Jesus sacrifice, why?

[nPeace]

Yes and that is not really what one would call free will or free choice, but rather being forced.

You can decide to leave the island and live a happy and free life, but if your do, we will kill your child.

That is the logic of free will in the bible.

Perhaps at this point, it may be important to establish your concept of free will.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Free will is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. There are numerous different concerns about threats to the possibility of free will, varying by how exactly it is conceived, which is a matter of some debate.

Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events.
______________________________________________________________________________

I believe I know what your concept is, so if you clarify, we can determine that we can't meet at any point, if we are traveling on two different roads.
For example, a person might not complain about having a barrier to protect them when the go to the zoo, yet they believe they have free will or choice, just not ultimate.
Another may feel that free will should have no barrier. They should be allowed to be eaten by the tiger, or lion. Only then would that be free will.

Some may feel that free will means absolute freedom, but then, how can we be of our nature if that be the case.
A tree is a plant, not a man. Therefore a tree can only do what a tree does.
A man is only a mortal being, not an immortal. Therefore a man can only do what a man does. He cannot exceed the capabilities of a mortal.

Free will is limited.
We are restricted by whatever laws precede us.

 

[Nimos]

Perhaps at this point, it may be important to establish your concept of free will.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Free will is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. There are numerous different concerns about threats to the possibility of free will, varying by how exactly it is conceived, which is a matter of some debate.

Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events.
______________________________________________________________________________

I believe I know what your concept is, so if you clarify, we can determine that we can't meet at any point, if we are traveling on two different roads.
For example, a person might not complain about having a barrier to protect them when the go to the zoo, yet they believe they have free will or choice, just not ultimate.
Another may feel that free will should have no barrier. They should be allowed to be eaten by the tiger, or lion. Only then would that be free will.

Some may feel that free will means absolute freedom, but then, how can we be of our nature if that be the case.
A tree is a plant, not a man. Therefore a tree can only do what a tree does.
A man is only a mortal being, not an immortal. Therefore a man can only do what a man does. He cannot exceed the capabilities of a mortal.

Free will is limited.
We are restricted by whatever laws precede us.

I already took part in a long talk about free will.

So ill just give you my view on it and you can decide whether we can meet on the road

I would probably explain it like this:
We have free will with limitations based on passed experiences. How you choose to understand your limitations decide the amount of free will you think you have.

To quickly explain that non sense I think we have free will when we have no previous experiences to guide us, which is not the full explanation but will get back to that.

True free will
In the other post I used the example:

You have to choose between (A), (A) or none of them?

Not knowing what any of them means or what the consequences are by choosing one over the other, leaves you with having to make a choice based on nothing to guide you (no experiences).

As you get experience with the example above:

(Get 10 dollars), (Get 100 dollars) or (Get Nothing)

You would choose the second (A) every time, in this example I simply used dollars as a clear example of value to demonstrate your "wants" which you have no control over.

How to understand limitations:
Me wanting chocolate ice cream is not an expression of free will or me wanting chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream is not an expression of free will. Passed experience of having tasted these decide which one I will choose, since I had no free will in choosing that I like the taste of chocolate more than vanilla, I have no choice in this matter.

This as I see it comes down to how one perceive ones senses. Are these considered part of you as neutral agents, which only purpose is to guide you and help you make sense in the world in which you live, and therefore part of the complete system? If that is the case, you would have what I described above. Free will with limitations based on passed experiences.

If you feel this lack of control over your senses is interfering with free will. You only have free will as described in the "True free will" above, and therefore your senses controls your free will. Leaving you with very little.

So eventually we get to this as I see it:
We have free will with limitations based on passed experiences. How you choose to understand your limitations decide the amount of free will you think you have.

Whether that is true or not, I have no clue. But to me that seems most likely to be true.

 

[nPeace]

I already took part in a long talk about free will.

So ill just give you my view on it and you can decide whether we can meet on the road

I would probably explain it like this:
We have free will with limitations based on passed experiences. How you choose to understand your limitations decide the amount of free will you think you have.

To quickly explain that non sense I think we have free will when we have no previous experiences to guide us, which is not the full explanation but will get back to that.

True free will
In the other post I used the example:

You have to choose between (A), (A) or none of them?

Not knowing what any of them means or what the consequences are by choosing one over the other, leaves you with having to make a choice based on nothing to guide you (no experiences).

