The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Free will

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

Is everybody in pretty much general agreement with the Biblical interpretation of free will I have laid out? Please lets discuss if there are some problems or contradictions that have arisen that you see or are worried about.--Tony 19:24, 20 October 2010 (PDT)

The omniscience thing bothers me with free will still. For example, if God knows that person P will choose to do act A before he does it, if the person is free to refrain from doing act A, then God would hold a false belief, which is impossible because God knows everything and cannot be wrong. I read Alvin Plantinga's book, but it didn't make a lot of sense to me :S. It seems as though he's saying that relative to different possible worlds, it is not necessary for a person to do act A (or in other words, there are some possible worlds in which person P does not do act A and some that do have person P do act A), but this doesn't make sense because there is only one actual world, and relative to that world, we don't have free will. Maybe I just didn't understand it though. Shinydarkrai94 09:19, 11 February 2011 (PST)

The act by the persons free will is based on many factors, I don't think I could begin to calculate. One factor upon each persons free will is many differing influences within the created world. God is influenced by nothing, but man is by what he comes into contact with. It is merely the opposite. God knows to which degree certain opposing influences will affect a persons mind, and then ultimately choice, your trouble is that you assume that God presupposes something contrary to His nature to begin with, namely a false belief, or person P choosing act A when really person chooses B. I think God sees it more like, Person P choosing to act A-Z. A-Z being created by God in the first place, thus giving the ability for Him to know all possible influence it could have.
When human will, or free will, is defined as sin or opposing Gods will, and you take into account the view of 3 different wills of God as R.C. Sproul has in this way:
1. The three meanings of the will of God:

(a) Sovereign decretive will, the will by which God brings to pass whatsoever He decrees. This is hidden to us until it happens.

(b) Preceptive will is God's revealed law or commandments, which we have the power but not the right to break.

(c) Will of disposition describes God's attitude or disposition. It reveals what is pleasing to Him.

2. God's sovereign "permission" of human sin is not His moral approval.[1]

I think it is logical to conclude that free will of humanity is disobeying Gods perceptive will, or (b) but not sovereign will (a). When we disobey (b) as Adam and Eve did under (a), it changed (c). Thus although we have free will or (b) to disobey God, He still holds ultimate power or sovereignty (a).--Tony 17:32, 16 April 2011 (PDT)


many things

The concept of free will is basically the workhorse in creationism, replacing cause and effect as the most fundamental explanatory mechanism.

- dualism,

Dualism The agency in a choice, such as love, hate, God, is subjectively identified resulting in an opinion. What is chosen, such as the body, is objectively measured resulting in a fact.

agency in a choice what is chosen
subjectively identified objectively measured
non-physical physical
spiritual material
soul body
opinion fact
God love hate self etc.
creator creation

- this creationist dualism is the foundation of science. Distinghuishing subjective opinion from objective fact is what created the scientific revolution. Identifying agency (love and hate) as a matter of objective fact, like Darwinists do, conflates fact with opinion, so destroys both science and religion. This pseudoscientific practice is social darwinism, and related to all kinds of ideology wherein freedom plays an insignificant role.

- the creationist dualism is the foundation of democracy. The right to freedom of expression, and freedom of religion was found by realizing that one could only identify agency in a free way.

- the creationist concept of free will is the pragmatically useful concept of free will in day to day life.

- the creationist concept of free will is useful for understanding science of informatics. Information, like a bit, consists of a chosen alternative. For a bit this is a choice between 0 and 1. Basically the entire universe can be described in terms of information, meaning that the entire universe consists of chosen alternatives.

- psychology research shows that disbelief in (creationist) free will, leads to aggression, cheating etc.unsigned comment by Syamsu‎ (talkcontribs)

Great post, I agree for the most part. I have a question in regard to your characterization of creationist dualism. Are you saying that our choices as free moral agents (human persons with a body/soul) are subjectively identified because they happen within ourselves, within our mind? Also then are you saying; what is chosen in our mind, is then externalized into the world by way of actions (actions being a result of choices made in the immaterial mind) and then that is what is "objectively measured" as you put it?
Subjective and objective then within this mode of thought would be synonymous with a personal agent and actions. So the scientists reduce a personal agent to actions, thus reducing the immaterial to the material by way of this logic?--Tsommer (Tony) 14:18, 7 April 2012 (PDT)
Thanks for the compliment.
I am saying that who we are as the owner of our choices, is subjectively identified. For example I might say somebody is hateful. To arrive at the conclusion somebody is hateful, I must choose. Saying somebody is hateful, says as much about me as it does about the person I am talking about. The choices are a matter of fact, and what the alternatives are is a matter of objective fact also, but the self / soul which is making the choice can only be identified through a way of choosing not measurement.
Notice that atheism is also validated here. If somebody subjectively reaches the conclusion that the spirit by which the universe was created is empty, express a feeling of emptiness, then objectively speaking that is not more or less correct than saying the universe was created by God. The question isn't a matter of objective fact in the first place, it's a question of choosing, and how to choose.
The scientists such as Darwin reduce love and hate into matters of fact. And this allowed the opinion to take hold that some races are hateful, and other races loving. Also to make love and hate into a matter of objective fact destroys the emotions of people who objectify. The brain can do tasks with freedom, and automatically. When you treat love and hate as a matter of scientific fact then you are telling your brain to go into automatic mode in relation to the issue love, so the freedom is gone, and with the freedom the emotions are gone as well. Darwin was seriously depressed throughout his adult life, and this in line with expectations for somebody who very seriously and deeply made love and hate into issues of scientific fact. --Syamsu 08:39, 8 April 2012 (PDT)
Very interesting take Syamsu, thank you for sharing.. You have got me thinking my friend.--Tsommer (Tony) 14:59, 8 April 2012 (PDT)
See what you make of it. Note that there are many creationists who in reaction to evolution theory treat agency as a matter of objective fact also. Evolutionists who say for lack of evidence God does not exist, and creationists who say it is an objective fact God does exist. They are both equally wrong, they are both only for objective measurement as a way of reaching a conclusion, and against faith and subjective opinion.--Syamsu 05:36, 9 April 2012 (PDT)

I agree wholeheartedly Syamsu.--Tsommer (Tony) 12:05, 9 April 2012 (PDT)

I will try to edit the main page, but I think the main page is very good already as it is. I will try to find more common words to say the same sort of thing--Syamsu 06:05, 1 May 2012 (PDT)


Free will

Free will means for a thing to have alternative states available from one moment to the next, and choosing one. Free will in this sense of alternatives and decision is the most fundamental logic in creation science, more fundamental than cause and effect. Most all theories and facts within creation science are based on a logic of free will. With freedom things are created.


Two categories: Dualism

The logic of free will has two main parts, the agency which does the chosing, and the alternatives which are chosen over. These two parts are wholy different from each other, the agency is called spiritual, what is chosen is called material.


Objectve and subjective

The way in which something can be known about material is relatively straightforward, through measurement we can know the properties of a material thing. For instance when a videocamera is turned towards the moon, then it receives the light reflected of the moon through the lens of the videocamera. The videocamera then stores this picture on a storage device such as a videotape. The information travelled from the moon by medium of light, through the lens, through the circuitry of the videocamera, onto the videotape. This transferring or copying of information unchanged (also known as rewriting) is called being objective. The videocamera provides objective information about the moon. When somebody looks at the moon, then in the same way as the videocamera, information transfers from the moon, by medium of light, through the eyes, to the memory in the brain, resulting in objective facts about the moon in memory.

