-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you exactly define 'free will'?
- Thread starter Renji
- Start date
JerryL
Well-Known Member
I define it as a form of oximoron.
Freedom must be from something. We are not free of our programming and stimuli. The choices we make are the inevitable outcome of the conditions of the universe at that moment.
To be free of such conditions would require that the choices be dependent on a random element. That might be free (though I'd say it's subject to that random element), but it's certainly not choice.
Freedom must be from something. We are not free of our programming and stimuli. The choices we make are the inevitable outcome of the conditions of the universe at that moment.
To be free of such conditions would require that the choices be dependent on a random element. That might be free (though I'd say it's subject to that random element), but it's certainly not choice.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I have found that a lot of people tend to define free will in such a manner as to render the whole concept useless.
For example, I once had a fellow tell me that there is no such thing as free will because he cannot fly like a bird.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Its the ability to choose. Plain and simple.
You wake up in the morning, and you decide what you are going to do with your day. You feel like staying in bed, so you put the covers back over you and thats you exercising your free will.
It doesnt mean your free of the consequences of your actions though. If you have to be at work, and you decide you are not going, then you will have to deal with the consequences of those actions. So freewill does not mean freedom from accountability. You are still accountable for the choices you make.
You wake up in the morning, and you decide what you are going to do with your day. You feel like staying in bed, so you put the covers back over you and thats you exercising your free will.
It doesnt mean your free of the consequences of your actions though. If you have to be at work, and you decide you are not going, then you will have to deal with the consequences of those actions. So freewill does not mean freedom from accountability. You are still accountable for the choices you make.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
IMHO. Free will is simply man's ability to choose good or evil. We are all born with different capacities and circumstances. But all of us have the choice to either be good people who care for others or bad people who are self obsorbed and blind to the needs of others. Nothing can take that away from us and I believe all people who choose to help others and live an honest, sincere life will be rewarded accordingly.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
And this is the only sense in which discussing it is meaningful. All other forms are variations of notions that included the possibility of some agency working against one's will. The will being a property of the mind to act intentionally.
As for a definition of freewill, I've always liked: The ability to have done differently. Kind of a back-assward definition, but I think it boils the problem down to its essence.
As a hard determinist I reject the notion of freewill.
Last edited:
Heim
Active Member
Ah, this is the never-ending discussion in social sciences.
What is important? The structures that determine the way we act, or the individual actors' freedom to act. I don't really have a definitive answer to that question.
I am, however, more inclined to approach matters deterministically. Yes, individuals have choices to make and you could argue that to a certain extent they are free when choosing. On the other hand – and quantitative sociological research shows these patterns – individual choices are steered by social factors.
What is important? The structures that determine the way we act, or the individual actors' freedom to act. I don't really have a definitive answer to that question.
I am, however, more inclined to approach matters deterministically. Yes, individuals have choices to make and you could argue that to a certain extent they are free when choosing. On the other hand – and quantitative sociological research shows these patterns – individual choices are steered by social factors.
I define it as one's ability or capacity to make a choice/decision such that one could have made it differently. I've defined it differently at times: the capacity for functionally emergent processes of the brain (the "mind" or "consciousness") to determine future states, or the capacity for a system capable of conceptual processing to self-determine, etc. However, I think the ability to make choices that aren't fully determined to be a simple, usable definition.
Free will is simply the ability to make an independent decision. Like going to a shop and deciding if i want a choc bar or a salad. I don't see free will as being a choice one can make without consequences. Like if i chose the choc bar there will be consequences in the form of calories and fat,, health negatives.
It is irrelevant what consequences might come from a free willed decision, It does not change the fact that i have the free will to chose one way or the other.
So my will is free.. But the choices i make have consequences.
allfoak
Alchemist
allfoak
Alchemist
Everything is an illusion and also very real.
The balance between illusion and reality is us.
I know this because i experience this.
God wants us to be free.
What sets us free is the truth.
This can be known by seeking it out.
For those that are not willing to exercise there free will to seek out the truth, they will learn by repeatedly putting their hand on a hot stove.
This is where choice is evident.
We have the choice to seek out the truth or not, which in doing so, will hasten our growth and set us free.
Those who do not exercise their free will to seek out the truth do not have a choice but to experience life,
so they will learn and grow despite themselves.
We have choice only as much as we are willing to use it.
Otherwise we shift to the default position, the law of hard knocks.
The balance between illusion and reality is us.
I know this because i experience this.
God wants us to be free.
What sets us free is the truth.
This can be known by seeking it out.
For those that are not willing to exercise there free will to seek out the truth, they will learn by repeatedly putting their hand on a hot stove.
This is where choice is evident.
We have the choice to seek out the truth or not, which in doing so, will hasten our growth and set us free.
Those who do not exercise their free will to seek out the truth do not have a choice but to experience life,
so they will learn and grow despite themselves.
We have choice only as much as we are willing to use it.
Otherwise we shift to the default position, the law of hard knocks.
Simply the ability to make choices in any given situation.
Obviously I don't assert that choice means independence from causality, (of course preconditions influence all choices) but that I reject that the idea that my decisions were the only possible consequence of pre-existing conditions.
Summed up, that the ability to have done otherwise is real.
Obviously I don't assert that choice means independence from causality, (of course preconditions influence all choices) but that I reject that the idea that my decisions were the only possible consequence of pre-existing conditions.
Summed up, that the ability to have done otherwise is real.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Independent of what?
So if preexisting conditions are responsible for a particular consequence, how could the exact same conditions produce a different consequence?Tlaloc said: