Free Will

[POI]

Varying viewpoints and positions exist, when discussing the topic of free will. Recently, The Tanager and I had a brief discussion regarding this topic. Rather than going over the 'whole' of what the term "free will" (may or may not encompass), I instead wanted to hyper-focus on one particular aspect.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines free will as: "Free will is the capacity for agents to make choices uncoerced by external forces, allowing them to be the authors of their own actions and hold moral responsibility."

The same source views coercion as: "Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act against their will through the use of threats, intimidation, physical force, or psychological pressure. It is used to compel compliance, such as obtaining a confession, forcing a contract signature, or controlling behavior, often involving threats of harm or misuse of authority."

For debate: Does the Bible present any level of coercion? Is this why so many folks apply Pascal's wager, in that they are in the Jesus-camp (just-in-case)? Does the Bible god violate free will, in this aspect, in any capacity?

When parsing this scenario out, let's apply a modern example. A group of Christian missionaries travel abroad to a remote area where many/most/all may not have heard of a Jesus. The Christian missionaries present and preach the words of Jesus to these uninformed folks. "Project conversion" is not going as well as hoped. One of the Christian missionaries, in a last-ditch effort of conversion, decides to quote Mark 16, and tells them -- "the ones who believe in Jesus will be saved, and the ones that do not believe will instead be condemned."

The Bible also speaks about negative outcomes for disbelief in other areas of the Bible too. We can cross those paths as needed.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #60]

You are half right, in that you issued a (false premise). Please keep re-reading the question, until you stop seeing it through your narrow lens, and then answer once you get what I am actually asking. (Forth request):

How is the above proposition really any different than a mob bosses' proposition?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #61]

I've answered twice. You've dismissed both answers without engagement. The question is rhetorical because you won't accept any distinction I offer. The looping is now engaged. I'm moving on.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #62]

Please do move on William. Your extremely narrow lens is blocking you from entertaining the scope of my actual question to you here. And I do not wish to parse it out for you, as it will ultimately do nothing to change the overall result, in that under the Christian umbrella, "we do not have free will unless the apologist defines this term as a greatly limited choice, where the only alternative(s) choice(s) would seemingly be worse than picking him." Which is exactly why I bought up the mafia boss proposition. Even as bad as the mafia boss may be, the alternative choice(s) are even worse, which is exactly why most comply with the mafia boss. The option(s) list is loaded to pick him, no matter what.

I'm not sure you really understand my position and all I ask is that you read my exchange with The Tanager, if you are truly interested. Or better yet, re-read post 21 in it's entirety. When I actually decided to engage you seriously again, (in post 21 of this thread), you ignored much of it. Like it or not, where the topic of both 'free will' and 'belief' is concerned, we likely possess more similar views here than not. However, you are haphazardly picking at whatever you think you can play 'gotcha' with, instead of addressing the "whole" of the topic, for which we likely agree upon, more than we disagree.

Like I stated from the jump, I'm addressing a very specific element of 'free will.' And I understand that free will is a vast topic, as evidence by the differing direction(s) being argued by yourself and others here.

Anywho, I guess we'll just move on...

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #63]

POI, in Post #63 you state we likely agree more than disagree on free will and belief - but do we? You argue that a choice with a catastrophic alternative is functionally compulsory. I argue it remains a choice, because two alternatives exist. That is a fundamental disagreement, not a minor difference. You also suggested I might be a Christian in disguise, which suggests you view any defense of theistic reasoning as bad faith. That assumption may be why you dismissed my answers to your mob boss analogy without engagement. If you want to find actual agreement, you need to engage what I actually argue, not what you assume I believe.

Here, I am not saying you HAVE to - but that you haven't so far.

So I am happy to leave things where they are - but do try and remember - this is not the one on one forum, so while your main focus might indeed be in continuing with your part in the looping dynamic with Tanager at the cost of having to also deal with other posters - I will continue to watch and add context re that dynamic...like I did in the last thread you and he were at it.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #63]

POI, in Post #63 you state we likely agree more than disagree on free will and belief - but do we?

Yep.

You argue that a choice with a catastrophic alternative is functionally compulsory. I argue it remains a choice, because two alternatives exist.

It's not REALLY much of a choice now though, is it William? I mean, you are given one option, and then another option or options in which you know virtually no one would ever pick, because they would completely suck. It just as well is "compulsory". So again, please stop with the 'gotcha' technicality shenanigans and go after a real disagreement. And in this topic, I don't know that there really is a fundamental one between you and I.

