God cannot create a being with free will!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please tell me why (2) and (3) are inaccurate. You understand them. Don’t you?
Free will is not JUST the ability to choose between two equally liked objects. Otherwise we couldn’t exercise our will when we encounter two things of unequal like. But clearly we are capable of choosing a lesser-liked object over a preferred object.

Your argument depends entirely upon your definition of free will. Defining free will as “between two or more options, always being able to choose among the options” is a better definition that encompasses more richly how people conceptualize free will.

Also, we can easily define a function that chooses between two equal options.
 
Since Free Will is about doing an undesirable act Freely (rather than under compulsion), what is this thing about Chocolate and Vanilla Ice Cream?

This is about the Appetite (either about the sensitive appetite or about the intellective appetite which is known as the Will, which is not the Free Will)

An appetite, whether the sensitive or the intellective appetite, is moved to love or desire something when the Reason judges that “Union with this object I apprehend would be good, union is desirable.”

So, when I apprehend the thought of chocolate ice cream as “desirable to be in my mouth”, then **automatically **my appetite, my will, begins to move me to union with that object of chocolate ice cream in order to get it into my mouth.

If I should see or apprehend both flavors and reason out what would be desirable in my mouth, and I find both would be desirable, good united to me, then automatically my will, my appetite, loves both of them at the same time and moves me to unite to both of them in my mouth at the same time. My body is moved by my will toward the ice cream, where it secures both flavors, puts a scoop of each onto the same ice cream cone, and moves the cone to my mouth, where my will is satisfied in having united my mouth and the two flavors,.

The will is not “free” but is moved by whatever the reason identifies as “good to be united to me”, not “good in itself”, but “good to be one with”.

The “free will” is the ability to do “other things unrelated to appetite” because I, within myself, invent actions that will enable me to accomplish my appetite’s (will’s) satisfaction. I am not “determined” in how I reach my goals but freely design “the means to my end” of union with what I love, union with ice cream in my mouth. And part of guaranteeing an unlimited satisfaction of ice cream in my mouth is the undesirable acts of cleaning the barn and caring for the cows and making the ice cream. Or the undesirable act of working at another job in the world that provides enough income where I can purchase not just one flavor, but both chocolate and vanilla and have them in my mouth. I can choose from any number of undesirable means to the end of ice cream and do those undesirable acts by free choice, free will.
 
Free will is not JUST the ability to choose between two equally liked objects. Otherwise we couldn’t exercise our will when we encounter two things of unequal like. But clearly we are capable of choosing a lesser-liked object over a preferred object.
We are of course free to choose a lesser liked option but we need a reason to do so. We are of course don’t practice our free will always and simply choose the option which we like more.
Your argument depends entirely upon your definition of free will. Defining free will as “between two or more options, always being able to choose among the options” is a better definition that encompasses more richly how people conceptualize free will.
We don’t always practice our free will and simply pick up the option we like more.
Also, we can easily define a function that chooses between two equal options.
You cannot. That is the whole point that I am trying to make that we are different from a machine which works based on a set of functions.
 
Originally Posted by Gorgias View Post
A second counter-example: I like butter pecan ice cream, but I love chocolate ice cream – if I choose butter pecan (just because I’m in the mood for it), that is not a free will decision?)

Georgias, that is called a choice but you have the free will to make that choice. God Bless, Memaw
 
Originally Posted by Gorgias View Post
A second counter-example: I like butter pecan ice cream, but I love chocolate ice cream – if I choose butter pecan (just because I’m in the mood for it), that is not a free will decision?)

Georgias, that is called a choice but you have the free will to make that choice. God Bless, Memaw
Butter Pecan is not a choice of free will - it is the will (or appetite) itself being in love.
Free will is about choosing the means of getting what you love, choosing the tasks you do to reach the butter pecan. Free will is one of the operations of the resolved will to get what it loves.

Free will is about the “**means to the end **of being satisfied in union with the object you love” - do you walk or drive to the store, do you borrow money from your friend to buy it or wait until payday, etc.

