Free Will ?

[pogi]

Here is one more morsel if any one wants to bite.

 

We are taught through revelation (foreknowledge) that this earth will be turned into a urim and thumim and that we will be able to see the eternities (backwards and forwards) through it.  To say that that idea is true and that foreknowledge is not, seems to be a contradiction to me. 

Edited November 14, 2014 by pogi

[Rob Osborn]

That's a pretty definitive statement that the church isn't even willing to make one way or the other.  All we can do is theorize at this point. 

 

You have dodge all of my legitimate arguments based in scripture and doctrine regarding trust, faith, seers, prophecies and the atonement, and their relation to foreknowledge, you neglect to acknowledge the many, many scriptures acknowledging his "foreKNOWLEDGE", with no scriptural hint which limits it.  You have not answered a single question, so I am not going to play your hypothetical card game between 2 Gods.

So then, why does God often give promises and blessings that tells of the future based on multiple outcomes dependng on our choices we make? One of the big prophecies by God concerning us in this country had to do with and either/or future depending on our choice? Does he already know but just gives us what appears to be free will when in reality it is all destiny? If that is true then I could convince you to go out and commit whoredoms and sins of every kind and state that if you do do it that was what was already written down set in stone that you were going to do anyway.

[Rob Osborn]

Does it help progress our discussion one way or the other?  Evil is eternal and necessary for good.  God gave us agency to choose it if we so desire.  His foreknowledge does not and cannot guide or effect our choices in any way.  Our destiny is our choice.

So, if it is our choice then God truly cannot know every single exact detail we will ever do before we commit such actions. The big word here is "choice". God gives us the ability to choose and as such he recognizes that doing such will cause some to fall of which he cannot know beforehand for surety.

[pogi]

So then, why does God often give promises and blessings that tells of the future based on multiple outcomes dependng on our choices we make? One of the big prophecies by God concerning us in this country had to do with and either/or future depending on our choice? Does he already know but just gives us what appears to be free will when in reality it is all destiny? If that is true then I could convince you to go out and commit whoredoms and sins of every kind and state that if you do do it that was what was already written down set in stone that you were going to do anyway.

 

I'm happy to engage your questions but I need some reciprocation.

Edited November 14, 2014 by pogi

[Rob Osborn]

I'm happy to engage your questions but I need some reciprocation.

Its working its way.

[cksalmon]

of course it's bunk. If God created all things absolutely and knew before hand all that would happen before He created, then all choices are what He conceived of. The problem associated with this, of course, is that before creation God was all there was. When He conceived of creation, He must have conceived of evil. Thus all evil is the result of God. Without Him conceiving of evil there would be no evil. And if God created absolutely He could save people at creation, rather than forcing them through life wherein many to most become lost forever, suffering eternally.

Compatibilism is bunk? There's a fairly robust literature on the topic. It doesn't seem like bunk to me, but unlike you, I'm biased. 

 

Sounds like your beef is with a God who is ultimately responsible for all things, including the existence of evil. I just don't share your squeamishness on that point, stemelbow.

[cksalmon]

Exactly. Good to see you, though of course we don't always agree.

Maybe this will help. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Hey, M! Good to see you, too.

 

On a whim, I thought I'd see if (1) I could remember my credentials and (2) my credentials were still valid. Yes, on both counts. 

 

And, of course, there's a free will thread on the first page. Some things never change...

 

Hope you're well. 

[mfbukowski]

Compatibilism is bunk? There's a fairly robust literature on the topic. It doesn't seem like bunk to me, but unlike you, I'm biased. 

Yeah, that's the reason I don't post here much lately- a profound unwillingness to learn anything.

 

But yes, thanks I am well and again, welcome back- hope you hang around for a bit!

[mfbukowski]

of course it's bunk.

It appears you are able then to refute all these arguments, so please educate all of us how you do that

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

[stemelbow]

Compatibilism is bunk? There's a fairly robust literature on the topic. It doesn't seem like bunk to me, but unlike you, I'm biased.

I don't think compatibilism is bunk. But I continued to make my case for what I was arguing. I don't want to get into the "I've read more than you" type of conversation.

 

Sounds like your beef is with a God who is ultimately responsible for all things, including the existence of evil. I just don't share your squeamishness on that point, stemelbow.

The question lies in did God create absolutely, meaning out of nothing and all things were created by Him? And if He did, did He know, or conceive of, all things that would happen before He created?

[stemelbow]

It appears you are able then to refute all these arguments, so please educate all of us how you do that

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

I have no such interest. Many have argued against the compatibilist position. I did not intend to call compatibilism bunk, per se. I had hoped to have a conversation not whine about others who haven't read as much as you--what a waste that is!

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................

