Does Man Have Free Will?

[Gorilla King]

Coming from the background that I do, and understanding the use of religious language, I feel confident that I understand your position as perfectly as one human can understand another.

Next (rather long and convoluted )question: Having been exposed to the alleged "evidence" of the truth of christian teachings at a baptist church and baptist environs for the first twenty years of my life, with the result that I have now been an atheist for the past thirty years - what possible arguments could you make to me to change my mind at this point that were never made to me over the years by so many christian men and women, including my own parents, who were as dedicated and convinced as you are? - This, especially since they had me, up close and personal, while I was of a pliable and open-minded stage of life?

Answer me that - and win a free trip to paradise, including 72 virgins (or highly trained prostitutes, if that's your preference).

Well it depends on what they taught you. I mean when I was an atheist and my friends who were Christians tried to convince me with the whole Paley's watchmaker argument I thought it was bogus. Now as a Christian, I still think it's bogus. For me, the most convincing bits of evidence have only just recently come to my attention and every one of them relates to Jesus. Now I can see how some might come to different conclusions about these things and that's certainly their right to do so, but I'm convinced and am becoming increasingly so.

[Bookworm4Him]

{edit}

Regardless of God being outside time etc...omniscience and free will is logical impossibility. As you said - everything is written in a book and just like characters in a novel don't have free will so do we...

what book? Who says we are like characters in a novel? If you are coming from a biblical viewpoint, The Bible says that God KNOWS everything, not that he CHOOSES everything. (If you aren't, disregard this arguement, and continue on with all of yourscientific proof) God created the angels to worship Him, not by choice, but He created man to love Him through choice, for if it is forced, it isn't really love. Therefore we have to have a choice, for that's why we were made.

[weepingforloman]

Coming from the background that I do, and understanding the use of religious language, I feel confident that I understand your position as perfectly as one human can understand another.

Next (rather long and convoluted )question: Having been exposed to the alleged "evidence" of the truth of christian teachings at a baptist church and baptist environs for the first twenty years of my life, with the result that I have now been an atheist for the past thirty years - what possible arguments could you make to me to change my mind at this point that were never made to me over the years by so many christian men and women, including my own parents, who were as dedicated and convinced as you are? - This, especially since they had me, up close and personal, while I was of a pliable and open-minded stage of life?

Answer me that - and win a free trip to paradise, including 72 virgins (or highly trained prostitutes, if that's your preference).

Nothing said can convince you without the inward conviction that comes from being moved by the Spirit. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them.

[JGL57]

Nothing said can convince you without the inward conviction that comes from being moved by the Spirit. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them.

It is understood that it is god's failure and not yours. No need to state the obvious.

[NikolaiI]

Isn't that a paradox, though?

I will not be convinced unless God acts to convince me. Yet aren't I supposed to have free will, and choose of my own volition?

I guess you are saying we are convinced by his miracles.

[quasimodo1]

Maybe I rain on your parade, but doesn't this discussion need some connection to literature, no matter how peripheral? Anyway, a friend of mine doesn't believe in free will...he thinks it an anthropromorphic trait. You know, because we are limited as humans...these intrinsic limitations makes you want to believe we have free will. I think we have it and the proof would be any arbitrary decision. Then again the word "decision" is described by Ambrose Bierce as "a preponderence of one set of influences over another". quasimodo1

[Logos]

....doesn't this discussion need some connection to literature, no matter how peripheral?

No, because it was started before the Religious Texts forum rules were changed, only allowing specific text topics.

[quasimodo1]

...standing corrected. quasimodo1

[PrinceMyshkin]

Gorilla King

For me, the most convincing bits of evidence have only just recently come to my attention and every one of them relates to Jesus. Now I can see how some might come to different conclusions about these things and that's certainly their right to do so, but I'm convinced and am becoming increasingly so.

I.e., a stone, once it has begun to roll down hill, will continue to do so, gathering speed. A man, needing to know “the truth,” once he has got hold of what seems to him a piece of the truth will inevitably find more and more evidence of that truth, disregarding all that does not fit.

weepingforloman

Nothing said can convince you without the inward conviction that comes from being moved by the Spirit. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them.

