# What is Free Will - Yahoo Answers



## Civbert (Feb 18, 2008)

On Yahoo Answers I found a great answer to the question 'free will?' ... from an unbeliever no less. First here's the full question from "Why Certainly":


> Free will?
> 
> Do I really have free will? Please consider this thoroughly. I have grown up with a particular genetic code that at least somewhat affects behavior, have lived in reaction to events that have happened to me, and make what seem to be decisions, but might not be. In other words, the reason I "choose" a particular route is based on experience, brain chemicals, and things that I've been conditioned to think. Am I really making choices? Do I have any choice, or is everything unfolding in such a way as to make a personal free will impossible? Thanks in advance!
> 
> ...



And the answer from "Phoenix Quill":


> Will, is the capacity to decide.
> 
> If you believe in cause and effect, the notion that will can somehow be 'free' from it is absurd.
> 
> ...


----------



## Civbert (Feb 18, 2008)

*My answer to "Free will?"*

This was my answer:


> I'm glad you added the clarifying question "Are my decisions made for me by the cumulative effects of the past?" because that is what it comes down to. And most defenses of free will are - in effect - "since I am free to choose, I have free will." That is called begging the question.
> 
> Your clarification shows that free will is not about the ability to choose, but what ultimately determines our decisions.
> 
> ...



I expect the last sentence will garner me many votes for best answer. After all, Ron Paul rules on the Internet!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 18, 2008)

An interesting answer by the unbeliever. Of course there's room to quibble, but his argument is mainly aimed against a typical free-will notion that has no connection to causality, and is free-floating.

Of course, his pot-shot at "theism-in-general" and his rejection of a cosmic Judge does not affect the Calvinist position.

But I wonder how he would deal with the chapter "Of Free Will" in the WCF, assuming he ever came to deal with it?


----------



## Civbert (Feb 18, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> An interesting answer by the unbeliever. Of course there's room to quibble, but his argument is mainly aimed against a typical free-will notion that has no connection to causality, and is free-floating.



And his answer shows that the concept of "free will" is frequently just an attempt by "theists" to give God an excuse for "the problem of evil": Why is there evil in the world? Because God gave man free will. 

And so the unbeliever rightly points out that God could have prevented evil and didn't. _Allowing _evil is no excuse if you have the power to prevent it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 18, 2008)

It also assumes a definition of evil, "bad" choice, etc., all without an ultimate lawgiver or standard. Naturalistic determinism shoots itself in the foot again...


----------



## Civbert (Feb 18, 2008)

My next favorite answer is pure bumper sticker wisdom: 



> I am a determinist, but not by choice.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 18, 2008)

So what is the best way to answer this:


> God cannot JUSTLY judge us for our sins if in the moment of creation he knowingly established the causality that created them.



For this is unquestionable true - God knowingly established the causality that led to sins and evil. We can not give God an out here. Is there any answer that does not offend our "natural sensibilities". I believe the answer is unavoidably offensive because it leaves me nothing of my own. It breaks me completely. I am God's to do as God will.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 18, 2008)

Civ,
You _are _one of the resident PB logicians.

I agree, God isn't "off the hook" primarily because he was never "on" to be baited. God is free to do many things he does not give us the freedom to perform. He is in a class by himself. He has morally sufficient justification for ordaining the sinful (and free) acts of responsible men. They all conduce to a maximal degree of the exhibition of his "holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." His glory is most fully manifested in this world he willed. That this world contains wrongs yet to be righted is no argument against his character. God has one will for a "bare" act, the sinner has an opposite intent, Gen 50:20.

If the argument went: only in this life should all wrongs be righted, they are not, ergo God is unjust--then perhaps the unbeliever had his point. But again, he's assuming the validity of his own narrow perceptions, that not the slightest "evils" are ever justified, nor permissible to serve higher-order goods, and that he is an accurate judge of "evils" for everyone.

So many fallacies...


----------



## MW (Feb 18, 2008)

Civbert said:


> So what is the best way to answer this:
> 
> 
> > God cannot JUSTLY judge us for our sins if in the moment of creation he knowingly established the causality that created them.
> ...



The answer is simple: they are not sinful actions as God ordains them. God ordains the action as an action, and that for His own wise and holy purpose. Sin is relative to law; the action is deemed sinful only as it comes from the will and deed of a creature under law.


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 18, 2008)

Civbert said:


> So what is the best way to answer this:
> 
> 
> > God cannot JUSTLY judge us for our sins if in the moment of creation he knowingly established the causality that created them.
> ...




Could another answer be that man is responsible for his sin because he has the desire to sin and he acts according to his desire?


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 18, 2008)

Some atheists such as William Provine do not believe that man has free will. I watched a video of a debate between him and Phillip Johnson and he denied that man has free will.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 18, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Civ,
> You _are _one of the resident PB logicians.
> 
> I agree, God isn't "off the hook" primarily because he was never "on" to be baited.


 I agree. My argument was an ad hominem, in the sense I was assuming the common presupposition of a justice that transcends God. A justice that is defined apart from the final authority and Law Giver.

In fact:


armourbearer said:


> Sin is relative to law; the action is deemed sinful only as it comes from the will and deed of a creature under law.


 All acts and thoughts of God are good by definition. To subordinate God under a higher justification, would be to make justification into a god above God - which is a contradiction. Only the creation can be subject to the laws of the Creator and Law Giver. 

But this (that is our Christian worldview) still offends our natural view of ourselves. We want to have a say in what is justice - but God is the final authority. To try to subject God to our justice, is like blowing into the face of a hurricane. Any sense we have of changing the direction of the wind is an illusion. The hurricane determines the direction of the wind.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 18, 2008)

But we are not talking only of human acts of sin. What about events like tsunamis and earthquakes and infants dying in burning buildings. And what of the innocent victims of human violence. We agree that criminal is the sinner, but what justice is there for the infant who is burned to death by the criminal - or drowned in a tidal wave? What do we tell the man who lost his wife and children that day? How is that justice in light of an all-knowing and all-powerful God?

I know that this has been answered - but we need to be fully aware of all the consequences - the good, the bad, and the ugly. 

It is hard not to flinch when we are faced with the enormity of evil where justice is not simply punishing the guilty party, or where "innocents" are the victims. 

(For many of you, this is a lob - a high arching shot and easy to returner. But that is not going to make the return pretty. )

You can see also how the idea of "free will" idea is no answer to this. At best, "free will" appears to make us responsible for our own sins. It does not bring justice to all the innocent victims of "natural" disasters and evil men.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 18, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Some atheists such as William Provine do not believe that man has free will. I watched a video of a debate between him and Phillip Johnson and he denied that man has free will.


Ironically, I think the clearest thinkers reject the idea of free will, both from theists and atheists. 

... But I would think that wouldn't I?


----------



## Blue Tick (Feb 18, 2008)

> So what is the best way to answer this:
> Quote:
> God cannot JUSTLY judge us for our sins if in the moment of creation he knowingly established the causality that created them.
> 
> For this is unquestionable true - God knowingly established the causality that led to sins and evil. We can not give God an out here. Is there any answer that does not offend our "natural sensibilities". I believe the answer is unavoidably offensive because it leaves me nothing of my own. It breaks me completely. I am God's to do as God will.



I would ask him why can't God judge us for our sins? Because God knows and created the cause in which were able to sin? 

There's no creator/creature distinction, he presupposes that there's no positional distinction from the creator and the creature.

He's assuming that he has no sin because God ordained the cause for sin. Therefore, he's excusing himself from any responsibility as a sinner. However, God ordains the cause (act or action) for his good and perfect will, the act is not sinful until it's excerised by the will and desire of the creature who's under the law of God. 



> But we are not talking only of human acts of sin. What about events like tsunamis and earthquakes and infants dying in burning buildings. And what of the innocent victims of human violence. We agree that criminal is the sinner, but what justice is there for the infant who is burned to death by the criminal - or drowned in a tidal wave? What do we tell the man who lost his wife and children that day? How is that justice in light of an all-knowing and all-powerful God?



Death is God's judgment towards sin. We're all ordained to die some day, however, the means in which we die is up to God. If one dies in a tsunamis or if one is murdered by the hands of a mad man the means still produce the same result. Death. 




> We agree that criminal is the sinner, but what justice is there for the infant who is burned to death by the criminal - or drowned in a tidal wave?



The problem with this (and I'm not saying that your thinking this) is that we (people) believe we are good. People look at tragedy and assume that they don't deserve the righteous judgment of God, e.g., a temporal judgment in this world or a eternal judgment.




> What do we tell the man who lost his wife and children that day


Have the utmost compassion and loving heart towards these people. Plead with them to turn from sin and to believe the gospel. Obviously, the mechanics of such a situation will require tact and discernment on how to deal with such a sensitive situation.


----------