The way in which something can be said about the spiritual doing the chosing is very different from objective measurement, instead we must form a subjective opinion. We can't rely on evidence to form a subjective opinion, because evidence forces to a conclusion destroying the freedom neccessary to reach a subjective opinion. Instead of relying on evidence, if we want to identify the agency in a choice, then we must make a choice related to the choice we are investigating.

For example: suppose there is a birthday cake, with 10 slices of cake, and 10 people attending the party. Suppose Joe takes 2 slices, which neccessarily means that 1 of the people will get no cake. As said, to investigate the agency of this choice to take 2 slices instead of 1, we have to make a new choice in turn, related to the choice we are investigating. To make a new choice we need new alternatives, for example the alternatives “hate” and “love”, so we get:


A Joe was “hateful” in choosing to take 2 slices instead of 1.

B Joe was “loving” in choosing to take 2 slices instead of 1.


Now we must chose, for instance we chose B, Joe was loving in taking 2 slices instead of 1. Very appreciative of the cake. We have now formed a subjective opinion about who Joe is as the owner of his choices, namely that Joe is loving. In the same way that beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder, a subjective opinion says as much about the one expressing the opinion, as it does about whom the opinion is expressed about. We could have chosen that Joe was hateful instead, we had the freedom to do so. We arrived at the conclusion through chosing ourselves, and by choosing we revealed who we are as the owner of our choices, as well as revealing who Joe is as the owner of his choices.


Overview of the dual categories in free will

agency in a choice what is chosen
subjectively identified objectively measured
non-physical physical
spiritual material
soul body
opinion fact
God love hate self etc.
creator creation

The leftside of the table belongs together and the rightside belongs together. The spiritual and material domains are directly connected with choices, yet the choices don’t provide any evidence of a spiritual domain. It is perfectly valid to express a feeling of emptiness in regards to agency, to subjectively reach the conclusion that the spiritual domain is empty, and God does not exist. The only requirement in the logic is that the conclusion about agency must be reached through choice.


Morality

However logically valid an expression of emptiness may be, that does not mean that such an expression is morally good. In creationist theory the universe starts with a free act, and ends with a final free act. The morality of any individual choice is often portrayed in relation to these choices of original creation and final judgement. In creationism morality is about the spiritual content of the choice, and is focused more on the way in which a choice is made, then on the result of a choice. In Christianity the knowledge about good and evil is considered the original sin, in respect to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whereby Adam and Eve made love and hate into matters of objective fact, by which they could calculate their course of action.


Pseudoscience

Words such as “selfish”, “altruistic”, “hateful”, “loving” etc. are commonly considered to be words of judgement relevant to agency, and should therefore only be used in this subjective way. That means you have to chose to arrive at the conclusion “selfish”, and you cannot measure somebody to be selfish. To make assertive statements about people being “selfish”, “loving” or “hateful” as a matter of objective fact is illogical, and is considered pseudoscience. (Although sometimes scientists use a different meaning of the words “selfishness” and “altruism” which has nothing to do with agency, in which case the selfihsness and altruism can be measured). The same holds true for asserting the existence of God as a matter of fact, that is also considered pseudoscience. God is considered an agent who choses, and therefore God is only possibly known through faith, which faith neccessarily involves a choice.


Politcs and Ideology

Theories about free will which treat agency as a matter of subjective opinion are strongly related to democracy. Theories about free will which turn agency into a matter of objective fact instead, are strongly related to ideological and political doctrines in which freedom plays a subordinate role, such as social darwinism and it’s exponents Nazism and Communism. For example, the influential Darwinist Ernst Heackel treated the “loving” agency of Jesus Christ as exhibiting an “Aryan” blood character. Heackel was not a Christian but an atheist, he treated the love of Christ as a matter of scientific fact, not a matter of faith. Darwin and Heackel, with their social darwinist doctrines about the heritable character of people, based on the theory of natural selection, is considered the main ideological impetus in the rise of Nazism, which led to the holocaust.


Psychology

Pscyhological research has found that disbelief in free will is related to increased agression and reduced helpfulness.


Biological function of free will

Free will of organisms appears to contribute to their survival in many ways. The variation in use of muscles caused by free will reduces wear and tear of them. Search algorithms for food are more optimal when based on freedom. Free will also appears to give predators surprise in attack, and prey unpredictability in escape. Note again that subjective opinion is entertwined with objective fact in creationist discourse. When an animal is fleeing then we might consider some high risk decisions the animal makes “courageous” or “dumb” alternatively. What is objectively observed then is a decision with a high chance of being killed, and subjectively we might note “courage” as the agency which made the decision turn out the way it did. One should not interpret these writings of creationist scientists to posit a “science of courage”, they are merely expressions of personal opinion of the scientist.


Creation, creatio-ex-nihilo

In a choice information is created, namely the information which way a choice turns out. The information is new in the universe, and therefore the information is derived from nothing. Commonly this principle is referred to with the latin phrase "Creatio ex nihilo". This nothing where the information derives from is objectively measurable. The measurements and calculations about where the information derives from simply turn out zero for position, mass, velocity, and so on. For instance the noise in a random number generator, which is used for encrypting data so that it remains secret, is derived from the socalled quantum mechanical zeropoint. When scientists look for the origin of a thing, then they always find nothing at the origin, and not a creator. The creator can only be found by deciding about the agency of the choices found.

--Syamsu 02:21, 2 May 2012 (PDT) Syamsu 08:00, 1 May 2012 (PDT)

I agree with the Biblical interpretation section, but I'm sure if we have any Calvinists they will probably disagree on the basis of Romans 9:14-24. I personally think we have to have free will or God would not plead with us to change and do righteousness. One of my famous passages in the Bible is concluded in Ezekiel 18:30-32 and for me is the nail in the coffin showing we have free will. There are cases in the Bible where God was going to destroy or punish a person or city (like Nineveh) and then changed His mind because they repented and did good. While God does strongly intervene in the lives of select individuals like John the Baptist and Paul, or allow some to be consumed in evil (like Judas) I just can't be convinced that it's like this for everyone. As my first preacher used to joke about predestination, "What would happen if somebody got into Heaven that God didn't want to? He'd probably forgive them." --Jzyehoshua 03:36, 2 May 2012 (PDT)

Jzy points on free will

I noticed ShinyDarkRai's comments more just now and thought I'd quote some points I've made in the past from some blogs on predestination and the problem of evil that should be interesting:

http://www.myspace.com/jzyehoshua/blog/76478774?MyToken=5b5fea07-e220-465b-8397-6a556d42d5d9

First, free will.

Every time I see this argument, a huge, glaring error jumps out at me. It assumes that because God has the power to know everything, He must know everything. However, if God didn't have the choice to NOT KNOW He could not be all-powerful. You see, omniscience without choice contradicts omnipotence. It may surprise some to learn that while the Bible calls God "omnipotent," (Revelation 19:6), nowhere is He called omniscient. What the Bible does say is that "the ways of man are before the lord, and He pondereth all His goings," (Proverbs 5:21) "He looketh unto the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven," (Job 28:24), "Hell and destruction are before the Lord: how much more then the hearts of the children of men?," (Proverbs 15:11), and "In whom [God] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Herein lies another error in reasoning, my friends. God is omniscient in that He sees all that is occurring, but it would seem He is not necessarily when it comes to knowing the future. But it is upon that presumption which the above argument depends. For you see, God must have the choice of whether to know something or not for Him to be all-powerful. His knowledge is conditioned thus on His looking, or choosing to see it. Take these verses for example: "The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -Psalms 14:2 As you can see, God looks that He may understand. The Bible clearly shows that God CAN see the future. It stands to reason, however, that such knowledge of the future is conditioned on His looking, even as it is with the present. And, it is an error in reasoning to assume that just because God can see future events, that He always chooses to do so.

