God cannot create a being with free will!

[davidv]

You cannot have free will and be a functional being at the same time.

Please prove this. There is nothing about free will that prevents function. The human person is a combination of self direction (free will) and biological functions.

 

[Bahman]

Please prove this. There is nothing about free will that prevents function. The human person is a combination of self direction (free will) and biological functions.

How you could have any self direction when outcome of a situation is defined by (name removed by moderator)uts and the person you are? Your personality takes shape with experiences in your life which define the function.

 

[John_Martin]

How you could have any self direction when outcome of a situation is defined by (name removed by moderator)uts and the person you are? Your personality takes shape with experiences in your life which define the function.

No, the functions are pre-defined - you are not free to change them, not free to use your intellect or reason or will except as it is pre-defined (you must use your intellect to understand, you must use your reason to decide what is good, and you must use your will to love what you decided is good)

Your personality comes to know itself as you use your functions.

You are predetermined to “think”, but while you are required to think, you are free to think and understand everything and anything. that is why you and I know different things, yet both of us are pre-determined to use the thinking functions.

 

[Bahman]

No, the functions are pre-defined - you are not free to change them, not free to use your intellect or reason or will except as it is pre-defined (you must use your intellect to understand, you must use your reason to decide what is good, and you must use your will to love what you decided is good)

Your personality comes to know itself as you use your functions.

You are predetermined to “think”, but while you are required to think, you are free to think and understand everything and anything. that is why you and I know different things, yet both of us are pre-determined to use the thinking functions.

Yes. A part of your personality is pre-determined and the rest takes shape with your life experience. The is no room left for freedom when you are a functional being.

 

[lemondiesel]

So wait, is (2) your definition of free will for this argument in particular, or as a whole?

 

[John_Martin]

Yes. A part of your personality is pre-determined and the rest takes shape with your life experience. The is no room left for freedom when you are a functional being.

Bahman,
I doubt that you feel like a slave when you do things; I know that I do not feel under pressure to do the things I do, but I do them intentionally.

That feeling of doing things willfully, rather than under compulsion, is one of the “experiences of life” that I have. From this “life experience” I learn to understand that I am free.

If I were being pushed along, if my hand were being forced to press these keys on my computer, then my “life experience” would be conditioning me, teaching me, to know that I am not free.

But I “want to write to you”. I like you and want to write things for you to consider. From this experience I see I am doing what I desire to do, which is freedom to me. I am also free to write because I know how to write, free to write because I understand the internet and this computer, free to write because my intellect is functioning at knowing, and my reason is functioning at deciding what is good to write, and my will is functioning at making my decision come true in these words you are reading.

I feel free, very free and happy, I do not at all feel like a puppet or slave.

 

[Bahman]

So wait, is (2) your definition of free will for this argument in particular, or as a whole?

Yes, that is my definition.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman,
I doubt that you feel like a slave when you do things; I know that I do not feel under pressure to do the things I do, but I do them intentionally.

I just do follow logic. I am a slave if I am a functional being.

That feeling of doing things willfully, rather than under compulsion, is one of the “experiences of life” that I have. From this “life experience” I learn to understand that I am free.

Our feeling about our freedom can be wrong. We have to accept the truth whether we like it or not.

If I were being pushed along, if my hand were being forced to press these keys on my computer, then my “life experience” would be conditioning me, teaching me, to know that I am not free.

You have two options, lets say X and Y. You prefer X over Y so you choose X hence you are a slave of what you want.

But I “want to write to you”. I like you and want to write things for you to consider. From this experience I see I am doing what I desire to do, which is freedom to me. I am also free to write because I know how to write, free to write because I understand the internet and this computer, free to write because my intellect is functioning at knowing, and my reason is functioning at deciding what is good to write, and my will is functioning at making my decision come true in these words you are reading.

I feel free, very free and happy, I do not at all feel like a puppet or slave.

Feeling has nothing to do when logic tell us the truth. We are only free when we like two options equally. That is when we don’t have any constrain over our choice hence we can decide freely. But this means that we are not a functional being hence we could not be designed and created.

 

[John_Martin]

…
You have two options, lets say X and Y. You prefer X over Y so you choose X hence you are a slave of what you want.

Feeling has nothing to do when logic tell us the truth. We are only free when we like two options equally. That is when we don’t have any constrain over our choice hence we can decide freely. But this means that we are not a functional being hence we could not be designed and created.

Logic is not really what tells us the truth.
Actually, repeated comparison with what we experience and experimentation with what we experience, all combined with logic brings us to a conclusion of truth, the conclusion of knowing. The acts of comparison, experimenting, and use of logic are our slavery.

We are slaves to searching for and only being satisfied when we find truth.

We are not free by liking two objects equally, and by both being true. We, in our slavery to experimentation, comparison, and logic, found out the truth that both were Ice Cream and in our slavery to see which was most satisfying found out that we liked both in our mouth.

These are temporal goods. For Catholics, Lent begins on February 10th. And many of us will freely choose to ignore the goodness of the chocolate and vanilla during the time of Lent. They are good. We like them, we are slaves in knowing we like them. But we are not slaves in choosing to do what we like. Logic says, It is True, It is Good, Do it.
But freedom is able to say, “No thank you, not today, I am doing Penance. The world will not see me following the logic of appetite today but the world will see a new thing today of me preferring to be in hunger rather than eat either good thing.”

By the way, when you like things equally and do choose one over the other, that is not because you are free; that is because you do not consider yourself big enough or rich enough or hungry enough to have both. So it is still slavery of being constrained to only have one - it is slavery to being Forced to Choose. True freedom according to your reasoning would be to have both.

But actually, a “choice” between two equally liked objects is simply chance. It happens all the time in rolling the dice - all combinations are equally possible for the result. Freedom, however, unlike chance, is the Intention to LOVE one and REJECT the other, full of the Passion of Desire. Freedom is the passion of Love. Slavery is the restriction of Fear where Choices are concerned.

 

[littlestsouls2]

You have two options, lets say X and Y. You prefer X over Y so you choose X hence you are a slave of what you want.

We act for ends; we seek the good, perceived or actual. It does not follow that our acts are not free (we can choose between different “goods”, for example). If it did, we would have to maintain that God in principle cannot possibly be free, because He, being Goodness Itself, necessarily chooses or “desires” (in an analogous sense) what is good. In other words, He is a “slave” of what He wants.

Feeling has nothing to do when logic tell us the truth. We are only free when we like two options equally. That is when we don’t have any constrain over our choice hence we can decide freely. But this means that we are not a functional being hence we could not be designed and created.

The intellect does not determine or compel our actions; it merely presents them to the will.

To “like two options equally” is ambiguous. Take Susan, for example. She likes being healthy, but she also likes to eat deathly quantities of chocolate. Health is objectively a greater good than bodily pleasure (I can defend this if necessary), but this does not stop Susan from liking chocolate more than a good diet and exercise. Assuming that Susan once “liked” health and chocolate equally, it would follow that her freedom ceases to exist as soon her desires change, which is absolutely inevitable (I can defend this, too, if necessary).

 

[Bahman]

Logic is not really what tells us the truth.
Actually, repeated comparison with what we experience and experimentation with what we experience, all combined with logic brings us to a conclusion of truth, the conclusion of knowing. The acts of comparison, experimenting, and use of logic are our slavery.

We are slaves to searching for and only being satisfied when we find truth.

We are not free by liking two objects equally, and by both being true. We, in our slavery to experimentation, comparison, and logic, found out the truth that both were Ice Cream and in our slavery to see which was most satisfying found out that we liked both in our mouth.

These are temporal goods. For Catholics, Lent begins on February 10th. And many of us will freely choose to ignore the goodness of the chocolate and vanilla during the time of Lent. They are good. We like them, we are slaves in knowing we like them. But we are not slaves in choosing to do what we like. Logic says, It is True, It is Good, Do it.
But freedom is able to say, “No thank you, not today, I am doing Penance. The world will not see me following the logic of appetite today but the world will see a new thing today of me preferring to be in hunger rather than eat either good thing.”

By the way, when you like things equally and do choose one over the other, that is not because you are free; that is because you do not consider yourself big enough or rich enough or hungry enough to have both. So it is still slavery of being constrained to only have one - it is slavery to being Forced to Choose. True freedom according to your reasoning would be to have both.

But actually, a “choice” between two equally liked objects is simply chance. It happens all the time in rolling the dice - all combinations are equally possible for the result. Freedom, however, unlike chance, is the Intention to LOVE one and REJECT the other, full of the Passion of Desire. Freedom is the passion of Love. Slavery is the restriction of Fear where Choices are concerned.

Choice means that we are needy and want something but we are restricted because we cannot have all options. That is in general slavery. We can only practice free will when we equally like our options since there is no constrain which force one option more likely.

 

[o_mlly]

… You have two options, lets say X and Y. You prefer X over Y so you choose X hence you are a slave of what you want. …
.

True.

For the sinless:
Let X = Escape to Nazareth and lay low until this Temple ruckus blows over.
Let Y = Crucifixion.

For sinners:
Let X = The self-indulgent life.
Let Y = The other-oriented life.

Those who choose Y have achieved what is called moral freedom. Those who choose X are slaves to their disordered appetites and passions.

 

[Bahman]

We act for ends; we seek the good, perceived or actual. It does not follow that our acts are not free (we can choose between different “goods”, for example). If it did, we would have to maintain that God in principle cannot possibly be free, because He, being Goodness Itself, necessarily chooses or “desires” (in an analogous sense) what is good. In other words, He is a “slave” of what He wants.

We are not free as long as we need or want something.

The intellect does not determine or compel our actions; it merely presents them to the will.

To “like two options equally” is ambiguous. Take Susan, for example. She likes being healthy, but she also likes to eat deathly quantities of chocolate. Health is objectively a greater good than bodily pleasure (I can defend this if necessary), but this does not stop Susan from liking chocolate more than a good diet and exercise. Assuming that Susan once “liked” health and chocolate equally, it would follow that her freedom ceases to exist as soon her desires change, which is absolutely inevitable (I can defend this, too, if necessary).

Why liking two options equally is ambiguous?

 

[neophyte]

Here is the argument:

1. Design means planning to build/create something according to specific function
2. Free will is the ability to decide between two equally liked options
3. 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
4. From (3) we can deduce that God cannot design a being with free will
5. From (4) we can deduce that God cannot create a being with free will

Equivocates on the meaning of the word “function”.

 

[Wesrock]

I just disagree with Bahman’s understanding of free will. People will always choose the option they feel is best. That doesn’t make me a slave, it makes me free. The fact that I am always able to choose the option that I reason to be best is actually a ringing endorsement that my will is free and not imposed upon by the outside. In fact, should I find that anyone chooses what he does not think is best, I’d have to suspect that his free will has been compromised.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m pretty certain we can decide between two or three or more equally liked options. That’s what eeny-meeny-miney-moe is for!

 

[John_Martin]

You understand, Bahman, we Catholics are convinced of freedom, free-will. It is revealed to us that, “In order for you to use freedom, Christ has set you free!. Therefore, stand fast; and never submit again to a yoke of bondage!”

This is a revelation of freedom, and something we actually experience, this freedom - we find ourselves doing things virtuously, intentionally (meaning freely chosen to do them virtuously).

So we walk about with the assertion that we are free men and women, not slaves to always follow our passions triggered by things in the environment, by likes and dislikes, but instead we choose to love our neighbor rather than in bondage having any kindnesses being matters of liking or not liking our neighbor.

We are free, and know it; we are entertaining this discussion to lure you into desiring freedom also.

 

[littlestsouls2]

We are not free as long as we need or want something.

Not true. I need food, but I can choose to starve myself. This need, like many others, does not compel my will.

Why liking two options equally is ambiguous?

Because it is extremely difficult to discern equality in such matters.

 

[petra22]

You cannot have free will and be a functional being at the same time.

Right, if you go on a hunger strike you will not be a functional being. You’ll be a non-functioning being by your own choice… free will, I mean.

 

[Bahman]

Equivocates on the meaning of the word “function”.

By function I mean that for a set of (name removed by moderator)uts and output there exist a map which define a one to one correspondence between (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.