Will is about WHAT you desire to unite with.
Free will is choices about getting what you desire (about freely doing things that you would not do otherwise because of your love for what you desire)
 
There is no place for free will when you are determined or want to choose one option among two options.
I don’t even know where to begin with the problems with what you say here…

You are touching on an extremely complex debate in the history of philosophy. Getting into it requires more attention than you are giving it in this thread. 🤷
 
Statement #3 is nonsensical and your whole argument fails to take our rationality into account.
From (2) we can deduce that free will is not a functional ability since one cannot define a function which choose one output from two (name removed by moderator)uts when two (name removed by moderator)uts are equally liked
To use another poster’s example, suppose I had 2 choices of ice cream, strawberry and butter pecan. If I like one better than the other then it’s a pretty straightforward choice, but you’re defining free will as the ability to choose between 2 equally liked options. This is where our rationality comes in. For example I could add the option of choosing neither, then the decision becomes do I want any ice cream or none. I could decided not to decide at all and flip a coin. Or I could use another random-option generator, like rolling a die or going eeny-meeny-miney-moe. Then I could decide to go with the result or not. The point is there is always a way to make a decision, as life in the real world shows. We make choices, big and small, every moment of every day.

As I read your question, you seem to be trying to prove either one of two things.
  1. We are not free agents and any choice we make is governed by external impetus;
    or
  2. We are free agents but God couldn’t possibly have created us that way.
What’s your choice?
 
"Bahman:
40.png
davidv:
The one true God has created beings with free will, humans, He has demonstrated this ability.
This is not an argument.
John Martin:
Free will is not a choice between two equally liked options.
It is.
Bahman – Psst: Your assertion, too, is not an argument. 😉
 
Since Free Will is about doing an undesirable act Freely (rather than under compulsion), what is this thing about Chocolate and Vanilla Ice Cream?

This is about the Appetite (either about the sensitive appetite or about the intellective appetite which is known as the Will, which is not the Free Will)

An appetite, whether the sensitive or the intellective appetite, is moved to love or desire something when the Reason judges that “Union with this object I apprehend would be good, union is desirable.”

So, when I apprehend the thought of chocolate ice cream as “desirable to be in my mouth”, then **automatically **my appetite, my will, begins to move me to union with that object of chocolate ice cream in order to get it into my mouth.

If I should see or apprehend both flavors and reason out what would be desirable in my mouth, and I find both would be desirable, good united to me, then automatically my will, my appetite, loves both of them at the same time and moves me to unite to both of them in my mouth at the same time. My body is moved by my will toward the ice cream, where it secures both flavors, puts a scoop of each onto the same ice cream cone, and moves the cone to my mouth, where my will is satisfied in having united my mouth and the two flavors,.

The will is not “free” but is moved by whatever the reason identifies as “good to be united to me”, not “good in itself”, but “good to be one with”.

The “free will” is the ability to do “other things unrelated to appetite” because I, within myself, invent actions that will enable me to accomplish my appetite’s (will’s) satisfaction. I am not “determined” in how I reach my goals but freely design “the means to my end” of union with what I love, union with ice cream in my mouth. And part of guaranteeing an unlimited satisfaction of ice cream in my mouth is the undesirable acts of cleaning the barn and caring for the cows and making the ice cream. Or the undesirable act of working at another job in the world that provides enough income where I can purchase not just one flavor, but both chocolate and vanilla and have them in my mouth. I can choose from any number of undesirable means to the end of ice cream and do those undesirable acts by free choice, free will.
Let me approach the problem in a simpler way: Our action is either functional or it is free. The act of creation requires a design. Design means that the created being is functional and it is not free. So we have to give up one thing. Either we are created and don’t have free will or we are not created and have free will.
 
I don’t even know where to begin with the problems with what you say here…

You are touching on an extremely complex debate in the history of philosophy. Getting into it requires more attention than you are giving it in this thread. 🤷
Lets start with the post #33.
 
Statement #3 is nonsensical and your whole argument fails to take our rationality into account.

To use another poster’s example, suppose I had 2 choices of ice cream, strawberry and butter pecan. If I like one better than the other then it’s a pretty straightforward choice, but you’re defining free will as the ability to choose between 2 equally liked options. This is where our rationality comes in. For example I could add the option of choosing neither, then the decision becomes do I want any ice cream or none. I could decided not to decide at all and flip a coin. Or I could use another random-option generator, like rolling a die or going eeny-meeny-miney-moe. Then I could decide to go with the result or not. The point is there is always a way to make a decision, as life in the real world shows. We make choices, big and small, every moment of every day.

As I read your question, you seem to be trying to prove either one of two things.
  1. We are not free agents and any choice we make is governed by external impetus;
    or
  2. We are free agents but God couldn’t possibly have created us that way.
What’s your choice?
I go with the second option giving the definition of free will, design and creation.
 
Let me approach the problem in a simpler way: Our action is either functional or it is free. The act of creation requires a design. Design means that the created being is functional and it is not free. So we have to give up one thing. Either we are created and don’t have free will or we are not created and have free will.
Things designed are indeed designed or created for being functional, as you say in your second sentence. This is the wisdom of God that knows us and creates us for operation as humans.

It is true that functioning is either determined by design or functioning is freely (un-determinedly) chosen by the being who is functioning.

The fact is, for our actual designed functions we are not free, as you suggest - we are indeed “slaves” to carrying out our designed functioning.

Then the question is, “What are our designed, created, functions?”

Our first functions can be considered our Primary functions, or we could look from the other direction starting with our most simple functions and then look finally to our primary functions.

From the simple level, our determined functions by design / creation are:
  1. Animating biological movement to animal maturity
  2. Animating animal movement
  3. Animating sensitive apprehension of the material world that is outside the self (through the senses and then brought into the animal reasoning faculties for reasoning)
  4. Immaterial intellective consideration and understanding of what is apprehended (for evaluation of “truth” about what is sensed, evaluation about whether it is “good to be united to what is sensed”, and movement of the will to actualize actual unity with what is evaluated as “good for union”.
All of these things we do in a determined design. We are not free in these.
The will MUST desire what is called Good for Union.
The reason MUST evaluate all known things for Goodness of Union.
The intellect MUST consider all sensed objects for Truth of whether it is Understood.

But, we are not designed to understand only fixed things, such as BALL or CARROT or RED or APPLE. If the eye were designed to only see RED and the brain designed to only recognize things that had red coloration, then we would not be free to see all the other objects in reality that are of other color surfaces. In fact, we are not free to recognize physically with our sight any objects outside the visible spectrum of light from a distance (although with our hearing or close up, via our other senses of touch, etc., we can even sense other objects)

Instead of only sensing and understanding fixed things, we are able to sense and understand many things, and beyond sensing Many Things, we are able to understand, to know, all things. We are not free in our function of knowing, but we are free in What things we know.
It is the same with the reasoning judgement of what is good for union. We are determined to do this function of judging what we think is good, but we are free to judge great varieties of things as good for union, and we may judge differently than other humans judge. (I say chocolate ice cream is good for being in my mouth, while I do not judge vanilla as good for my tongue - some other person like my wife judges the opposite). So, I am not free (I must judge), but I am free (to judge differently of many things).
And with the will, we are not free to ignore what we judge good for union, but must love it, we must desire and get it. But again, we can love many things, as many things as the reason says are good to have. I am not free “not to desire”, but I am free to desire many and various things. I am also free to desire one thing more than another thing and then my own Will forces my own will to ignore the Lesser Desired Thing.

Real human freedom comes when in our intellect and reason we “imagine a new reality of an object that does not exist outside us”, when we then judge that it would be good for this object to really exist outside us, and then with the will desire to make it happen and move our bodies to “build this imagined object”. Something material now exists in the world that would not exist apart from our slavery to be human then doing its slavery of knowing and judging and willing, yet with freedom of CONTENT of what is known, judged and willed, and freely imagining and loving and building.
 
Things designed are indeed designed or created for being functional, as you say in your second sentence. This is the wisdom of God that knows us and creates us for operation as humans.

It is true that functioning is either determined by design or functioning is freely (un-determinedly) chosen by the being who is functioning.

The fact is, for our actual designed functions we are not free, as you suggest - we are indeed “slaves” to carrying out our designed functioning.

Then the question is, “What are our designed, created, functions?”

Our first functions can be considered our Primary functions, or we could look from the other direction starting with our most simple functions and then look finally to our primary functions.

From the simple level, our determined functions by design / creation are:
  1. Animating biological movement to animal maturity
  2. Animating animal movement
  3. Animating sensitive apprehension of the material world that is outside the self (through the senses and then brought into the animal reasoning faculties for reasoning)
  4. Immaterial intellective consideration and understanding of what is apprehended (for evaluation of “truth” about what is sensed, evaluation about whether it is “good to be united to what is sensed”, and movement of the will to actualize actual unity with what is evaluated as “good for union”.
All of these things we do in a determined design. We are not free in these.
The will MUST desire what is called Good for Union.
The reason MUST evaluate all known things for Goodness of Union.
The intellect MUST consider all sensed objects for Truth of whether it is Understood.

But, we are not designed to understand only fixed things, such as BALL or CARROT or RED or APPLE. If the eye were designed to only see RED and the brain designed to only recognize things that had red coloration, then we would not be free to see all the other objects in reality that are of other color surfaces. In fact, we are not free to recognize physically with our sight any objects outside the visible spectrum of light from a distance (although with our hearing or close up, via our other senses of touch, etc., we can even sense other objects)

Instead of only sensing and understanding fixed things, we are able to sense and understand many things, and beyond sensing Many Things, we are able to understand, to know, all things. We are not free in our function of knowing, but we are free in What things we know.
It is the same with the reasoning judgement of what is good for union. We are determined to do this function of judging what we think is good, but we are free to judge great varieties of things as good for union, and we may judge differently than other humans judge. (I say chocolate ice cream is good for being in my mouth, while I do not judge vanilla as good for my tongue - some other person like my wife judges the opposite). So, I am not free (I must judge), but I am free (to judge differently of many things).
And with the will, we are not free to ignore what we judge good for union, but must love it, we must desire and get it. But again, we can love many things, as many things as the reason says are good to have. I am not free “not to desire”, but I am free to desire many and various things. I am also free to desire one thing more than another thing and then my own Will forces my own will to ignore the Lesser Desired Thing.

Real human freedom comes when in our intellect and reason we “imagine a new reality of an object that does not exist outside us”, when we then judge that it would be good for this object to really exist outside us, and then with the will desire to make it happen and move our bodies to “build this imagined object”. Something material now exists in the world that would not exist apart from our slavery to be human then doing its slavery of knowing and judging and willing, yet with freedom of CONTENT of what is known, judged and willed, and freely imagining and loving and building.
So you gave up free will! But how we could choose in a situation which there are two equally like objects involved.
 
I am free to desire many and various things. I am also free to desire one thing more than another thing and then my own Will forces my own will to ignore the Lesser Desired Thing.

Real human freedom comes when in our intellect and reason we “imagine a new reality of an object that does not exist outside us”, when we then judge that it would be good for this object to really exist outside us, and then with the will desire to make it happen and move our bodies to “build this imagined object”. Something material now exists in the world that would not exist apart from our slavery to be human then doing its slavery of knowing and judging and willing, yet with freedom of CONTENT of what is known, judged and willed, and freely imagining and loving and building.
40.png
Bahman:
So you gave up free will!
:nope:

Looks like you didn’t read John’s post too carefully. He says – over and over – “we’re free”. No giving up on free will, there… 😉

(My own :twocents:: John’s post makes some sense – we are, in certain ways, biologically determinant (after all, I will always breathe air, not water – I’m not ‘free’ to change that – and I’ll always cogitate in a particular way that’s determined by the electro-chemistry and biology of my brain) – but, there is freedom in the way I use this big ol’ electro-chemical factory of a body that I have! And, of course, the things that my body does (think, reason, choose) are free, even if the way it does them is constrained by my biology. In that respect, I agree with John!)
 
:nope:

Looks like you didn’t read John’s post too carefully. He says – over and over – “we’re free”. No giving up on free will, there… 😉

(My own :twocents:: John’s post makes some sense – we are, in certain ways, biologically determinant (after all, I will always breathe air, not water – I’m not ‘free’ to change that – and I’ll always cogitate in a particular way that’s determined by the electro-chemistry and biology of my brain) – but, there is freedom in the way I use this big ol’ electro-chemical factory of a body that I have! And, of course, the things that my body does (think, reason, choose) are free, even if the way it does them is constrained by my biology. In that respect, I agree with John!)
You cannot have free will and be a functional being at the same time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top