Most say something to the effect of "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will." key word: unconstrained Don't you agree that the laws of nature (external forces) are constraining you? you COULD choose otherwise but you just can't. Therefore you don't have the freedom to choose. it's as simple as that.
That's hilarious. So to simplify your argument a bit, you don't have free will but I do. You want me to give you my car but I choose to not give it up without receiving a handsome profit. You whine that you don't have a free will because what you crave and can't have isn't free. Therefore my free will cancels your free will.
May I suggest that you're misinterpreting the definition? You only have the power to make a free choice. You are free, for example, to select one of the letters, A or B. That's free. But if you want my car, then that'll cost you!
you still can't choose about everything. Can you choose to have more memory? No. Can you choose to live in a world without disease and all that? No. Those decisions are FORCED into you. You HAVE to do this, you HAVE to live here, you HAVE to …
something, anything, is forced into you when there COULD be a choice, you just CAN'T have REAL free will.
Lucifer wanted God's throne and God said it wasn't possible. In effect, you present this as a terrible injustice to Lucifer. The ultimate meaning to your unceasing protest is that God is a tyrant for depriving Lucifer of having a free will, as Satan and you define it.
sigh... once again I say something as simple as "dog" and people somehow get that I mean "the negatively charged electrons in electroencephalographs cause the universe to switch from a non existant state to an existant state as they hit the neurons of Homo sapies"... except of course without the fancy words.
Quote:
So to simplify your argument a bit, you don't have free will but I do
when the HELL did I say that?
Quote:
May I suggest that you're misinterpreting the definition?
no you may not because you don't have the slightest clue what it is.
Actually those definitions primarily referred to the idea that every decision, is not based on inescapable antecedants. In other words, there are SOME decisions that you have some say over. You and I both admit that God or perhaps you would say, something or other set up lots of rules. That does not mean you have NO choices at all. That is what those definitions are saying. That within parameters there are still choices that you make in which you could go one way or the other, and that that choice is not completely locked in by genetic, behavioral, etc. influences.
Note that the opposite of free will is that you have NO choices that are not determined. Not that you simply have too many restrictions to be happy.
For instance, I just had some wierd soy based fake hot dogs at my mom's house. I had a choice, ketchup, mustard, nothing, relish, etc. And I have to say that there were not too many God-given restraints that directly kept me from choosing to use any of the above, or go out and eat lasagna instead. That is freedom of choice, albeit, within some reasonable restrictions. But it is still a choice.
Now it may be that you feel that God has made it far too restrictive. That is fine, but that is not the opposite of free will. That is LIMITED free will.
Moreover, You will notice that many of the definitions dealt with good or evil, ie, moral choices. These in fact are wide open as no bolt of lightning hits most of us when we do wrong. And most penalties in this life are imposed by earthly authorities.
Last edited by tall73 on Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:05 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject:
Hi AlphaWolf
Quote:
So let's look at dictionaries. Most say something to the effect of "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will"
key word: unconstrained Don't you agree that the laws of nature (external forces) are constraining you? you COULD choose otherwise but you just can't. Therefore you don't have the freedom to choose. it's as simple as that.
If you are defining free will as being able to make any choice, at any time, without any constraint or influence whatsoever, then I would agree with you that humans don't have free will.
However, you seem to be suggesting a false dilemma: one is either totally constrained or totally unconstrained. I don't think this is realistic. If I have two apples sitting on the desk in front of me, free will postulates that I can freely choose which one of those apples I can eat. It is obvious that I cannot magically produce a third apple just because I want to.
If I am in a locked room with a wooden door and I want to get out and there is a key and an axe on a table in the room, then I surely can choose whether I use the key or the axe. But I can't rearrange my molecular structure to walk through the door.
You seem to want to argue that, just because there are some things I can't choose then I can't choose anything.
I'm afraid I can't accept this reasoning. You've basically got three choices when it comes to free will:
There is a naturalistic and theistic form. However, both assert that human behaviour is totally determined by antecedent causes and that the behaviour could not have been other than it was. One example of this type of determinism was B F Skinner's behaviourism.
INDETERMINISM
This view contends that human behaviour is uncaused -- there are no antecedent or simultaneous causes of human behaviour.
SELF-DETERMINISM
This view contends that a person's actions are determined by the person performing the action. A self-determinist accepts that there are many influences on one's behaviour - heredity, environment, etc. However, the self-determinist asserts that these are not the determining causes of one's behaviour. The difference between an inanimate object and a human is that an inanimate object can only change with an external cause whereas humans are able to direct their own actions.
AlphaWolf, you seem to be arguing in favour of determinism, as defined above. (I assume you don't go for indeterminism.) I would argue for self-determinism. Does this locate your view correctly? If so, then we could use the above definition of determinism and engage in a debate over the validity of that view. Please note, however, that when Christians speak of free will, they usually do so in the sense of self-determinism.
Cheers
Steve
Reference: Geisler, N 1984, 'Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism', in WA Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 428-30.
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:29 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Moreover, You will notice that many of the definitions dealt with good or evil, ie, moral choices. These in fact are wide open as no bolt of lightning hits most of us when we do wrong. And most penalties in this life are imposed by earthly authorities.
Good points, Tall73. AlphaWolf, what happens to concepts of morality, right and wrong, etc in your view? Did Adolf Hitler have no choice about killing all those Jews and others? If not, then you can't hold him responsible for his actions.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
