Are you therefore saying that you'd have to be dead in order to have true free will?A free will decision would mean that you were completely unbiased and making a decision without taking sides or without any selfish inclination... no, because you will make the choice out of your own inclination and own observation
Are you therefore saying that you'd have to be dead in order to have true free will?
If free will did not exist, then we would be unable to comprehend the illusion of free will.Free will may be an illusion. When all is said and done, and the value of the Universe is shown--whether or not there's anyone to witness the revelation--will there have been any other way for things to have gone?
There can be no self without free will and thus no selfishnessl.A free will decision would mean that you were completely unbiased and making a decision without taking sides or without any selfish inclination.
Fair enough. But it can exist in potential. The problem is that "true free will" need not lie within the grasp of human faculties.If free will did not exist, then we would be unable to comprehend the illusion of free will.
Yes but recognizing free will at that level would legalize rape.There can be no self without free will and thus no selfishnessl.
For the word free will to mean anything, it must be described in terms relevant and existant somewhere if not in our own minds. Since we have the perception of free will within us, we could just as well doubt the existance of everything.But it can exist in potential. The problem is that "true free will" need not lie within the grasp of human faculties.
This depends entirely on how you define God. What is clear though is that if God is omnipresent and knows all of the future, which necessary includes what he does within the universe, then he cannot have free will within this universe. At it's core, I suspect that free will involves lack of knowledge. A God knowing everything must know himself and thereby would not have free will. If God does have free will then God does not have complete knowledge of everything, thus implying that parts of his creation have free will over what God does not know.Does God have free will?
Yes?
I'm uncertain what you mean. If the man does not have control over himself, I'm uncertain whom we would find guilty. God and nature are difficult to punish.Yes but recognizing free will at that level would legalize rape.
Some people do doubt the existence of everything.For the word free will to mean anything, it must be described in terms relevant and existent somewhere if not in our own minds. Since we have the perception of free will within us, we could just as well doubt the existence of everything.
If God is the only thing that limits the power of God, then God has free will. If external factors limit God, those become the supreme reality and the limited God is not God, so to speak.This depends entirely on how you define God. What is clear though is that if God is omnipresent and knows all of the future, which necessary includes what he does within the universe, then he cannot have free will within this universe.
A lack of knowledge is what limits free will.At it's core, I suspect that free will involves lack of knowledge.
God would have created everything according to his will. The condition of God must necessarily be God's will, else God is not the supreme authority.A God knowing everything must know himself and thereby would not have free will.
God's free will is exercised in the existence of His creation. Who or what bound God to the reality He created?If God does have free will then God does not have complete knowledge of everything, thus implying that parts of his creation have free will over what God does not know.
Well, let's start with what I was responding to:I'm uncertain what you mean. If the man does not have control over himself, I'm uncertain whom we would find guilty. God and nature are difficult to punish.
Methinks you two are onto something profound here. Could this be related to what Jesus said in Luke 17:33 "Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it."?okinrus: There can be no self without free will and thus no selfishness.
tiassa: Yes but recognizing free will at that level would legalize rape.
okinrus" I'm uncertain what you mean. If the man does not have control over himself, I'm uncertain whom we would find guilty. God and nature are difficult to punish.
Originally posted by Quigly
No, because if you were dead, then you couldn't exert any decision or will.
I am just saying that free will doesn't exist amongst humans or with animals. Animals are in prison to their instinct. They do what is in their nature to do. Survival has exerted its will upon them and thus they forfeited their right to lollygag around and now they must hunt and eat and protect...
Originally posted by curioucity
Well, judging from some stuffs already written here, looks like a human can have a free will if he is a perfect loner who also cares nothing about everyone else.....
Originally posted by okinrus
If free will did not exist, then we would be unable to comprehend the illusion of free will.
There can be no self without free will and thus no selfishnessl.
Originally posted by everneo
free will is the ability to make decisions, whether foolish or wise. oh, well, i could ignore this thread by my free will. now i think whether to press the 'submit reply' button or not. in both case i don't gain or loose anything. may be others who read this might do. who cares.? ok hit it. ... *thanks for posting*....
prior conditions and awareness of consequences can only restrict whether to exercise free will or not. they don't disable the free will.
Originally posted by tiassa
Some people do doubt the existence of everything.
Furthermore, I've long been known for saying that if we can conceive of something, then it is, after a fashion, possible.
Just as the determining factors of a determinist Universe may be too numerous for human faculties, so too might the necessary foundation for free will elude humanity. Certainly, we can conceive of free will. Certainly we could conceive of flight before we achieved it.
Yes, free will is a theoretic possibility. But whether or not it's a reality?If God is the only thing that limits the power of God, then God has free will. If external factors limit God, those become the supreme reality and the limited God is not God, so to speak.
If God creates all things and all times, then what God knows of the future is God's will.A lack of knowledge is what limits free will.God would have created everything according to his will. The condition of God must necessarily be God's will, else God is not the supreme authority.
And while deities of this variety exist, do we let the small deities of various paganisms (e.g. an earth goddess) represent the "God" we discuss here? It seems to me that the matter before us is a little more alpha/omega, a little more toward the omnipotent.
Now, in the abstract, I agree, God does not have free will insofar as God does nothing. But are we to let the nameless totality of monistic representation stand for the God we discuss? If so, I'm willing to rewrite my argument accordingly.
However, in the more limited and applicable scope of the topic, I was of the opinion that we were working more with a God idea that involved personality, will, and perpetual action. Something along the lines of the Abramic deity, for instance.
And this God does have free will, as it cannot be bound by anything but self-nullification.God's free will is exercised in the existence of His creation. Who or what bound God to the reality He created?
There's also an issue of time I'm presently unable to express clearly. Is God bound by time? Again, it depends on the God, but how small or how abstract do we wish to get?Well, let's start with what I was responding to:
- There can be no self without free will and thus no selfishness
I generally disagree because this is a nihilistic point. Relatively speaking, as an American, I look out at the world and see people with less freedom than I do. I can definitely say that they do not have free will. Except for the fact that they do not choose to die in a revolution or commit suicide to escape their misery.
To me this is a little like dealing with the redemptive God: It is by God's will that man fell; it is by God's will that man is saved. Salvation is only required because man has been corrupted by the fall. Therefore life is the standard. And the choice is to either obey or be punished and deprived. That's not a free will decision.
And we're back to the rape in the parking lot example.
If a woman with a knife to her throat chooses to not scream in order to save her life, her continued existence is her selfish benefit. There is no grounds to prosecute as she made a free will choice to have sex with the man.
These are still people. There are still selves in there.
If you're taken by the sinister world conspiracy and locked in a tiger cage do you have free will because you can piss yourself now or in thirty minutes? If you're being tortured for your beliefs is it a free will choice to capitulate?
We have free will within a certain range. But in principle, the diversity of nature and its circumstances which limit us is functionally no different than the knife at a woman's throat. It's not free will at the low end. It's not free will at the high end.
Humanity may have to evolve before it can have truly free will.
Originally posted by Jenyar
Before I get totally misrepresented in this thread, here's what I think.
Free will (whatever it might be, illusion or not) is manifest in our daily decisions - Will I do this or won't I? But I don't want to turn this into a debate about existentialism. We aren't talking about who we make ourselves, but from the perspective of who we already are as image of God, and whether we are conforming or rejecting His image as exemplified in Christ.
At GodLied's question, I thought the political analogy could be useful, but not representative. The reason is that God is not running for office - He has already established his position. The "elected" are those elected by God, it's not the other way around. That's why I said it's not a democratic decision whether we belong to God (or his "religious political party") or not - it's His decision. He made that very clear when He chose Israel. They had no king, no status, no land - the least likely candidate. And God did this repeatedly, as if to emphasize the point.
What this means to us, as Jews and Muslims have noticed, is that our lives are the "vote". But Christ is our representative, pleading our case before God. That's a human way of saying God has provided freedom from His own laws - laws that were necessary to protect and represent our freedom while we were exiles, outside his mercy - until He had established his kingdom and provided his salvation.
The voting has been done, and God's party won. We are only voting "in retrospect". In everybody there is some part which voted against God, votes that went to the opposition. What Christ did in a sense was to let the opposition win under God's rules, and suffer the consequences, thereby affirming His authority and demonstrating our promised victory.