Google Answers Logo
View Question
Q: Free Will ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars,   10 Comments )
Subject: Free Will
Category: Science > Social Sciences
Asked by: airspace-ga
List Price: $100.00
Posted: 30 Jun 2005 10:39 PDT
Expires: 30 Jul 2005 10:39 PDT
Question ID: 538769
We have free will, and that can be defined as freedom of choice. Life
is Belief and choice. So where do our choices come from? (ALL OF THEM)
Subject: Re: Free Will
Answered By: adiloren-ga on 25 Jul 2005 17:55 PDT
Rated:5 out of 5 stars
Obviously I can not provide you with a definitive answer to this
question, but I can outline the debate.

Thought related to free will is evident in philosophy, science and
theology. I will attempt to isolate arguments from these fields.

Based on your question, I will operate under the assumption that human
beings have free will and focus attention on  from where human choices

I hope this helps. 


Free Will

?Free Will? is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of
capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among
various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the
fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated
this question for over two millenia, and just about every major
philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers
suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the
concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views,
is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible
for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on
responsibility as well, such as being aware?or failing that, being
culpably unaware?of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the
alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will
is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will
also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments
(why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the
autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love
and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1.)

Philosophers who distinguish freedom of action and freedom of will do
so because our success in carrying out our ends depends in part on
factors wholly beyond our control. Furthermore, there are always
external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try
to undertake. As the presence or absence of these conditions and
constraints are not (usually) our responsibility, it is plausible that
the central loci of our responsibility are our choices, or ?willings.?

Do we have free will?

"The majority view, however, is that we can readily conceive willings
that are not free. Indeed, much of the debate about free will centers
around whether we human beings have it, yet virtually no one doubts
that we will to do this and that. The main perceived threats to our
freedom of will are various alleged determinisms: physical/causal;
psychological; biological; theological. For each variety of
determinism, there are philosophers who (i) deny its reality, either
because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; (ii)
accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or
(iii) accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will.
(See the entries on compatibilism; causal determinism; fatalism;
arguments for incompatibilism; and divine foreknowedge and free will.)
There are also a few who say the truth of any variety of determinism
is irrelevant because free will is simply impossible."


"Determinism holds that each state of affairs is necessitated
(determined) by the states of affairs that preceded it, an extension
of cause and effect. Indeterminism holds this proposition to be
incorrect, and that there are events which are not entirely determined
by previous states of affairs."


"Some philosophers hold that determinism is at odds with free will.
This is the doctrine of incompatibilism. Incompatibilists generally
claim that a person acts freely (has free will) only in cases where
the person is the sole originating cause of the act and the person
genuinely could have done otherwise."

Moral responsibility

As incompatible with determinism:

"We generally hold people responsible for their actions, and will say
that they deserve praise or blame for what they do. However, many
believe moral responsibility to require free will. Thus, another
important issue is whether we are ever morally responsible, and if so,
in what sense."

As compatible with determinism:

"Compatibilists often argue that, on the contrary, determinism is a
prerequisite for moral responsibility ? you can't hold someone
responsible unless his actions were determined by something (this
argument can be traced to Hume and was also used by the anarchist
William Godwin). After all, if indeterminism is true, then those
events that are not determined are random. How can one blame or praise
someone for performing an action that just spontaneously popped into
his nervous system? Instead, they argue, one needs to show how the
action stemmed from the person's desires and preferences ? the
person's character ? before one starts holding the person morally

Compatibilist theories and the could-have-done-otherwise principle

"Many claim that, in order for a choice to be free in any sense that
matters, it must be true that the agent could have done otherwise.
They take this principle ? van Inwagen calls it the "principle of
alternate possibilities" ? to be a necessary condition for freedom."

William James on determinism and free will:

"But he did believe that indeterminism is important as a "doctrine of
relief" -- it allows for the view that, although the world may be in
many respects a bad place, it may through our actions become a better
one. Determinism, he argued, undermines that meliorism."


"Existentialism is a philosophical movement that views the individual,
the self, the individual's experience, and the uniqueness therein as
the basis for understanding the nature of human existence. The
philosophy generally reflects a belief in freedom and accepts the
consequences of individual actions, while acknowledging the
responsibility attendant to the making of choices. Existentialists
prefer subjectivity, and can view human beings as subjects in an
indifferent and often ambiguous universe."

"Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is
Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes and rules essence", which is
generally taken to mean that there is no pre-defined essence to
humanity except that which we make for ourselves. Since Sartrean
existentialism does not acknowledge the existence of a god or of any
other determining principle, human beings are free to do as they
choose. The most programmatic and straightforward statement of this
principle is in his 1946 lecture "Existentialism as a Humanism."

Since there is no predefined human nature or ultimate evaluation
beyond that which humans project onto the world, people may only be
judged or defined by their actions and choices, and human choices are
the ultimate evaluator."


Questions arising from the notion of free will are of critical
importance throughout the history of philosophical thought. If we
assume that we do indeed have free will and that it is represented by
our choices (as per your question) we must investigate what motivates
our choices.

Philosophically, the majority view is that we can conceive of choices
that are NOT free, but are impacted by external factors. However, if
we assume that free will is represented by choices that conform to the
"could-have-done-otherwise principle" mentioned above. Truly free
choices, according to incompatibilists, can not be subject to
deterministic factors. Thus, biological, physical/causal and
theological determinism is incompatible with free will in this view.
Choices must be made by the individual alone and can not be determined
by external factors.

"Incompatibilists think that something stronger is required: for me to
act with free will requires that there are a plurality of futures open
to me consistent with the past (and laws of nature) being just as they
were. I could have chosen differently even without some further,
non-actual consideration's occurring to me and ?tipping the scales of
the balance? in another direction."

Others believe that free will and a level of dererminism can co-exist.
Thus it logically follows;

" Conditional analyses of ability to do otherwise have been popular
among compatibilists. The general idea here is that to say that I am
able to do otherwise is to say that I would do otherwise if it were
the case that ? , where the ellipsis is filled by some elaboration of
?I had an appropriately strong desire to do so, or I had different
beliefs about the best available means to satisfy my goal, or ? .? In
short: something about my prevailing character or present
psychological states would have differed, and so would have brought
about a different outcome in my deliberation."

Existentialists argue that free will is available to all human beings
and is not directly impacted by causal influence which is too
incoherent and lacks clear deterministic direction. Each individual is
presented with a multitude of choices and they make decisions
independently. Thus, the choices emanate directly from the individual
and are not constricted by deterministic factors.

Further Reading:

Robert Kane: Reflections on Free Will, Determinism and Indeterminism

Thomas Hobbes: Causation Itself, Determinism, and their Compatibility with Freedom

David Hume: The Obviousness of the Truth of Determinism

Derk Pereboom: Meaning in Life Without Free Will

Galen Strawson: Free Will

Ted Honderich, How Free Are You?



Sciences have attempted to answer the question of whether free will exists:

"Throughout the history of science, attempts have been made to answer
the question of free will using scientific principles. Early
scientific thought often pictured the universe as deterministic, and
some thinkers believed that it was simply a matter of gathering
sufficient information to be able to predict future events with
perfect accuracy. While not mechanistic in the same sense as classical
physics, most current scientific theories are also deterministic, by
necessity ? it is a basic assumption of all scientific endeavours that
the future can be predicted. It is also difficult, if not impossible,
to write the mathematics for a non-predictive science."

Nurture vs. Nature:

"How important are genetics and biology in human behaviour compared to
culture and environment? Genetic studies have identified many specific
genetic factors that affect the personality of the individual, from
obvious cases such as Down's syndrome to more subtle effects such as a
statistical predisposition towards schizophrenia. However, it is not
certain that environmental determination is less threatening to free
will than genetic determination. The latest analysis of the human
genome shows it to have only about 20,000 genes. The information
content of which is but 2 or 3 megabytes (despite junk DNA, which may
really have almost no information content), implying that nurture may
be more important than genetic determinists used to claim."

Choices come from the brain?

"It has also become possible to study the living brain and researchers
can now watch the decision-making "machinery" at work. A seminal
experiment in this field was conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s,
wherein he asked subjects to choose a random moment to flick their
wrist while he watched the associated activity in their brains. Libet
found that the brain activity leading up to the subject flicking his
or her wrist began approximately one-third of a second before the
subject consciously decided to move, suggesting that the decision was
actually first being made on a subconscious level and only afterward
being translated into a "conscious decision", and that the subject's
belief that it occurred randomly was only due to their perception."

