If you have free will, then why are you not perfect? Why do you not always do what you believe is best for you?

If you have free will, then why are you not perfect? Why do you not always do what you believe is best for you? No one is saying that there is something outside of you that forces you to misbehave. But rather, the forces inside of “you” are not actually you, and are, like everything else, pre-determined by the laws of physics. If you were able to do everything that you rationally desired, then determinism wouldn’t even be an issue, but the problem is that you are far from perfect. If determinism is true, then this makes sense. Humans evolved to have certain behaviors that would allow them to survive, but they still make mistakes, especially as technology progresses and their desires become less adapted to their ever-changing environment. But if you really have free will, then why does it not seem so? Do you actually freely choose to harm yourself by not doing what’s best? If THIS is free will, then why do you defend it so stubbornly?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >if you free will why you no god, huh?
    sigh..

    • 4 weeks ago
      Destroyer

      Who or what is forcing you to sin? Why can’t you be perfect like Jesus? He also was a man, and was tempted. If free will actually existed, then why isn’t there a single person who always uses their free will to be perfect?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I have free will not unlimited knowledge, hence, I can make mistakes

        • 4 weeks ago
          Destroyer

          Then you are claiming that you act perfectly within your knowledge? That if you recognize something is sinful, you don’t do it?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That might be

          • 4 weeks ago
            Destroyer

            You have no sexual sins?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >free will literally means full control of all conditions within which you exist

        never post here again

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because of my sinful nature, duh

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Free will is like a boulder rolling down a hill, sometimes there is a hump in the hill and the boulder has no choice but to bounce up

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >free will is like [purely deterministic event]

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because that's not how I define free will

    • 4 weeks ago
      Destroyer

      How do you define it?

      >free will literally means full control of all conditions within which you exist

      never post here again

      How does that follow from what I said? How must you have perfect control of all conditions to simply stop watching porn? Or to stop any other sin?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The spirit was not meant for the flesh, that is the original sin and the fall. The flesh is why and none but the Christ and some few perfect such as Enoch have ever risen directly, but the Christ provided the way even though the sacrifice of the perfect God was a heavy price, thus demonstrating the love of God.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    Perfection does not exist, there is always the striving towards it.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Humans have finite willpower and unless you are an extreme outlier this will prevent us from consistently acting optimally, even if we knew how to do that at all times. We rationally know that we should exercise and eat healthy, but doing so would require trading short term pleasure for short term suffering with the hopes of better results down the line, results that can often be hard to discern - eating something delicious immediately gives a measurable reward but if you improve your diet and have 3% more energy then that is much harder if not impossible to notice, unless the results are something like fixing your back pain through exercise. In my opinion the best you can hope for as a determinist is to acknowledge that your actions are the result of different factors, and while some of them are out of your control there are some that you CAN influence in order to steer your behavior towards what you rationally want to end up. You can make sure you're not hungry while doing your groceries in order to minimize the risk of purchasing snacks, or if you really want to exercise then you can make things easy for you by preparing your gym bag, bringing a snack to work and calling up a gym bro - meeting 2/3 of those conditions could be the difference between you skipping a workout or going to the gym, and they're all very easy to do.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because free will is not infinite, it's free

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If you have free will, then why are you not perfect?
    your free will is only as valuable as the genetics that make up your physical embodiment. you are predetermined to be/act a certain way if you're, say, less intelligent than most.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why exactly would free will imply that it’s possible for people to be perfect?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Destroyer

      If you have choice, then why would it not be possible to always make the choice that you believe is best for you? Why would you ever choose anything else? The real question is this: if we have free will, then how is it possible to be imperfect?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You’re not really answering the question. There’s no reason to think that if people had free will, it would be possible for them to always make the best choice.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Destroyer

          You know that exercise is good for you. You create an exercise routine. But when the time comes… you choose to be lazy instead. How could this happen if free will exists? Are you freely choosing to do what you know is worse for you in the long-term? What’s so good about free will if it performs no better than deterministic biological algorithms subject to evolution? Free will would mean controlling your desires and ruling over them at all times. You say that you have free will when you do anything good, but this just means that one desire was stronger than the other. That should be expected even in determinism. But the odds of the most beneficial desire being the strongest all the time are virtually zero, and yet this is what happens in reality. No one is able to maintain perfection. Everyone gets lazy. Everyone knowingly chooses the bad option from time to time. This is not proof of free will, but the absence of free will. If you wanted to prove free will, then you would simply need to be perfect for a significant stretch of time.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How could this happen if free will exists?
            If people have free will, they’re free to make bad choices. I’m not sure what about this you find so confusing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Destroyer

            Bad choices are more easily explained by a deterministic universe. Moreover, the odds of always making good choices in a deterministic universe are extremely low, allowing a perfect opportunity to prove that free will exists. It seems as if your defense is:
            >free will is real but it just so happens to be limited in the exact way we would expect if determinism were true
            At that point free will just means making decisions, which is what every animal and AI can do.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You haven’t given any reason for thinking that we should expect people to make less bad choices on the hypothesis that they have free will.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Destroyer

            It’s not easy to make logical deductions from the assumption of free will because it is such a poorly defined concept, but it seems to contrast with determinism. The simple fact is that this world is easily explained by determinism and evolutionary biology. But the idea that we have some sort of soul with free will that can control the flesh has no proof. If the world actually operates this way, then we should expect to see more people overcome the flesh 100% of the time. Not only would it be in your best interest to do this, but it would prove free will at the same time. And yet no one is able to do it. Proof that we are slaves to physics. Our desires were predetermined before we were even born. Sometimes they work in our favor, but not always.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The concept of free will doesn’t have anything to do with “controlling the flesh.”

