Free will?

[OldTrees]

If he dose not disrupt free will then he would not want to be seen taking physical action either.

Huh? I can influence an event without disrupting free will. Why do you claim god would not want to influence events (which is possible without disrupting free will) merely because god does not want to disrupt free will?

[furballdn]

This is not philosophy at all. This is discussing religion. Why isn't it in that section then?

[Dm]

This is not philosophy at all. This is discussing religion. Why isn't it in that section then?

Started with philosophy, barely grazed the religion and is back into philosophy.

Also, you can't be the one to arbitrarily decide the line between religion and philosophy.We can discuss religion under a philosophic sense, therefore placing a religion discussion under the philosophy section.

[Furby]

Let's assume God to be a God who doesn't really see morals...and for the sake of argument, only when 2 people pray.

Example: killer prays for a kill and victim prays for safety. Would God choose to not interfere here?

[OldTrees]

Let's assume God to be a God who doesn't really see morals...and for the sake of argument, only when 2 people pray.

Example: killer prays for a kill and victim prays for safety. Would God choose to not interfere here?

Isn't this off topic?
No matter if god interferes for either side or does not interfere, god can do so without affecting Free Will.

[Zso_Zso]

Indeed, what is free will ?

You have a choice and make a decision. But if you chose the more logical / easier / more beneficial option, then your "choice" was in fact predetermined by the logic you followed.
If you made a choice on the whim of your mood at the moment, it was still determined by your chemical and hormone balance you had at the moment, so it was again in a way predetermined, i.e. if one had the complete knowledge of your brain state, your choice could have been predicted.

Off:
Even if you flip a coin to make a decision, the actual force you flipped, the physical properties of the coin, the air movement etc. would allow for precise calculation and determination of the results -- thus it isn't random.
On

So, Free Will would have to be defined as something that a single person decides to do and is not restricted / prevented by other people to do so. So we have to ignore that the person's thinking itself is determined by his/her logic and/or brain chemistry.

[OldTrees]

@Zso_Zso
I think I agree with what you are saying but to make sure, I will say my position.

Either you are hiding Free Will in the choice of logic to apply to the decision or you are using the Determinism model. I do not think it would be productive to redefine Free Will merely to make it fit in a model that intentionally excluded the original definition. So if we are using the Determinism model then we should not redefine Free Will. If we are hiding Free Will in the choice of logic to apply to the decision then Free Will remains in the model using its original definition (the ability to make choices that are not predetermined).

I would like to add that the evidence for Determinism continues to mount however our ethics are primarily based in the assumption of Free Will.

[Furby]

Let's assume God to be a God who doesn't really see morals...and for the sake of argument, only when 2 people pray.

Example: killer prays for a kill and victim prays for safety. Would God choose to not interfere here?

Isn't this off topic?
No matter if god interferes for either side or does not interfere, god can do so without affecting Free Will.

Not quite. You see, God has the choice either way in this case and that is a problem I see in this case. If I had my way, I would ask if God never interefered. The person has free will to pray to God and so does the other person. It is God's free will to answer as he chooses, but if he chooses to answer only 1, cannot one argue this is a choice of favoring someone over the other based on things, like ZSO pointed out, logic. If that is true, it seems your free will will get it's way more often if it is moral in God's eyes. Morality would then affect everyone's decision: not forcing them to change their will, but will heavily influence.

Heavy influence can sometimes change free will to predetermined will.

[Kress]

2 words: "jonah" and "whale"
:I thought this was in the religion section

but, to get into the scientific aspect of it, no. we dont have free will. as i have been thinking about for a long time, we all are born with an increadibly large and complex algorithm

[OldTrees]

Let's assume God to be a God who doesn't really see morals...and for the sake of argument, only when 2 people pray.

Example: killer prays for a kill and victim prays for safety. Would God choose to not interfere here?

Isn't this off topic?
No matter if god interferes for either side or does not interfere, god can do so without affecting Free Will.

Not quite. You see, God has the choice either way in this case and that is a problem I see in this case. If I had my way, I would ask if God never interefered. The person has free will to pray to God and so does the other person. It is God's free will to answer as he chooses, but if he chooses to answer only 1, cannot one argue this is a choice of favoring someone over the other based on things, like ZSO pointed out, logic. If that is true, it seems your free will will get it's way more often if it is moral in God's eyes. Morality would then affect everyone's decision: not forcing them to change their will, but will heavily influence.

Heavy influence can sometimes change free will to predetermined will.

Have you heard of the word "Try"? Yoda was wrong. There is no Do or Do Not there is only Try or Try Not.
I cannot choose to convince you. Rather I can choose to "Try" to convince you. This choice to "Try" is evidence of my Free Will regardless of whether I succeed in convincing you or not. So unless the influence makes the decision for the Will, the Free Will is not disrupted even if its goals are prevented.

[Furby]

That answered none of my questions.

[OldTrees]

That answered none of my questions.

It was correcting a possible misunderstanding in your post. Influence that is not mind control will not disrupt Free Will. This correction answers most of the questions in the opening post. (The rest being theological and best left to BluePriest or similar and not I)