Free will

傳教 面對生死的無奈時 請選擇快樂與慈悲 這是和平友愛之道 當哀愁吞噬理智 請不要選擇遺忘 因晨起時仍有星 和通往幸福的路

有一個說法是：全能的上帝能預知每個人的未來，於是未來是既定的，因此人們並沒有自由意志；如果上帝給予人類自由意志，則未來不是既定，則上帝不能預知未來，則上帝並非全能，不知各位有甚麼高見，我則不信有上帝（不管祂是否全能），而我認為我們皆有自由意志。

TO Ricky 聖經密碼對近十多年的預言而不正確了！你知道嗎？

Ricky 同意。 上帝 = 聖誕老人，要懷著赤子之心去相信！

我並不相信聖經，更何況聖經密碼？究竟康慈君提出聖經密碼與本題目(Free will)有甚麼關係？

唔好理康慈，佢成日都九唔搭八！

康慈's free will Re: 我並不相信聖經，更何況聖經密碼？究竟康慈君提出聖經密碼與本題目(Free will)有甚麼關係？ 康慈just illustrated her/his "free will" to say whatever she/he wants disregarding whatever topic it is.

康慈正在應JoeJoneS之邀寫緊康慈密碼 信康慈的，請信埋康慈密碼

試答 到底free will 是"甚?"一回事？ free will根本不是一回事。 free will 有幾free? free as it will free will有幾limit? limit free 白痴有冇free will? 去問問這個問題的人吧。

free will is the most famous method to get around the problem of evil. But can free will really does its job? Is nature disaster always a consequence of free will? Can the all-powerful God give us free will but avioding disaster? either he can and he can't. if he can, he choose not to do it. i think he is kind of ignorance. if he can't, he is not omnipotent.

When attacking the idea of God with the problem of evil, it usually starts with the question that why God didn’t create a prefect world without evil. Human beings are suffering from the consequence of evil. Thus, we imagine a prefect world and blame God for not bringing us in. Clearly, we are comparing two worlds, one with evil while another without. And we are in the worse one. The free will theory explains why God not just simply put all of us in the better world. That is, in the world with evil, we have the free will to choose whatever the way we live. Christians claim that only if people can choose to do either good evil thing can be described as true free will. Then, another question rose. We are suffering, why do we still want free will? The answer is obvious. Without free will, we would live like a robot. In this case, we can see the assumption that with free will is better than without. And thus, God create human being with free will. And this is the problem of free will. God chooses it for us. God believe free will is a good quality and hence innate it into our genes. We never have a chance to decide not having the free will. Hence, free will means no choice, which is contradict to it’s own definition. Free will is not we choose to have but given by God. So, we are not the one to choose to live in this imperfect world. Moreover, what is the reward for believing in Christianity God? You are heading toward heaven. Heaven is a place where there is only happiness. There are no people doing evil thing in heaven. So, is there any free will to those people in heaven? First case, we assumed not, which means we are working toward a state of no free will supposed that people are prefect in heaven. Then, back to original question. Why God doesn’t create human beings with prefect attributes? Thus, it doesn’t solve the problem of evil really. Second case, they have the free will, but they all choose not to do so. Why? Because in the heaven, they can’t do it even they choose to do it. Thus, the environment in heaven doesn’t allow them to do evil things. And that is a lack of free will because there is free will only when we have the ability to choose doing evil and actually being able to do it. That actually means no free will at all, which is exactly the same outcome as in the first case. Third case, people in heaven have all kind of freedom to do evil things but still choose not to do it. For this assumption, most people will wonder how could they manage not to commit crime. How are they different from people on earth? If there exists such kind of human beings, why didn’t God create us with this ability? Forth case, people in heaven are basically the same as us, whom will commit crime. This contradicts to the definition of heaven. Plus, if there is no difference between the world and heaven, there is no need for us to immigrate to heaven. Someone may argue that disasters are the consequence of human free will. For instance, the global temperature increases because we cut out too many trees. Thus, we should be the one who suffer. However, not all of us suffer our own action. Some innocent people suffer as well. What happen to the babies who are born with aids? Did they do anything wrong before they were born? If the tragedy happens due to original sin, that means, evil has nothing to do with free will. In an earthquake, does all good man survive? Thus, the nature evil neither doesn’t reward people who did good thing nor punished those who actually commit the evil. As a result, there is only one explanation for saying that disasters are the consequence of human free will. We, as a whole unit, suffer from what we, all human beings, did. Then, there should not be any individuals heading towards the heaven since not all of us believing in God (this is an obvious fact that need not to be argued). So, this explanation not very less likely to be valid. Moreover, Some people are not really willing to commit crimes. Back to the days when food is not enough for people to survive, people can only steal to keep themselves or their relatives alive. That is, the environment makes them to choose. There are so many different factors affecting his/her decision. Therefore, I’ll not consider as free to choose their own action. And if I were benevolent and have the power to control everything, I would probably not punish them as God does right now. If God knows everything, do we still have free will? Free will means we are free to choose. However, God knows everything. He even knows the future. This contradicts the meaning of free will. If one is free to choose, he/she can change his/her mind until the time he/she actually does it. In other words, everything is changing. His/Her action is a variable rather than a constant. Nevertheless, God knows what’s happening to every single human being. That is, he knows whether you will drink coffee or tea before you make your decision. For instance, he knows that you will have a cup of tea tomorrow. Then, could you have a cup of coffee instead or drink two cups of tea? If the answer is yes, that actually tells us that God doesn’t really know everything. So, what if the answer is no? The result would be an absence of free will at all. Some may argue that we still have free will. It is our own mind to choose to drink a cup of tea. Nonetheless, this sentence only makes sense if you redefine the term “free will” from normal understanding. Gods knows everything. He also knows what you will choose. If he knows you will choose to do your assignment “A”, then no matter what you do, you will be free to do assignment “A”. Does this really equal to what mean for the term “free will”? Even worst, he would predict someone’s action and say it explicitly. Jesus has once said, “This very night, before the rooster crows, [Peter] will disown me three times.” If you were Peter, what could you do? Peter declared that even if he has to die with Jesus, he would never disown Jesus. But what actually happened? Peter did disown Jesus three times. Was this really what Peter want to do? I doubted that is the free will of Peter. Hence, free will cannot co-exist with God’s omniscient. The only way to explain why there is evil by using the term “free will” is to say that human beings have free will only if they can choose from doing good and evil things. After that, people prompt the term free will by saying that if there was no free will at all people are acting like an robot. These two sentences are fine individually. However, they are not when used together. The first sentence has a misleading message that there are only one evil and one good choice. Thus, if we eliminate the evil choice, we are left with only one option. After that, we may conclude that we are living like a robot. Nevertheless, is there only one selection is correct while the rests are evil one? Obviously, this is an incorrect assumption. The free will theory looks fine only if it is put into two separate sentences. If we summarize it this way, we are living like a robot without having evil choice, and then most people will disagree with this argument. Furthermore, we would not worry about not having the choice to do evil things if we had never experience it. Does people in the past not having a chance to use a computer consider as without free will? There might actually has more than just good and evil thing in the world. How could we be sure that we really have the freedom when we can only do good and evil thing?

"True" Free Will "Christians claim that only if people can choose to do either good evil thing can be described as true free will. " This is an too extreme definition of free will. In a world without evil, people still have the free will to choose different kinds of living. A world is without evil only because the people living there do not perform evil acts. They do not perform such acts not because they do not have a free will or they are robots. They behave because they have the wisedom to perform good acts. If god is so capable, his products (humans) should possess such wisedom. For example, a worker mounted a wheel to a car, however due to a mistake by the worker, the wheel get loosen and the car crashed. Can the worker explain by saying that he intended to allow "true" free movement of the wheel? The saying of "true free will" is no better than this worker's ridiculous excuse.

Thanks to Aquinas, Kant and Lightwave You provide us very sound argument against Christian's explanation of evil and free will.

free will not to do evil Possessing the wisdom not to do evil implies possessing the free will not to do evil. But possessing the free will not to do evil can only be valid /true if there is free will to do evil.

欠組織的談少少freewill 本人認為，所謂“free will”，其實是人類之精神領域獨立於大自然定律的一種非反射性、帶有意識的能動性思維生產物。 所謂“非反射性”動作，就是指這動作不帶「自動性」或「被動性」，而只帶「主動性」。要做到「被動性」的先決條件，是要有「自我」這一概念。因為必須有「我」，作為「我」，才能生產「我」的東西。而這個「我」在生產時的手段與目的必須相一致，「自我」概念才算真正成立。否則，在手段與目的不一致的情況下，這個「自我」顯然在某地方被扭曲了。 人，一方面歸屬於大自然，身體發展受很多不變定律嚴格限制。但另一方面，人的思維，卻可以說完全不受外界影響，獨立於大自然，創意意念脫離定律，因而相當free。但有幾free? 愈非反射性就愈free， 愈有「自我」概念就free上加free。 感覺肚餓，「想吃食物」這個will，可以是free(productive)，也可以是not free(reflective)。問題在於，「決定吃」是因為「我要吃」，還是「身體似乎要吃」。 相反，在一般情況下，感覺肚餓卻仍然「不想吃、不要吃」這個say NO 的will，則有更大機會是free will。因為這will明顯是抗拒了「肚餓」這一身體感覺，will被「我」行駛著，衝被了「非我」的東西。 「free will」有幾free? 我認為，「free will」主要有兩大limit。 Will能有的多樣性總和，我不敢說是「無限」，但以我們對量的認知來說，卻明顯是天文數字，接近「無限」。 正如我叫"free will"一詞，經我有意識生產，也可以任意變成willfree、fwillree、illfwree、abc、魔鬼...太多太多，接近無限個terms。 第一個是，我地自己limit自己。 當我們心理不夠健康的時候，很容易將「自我」有所扭曲。一旦「自我」被扭曲了，「我」不再是「我」，「我」(有意識)不再是行駛will的司機，「非我」(無意識)開始凌駕了「我」(有意識)，「非我」取代了「我」成為新一任行駛will的司機。「非我」的will是反射性而且是無意識的，它一點都不free。 第二個limit，則存在於我們的客觀世界或dimension。有些東西是可以超越我們人類創意的，例如在二度空間的"人"要想出「高」的概念是異常艱難得近乎無可能的。 「白痴」可能蘊含「缺我」的意味(我不清楚)，如「白痴」真的「缺我」，這個「白痴」沒有free will。大膽些說，這個「缺我」的「白痴」在will的能力上，只如一頭狗：非完全理性、完全非生產性。

free will and self "「白痴」可能蘊含「缺我」的意味(我不清楚)，如「白痴」真的「缺我」，這個「白痴」沒有free will。大膽些說，這個「缺我」的「白痴」在will的能力上，只如一頭狗：非完全理性、完全非生產性。" To my understanding,「白痴」cannot be regarded as 「缺我」. A person is mentally regarded only because his IQ is below a certain threshold. Even the decisions they make could be stupid or hard to explain, those decisions are indeed made by themselves, right? Are those decisions in any way comparable to the heartless decisions made by robots? I don't think so.

free will = wisdom? "But possessing the free will not to do evil can only be valid/true if there is free will to do evil." I wonder what are meant by "free will not to do evil" and "free will to do evil". The term "free will" already covers the possibility of will to do any possible things, including evil and good ones. So we can say: "But possessing the free will not to eat cakes can only be valid/true if there is free will to worship the god." (just for kidding purpose :p)

歌迷之Freewill 假若李博士與康慈皆是天王級歌手，情況恰如當年之黎天王與劉天王；而你，是李博士的忠實Fan屎，而碰巧你又混在康慈Fan屎當中，你本來有衝動對全世界講出李天王的歌藝最好，奈何......，除非你係五行欠.........!!! 此時此刻，唔讚李天王係你的Freewill，公開讚李天王都係你的Freewill，但是，因“懼怕”而放棄選擇後者，是否仍是Freewill呢？

歌迷之Freewill BECAUSE Freewill is not equal to Freedom If you are afraid of being beaten, so you did not say what you like to say, it is still your free will not to say it (subject to environmental consideration) eventually. Free will is still valid. Freedom to exercise your free will may be suppressed or adjusted involuntarily or voluntarily.