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Feel free to define it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            People have free will just in case they’re the source of their actions and they have the ability to do otherwise.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Destroyer

            That definition applies to all animals and even AI.
            >could have done otherwise
            meaningless, unfalsifiable nonsensical phrase that doesn’t help the discussion in any way.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > meaningless, unfalsifiable nonsensical phrase
            It’s a common definition of libertarian free will in philosophy that like everyone understands, so if you think that it’s nonsense, that just seems to be a problem with you. Perhaps you should read a book on the subject.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Destroyer

            It’s completely unfalsifiable. There’s no way to test it because you can’t rewind time. And even if you could, it’s not as if that would prove anything regardless of what happened. A simple way to prove free will is to be perfect (because apparently you COULD have been perfect). So then be perfect. Stop watching porn and fapping and doing drugs and procrastinating and eating junk food and wasting time on IQfy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again, you have not given a single reason to think that people could be perfect if they had free will.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You literally just said that it means you could have done otherwise

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And how exactly does that imply that people can be perfect? Give us the argument with premises and a conclusion.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I decide to stop smoking because I’m addicted. Three days in I smoke a cigarette. Could I have done otherwise? If I have free will, then yes. Ok so I could have gone 3 days. But then 4 days in, I decide to smoke a cigarette. Could I have done otherwise? If I have free will, then yes. Extending this into the whole future and all possible sins and addictions, then having free will means that you can choose to never sin or do what you think is bad for you. Otherwise, this means that you don’t have free will in those moments of weakness. Your turn.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your conclusion doesn’t follow. The fact, for every day, there is a possible world where you don’t smoke, does not entail that there is a possible world where for every day you don’t smoke. That’s just a quantifier shift fallacy. The fact that you can refrain from smoking on each day just doesn’t entail that you can do it on every day.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s simple induction. If I cannot do it every day, then it follows that there must be some point at which I am literally unable to quit smoking. So in that moment, I don’t have free will. But why would it turn off and on? And how would you even know if “it” turns off and on?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t see how that’s the case. Every time you’re faced with the option of smoking, there’s a possible world where, at that time, you choose not to smoke. There just may not be a possible world where you make the same choice every time you’re faced with the option.. All libertarian free will says is that the first thing is true. But you just can’t infer the one from the other.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > But you just can’t infer the one from the other.
            Yes you can, it’s simple mathematical induction. At t=1, can I make the best choice? If yes, I have free will, if no I don’t have free will. What about t=2? If I have free will, then I can make the best choice, and be cigarette-free for two moments in time. If I have free will in every moment, then it’s clear that at every moment in time t, I can choose not to smoke, which means that I can quit forever. If you actually are trying to argue that there isn’t necessarily a possible world where I quit forever, then there must be some moment t at which I failed, at which we can ask if I had free will in that moment. If I did, then why did I fail? Would I have failed at t+1? And t+2? Ad infinitum.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If I did, then why did I fail?
            Well there’s just not gonna be an explanation for that if you have libertarian free will. If there was a complete explanation for why you chose A rather than B, then your choice would be determined.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao
            >prove a parallel universe
            If you think hard enough then…
            Nothing entails anything and nothing is real. There is a modicum of assumption needed to exist in reality.
            Or else close your eyes homie nothings even real hahahaha

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If you have free will, then why are you not perfect?
    because Im not omnipotent.
    although in PURE theory, everyone could live life sinlessly. In practice, they don't, because they are not omnipotent.
    they are physical creatures subject to physical lusts which tease their rational mind. Note that at no point (for most people) does their rational mind go away. You have to consciously ignore your conscious to sin. Again if you were omnipotent you could overpower the physical lusts with the will every time perfectly.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      with this framework, the incarnation of Christ basically squares the circle; God as man, subject to the temptations originating in the flesh but able to resist perfectly and never come into condemnation.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      with this framework, the incarnation of Christ basically squares the circle; God as man, subject to the temptations originating in the flesh but able to resist perfectly and never come into condemnation.

      So… if it is impossible for humans to be sinless, why do we deserve to suffer in hell?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        because bad things are bad
        and because salvation is legitimately 100% free by believing in Jesus.
        do note that the framework of
        >everyone sins
        >theoretically you could be sinless
        is shared by quite a few people (Muslims, Catholics, and others), but without the free gift of Jesus' atonement it makes no sense.
        It always devolves to a series of autistic rituals and a constant coping that
        >yeah... I'm good "enough"

        John 3:16 IS the summation of the Gospel. Everyone's heard it so much though they gloss over what it's saying. It's whosoever believes is saved.
        Because Jesus lived a perfect life and is perfectly righteous; he took on our sins and paid for them (in Hell), and the third day rising again signaled they were paid in full. Him being both God and Man is a requirement for all this.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *