Is Free Will an Illusion? (Kingdom, choices, choice, evolution)

[Bdkimmel61]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Free will is an illusion in my opinion. Here's why:

1. In order to have free will, there has to exist a "self" that is seperate and free from the laws of the rest of the universe. There is no such "self", there is only cells and molecules, and a bunch of nuerons that think like a computer and generate the illusion of self--we humans obey the laws of the universe just like everything else. To say that we humans have a "self" would be to say that so do dogs, ants, bacteria, self replicating molecules, and matter. If all those things have a "self" then the word loses its initial meaning and it has no bearing on free will any more.

2. Our will is not free. Every time you make a decision, it's because you're brain weighs your desires and comes up with the best solution (to the best of your brain's limited ability) to acheive these wants. The computation is not "free will" because it is dependent on the information your brain is given, its reasoning abilities and the brain's biochemical state--none of which you have any control over (besides, even non-living calculators do computing). And the desires themselves are not free will, because we cannot choose what to desire. So for example, my brain can compute the best way to get food without spending a lot of money, but I can't choose to WANT or NOT WANT to eat and not spend a lot of money in the first place.....that desire has been programmed into me beforehand. I want to eat, and there's nothing I can do about it.

The more I observe human and animal behavior, and how predictable and patterned it is (though complex) the more I realize that we do not have "free will" any more than animals do. And animals no more have "free will" than do lower organisms, self-replicating molecules, and matter.

Here's another way to think about it: when you make a decision, you either A) logically weigh your wants and come up with the best decision or B) flip a coin and choose at random.

If you choose by the B) method, that's not free will, because you're not choosing...you're just behaving in a random sporadic manner in which random chance dictates what you decide. And hypothetical "self" isn't even involved in the decision making process...it's all up to a coin.

If you make a choice by method A), then you're decision is controlled by your brain's intelligence (it's ability to reason etc) and by what your wants are, NEITHER of which you have control over!

Remember....I'm not saying free will doesn't exist, I'm saying it's an illusion. I never said people feel forced to do anything....they obey the laws of nature "will"ingly. (haha)

[Bdkimmel61]

well my previous response did not go through so I will try again.\

My reasoning is that free will is ours to a point. That point being, God is in control totally and completely. Even of our actions.

One must understand the omniscience of God before one can understand free will.
Many times in HIS word HE speaks of an evil spirit of the Lord. Many times HE instructs people to MURDER other people.

One must look at Pharoah.Did he refuse to let the hebrew nation go? Not until God HIMSELF hardened Pharoahs heart. Did Pharoah have a choice? Some say yes but the scriptures say no. Did Jonah have a choice?God turned Jonah around.Did Moses have a choice God made Arron go with him.God took away Moses's argument. God said, of the passover, " I did this, so I could bring up mu armies and bring my people out of Egypt according to my word".

God gave us 10 commandments of which one is (thou shalt not steal).Now look at what the Hebrews got from the Egyptians just before they left Egypt and how they got it.Gold, they borrowed Gold (notice the operative word is borrowed) and they took it with them.Regardless of how one looks at it if you borrow something you are responsible to return it. If you do not then you are guilty of Fraud which is determined theft.

God said in Isa 45:7 I create the dark and I form the light, I create good and I create evil, I do these things.

In Proverbs it is written, Pro. 16:4 I create the wicked, yes even for that day of evil.

Jesus said, " If they knew me they would not do this thing and it is for this purpose I came".

The entire point to this post is that if we acknowledge that God is in control and allow HIM to do with us as the potter does the clay then our struggle ceases and we are in the will of God wether it be on a mission of helps or a mission of death.

If we reject that God is in control then we spend the rest of our lives fighting our situation or patting ourselves on the backs because we have achieved something according to HIS will when no one knows for sure just what Gods will is in their individual lives.

HOW MANY WOULD AGREE TO SELL JESUS FOR THIRTY PIECES OF GOLD?

Again I say, " One must understand the power of omniscience to understand free will.

Ask yourself this question, " If God knows it, then can I change it? If I can change it then how can God know it?"

They do not mix, one cannot happen in conjunction with the other.

[Ceridwen018]

Bdkimmel61,

Hey there. Your post was a little confusing to me...do you believe we have free will?

[Bdkimmel61]

yes within limits :smile: how is that for starters?