Now for "The Problem from Evil." It seems to me the gist of such a question is to ask why God permits us to suffer the consequences of us breaking His moral Law, as if He owes us a perfect life. Let me turn this around though, and examine our own accountability as well as that of our Creator. Would not a better question be "Why does a just God put up with us when we wrong Him and wrong other people?" The human race is a race of jerks. Let's face it, we all fail God and other people. And this brings me to my point. Why is there evil and suffering in this world? Because of us. There is a story circulating that has the following quote:


Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?" Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil." To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." The professor sat down.


If we were all to perfectly abide by God's moral Law, two things would happen: 1) We wouldn't harm God, but love Him. 2) We wouldn't harm other people, but love them. Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40 points out that the great commandment is to love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls. The second, He says, is to love our neighbor as ourselves. On these two commandments, says He, hang all the Law and the prophets. Paul, in Romans 13:10, takes this one step further in pointing out that love fulfils God's moral Law precisely because it does no harm to others. So, can God prevent evil? Of course He can! Ever hear of the giant flood, and of Noah's ark? God came very close to exterminating evil right there. And therein lies my whole point. We are the source of evil. When one asks why God allows evil to exist, they are unconsciously asking why God allows us to exist. We are the ones who've polluted God's once-perfect universe. If we lived like God wants us to, there would be no suffering. It's disobedience to God's will that brings in problems. The concept everyone calls Heaven is, according to the Bible, God's destruction of this flawed universe to bring in a new, perfect one. But we'll just destroy it again, how then can God let us enter it? Wouldn't we just be a bunch of eternal jerks who go on harming each other? This is why one "must be born again." (John 3:7) What it takes is an inward change of our very nature, so that we will have God's love in us, as well as an eternal commitment to growing more in accordance to God's will. All this cannot happen if we cannot acknowledge we are evil and need to change. It is why in Luke 13:3 Jesus says that unless we repent, we will all likewise perish. And so, God permits our pathetic, evil-causing human race to continue to exist because He loves us, and sent His Son Jesus to die for our sins so that through repenting and trusting in His sacrifice alone to save us we can indeed be "born again" and find eternal life. God permits us to exist because through Jesus He has made a chance for us to escape the consequences of our sin and to be born again within so that we will keep changing to become more and more like God, with the end result being our becoming people who will not harm Him or other people, and thus, not cause evil, pain, or suffering to others. It is a just God who can't waffle on sin, and must pronounce the judgement of eternal separation from Him for the harm we do to Him and to others. It is a loving God who sent His only begotten Son from on high to do the only thing capable of making us new people who can spend eternity with Him.

http://www.myspace.com/jzyehoshua/blog/266288820?Mytoken=90C5D9B6-4C23-4757-BE7E615758DDB6D238200288

Now, here is what those following Calvinism and the predestination stuff believe: God essentially set up people to either find eternal life or not. We are part of a gigantic puppet system. It's already decided whether or not we'll get into Heaven. It's the idea that good people get into Heaven and there is some inherent goodness in you for God to choose you like that. But the Bible makes clear in Romans 3 that we have all sinned and the whole world is guilty before God. None of us are righteous by our own merit, and we all need His forgiveness. We all need to humble ourselves, for we can come before God only by one thing - His mercy bought for us by Jesus the Christ. For some reason, those not following the Calvinist's theological theory are seen as heretics to be condemned.

Obviously, I do not hold with such views. First though, I want to say I try to avoid legalism and condemning people apart from the tenets of salvation and upholding Jesus as our Lord and God. I've tried to stay away from topics like this in the past which I'd previously considered unnecessary and distracting from the main things of salvation. However, I've decided for the reasons given at the beginning of this post that the topic needs to be addressed.

Now, why do I disagree? My one big reason is very simple as found in Scripture: God doesn't want anyone to perish. In 2 Peter 3:9 it says God doesn't want anyone to perish but for all to come to repentance. This is echoed in the Old Testament as well. In Isaiah 30:18 it says God waits on executing judgment on this world that He may have mercy on more people. In Ezekiel 18:23-32 God clearly says He has no pleasure in the deaths of the wicked, but instead pleads with them to turn from their evil ways and live.

What is more, the promises are to "whosoever". As the old hymn goes, "whosoever surely meaneth me." In Revelation 3:20 it says Jesus stands and knocks at the door, and if ANY person will hear His voice and open to Him, He will come and fellowship with them. In John 3:15-16 it says "whosoever" puts their trust in Jesus will not perish but have everlasting life. This is echoed through the Scriptures, a promise to EVERYONE, as found in John 12:46, Acts 10:43, Romans 9:33, Romans 10:11, and 1 John 5:1. It makes no sense for God to plead with people He knows will perish. It makes no sense for God to make people who will perish if He doesn't want them to perish. It makes no sense for God to plead with the wicked to change their ways if He has not given them the capability of doing so. God is incredibly loving... but He is not stupid.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150781314139392

Just because God has all power, does not mean He is all-powerful. Just because our feeble minds have difficulty grasping the limits of his power, does not mean such limits don't exist. After all, the very fact God rested on the 7th day suggests such limits do in fact exist. Furthermore, not all powers we can imagine necessarily exist or are even possible (such as time travel). God can, in other words, have all power that exists in the universe, and not have all power that can be imagined (since it doesn't exist or is impossible). In contrast, powers we may not have comprehended/thought of may be ones God has.

Psalms 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Paul quotes this in Romans ch. 3 as well. I have always thought about this verse. Why did God look down from Heaven if there were no limits to His power/knowledge? If He already knew it, why did He need to look? It would seem His knowledge is conditioned like anyone else's, on His choosing to look, to take action, to learn. Furthermore, while Jesus is clearly equivalent to God the Father (John 10:30, 14:9), there are minor distinctions in power/knowledge/nature that can be distinguished between them.

http://www.myspace.com/jzyehoshua/blog/299730941

I have seen this idea put out recently, that God looks at things through both a narrow lens, and a wide lens. The idea goes that God is responsible for all the evil to have ever happened because he is completely omniscient and that is all some great, grand scheme of His. He doesn't see the evil happening in the world as evil because He sees the ultimate end of it (wide lens rather than narrow) and thus feels justified in creating evil.

I find this idea both abominable, and unBiblical. So it is alright to do evil that good may come of it? Why would God command something of us and not follow it Himself? For then He would be a hypocrite. Yet in His Word it is clearly stated what He thinks of those who say "let us do evil, that good may come of it": Romans 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. Furthermore, such a theory makes God out to be an author of sin and evil since He ultimately designed the world to be a part of such things so that He can ultimately bring about a greater good. But the Bible says God is not the author of evil or sin. The Scofield note for Isaiah 45:7 is a good one, and I am presenting both the verse and the note: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Scofield note 45:7 create evil. God is not the author of sin (Hab. 1:13, 2 Tim. 2:13; Ti. 1:2; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 1:5). One of the meanings of the Hebrew word ra (often translated "evil") carries the idea of adversity or calamity, and it is evidently so employed here. God has made sorrow and wretchedness to be the sure fruits of sin. That the meaning is adversity or calamity rather than evil as of sin is clearly implied just by the passage. For it is speaking of poles, opposites, in making the comparisons. For light is indeed the opposite of darkness, but is sin the opposite of peace? No, that would be righteousness, not peace. The opposite of peace would be adversity or calamity, as the Scofield suggests the word indeed means.

