scripture teaches also, we are responsible for our actions. If we weren't free agents, how could we be responsible? I'm not talking about free will, choice is not free. But once we say our will is forced, we make a contradiction because it contradicts the nature of will.
And if we are not dragged unwillingly to carry out a sin, then we cannot pass the buck to anyone else.

Let me put it like this. It is the most logically sound conclusion I can draw, that God determines absolutely all that comes to pass.

That does not mean that others are not also what decide things. It does not deny man the capacity to choose. It also does not deny the law of causation—which is what @Josheb and I disagree the WCF 3.1 refers to as "the liberty or contingency of second causes". (We both do, though, love the statement —at least, I think he does— that instead of the liberty or contingency of second causes being taken away, that God establishes them). And if God establishes them, then he causes them, one way or another. I think you are agreed, at least, that they have no existence on their own.

This does not give occasion to pass the buck concerning our responsibility for our decisions, deeds, thoughts and attitudes. It is a vapid argument, that if God causes absolutely, that we do not have any choice. We always choose according to what we want at any particular moment. We don't operate in his arena.

 

[Carbon]

I would say that if he wasn't, they would cease to exist at all—not 'spin out of control'.

How did those orders come about? How did Satan just so happen to be sauntering by God there, in Job? Did God call a meeting, there in Ahab's story? NOthing can happen by mere chance. It is all ordained by God.

Let me put it like this. It is the most logically sound conclusion I can draw, that God determines absolutely all that comes to pass.

That does not mean that others are not also what decide things. It does not deny man the capacity to choose. It also does not deny the law of causation—which is what @Josheb and I disagree the WCF 3.1 refers to as "the liberty or contingency of second causes". (We both do, though, love the statement —at least, I think he does— that instead of the liberty or contingency of second causes being taken away, that God establishes them). And if God establishes them, then he causes them, one way or another. I think you are agreed, at least, that they have no existence on their own.

This does not give occasion to pass the buck concerning our responsibility for our decisions, deeds, thoughts and attitudes. It is a vapid argument, that if God causes absolutely, that we do not have any choice. We always choose according to what we want at any particular moment. We don't operate in his arena.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying here. You and @Josheb disagree with WCF 3.1?

 

[Carbon]

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying here. You and @Josheb disagree with WCF 3.1?

@makesends and @Josheb I suppose if you would agree with WCF 3.1 then you would also have to agree with secondary causes.

 

[makesends]

@makesends and @Josheb I suppose if you would agree with WCF 3.1 then you would also have to agree with secondary causes.

Guessing what you mean by it, I would say that Josh does, but maybe not me. I do agree with what I think it means, but the bone of contention has to do with what the writers meant by (and I've underlined the particular words), "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Why do you bring that up? Do you agree with it? What do you think it means?

 

[makesends]

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying here. You and @Josheb disagree with WCF 3.1?

Not at all. We disagree as to what The Authors of the WCF meant. See the other related post to your question.

 

[Carbon]

Guessing what you mean by it, I would say that Josh does, but maybe not me. I do agree with what I think it means, but the bone of contention has to do with what the writers meant by (and I've underlined the particular words), "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Why do you bring that up? Do you agree with it? What do you think it means?

I agree with it.

 

[makesends]

I agree with it.

Nice and short, lolol. Ok, I will relent for now.

So do I. In fact, I love it.

 

[Carbon]

Nice and short, lolol. Ok, I will relent for now.

So do I. In fact, I love it.

Thanks, bro. I'm just getting tired. Hitting the hay. gn

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Adam and Eve were made by God and lived in the garden of Eden.

Let us assume that Adam and Eve did not have free will.

That would mean that when God breathed life into Adam's mouth he was made with a fallen sinful nature, which obviously passed into Eve when she was made.

What we don't know is why.

If Adam didn't have a free will, then he was made with a fallen sinful nature? How does that follow?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

If God determines all choices, then ... [that would] free the one who sinned from any responsibility.

If we are not free to do, we could not in essence be held accountable.