My whole point is that I believe free will to be the right to believe that God is in control or not to believe that.

I have had many debates on this issue and still have not been able to understand the perception that God knows what we will do but has differents plans based on our decision.To me that is not logical.

My sense of free will is that it is an illusion.

[Ceridwen018]

I still don't understand how free-will can be an illusion (therefore not exist) and yet we can still have it within limits. Lol, I'm sorry, I'm feeling a bit slow this morning!

[Bdkimmel61]

one of the things that free will thought does not take into consideration is the fact of outside intervention.

To make my case I use my own example.

I was born into a very poor family........no choice
I was beaten......................................no choice
my mother died when I was 13............no choice on how that affected me
I was kicked out of the house,same time...again no choice
at 13, three weeks after my mother died, I was raped while hitch-hikking....again no choice

That rape created hatred in my heart and mind.....no choice

One could argue that however faint, I yeilded to choice but the problem with that line of thinking is that choice and reaction are not one and the same.When you fall and break a leg you don't make a choice on wether or not to cry out, you just do or don't but the point is that there is no choice in the matter. It is a simple reaction.

I maintain that the Apostle Paul said it right.........Praise GOD in all things....

Does that mean GOD caused me to be raped? I don't think so for GOD knows the true nature of man.What I do believe is that GOD knew it would happen and therefore it had to happen. When it did GOD had HIS stragedy already prepared. HE met me in the night and called to me when I was 24, I recieved HIM but it wasn't until I was past 40 that HE introduced HIMSELF to me in the Spirit.That Spirit was the Spirit of Forgiveness.

My life was for that moment.Now I see HIM in everything I do and see.I see HIM in ever area of this earth reaching out to others the same as HE did to me. HIS prophecies herald HIS coming.

Don't mean to preach to anyone but that is how I see HIM and our free will.The two of them are joined and cannot be seperated.

I would suggest to everyone that they read Isa. 45-7 and Prov. 16:4 and then think on those things.Also a very good verse for those who think THEY forgive others is to read Dan. 9:9.

Just recieved a phone call and must leave for a while. HAGD all. :smile:

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Bdkimmel61

...
I have had many debates on this issue and still have not been able to understand the perception that God knows what we will do but has differents plans based on our decision.To me that is not logical.
...

There is a relatively new movement going around called Open View in which God does not have complete knowledge of what the future holds.

Scriptual suppoert for that is quite extensive but just a few from Christus Victor Community

Genesis 2:19

“So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was the name.”

God wanted Adam to have authority over the animal kingdom (see Gen. 1:28). Hence he empowers Adam to freely choose the names of all the animals. The passage tells us that God brought the animals to Adam in order to see—to find out—how Adam would choose. If God was certain of this all along, however, Scripture is incorrect when it describes God’s motive in bringing the animals to Adam.

Genesis 6:5–6

Seeing the wickedness of the whole human race which preceded the great flood, the Bible says, “The Lord was sorry that he made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.”

If everything about world history was exhaustively settled and known by God as such before he created the world, God had to have known with absolute certainty that humanity would come to this sorry state, at just this time, before he created them. How then could he truly regret his decision to create them? Conversely, if we accept that Scripture is speaking plainly here and God’s regret was real (the fact that he destroyed the human race and started over with Noah suggests this, does it not?) then it seems more reasonable to believe that until that point in time, God didn’t know with certainty that humanity would grieve him the way it did.

Genesis 22:12

Abraham passed God’s “test” (vs. 1) by being willing to sacrifice his son. The Lord says “...now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son...”

If the classical understanding of foreknowledge is true, God’s statement “now I know” seems disingenuous. The meaning of God’s explanation for this knowledge—+dqo/since you have...”—is also obscured. Indeed, if the future is exhaustively settled there would be no point in his test of Abraham, because God would never have to find out anything.

Exodus 3:18–4:9

The Lord tells Moses that the elders of Israel will heed his voice (vs. 18). Moses says, “suppose they do not believe me or listen to me...” (4:1). God performs a miracle “so that they may believe that the Lord...has appeared to you” (vs. 5). Moses remains unconvinced so the Lord performs a second miracle and comments, “If they will not believe you or heed the first sign, they may believe the second sign. But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed you, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground” (vs. 8–9).

If the future is eternally settled in God’s mind, God would have known exactly how many miracles, if any, it would take in order for the elders to believe Moses. The meaning of the words he chose (“if,” “may”) could not be sincere. If we believe that God speaks straightforwardly, however, it seems that he didn’t know exactly how the elders would respond to Moses.

Matthew 26:39

Jesus threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.”

Scripture indicates that much about the life and death of Jesus Christ was foreordained and thus foreknown long before it came to pass. Given that this was the central defining event in world history, this should not surprise us. What is somewhat surprising is that in this passage Jesus very clearly pleads with the Father to change his plan at the last minute—“if it is possible.” Jesus’ request obviously could not be granted, but what is significant is the fact that Jesus made the request in the first place. For Jesus knew and had been teaching his disciples for some time that the divine plan was for him to be crucified (Matt. 12:40; 16:21; John 2:19). Yet here he is asking God the Father to change his plan “if it is possible.”

2 Peter 3:9–12

Peter says that the Lord has delayed his coming because he is “patient with you, not wanting any to perish” (vs. 9). We are encouraged to be “looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God” [NIV, “speed its coming”] (vs. 12).

If the future is an eternally fixed reality, of course God would foreknow the exact day of his return. Hence it is deceiving to suggest that it could be delayed because of his patience or speeded up by the way we live (viz. by evangelizing). If God is never deceptive, however, it seems we must accept that the day of Christ’s return is not fixed and thus that the classical understanding of the future which requires that it be fixed is incorrect.

Open View would seem to say that free will is more determinate that God's foreknowledge. This would also say that free will, at least biblically, is not an illusion if it shows some limitation of God.

As far as me being an Atheist, I think free will is largely an illusion. It would be comforting to say we have control over our lives but so many factors abate that "idealistic" concept. We do not, for various reasons, have equal opportunity or resources and are thus are limitied on what we can actually effect.

[Brien]

There are examples of some animals who are as intelligent as children as old as 7

I'm not sure this is true. Humans at the age of seven are capable of representing objects mentally by words and other symbols, can respond to objects that are remembered but not present, and understand the concept of conservation of mass, number, and volume (e.g. - the same volume in two glasses of different shape). (Introduction to Psychology, Kalat) I can't think of any animal that can do these things, let alone read and write. Regardless of this, I think that children are capable of making choices as soon as they become physically independent. A bear may teach her cubs some survival skills, but ultimately they will rely on instinct as their primary survival mechanism. A human mother will teach her child survival skills, but also a basic moral premise. To me it seems the child can choose to obey this moral code set before it, or choose to disobey it. It's instincts would have no reason to be involved since survival is not dependant on their implementation.

So that everyone can be perfectly clear on what I'm saying, this is my definition of 'free will' but feel free to raise objections. In its most fundamental since, free will is the act of choice. But we are beings that exist with limitations (physical and psychological); obviously genetic factors influence our development along with the environment to which we are exposed during our development. People have abilities to varying degrees: in some areas, no matter how hard you try you will fail where others have succeeded. Thus, I would say that the concept of 'free will' pertains to one's abilities to react to various influencing environments and channel various genetic predispositions. But most importantly this notion involves the nature of the choices one makes on how these abilities should be employed. Free will is the ability to reason, independent of all external factors, and the ability to choose to use this reason.

All thoughts are memes

I would say that all memes are thoughts but not all thoughts are memes. A meme is a unit of cultural information and is used in reference to ideas that are passed from one mind to another. To say that all thoughts are memes implies that humans are not capable of forming their own ideas and that humans possess no intrinsic instincts or inherent abilities. If this is true, where did all of these thoughts come from?

Free will is an internally derived ability, but more than an evolved instinct. We can choose what to do with the memes that we process. We can rationalize whether or not an assertion is reasonable. We can also choose to use our reasoning ability and heightening our conscious awareness.

If free will is ultimately a matter of rational self-determination, then we exercise free will in the very acts of constructing and evaluating arguments against it. So if free will did not exist, it might be the case that some people would still go around making and listening to arguments about such a topic, but factors beyond reason would ultimately determine what arguments are offered and accepted. The act of denying free will presupposes its existence. (The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Branden)

I also think that the 'open view' that Pah brought up is a pretty sound theory for theists that believe in free will. One of the themes in the Matrix series was that "No one can see beyond a decision that they do not understand."