"The will has also recently become a target of empirical study in
neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Benjamin Libet (2002) conducted
experiments designed to determine the timing of conscious willings or
decisions to act in relation to brain activity associated with the
physical initiation of behavior. Interpretation of the results is
highly controversial. Libet himself concludes that the studies provide
strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the
agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our
actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the
ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious
psychoilogical structures. Wegner (2002) masses a much range of
studies (including those of Libet) to argue that the notion that human
actions are ever initiated by their own conscious willings is simply a
deeply-entrenched illusion and proceeds to offer an hypothesis
concerning the reason this illusion is generated within our cognitive
systems. O'Connor (forthcoming) argues that the data adduced by Libet
and Wegner wholly fail to support their revisionary conclusions."


Scientific analysis often opts for a deterministic perspective.
However, if we assume that free will is not subject to determination,
many scientist would argue that choices develop in the brain. It can
be argued that the brain is not entirely subject to determinism and
that its very structure allows for the individual to make decisions
only conditioned by the ability of the brain to processs such



In opposition to free will?

"The theological doctrine of divine foreknowledge is often alleged to
be in conflict with free will. After all, if God knows exactly what
will happen, right down to every choice one makes, how can one's
choices be free? God's already true or timelessly true knowledge about
one's choices seems to constrain one's freedom. This problem is
related to the Aristotelian problem of the sea-battle: tomorrow there
will or will not be a sea-battle. If there will be one, then it was
true yesterday that there would be one. Then it would be necessary
that the sea battle will occur. If there won't be one, then by similar
reasoning, it is necessary that it won't occur. This means that the
future, whatever it is, is completely fixed by past truths ? true
propositions about the future. (However, some philosophers hold that
necessity and possibility are defined with respect to a given point in
time and a given matrix of empirical circumstances, and so something
that is merely possible from the perspective of one observer may be
necessary from the perspective of an omniscient.)"

In Christian thought

"In Christian theology, God is described as not only omniscient but
omnipotent, which some people, but not most, (Christians and
non-Christians alike) believe implies that not only has God always
known what choices you will make tomorrow, but actually chose what you
would choose. That is, they believe, by virtue of His foreknowledge He
knows what will influence your choices, and by virtue of His
omnipotence He controls those factors."

Predestination and free will

"Proponents of the opposing view would make the point that knowledge
of a future happening is entirely different than causing the event to
happen. The definition of predestination varies among Christians. Many
hold that it does not imply that God chose certain people to receive
salvation and the rest have no chance of salvation, but rather, He
knows that not everyone will choose salvation, and He specifically
knows who will and who won't. The Bible says of God, "...God our
Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of
the truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-4, NIV)."

The Garden of Eden:

Some interpret the Garden of Eden story to demonstrate a theological
basis for free will. According to this interpretation, God gives human
beings the ability to freely make decisions. While God warns against
eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve
presumably have the ability to decide whether to eat from it and bear
the moral responsibility for doing so.

Although tempted by a serpent, it can be argued that Adam and Eve had
chosen consciously to eat from the tree and acquire the knowledge of
good and evil. Understanding good and evil allows for free will to
develop as choices are no longer meaningless and random but are
informed by morality.

Free will stems from the soul?

"Free will is important in the Catholic Church, St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinas being major early figures in the history of the
concept. Catholic Christianity's emphasis on free will and grace is
generally in contrast to the emphasis on predestination in Protestant
Christianity (see the link to Catholic Encyclopedia below for more).

Some philosophers believe that free will is equivalent to having a
soul, and thus that (at least some) animals do not have free will.
This is also the position of Jewish philosophy, which stresses that
free will (Hebrew: bechirah chofshith) is a product of the intrinsic
human soul (neshama); see further below."

In Jewish thought

Free will is key to justice:

"Free will is discussed at length in Jewish philosophy, firstly as
regards God's purpose in creation, and secondly as regards the closely
related, resultant, paradox.

The traditional teaching regarding the purpose of creation,
particularly as influenced by Jewish mysticism, is that "This world is
like a corridor to the World to Come" (Pirkei Avoth 4:21). "Man was
created for the sole purpose of rejoicing in God, and deriving
pleasure from the splendor of His Presence? The place where this joy
may truly be derived is the World to Come, which was expressly created
to provide for it; but the path to the object of our desires is this
world..." (Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Mesillat Yesharim, Ch.1). Free will
is thus required by God's justice, ?otherwise, Man would not be given
or denied good for actions over which he had no control? [1]. It is
further understood that in order for Man to have true free choice, he
must not only have inner free will, but also an environment in which a
choice between obedience and disobedience exists. God thus created the
world such that both good and evil can operate freely [2]; this is the
meaning of the Rabbinic maxim, "All is in the hands of Heaven except
the fear of Heaven" (Talmud, Berachot 33b)."

The paradox of free will and God's omniscience:

?The Holy One, Blessed Be He, knows everything that will happen before
it has happened. So does He know whether a particular person will be
righteous or wicked, or not? If He does know, then it will be
impossible for that person not to be righteous. If He knows that he
will be righteous but that it is possible for him to be wicked, then
He does not know everything that He has created. ...[T]he Holy One,
Blessed Be He, does not have any temperaments and is outside such
realms, unlike people, whose selves and temperaments are two separate
things. God and His temperaments are one, and God's existence is
beyond the comprehension of Man? [Thus] we do not have the
capabilities to comprehend how the Holy One, Blessed Be He, knows all
creations and events. [Nevertheless] know without doubt that people do
what they want without the Holy One, Blessed Be He, forcing or
decreeing upon them to do so... It has been said because of this that
a man is judged according to all his actions.? (Maimonides, Mishnah
Torah, Teshuva 5:5)"

Some claim that the decisions of human beings are foreknown by God

"Although the above represents the majority view in Rabbinic thought,
there are several major thinkers who resolve the paradox by explicitly
excluding human action from divine foreknowledge. Both Saadia Gaon and
Judah ha-Levi hold that "the decisions of man precede God's knowledge"
[3]. Abraham ibn Daud, Maimonides' critic, holds that in regard to
human acts, God limits his omniscience as well as His omnipotence.
Gersonides holds that God knows, beforehand, the choices open to each
individual, but does not know which choice the individual, in his
freedom, will make. Isaiah Horowitz takes the view that God cannot
know which moral choices people will make, but that, nevertheless,
this does not impair His perfection. See further discussion in the
article on Gersonides."


Thus, if we assume that free will exists, theologically we could
justify the claim by attributing free will to the creator, whom wished
us to make free choices. These choices could be argued to be derived
from the "soul".

However, claims that the soul is predestined towards good decisions or
evil decisions violates the concept of free will. The soul, then, must
be viewed as independent and fluid, changing based on the choices that
are made. Advocates of this view, argue that free will is a uniquely
human quality made possible by a higher power.


Personal musings:

I believe that people are capable of free will and this is only
subject to our biological ability to process choices. I do not believe
that people's choices are predetermined, as such a belief would deny
us all agency over our lives. I believe that personal agency can be
affirmed through experience. I can detect no clear causal pattern for
the choices I have made. All choices were made in response to somewhat
unpredictable circumstances.

However, choices are subject to certain factors. Biologically, our
brain is the center of our decision making abilities. Absent a brain,
free will is impossible. This begs the question; is the brain
programmed with a predetermined tendency towards specific decisions? 
I do not believe it is. The brain allows the individual to make
decisions based on a multitude of external factors that can not be
entirely predicted. Biological factors can effect the ability for an
individual to adequately make decisions.  This is evident by the
inability of people with certain neurological disorders to control
their choices. Obsessive compulsive disorder is a good example of

Theologically, I do not believe there is a higher power that has
foreknowledge of our choices as this, again, would nullify our ability
to truly make FREE choices. These choices would instead be
predetermined. It is consistent with the concept of free will,
however, to believe that we were created by a higher power with the
ability to freely make decisions and to have the ability to understand
the consequences of our decisions. Presumably, if we assume that a
creator does exist, our brains were created with the ability to allow
for free choice.

Thus, I believe that our choices stem from our brains and are subject
only to the ability of our brains to make free choices. To me, these
decisions are not subject to predetermination by external physical or
theological laws. Our ability to freely choose is limited by external
factors only in that these factors may impact the tendency to make
certain choices. However, I believe that there is no coherent system
of external factors, but instead a conflicting plethora of factors
that impact our choices. Therefore, while our decisions may be
affected by external factors, the choices are still our own.

I hope this helps. Please request clarification if I approached this
question the wrong way.

Good luck!
airspace-ga rated this answer:5 out of 5 stars
adiloren, this is more then I could have expected, I thank you much.
Although, as you know, this does not answer the question, for me you
have done a excellent job of presenting most, if not all, the relevant
understandings, and from all the pertinent points of view. I most much
like is that you gave a honest and heart felt summary from your own
point of view. I am about to go write and post a responce to paf on my
question under "everything". What I am going to write there very much
pertains to freedom of choice. As this is something I see you have
given thought to I would appreciate your further comments on what I
post there. I believe I understand your position on free will and this
I hope will be intersting food for thought for you. Look forward to
possibly reading more of your thoughts.

Thank you again,
And take care of you,

Subject: Re: Free Will
From: hardhat-ga on 30 Jun 2005 11:14 PDT
Subject: Re: Free Will
From: jack_of_few_trades-ga on 30 Jun 2005 12:48 PDT
This sounds like a Christian type question, so I'll mention the 3
categories that most Christians fall under for this question:
1) God (as HardHat mentioned so elloquently) is the creator of all and
the master of the univers.  He gives us free will and he gives us
opportunities to either follow him or to sin.
2) God set the world in motion a long time ago and whatever will be
will be.  People in this category range anywhere from God having no
hand in current events to God meddling in the world in many ways, but
not controlling it.
3) Satan provides us with every opportunity to sin we could ever
immagine.  Although God is all powerful, he gave Satan much power over
the earth.  Satan tempts us and tries anything he can to get us to

I myself find that each of these answers has something to add and the
bible clearly has examples of both God and Satan tempting people and
atleast seemingly people forging their own paths in the world.
Subject: Re: Free Will
From: pinkfreud-ga on 30 Jun 2005 12:55 PDT
There's some interesting discussion (but no official Answer) here:
Subject: Re: Free Will
From: cynthia-ga on 07 Jul 2005 18:51 PDT
I look at it this way. We have the past, the present, and the future.

The only power we have is in the present moment. We cannot change our past. 

We CAN affect our FUTURE by setting goals, and, as we live each
PRESENT MOMENT, we review those goals, and choose actions and
behaviors that will move us in that direction.

Without any plan, one simply moves through life, usually blaming
circumstances or people for their situation. That too, is a choice.

It's ironic that "Change" is the only constant in life. Choices come
along as little forks in the road, along with the invisible road
marked "make no choice."  We either make a choice, or not. Then,
because we experience time as linear, the opportunity of that choice
is gone, forever.

Our choices are based on the accumulation of our total experience in
life, mixed with fear, hope, regret and inspiration; ...goals, lack of
them, and most of all, the understanding of delayed gratification.

Where do they come from?  Habit: preconceived ideas,
closed-mindedness, or impulsiveness....  Our need to change.
Subject: Re: Free Will
From: airspace-ga on 10 Jul 2005 23:23 PDT
cynthia-ga, I am very pleased with your responce, it shows that you
are true to your understanding. These are your thoughts and they
display a caring person. And most of all I can see you understand and
seek understanding. I like everything you have said here and
understand you. Now I hope I can expand your understanding on a few
matters, please respond, I would like that. You talk of past, present,
and furture as difirent, and they are the same. And man does nothing
without choice. How I hope to help you understand these 2 things with
the use one example, time. You view time as linear, and I do agree it
does feel that way, but this is a choice as well. Time is a man made
tool for measuring passing, would you not agree? So it is your choice
to believe in this measured style of your life passing. Now not many
things are as difficult to understand as the passing of your mortal
existance, it seems like an eternity. Now try to consider how short it
is in actual comparsion to eternity, like we can measure it to begin
with, eternity that is. This poem, I recently have written to help
someone dear to me understand and better deal with the death of her 4
year old daughter, may help you understand the noexistance of time.

              THE DREAM

 Why must we begin where the other story ends?
 Why must tomorrow seem so alone?

 Why can't we start here where the story never ends?
 And know this day will surly always grow.

 Is the future a dream in which we all exist?
 Is tomorrow really ours to make real?

 Yesterday is not gone; we live it every day,
 Make no mistake it is who you are.

 But is it who you'll be, so is it who you are?
 You see it is a complicated place.

 If I am but a dream and this may be the case.
 Then touch so I know the dream is real.

 The dream it seems so real, I can feel it in your face.
 Your touch seems so to fill the emptyness.

 Then the past always creeps in, like a friend of old.
 To tell us who it is that we have been.

 And if it is who I am, because of who I was,
 Then the dream is not tomorrow after all.

 So if the dream is gone, which I think is where we are.
 Then I cannot change the past I face.

 Now if this is so, and so it may seem to be,
 Does this not make tomorrow but a waist?

 So we are in the momment, and is this not the past?
 For the past is what makes us who we are.

 And if we are in the moment, then the moment is all we have,
 To build a past that we all must face.

 So if we are to build a future in the past that is the moment,
 Let us not waist a moment to build now.