--Jzyehoshua 23:13, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

about additions

you should only ADD content, do not delete what is there and replace it.--Tsommer (Tony) 21:10, 7 May 2012 (PDT)

I tried that, but it didn't work. For example there was a whole bit about values being objective. That could not stand side by side with a division between subjective and objective. I think the article should be about the big lines on free will. To give a header title to compatibilism for example creates confusion. Can we agree that the article should be about the big things and about practical use? --Syamsu 23:31, 7 May 2012 (PDT)


The article should include peoples contributions. It matters that other peoples content is maintained. It isn't just your wiki, but we all contribute, so you should keep everybody's contributions and add to it. Compatabilism and incompatabilism are some of the big lines in free will. All in all though, keep up the great work man!--Tsommer (Tony) 16:13, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

big issues

The big issues are IMO:

- The biggest issue by far is that most scientists at present don't support subjective opinion in respect to agency, which means most scientists don't accept the legitemacy of subjective opinion and faith altogether. The emotionless coldhearted scientist stereotype is very true. Scientists as people pathologically require evidence to reach a conclusion, and they do not use their free will to reach a conclusion, expressing what is in their heart. Obviously scientists will still say to acknowledge subjective opinion, but this acknowledgement is empty without the logic of free will which posits a spiritual domain which is subjectively identified, to back up the legitemacy of subjective opinion / faith.


- then there are all the bad things to which this lack of acknowledgement of the legitemacy of subjective opinion leads to, social darwinism in Germany of old, and China at present, and social darwinism in society in the West too. This still needs a quote of that book by Klaus Fischer, in which he emphasizes that the predeterminative nature of nazi-ideology is it's most lethal aspect.


- then there are the practicalities of knowledge about free will, how creation works by free will, creatio ex nihilo, choosing of organisms, choosing of people, choosing of DNA. This needs some more references about DNA being chosen, some references about "coherence" if I remember correctly, some references to universal nil potency rewrite system, and "strong anticipation" describing how things relate to their future, some references about how things consist of information=chosen alternatives. I guess there should be a practical section on free will that is more common knowledge, and a section on how free will works which is more technical.


I'm sorry about deleting what was written, but I couldn't take on the big issues and preserve what was already there. Things like compatibilism are insane and unfair inventions IMO. You cannot give them too much attention without making the concept of free will into an intractible mess. I would like that what I wrote is rewritten in a more common knowledge style, since I think what I wrote reads a bit klunky. --Syamsu 03:36, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

Just at a glance, it looks like there might be good material from both what was deleted and what was added that can perhaps be combined? I'll try comparing them and see if I can source to find a middle ground for some of the material. --Jzyehoshua 10:50, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

Changes

I rewrote the lede with improved sourcing and re-added Tsommer's internal links to the Biblical Interpretation section so far because I think the internal links are applicable there. Let me know what everyone thinks.

I'm still trying to decide how the philosophical stuff should be portrayed, it looks like Tsommer wants it defined as Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism and Syamsu as categories of Dualism. --Jzyehoshua 11:54, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

I'm starting to think Tsommer's definition of free will as defined by Compatibilism and Incompatibilism looks like the best way to categorize free will. A good breakdown using Compatibilism can be seen at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[2] Dualism on the other hand appears to be a specific philosophy related to free will that to portray as here would be giving undue weight to a specific branch of thought.[3] Dualism appears an unwieldy way to address the numerous philosophies surrounding free will, however. While it was mentioned by Plato and Descartes, it by no means summarizes all the forms of thought on free will and thus isn't a very good way to organize the page, but might merit mention further down the page. --Jzyehoshua 12:14, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

I'm going to recommend that we organize by Compatibilism and Incompatibilism. The following would make good sources when writing the article (I usually dislike citing Wikipedia): [4][5] While Dualism should be mentioned also, I think it should be further down the page - the following would make a good source for it.[6] I think the section might need to be rewritten, however, without trying to label Creationism this or that, as there may be Creationists on both sides. --Jzyehoshua 12:26, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

I just changed the page to re-include Tsommer's edits at the top although I moved his mention of Creationism being X philosophy. I changed Dualism's wording somewhat too to make it clear this is a specific philosophy and line of thought on free will, rather than encompassing all views and positions on free will. --Jzyehoshua 12:35, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

i am very sorry you reach that conclusion. There is no such thing as a compatibilist creationist IMO. If we are left with describing free will with the same logic as the way a thermostat works then I am left incredulous at what passes for creationism. There seems to be no creation in creationism then. I thought your retorations before were rather good actually. The dualism is in the references to Ockham and Reid. If you can show me how a compatibilist validates the legitemacy of subjective opinion / faith, i would be much obliged. It is not actually within reason to put an idea that everything is forced in an article on free will, eventhough a great many people do it. Syamsu
Actually there are compatabilist creationists. Just like there are Christian materialists. They are wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that the position is not supported by any actual creationists and/or philosophers. We are trying to present all sides of the argument, the burden would be on you to write up a response or refutation, not just delete what is there. I am only trying to define free will by presenting the lines of argument within philosophizing on free will that has been done over many, many centuries of intellectual development. What we should concentrate on is presenting a creationist case for free will, within the presentation of all aspects of the free will debate as honestly as we can, and then let people make up their minds.--Tsommer (Tony) 17:19, 8 May 2012 (PDT)
Uh sorry I am not party to considerations of decribing either people or God as a thermostat, you can count me out. Syamsu
Syamsu, you do realize you just compared "free will" to God, right? First you said "describing free will with the same logic as the way a thermostat works" and then you said, "decribing either people or God as a thermostat". Free will so far as I'm concerned is just a philosophy, it is not a deity to be worshiped. If we have God's truth in our hearts we ought to be objective and honest about telling it like it is; why not describe free will or any other philosophy like a thermostat, and provide a factual, honest account? Indeed, the more important something is, the more important factual objectivity is, the Gospel writers sought to portray the facts for the sake of us later readers. I don't have to agree with Compatibilism to think we should portray Creationism correctly by providing both sides of the Free Will argument. To show only one biased side rather than reporting all the facts would reflect poorly on us and Creationism, and suggest we are too dishonest to want our readers to see the other side of the story; and all the facts involved. That is not what I at least want to believe Creationism is about. We should show both sides and a full account of the subject matter, even those points we do not agree with. If we do not, readers would not trust us, nor should they. --Jzyehoshua 03:13, 9 May 2012 (PDT)
This is not describing people or God as a thermostat, it is simply intellectual honesty, giving an honest definition of a philosophy called free will to ensure all philosophies are described and readers get a fair analysis of the subject, rather than distortion that focuses just on Dualism. Frankly, Dualism is not really even that related to free will and is kind of off-topic. The whole Dualism thing you wrote would be very applicable in an article on Dualism, but isn't that relevant to an article on Free will. None of it especially addresses the philosophies on free will, or what various beliefs are on whether we make choices or our products of our environments/God's will. Frankly I think you're confusing the topics somewhat, sorry. Your own definition of subjectivity for example could be evidence of Compatibilism or Determinism rather than Free will, since one could say the subjective decisions made by someone were influenced by their environment, upbringing, or God's predestined will - none of which I believe, but I'm just pointing out, you're not really confronting the root issues of whether we have the ability to make individual choices or are slaves to conditions. The main subjects to be addressed would be left entirely unmentioned with the Dualism page you wrote. --Jzyehoshua 03:31, 9 May 2012 (PDT)
What's needed is a page that examines in-depth whether people have the ability to make choices freely to follow God or are the products of their environments or governed by God's will. Frankly I think there's some evidence from Scripture to hint at both views. Clearly the Bible commands us to repent and turn from our ways, so that suggests we have free will to do so. Yet at the same time Jesus said no man could come to the Father unless the Father drew that person (John 6:44) - though Jesus said also if He were lifted up He'd draw all men to Him (John 12:32). In 2 Corinthians 4:4 it says the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving lest the light of the Gospel shines to them. We are said to be slaves in bondage to corruption and lusts of this world before being freed through Christ (John 8:34, Romans 6:7-22, Galatians 5:1, 2 Peter 1:4, 2:18-22). We were slaves to the fear of death (Hebrews 2:14-15). There are certainly powers that reduce our free agency; this is hardly a clear-cut issue where one can say all Christians should have X view on the subject. --Jzyehoshua 03:44, 9 May 2012 (PDT)
Fairness on this issue is not representing all main philosophies, it is fairly representing the concept of free will in the way that people use it in daily life. The logic that people use when they talk in terms of choosing, and especially the way it is used in scripture and creation science. Fairness is if a compatibilist 'true believer' in daily life also talks in terms of there not being alternatives from moment to moment. Compatibilists are not fair in this way, but duplicit, in that they state one thing in philosophy and in daily life much use a logic based on alternative results from moment to moment.
Compatibilist philosophers are also unfair in that they are all unskilled at using a logic of alternative results from one moment to the next in their studies. So a compatibilist philosopher does not lay the various versions of free will side by side and picks the one they think best, a compatibilist excludes versions of free will based on alternative results from moment to moment beforehand, and is unskilled at using a logic of alternative results.
I and other dualists are skilled at the compatibilist version of free will, which is simply the logic of cause and effect, of force. I understand perfectly how to describe a thermostat as choosing, and I even sometimes use that logic in daily life as metaphore. But laying versions of free will side by side it is clear that compatibilism and determinism deserve no mention on free will. Cause and effect principles such as compatibilist free will should be discussed in an article about cause and effect.
Chosing to include compatiblism here inevitably leads to immense confusion about the meaning of the word choice. Did I just now use the compatibilist or the dualist definition of choice? That is very confusing, and that is the INTENTION OF SATAN to confuse people. IMO this confusion and denial of free will is a very huge evil in society, there are many indiciations of that. Compatibilists agree that their definition of free will is based on a logic of cause and effect, so put a subsection on compatibilist free will in the article on 'forces' or 'cause and effect' or somesuch. --Syamsu 06:30, 9 May 2012 (PDT)
The agency in compatibilist free will is a matter of fact issue. That is why it is describing God and people as like a thermostat calculating. It is very uncivilized, and I demand to be approached in a properly subjective way. You should acknowledge my human spirit, and I yours. This should not be up for debate IMO, like you can treat me like some calculator because some philosphy says so, you cannot, I don't allow that. --Syamsu 08:03, 9 May 2012 (PDT)
In your section on Dualism, you talked about what subjective is compared to objective. You should be able to recognize that representing all philosophies here is necessary since the subject matter involves philosophy and opinion, not hard facts. I don't know what Compatibilists are like, but this subject seems highly theoretical and opinionated. As for confusion about the meaning of the word choice, that's pretty simple to explain - when using the word choice, just define it at the beginning by saying "According to the philosophy of Dualism, 'choice' means..." Confusion also occurred in the Christian Church because believers were arguing over matters of opinion rather than working together in harmony, which is what I think this might be a case of. If Compatibilism is contrary to Creationism, then that should be shown and explained clearly why, and then it can be critiqued on the page, but I still don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned. --Jzyehoshua 13:41, 9 May 2012 (PDT)
In context the subjectmatter is about the accepted facts of creation. It's all a bit of exaggeration to say free will is not evidenced, on a practical level the evidencing works well enough in daily life. I think I did explain already how compatibilism is contrary to creationism.
- compatibilism posits knowledge of good and evil as matter of fact, which is in line with original sin. To talk about good and bad in view of the desired temperature for a thermostat isn't such a problem. But talking about good and bad as matters of fact in terms of natural selection, survival, is much of a problem, when it is coupled with an explicit denial of subjectively established agency. Doing that creates identity problems for people. I am an organism, I am in a struggle for existence, what is good is my survival and reproduction. Then to say that this use of the word "good" and "bad" is valid, and that the subjective / faith use of the word "good" and "bad" is invalid, that is defacto making science into a prescriptive morality. I support compatibilist good and bad, but then only as metaphore, in an environment where it is exceedingly clear that the proper non-metaphoric use of good and bad is subjective in respect to agency.
- compatibilism breeds ignorance about using a logic based on alternative results, which logic is inherently based on spiritual agency. Dualism clearly, straightforwadly, supports spiritual agency. It is anybody's guess if or not compatibilism can somehow be construed to support creationism. Compatibilists don't learn anything about using a logic of alternative results, this is just my experience, they only learn how to defend compatibilism when you talk to them. This is very engrained pathology IMO, they are drilled by school and college to only arrive at a conclusion about what is there through evidence. They don't understand how to arrive at a conclusion that love or hate is there, by choosing / faith. --Syamsu 02:54, 10 May 2012 (PDT)

Descartes not a dualist in the creationist sense

Descartes is mentioned as a dualist. Descartes is a dualist in the sense of fantasy vs reality, or mind vs matter, not spiritual vs material. It is very clear that he is not a dualist in the sense of Occam or Reid, because of his famous "cogito ergo sum", I think therefore I am. He considered this as matter of fact proof of his own existence, he himself as the owner of his choices. So he treated agency as a matter of fact, where Occam and Read treated agency as a matter of subjective opinion / faith.

"Cogito ergo sum" in Occam's dualist understanding would merely be an expression of purpose, not a statement of fact. Like a baker would say, I bake therefore I am, baking is my purpose, a thinkers says, I think therefore I am, thinking is my purpose.

Note that the object of thoughts are simple matters of fact, and therefore broadly belong to the material category. When I think of an apple, I am in fact thinking of an apple, there is nothing much subjective about the object of thought.

