Poll: Free will, does it exist?

[SonicKoala]

Yes, free will exists - at any point in time, I could choose to go ballistic and murder everyone in my family, despite the fact that there was absoloutely nothing in my past that would have indicated such a thing was going to happen - at the same time, I don't quite understand how you can determine that something in one's biological or psychological makeup is the main factor in determining what choices a person makes.

 

[omega 616]

I think it depends on your personality, it's the classic submissive and dominative.

The subs want to be controlled and comforted by the fact that everything is planned out and they can't go wrong.

The doms want to have control and feel they can make mistakes but also feel better when they get the rewards, rather than feeling they were always going to get the reward.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

Free will does exist. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted this.

Looks like you... *puts on glasses* finally made a monkey out of him. YEEEAAAH!

 

[knhirt]

Take it from my position, for a moment. Those people who claim they have no free will, aspiring to be...what? Cogs in a wheel? Effectively, a society IS such that has a whole bunch of gears working together as akin to a machine, but no rule says you can't more. You're not obligated and you're not forced. The only one who can remove that colorful free will is the psyche that claims it doesn't exist and you just have to dance to the same beat.

On the contrary: To state the lack of free will is not to state that one is a submissive cog in the machine and nothing else. The fact, for example, that I have on numerous occasions gone against the grain of society, done my own thing and rejected the status quo, implies only this: My brain, through the years it has existed as a definite entity, has been affected in such a manner that the decisions it has made have pushed me in such a direction. Free will, in my opinion, is not the ability to think independently, or make decisions that others may find out of the ordinary.
The brain is capable of such things, when it is stimulated in the right way. Fundamentally, this idea is quite simple.
How do you define "free will"?

 

[Yeahdude]

I think by going from the point of a physicist; I would agree with the quote. I have wondered the same exact thing before, but from a broader point of view. Whether or not you want to make the argument that it is "free will," is all dependent on what you perceive as free will.

By defining free will as...

"Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces."

I would say no, it doesn't exist.

 

[dreamtime]

Alright, you primitive screwheads, let's get one thing straight:
No real or hypothetical decision, however random or strange, is ever proof of free will. Now, please feel free to continue.

 

[ethaninja]

Peoples definitions of Free Will vary, from person to person.

For example, my definition of free will is choosing yes or no in that poll!

Lool =D

 

[FalloutJack]

Take it from my position, for a moment. Those people who claim they have no free will, aspiring to be...what? Cogs in a wheel? Effectively, a society IS such that has a whole bunch of gears working together as akin to a machine, but no rule says you can't more. You're not obligated and you're not forced. The only one who can remove that colorful free will is the psyche that claims it doesn't exist and you just have to dance to the same beat.

On the contrary: To state the lack of free will is not to state that one is a submissive cog in the machine and nothing else. The fact, for example, that I have on numerous occasions gone against the grain of society, done my own thing and rejected the status quo, implies only this: My brain, through the years it has existed as a definite entity, has been affected in such a manner that the decisions it has made have pushed me in such a direction. Free will, in my opinion, is not the ability to think independently, or make decisions that others may find out of the ordinary.
The brain is capable of such things, when it is stimulated in the right way. Fundamentally, this idea is quite simple.
How do you define "free will"?

I believe I see where you're going with this. You do not see yourself as your own brain, the center of all the doings and happenings of the self on the physical. I had numerous experiences with this in the Metaphysics class. My perception of self is different. I have always loved Descartes, to start with "I think, therefore I am". I, whatever "I" is given to be, am at the center. I am the mind, I am in the brain, and I am tweaking the stimulations in such a way that the body does what I say and I act upon the world. I am the control and I am free. My will is my own.

 

[Echelon_3]

I think we have no choice but to have free will.

 

[Maveleye]

This article I discovered years ago goes in depth into what the Bible has to say about the whole free will argument.

Wall of Text Disclaimer

To say that man has a free will is neither biblical nor logical. It's not biblical because the Bible not only never states or implies that man has a free will, but in fact, teaches the opposite. And for man to have a free will is not logical because it makes God a puppet of man and not the sovereign God that He is (Ezek. 25:12; Rev. 6:10).

To say that man has a free will means that he has the innate ability/capacity to choose to please God or not; to think, say, or do right or not; or to do good with right/biblical motives or not; and that he has the ability to override the plans and purposes of God by the choices he makes. However, the Bible teaches otherwise.

