Free Will ~yet again.

[Tambora]

We have been told God cannot lie.

Do we know why God cannot lie? He was never made. He did not come from a big bang that if remotely true was designed by Him. He has always been and always will be.... so why can He not lie.

Could it be by choice? Then certainly would not be an infringement on free will but a benefit.

If we take the Greek word used in:

Hebrews 6:18 KJV​

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:​

And compare it with how that word [G102] is used in other NT verses, it denotes an impossibility to do so, powerless to do so, impotent to do so.
So I'm not sure how that could be construed that God can do it but just chooses not to.
But if we decide that the word doesn't have to mean an absolute impossibility to do so, but just one's choice not to do so, then how would that change the concept in the other verses that word is used?

Luke 18:27 KJV​

And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.​

​

​

Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV​

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,​

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,​

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.​

​

​

Hebrews 11:6 KJV​

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.​

​

​

Romans 8:3 KJV​

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:​

​

​

Acts 14:8 KJV​

And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:​

​

Hebrews 10:4 KJV​

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.​

 

[Tambora]

God will not will to go against His character. His will is free in that He answers to no one and no thing. He governs it all.

His character is all His attributes including mercy and love and justice. And yet, it is these very characteristics that will not, and cannot, overlook sin. He will send the unrepentant wicked to destruction.

He ordered war and killing for the Israelites. He subjected all of creation to the effects of man's transgressions. (Romans 8:18-25)

Some people would consider that God going against His love and mercy and justice.

"Will not" or "cannot"?
See my post #341.

 

[Rella]

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?

Can I say a qualified yes, just to move this along? I see your reasoning and I cannot, at this time, provide a valid arguement that you would be 100% wrong so I am limiting myself??????????

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.

These are those in Post 266

• For example, because God is almighty, and we are not any and all conflict between the human will exists only as long as God permits. The creature CANNOT usurp the Creator's will.

YES ~ God is almighty. YES the human will exists only as long as God permits.

NO~ As God was the designer and creator of all human life through his prototype as explained in Genesis and down through the ages
we continue. It is unfounded and unreasonable to conclude that God did not instill a "free" will into man in the first place.
You, and no one , has proven where it is said that God simply did not do that .

• We live in time and space, and for us time is linear. Our will cannot overcome that limitation. Within that overarching limitation are a myriad of other articular limitations. For example....

No ~ Not in the sense you mean it. Consider: Your spirit is not restricted to where we live. But more importantly if you have the capability to love, if you have the capability for faith, having the capability for free will is no different.

If for love to be real, it must not be coerced. If we did not have the ability to reject God, then neither would we have the ability to truly love Him. Some as well as I even go so far as to say that human freedom is the highest good and that even God will not violate it.

FACT:Genuine love and genuine good can only exist in a world where there is an opportunity for genuine rejection and genuine evil.

• We cannot know all the previously occurring event that come to bear on any single moment of choice. We are ignorant of most of them and, therefore, every choice is made in ignorance.

Yes ~ In ignorance is often a fact. That also is often how we learn. Would it not be overly boring to know the exact outcome of every aspect of life?

• We cannot know all the options available in any given moment of choice. The more options available to our knowledge the better (more efficacious) our choices will be. Because we limited knowledge of our options our ability to choose is consequently limited, and not autonomous.

Yes ~ But we cannot know all the options available in any moment. TRUE.
Yes~ The more available . the better. Usually TRUE.
No~ Our ability to choose is consequently limited, and not autonomous. FALSE You are entering into a very philosophical area that has no
yes or no answers....

Examples of autonomous behaviors

Taking steps to pursue personal goals is an example of autonomous behavior. This might include pursuing a hobby that interests you, taking classes that help you toward your educational goals, or learning about a new subject because you find the topic fascinating.
OR
Setting boundaries in a relationship to protect your values
Getting up early each morning to go for a run because you enjoy doing it
Signing up for a community softball team because you enjoy playing
Making decisions about things you want by researching your options

In each case, you engage in a behavior because you feel intrinsically motivated and not because you are being told to do so by an external force.

NOW: I am stopping here for I could go on and on and on and we still will likely disagree.

I also am stopping my answers to your remaining questions simply because they are variants of what you have already posted.

