Evidence for Free Will?

[Seraph]

A while back I was having a friendly debate with one of my Christian friends about the existence of free will. I take the position that humans have free will while my friend does not think so. We were debating this because we had both been confronted in our respective philosophy classes with the arguement that people do not have free will because of the ideas of Determinism, that every event in our universe is the result of an event that came before it. He no longer believes that people have free will and left the class believing in Hard Determinism, the belief that all of people's actions are determined by factors such as external circumstances or chemical functions within the brain. I'm pretty sure he could now be described as a Calvinist, thinking that everything is predetermined, including whether or not people accept Christ into their lives.

I myself left the class subscribing more to Soft Determinism, the belief that things are the result of cause and effect, yet people still have free will due to some factor. I think the ideas of Determinism almost have to be true when you think long and hard about it and there doesn't seem to be any satisfactory arguements against it from what I saw. Yet at the same time I think that people have free will.

My debate with my friend went even further when I brought up how not having free will would fit with the ideas of Christianity. The way I've always thought about it, free will is a huge component in the rebuttal against the all-too-common "Problem of Evil", that evil has to be present in order for people to be able to choose good and love over evil. Obviously if Hard Determinism is true, then this arguement doesn't work anymore. I also have problems with the idea that people have no control over whether they sin or not, because I think accountability is largely nullified if people don't have any choice to do otherwise.

I was debating with my friend though and quickly found that I had a very hard time giving evidence for the existence of free will. What do you guys think?

[August]

Why is it that everyone misunderstands free will when it comes to Calvinism? Sheesh

Free will is not the best defense against the argument of evil, as it only leads to other problems regarding the omnipotence and will of God.

For a full understanding of the different positions I suggest you research the chain of salvation (ordo salutis) for the different schools of belief. The key argument is whether man, being dead in his sins, and having a sinful nature, can make a libertarian free will decision to follow God and be saved without being influenced by the Holy Spirit first. Man's will is corrupted by sin and as such, he can make free will decisions within the corrupt nature, and thus has free will.

Reformed theology in general holds that man is unable to make libertarian decisions outside of a sinful nature to do follow God, while pelagianism holds the opposite.

[Seraph]

Am I misrepresenting Calvinism? Doesn't Calvinism stress the idea of predestination?

Does omnipotence mean that God actively excercises control over every event that takes place or does it mean that God is able to excercise control over them? I never really had any issues reconciling free will and God's omnipotence, since just because God is able to make any event take place doesn't mean He will make that event take place. And as such, I believe that God is able to manipulate events, but leaves much of it to humanity's free will.

If man does not posses the ability to act outside his sinful nature without God's help, shouldn't he be unable to ask for God's help? And if people can only ask for God's help after being influenced by the Holy Spirit, does that mean God only selects certain people to be able to come to Him? If so, why would he create that unaffected person in the first place if he is doomed to damnation? If it was sin that doomed that person and not God, is God still omnipotent?

Maybe I'm assuming a little too much about the subtle things that people here believe.

[August]

Am I misrepresenting Calvinism? Doesn't Calvinism stress the idea of predestination?

Sure. But we need to define what you think predestination means.

Does omnipotence mean that God actively excercises control over every event that takes place or does it mean that God is able to excercise control over them?

Does God exercise control over the outcome that He wants or not? I don't think there is much dispute that He can exercise control, the question is if He indeed does work all things to fulfill His plan or not. Obviously I believe God does, and I can add the Scriptures if needed. The alternative is either that God doesn't, and He has no ability to influence, in which case He is not omnipotent, or that He can but doesn't in which case His plan needs to be made up as we go long, depending on the decisions people make. To argue that He already knows in advance what decisions people will make just moves the issue one step further away...how does He know that they will make that decision for sure if there is libertarian free will involved?

I never really had any issues reconciling free will and God's omnipotence, since just because God is able to make any event take place doesn't mean He will make that event take place. And as such, I believe that God is able to manipulate events, but leaves much of it to humanity's free will.

And no-one denies the freedom of the will, as I already said. Every person is completely free to make decisions subject to his nature. But your statement about "leaving much of it to humanity's free will" is arbitrary. Where do you believe man's free will stops and God's intervention starts?

If man does not posses the ability to act outside his sinful nature without God's help, shouldn't he be unable to ask for God's help?

Yes. Man cannot ask for God's help without God. I often hear this explained so: Imagine that you are drowning, floating in a stormy sea. You are barely hanging on, just gulping a breath here and there, and you are on the absolute verge of finally going under, when you cry out and someone throws you a life preserver. With your last little bit of strength you manage to hook your little finger in the rope, and then slowly get dragged to the rescue boat to be saved. Many believe how that is how it goes with your salvation...that you have just that last little bit of strength left, and that all you do is grasp and hold on. However, the difference is that you are not floating in a stormy sea barely hanging on...you are lying stone cold dead on the ocean floor. And dead people cannot cry for help, or reach our for a life preserver.