 And let us not forget, with the past we have built a future,
 So everything that was, we are, will be.

Good luck,
And take care of you.
Subject: Re: Free Will
From: cynthia-ga on 10 Jul 2005 23:43 PDT

Your poem touched my heart!

I know you will understand me when I say.. In the scope of eternity, I
believe THIS is the dream..

Linear time here, is only a hinderance now, a chosen perspective, a
filter. A challenge so to speak, as is physical matter and space, and
the perception of death as final, the end, when in my belief, it is
the beginning of reawakening, a rebirth to eternity.

Thanks for sharing your poem, if it's ok, I saved it to my hard drive.
I hope your friend found comfort in it's meaning.

Subject: Re: Free Will
From: airspace-ga on 14 Jul 2005 07:45 PDT
cynthia, read your responce sent chills though me, I thank you so
much. I feel hornered that you would wish to save this and please feel
free to shear it with everybody. One thing I believe in very strongly
about is that ideas are not ours to claime as our own. I feel very
fortunite to be given such understanding and also that such wonderful
thoughts can come through me. cynthia I am a pisces through and
through, so thrust me, I know my feelings well, feelings and thought
is what I am. This poem did help my friend, how could it not? But this
is what my experience has taught me. Knowledge does not change
feeling, even over time, but understanding eaises the mind. I know now
that understanding will take on a whole new form for you. If you
contemplate the things that are real in life new understanding washes
over you and it is truly an exhilarating experience
Subject: Re: Free Will
From: kevingarybutterfield-ga on 18 Jul 2005 21:46 PDT
Consider the garden of eden, Adam and Eve, before sin, could decide to
walk in a forest or in a meadow and you could say that those types of
choices come from God, but the choice to eat from the tree of
knowledge came from satan.  But also remember that if such choices
that are good will remain into everlasting life, which they will, then
remember that "what was, that shall be", Ecclesiastes(somewhere). So
if "choices" will be in everlasting life then they were before; with
God, who is good; and they will be after, with God. But, in the
present, which does exist, choices can come from either God the Father
or Satan. Your question is like where do words come from. Sorry I took
the bait. Even though this answers your question, if you believe in
the Bible, you dont have to pay me.
Subject: Re: Free Will
From: airspace-ga on 19 Jul 2005 01:00 PDT
Kevingarybutterfield-ga, Perhaps you should read from the previous
postings, on all my questions, before you start making yourself seam
simpler then you already have. First off you will Find that I have a
much more refined understanding of original sin then you perhaps have
had presented to you. To let you know this I will point out the small
missunderstandings you have choose to believe. To say that Satan gave
the choice to eat from the tree of knowledge would be to say that
Satan created the tree of knowledge for you to choose, correct? Now
eailer I stated the man is Satan, and here I will again show this with
butterfield's posting. If I choose to take this simple choice as
original sin then we have this. Satan difinetly tempts man into sin,
which is a choice. Well Eve presented the temptation to Adam, did she
not, so does this not show man as Satan? butterfield, if you choose to
read what I have written, please excuse the spelling. And feel free to
comment, I will read it.
Subject: Re: Free Will
From: bp05-ga on 26 Jul 2005 17:22 PDT
Dear Airspace,
Before I give my comment, I apologize for my limitation in my english. :-)
First of all I'm proud of you that you have a good question.

I'not trying to give you understanding about this big question.
Because I realize who I am. Perhaps you read 100 times more than I
read. But I would like to share what I understand regarding freewill
from my perspective.

I believe that our first parent (Adam and Eve) was created with
freewill FROM GOD. It is simply that man was not created by God like a
robot. God is not a dictator but He is God of love. As ilustration, I
have 3 daughters. I feel something better if they do something for me
not because I instruct them to do it, but because they love me and
they want to do something for me.

Freewill has the power (like "energy" you wrote), but has two
direction either positive or negative. Every decision we made and
every time we exercise our freewill, we will get the consequences.
Maybe we don't get it directly, but ultimately we will know if
decision we made is true or wrong.

As a man in our fallen nature,we have to realize our capacity and
limitation to understand God and His purpose in our life.
We deal with a mystery and infinity. The more we understand God the
more we realize how small we are.

Jesus is the model of Example in my life. As a human we don't have an
option to die, for we ALL must die. BUT Jesus who is God CHOSED to die
on the cross for us so that we can exercise again our freewill (that
our first parent failed). Infinite sacrifice and amazing love.

Regards, Bing

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  

Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy