Talk:Free will/Archive 1

message: Why did you revert that, and even more so, why call it vandalism? Seemed like an acceptable ex. link to me. Sam [Spade] 00:55, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: One possible response to the problems of an omniscient God and free will is "open theism." This position holds that God does not know the future because, quite simply, the future does not exist. That contrary to science fiction, the future is not "out there," waiting for us to live through it. And so, with this position one can espouse a God who knows everything there is to know, including all the millions of possibilities/alternatives that the future holds, but he does not know the future because the future, not existing, is not knowable.
In the case of a divine prophecy, it is not that God knows all the future, but that he knows that he will bring this or that to pass, and so, as the all-powerful God, that much is indeed certain and determined.
A further problem with Calvinism is that the Bible is clear that "God is not willing that any should perish." Of course, Calvinism's "double predestination" (i.e., some predestined to heaven, others to hell) falls prey to this scripture, along with scriptures that indicate that one can have their name removed from the Book of Life.
A wholistic view of scripture seems to indicate that some events are predetermined...and some are not. This permits God to predestine some to salvation, without predestining anyone to hell. That is, some are free to choose, and while their choice may take them to hell, it would not be because God preferred it in the sense of forcing it to happen.
I removed this because it seems to be rather biased, uses too many religious terms without explanation or reference, and is a very incomplete argument in any case--probably outside the scope of this article. Perhaps it could be moved, along with a more thorough discussion, to a separate article.
::I don't know who you are, but receive a grateful ("amateur") theologian's thanks.  It is incredibly biassed against one particular view of theology.  It also bears mentioning that this is dangerously close to falling foul of the no original research policy, as it's an extremely limited minority which holds this position.  Seems like someone was out to cause trouble.  Wooster 16:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology 

message: In Christian theology, Adam ate the fruit that God forbid him to eat, and was thus practicing his free will. He chose evil instead of good, because evil was available. However, since evil is not supposed to exist in heaven, that means that there will be no choice to do evil, and we will have lost our free will. In other words, there is no free will in heaven given that condition.
Take a look at Alvin Plantinga's work.
: Not everyone thinks of "free will" as meaning "equal possibility of contrary choice".  Some might say that they would be free for the first time ever, if they were never again inclined to choose what is contrary to his will.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Free of what, Mark? I find this question intriguing. If indeed God allows free will, meaning the freedom to make our own choices, then why would that change in an afterlife? Heck, ignoring the "evil" part, what happens when I get bored of singing and dancing after four hundred years and decide to make some "free will" choices for myself? Maybe play pranks on others, tell some bad God jokes or run around buck naked? Basically, if free will made me the person I was when I died, why would I become someone completely different for the rest of eternity? Please don't answer that I won't be interested in doing any of those things...because you know darned well we ALL will after several thousand years. --Metron4 00:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would change in the afterlife because we have already made a choice, the choice to do God's will.  Those people who get to heaven will have found God's will to be prefferable to their own and therefore constantly choose His ways.  Also, isn't heaven supposed to be a perfect place? How can boredom (an imperfection of earthly life) exist there? 216.99.65.10 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I would have you define "perfect". Then explain how all human emotion and feeling would simply be a "non-issue" because Heaven is supposedly perfect. What distinguishes me from the rest of the "happy robots" running around up there? If being yourself got you into Heaven, why would you cease to be yourself? Invasion of the Body Snatchers anyone?--Metron4 22:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Free will in heaven?

message: there is nothing here about whether the issue of moral responcibility has any real place in law. Which is something that has been debated to great leangth.
It is often argued that the law doesn't simply punish people because they did something moraly wrong, and therefore determinism/free will is irrelevent. 
For example, sentences are usually given with other things in mind: the article on punishment lists Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Incapacitation, Restoration and Retributive justice as reasons for punishment. And, arguably, none of these are influenced by the determinism debate. Just because a person had no responcibility for their actions, doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to prevent them from commiting a predictable crime in future, or that we shouldn't give apt retribution for those that were wronged.
(edit)I didn't add anything myself because this is on the featured articles list, and i didn't want to mess anything up :)
--220.240.173.96 03:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  moral responcibility.