The clearcut distinction between material and spiritual is preferrable because of it's practicality, especially from people who haven't considered the clear cut distinction. If it could be shown that Descartes considers agency is a matter of subjective opinion, then perhaps Descartes could be considered a dualist. But Descartes is known for cogito ergo sum establishing agency as a matter of fact, so I think Descartes only muddies up the water by getting a double meaning of dualism, like fantasy vs reality and spiritual vs material. --Syamsu 05:00, 13 May 2012 (PDT)

Same thing with Plato, he also is a dualist only in the fantasy vs reality sense, or mind vs matter. An idea is a physical thing in the sense that it can be known as a matter of fact, just like all other material things can be known as matter of fact. --Syamsu 05:32, 15 May 2012 (PDT)

More combative

I changed the article to a more combative stance against the widespread denial of freedom among evolutionists. One should take account of the fact that the credence of texts which propose freedom is real on a practical basis, be it the bible, the american constitution, creationism, etc. are under threat for the reason that the texts contain knowledge about freedom. For an encycopledia to fullfil it's purpose of providing the practical facts of how free will works, it needs to deal with the confusion which is generated on the subject

Atheist campaign to destroy understanding of free will: http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

--Syamsu 07:45, 15 January 2013 (PST)

Long and confusing sentences

The article contains the following sentences:

The distinction highlighted within Christian philosophy when confronted by natural relativistic theories of morality presented by evolution is not necessarily how to know what is moral, called epistemology, as it is written in the heart of humanity. Rather what is approached is why objective moral values and duties exist at all and what a person ought to do about them, which would be considered ontological or metaphysical.

These sentences appear to contain parenthetical elements, but without any parenthetical structure (e.g. no brackets), and it is not clear what they are trying to say, to the point that I don't know how to improve them.

Removing what appears to be a parenthetical section, the first sentence appears to me to be saying, "The distinction highlighted within Christian philosophy ... is not necessarily how to know what is moral ...", which to me seems to be incoherent.

The second sentence's last part, "which would be considered ontological or metaphysical" doesn't make clear which part preceding it the "which" is referring to. I'm also not sure that "approached" is the right or best word to use.

Philip J. Rayment 18:11, 15 February 2013 (PST)

rewrite of article

I will rewrite the article to take out the mention of objective morality, and focus more on straightforward understanding of free will, rather than problemizing free will. If anybody wants to put objective morality in there again, then put it in the politics social darwinism section, which also proposes an objective morality. --Syamsu 19:58, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

The rewrite is, in my opinion, less understandable than the previous version, which itself wasn't all that clear. I think it uses too much jargon. I also have to wonder about the spiritual/subective vs. material/objective alignment of distinctions. It doesn't seem right to me, or perhaps it's simply not well explained. The "Scientific Evidences" section is too terse for a lay reader to follow properly. Some claims seem downright bizarre, such as "Because of the influence of social darwinism on Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin they largely did not even know what it meant to make a decision..."
The article claims that "China is currentely drifting towards Social darwinism.", but the link talks only about eugenics, not the broader issue of Social Darwinism.
The caption to the picture of Jim Parsons is wrong. Sheldon is not portrayed as a "mad evil scientist". He is portrayed as a young, socially awkward, scientist.
The article also has many grammatical problems, but if that was the only problem, I'd simply go in and fix them.
Philip J. Rayment 18:58, 15 March 2013 (PDT)


Okay the main thing is ofcourse the division what chooses/spiritual/subjective what is chosen/material/objective. Either this is right, or it is wrong. And well..., it is right, and therefore you don't understand free will. Let's stand still and think about this for a moment... you fundamentally don't understand free will.... it could be true...

The criticism "it doesn't seem right to me" is not really very specific...., while the stated philosophy is very specific. Point out what is specifically wrong, which should be easy to do, because the philosophy is very specific. It is not like those wordy philosophies where you can't really point to anything specific.

I am pretty sure, by experience, that what seems wrong to you is that you yourself conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, which is the definition of choosing derived from original sin.

Your other points are really very minor. Yes if true it would be quite bizarre that Hitler did not know what making a decision meant, but then...do you yourself know what it means to make a decision? You are unsure if what is written is correct, and if it is correct, then you are yourself unsure about what making a decision means. Bizarre?

It is accepted that nazism is based on biological determinism in which freedom plays no significant role. Likewise communism is based on economic determinist theory in which freedom plays no role. It is therefore simply straightforward argument that Stalin and Hitler didn't know what making a decision meant. --Syamsu 21:14, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

I'll concede that perhaps I don't really understand what free will is from a particular philosophical point of view, but I don't accept that I simply don't know what it is. In fact, I would describe free will as the God-given ability to make a decision.
I agree that my comment was not very specific. However, the reason for that is that I don't really follow the argument being made (which I think is because it's not being made clearly, not because I'm incompetent).
I do not understand your comment above that "you yourself conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, which is the definition of choosing derived from original sin". First, I don't agree that that is my conception. I conceive choosing as picking one of two or more alternatives. How I make that choice may be the result of sinful desires or not, but that is a different matter.
Of course I know what it means to make a decision, just as Hitler would have. He made lots of decisions (including many bad ones). What I have a problem with is the claim that "It is therefore simply straightforward argument that Stalin and Hitler didn't know what making a decision meant." I understand that from a strict biological determinism viewpoint, Hitler was just doing what his biology (his genes) made him do, but it doesn't follow that he understood it that strictly. But even if he did understand it that strictly, he did have free will, and therefore did make decisions, and therefore did know (from experience) what it was, even if his philosophy said that it shouldn't exist.
Philip J. Rayment 01:26, 16 March 2013 (PDT)

You have almost every part of the definition of free will, except for one thing, which is how to identify the agency of a decision. This is done subjectively. That is why we have faith in God, and not evidence. And we believe in the human spirit, but we don't measure the human spirit. God and the human spirit decide, so therefore they can only be identified with a decision, so only subjectively acknowledged not objectively.

You failed to understand that.... and you failed to understand free will.

Now ofcourse you have a complex socialized understanding of things where you are much subjective towards what decides, not objective. But it is certainly not the case that everybody has such complex socialized understanding. And it is certainly credible that Hitler didn't have that. He had ideology in which identity issues about who people are as being the owner of their choices was treated as objective issues, not subjective.

And this is the main thing in evolution vs creation. If evolutionists subjectively acknowledged the owner of decisions of people, as wells as decisions made in the universe at large, then there would not be any significant problem. Note that before Darwin there already were evolutionists, without much of any problem. It's only when evolutionists began a massive onslaught against all knowledge in terms of freedom, replacing it with knowledge in terms of force, that any real controversy began.--Syamsu 05:10, 16 March 2013 (PDT)

The agency of a decision is, obviously, the one making the decision. Sure, sometimes it may be hard to know who made a decision, but that's not part of the definition.
I don't understand your sentences "This is done subjectively. That is why we have faith in God, and not evidence." You seem to be saying that we don't have evidence (for what, exactly?) because we subjectively identify the agency of a decision. But the existence or non-existence of evidence is not dependent on how we do something. It simply either exists or doesn't exist.
You response about Hitler failed to address the point I made that because he did make decisions, he must have known what it was to make decisions.
Philip J. Rayment 07:53, 16 March 2013 (PDT)

I don't trust you, and don't ask me to. We are going to put a rulebased definition of choosing in there, and that includes the rule for how agency is identified. This is not about you not understanding, this is about you refusing to accept and follow a rule. It is explained step by step how it works, you go read that and make a specific criticism exactly what step you think is wrong. Its in the section objectivity and subjectivity. There is no way creationism has any merit without a subjectively identified spirit doing the choosing. So that excludes objectively measured spirit, to employ objectivity taht way does not work.

If you had read more carefully you would have known that I talk about willful ignorance on the part of Hitler with which he sabotaged his conscience. Is your idea that nazi ideology is irrellevant, that perhaps all politics is irrellevant for the way people act? --Syamsu 14:01, 16 March 2013 (PDT)

It seems you point towards the human body as where a decision comes from "The agency of a decision is, obviously, the one making the decision.". When we look inside the brain of a person, then we can see that in the moment the brain can turn out A or B alternatively. We do not see anything doing the deciding, and this isn't even theoretically possible. In Christianity as well as in Islam it is always the spirit of a person or soul, which is referenced as what does the deciding, the job of making it turn out A instead of B, or B instead of A. The soul decides, and because it decides the soul cannot be measured. Identity issues about who you are as the owner of your choices, to describe your soul, is therefore done by a way of deciding, judgement, expression etc. It is uncivilized not to subjectively acknowledge who people are as owners of their choices, to instead just measure people by achievements, physical attributes, pschychological mechanisms, which measurement always results in some number.--Syamsu 16:13, 16 March 2013 (PDT)

You seem to be reading things into my comments that simply aren't there. I've already corrected you on some, and I'll do so again here. Of course I don't think this is about me not understanding—it's you (not me) who thinks I don't understand. Also, what "rule" am I refusing to follow? I do not point to a physical body as being the source of a decision. When I said that the agency of a decision is obviosly the one making the decision, "one" is a reference to a person, which means the spiritual being that inhabits a physical body. So the entire last paragraph of your last reply to me was a waste of time.
Part of the reason I was broad in my criticism earlier was that it was hard to know where to start. Now that you've mentioned a particular section (the Objectivity and Subjectivity section) to concentrate on, I'll respond to that.
The article in this section seems to be trying to define what "subjective" and "objective" mean (in this context). Yet I believe that the definitions are wrong, in that they are far too narrow, and too absolute. The illustration of the video camera treats objectiveness as simply a verbatim copy. So if I quote you verbatim, I'm being objective. But what if I summarise what you are saying? That is not a verbatim copy, but assuming that my summary of your comments are accurate, then I'm still being objective, not subjective. For example, I might say that in this talk page section, you have defended what you see as the main points of the article, then I'm not quoting anything you've said, and I have used my free will to choose what words I have used in that phrase, yet I would consider the phrase to be objective. There are two possible tests of this. One is if virtually everyone (who offers an opinion) agrees with me. "Objective" means that my summary was something that others would come to the same conclusion about, rather than it just being a matter of my opinion. The second test is whether or not you can dispute my summary (assuming you wanted to). You might, for example, point to where you have not defended what you see as a main point of the article, but conceded a point. The very fact that you would be able to argue against the accuracy of my summary (as opposed to simply disagreeing), demonstrates that my summary is objective in nature, not subjective.
Another issue is the comment in the article that "objectivity works by force, subjectivity works by freedom". What force is being referred to here? Often, if we say that something is done by force, we are talking about a person using some sort of pressure or leverage on another person to accomplish their goal. Alternatively, we might be referring to a machine using kinetic energy to carry out its work. But in the phrase in the article, the connection to either concept is not made, and does not appear to be valid. There is, however, an implication of another person (agency) being involved. Normally, objectivity and subjectivity are contrasted as being related to facts and opinions respectively. About the only context in which force and freedom are opposites are that of one person allowing, or not allowing, another person to make a decision. Free will is concerned not with whether one person allows another to make a decision or not, but with whether or not humans have the ability to make a decision, as opposed to simply following programming.
Putting my issues another way, a person can make a decision objectively or subjectively. For example, if I'm going to buy a bicycle, I can buy a blue one because I subjectively like blue, or I can compare prices, features, warranties, etc. of different bicycles and make an objective decision based on those facts. Both, however, are decisions mady by my mind (i.e. my spiritual part, not my physical brain) that I have made because I have free will. In fact, it is due to having my free will that I was able to choose to make my decision either objectively or subjectively. This is not the way that the article treats objectivity and subjectivity.
I'm not suggesting that this exhausts my concerns with this section, but it's enough for now.
Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 16 March 2013 (PDT)

Your idea is to have a waterfall of words about free will, my idea is to have a few simple rules. You fail to make specific criticism of the procedure in the section subjectivity and objectivity. Your horrendous waterfall of words simply provides room for any idea about free will, regardless if it is evolutionist or creationist.--Syamsu 10:39, 17 March 2013 (PDT)

There are no rules in your concepts, like the rule that a decision can turn out A or B in the moment. You argue that "objective decisions" cannot turn out an alternative way in the moment, because they are the product of calculations with a single possible result. So now you have no definition really for the word decision.Learn to accept and follow rules.--Syamsu 11:09, 17 March 2013 (PDT)

Remember that I earlier guessed that you conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result. Now you insist that the word decision applies to sorting out bicycles according to price, warranties etc. This is not a decision, because in the moment there are no alternative results possible, only the optimal result is possible. This is actually what evolutionists conceive of choosing to be, a sortingprocess like natural selection.

I don't think this format for criticizing is useful, these lenghty texts. You should instead define free will yourself, and then we can see which definition is better. Note that any creation science is impossible without precise rules, precisely defined terms.

The rules mentioned in the article give a straightforward link to a form of informatics where we can describe objects in terms of information. Which means for example that the earth is not "just" the earth, the earth is a chosen alternative, same like a bit is not just 1, it is 1 instead of 0. That is different from particle physics. Instead of the focus being on any particle the focus is on nothing, or zero, from which then information derives (creatio ex nihilo). When we use a particle view, we can only hope to get information down to the level of the particle, but if we use a view based on nothing, then we can exhaustively describe the entire earth. --Syamsu 14:31, 17 March 2013 (PDT)

Syamsu, I have presumed that English is not your first language, and therefore have been tolerant of what I presume is simply a difficulty you have in describing things properly and clearly in English. However, I have to say that your reply simply misrepresents me, and some of it makes little sense.
It is not my idea to have "a waterfall of words about free will". Having said that, however, I think that one of the problems with the article is not enough words. That is, the article assumes that the reader already understands too much of the concept, rather than explaining it to a lay reader. I mentioned this above regarding the "scientific evidence" section.
And I did make a specific criticism of the objectivity vs. subjective section.
Your description of my comments as a "horrendous waterfall of words" is simply criticising me, rather than addressing my argument—the ad hominem fallacy—and simply because I chose to try and explain things clearly, rather than too briefly to be clearly understandable. It's also a bizarre comment, given that (a) your first three replies to my comment had more words than my comments you were replying to, and (b) my longer post was partly in response to your complaint that I hadn't explained enough about what I saw as being wrong with the article.
And I utterly reject that my comments "provides room for any idea about free will". They don't.
Concepts don't have rules. Processes do.
You seem to think that if you use empirical data to make a decision, then it is not a decision. All decisions are made on the basis of reasons for making those decisions, whether those reasons are valid or invalid, objective or subjective, or relevant or irrelevant. You seem to be trying to redefine the word "decision" rather than explaining what it means.
I fail to see how making an objective decision is like an evolutionary conception of choice, and I utterly reject that it is like natural selection, which is a very unempirical process that is much closer to chance than anything, and certainly not involving intelligence making use of data.
I have already defined free will myself: The ability to choose, as opposed to following programming. And note that that is less wordy than your description, although unlike you I'm not suggesting that fewer word is necessarily better.
I don't see what free will has to do with creationism, other than the fact that only a creationary view can explain the existence of free will.
I also don't see the relevance of your analogy with bits. Sure, a mind can choose between two bits, but a mechanistic process can also produce one of the two bits, either according to programming or according to chance. The mere fact that there is an alternative doesn't mean that a mind is involved.
Your last two sentences don't make any sense to me.
Please assume good faith and try and engage with my arguments instead of simply criticising what you seem to think my views are.
Philip J. Rayment 03:33, 18 March 2013 (PDT)

I will certainly not assume good faith, in my opinion you are too trusting of yourself in respect to original sin, knowledge of good and evil with which to sort out a "best" result. Everything shows you are very deep into original sin on an intellectual level.

