To What Extent Does Free Will Exist?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"determinism vs free will"???? There is a whole class of conceptions of free will (so-called "compatibilist" ones) that holds that determinism and freedom are compatible with each other. I suppose this discussion should be focused from the outset that the conceptions of freedom at issue are incompatibilist ones? That's too bad, since the compatibilist conceptions are pretty much the only coherent ones.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Could it be simplified even more so a redneck moron like me could understand?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Could it be simplified even more so a redneck moron like me could understand?

"Could it be simplified even more so a redneck moron like me could understand?" Ron, you exercised your volitional free
will by deciding to post this reply requesting help; you could have decided to ignore the thread, which would have been a negative rather than a positive free will decision. Free will coexists with God's Sovereignty in human history. -Bob

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It's good to set aside the specific example for a while, partly because the example is controversial and also, are we discussing a difference of genetics versus conditioning versus "free choice of a morally accountable soul" (I think none of those) or is it a metaphysical issue?

I would like to ask questions that your title word "extent" make me think are relevant. Of what is our will free? Of what must our will be free in order that we consider it "free will"?

A typical answer is, it need be free of coercion, meaning no one has a gun to your head or the head of a loved one. I think this answer is inadequate, as someone could say you can choose death.

So, of what, or from what, is a free will free?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Could it be simplified even more so a redneck moron like me could understand?" Ron, you exercised your volitional free
will by deciding to post this reply requesting help; you could have decided to ignore the thread, which would have been a negative rather than a positive free will decision. Free will coexists with God's Sovereignty in human history. -Bob

Posting the OP in the Spirituality forum was a choice freely made, which has consequences. 🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Could it be simplified even more so a redneck moron like me could understand?" Ron, you exercised your volitional free
will by deciding to post this reply requesting help; you could have decided to ignore the thread, which would have been a negative rather than a positive free will decision. Free will coexists with God's Sovereignty in human history. -Bob

Yes I know that, but is that what you think Duchess64 means?

Originally posted by JS357
A typical answer is, it need be free of coercion, meaning no one has a gun to your head or the head of a loved one. I think this answer is inadequate, as someone could say you can choose death.

Of course. Otherwise it cannot be free will. If one chooses "not God", does one not choose death?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Of course. Otherwise it cannot be free will. If one chooses "not God", does one not choose death?

I meant choose a bullet in your or your loved one's head.

But the principle is the same. Of what is our will free, if we choose God over not-God or vice versa?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I know that, but is that what you think Duchess64 means?

"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but he cannot determine
what he wills."
--Arthur Schopenhauer (OP)

Postulating a convoluted sentence may be a gently provocative tactic to stimulate varying opinions (just a guess).

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I guess one could call that coerced free will.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I would say if there is such a thing as free will from a metaphysical/philosophical POV, her will was free in that respect (again, I said if) -- but of course I would say legally speaking, on its face her acquiescence was not a free will act of consent.

I would say if she put herself in an innocent-looking situation where a reasonable person would feel safe, and was drugged and essentially comatose or not under her own muscular control during the act, it was neither a metaphysical/philosophical free will act, nor (of course) a legally free will act.

I believe this thread is not going to go in an direction that interests me so will lurk and see.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but he cannot determine
what he wills."
--Arthur Schopenhauer (OP)

Postulating a convoluted sentence may be a gently provocative tactic to stimulate varying opinions (just a guess).

I don't think Schopenhauer spent much time on the gentle stimulation of varying opinions.