I think defining what we're talking about is important to reaching an understanding. Defining our personal nature would be an integral part of the free will discussion. Why are you avoiding it? Because under what you're alluding to, we all have a set nature that is all inclusive and identical. Everything that is possible for us to do is natural to us is the end of that philosophical road and I disagree with it. To answer your question about distinction, It wasn't a 2 sided distinction. I was just outlining 2 of the many parts that were factors of self-identity I was using as an example.

With regards to the OP I think I clearly defined why I feel there is free will in Heaven. If you don't want to get into a lengthy discussion about consciousness, defining free will and the nature of self I can understand. I've had a few of those elsewhere in threads and they can be time taxing. Honestly I probably couldn't invest the inordinate amount of time necessary to discuss it thoroughly. I've enjoyed the conversation thus far though and I appreciate your civility and the lack of de-railers in the thread. I'm willing to continue to discuss as far as you're wanting to discuss it though despite the fact I think we're moving beyond the OP's intent.

-Dave

I think in a conversation between an atheist such as myself, and a christian such as yourself, the only person referring to a fixed or set nature would be the christian. Isn't that an integral part of the mythos about our relationship with god and how we were created, what we were created to do/be etc? I don't have a list of commandments, or cosmic moral codes, nor do I buy into the notion that we were created for any purpose, or created with any set attributes, like "his likeness", or really anything that the myth implies. To me, our nature is what we can observe ourselves andf others doing. Why should it be something else, on what basis can we make claims about that "something else"? If you asked me "what is human nature?" I'd say, "hey, lets go take a look."
(Why would we all have " a set nature that is all inclusive and identical", what part of anything I've said would imply that I believe this to be the case? Could we, under the christian viewpoint, all have unique "natures" completely unrelated to each other?)

You could probably make a list of "unnatural things" that people do, but that would require that you differentiate and set metrics based on what exactly? Averages in the population (or do you have some other metric, and is it falsifiable)? What distinction is there between what we can do and what is in our nature to do? Can we do something "unnaturally", what would that even mean? Could it be that some things are "instinctual" or "natural" and others are taught (self sacrifice being one example maybe?). Well, isn't it our nature to pass information along through means other than genetic code? Up to and including complicated social structures and morality? Is it really against our nature to sacrifice ourselves for others? Is free will being used here as a positive descriptor? the act of doing something good against our "nature". You start this whole thing by talking about our "nature", but how does one get from our "nature" to all of this? How does any of this support the claim that there are souls, with free wills, that reside in heaven? Now, why, supposing that there were free will, would it need to be something beyond the ability of our own brains? One mechanism for every other type of thought, and another for "free will"? What is there for me to avoid here? I'm not seeing it.

I don't know if this is beyond the op's intent. The question is free will, you're giving an argument to support that such a thing (and I suspect such a thing as described by a complicated set of assumptions) exists in the first place. Which would be nice to establish, since we're otherwise talking about an unsubstantiated something residing in yet another unsubstantiated something, which is residing in yet another unsubstantiated something. Bit of a russian doll scenario, freewill ->souls ->heaven.

Now, a question I have to ask here, I understand that you feel that logic supports your conclusions about heaven, free will, the entire bit. Would you be comfortable with the claim that internally consistent fiction (or really any notion that could be made "logically consistent with itself") represents a credible claim to truth? Dracula, Star Wars fan fiction? You seem to want to imply that science is insufficient for this inquiry and logic does a better job, but why? It would seem that in this example particularly the kinds of problems one runs into with logic become even more pronounced. Is everything that appears to be logical, internally consistent, or supported by whatever axioms a person begins with equally truthful? So, it says in the narrative that there was a rebellion in heaven. Clearly an indicator of free will(as you define it). But was there a rebellion in heaven? Does heaven exist? Is free will required for rebellion? Does free will exist? Obviously the text would seem to imply free will to you, but Salty here has informed us that there is a sort of mental barrier involved (except that it wouldn't really be a mental barrier, would it, separated from our physical brains. It's a magic barrier in a magic place set by a magical being to control lesser magical beings). She can probably make this claim logically consistent with her overall god narrative. Why would her claim be less truthful than your own? I'm assuming "logically consistent" wouldn't cut it for you. You'd want textual evidence right? Well I want evidence too, and unfortunately the text is under considerable amounts of very strong scrutiny from every angle. To be clear, I don't think that there is a heaven to have free will in. Nor do I think the thing being described as free will, or our "nature" or our "moralilty" exists as described by those who wish to attach a god to the claim. I'm also completely certain that the god being invoked does not exist as described. Exactly what part of this narrative is supposed to be convincing and well supported by evidence? How can we throw away global floods and keep lengthy and detailed descriptions of gods wants or desires, or our own internal "spiritual composition"?. The point I'm trying to make here, is that there is more than likely an immense set of assumptions that led you to the conclusion that such things existed, and those assumptions aren't something we're likely to see eye to eye on.

I also take issue with your suggestions for questions we "should be asking". The last two questions are being asked, and quantified. Adding the first to that list appears to me to be an attempt to gain some credibility or respect by association with the other two which I feel is unwarranted. The first question and the other two aren't even in the same ballpark. Why ask such a question (that has been asked countless times and tested countless times) when that particular area of research has been consistently unfruitful and stands in direct opposition to what empirical observations we have made regarding the subject? Why not go all the way down the rabbit hole with a "turtles" explanation, each mind having a mind behind it, natural>supernatural>hypernatural..... ad infinitum? Why have you stopped just one layer in at exactly the point that would appear to agree with the "scriptural position"? Once you've opened those floodgates can't I just continue to assert that there are more and more layers until you're tired of talking to me? Where does our spirit consciousness arise from, and the consciousness of that? And if we invoke a creator, where does his consciousness arise from, and then where does that "hyper-cosmic" consciousness come from?

(I used to have a lot of free time on my hands to sit around lazily thinking up questions like these uninterrupted)

I like Dracula a whole hell of a lot more. I would actually read that for pleasure.

@Rhythm
I appreciate the time you've dedicated to the conversation. I'm not aware of salty's claims, nor do I have the time to review what she has claimed and give my interpretation of it. I also have to say that I have real questions about the intent of any substance monist, especially one that doesn’t believe in free will, would have any comment in this thread at all. Firstly I’ll address assumptions, then the other points:
1) The assumptions here are not complex. The topic is “Is there free will in Heaven?” That assumes, for this discussion , that there is a Heaven, there is free will and by default I assume the Christian flavor. That further assumes that the Christian concept of a soul would exist in Heaven. I stopped there because those are the parameters of this discussion. If you can’t accept the parameters of the question as a possibility, then I don’t know why you’re even discussing it.
2) Fixed nature- I am a substance dualist. I believe we are more than the sum of our biological processes. I also happen to have a Religious belief that defines what that extra is. These aren’t the topics of this conversation, but I’m happy to discuss them with you elsewhere.
3) I’m agnostic on most topics, so I don’t believe in truth as a realistic or achievable goal, especially in the realm of the immaterial. In that realm logically consistent and indicative, even if just subjectively, would be sufficient for possible or personal truth.
4) You asked for a study that showed free will. I listed the first one I had reviewed. It shows free will is logically possible and indicative. I did that because you had a problem with free will, despite me asking you to define it (I’m fairly certain I did ask, or at least intended to). It’s a moot point because free will is covered by the assumptions of the discussion.
5) If you would like me to or would like to we can continue the discussion, but I feel this is a good place to set some definitions. Define a soul, define Heaven, define free will, and define a soul. That seems like a good place to get a more structured conversation going, if you’re interested still.

If you enter Heaven then you will no
longer need to reference any negative
characteristics such as pride lust jealousy
or envy. Would be superfluous to requirement
You would therefore not be human or at least in
psychological terms but on a higher spiritual or meta
physical plane. The nearest equivalent to that that already
exists would be consciousness raising through meditation. But
would however be more subtle and advanced than that. If I was
God there would be no way I would allow humans entry into Paradise
without a serious alteration in their basic psychology. Altruism would be
the order of the day. Shame that He did not implement that a bit earlier on

(November 9, 2011 at 7:18 am)twocompulsive Wrote: If you enter Heaven then you will no
longer need to reference any negative
characteristics such as pride lust jealousy
or envy. Would be superfluous to requirement
You would therefore not be human or at least in
psychological terms but on a higher spiritual or meta
physical plane. The nearest equivalent to that that already
exists would be consciousness raising through meditation. But
would however be more subtle and advanced than that. If I was
God there would be no way I would allow humans entry into Paradise
without a serious alteration in their basic psychology. Altruism would be
the order of the day. Shame that He did not implement that a bit earlier on

Just three quick points.

First, you are aware that most, if not all, altruistic acts have a self serving component.
Links on request.