Rom. 8:5-8 teaches that the mind/thoughts set on (fixed on, absorbed with, dominated/controlled by) the flesh/sin nature is not capable of subjecting itself to the law of God. And those who are in the flesh (controlled by their sin nature) cannot please God (Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 1, "Romans", pp. 130, 131; Drs. Walvoord and Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, N.T., p. 470). And this is the condition of every unbeliever/non-Christian, at least, as mankind is born with a sin nature or in sin (Psa. 51:5; 58:3) or made a sinner (Rom. 5:19) and is, therefore, a slave to sin (Rom. 6:17; 5:6; 7:5; Eph. 2:3). Genesis 8:21 states that the intent/inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth (Heb. "neurim" expresses a state or condition - Dr. H. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, Vol. 1, p. 324; innate in man - Drs. Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, p. 151; spoken of an infant just born on up - Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, p. 494). And Genesis 6:5 states that every intent of the heart/thoughts of mankind was only evil continually.

So the unbeliever (who is born with and only has a sin nature) or those controlled by their sin nature after conversion cannot please God or obey God (subject themselves to His law). The natural man/nonbeliever can neither accept nor understand the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him (1 Cor. 2:14), and salvation is of the Spirit of God (Jn. 3:5, 6; 2 Thes. 2:13). So the nonbeliever could and would never seek for God (Rom. 3:11) or accept Christ or salvation apart from God's intervention (Jn. 6:44, 65). All that our sin nature/heart can produce is sinful thoughts, words, and actions (read Matt. 12:34, 35; 15:18, 19; Lk. 6:43, 45; Mk. 7:21-23; Gal. 5:19-21; Jer. 17:9). There is nothing good that dwells in our flesh/sin nature (Rom. 7:18), which we are born with, and that's why even Christians who live from their sin natures/flesh cannot do any good/right (Rom. 7:14-20). And the nonbeliever, who only has a sin nature, is incapable of doing anything good as far as God is concerned (Rom. 3:12). What supposed good (from a human viewpoint) a nonbeliever does can only benefit its recipients, but it is considered as filthy rags by God (Isa. 64:6) because the motive is self-centered and, therefore, makes what he did filthy in the eyes of God (Prov. 16:2; 21:2; Jer. 17:9, 10). Motives are very important to God (1 Cor. 4:5; James 4:3; Matt. 6:1; Jn. 6:24-26; Phil. 2:3). And the only motive a nonbeliever can have is selfish because he only has one nature (a sinful one) to function from (Jn. 8:44; Psa. 51:5; 58:3; Eph. 2:3; Matt. 7:18 with 15:19).

Also, since goodness is a fruit/quality that only God the Spirit can produce (Gal. 5:22), and since nonbelievers don't have the Spirit of God in them (Rom. 8:9); therefore, nonbelievers can't do any good as far as God is concerned. So what choice do they have?

As far as salvation is concerned, only people predestined/chosen/elected by God from eternity past can and will accept Christ as Savior or be saved. And God did not pick them because He saw or knew in advance that they would accept Christ (since sin-natured man is incapable of doing so as has already been discussed), but God chose certain people for salvation according to His own good will/purpose and grace and totally apart from anything to do with the people or their choices/wills (read 2 Thes. 2:13; Eph. 1:4, 5, 11; 2 Tim. 1:9; James 1:18; Jn. 1:12, 13 ? Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 3, p. 493).

If God didn't appoint a person to salvation, he would not believe (John 10:26; Acts 13:48), and if God didn't open the heart of a person to respond to the gospel, then that person couldn't believe (Acts 16:14). Only those of God can hear/understand and believe Christ (Jn. 8:43, 45, 47). Also, since faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8), and God does not give that gift to everyone but only to those He chooses (e.g., Rom. 11:5-8; Matt. 11:27); therefore, it's impossible for those not given the gift of faith to believe in Christ as Savior (Jn. 12:37-40). On the other hand, those who are chosen by God for salvation "will" come to Christ and believe and can't reject Him (Jn. 6:37, 44, 45; 10:16, 27, 28; Rom. 8:29, 30). Does this sound like freedom to choose?

The word "foreknew" (Gk. "proginosko") means to determine beforehand, to foreordain (e.g., 1 Pet. 1:20), to appoint as the subject of future privileges (e.g., Rom. 8:29; 11:2) previous determination (e.g., Acts 2:23) - Harold Moulton, The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p. 342. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 538 says, "foreknowledge" means "prearrangement". And F.W. Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, page 183, defines "foreknowledge" as "to choose before-hand". So, God's predestining of people and events has nothing to do with God knowing in advance what people's choices were going to be, but rather is based on God's own will/purpose/plans and totally uninfluenced by man (see Rom. 9:10-23; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28).

