|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 11, 2003 1:46:11 GMT -5
Although the purpose of this thread is primarily to serve as a reminder to The Jacket, anyone else who can provide an answer (especially with his recent announcement of vacation) would be helpful. I am curious whether one can find biblical passages that support free will.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Jul 11, 2003 1:57:48 GMT -5
Gah! This time I actually did semi-forget.
And though I will be leaving soon, while we are here I suppose we can try and discuss one verse pertaining to the subject of Biblical Free Will.
Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
|
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 11, 2003 3:09:50 GMT -5
How exactly does this quote support free will?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Jul 11, 2003 3:16:06 GMT -5
choose you this day whom ye will serve Stating that it is your choice as to which master you will serve - the true God or a false one. |
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 11, 2003 3:18:24 GMT -5
Being able to choose does not mean one has free will. I am not a free will adherent in the least, and yet I recognize that I make choices throughout every day. While free will can be defined as a "voluntary choice or decision", this is not what I mean when I talk of free will. I speak of free will as "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" (From Webster-Merriam Dictionary). I might choose to get a drink of water, but do so by being casually determined by my body's nature to seek water when thirsty.
So again, how exactly does this support free will?
EDIT: Are you suggesting, from Joshua 24:15, that people can choose between several options equally, even if an option goes against one's nature? An affirmative is a libertarian free will position, which is generally what most people think of when free will is mentioned. I need to know if this is what you mean though, before I dig into this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 11, 2003 12:56:51 GMT -5
Stating that it is your choice as to which master you will serve - the true God or a false one. |
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Jul 11, 2003 14:52:17 GMT -5
Being able to choose does not mean one has free will. I am not a free will adherent in the least, and yet I recognize that I make choices throughout every day. While free will can be defined as a "voluntary choice or decision", this is not what I mean when I talk of free will. I speak of free will as "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" (From Webster-Merriam Dictionary). I might choose to get a drink of water, but do so by being casually determined by my body's nature to seek water when thirsty. So again, how exactly does this support free will? EDIT: Are you suggesting, from Joshua 24:15, that people can choose between several options equally, even if an option goes against one's nature? An affirmative is a libertarian free will position, which is generally what most people think of when free will is mentioned. I need to know if this is what you mean though, before I dig into this. Ok, I'm a little confused. Could you post the prominent stances on free-will and pre-destination and what they mean? (If it's not too much trouble.) I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. I never said anything misleading. Yes, you accept Christ or go to Hell - I never said anything that would lead sugar coat that. And if you're referring to God, the Father of Christ, as the one you believe in then you're in a fair deal of trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 11, 2003 15:41:12 GMT -5
Nuno, if you're going to participate, do not be rude. You'll be gone from the debate if you continue, as emotionalism will not get you far. I believe I know what Nuno is getting at. He's trying to say, in highly emotional terms, that the idea of hell is immoral/makes god immoral. While this would make for an interesting discussion if Nuno wanted to begin one (sans emotionalism), such is not germane to the topic at hand, and he would need to begin such a debate in a new thread. Definitions are pretty much the most important thing to do first. Otherwise, either side can be confused as to what's going on, and that doesn't lead to a good discussion.  There are several positions on the free will vs. determinism debate: Determinism is the theory that everything in the universe is governed by causal laws. This draws from a belief in universal causality, that for every event there must be a cause for it. It gains support through various branches of science, and progress in biology and psychology are most germane for supporting determinism in human behavior. Libertarianism is the theory that given the same antecedent conditions at a time t1, an agent S could do either A1 or A2. A person with libertarian free will is causally underdetermined. However, libertarians only hold some of our actions to be free, lack an explanatory theory for free will, and have little in regards to evidence or arguments for their position. The main arguments are the argument from introspection and the argument from moral responsibility. Compatibilism is the view that an act may be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and not under external coercion. One could have chosen differently if one had been given different beliefs and desires. Compatibilism tries to reconcile determinism and free will, usually in an attempt to have determinism and moral responsibility simultaneously. The basic argument runs: 1. The reasons R that someone S has for performing act A are not themselves actions. 2. S could not help having R. 3. Act A could nevertheless be free because it was not coerced by external causes. 4. Therefore, an action may result from having a reason that one could not help having- that is, a reason that one was not free not to have- and the action might nevertheless be free. Those are the three basic positions on the debate. The mainstream free will position in theism is libertarian free will. It's likely your position as well, though I need to make sure before I go into that verse with you. |
|
|
|
Post by devilmaycare150 on Jul 11, 2003 16:41:21 GMT -5
..It doesn't seem like I'm as smart as both of you, as I couldn't completely understand Sleepy's post, no matter how much I analyzed it, but I think I got the main understanding of it...
I think God lets us have free will; but with the general knowledge that are actions will have consequences, whether those consequences are good or bad is up to how we live are lives. That's my philosophy, but 14 year old's probably don't have good philosophy's, so I don't really know..that's what I believe at least. But God wants us all to go to Heaven, right? So if that's so, why doesn't he just mess with our heads, and eliminate free will to insure that we'll all go to Heaven? That seems like the most realistic thing to do..doesn't it? Maybe that's proof that we have some free will...not complete free will, but enough to forge some path of our destiny..
|
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 11, 2003 17:21:29 GMT -5
Ok, sorry about that. Usually I'm more direct and go straight to the deal. Lets see... we are talking about freedom of choice right?
|
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 11, 2003 17:23:26 GMT -5
Evidence?
I would hope that people realize there are consequences to actions- this is the basis of causality! Regardless, such is entirely consistent with a determinist position.
1 Tim 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9 suggests this.
He does. Act 4:27-28, Rom 11:8, 2 Thess. 2:11-12, Exodus 4:21, Rom 9:18, Deu. 2:30, Joshua 11:2, and Rev. 17:16 are examples where the Christian god DOES mess with the minds of others to do what he likes. Proverbs 21:1 also states that God can mess with the minds of others- "The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."
Well, first you'd have to show a Bible verse that says we have free will. I can show you several that support predestination, as opposed to free will. The answer to your question though lies in a chapter over predestination- "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Rom. 9:18-24). This of course raises several questions of the trait of omnibenevolence that most Christian ascribe to their god, but that's another discussion.
Well, the topic is, whether in the context of Christianity, there exists a verse in the Bible to support free will. You can, of course, argue for free will in general, but that'll require an argument, which you haven't provided.
The topic is whether there exists a Bible verse to support the idea of free will. Jacket has so far provided Joshua 24:15, but I am waiting for him to read through the various positions of free will, and state which position he is defending, and finally to state how the verse does support that position (So far, I have only pointed out that the ability to make a choice does not mean one has free will in the sense of a philosophical discussion).
|
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 12, 2003 14:21:50 GMT -5
Why do you type so much to say few things? I don't get it... Sorry to be off-topic anyways. You type so much that get the people confused... Like, I only asked a question of yes or no, and if no, about what?... 
I'm confused...
|
|
|
|
Post by devilmaycare150 on Jul 15, 2003 15:14:11 GMT -5
..Crap, I knew I was in the wrong league, just a matter of time before Sleepy blew everything I posted into chunks..bah..
|
|
Kafen
RPG Townie
Posts: 48
|
Post by Kafen on Jul 25, 2003 18:10:11 GMT -5
God dosen't do anything to stop us but he dosent do anything to help us. Having free-will is up to us. If we let everyone tell us how to live then that isn't free-will. The easiest way to explain it is like this: Following the crowd is letting everyone set your fashion, your additude, and what you have. Religion is a choice; Who has the right to tell you what to believe in. Religion isnt free will. Who is to say that there is a God? To simplify: free-will is a choice.  -And I think there is "a god." |
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 26, 2003 1:31:57 GMT -5
Which God are we talking about? You sound as though you're a Deist.
Can you provide evidence or an argument for free will? On a side note, the topic is whether a Bible verse exists that explicitly supports the idea of free will.
That's very nice (by outlining various examples of a determinist account of behavior), but this isn't the topic we're discussing.
Also non-topical.
If free will exists, I could make a free will decision to believe in religion.
Well, you did at the start and end. Do you have evidence or arguments for this, or are you simply believing in it?
No, free will (in the philosophical sense) involves the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention".
The "mad scientist" scenario of determinists is used to show why free will has to be more than simply choice: Suppose you awake in the morning faced with the choice of whether to get up and go to class, or continue sleeping. After a few moments of deliberation, you get up and go to class. Yet, unbeknowst to you, a mad scientist had wired you to where the push of a button would cause you to perform that action. To yourself, you appeared to be acting of your own free will, and yet in actuality you were being controlled.
|
|