 

Sounds like your beef is with a God who is ultimately responsible for all things, including the existence of evil. I just don't share your squeamishness on that point, stemelbow.

God is only "ultimately responsible for all things, including the existence of evil," if He is the only non-contingent, necessary being.  in LDS theology He is not the only necessary being, and all humans are coeternal with Him.  Which means that He cannot be responsible for all things, and not for evil, since that would contradict His fundamental nature as God.

[mfbukowski]

I have no such interest. Many have argued against the compatibilist position. I did not intend to call compatibilism bunk, per se. I had hoped to have a conversation not whine about others who haven't read as much as you--what a waste that is!

Well I think that if one wants to spend a considerable amount of time arguing a position which has been re-hashed since time immemorial and proven false, then it would behoove that person to at least be acquainted with the history of the argument.

 

I mean we could go ahead and discuss the merits of phrenology for pages and pages ad infinitum as well, without knowing anything about it, as well.

 

I can't understand why people who discuss philosophical issues think they do not need to be be acquainted with philosophy.

 

Would we do that with medical issues?  "Here, drink some of this snake oil- it will cure your cancer!"

Edited November 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

God is only "ultimately responsible for all things, including the existence of evil," if He is the only non-contingent, necessary being.  in LDS theology He is not the only necessary being, and all humans are coeternal with Him.  Which means that He cannot be responsible for all things, and not for evil, since that would contradict His fundamental nature as God.

Don't confuse us with the truth!    Good old CK holds to a different theology.  Sigh.   Maybe one day he will see the light. 

Edited November 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

Well I think that if one wants to spend a considerable amount of time arguing a position which has been re-hashed since time immemorial and proven false, then it would behoove that person to at least be acquainted with the history of the argument.

 

I mean we could go ahead and discuss the merits of phrenology for pages and pages ad infinitum as well, without knowing anything about it, as well.

 

I can't understand why people who discuss philosophical issues think they do not need to be be acquainted with philosophy.

 

Would we do that with medical issues?  "Here, drink some of this snake oil- it will cure your cancer!"

A considerable amount of time is a bit ambiguous. A few minutes here or there can't be considered considerable.

I've read up on it. in some cases it's been years. Kant for instance argues that free will in combatibilism isn't really free, essentially. And many have taken issue with the idea that defining it as free is problematic.

Am I completely up to speed with all that is written on the topic? nah...but I'd wager neither are you nor cksalmon, even if both of ya are far more well-read than I.

[Rob Osborn]

Its completely ridiculous to even debate if we have free will or not. We can throw philosophers at the question and the best they can do is invent words and phrases to make themselves sound intellectual without really even pointing out the reality that we all know. What is that knowledge? That we do indeed have free will- we have the ability to choose our own will (isnt that the definition of it anyway?). Hum...should I watch this movie or go out to eat, or just drive around? I think i will just go out to eat! Once I act on that choice and carry it out I have demonstrated and proven as fact that free will exists and we exercise it.

[mfbukowski]

Its completely ridiculous to even debate if we have free will or not. We can throw philosophers at the question and the best they can do is invent words and phrases to make themselves sound intellectual without really even pointing out the reality that we all know. What is that knowledge? That we do indeed have free will- we have the ability to choose our own will (isnt that the definition of it anyway?). Hum...should I watch this movie or go out to eat, or just drive around? I think i will just go out to eat! Once I act on that choice and carry it out I have demonstrated and proven as fact that free will exists and we exercise it.

Once again I agree with Rob Osborn.  The whole debate is semantic confusion.

 

What is this world coming to???  

[cksalmon]

God is only "ultimately responsible for all things, including the existence of evil," if He is the only non-contingent, necessary being.  in LDS theology He is not the only necessary being, and all humans are coeternal with Him.  Which means that He cannot be responsible for all things, and not for evil, since that would contradict His fundamental nature as God.

 

Yeah, I'm familiar with at least the broad contours of LDS theology. You could read my post as saying nothing more important than, "But I'm not a Mormon."

 

But a couple things you wrote are unclear to me.

 

In LDS theology He is not the only necessary being [emphasis added]

 

Are all beings necessary on Mormonism or none at all? You'll have to refresh my memory on necessary beings in Mormonism. This strikes me as a sticky question.

 

Which means that He cannot be responsible [1] for all things, and [2] not for evil, since that would contradict His fundamental nature as God.

 

[1] I get. It follows from the co-eternality of other beings. Of course, I would phrase it differently, e.g.: "It would contradict his fundamental nature as [not the sort of God who ultimately brings about all things]," where my brackets are filled in with something slightly more intelligent.

 

If [2] is a [1], then, sure, that follows, too, I guess. It's just a more specific way of affirming [1].

 

Why can't the God of Mormonism be responsible for (some) evil? He can't be responsible for any evil? Sounds like you're thinking evil is some sort of thing. Or, perhaps you're just saying the God of Mormonism can't be responsible for anything or anyone other than himself.

 

Hmm.

[cksalmon]

Am I completely up to speed with all that is written on the topic? nah...but I'd wager neither are you nor cksalmon, even if both of ya are far more well-read than I.

 

I can't speak for M, but I'll have you know, my good sir, that I read everything I could possibly find on the subject, a decade ago, in writing a thesis on the problem of evil in the context of Calvinism, at least as my sources pertained to the questions I was seeking to address, and within the timeframe I had to write, and provided I could wrangle access to obscure sources, etc.

 

...

 

So, yeah, I'm not up to speed with all that has been written on the topic. I'm sure the literature has grown. Ten years is a long time. And my focus was not as broad as it might have been.

Edited November 20, 2014 by cksalmon

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................................  

Are all beings necessary on Mormonism or none at all? You'll have to refresh my memory on necessary beings in Mormonism. This strikes me as a sticky question.

In Mormonism all matter and all living things have necessary existence.  God creates nothing ex nihilo (and such is not possible).  Rather He organizes material, and provides both spirit bodies and bodies of flesh and bone to his children (who are all required to keep their first and second estates in order to return to Him).  All humans are of the genus and species of God, and have necessary existence in that their spark of life or intelligence has no beginning and can have no end.  There are infinite worlds of such mature, godly beings.

 

[1] I get. It follows from the co-eternality of other beings. Of course, I would phrase it differently, e.g.: "It would contradict his fundamental nature as [not the sort of God who ultimately brings about all things]," where my brackets are filled in with something slightly more intelligent. 

.........................................................................  

 

Why can't the God of Mormonism be responsible for (some) evil? He can't be responsible for any evil? Sounds like you're thinking evil is some sort of thing. Or, perhaps you're just saying the God of Mormonism can't be responsible for anything or anyone other than himself.

 

Hmm.

A god by his very nature cannot do or create evil, either natural or moral.  He must obey the laws of the universe, and indeed has mastered them.  The same cannot be said for his fallible children.  But like a good father, He makes every effort to bring them all home in glory.  Some have been recalcitrant and downright obstinate, and He is a God who weeps and who has infinite love and compassion.

 

Edited November 20, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Stroopwafel]

Its completely ridiculous to even debate if we have free will or not. We can throw philosophers at the question and the best they can do is invent words and phrases to make themselves sound intellectual without really even pointing out the reality that we all know. What is that knowledge? That we do indeed have free will- we have the ability to choose our own will (isnt that the definition of it anyway?). Hum...should I watch this movie or go out to eat, or just drive around? I think i will just go out to eat! Once I act on that choice and carry it out I have demonstrated and proven as fact that free will exists and we exercise it.

   

Let's try not to sound too intellectual then.

 

"Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants." (Arthur Schopenhauer)

 

To say that you have free will just because you can do whatever you wishes to isn't tackling the issue at its root. The question could be asked thus: What exactly makes you want to do such or such a thing? or, what motive is pushing you to act in a particular way?, and why is it that this particular motive has this effect?

 

Of course, if you call, or rather define free will as the ability to do whatever one wishes to, then of course you have your answer to the problem. As mfbukowski seems to be pointing at, after all, if all the issue of free will is a semantic game, then one may define it as he sees fit and then be quit.

 

But to me, and to many others it seems, the issue of free will is related to the will, not the action. Of course we feel as if we are not being free to do what we will when we are physically constrained, and thus we link the freedom of our will to the freedom of our actions. Hence we feel free when we can do what we want; and we certainly are!, but only physically.

 

However, as it relates to our will, we rarely (if ever) feel any constraints, any restrictions, and we are then led to pay practically no attention to the fact that our will is actually influenced by motives. Our will isn't floating around waiting to take a decision by itself. It is constantly being pushed to-and-fro by its environment. It has its own inclination and each person will react differently to similar motives / stimuli, and it will feel as if it was flowing from itself, as if there were no constraints. Yes, you may wish different things that seem opposite, but you will eventually only will and do one.

 

I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself—if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so.

 

So, having our will determined by motives which are themselves out of our control, does that make us truly free? That is the crux of the matter.

[pogi]

 "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants." (Arthur Schopenhauer)

 

 

I always hated running,  Though I did not want to run, I willed myself to run.  Now I love running, I want to run.  Seems as though I did indeed will my want. 

 

This is all kind of silly though because you could say that I did want to run, but I simply didn't like it.  It is a semantic mess.  I always considered want (desire) to be will.  What else could it be?