You also suggested I might be a Christian in disguise, which suggests you view any defense of theistic reasoning as bad faith.

I've explained why I think this. Please re-read your "AI response" from post 25 of the 'Justice" thread and tell me that ain't bad Christian apologetics 101? Unless you wish to now tell me that you weren't/aren't really on board with those arguments? Because the only one backing <those> arguments are Christians.

That assumption may be why you dismissed my answers to your mob boss analogy without engagement.

I was waiting for you to reach the "aha" moment on your own, but I instead had to ultimately later spoon feed it to you.

If you want to find actual agreement, you need to engage what I actually argue, not what you assume I believe.

I already did in post 21. You ignored some of it.

So I am happy to leave things where they are - but do try and remember - this is not the one on one forum, so while your main focus might indeed be in continuing with your part in the looping dynamic with Tanager at the cost of having to also deal with other posters - I will continue to watch and add context re that dynamic...like I did in the last thread you and he were at it.

But I tried to engage you, in areas where we already agree, and you ignored it and instead went after me later, which demonstrates you did not really read or retain what I stated in post 21.

[POI]

Second response, to demonstrate how you are harping on the wrong micro-sub-topic(s) here.

You argue that a choice with a catastrophic alternative is functionally compulsory. I argue it remains a choice, because two alternatives exist.

To be more into your lines of responses, I asked "AI" a question. It's a topic I already somewhat raised with The Tanager, if you were actually paying attention or following along, but felt I never really needed to give it more 'legs' with him, as our exchange went a differing direction:

Q: In the United States, is the law to pay your taxes a compulsory proposition?

A: Yes, the requirement to pay taxes in the United States is a compulsory legal proposition, not a voluntary one. While the U.S. tax system is often described as operating on "voluntary compliance," this phrase does not mean that paying taxes is optional.

****************************

And yet, I DO have options. Alternative choice 1) I can jump into a lake of fire, which would immediately absolve me from the "compulsory" proposition. Alternative choice 2) I could flee the country and remain on the run. Alternative choice 3) I could tell the government "no", until they arrest me. Alternative choice 4) I could consult a tax attorney and fight. Etc etc etc.........

My point to The Tanager here, is that the Bible god's compulsory/coercive proposition is even more limited than the other propositions we also get pushed up against us, such as receiving a draft notice, being prompted to pay taxes, etc.... And not only is the Bible god's proposition more limiting, but the only given alternative option is complete a$$.

Now please re-read the debate question.

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled program now....

[William]

POI - Post #1: This post argues that biblical threats of condemnation for disbelief amount to psychological coercion, which could compromise free will and motivate pragmatic religious affiliation like Pascal’s Wager.

William - Post #15: This post refines the definition of free will by distinguishing between general external forces and willful external forces, then reframes the core question as whether God—as a willful agent—uses biblical threats of condemnation to coerce belief against a person’s will.

William - Post #19: This post argues that the original post is structurally biased through incompatible definitions, loaded missionary examples, and unfounded assumptions about Pascal’s Wager, then contends that under a corrected definition (excluding non-willful external forces), God’s threat of condemnation does not constitute coercion because belief cannot be forced, unbelievers act according to their will, and fear cannot manufacture genuine conviction.

POI - Post #20: In this post, POI conditions further engagement with William on a simple yes/no answer about whether William wants to be held to the same level of accountability as other discussants, citing prior frustration over perceived evasion and an unresolved disagreement about AI-generated content from another thread.


POI - Post #21: POI responds point-by-point to William’s bias critique, agreeing that no one is neutral, acknowledging the definitional issues while clarifying his target, rejecting William’s corrected definition on the grounds that genuine belief cannot be willed—thus arguing that God’s threat of condemnation is coercive only if belief is a choice, a premise POI himself doubts, which creates a double bind for the theist.


William - Post #25: William argues that the loop-de-loop in debates signals where discussion should end due to irreconcilable positions, and he frames the original post’s definitional bias as a trap for good-faith participants, adding that his own continued posting serves an observer role to expose that dynamic rather than to win the argument.

POI - Post #26: POI dismisses William’s meta-critique as cherry-picking and self-contradictory, accusing him of ignoring prior points, hiding a Christian-leaning bias behind claimed agnosticism, and strawmanning the original post, all while sarcastically rejecting William’s self-appointed observer role.