The idea that moral accountability is determined by moral ability is a conclusion in desperate need of an argument. And since a statement like, "I can't see how it could be otherwise," would be autobiographical information, not an argument, let's have something more relevant and robust.

read the passage again

whoever believes (this happens first)

is born of God.

they are not born first. then believe, this does not make sense in my view

Read the passage again, but this time in the original Greek and you will discover that πιστεύων (pisteuon) is a present active participle, indicating continuous or ongoing action—"everyone who is believing." This is an ongoing state of faith, not a one-time event. So, every believing person "has been fathered" or born of God (γεγέννηται, gegennetai), which is in the perfect passive indicative. In other words, being born of God is prior to the ongoing faith of the believer. The structure of this passage shows that regeneration is the cause and faith is the result.

(See my post on this passage here.)

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Does [the question of what the will is free from] need to be brought up before we can agree on a (tentative) working definition of free will, before beginning our arguments?

Before or after, it matters not to me—so long as it's answered at some point, since the answer is of fundamental relevance and importance to the discussion.

Can we agree to use the term "libertarian free will," or at least use that term as the definition of "free will" for the purposes of this thread?

No, because compatibilists believe in free-will—but also determinism. In other words, they believe in "free-will" but reject "libertarian free-will." So, that is not an adequate term to use (because we have a lot of compatibilists here).

Sorry, but I forgot to add that the term "libertarian free will" invokes notions of (or is by definition the same as) uncaused choice.

Not necessarily. Non-causal libertarianism (wherein choices are free but not necessarily caused) is actually a minority view among libertarian free-will advocates. The more common views are agent-causal libertarianism (free choices originate from agents, not prior events) and event-causal libertarianism (indeterministic events [e.g., in the brain] introduce genuine alternative possibilities).

My recommendation? There are a variety of different views in play on this question and nearly all of them affirm human free-will in one respect or another. That means having everyone talk about "free will" is unlikely to be productive because, in some ways, we'll all be talking past one another.

As I see it, the primary dividing line is between determinism and indeterminism. So, I would recommend narrowing the discussion to these top three views: (1) incompatibilist determinism, (2) compatibilist determinism, and (3) incompatibilist libertarianism (or libertarian indeterminism). According to the first one, the will is not really a "decider" but rather a mechanism that expresses what has already been determined. According to the second, the will is a decision-making faculty that selects between determined (closed) possibilities (i.e., you choose based on what you most desire). And according to the third one, the will is a decision-making faculty that selects between undetermined (open) possibilities.

 

[makesends]

Before or after, it matters not to me—so long as it's answered at some point, since the answer is of fundamental relevance and importance to the discussion.




No, because compatibilists believe in free-will—but also determinism. In other words, they believe in "free-will" but reject "libertarian free-will." So, that is not an adequate term to use (because we have a lot of compatibilists here).




Not necessarily. Non-causal libertarianism (wherein choices are free but not necessarily caused) is actually a minority view among libertarian free-will advocates. The more common views are agent-causal libertarianism (free choices originate from agents, not prior events) and event-causal libertarianism (indeterministic events [e.g., in the brain] introduce genuine alternative possibilities).

My recommendation? There are a variety of different views in play on this question and nearly all of them affirm human free-will in one respect or another. That means having everyone talk about "free will" is unlikely to be productive because, in some ways, we'll all be talking past one another.

As I see it, the primary dividing line is between determinism and indeterminism. So, I would recommend narrowing the discussion to these top three views: (1) incompatibilist determinism, (2) compatibilist determinism, and (3) incompatibilist libertarianism. According to the first one, the will is not really a "decider" but rather a mechanism that expresses what has already been determined. According to the second, the will is a decision-making faculty that selects between determined (closed) possibilities (i.e., you choose based on what you most desire). And according to the third one, the will is a decision-making faculty that selects between undetermined (open) possibilities.

Lol, I don't go with any of those, but if I had to choose, I'd go for 2, except that the definitions I read for it are not how I mean it.

But, for the comfort of the OP, can we not adopt for the mere sake of argument, his definition? It doesn't mean we agree it is a valid definition. It only means we can argue why think it valid or invalid. Then we move on.