Edited November 20, 2014 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

So, having our will determined by motives which are themselves out of our control, does that make us truly free? That is the crux of the matter.

Nah, it just pushes the friction point back a step, which is a pretty nebulous step.  It's still a circular argument where you presume lack of freedom but now blame it on a different "faculty" when all "faculties" are made up abstractions anyway.  Words.  That's all.

 

1- What is "the will"?  Where does it reside?  How much does it weigh?  Is it a spirit?  What is "IT"?

2- How would one determine if the Schopenhauer quote is true or false?

 

One cannot determine if it is true or false. 

 

It is ironic that one of Schopenhauer's philosophical great-grandchildren, Wittgenstein, would point these out to him- not in those words, but with those thoughts.

 

I myself have said repeatedly that "we do what we want", knowing full well the problem.

 

The real problem here is that we ARE responsible for our actions, and we CAN make ourselves happy as an act of choice.   I know it is possible because I have done it.  We CAN change "what we want" if we WANT TO badly enough!

 

Perhaps you have not had to repent as much as I have, but I can testify that one can change the very core of who you are, what you want, and the actions you choose to use to get there.

 

I know a brother in church leadership now who was once a street junkie, addicted to heroin and who's father was (no kidding) a voodoo priest.  He has entirely turned his life around.   He was addicted to every substance known to man to get one high, and he is now a priesthood leader.

 

It was a good thing he was not a determinist because he would have never gotten off his duff and changed his life if he believed he could not.

 

Thank God he never studied old school philosophy!

Edited November 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

who's father was (no kidding) a voodoo priest. 

 

"You remind me of a man.  What man?  The man with the power.  What power?  The power of voodoo..."

 

and he is now a priesthood leader.

 

Like father, like son.

[Rob Osborn]

Let's try not to sound too intellectual then.

 

"Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants." (Arthur Schopenhauer)

 

To say that you have free will just because you can do whatever you wishes to isn't tackling the issue at its root. The question could be asked thus: What exactly makes you want to do such or such a thing? or, what motive is pushing you to act in a particular way?, and why is it that this particular motive has this effect?

 

Of course, if you call, or rather define free will as the ability to do whatever one wishes to, then of course you have your answer to the problem. As mfbukowski seems to be pointing at, after all, if all the issue of free will is a semantic game, then one may define it as he sees fit and then be quit.

 

But to me, and to many others it seems, the issue of free will is related to the will, not the action. Of course we feel as if we are not being free to do what we will when we are physically constrained, and thus we link the freedom of our will to the freedom of our actions. Hence we feel free when we can do what we want; and we certainly are!, but only physically.

 

However, as it relates to our will, we rarely (if ever) feel any constraints, any restrictions, and we are then led to pay practically no attention to the fact that our will is actually influenced by motives. Our will isn't floating around waiting to take a decision by itself. It is constantly being pushed to-and-fro by its environment. It has its own inclination and each person will react differently to similar motives / stimuli, and it will feel as if it was flowing from itself, as if there were no constraints. Yes, you may wish different things that seem opposite, but you will eventually only will and do one.

 

 

 

 

So, having our will determined by motives which are themselves out of our control, does that make us truly free? That is the crux of the matter.

Its just the basics of agency- the basics of freedom to act according to ones will. As previously stated, a drug addict is being effected by another force that controls or takes over his true will.. As it says in the PoGP in the book of Moses, that when we yield to Satan and his influence then are we led according to his (Satan's) will down to hell. My long argument with agency is that agency truly only exists when we act obediently in accordance to Gods will which is the will of freedom from constraint/punishment. In a free society where one acts obedient to law he is truly free and as such making conscious choices that lead to more freedom and more choices which equates to having a freedom and peace of conscious. That is free will. Now some may suppose that with so many laws and such that our freedom is limited and perhaps even destroyed or limited. But on the contrary, most laws are in place to ensure the free exercise of ones will in peace and relative safety to himself and others. For instance- we have speed limits on our roads and a penalty for the abuse of breaking that law. Some feel this hampers their freedom. But on the contrary this is to keep us and others safer so that society in general can continue to live according to their choices. Laws have to be in place, or should I say "limits" because otherwise a good thing becomes dangerous to us and others which danger leads to the destruction of the will of ourselves and others. Suppose I was to just start driving around at 120 mph everywhere I go. I may think I am free to do this, and indeed I can to some degree for a while get away with this but eventually I am going to hurt myself or others by driving above the posted speed limit. If I hit someone because I am going to fast I hinder their freedom and my own because we both end up hurt, in a sling in the hospital, in misery, perhaps even dead. Thus, its important to have laws and obedience to those laws we agree upon so that the survival of our will is preserved to the fullest extent.