Second, you seem to think that the human characteristics you have shown are completely negative. I would argue that within each of these, perhaps at a lower intensity that we normally give those characteristics, there is something that feed their positive counterparts. IOW, to kill the negative also kills the positive. The ancients, as well as today, may have known this and that is why they had a tree of good and evil and not a tree for good and another for evil. They say the duality and interwoven-ness of those characteristics. Separate

Third, In heaven, if you are always doing God’s will, how could you know that you have a free will of your own, without ever testing or using it. How could you know that you were an autonomous entity without ever doing anything autonomously?
You could not. Catch 22.

Rather like A & E in Eden.

Regards
DL

(November 9, 2011 at 3:38 am)tackattack Wrote: @Rhythm
I appreciate the time you've dedicated to the conversation. I'm not aware of salty's claims, nor do I have the time to review what she has claimed and give my interpretation of it. I also have to say that I have real questions about the intent of any substance monist, especially one that doesn’t believe in free will, would have any comment in this thread at all. Firstly I’ll address assumptions, then the other points:
1) The assumptions here are not complex. The topic is “Is there free will in Heaven?” That assumes, for this discussion , that there is a Heaven, there is free will and by default I assume the Christian flavor. That further assumes that the Christian concept of a soul would exist in Heaven. I stopped there because those are the parameters of this discussion. If you can’t accept the parameters of the question as a possibility, then I don’t know why you’re even discussing it.
2) Fixed nature- I am a substance dualist. I believe we are more than the sum of our biological processes. I also happen to have a Religious belief that defines what that extra is. These aren’t the topics of this conversation, but I’m happy to discuss them with you elsewhere.
3) I’m agnostic on most topics, so I don’t believe in truth as a realistic or achievable goal, especially in the realm of the immaterial. In that realm logically consistent and indicative, even if just subjectively, would be sufficient for possible or personal truth.
4) You asked for a study that showed free will. I listed the first one I had reviewed. It shows free will is logically possible and indicative. I did that because you had a problem with free will, despite me asking you to define it (I’m fairly certain I did ask, or at least intended to). It’s a moot point because free will is covered by the assumptions of the discussion.
5) If you would like me to or would like to we can continue the discussion, but I feel this is a good place to set some definitions. Define a soul, define Heaven, define free will, and define a soul. That seems like a good place to get a more structured conversation going, if you’re interested still.

1- I can accept the parameters as a possibility but before we wax on too deeply about any of it it would be nice to establish that these things actually exist outside of this discussion as well.

2-So what would be the situation between us then? Is it you or I that argues for a fixed nature? On what basis do you make your claims, as I've explained the source for my own (observation of human beings and their behavior, without invoking the supernatural or arbitrary definitions of "our nature") If we have a fixed nature of any sort that would be verifiable wouldn't it? That's a claim that can be falsified, which I like. (if you feel that this topic deserves it's own thread by all means do so, it would be a welcome relief from the carefully crafted nonsense we usually get)

3-"Personal truth" sounds entirely too permissive to have the word "truth" attached to it. Anything at all can be a personal truth. The guy who wears tinfoil hats and built himself an alien survival bunker is working on a "personal truth". It's unsatisfying to me, but to each his own. What immaterial realm are you even referring to here? How can one be agnostic and then give us a rundown of an "immaterial realm"? The amount of knowledge you would have to possess to have a meaningful conversation about this would be staggering. You're proposing a shadow world, that somehow mimics our own and is overlaying or underlaying to our own, that interacts somehow with our own. If souls can see, why do we need eyes? If souls can hear or sing praise, why do we need a mouth or ears? If souls are the seat of consciousness then why do we need our brains, or any of our biological machinery? I think these concepts are much more elaborate than you've presented them as. Those are the staggering amounts of assumptions I'm talking about.

4-Right, but those aren't my assumptions. You know the old saying about assumptions. I'd like to see things demonstrated before I give any weight to a claim (or at least be assured that they could be demonstrated were I so inclined). Again, free will may be logically possible if the variables in the argument are correct, the premise and assumptions. But are they?

5-This is the core of my objection. I could define "snartleblartfest" but that doesn't make it any more real or plausible as an actual thing. Not everything that we've dreamt up exists in reality. A question was asked as to whether or not there is free will in heaven(I understand the op was willing to go down the rabbit hole by those assumptions). However, after so many answers from deists, theists, atheists etc I want to see the meat in this sandwich. Is there any? In any case, my definitions for these things should be apparent. Nonexistent relics of human superstition born out of ignorance and commendable amounts of imagination. Is this definition suitable to you? Because that's what these things appear to be from every observation we've been able to make on the subject. If it isn't suitable, why not?