I know that many dispute that we are absolutely dead in our sins. I am happy with what I read in Scripture about it, and I am thankful for the grace that saved me.

And if people can only ask for God's help after being influenced by the Holy Spirit, does that mean God only selects certain people to be able to come to Him?

Yes. God has His elect, and it is prevalent throughout the Word. Does God elect based on His will, or man's will? Or do you deny that there is such a thing as the elect with God whatsoever?

If so, why would he create that unaffected person in the first place if he is doomed to damnation?

Why did God create Pharaoh? Judas? I am probably wading into a controversy here, but one cannot read Romans 9 and come away with much of another perspective. I know that there has been that suggested that the vessels prepared for destruction only has the potential for destruction, and that the actual destruction is by their own doing. That argument fails for me because then we can similarly argue the same to the other side, that those who come to salvation do so by their own means as well. God creates and is free to do with His creation as He wishes. It is purely and totally in God's hands.

If it was sin that doomed that person and not God, is God still omnipotent?

Sin doomed all of us. God, through His good grace, chose that some shall be saved. How God decides I don't know.

Maybe I'm assuming a little too much about the subtle things that people here believe.

Nah, it's always good to check.

I don't necessarily expect that we will agree on this, but to your original question...Calvinists do believe in free will.

[CeT-To]

Guys watch this video of WLC on God's knowledge >> http://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvide ... IjtzpISS3o

[August]

I know what WLC says about knowledge in his Molinist approach, if that is what the video is about. I respectfully disagree with him.

[Echoside]

If it was sin that doomed that person and not God, is God still omnipotent?

Sin doomed all of us. God, through His good grace, chose that some shall be saved. How God decides I don't know.

Maybe I'm assuming a little too much about the subtle things that people here believe.

Nah, it's always good to check.

I don't necessarily expect that we will agree on this, but to your original question...Calvinists do believe in free will.

Quick question then August. Your position is basically that God painted a whole bunch of paintings, but somehow spilled some spare ink all over them. In a completely arbitrary manner, he removes the ink off of a couple of them, and they will be fated to hang on his wall for eternity and make his office look nice.

As for the rest of them, they are thrown into a volcano because they were labeled with odd numbers, had the color yellow on them, or some other factor that God didn't like yet for some reason still painted it. Or perhaps he did a game of spin the bottle to determine which paintings are thrown into the volcano? I'm missing where the good grace part comes in?

If that is indeed your position, and if it is the most reasonable position, in finding God I will sadly live out the rest of my illusory life doing whatever it is the molecules that make me up decide to do. Sounds a lot like atheism.

[August]

Quick question then August. Your position is basically that God painted a whole bunch of paintings, but somehow spilled some spare ink all over them. In a completely arbitrary manner, he removes the ink off of a couple of them, and they will be fated to hang on his wall for eternity and make his office look nice.

You can ascribe that as "your position". I would of course argue that that is what Scripture teaches. Romans 9, the first part of Ephesians etc. If you have any Scriptural refutations we can discuss that.

I also take issue with how you want to portray God. If the decision is not God's sovereign decision, then whose is it? By what measure or standard do people end up in heaven or hell? Is God sovereign over His creation or not?

As for the rest of them, they are thrown into a volcano because they were labeled with odd numbers, had the color yellow on them, or some other factor that God didn't like yet for some reason still painted it. Or perhaps he did a game of spin the bottle to determine which paintings are thrown into the volcano? I'm missing where the good grace part comes in?

Your analogy doesn't work (The reason that people end up in hell is because of sin, not some silly game like you want to claim here). People are all sinners, and all deserve death. Grace is what saves some. Or do you want to argue that all are saved, or should be saved, but for their own silliness? If the atonement was for all, then all will be saved, otherwise it was ineffective and meaningless.

If that is indeed your position, and if it is the most reasonable position, in finding God I will sadly live out the rest of my illusory life doing whatever it is the molecules that make me up decide to do. Sounds a lot like atheism.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. How is your life an illusion if you find God? What is your purpose in life?

[Echoside]

1. If i wanted to portray God like what I just described, I wouldn't be considering christianity. Sure it's God's decision, God has all the power. To me it sounds like the standard is whatever God feels like assigning, and the only people who meet that standard are those God just happens to help. It's like life is a foot race and God blindfolds himself and trips half the other runners and sends them to hell.

2. How is sin any less silly than any of my examples? According to you (or at the very least what I think you are conveying), God generated the world to have sin, which is just as arbitrary as anything else i've said. The standard could be ANYTHING, and if it is impossible to reach even if you want it what is the point? God could have just as easily said "all people born with brown eyes, blonde hair, or black skin go to hell"

3. From what i've seen you are arguing for an entirely naturalistic viewpoint (atheism) except there is a God in the universe rather than whatever random cosmic accident an atheist might say. The following implications of both views are extremely similar. That being, my moral actions are illusions. I am like a tree, only my atoms are just arranged in a way that i move around more. I cannot do ANYTHING of my own volition, including accepting God's gift (or rather, random life lottery) of salvation, or sinning for that matter. I cannot sin or be free from sin unless the way God designed my atoms allows me to. And I am supposed to look at this as a measure of grace?

[August]

1. If i wanted to portray God like what I just described, I wouldn't be considering christianity. Sure it's God's decision, God has all the power. To me it sounds like the standard is whatever God feels like assigning, and the only people who meet that standard are those God just happens to help. It's like life is a foot race and God blindfolds himself and trips half the other runners and sends them to hell.

Once again, you give no alternative for either a standard or mechanism by which people should be saved or not. What is your solution? If you are considering worshiping a God, what do want that God to be like? I am genuinely curious as to what you think about this.

2. How is sin any less silly than any of my examples? According to you (or at the very least what I think you are conveying), God generated the world to have sin, which is just as arbitrary as anything else i've said. The standard could be ANYTHING, and if it is impossible to reach even if you want it what is the point? God could have just as easily said "all people born with brown eyes, blonde hair, or black skin go to hell"

We obviously have very different views of what humans are, as can be expected from your belief system. God did not generate the world to have sin, but once it happened He had to deal with it. The standard can not be anything, that is the reason that God revealed His standard for us. That we fall short of the standard and is corrupted is not His fault, but that of humanity itself. We have to deal with the facts...there is sin, people are lost, some are saved, others are not. Why do you think it is like that?

3. From what i've seen you are arguing for an entirely naturalistic viewpoint (atheism) except there is a God in the universe rather than whatever random cosmic accident an atheist might say. The following implications of both views are extremely similar. That being, my moral actions are illusions. I am like a tree, only my atoms are just arranged in a way that i move around more. I cannot do ANYTHING of my own volition, including accepting God's gift (or rather, random life lottery) of salvation, or sinning for that matter. I cannot sin or be free from sin unless the way God designed my atoms allows me to. And I am supposed to look at this as a measure of grace?

That is an interesting take on it. I take it that you are comparing what I said with hard determinism? I guess I would have to agree with you in some sense, everything is caused by something, nothing in creation can be "uncaused". For the record, my argument has nothing to do with naturalism though, it is all metaphysical. Your moral actions cannot be illusions, since they have real consequences, both physical and spiritual. It is exactly the consequences of those actions that necessitate a Savior for us, unless we argue that there is no consequences and it does not matter, like atheism ultimately does.

Once again, I am interested in your view of man, his autonomy and what you feel causes behavior, responses and outcomes? I am also interested in what you think grace is, and what it should be, if it is different.

[jlay]

Echo, although I think you are making some off base assertions, I do think you present some valid challenges.

And ultimately address some legit reasons to question if not reject reformed theology. The entire argument as discussed in another thread does hinge on the ideas of the soverignty of God and autonomy of man. From my own personal perspective, what I find is that the strictest RT attempts to create a war and force one to defend a position that they might not actually adhere to. At least that has been my experience. That being the one of accusing God of not being soveriegn. Here is a quote from the RT website that illustrates what I am speaking of.

It is important to remember this: ALL CHRISTIANS WHO BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION.

Yes, I believe in predestination. It is scriptural. But is that what is really being communicated here? Because I do not accept the RT interpretation of predestination. And this is the fallacy in what is being said here. It is important to remember this: ALL CHRISTIANS WHO BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD BELIEVE IN (the RT definition and teaching of) PREDESTINATION.

IMO, a view of the soveriegnty of God has been framed by RT that creates a dilema. One in which they say, if you don't adhere to RT then you reject the soverignty of God. But if the view of God's soveriegnty is in error, then the framework is in error. Certainly I do understand the scriptures where RT arrive at their conclusions. Eph 1. Rom 9. Yet, if taken in this way, I find them to be the ones at odds in so many other areas that create apparent contradictions. One can not read the whole counsel without being very aware that God in His soverignty has set before us life and death, blessing and cursing. (Deut 30:19) And His desire is that men would choose life. That we would respond to Him in faith. That being, that He soverignly created us to choose to be chosen.

[Seraph]

So...about that opening post. Is there a philosophically sound arguement for the existence of free will?

I wasn't really trying to start a debate of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, even if the conclusion has a bearing on which of the theologies is true.

[jlay]

Well, I had to make a decision to respond to the question or not. So I am saying yes. Of course there is evidence for free will. The question really becomes in what way are you defining free will. I would say, limited free will.

[Seraph]

I would define free will as having the ability to make a decision in a way that isn't determined for you. Or when you make a decision, being able to say that in retrospect, you could have chosen otherwise.

[jlay]

That is kind of what I was driving at.

I mentioned Deut 30:19. I have set before you......
So, as you can see, the outcome is determined but not forced. The person has free will, but only in regards to what was set before them. So, in this regard, I believe that God in His soveriegnty, has set things before man, in which he is is at liberty to accept or reject.

How about you. What is your take?