William - Post #45: William argues that the threat of hell cannot coerce genuine saving faith because belief cannot be forced—producing only outward compliance, which God would reject—so hell functions instead as a revelation of the heart’s state rather than a coercive tool.


POI - Post #46: POI reminds William that he already agreed in Post #21 that genuine belief cannot be forced, clarifies that his original post was directed at The Tanager (who believes belief is a choice), and suggests that even if belief isn’t a choice, requiring compulsory allegiance to God still violates free will.

William - Post #48: William presses POI to clarify the mechanism of compulsion, asking how “choosing God” can be compulsory if genuine belief cannot be forced and the threat of hell fails to produce actual faith.


POI - Post #49: POI answers that choosing God is compulsory for the human because the only presented alternative is hell, regardless of whether genuine belief can actually be forced.

William - Post #53: William counters that offering two alternatives (heaven or hell) means neither choice is strictly compulsory, since genuine compulsion would require only one available option.


POI - Post #57: POI argues that offering multiple bad alternatives (e.g., choosing God, annihilation, or eternal torment) still involves compulsion because a choice must be made under threat, and he asks again how this proposition differs from a mob boss’s ultimatum.


William - Post #58: William rejects POI’s comparison of God to a mob boss as a false equivalence and challenges POI to recognize the distinction himself, implying that a list of differences could be provided if necessary.


POI - Post #59: POI repeats his question for a third time, insisting that William answer it directly as asked rather than dismissing it as a false equivalence or rhetorical.

William - Post #60: William reiterates his false equivalence charge, distinguishes between a mob boss’s arbitrary violence and God’s stated consequence of rejecting existence, and challenges POI to demonstrate why he sees no distinction—otherwise the question remains rhetorical.


POI - Post #61: POI dismisses William’s response as based on a false premise, insists William is misreading the question through a narrow lens, and makes a fourth request for a direct answer comparing God’s proposition to a mob boss’s.


William - Post #62: William states that he has answered twice, accuses POI of dismissing both replies without engagement, declares the question rhetorical, and announces he is ending the exchange.


POI - Post #63: POI accuses William of having a narrow lens that misses the core point—that Christian propositions load the choice in favor of God by making all alternatives worse, similar to a mob boss’s ultimatum—while noting they likely agree more than disagree on free will and belief, and suggests William read Post #21 and the exchange with The Tanager.

William - Post #64: William challenges POI’s claim of broad agreement, insisting that the distinction between “functionally compulsory” (POI) and “still a choice because alternatives exist” (William) is a fundamental disagreement, and clarifies his role as an observer adding context rather than a bad-faith Christian apologist.


POI - Post #65: POI doubles down that he and William largely agree, dismisses William’s insistence that two alternatives constitute a real choice as a “gotcha” technicality, reiterates his suspicion that William’s AI-generated arguments in another thread reveal a Christian apologist bias, and claims he already engaged William’s points in Post #21 which William ignored.

POI - Post #66: POI uses the U.S. tax requirement—ostensibly compulsory yet still offering multiple bad alternatives like fleeing or arrest—to argue that the biblical God’s proposition is even more coercive and limiting because the only given alternative (hell) is catastrophically worse, reinforcing his point about functionally compulsory choices.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #52]

POI, I’ve already responded to the points you are repeating, so it looks like this one is coming to a close as well. If you want to go over more of the topics we talked about, choose one and let me know about it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #54]

I did not say that God saying “I will harden his heart” is a prediction. I did share that the Biblical text uses the word for prediction at other times throughout the narrative of these events. And Jewish and Christian commentators have disagreed throughout history on what it means that Pharaoh/God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

I agree God works to soften/open/turn our hearts, but that also is not in a coercive way for the same reasons I’ve been sharing about the hardening.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #54]

I did not say that God saying “I will harden his heart” is a prediction. I did share that the Biblical text uses the word for prediction at other times throughout the narrative of these events. And Jewish and Christian commentators have disagreed throughout history on what it means that Pharaoh/God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

I agree God works to soften/open/turn our hearts, but that also is not in a coercive way for the same reasons I’ve been sharing about the hardening.

WHat I am attempting to point out is that the God amplifies the condition. Whatever we think of or visualize onto the God - that is what is reflected back.

On an individual level...even...