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Brien

I'm not sure this is true. Humans at the age of seven are capable of representing objects mentally by words and other symbols, can respond to objects that are remembered but not present, and understand the concept of conservation of mass, number, and volume (e.g. - the same volume in two glasses of different shape). (Introduction to Psychology, Kalat) I can't think of any animal that can do these things, let alone read and write. Regardless of this, I think that children are capable of making choices as soon as they become physically independent. A bear may teach her cubs some survival skills, but ultimately they will rely on instinct as their primary survival mechanism. A human mother will teach her child survival skills, but also a basic moral premise. To me it seems the child can choose to obey this moral code set before it, or choose to disobey it. It's instincts would have no reason to be involved since survival is not dependant on their implementation.

There is a dog that has a working vocabulary (he listens) of over two hundred objects. He can retrieve the requested object from another room with a great degree of accuracy. He can even retrieve "new" objects far better than chance would predict..

There are primates that understand a limited symbolic language and can constuct a sentence.

Many scientists are beginning to think that the difference in cognative ability is one of quantity not quality.

Studies in the field have found that there is an element of morality (right in wrong in a society) amongst primates. Those who give the wrong "danger call" or who neglect to give the call are punished. Bonobos who do not participate in homosexual sex with others of the troop are shunned and eventually die (bisexuality is the norm and essential for a functional troop)..

Big horn male sheep who do not participate in male homosexuality are forced to live with the females where they are not allowed to procreate.

I have more data and will research it for more examples if requested.

[Ceridwen018]

Brien,

I think that children are capable of making choices as soon as they become physically independent. A bear may teach her cubs some survival skills, but ultimately they will rely on instinct as their primary survival mechanism. A human mother will teach her child survival skills, but also a basic moral premise. To me it seems the child can choose to obey this moral code set before it, or choose to disobey it. It's instincts would have no reason to be involved since survival is not dependant on their implementation.

As humans, we do need morality to get along with each other and therefore survive. Morality has become instinctual to us in a sense, and I think that if bears needed it, they would develop it and cubs would be taught morality as well as salmon fishing.

Besides morality though, the choices that are presented to animals vs. those of children (or even adults for that matter) are pretty much based on instinct. Because of our advanced intellect, humans' choices tend to be more complex, or at least they think about them from more complex angles, but this doesn't necessarily change the basis of the decision which is usually instinct. Choices of 'to eat or not to eat' or 'to go see a movie with friends or not' can all be related back to our instictual opinion of what the best choice is to better survive happily in our environment.

I would say that all memes are thoughts but not all thoughts are memes. A meme is a unit of cultural information and is used in reference to ideas that are passed from one mind to another. To say that all thoughts are memes implies that humans are not capable of forming their own ideas and that humans possess no intrinsic instincts or inherent abilities. If this is true, where did all of these thoughts come from?

Mmm...kind of. I personally think that all thoughts are memes (and therefore we don't have free-will) but I don't think that means we can't have original ideas, and as far as intinsic instincts and abilities, I believe certain memes (instincts, etc) can be inhereted much like genes. Back to the original idea thing though: Everyone's brain is unique and different. The way a person's brain processes and interprets information is different from everyone elses becaused it's based on how they think, which is unique to them. When a person is introduced to a new meme, their brain will interpret it in their own unique way. Likewise, within the brain, memes affect each other based on how the brain works, so the way my memes affect each other in my brain is different from yours, etc. That said, it is very easy to accept that people can still have original ideas with memes and without free-will...does that make sense?

And as for where the memes came from, that's an excellent question! I would say that they evolved much like anything else. By the process of natural selection, those who possessed the meme 'eat when you get hungry' survived and those who didn't died off, etc.

Free will is an internally derived ability, but more than an evolved instinct. We can choose what to do with the memes that we process. We can rationalize whether or not an assertion is reasonable. We can also choose to use our reasoning ability and heightening our conscious awareness.

I think that our thoughts/memes are what shape our opinions and outlooks on life. the way I see it, is that we cannot control which memes we come into contact with, neither can we control which memes we pick up and how they are processed (because this is controlled by the involuntary workings of our brains). Once in our heads, we cannot control how our memes will bounce off and affect each other, possibly altering each other or even creating new memes, because this also has to do with the involuntary workings of our brains.

Because memes control our opinions and how we react to those opinions with the introduction of new memes (aka, in different situations) I think that whatever 'decisions' we make cannot truly be controlled by us.