RobE
New member
themuzicman said:Not sure how you can take intentional action without deciding to do so first.
You can't. I just wanted to point out as you did in a previous post that action and decision are separate issues. This would allow me to point out that God foreseeing the action in no way would disallow the contingency of the decision and would satisfy your definition of free will.
Well, if you can only do one thing, then you aren't free to do anything else. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
This would seem simple. The problem comes in since free will doesn't require you to do anything else. It only requires you to be able to do the thing you want to do.
So, God isn't free to sin. What's the big deal?
The big deal is that we foreknow that God isn't free to sin and we also know that God is all-powerful which would tell us that God is able to sin if He wanted to. The two seem to contradict each other. The question becomes is God able to do otherwise where sinning is involved. God is the ultimate free will agent capable of doing anything within His own power. Certainly we are able to sin and God is able to do anything we can. Yet, He is unable to sin. According to your definition of free will, then God is unrighteous because of His inability to do otherwise where sinning is involved. That is if you believe that righteousness is achieved through the rejection of sin through a free will choice.
I considered this line of reasoning and realized that God must remain righteous even though He hasn't the ability to do otherwise. This brought me to the conclusion that doing otherwise is not a necessary component of freedom within our will.
To be honest, I don't get how you can call being a robot "free".
I'm not sure what this means or why you wrote it. Maybe a little elaboration.
Rob