Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Mem]

While thinking of it, I wonder if EVE is at the root of the word NAIVE. It certainly sounds like it.

 

[GWH]

While thinking of it, I wonder if EVE is at the root of the word NAIVE. It certainly sounds like it.

Nah.

 

[sawdust]

I am not making a doctrine out of it. It's conjecture and analytical. Why didn't Eve have her eyes opened when she ate? Why did it take her husband to eat and then BOTH of their eyes were opened?......Because Adam was not deceived and he explained the "situation" they were in.

Doesn't matter why it took both to eat. Your scenario had Adam understanding what was happening to Eve before it was happening. If she wasn't dying before he ate, your reasoning is negated as to why he ate. There was no-one to save and by the time there was, he couldn't anyway as he was dead as well.

The only reason I can think of why it took both is because the "two had become one". The Lord judged them as one rather than as two individuals.

 

[sawdust]

The Knowledge of good and evil was revealed to them both......Adam was not deceived about the situation they were in.

I don't see that as the issue I'm addressing. He was unaware of the situation they were in until they were in it. After he ate, then their eyes were opened.

He was not deceived because the Lord had told him directly not to eat from the tree. One doesn't need to understand everything regarding the situation to not be deceived, one only needs to know enough and Adam knew enough not to eat.

 

[sawdust]

But don't overlook the fact that Adam and Eve had knowledge that we could only dream of.

Again, that is only conjecture. They had to learn from the ground up like any child, beginning with learning a language. There is nothing to say the Lord ever walked face to face with Eve and whether Adam had the wherewithall to ask "deep and meaningful" questions, is anyone's guess. The Lord doesn't teach beyond one's capacity.

I'm not against speculation but I think you are making too many assumptions about what is happening in this situation.

 

[sawdust]

when i give you some of my purple cookies and say...
'now we both have purple cookies'
... it does not mean that i didn't have any purple cookies before i shared them with you.

Where's the "then" in your statement about cookies?

Adam had neither the fruit or awareness prior to Eve.

Like I said before, unless a Hebrew scholar can show me the Hebrew doesn't say what the English is saying, it is clear neither had awareness of their "loss" until after both had eaten. That is what it is saying in the English.

 

[sawdust]

suppose i have some purple cookies.

when i give you some, then we both have purple cookies.

See my other post. Adam had neither fruit or awareness prior to the "then", so I don't see your argument working in his case.

 

[LifelongLearner]

Returning to the OP, I agree that there is some truth that is axiomatic/unavoidable/inescapable, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen.

The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror). However, the element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective.

These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:

1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The Old Testament (OT) says in Exodus 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).

2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2 Corinthians 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1CR 13:9&12 cited previously). [From this point biblical books in parentheses will be abbreviated.]

3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me :^)

Having established three unavoidable or axiomatic beliefs, what is the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge? Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning, (a pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism), so we must “begin” by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice).

Imagining that we have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis), certainly, our immediate concern would be meeting survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would we not wonder why we were “born”, how we should behave, and what we ought to accomplish with your life? Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only [IOW, volition is limited to choosing between only] two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions.

One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the path of nihilism (cf. MT 13:14-15).

I call the first type of answer cosmaterialism, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses. I call the second way of believing moralism, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical (cf. Logos) basis for meaning and morality.

The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. GN 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide, although the analogy breaks down at the points the various oceans connect. A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Again, until and unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief/choice.

(As Christians, we have chosen moralism :^)

Interesting comment, personally experienced one of those lives which is great for learning and development, however, it would suck for those who have need of certainties/security etc.

As with you, i know the experience i was/am having has meaning/value. Being a true lifelong learner, i wouldn't wish away even my worst experiences, they were useful lessons in acquiring understanding/knowledge of myself and others. it's probably because of such experiences i'm nonjudgmental, which doesn't mean tolerant of wrong doing.

Don't have much time at the moment, quickly looking in and there are a couple of other comments i must reply to. God's blessings and all that's good for now GWH.

 

[posthuman]

Can you see the possibility that, since Adam was with her when he ate, and this happened in relatively close proximity to the context of an account of the serpent's exchange with Eve, that the eating was done in the setting of such as, say, an intimate dinner on Valentine's Day?

Adam wasn't deceived, but neither did he argue with Eve's 'voice' in either possible scenarios that have been suggested. That is, he never spoke up saying, "no, Eve, this is not good for food."

i don't belive he was with her when she spoke with the serpent no

Can you see the possibility that, since Adam was with her when he ate, and this happened in relatively close proximity to the context of an account of the serpent's exchange with Eve, that the eating was done in the setting of such as, say, an intimate dinner on Valentine's Day?

Adam wasn't deceived, but neither did he argue with Eve's 'voice' in either possible scenarios that have been suggested. That is, he never spoke up saying, "no, Eve, this is not good for food."

i don't believe he was present when she spoke with the serpent and ate.

she was first in sin, but as you are describing, if Adam being un deceived, and being effectively a 'watchman' for her, then as the principle in Ezekiel 3:17-18 shows, he would have been in sin first.

two verses in proximity to each other doesn't mean there are no events between them.

 

[posthuman]

Where's the "then" in your statement about cookies?

Adam had neither the fruit or awareness prior to Eve.

Like I said before, unless a Hebrew scholar can show me the Hebrew doesn't say what the English is saying, it is clear neither had awareness of their "loss" until after both had eaten. That is what it is saying in the English.

you don't need an Hebrew scholar - it's clear in English as well.
you posted, i replied - now we have both posted. this does not strictly mean you didn't post until i replied.

it could mean we posted simultaneously or it could mean it was not until i replied that it was true we both had posted.

evidence in the circumstances and reason reveal that you first posted, and i, later - and the statement that 'now we have both posted' is perfectly true.

 

[LifelongLearner]

Where's the "then" in your statement about cookies?

Adam had neither the fruit or awareness prior to Eve.

Like I said before, unless a Hebrew scholar can show me the Hebrew doesn't say what the English is saying, it is clear neither had awareness of their "loss" until after both had eaten. That is what it is saying in the English.

Burst out laughing, you just love stirring pots, logic can hang. Thing is, you won't learn much in life with your attitude, that's if you are actually young enough to be given some leeway.

 

[posthuman]

See my other post. Adam had neither fruit or awareness prior to the "then", so I don't see your argument working in his case.

Ruth 1:5​

Then both Mahlon and Chilion also died; so the woman survived her two sons and her husband.​

​

does this necessarily mean that Mahlon and Chilion died at exactly the same instant?
is it possible one died first, and the other, later? would that contradict the text?

 

[GWH]

Interesting comment, personally experienced one of those lives which is great for learning and development, however, it would suck for those who have need of certainties/security etc.

As with you, i know the experience i was/am having has meaning/value. Being a true lifelong learner, i wouldn't wish away even my worst experiences, they were useful lessons in acquiring understanding/knowledge of myself and others. it's probably because of such experiences i'm nonjudgmental, which doesn't mean tolerant of wrong doing.

Don't have much time at the moment, quickly looking in and there are a couple of other comments i must reply to. God's blessings and all that's good for now GWH.

Okay, I will look for the P.S. later.

 

[LifelongLearner]

By your definition, there is no such thing as free will. God cannot lie, so God does not have free will. I beg to differ. You conflate decision with consequences. Adam and Eve were free to choose with just one caveat. If they disobeyed, they had to suffer the consequences. If they had no free will, they would have been robots.

Deteronomy 30:
11“For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off." (Read the whole chapter for context).

God stated that Israel could obey God's law - if they chose to. The problem is not with the Law. The problem is that there is no desire to obey God in the heart of fallen man. If man had no free will, then God would be unjust to hold him accountable. Who takes a lion to court for attacking a gazelle? It is doing what lions do. Even the fallen world knows that man is responsible for his actions, much as many try to wriggle out of that truth.

You make the same mistake most people do by confusing choice and free will. You're obviously a limited thinker, or want to erroneously conflate imaginary for us free will with God's right to hold us accountable.

Personally haven't met anybody here who thinks they can work out their own salvation but people like you keep chucking in this imaginary scenario. It does look like a malicious intention to derail discussions, God can't lie because he's so righteous it's impossible for him to, not lack of free will. Personally think he's the only being who actually has free will.

 

[HeIsHere]

You make the same mistake most people do by confusing choice and free will.

The ability to make a choice while considering various options and making a decision is free will.

 

[LifelongLearner]

The ability to make a choice while considering various options and making a decision is free will.

Really like chatting with you but i disagree, free will involves a combination of things, including choice and agency. Finished sorting out what i needed to so must go for now. The fresh installs on my main rigs aren't straightforward this time, God's blessings and all that's good for.

 

[SaysWhat]

Satan means "adversary". No one had to force Satan to oppose God. Satan began his rebellion with the words "I will......." He chose to rebel and has been against God and God's people ever since.

Indeed that why he requested to tempt Jesus. It wasn't something God arranged out of the blue.

 

[lrs68]

Have you figured out yet that that the authentic book of Jasher was lost to history and that all six of the Pharisee-created forgeries of Book of Jasher come from 200-500 AD, 1100s AD (for two of them), 1200s AD, 1400s AD, and finally the most famous one from the 1500s AD? This means no matter which one you pick they were all made thousands of years after the authentic book of Jasher which was lost, thousands of years after Joshua and David whom cite the lost book, and that they were all known to be made by the Pharisees, which to say the very least means they're pretty blatant forgeries and for this reason they were never accepted into the canon.

I researched your source. You went afar off the beaten path to find this rogue. But people do many things to keep the lies they believe in breathing.

 

[Gideon300]

The most prideful being in creation........And we don't know his real name. God has a great sense of humor!

Prior to his rebellion, Satan was named as Lucifer, which means "Light Bearer". It refers to the "Morning Star", which is Venus.

 

[Kainos]

Satan means "adversary". No one had to force Satan to oppose God. Satan began his rebellion with the words "I will......." He chose to rebel and has been against God and God's people ever since.

You've nailed it in one paragraph.

Where the appetite exists for obstinately doing what we want, in spite of the commands of God, we are venturing to bring to bear something we have no right to. God's will be done, not mine.

But like Satan, the disobedient want to neglect God's will to establish their own. A delusion that is sure to come to naught.

The point of contention with free will is not in defining freedom, but identifying the self which is willing it. Kinda seems like a moot point, when we're all accountable for our choices and will stand before the judgment seat of Christ.