Free Will ~yet again.

[fastfredy0]

Re: He chose, to get a higher dose. Was that addiction talking or his will.

Sounds to me like a good illustration of a will being influenced and decidedly not 'free'.

Well, it could be that the influence regarding drug could be completely internal (self-determined).

He had a desire to take drugs because of his desire to feel physically euphoria or whatever. He took the drugs the 1st time and the experience validated his initial desire and his desire increased.

My question is: What was the cause of his initial desire to experience physical euphoria? It's not like his determined his "innate" desires where innate is defined as "Existing naturally or by heredity". Something or someone determined his "innate" desires like having a "sin nature" for example or "fear of heights".

 

[fastfredy0]

If a physical infirmity can control, restrict, or limits a person's will then the infirm person is not volitionally free.

Gee, then no one is free. Example: no ones body can fly (physical infirmity) and thus everyone's will is limited.

 

[fastfredy0]

And we do not agree BTW that the word "free' means without any controls, powers, or limits.

@Josheb

... back to step one.... an agreed upon definition *giggle*

 

[Josheb]

That is not a yes or no question.... And we do not agree BTW that the word "free' means without any controls, powers, or limits.

Then let's start over.

The Oxford Dictionary defines "free" as not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes, but it does not limit "to another" to a person. The example it provides is "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free." The second definition it provides is, not or no longer confined or imprisoned.​

The sinful human's will is not under the control or in the power of another; it is not confined or imprisoned.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition is much more detailed and diverse, but the definition most applicable to this discussion is, not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being: choosing or capable of choosing for itself. Additional definitions like determined by the choice of the actor or performer, not bound, confined, or detained by force are also oapplicable.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines "free," as very succinctly and simply as not limited or controlled.

The Collins Dictionary, defines "free" as someone or something that is free is not restricted, controlled, or limited, for example, by rules, customs, or other people. It does not limit the restrictions, controls, or limits to a person. The control, restriction, or limit may be something, not someone. Examples given are rules and customs, but that list is not exhaustive.

The Britannica Dictionary defines "free" as able to do what you want to do : able to move, go, or act without being stopped, not controlled by a harsh ruler or laws, not limited in any way.​

The one aspect all those definitions have in common is the lack of control, restriction, and limits. Each cites examples, but none of the examples are exhaustive. So....

Does the word "free" mean without controls, restrictions, limits, or not? If you like we can amend the agreed upon definition to say the free will is able to act as one chooses without controls, restrictions, or limits of any kind. Will that work for you?

 

[Josheb]

Gee, then no one is free. Example: no ones body can fly (physical infirmity) and thus everyone's will is limited.

Exactly. And we need to clear those kinds of controls out of the way so the soteriologically relevant aspects of volitional agency can be correctly discussed.

 

[fastfredy0]

not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being: choosing or capable of choosing for itself.

This definition would allow God to program (create) my nature and yet God's programming would not be considered in whether I am free or not free. By that definition I believe I would say I have "free will" and it would go along with Augustine's definition that one is free if one can choose according to one's greatest desire at the time.

The Oxford Dictionary defines "free" as not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes

If God determines my desires via giving me a "sin nature" then it seems obvious I cannot be "free".

 

[fastfredy0]

Aside: Going to be so many restrictions as to what is allowing to be consider in the definition of "Free" that it is counter intuitive. *giggle*

I.E. If you don't consider A, B, C, D, E, F, G .... then you are free.... lol

Don't consider your physical being, your sin nature, your parents, your being indwelled by the Spirit, yada, yada ... then you are free. *giggle*

 

[fastfredy0]

To the degree the man is "free" from God to do X or Y, to that degree God is NOT FREE. I control God ... wow! cool *giggle* (disclaimer: sarcasm Lord)

 

[Josheb]

This definition would allow God to program (create) my nature and yet God's programming would not be considered in whether I am free or not free. By that definition I believe I would say I have "free will" and it would go along with Augustine's definition that one is free if one can choose according to one's greatest desire at the time.


If God determines my desires via giving me a "sin nature" then it seems obvious I cannot be "free".

None of which I would wholly agree with. However, you'll understand if I delay replying until the discussion with @Rella is established.

 

[fastfredy0]

None of which I would wholly agree with. However, you'll understand if I delay replying until the discussion with @Rella is established.

Agree .... I just butting in for entertainment. You're doing a great job, though sure takes a long time to define the question of the thread. We are at post #330 after all .... giggle

 

[Rella]

Then let's start over.

The Oxford Dictionary defines "free" as not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes, but it does not limit "to another" to a person. The example it provides is "I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free." The second definition it provides is, not or no longer confined or imprisoned.​

The sinful human's will is not under the control or in the power of another; it is not confined or imprisoned.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition is much more detailed and diverse, but the definition most applicable to this discussion is, not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being: choosing or capable of choosing for itself. Additional definitions like determined by the choice of the actor or performer, not bound, confined, or detained by force are also oapplicable.​

​

The Cambridge Dictionary defines "free," as very succinctly and simply as not limited or controlled.​

​

The Collins Dictionary, defines "free" as someone or something that is free is not restricted, controlled, or limited, for example, by rules, customs, or other people. It does not limit the restrictions, controls, or limits to a person. The control, restriction, or limit may be something, not someone. Examples given are rules and customs, but that list is not exhaustive.​

​

The Britannica Dictionary defines "free" as able to do what you want to do : able to move, go, or act without being stopped, not controlled by a harsh ruler or laws, not limited in any way.​

The one aspect all those definitions have in common is the lack of control, restriction, and limits. Each cites examples, but none of the examples are exhaustive. So....

Does the word "free" mean without controls, restrictions, limits, or not? If you like we can amend the agreed upon definition to say the free will is able to act as one chooses without controls, restrictions, or limits of any kind. Will that work for you?

I will stipulate to agreeing that
The word "free" mean without controls, restrictions, limits, or not? The free will is able to act as one chooses without controls, restrictions, or limits of any kind.

Is this in your acceptance?

I can definitively make a statement of truth. I believe I am too old for this.

(Ah, Dorothy Bryson... where are you when you are needed?)

 

[Rella]

Re: He chose, to get a higher dose. Was that addiction talking or his will.

Well, it could be that the influence regarding drug could be completely internal (self-determined).

He had a desire to take drugs because of his desire to feel physically euphoria or whatever. He took the drugs the 1st time and the experience validated his initial desire and his desire increased.

My question is: What was the cause of his initial desire to experience physical euphoria? It's not like his determined his "innate" desires where innate is defined as "Existing naturally or by heredity". Something or someone determined his "innate" desires like having a "sin nature" for example or "fear of heights".

I would be willing to bet a donut hole that he liked what he witnessed in other users.

Actually Matthew Perry was undergoing ketamine infusion therapy to treat depression and anxiety.

And obviously he liked the effect.

Outside influence. Initially. Continued use by choice

 

[Rella]

Gee, then no one is free. Example: no ones body can fly (physical infirmity) and thus everyone's will is limited.

I am so happy that God chose you before time began to be one of the chosen. OSAS must feel pretty good?

Yes, it does.

 

[Rella]

None of which I would wholly agree with. However, you'll understand if I delay replying until the discussion with @Rella is established.

Feel free to go with what you want.

 

[Alive]

I am so happy that God chose you before time began to be one of the chosen. OSAS must feel pretty good?

Yes, it does.

Why do you mock others to make a point

 

[Rella]

Why do you mock others to make a point

My humblest apologies.

My defenses kick in when we all know why people set out to disprove Free Will.

Tell Johseb and fastfredy0 that I will bow out and if you want to report me... I understand.

 

[Alive]

My humblest apologies.

My defenses kick in when we all know why people set out to disprove Free Will.

Tell Johseb and fastfredy0 that I will bow out and if you want to report me... I understand.

Nope…not necessary. Just adjust for the good of all.
You are a good member who can add much to discussions.

 

[Rella]

Nope…not necessary. Just adjust for the good of all.
You are a good member who can add much to discussions.

I dont know where I wrote that.

"Just adjust for the good of all."

Oh, I understand...

Adjust my attitude.

 

[fastfredy0]

My humblest apologies.

Not a problem. I don't think you are "Free" to determine how you will treat me anyways. *giggle*

 

[Josheb]

I will stipulate to agreeing that
The word "free" mean without controls, restrictions, limits, or not? The free will is able to act as one chooses without controls, restrictions, or limits of any kind.

Is this in your acceptance?

Yes.

Now.... if I understand the exchange correctly, then we agree physical infirmities and addictions qualify as condition that can and do places controls, restrictions, and/or limits on the will of the infirm or addicted.

Yes?

How about the items listed in Post 266? Are those items all amenable to you? Can you agree that each of those conditions poses controls, restrictions, or limits on the will of the person living in any of those conditions?

If the answer is yes, then we can move into scripture.