As you get experience with the example above:

(Get 10 dollars), (Get 100 dollars) or (Get Nothing)

You would choose the second (A) every time, in this example I simply used dollars as a clear example of value to demonstrate your "wants" which you have no control over.

How to understand limitations:
Me wanting chocolate ice cream is not an expression of free will or me wanting chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream is not an expression of free will. Passed experience of having tasted these decide which one I will choose, since I had no free will in choosing that I like the taste of chocolate more than vanilla, I have no choice in this matter.

This as I see it comes down to how one perceive ones sense. Are these considered part of you as neutral agents, which only purpose is to guide you and help you make sense in the world in which you live, and therefore part of the complete system? If that is the case, you would have what I described above. Free will with limitations based on passed experiences.

If you feel this lack of control over your senses is interfering with free will. You only have free will as described in the "True free will" above, and therefore your senses controls your free will. Leaving you with very little.

So eventually we get to this as I see it:
We have free will with limitations based on passed experiences. How you choose to understand your limitations decide the amount of free will you think you have.

Whether that is true or not, I have no clue. But to me that seems most likely to be true.

So in which dictionary will I find that definition?

 

[Nimos]

So in which dictionary will I find that definition?

None I think, since there are no consensus of whether we actually have free will or not. I made my own of how I think it is. As I said, I have no clue whether its true or not. But simply that it seems to be the most likely to be true as I see it. But have no problem changing my view on it, when we know more, its purely a guess

But do you think its wrong?

 

[Road Warrior]

Jesus sacrifice for human sins is often seen as something amazing. But why is that, if he rose 3 days later perfectly fine? If doesn't really seem like that a huge thing, if you know that its only temporarily and you end up with God.

If you believe in the trinity, how is this even seen as a sacrifice in the first place, as God is eternal?

Can anyone clarify why the sacrifice is seen as something amazing in the first place?

Agreed. Where is the sacrifice if one knows there is no penalty in the end? A little pain? I went through pain in boot camp but was rewarded in the end. Was that a sacrifice? No, it wasn't. It was a choice.

 

[nPeace]

None I think, since there are no consensus of whether we actually have free will or not. I made my own of how I think it is. As I said, I have no clue whether its true or not. But simply that it seems to be the most likely to be true as I see it. But have no problem changing my view on it, when we know more, its purely a guess

But do you think its wrong?

Yup. As you said, you made it up. How could it possibly be anything but wrong?

 

[nPeace]

Definition of sacrifice
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: an act of offering to a deity something precious especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2: something offered in sacrifice
3a: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b: something given up or lost the sacrifices made by parents
4: LOSS goods sold at a sacrifice
5: SACRIFICE HIT

 

[Nimos]

Yup. As you said, you made it up. How could it possibly be anything but wrong?

Just wondering, which of the free wills do you believe in?

 

[nPeace]

Just wondering, which of the free wills do you believe in?

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame.

In other words, one is free to do anything they choose, within their limitations, of course (they can't fly no matter how hard they flap their arms), but not without consequence, or blame, or responsibility, or guilt, or sin, or... you get what I mean... I hope.

 

[Nimos]

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame.

This just explain what is meant by free will, not whether we have it or not. I should probably have asked differently

So a definition of Free will could be:
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

In other words, one is free to do anything they choose, within their limitations, of course (they can't fly no matter how hard they flap their arms), but not without consequence, or blame, or responsibility, or guilt, or sin, or... you get what I mean... I hope.

So you freely choose whether you want to be afraid of a lion or a shark? And the majority of people all just happen to freely chose this or did nature decide it for us? And if nature decided it for us, you could in a blink of an eye choose not to be afraid of them using your free will?

 

[nPeace]

This just explain what is meant by free will, not whether we have it or not. I should probably have asked differently

So a definition of Free will could be:
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.


So you freely choose whether you want to be afraid of a lion or a shark? And the majority of people all just happen to freely chose this or did nature decide it for us? And if nature decided it for us, you could in a blink of an eye choose not to be afraid of them using your free will?

What is your understanding of, without the constraint of necessity?

I guess the next question you might probably ask is, "do you decide to feel emotionally attached to a person?"
So let me ask, Do you decide to get hungry?
I don't think we need to complicate the definition given.
Like... do we decide to grow or stay put?

It's not a will or choice.
So there you go. You are subjected to laws that precede you. Nature's laws... if you will.

 

[Nimos]

What is your understanding of, without the constraint of necessity?