• Neither can we know all the possible consequences of our choices. The more knowledge of consequences we have the better our choices and if we knew certain consequences would occur, we'd make different choices.
• Every single one of us is raised in a specific family, a specific kind of family, in a specific culture, in a specific society. Each one of these is a separate control or power, a separate bullet-point but I've listed them together for the sake of space.
• Then there are events that are so significant that they force changes on use that then skew everything we think, feel, choose, and do in life going forward from that event. Every traumatic episode does this. The following information was unknown in the days of the ECFs, Augustine, Calvin, etc., but it has always existed: The brain literally changes in episodes of sudden change and one of those changes is the neural pathway used in that episode then becomes the preferred pathway for all similar events in the future. The brain conditions itself to literally NOT be free. It's a maladaptive response to risk, and everyone has it.
• Sin causes changes that are limiting. Everyone agrees. What we do not agree upon is the degree to which a person is changed. The Augustinian-influence perspectives (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Reformed Arminianism, etc.) all agree: the effects of sin are so thorough that they prevent a sinner from coming to God for salvation, even if the effects do not prevent the sinner from doing good in other areas.

 

[Rella]

If we take the Greek word used in:

Hebrews 6:18 KJV​

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:​

And compare it with how that word [G102] is used in other NT verses, it denotes an impossibility to do so, powerless to do so, impotent to do so.
So I'm not sure how that could be construed that God can do it but just chooses not to.

Who stops God? What would keep Him from doing anything he chooses to do?

But if we decide that the word doesn't have to mean an absolute impossibility to do so, but just one's choice not to do so, then how would that change the concept in the other verses that word is used?

The following are applicable to man not God.

Luke 18:27 KJV​

And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.​

​

​

Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV​

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,​

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,​

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.​

​

​

Hebrews 11:6 KJV​

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.​

​

​

Romans 8:3 KJV​

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:​

​

​

Acts 14:8 KJV​

And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:​

​

Hebrews 10:4 KJV​

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.​

 

[Arial]

"Will not" or "cannot"?
See my post #341.

Will not. It is His own internal being of which lying etc. are not a part of, that is the motivator of God's actions. Not anything outside of Himself. "Cannot" is a human perspective.

 

[Tambora]

Will not. It is His own internal being of which lying etc. are not a part of, that is the motivator of God's actions. Not anything outside of Himself. "Cannot" is a human perspective.

Scripture says 'cannot'.
Human perspective says 'will not'.

 

[Arial]

Scripture says 'cannot'.
Human perspective says 'will not'.

In that passage "cannot" is the human perspective, I think. There is no such thing as a cannot in God. "Nothing is impossible with God."

 

[Josheb]

Can I say a qualified yes, just to move this along? I see your reasoning and I cannot, at this time, provide a valid arguement that you would be 100% wrong so I am limiting myself??????????

Sure.

These are those in Post 266

• For example, because God is almighty, and we are not any and all conflict between the human will exists only as long as God permits. The creature CANNOT usurp the Creator's will.

YES ~ God is almighty. YES the human will exists only as long as God permits.

NO~ As God was the designer and creator of all human life through his prototype as explained in Genesis and down through the ages
we continue. It is unfounded and unreasonable to conclude that God did not instill a "free" will into man in the first place.
You, and no one , has proven where it is said that God simply did not do that .

• We live in time and space, and for us time is linear. Our will cannot overcome that limitation. Within that overarching limitation are a myriad of other articular limitations. For example....

No ~ Not in the sense you mean it. Consider: Your spirit is not restricted to where we live. But more importantly if you have the capability to love, if you have the capability for faith, having the capability for free will is no different.

If for love to be real, it must not be coerced. If we did not have the ability to reject God, then neither would we have the ability to truly love Him. Some as well as I even go so far as to say that human freedom is the highest good and that even God will not violate it.

FACT:Genuine love and genuine good can only exist in a world where there is an opportunity for genuine rejection and genuine evil.

• We cannot know all the previously occurring event that come to bear on any single moment of choice. We are ignorant of most of them and, therefore, every choice is made in ignorance.

Yes ~ In ignorance is often a fact. That also is often how we learn. Would it not be overly boring to know the exact outcome of every aspect of life?

• We cannot know all the options available in any given moment of choice. The more options available to our knowledge the better (more efficacious) our choices will be. Because we limited knowledge of our options our ability to choose is consequently limited, and not autonomous.

Yes ~ But we cannot know all the options available in any moment. TRUE.
Yes~ The more available . the better. Usually TRUE.
No~ Our ability to choose is consequently limited, and not autonomous. FALSE You are entering into a very philosophical area that has no
yes or no answers....

Examples of autonomous behaviors

Taking steps to pursue personal goals is an example of autonomous behavior. This might include pursuing a hobby that interests you, taking classes that help you toward your educational goals, or learning about a new subject because you find the topic fascinating.
OR
Setting boundaries in a relationship to protect your values
Getting up early each morning to go for a run because you enjoy doing it
Signing up for a community softball team because you enjoy playing
Making decisions about things you want by researching your options

In each case, you engage in a behavior because you feel intrinsically motivated and not because you are being told to do so by an external force.

NOW: I am stopping here for I could go on and on and on and we still will likely disagree.

I also am stopping my answers to your remaining questions simply because they are variants of what you have already posted.

• Neither can we know all the possible consequences of our choices. The more knowledge of consequences we have the better our choices and if we knew certain consequences would occur, we'd make different choices.
• Every single one of us is raised in a specific family, a specific kind of family, in a specific culture, in a specific society. Each one of these is a separate control or power, a separate bullet-point but I've listed them together for the sake of space.
• Then there are events that are so significant that they force changes on use that then skew everything we think, feel, choose, and do in life going forward from that event. Every traumatic episode does this. The following information was unknown in the days of the ECFs, Augustine, Calvin, etc., but it has always existed: The brain literally changes in episodes of sudden change and one of those changes is the neural pathway used in that episode then becomes the preferred pathway for all similar events in the future. The brain conditions itself to literally NOT be free. It's a maladaptive response to risk, and everyone has it.
• Sin causes changes that are limiting. Everyone agrees. What we do not agree upon is the degree to which a person is changed. The Augustinian-influence perspectives (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Reformed Arminianism, etc.) all agree: the effects of sin are so thorough that they prevent a sinner from coming to God for salvation, even if the effects do not prevent the sinner from doing good in other areas.

All the "No" answers prevent us from having an intelligent discussion.

Would you like to discuss one of the "No"s? If so, then my preference would be to discuss the first one, the premise that a sinful human can overrule and usurp God's will against God's will, but I am amenable to one of the others.

It is unfounded and unreasonable to conclude that God did not instill a "free" will into man in the first place.

It is not "unfounded." You have already agreed there are many controls, restrictions, and/or limits on the human will. That, by definition, by agreed-upon definition, necessarily means the human will is not free. Stop arguing God instilled a free will when there are many controls, restrictions, and limits on the will. We may have agency within those controls, restrictions, and limits, but the will is not free. You cannot contradict yourself and not have me point out the inconsistency.

It's one of the reasons an agreed upon definition is important.

You would not want me to agree to a definition and then ignore the definition and ignore the agreement, would you? Then don't do it to me. Post within the agreed upon definition. You agreed there are controls, restrictions, and limits. And then you contradicted yourself. You unfounded yourself . What is unreasonable to argue is that God did not give the human volitional agency. The will is not free, it is not without controls, restrictions, and limits but within those controls, restrictions, and limits the human can choose some things. Not all things, only some things.

 

[makesends]

Agreed. I use the term "self-determination".
My experience is that supporters limit the definition of "free will" to "the ability to choose" and ignore the "free" part of the term.


Amen ... but good luck convincing supporters of "free will" to agree to the obvious or even define "free will" and stick to that definition if they define it.
I asked @Rella when he:
1) chose to be conceived in sin (Psalm 5:5)
2) chose to be given a "sin nature"
He didn't respond.

I can't speak particularly to @Rella's reticence to define "free will" further than what you have heard, but usually, when I get a definition from those that believe in it, it is vague to me, but to them complete. They assume certain implications that I cannot assume, such as that predetermination of the creature's choices precludes responsibility of the creature concerning their choices. So when they say things like, "Free will is the idea that humans have the ability to make their own choices and determine their own fates.", they think it is a good definition, necessarily implying that God does not cause anyone's choices, as shown in this comment, "Is a person's will free, and is not shaped by powers outside of their own control."

Volumes have been written in these forums that have made no inroads into the thinking of the self-determinist. Their point-of-view is endemic to their thinking and not easily dislodged. They simply CANNOT understand how God has established all fact, nor do they often consider God praiseworthy for all fact, but only for what seems to them favorable.

 

[fastfredy0]

but usually, when I get a definition from those that believe in it, it is vague to me, but to them complete.

EXACTLY!!! I suppose that if "free willies" give a comprehensive definition it would be indefensible ... it's taking @Rella and @Josheb post after post after post to come to a definition from @Rella that can be scrutinized (I gave getting one) ... best for them if they hide in obscurity.

Interesting to observe ....wish @Rella come to a definition that didn't need to be continually tweaked.

 

[Rella]

Sure.

All the "No" answers prevent us from having an intelligent discussion.

Would you like to discuss one of the "No"s? If so, then my preference would be to discuss the first one, the premise that a sinful human can overrule and usurp God's will against God's will, but I am amenable to one of the others.

It is not "unfounded." You have already agreed there are many controls, restrictions, and/or limits on the human will. That, by definition, by agreed-upon definition, necessarily means the human will is not free. Stop arguing God instilled a free will when there are many controls, restrictions, and limits on the will. We may have agency within those controls, restrictions, and limits, but the will is not free. You cannot contradict yourself and not have me point out the inconsistency.

It's one of the reasons an agreed upon definition is important.

You would not want me to agree to a definition and then ignore the definition and ignore the agreement, would you? Then don't do it to me. Post within the agreed upon definition. You agreed there are controls, restrictions, and limits. And then you contradicted yourself. You unfounded yourself . What is unreasonable to argue is that God did not give the human volitional agency. The will is not free, it is not without controls, restrictions, and limits but within those controls, restrictions, and limits the human can choose some things. Not all things, only some things.

Sure.

All the "No" answers prevent us from having an intelligent discussion.

Would you like to discuss one of the "No"s? If so, then my preference would be to discuss the first one, the premise that a sinful human can overrule and usurp God's will against God's will, but I am amenable to one of the others.

I never said that. Those are your words.

you said...

• For example, because God is almighty, and we are not any and all conflict between the human will exists only as long as God permits. The creature CANNOT usurp the Creator's will.

NO~ As God was the designer and creator of all human life through his prototype as explained in Genesis and down through the ages
we continue. It is unfounded and unreasonable to conclude that God did not instill a "free" will into man in the first place.
You, and no one , has proven where it is said that God simply did not do that . You are second guessing the heavenly Father because
you have trouble understanding why he would do such a thing.
We know that the angels had a free will. At least Lucifer and 1/3 of his groupies did.

It is totally unreasonable to believe that humans would be excluded and then the world runs amuck.

A very good friend says this. I could not agree more....

No free will = God is responsible for all sin = the gospel is a farce. Another demonic delusion.

It is not "unfounded." You have already agreed there are many controls, restrictions, and/or limits on the human will. That, by definition, by agreed-upon definition, necessarily means the human will is not free. Stop arguing God instilled a free will when there are many controls, restrictions, and limits on the will. We may have agency within those controls, restrictions, and limits, but the will is not free. You cannot contradict yourself and not have me point out the inconsistency.

Our disagreement is that you seem to see anything from a fallen eyelash, to a quadriplegic not having free will due to imperfections that may result in a roadblock for desire of whatever.....

I disagree. I do not see any boundaries that stop that because anyone with any affliction , especially if it is long enough has , IMO, a natural built in work around that they do not notice it is not cut and dried 1,2,3.

People with handicaps manage when they want to.

It is one of the built in work arounds I believe our creator has given us to compensate.

It's one of the reasons an agreed upon definition is important.

You would not want me to agree to a definition and then ignore the definition and ignore the agreement, would you? Then don't do it to me. Post within the agreed upon definition. You agreed there are controls, restrictions, and limits. And then you contradicted yourself. You unfounded yourself . What is unreasonable to argue is that God did not give the human volitional agency. The will is not free, it is not without controls, restrictions, and limits but within those controls, restrictions, and limits the human can choose some things. Not all things, only some things.

Amazing. Of the copy of mine that I have in my reply to you , a lot of it is missing.... Not the first time either.

 

[Rella]

EXACTLY!!! I suppose that if "free willies" give a comprehensive definition it would be indefensible ... it's taking @Rella and @Josheb post after post after post to come to a definition from @Rella that can be scrutinized (I gave getting one) ... best for them if they hide in obscurity.

Interesting to observe ....wish @Rella come to a definition that didn't need to be continually tweaked.

Now who is doing the tweaking.

I stick by my original and Josheb slightly altered which I can live with.

It just is incomprehensible that people think God shorted us on something for some reason.

How did you come to faith?

We walk by faith not by sight.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Why in the world do you think if you had free will you would not come into faith?

John illustrates the role of the Spirit in drawing people by bearing witness to Jesus (1 John 5:6-9). The Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, thus playing a vital role in human experience and divine drawing (John 16:8).

There is no need for someone to have been .prechosen before the world was formed when the Spirit is going to do this.

Are you in line with prevenient grace?

John illustrates the role of the Spirit in drawing people by bearing witness to Jesus (1 John 5:6-9). The Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, thus playing a vital role in human experience and divine drawing (John 16:8).
I never thought of you as Arminian .............?
What about when God often utilizes circumstances or crises to draw people, as seen in the conversion of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16)? Whether through witnessing miracles or experiencing crises, numerous individuals find faith in such instances.
What about through answered prayers?... Think Cornelius......................................
What about through godly parents? ............ Parental spiritual guidance is emphasized in scriptures like Psalm 78:1-4 and Deuteronomy 6:6-9. The perpetuation of faith across generations is vital, as seen in the Pentecost message, emphasizing the role of faith continuity within families (Acts 2:39).
What about through personal supernatural encounters with God. I know one that had that.
Also, Scriptures like Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19-21 articulate the revelation of God’s glory, power, and divine nature through the intricate beauty and order of the natural world, leaving humanity without excuse. The grandeur and symmetry observed in nature have sparked spiritual awakenings in many, including proclaimed atheists, leading them to acknowledge and embrace Christ. The inherent beauty and intricate laws governing the natural world serve as silent yet powerful testaments to God’s existence and attributes, drawing individuals to explore and eventually accept the truths of Christianity.

 

[Tambora]

In that passage "cannot" is the human perspective,

The inspired scriptures says "cannot", and we can tell what that inspired word means by comparing it with other inspired scriptures that use that same word.

 

[Rella]

The inspired scriptures says "cannot", and we can tell what that inspired word means by comparing it with other inspired scriptures that use that same word.

Numbers 23:19

“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

1 Samuel 15:29

Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

Hebrews 6:18

so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

Psalm 89:35

“Once I have sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David.

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/How-God-Can~t-Lie

 

[Tambora]

Hebrews 6:18

so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

By comparing the same Greek word "impossible" using other scriptures with the same Greek word, what meaning can be derived?

 

[Arial]

The inspired scriptures says "cannot", and we can tell what that inspired word means by comparing it with other inspired scriptures that use that same word.

Yes, but men have to write with men's words.

 

[makesends]

I never said that. Those are your words.

you said...

• For example, because God is almighty, and we are not any and all conflict between the human will exists only as long as God permits. The creature CANNOT usurp the Creator's will.

NO~ As God was the designer and creator of all human life through his prototype as explained in Genesis and down through the ages
we continue. It is unfounded and unreasonable to conclude that God did not instill a "free" will into man in the first place.
You, and no one , has proven where it is said that God simply did not do that . You are second guessing the heavenly Father because
you have trouble understanding why he would do such a thing.
We know that the angels had a free will. At least Lucifer and 1/3 of his groupies did.

It is totally unreasonable to believe that humans would be excluded and then the world runs amuck.

Humans excluded from what you have not proven angels to have? All you have done is to assert that angels had free will. We don't know they had free will. We do know they chose. Can you explain how, as far as we know, none of the fallen angels have repented, nor have any of the righteous angels fallen away since then? Have they all chosen to not have freewill anymore?

What makes you think the world has run amuck? All things progress precisely as he determined they would, for the purposes that will be clear when we see him as he is. This life is not about us. It's not even about what we see in this life.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
Will not. It is His own internal being of which lying etc. are not a part of, that is the motivator of God's actions. Not anything outside of Himself. "Cannot" is a human perspective.

Scripture says 'cannot'.
Human perspective says 'will not'.

And @Alive

Actually, the verse speaks in human language, what is logically short for, "it is a logical impossibility for God to lie", or, in my way of speaking, "the notion is bogus that God could lie". One may as well say, "for God to lie is impossible", as to say, "it is impossible for God to lie."

God is not limited. If you will analyze every sense in which we might esteem him to be limited, it is as concerns OUR HUMAN constructions and definitions. It is bogus to say that he is limited by his character. He has no reason or cause to do other than his character, so why consider there to be any limits? They are in OUR mind, not his. God has no impossibilities.

This is related to the idea you may have heard before, that it is not because it is good to be good, that God is good, but good is what it is, because God is good.

The same could be said about existence. God does not exist in the common sense, according to our understanding of the principle we refer to as existence, but rather, existence is what it is, because God exists.

All depends on God. Our constructions and terminology are just our way of looking at things and our way of helping our limping crippled thinking along. And God writes in the Bible amazingly, using HUMAN language to be absolutely accurate about Spiritual matters. Proper interpretation of Scripture must realize the limitations of human perspective, and not ascribe any limitations to God.

 

[fastfredy0]

I stick by my original and Josheb slightly altered which I can live with.

If you have a definition of FREE WILL then just state it in 50 words or less. One time you gave 3 or 4 definitions. Another time you adjusted your definition and said something like the definition didn't apply to people after they're saved (as best I recall) ... JUST STATE YOUR DEFINITION IN 50 WORDS OR LESS ... @Josheb will take it from there I assume.

Example: My personal definition of FREE WILL is:

The ability to choice what I desire most at the time.

..... see how easy the was ... only took 11 words; I gave you 50 words.

 

[fastfredy0]

Have they all chosen to not have freewill anymore?

Free will to chose to not have "free will"? *giggle*