This is an example of Begging the question/Circular logic, or Petitio Principii/Circulus in Probando, e.g. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God and no one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God and no one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God and no one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God ad infinitum

[Gorilla King]

Do you see the irony in rolling to your own conclusions of whats true of me while disregarding what doesn't fit? Frankly, I don't think hasty generalizations will do you much good. I dare say that you don't know enough about me and my beliefs or theology in general to adequately assess any of it. It makes you look ignorant at best and foolish at worst.

[Pendragon]

It is understood that it is god's failure and not yours. No need to state the obvious.

You lost me here. Are you saying that if man fails to do right, that is because God failed, not man? One thing I have always noticed: Back in the garden, it was God asking "Adam where art thou?" not Adam asking "God, where did you go?"

[Logos]

It would be nice if this could get back on topic, sans personal comments

[JGL57]

It would be nice if this could get back on topic, sans personal comments

OK. IMO the concept of "will" is, by definition, "free" - saying 'free will' is analogous to saying 'wet water' or 'hot fire'. I.e., if it ain't free, then you are not exercising what we normally define as exercising a "will".

If one thinks "will" cannot be "free" in some instances, then what, in theory, is enslaving it - material determinism? - god? How so? Explain the mechanisms involved. If you can't then you are just giving an imaginative opinion based on nothing but some experienced feeling or intuition - not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Now, to continue - Do I think I make choices completely sans the influence of literally existing invisible or transcendent entities (or a single entity) that could theoretically influence or direct my will in any way? You betcha.

Do I think the exercise of my will is just a natural part of a natural universe, and not itself a trans-natural phenomenon like an ill-defined non-scientific "soul" or something? You betcha.

From the largest perspective (the entire known universe) does it seem to me that the exercise of my will and the will of ALL humans, extant and deceased, apparently play no significant part in the evolution of the universe, i.e., that the evidence for such is utterly lacking? You betcha.

Furthermore, can a person will him or herself to will? I don't think so. E.g., I certainly can will to eat a piece of fried calf' liver - and do so? But if I just happen to HATE the taste of liver, can I will myself to will to LIKE the taste of calf liver, i.e., enjoy the experience? No, I don't think so. Sure, an outside influencing will, such as that of a (human) hypnotist or an alleged supernatural entity, could cause me to THINK I like liver - but then I would have no free will. When no other mind has power over my mind, then I am free. But such freedom doesn't all me to will to will (i.e., to change my will through the power of my own will). If it did, we would get into infinite regress - and no one wants that.

Further examples of how we do not will to will:

1. I can will myself to engage in a homosexual sex act, but I cannot will myself to like it (enjoying it happens or it doesn't - it's not susceptible to my will).

2. Can I will myself to believe in that two plus two is four, or that the Atlantic Ocean is wider than the Pacific? No. I cannot escape the obvious.

3. Can I will myself to believe in an invisible person who zapped the universe into existence through either sheer thought or the spoken word or some sort of magic that is incomprehensible to me? No. I cannot will beliefs into existence in my brain, if my brain thinks they are stupid, anymore than I can, conversely, just will many obvious facts away, e.g., our extant president is not particularly intelligent.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Do you see the irony in rolling to your own conclusions of whats true of me while disregarding what doesn't fit? Frankly, I don't think hasty generalizations will do you much good. I dare say that you don't know enough about me and my beliefs or theology in general to adequately assess any of it. It makes you look ignorant at best and foolish at worst.

I was meaning to talk about the psychology of belief, especially when it reaches to conviction, not the content of your or other's beliefs. And I quite agree with logos that referring to me ad hominem as "ignorant at best and foolish at worst" doesn't much advance the discussion.

[quasimodo1]

To PrinceMyshkin: Can any of the debaters here let me know if anyone has budged an iota from their original viewpoint? This problem always arises when religion is brought into the discussion, i.e. some people are invested while others are more open. quasimodo1