I would understand it as you not really having a choice in whether you have to eat, drink or sleep. That is a necessity for human to live.

I guess the next question you might probably ask is, "do you decide to feel emotionally attached to a person?"
So let me ask, Do you decide to get hungry?
I don't think we need to complicate the definition given.

But I don't think we are. Because free will is about making free choices. So if we push forward with the example above.

And I give you the choice of jumping in a water tank with sharks or go in a cage with some rabbits. Your choice will depend on former experiences with each of these animals and also your ability to "read" other animals based on their looks. Meaning sharks looks like dangerous predators which can be quite huge where as rabbits doesn't. So we are talking about free will and you capable of making a choice. Remember that some people that have experience with sharks might have no issue jumping in that tank. So the choice of whether you would do it is not an unfair example.

If you only look at the most obvious examples of where you think free will applies, I think you miss the bigger picture of why I wrote that there is no consensus of whether we actually do have free will or not. There are difference opinions on this.

This give you a quick introduction to some of them, its not as simple as one might think:

 

[nPeace]

I would understand it as you not really having a choice in whether you have to eat, drink or sleep. That is a necessity for human to live.

Hmmmm. So free will to you means that you should not have to urinate or defecate. Would that not mean you would have to be something else... like a rock, perhaps?

But I don't think we are. Because free will is about making free choices. So if we push forward with the example above.

And I give you the choice of jumping in a tank with sharks or go in a cage with some rabbits. Your choice will depend on former experiences with each of these animals and also your ability to "read" other animals based on their looks. Meaning sharks looks like dangerous predators which can be quite huge where as rabbits doesn't. So we are talking about free will and you capable of making a choice. Remember that some people that have experience with sharks might have no issue jumping in that tank. So the choice of whether you would do it is not an unfair example.

If you only look at the most obvious examples of where you think free will applies, I think you miss the bigger picture of why I wrote that there is no consensus of whether we actually do have free will or not. There are difference opinions on this.

This give you a quick introduction to some of them, its not as simple as one might think:

I am aware of the ideas. The article I linked mentioned these.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with the existence of free will thus conceived.[3] Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[4]which remains a major focus of philosophical debate. The view that conceives free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Incompatibilism also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also its negation to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
Free will - Wikipedia

However, we do have free will or choice to decide what "rocks our boat". I am of the opinion that rocking boats can capsize, and when they do, we may suffer the fate of being shark bait.

 

[Nimos]

Hmmmm. So free will to you means that you should not have to urinate or defecate. Would that not mean you would have to be something else... like a rock, perhaps?

No and that is not the definitions that are mentioned in the definition I posted or the other one.

1. Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

2. The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Looking at the second definition as its slightly more detailed in what is meant by "unimpeded" in the first one. So there are two limitations when talking about free will.

1. Fate means that regardless of what choices you might makes you will always be destined to end up with the same result regardless of what you do. So an example could be that you are standing on the edge of a cliff and by fate you are chosen to fall off it, then that is what will happen regardless of what action you might take. So fate is not relevant when talking about fate and free will.

2. Being forced to eat, drink and sleep is a necessity of human life. So if some said to you that: "You have to drink water rather than oil to survive, therefore you have no free will" that is a necessity as I see it ,and therefore not relevant when talking about free will.

However, we do have free will or choice to decide what "rocks our boat". I am of the opinion that rocking boats can capsize, and when they do, we may suffer the fate of being shark bait.

Ok, think you are not really sticking to the free will argument Assuming free will and free choices exists is pretty much what the debate is about. So when you jump to the conclusion that they do exists based on an opinion and fate is not really following the definition all that well I think

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think things make sense to us only when we haven't closed ourselves off in a worldview.

I think things makes sense when they make sense.
That is to say, follow a logical progression which can be underpinned by some kind of objective evidence.

For example, if I ask a question about something, but I am not willing to step out of my worldview to consider the answers given, or give thought to the possibilities or probabilities, nothing will make sense except what's in my worldview.

Isn't it ironic....

So I think a lot depends on where we start. Some start with a closed mind, and that's what they will end with.

Some start without dogmatic religious assumptions.

I recall the scriptures saying, unless blood is poured out, no forgiveness takes place.

And the scriptures are right, because they / you say so?
This would be one of those religious assumptions.

I don't care what "the scriptures" say, nore do I care what Einstein says or Captain Kirk.
If it's wrong it's wrong. If it's illogical, it is illogical.

So, the statement "unless blood is poured out, no forgiveness takes place" needs to be explained, supported. It's not simply accepted "because the scriptures" say it.

There was also an account that said, a whole city was bloodguilty if someone was murdered, but no one owned up to it.
That impresses on me how valuable - sacred - blood is, and it does make a lot of sense to me, especially when I consider other passages on blood.

Sense, in what way?
Sense, in context of what? Your particular religion?

Today, life is treated as nothing, even a person's own life.

Is it? I don't know where you live, but that is not my experience at all.
So who's treating life "as nothing"?

I don't know everything, nor do I claim to know everything, but when I think things through with an open mind, it seems to me, I may well fail to understand the significance of blood and its connection to the life giver, to the degree it is known by the life giver.

So, when you think about this "with an open mind", do you also consider the option that your religion is just wrong?

Because it seems to me that it's rather obvious that you are taking everything your religion has to say about "blood" as authorative and unquestionable fact...

After all, even scientist admit that the more the learn, the more they realize, the less they know...

Random and irrelevant off topic statement that seems to only be here to give the impression that scientists somewhat agree with you?

Jesus gave up his life

He didn't. Jesus, according to the religious story, is the immortal ruler and creator of the universe. He didn't give up anything at all. At best, he let the body die where he was hiding in. But he could make a trillion more if he wanted too.

, and was given it back by the life giver

Here's the point where christianity becomes partly virtually polytheistic for a moment.
Either Jesus is god or he isn't. Even if you wish to go for trinitarian ideas where your god can "manifest" in multiple forms... god is still god. Jesus either is God or he isn't.

What you said there, I think should cause any open minded person who is skeptical, to realize the unreasonableness of their arguments.

You have yet to address any of the arguments given.
If you think they are unreasonable, then show how they are unreasonable.

If Jesus died, and regained his life three days after, therefore it is as if he did not die, what about all the 'innocent' people that died?

What about them?
What does that have to do with this Jesus charachter?
My point is about that Jesus charachter and the idea of his "sacrifice". I'm saying there was no sacrifice... A sacrifice entails loosing something permanently (or at least believing that you'll loose it permanently). Having yourself killed while knowingly being the immortal creator of the universe, is not a sacrifice. That's, at best, a show off.

Would the same not apply? When they are given their life back, is it not as though they never died?

You're so far off the point, you can't even see it anymore.
I was addressing the idea of Jesus "sacrificing" his life.

There was no sacrifice.

So to argue that God is cruel because he let people die, is really a defeated argument, and shows an unwillingness to be reasonable.

I didn't argue that at all in the post you are replying too.
Please read it again with a bit more attention.

The ransom was paid to God, not Christ... according to the scriptures.

And christ is god. So he "sacrificed" himself to himself to save us from himself.

Like I said: it makes no sense.

Please, if you reply, reply again to the 3 points and this time actually address what is written.

I can confidently say that you have addressed a single point that was raised.... Not one.

 

[nPeace]

No and that is not the definitions that are mentioned in the definition I posted or the other one.

1. Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

2. The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Looking at the second definition as its slightly more detailed in what is meant by "unimpeded" in the first one. So there are two limitations when talking about free will.

1. Fate means that regardless of what choices you might makes you will always be destined to end up with the same result regardless of what you do. So an example could be that you are standing on the edge of a cliff and by fate you are chosen to fall off it, then that is what will happen regardless of what action you might take. So fate is not relevant when talking about fate and free will.

2. Being forced to eat, drink and sleep is a necessity of human life. So if some said to you that: "You have to drink water rather than oil to survive, therefore you have no free will" that is a necessity as I see it ,and therefore not relevant when talking about free will.


Ok, think you are not really sticking to the free will argument Assuming free will and free choices exists is pretty much what the debate is about. So when you jump to the conclusion that they do exists based on an opinion and fate is not really following the definition all that well I think

I follow the Bible, and the teachings of Christ, so I am not swayed hither and thither by every wind of human opinion.
The Bible has fixed standards and principles, and I find that usually, for the most part, the older definitions of words tend to be in line with scripture. Modern day adjustments usually deviate.
That's why the traditional definition, is one I can accept.

I am a bit confused though, on your understanding of the definition.
I don't understand unimpeded to mean unlimited. Simply not obstructed or hindered, but that does not mean breaking all barriers - for example breaking the speed or sound barrier, or other physical laws. It simply means, as I understand it, unhindered by anyone, or anything inside the limits of your abilities.
Not that we suddenly become super men.