(edited to for niceness)

(November 9, 2011 at 7:47 am)Greatest I am Wrote:

(November 9, 2011 at 7:18 am)twocompulsive Wrote: If you enter Heaven then you will no
longer need to reference any negative
characteristics such as pride lust jealousy
or envy. Would be superfluous to requirement
You would therefore not be human or at least in
psychological terms but on a higher spiritual or meta
physical plane. The nearest equivalent to that that already
exists would be consciousness raising through meditation. But
would however be more subtle and advanced than that. If I was
God there would be no way I would allow humans entry into Paradise
without a serious alteration in their basic psychology. Altruism would be
the order of the day. Shame that He did not implement that a bit earlier on

Just three quick points.

First, you are aware that most, if not all, altruistic acts have a self serving component.
Links on request.

Second, you seem to think that the human characteristics you have shown are completely negative. I would argue that within each of these, perhaps at a lower intensity that we normally give those characteristics, there is something that feed their positive counterparts. IOW, to kill the negative also kills the positive. The ancients, as well as today, may have known this and that is why they had a tree of good and evil and not a tree for good and another for evil. They say the duality and interwoven-ness of those characteristics. Separate

Third, In heaven, if you are always doing God’s will, how could you know that you have a free will of your own, without ever testing or using it. How could you know that you were an autonomous entity without ever doing anything autonomously?
You could not. Catch 22.

Rather like A & E in Eden.

Regards
DL

Disregard my previous and run with this
instead : Heaven is a metaphysical state and
therefore cannot be explained by the antiquated
methodology of human thought commonly referred
to as logic. You know how quantum mechanics makes
zero sense yet is true. Well multiply that by infinity and for
infinity and you will have got nowhere at all in comprehending
what it is. Is so way beyond human interpretation that it would be
akin to expecting a baby to understand everything that ever was and
will be in a nano second after it is born. Off the scale is putting it mildly
[ am letting my imagination go wild here since none of this is true given that
it cannot exist but interesting nevertheless to see what your response would be ]

Not worth my time as you might just return with a third view.

Regards
DL

(November 6, 2011 at 3:43 am)IATIA Wrote:

(November 6, 2011 at 3:26 am)Faith No More Wrote: I have been trying to think of this issue from a theist point of view, and I have to say that I can't see how there is free will in heaven. After all, it has been repeatedly stated that the human ability to commit evil is the price of god allowing free will. It is also said that in heaven we have the inability to commit evil acts. So either one must concede there is no free will in heaven or that evil is not a byproduct of free will.

But the angels must have had free will to deny god. I think god learned it's lesson and to qualify for heaven now, they must be those that will not exercise their free will.

My opinion is that freewill is defined by choices. Often people like to use the choice to commit evil as the main representation of freewill, when the choice to not commit evil also represents freewill. Really, the choice to obey or disobey is what it comes down to, because by disobeying one is choosing to not regard the command of another, but this does not always result in evil. For example, a woman tells a child to put a stick down, the child walks away. This is the use of freewill, but the choice has not resulted in evil, nothing sinful happened, it is not a sin to ignore strangers, it is not a sin to refuse to obey people you do not trust and there was no restriction in freewill, the child could have kicked the woman, could have yelled, could have cried, there are plenty of options. My point here is that freewill means to have more than one choice.

Concerning freewill in heaven, there will be more than one thing to do, praising God will be a big part of it, but worshipping God by doing what he has assigned for us will also be a big deal. We already work hard now to do his will, it'll be a hundred times better in Heaven when we're able to know God's will and achieve it well.

We will have knowledge of evil because if we did not, we would not be able to understand what God saved us from and why the people that chose to separate themselves from God are not present. If we did not have knowledge God would not have to wipe tears from our eyes or comfort us. We will remember evil, but in our new state we will be like minded with God, aware of the things that destroy and ruin, which is sin and the idea of ruining the perfection that God has created will be ridiculous to us...really, the idea of creating sin all over again is ridiculous even now. You see, we (believers) have waited our whole lives to see the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the place where he declares there will be peace, joy, love, forgiveness and righteousness. For one of us to make a choice that will create the evils of Earth all over again will be...stupid. God will remove Lucifer (and his followers) so there will be no deceit waiting to confuse us into making sinful choices. People who desire to live for God will never choose to recreate the Earth we've left behind because we remember our mistakes, but people who desire to live for themselves will choose sin over and over, which is why they will not be there, because they chose sin all the way up until the final moment and sin led them to the second death (hell).