When man is incapable of choosing to think, say, or do anything good because of a sinful nature that totally dominates all thinking and decisions from birth, then it's impossible for man to choose Christ or salvation because both are good (1 Jn. 2:1; Jn. 10:11; Acts 8:12; 13:32, 38, 39). Only if God is working in people, giving them both the will and the ability to do His good pleasure, can people then obey God or do good (Phil. 2:13).

Man's having a free will is not only unbiblical, it's also illogical as it would cancel out God's sovereignty and therefore, with it His Deity. But God does as He pleases, and no one can change or stop His plans or future determinations (Dan. 4:35; Psa. 135:6; Rom. 11:29; Lam. 2:17; Job 42:2; Isa. 46:9-11). How egotistical it is of those who believe in free will to think that God's plans revolve around man's free will choices. No, rather God is in complete control, and we live and die to glorify Him (Rev. 14:6, 7; 5:13; Psa. 86:9; 1 Cor. 10:31; Isa. 43:7) in whatever way He chooses to use us, whether for good or evil (Prov. 16:4; 1 Kings 22:19-23; Rom. 9:17, 18, 21-23). Could the people in any of the following passages have chosen to do anything other than what they did or said? Gen. 20:1-6; 45:5-8 with 50:20; Ex. 4:21 with (7:3, 4, 13, 22; 9:12); Ex. 4:4, 8, 17, 23; 10:1, 20, 27; 4:14 with 4:27; Ex. 34:23, 24; Num. 22:38 with 23:12, 16 & 24:13; Deut. 2:30; 29:4; Josh. 11:19, 20; Judg. 9:22-24, 55-57; 1 Sam. 2:25; 10:1, 5, 6, 9, 10; 19:20-24; 2 Sam. 17:14; 1 Kings 12:15; Ezra 1:1-5; Psa. 33:10; 105:23-25; Prov. 16:1, 9; 19:21; 21:1; Jer. 1:5, 7; Jn. 7:30; 15:5, 24, 25; Acts 17:26; Gal. 1:13-16; 2 Tim. 2:25, 26; Rev. 17:16, 17. It's also important to know that words like "world", "any", and "all" can and do have restricted meanings at times in the Bible. For example, the word "world" in the following passages has the following meanings: Jn. 12:19 a lot of people from around Jerusalem; Jn. 18:20 a lot of people around Israel; Jn. 14:17 nonbelievers; Jn. 16:20 many unbelievers; Jn. 17:14 many unbelievers; Acts 17:6 a lot of people in different parts of the Roman Empire; Acts 19:27; 24:5; Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 4:9; Col. l:6 (same as above). Rom. 11:15 a lot of Gentiles from all different parts of world. The word "all" (the Greek word "pas" when used without a preceding article means "every kind of, all kinds/sorts of, or all of a certain kind"). For example:

In Matt. 5:11, the KJV, NIV, and NASB translate "pan" as "all manner or kinds of".

In Matt. 10:1, the KJV and NASB translate "pasan" as "all manner" or "every kind of" In Acts 10:12, the KJV, NIV, and NASB translate "panta" as "all manner or all kinds of" In Acts 13:10, the NIV translates "pentos" as "all kinds of" while KJV & NASB say "all".

In Eph. 4:19, the NIV & NASB translate "pases" as "every kind of" while the KJV says "all".

In 1 Tim. 6:10 the NIV & NASB translate "panton" as "all kinds/sorts of" while KJV says "all".

In other passages "all" obviously has a restricted meaning. Examples are:

Matt. 10:22 (not every single person in the world, but all who are opposed to Christ). Luke 1:6 (not all 400 plus commands and ordinances of the Law, but in general, as they weren't sinless ? Matthew Henry's Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 332).

Luke 2:1 (not every person in the whole world, but in the Roman Empire).

Acts 2:17 (not every person in the world, but on all God's servants ? vs. 18).

Acts 19:27 (not everyone in the world, but a lot of people in different parts of the Roman Empire).

Acts 21:28 (not everyone in the world, but a lot of people in different parts of the Roman Empire).

Rom. 5:18 (not everyone in the world is justified, just the elect/chosen, those in Christ, 1 Cor. 15:22).

1 Tim. 2:1, 2 (for all kinds of people, like kings and those in authority). Phil. 4:13 (he couldn't sin through Christ, but could live in all kinds of circumstances, v. 12).

Col. 1:6 (not everywhere in the whole world, but various parts of the Roman Empire).

1 Tim. 2:4 (as in 2:1, it means all kinds of people).

1 Tim. 2:6 (not everyone in the whole world, but all His chosen ? Jn. 10:11, 15, 26; Eph. 5:25).

1 Tim. 5:20 (not the world, but the local church). 1 Tim. 6:17 (we don't have every material thing there is in the world, but all kinds of things).

1 Pet. 4:7 (not everything inclusively, but this present life and world for the believer), 2 Pet. 3:9 (meaning all the chosen, those of the faith ? see 1:1; 3:1, 8; 1 Pet. 1:1, 2).

1 Jn. 2:27 (not about math, zoology, etc., but about spiritual truth, like Jesus' Deity, vss. 18-23).

Jn. 12:32 (not everyone in the world inclusively, but His sheep, God's children, Jn. 10:16; 6:44; 11:52).

1 Cor. 9:19-22 (all kinds of things to all kinds of people).

So the word "all" can have various meanings depending upon the context. Jn. 3:16 is true, "whoever believes in Him...will have eternal life", but only God's chosen can believe because a person's sin nature would and could not believe. Only when God intervenes and gives His chosen ones the faith to believe can and will they believe. Nor can a non-Christian choose to do any other good as well (Rom. 3:12). So, his will is limited, not free!

 

[Violence]

Simply by being born we are brainwashed into thinking, acting, and speaking a certain way. Are our morals, identities, traditions, and opinions truly our own? If you wanted to kill yourself, is this really you who is in control of this, or are you merely subjecting yourself to manipulation by the conditions of your environment? Complex thoughts, reflections, and reactions are based on an intricate and specific set of rules which are formulated and reinforced with each passing moment of your life, narrowing your possibilities until the final breath you draw on this Earth. Free will and infinite potential only exist when we do not.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Do we have a free will? Of course we do. Our choices and actions might be governed by previous experiences, physical stimuli and the chemical balance within our body, but in the end the choice is not made by any of those, but by how we percieve the choice in our current situation. It is this fact that gives us free will, that we have the ability to go against what we know, feel and think is right and do something else. That we are able to control our own impulses and do not become slaves to our own urges.

Let me get one thing straight here. Our mind has a lot of control over our body, but our body does not have as much control over our mind. The Placebo-effect works because our mind tells our body what it should be doing instead of our mind being informed by our body of what is happening in it (ie. you can stop a head ache with nothing but tic-tacs if you have had aspirin before and really believe that the tic-tacs are aspirins).
In the same vein, our mind can drift and daydream at almost any time. But even then, we decide what our bodies should be doing.

It is the fact that we can plan our lives, decide to not do things (or do them later) and disregard previous experiences and our own physical impulses that gives us free will. Whatever a free will is truly free or is in fact "caged" by society is another discussion. But if you deny your own ability and right of free will, you are effectively saying that you can't make diffrence. Kirkegaard and Sartre spoke about this you know, that a human has to suffer because it has to make choices. It is our free will that is our greatest tool, but also our greatest pain.

 

[Tonimata]

The popular definition of free will is but a myth. I've said it time and again, and here I go again. One's free will is always restricted by the free will of others, usually others in a higher social status. Which unfortunately means that yes, we are doomed to serve and follow, whether it's just ideas or real people.

 

[Bane_Star]

Given that there is no way to know that, no, I don't think I would have chosen differently. I chose the way I did because of who I was at that moment, a state that is the result of chance, biology and previous choices, and I made what I felt was the best choice at that moment given those factors and with the information I had. But! I could have chosen differently. That's where free will exists.

I agree up to the point where you say "could".

In any given situation we make choices, we don't truly make a choice, but instead choose based on so many factors, so many variables, we could never (as simple humans) understand what factors caused us to make the choices we did.

Maybe I chose to do something completely wild, because my personality wants to choose something wild, not because free choice exists.

This very thread creates patterns in our minds, which causes later choices in people.. if you choose to change your mind about any future choices as proof hat choice exists, you prove that it does not.. you were influenced by this thread to make the different choice, not chosen by yourself.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Not really. There are always regulations by which you have to live, and which are imposed upon you. Some societies offer more freedom than others, but in the end, there isn't really such a thing as full complete freedom.

 

[Gralian]

I would say the concept of free will exists.

Free will itself however, does not.

I don't want to get up for work in the morning. But if i don't, i won't get paid, i'll get kicked out of the house, and eventually die for not being able to have shelter and food. If i want to survive, i have to work. But i don't want to work. People can say "but you don't actually have to" sure, but working is better than dying.

Also, if free will was truely existant, you could do anything on impulse without any repercussions. For example, i could walk into a store, take what i wanted, and walk out. But instead, we have laws set out by the government that prevent us from stealing, murdering or whatever. Though only an evil person by nature would choose to do such things out of free will, it is still a choice and they do not have the free will to do it. Very petty technicality, but it's there.

 

[mindclockwork]

there is no fully free will. we are only presented choices from which we can choose. hence there is no "true free will".