Also, fate and free will are incompatible.

Is this your understanding, as well?

 

[Nimos]

I follow the Bible, and the teachings of Christ, so I am not swayed hither and thither by every wind of human opinion.
The Bible has fixed standards and principles, and I find that usually, for the most part, the older definitions of words tend to be in line with scripture. Modern day adjustments usually deviate.
That's why the traditional definition, is one I can accept.

I don't really think its about what you can accept as much as whether its actually true or not, in regards to what we mean when we are talking about free will, and if we do in fact have it or not, the experience that we feel is that we have free will regardless of what is true or false. So I don't think its all that important how you view free will in regards to you believing in God or not, personally I don't really see a huge conflict here, but I might be wrong.

I am a bit confused though, on your understanding of the definition.
I don't understand unimpeded to mean unlimited. Simply not obstructed or hindered, but that does not mean breaking all barriers - for example breaking the speed or sound barrier, or other physical laws. It simply means, as I understand it, unhindered by anyone, or anything inside the limits of your abilities.
Not that we suddenly become super men.

To me it seems what might confuse you, is what is meant when it comes to free will, what does it include. In the first post you wrote this as an example:

(they can't fly no matter how hard they flap their arms)

Its not really a choice you can make, because physically its impossible for humans to do so. Just as its impossible for someone to shoot laser beams out of their eyes. So it doesn't have anything to do with free will. Its about whether you can freely choose between a range of options.

Which is why I used the example with the ice cream in my first reply.

So imagine you stand in front of a table with ice cream, but are only allowed to choose one flavor, you have the following options:

1. You can choose chocolate ice cream
2. You can choose vanilla ice cream
3. You can choose banana ice cream

The question then becomes, the one you chose did you do that freely or not?

What I tried to explain in the first reply, is that you don't. You don't say to yourself "I choose chocolate", but rather you choose the one that you like the most based on previous experiences. Obviously you might want all of them, but for the sake of argument lets say that you have tasted all of them before. And figured out that the only want you liked were chocolate ice cream. So my point is that you didn't decide that chocolate was the only one you liked, it just happens to be the case, based on your senses.

The senses as I see it, then becomes the key feature we are interested in, because if we assume that you had no senses, you couldn't see, hear, smell etc. You would have no way to determine which of the flavors, color or smell you prefer either. So you would just eat any of the ice creams given to you.

So your sense are needed for you to get to the point of where you can say, I like chocolate ice cream and none of the others.

Which is why I say that free will is based on whether you think your senses control your free will or whether you see them as being part of you, and therefore simply neutral agents, which only purpose is helping you to understand and survive in the world in which you live.

Does that make sense?

So since your senses have already "decided" that you like chocolate the first time you tasted it and disliked the others. When you are then put in front of the table a second time to choose between the ice creams, you choose chocolate, because it have already been decided for you based on your senses.

Now imagine that you get a brain tumor, that makes you suddenly change which ice cream you like, so instead of chocolate you now like vanilla. Did you decide that through free will or did the tumor?

So free will is about free choices and not whether someone want to fly or shoot lasers out of their eyes.

Also, fate and free will are incompatible.

Is this your understanding, as well?

Yes, fate is about your destiny having been decided for you by whatever, regardless of what choice you make, therefore we can't talk about free will and fate, and why it is made an exception in the definition. In the first video I linked, the presenter uses the story of Oedipus as the very first story to explain fate, so you can watch that, as I think he explains it very well.

 

[nPeace]

I don't really think its about what you can accept as much as whether its actually true or not, in regards to what we mean when we are talking about free will, and if we do in fact have it or not, the experience that we feel is that we have free will regardless of what is true or false. So I don't think its all that important how you view free will in regards to you believing in God or not, personally I don't really see a huge conflict here, but I might be wrong.


To me it seems what might confuse you, is what is meant when it comes to free will, what does it include. In the first post you wrote this as an example:

(they can't fly no matter how hard they flap their arms)

Its not really a choice you can make, because physically its impossible for humans to do so. Just as its impossible for someone to shoot laser beams out of their eyes. So it doesn't have anything to do with free will. Its about whether you can freely choose between a range of options.

Which is why I used the example with the ice cream in my first reply.

So imagine you stand in front of a table with ice cream, but are only allowed to choose one flavor, you have the following options:

1. You can choose chocolate ice cream
2. You can choose vanilla ice cream
3. You can choose banana ice cream

The question then becomes, the one you chose did you do that freely or not?

What I tried to explain in the first reply, is that you don't. You don't say to yourself "I choose chocolate", but rather you choose the one that you like the most based on previous experiences. Obviously you might want all of them, but for the sake of argument lets say that you have tasted all of them before. And figured out that the only want you liked were chocolate ice cream. So my point is that you didn't decide that chocolate was the only one you liked, it just happens to be the case, based on your senses.

The senses as I see it, then becomes the key feature we are interested in, because if we assume that you had no senses, you couldn't see, hear, smell etc. You would have no way to determine which of the flavors, color or smell you prefer either. So you would just eat any of the ice creams given to you.

So your sense are needed for you to get to the point of where you can say, I like chocolate ice cream and none of the others.

Which is why I say that free will is based on whether you think your senses control your free will or whether you see them as being part of you, and therefore simply neutral agents, which only purpose is helping you to understand and survive in the world in which you live.

Does that make sense?

So since your senses have already "decided" that you like chocolate the first time you tasted it and disliked the others. When you are then put in front of the table a second time to choose between the ice creams, you choose chocolate, because it have already been decided for you based on your senses.

Now imagine that you get a brain tumor, that makes you suddenly change which ice cream you like, so instead of chocolate you now like vanilla. Did you decide that through free will or did the tumor?

So free will is about free choices and not whether someone want to fly or shoot lasers out of their eyes.


Yes, fate is about your destiny having been decided for you by whatever, regardless of what choice you make, therefore we can't talk about free will and fate, and why it is made an exception in the definition. In the first video I linked, the presenter uses the story of Oedipus as the very first story to explain fate, so you can watch that, as I think he explains it very well.

Ah. I get you now. I fully understand... I think... I hope.
How about this...
God creates man and woman.
He puts them in a beautiful garden, with everything they need to satisfy them.
He communicates with them.
He allows them to have the entire earth for themselves, and children - along with every kind of animal, of course. "Multiply and fill the earth." he tells them.
Just one thing... "Don't touch the tree in the middle of the garden, otherwise, you will die."

Decades pass. Everything is good. Life is good.
Their senses have been "programmed" to want this life - it's all they have tasted.

Now, along comes Mr. Satan, and says, "You guys are missing out on all the good stuff. Behold, the tree in the middle of the garden.
What? He told you don't touch it? Come on. I tell you, you haven't begun to live, until you have tasted of this tree.
What do you say..."

Adam hadn't taken from the tree God said not to touch. Nor did he experience what the Devil was describing.
Is he still using his senses, in making a free willed choice?

 

[Nimos]

Adam hadn't taken from the tree God said not to touch. Nor did he experience what the Devil was describing.
Is he still using his senses, in making a free willed choice?

So now it gets a bit more complicated. And ill only use your story written here to avoid confusion with the actual story. Obviously yours are just as vague as the real one, so there are a lot of unknowns and not even sure its possible to use it as an example. But lets try.

Just one thing... "Don't touch the tree in the middle of the garden, otherwise, you will die."

This is Adams first experience, God tell him about the tree, so he is aware of it and know about it and the consequences of touching it. (Assuming that he knows the difference between good and evil?)

Now, along comes Mr. Satan, and says, "You guys are missing out on all the good stuff. Behold, the tree in the middle of the garden.
What? He told you don't touch it? Come on. I tell you, you haven't begun to live, until you have tasted of this tree.
What do you say..."

This is Adams second experience and up until now he have simply trusted what God is saying. Mr. Satan might have convinced Adam that God is in fact lying, as God haven't really explain anything to him about the tree, except that he dies if he touches it.

Since Adam have never tasted the tree, but have experience and like eating from the others and Mr. Satan seems to be a decent enough guy, he might be curios to taste it and see what is so special about this one.

So looking at the various options Adam have.

1. God give a vague description and doesn't explain why he ain't allowed to eat from it. Potentially he could be lying Adam wouldn't know that.

2. Mr. Satan give a just as vague description, saying that God is lying. There are no reason for Adam to think Mr. Satan is not telling the truth just as well as God is. But Satan planting a thought in Adam that the tree is special, could make him curios enough to choose to eat from it.

So either option seems fine, so depending on how Adam value these against each other he will make a choice. But as I said there are so many unknowns and assumptions that im not really sure it works well when talking about free will.