I find your argument very quarrelsome. If we can just focus on the definition of free will. There are 3 parts to it, agency, alternatives and decision.

Either we define decision as that in the moment it can turn out one of alternative ways, or... we are lost, everything is held together with this rule.

And if we define as such that it is only a decision when in the moment there are alternatives available, then a sortingprocess of bicycles is not a decision because in principle it leads to a single result (the cheapest bicycle with the most warranty).

So accept the definition, and that's it, then just mindlessly follow the rule that a decision in the moment can turn out 1 of alternative ways.

We cannot have a situation where the word decision is properly used with a logic of force, a logic of cause and effect. And this is what you are doing, the programming of price and warranty leads to the effect of the optimal bike being selected, and then you call that sorting a decision.

I expect a final answer from you on the issue if or not the word decision is to be defined with the logic that in the moment it can turn out A or B alternatively, so that we can move on towards other criticisms you have, or be deadlocked in opposing positions, depending on your answer. --Syamsu 04:21, 18 March 2013 (PDT)

If you won't assume good faith on my part, why should I assume good faith on your part? Especially when you make various accusations about my motives or approach?
A decision based on empirical data is not "mindless"; I choose to buy a bike based on that empirical research, and (as I mentioned in an earlier reply), I choose to make the decision based on that empirical research rather than some other way.
But let me ask you then. In trying to decide what bicycle to buy, how would you make a decision, according to your "rules"? For example, do you (a) do research into the best bicycle, (b) toss a coin, (c) base it on colour, or (d) something else? I'm sure that it won't be (a), (b), or (c), but I don't follow from the "rules" in the article how you would decide. At the very least, that demonstrates that the article is not clear on what it is trying to say, but perhaps we will get somewhere if you answer that question of how you would decide which bicycle to buy.
Philip J. Rayment 05:18, 18 March 2013 (PDT)

No I am not going to engage that any further, in my view your writing here is just the yammering of wanting to hold on to original sin, it is not reasonable.

I request a final answer from you on the issue mentioned previously, if or not the word decision is to be defined with the logic that in the moment it can turn out A or B alternatively.--Syamsu 05:38, 18 March 2013 (PDT)

If you're "not going to engage that any further", it seems that I'm wasting my time here. Philip J. Rayment 06:25, 18 March 2013 (PDT)

If you don't provide a final answer to the question posed this whole lengthy argument has been a waste of everybody's time. An argument without a point at the end of it.--Syamsu 07:27, 18 March 2013 (PDT)

I don't understand why, having not answered several of my question, you expect me to answer a particular one of yours, and a question that asks me to forgo any further attempts at trying to reach agreement and to simply give a final answer. Philip J. Rayment 18:51, 18 March 2013 (PDT)

You have your own responsibility to have correct knowledge about free will. The definition of decision is an obvious issue between us, I explained MUCH already why it is required that the word decision must have the logic that in the moment it can turn out A or B. Now I expect a final answer. And this is not asking for an explanation, like you continuously ask of me, but asking a final answer, it's not the same thing as you ask of me.

As I have already stated, your continued questioning on this particular issue is IMO reasonless, it is just that you want to hold on to original sin.

Obviously when I have related some interpretations of free will to nazism and the holocaust!, it is understood that we are arguing in a situation of moral peril. Your continued self-assumed innocense is much inappropiate, we are all affected with original sin, and this issue is where original sin plays a role.

I don't want anymore excuses from you, but really now a final answer to the question posed, is the definition of the word decision to have a logic that in the moment it can turn out A or B? --Syamsu 07:02, 19 March 2013 (PDT)

I agree that I'm not asking the same of you as you are asking of me. You are asking me to give a final answer without sufficient discussion, and I'm asking you to clarify various matters so I have a better understanding of your position. In my opinion, my questions are more worthy of an answer than your question.
I'm not giving excuses (another false accusation from you); I'm asking for explanation, which obviously you have no intention of giving, so, as I said before, further discussion is obviously a waste of time.
But to give a direct answer to what your semantically-distorted last sentence seems to be asking, my answer is no.
Philip J. Rayment 05:49, 20 March 2013 (PDT)

Thank you for your final answer. Your questioning of the semantics is another demonstration that you intend to never understand anything, except understand choosing to mean sorting out the best result. Your cognitive dissonance obliterates the meaning of anything outside your own definition of choosing, resulting in a flood of questions, and there is no reasonable hope that any argument will ever change that.

It is very obvious to anybody reasonable, which is not you, that only when we define choosing to be with 2 or more alternative results in the moment, that the definition of choosing is distinghuished from a logic of force. Cause and effect has just 1 neccessary result in the moment, and you propose to use the exactsame logic for describing freedom as what logic is used to describe force. Your fundamental definition of choosing as sorting out the best result (bicycle) is mentioned many times in the article already, in the section on politics, scientific fallacy, other views, etc. Your view certainly isn't neglected in the article, it is just treated as false. --Syamsu 08:31, 20 March 2013 (PDT)

Your edits such as renaming "future alternatives" to "from alternatives" is obviously designed with your idea of choosing in mind. Physical alternatives in the present, such as 2 differing organisms in natural selection theory, have nothing whatsoever to do with alternatives in the future. Since you openly admit not to understand the choosing being talked about, you should recuse yourself from editing.--Syamsu 08:45, 20 March 2013 (PDT)

I will admit that the Sheldon character has one personality trait of mad evil scientist pathology, among several personality traits, and is not just a mono-caricature of a mad evil scientist. But this is still close enough. --Syamsu 08:55, 20 March 2013 (PDT)

As I said, a waste of time. Your response includes a litany of accusations about me, typicaly the resort of someone with no rational argument to make.
I did not give you a final answer; I gave a specific answer to a specific question about whether a decision "can turn out A or B?", i.e. just two alternatives, yet you yourself admit in your reply that there can be more than two alternatives ("2 or more alternative results"). But of course you didn't want discussion (with which that detail could have been clarified), but a "final answer".
Philip J. Rayment 03:52, 21 March 2013 (PDT)

We should all take it to be Phillip's final answer, since he will never produce anything closer to a final answer than this. The relevant distinction is between 1 and 2 results in the moment, the distinction between 2 and, 2 and more is not at issue, so there was no need to mention it. Your accusation is mere bureaucratic formalism, to accuse of violation of a rule, without mentioning how the rule specifically applies in this case. My accusations are very specific.--Syamsu 04:21, 21 March 2013 (PDT)

The accusations are specific—and baseless. Philip J. Rayment 04:38, 21 March 2013 (PDT)

The final proof that Philip is reasonless, is that at the same time he insists on knowing what free will is, yet also refuses to give a final answer on whether a decision has 1 neccessary, or 2 or more possible results in the moment. You know what free will is, but you don't provide a final answer to what it is specifically. You say words which suit the occasion, to advance your reasonless prejudice. --Syamsu 05:45, 21 March 2013 (PDT)

Article Restored

I tried to restore the article (with Syamsu's work removed) - looking back and forth over edits from the others involved - and did my best to preserve everything. If some edit of yours is missing from the restoration, it was likely an oversight.

--Ashcraft - (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2014 (EST)