Free will infinite regression problem

[Simpletruther]

We make the decisions in life that we most desire to make.

One may choose to do something they really hate, like eating broccoli. But they still desired to do It because of some other motivation, weight loss or good health for example. It was still what they desired to eat most at the moment despite not desiring the taste broccoli.

Logically it seems we are bound by these desires decision making. It's nonsensical to say we would make a choice that we didn't most want to make.

The idea the we are not bound by our desires and are free to choose desires would presuppose a selection criteria for choosing desires. This selection criteria would itself have to be viewed as a desire, thus kicking off the infinite regression.
If we have this desire to choose desires, where did this desire come from? And why did we choose it? There must have been a previous desire etc etc.

At the end of the day our desires must lead us, not us leading our desires.

 

[PeanutGallery]

...
At the end of the day our desires must lead us, not us leading our desires.

Would that be in keeping with the following?
Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

 

[Reformedguy]

We make the decisions in life that we most desire to make.

One may choose to do something they really hate, like eating broccoli. But they still desired to do It because of some other motivation, weight loss or good health for example. It was still what they desired to eat most at the moment despite not desiring the taste broccoli.

Logically it seems we are bound by these desires decision making. It's nonsensical to say we would make a choice that we didn't most want to make.

The idea the we are not bound by our desires and are free to choose desires would presuppose a selection criteria for choosing desires. This selection criteria would itself have to be viewed as a desire, thus kicking off the infinite regression.
If we have this desire to choose desires, where did this desire come from? And why did we choose it? There must have been a previous desire etc etc.

At the end of the day our desires must lead us, not us leading our desires.

Amen. No choice is random

 

[Dizerner]

There are some things we cannot choose what we desire or not, those components of our nature.

There are some things where, by God's grace, we make a genuine choice to deem a desire evil and deny it or good and embrace it.

If one could not make any choice about desire because of one's nature, why does the Bible even imply to "deny yourself"?

If we cannot help our desires by virtue of our natures, the command to deny ourselves would be a square circle, a logical impossibility.

It would be like saying "Don't be what you are."

 

[ReverendRV]

There are some things we cannot choose what we desire or not, those components of our nature.

There are some things where, by God's grace, we make a genuine choice to deem a desire evil and deny it or good and embrace it.

If one could not make any choice about desire because of one's nature, why does the Bible even imply to "deny yourself"?

If we cannot help our desires by virtue of our natures, the command to deny ourselves would be a square circle, a logical impossibility.

It would be like saying "Don't be what you are."

I think the OP is just trying to say that we follow our strongest desire to at any given moment. He used the example of eating broccoli but not liking broccoli. A parent can tell a child to eat his broccoli, and the child eats the broccoli because his strongest desire is not to get a spanking. In this sense the child is doing something against his Will because his stronger desire causes him to do something that's normally against his Will, and violate his Will. Sure, the Will changes, but it's still his Will. I think the point is, that even though the Will is at Liberty; it is alway Bound to our strongest Desires at every moment...

 

[guest1]

We make the decisions in life that we most desire to make.

One may choose to do something they really hate, like eating broccoli. But they still desired to do It because of some other motivation, weight loss or good health for example. It was still what they desired to eat most at the moment despite not desiring the taste broccoli.

Logically it seems we are bound by these desires decision making. It's nonsensical to say we would make a choice that we didn't most want to make.

The idea the we are not bound by our desires and are free to choose desires would presuppose a selection criteria for choosing desires. This selection criteria would itself have to be viewed as a desire, thus kicking off the infinite regression.
If we have this desire to choose desires, where did this desire come from? And why did we choose it? There must have been a previous desire etc etc.

At the end of the day our desires must lead us, not us leading our desires.

Paul is Romans 7 says the opposite that he does what he does not desire to do and cannot do what he desires to so because of the flesh, sin in him.

 

[Dizerner]

I think the OP is just trying to say that we follow our strongest desire to at any given moment. He used the example of eating broccoli but not liking broccoli. A parent can tell a child to eat his broccoli, and the child eats the broccoli because his strongest desire is not to get a spanking. In this sense the child is doing something against his Will because his stronger desire causes him to do something that's normally against his Will, and violate his Will. Sure, the Will changes, but it's still his Will. I think the point is, that even though the Will is at Liberty; it is alway Bound to our strongest Desires at every moment...

It simply begs the question of whether some desires can be chosen or not.

If two things are equally desired, does the person just explode from the antinomy?

Jesus tells us to make a choice, not to just flow with whatever our nature impels us to do.

 

[guest1]

I think the OP is just trying to say that we follow our strongest desire to at any given moment. He used the example of eating broccoli but not liking broccoli. A parent can tell a child to eat his broccoli, and the child eats the broccoli because his strongest desire is not to get a spanking. In this sense the child is doing something against his Will because his stronger desire causes him to do something that's normally against his Will, and violate his Will. Sure, the Will changes, but it's still his Will. I think the point is, that even though the Will is at Liberty; it is alway Bound to our strongest Desires at every moment...

Pauls ( the biblical ) example is much better proving he cannot do what he desires to do in Romans 7.

 

[ReverendRV]

It simply begs the question of whether some desires can be chosen or not.

If two things are equally desired, does the person just explode from the antimony?

Jesus tells us to make a choice, not to just flow with whatever our nature impels us to do.

Lol, now that's a Word-Picture right there...

That gets to the heart of the matter. If all things are equal, but you choose one over the other; can it be said they were equal?

What do you think? It would kind of be an unconditional selection of the one over the other. Since you believe your Will can make a truly arbitrary selection...

Can we do that and God can't?

 

[Reformedguy]

Pauls ( the biblical ) example is must better proving he cannot do what he desires to do in Romans 7.

That is because his desire to do otherwise is greater.

 

[guest1]

That is because his desire to do otherwise is greater.

nope that is not what Paul says its the opposite,

oops.

 

[ReverendRV]

Pauls ( the biblical ) example is must better proving he cannot do what he desires to do in Romans 7.

I know y'all are glad i'm here. I probably would be a hit on other platforms too. But I did get kicked off the Society of Evangelical Arminians Forum back in the day. I kept violating their rules. Imagine that! Big ol' me, violating a Forum's rules on purpose. I got one of their Posters to believe something I said; and I was a Goner...

 

[guest1]

I know y'all are glad i'm here. I probably would be a hit on other platforms too. But I did get kicked off Soteriology 101 back in the day. I kept violating their rules. Imagine that! Big ol' me, violating a Forum's rules on purpose. I got one of their Posters to believe something I said; and I was a Goner...

Trust me I can relate rofl ?

 

[Dizerner]

Can we do that and God can't?

God chose to suffer for my spiritual behind. He was not impelled by his nature.

And I have often chose the devil over God. I didn't have to do that.

All this determinism/compatibilism talk is just an excuse for passivity.

Choose ye this day, not "do your greatest desire ye this day."

 

[ReverendRV]

God chose to suffer for my spiritual behind. He was not impelled by his nature.

And I have often chose the devil over God. I didn't have to do that.

All this determinism/compatibilism talk is just an excuse for passivity.

Choose ye this day, not "do your greatest desire ye this day."

Okay, I won't twist your arm...

 

[guest1]

God chose to suffer for my spiritual behind. He was not impelled by his nature.

And I have often chose the devil over God. I didn't have to do that.

All this determinism/compatibilism talk is just an excuse for passivity.

Choose ye this day, not "do your greatest desire ye this day."

Bingo !

 

[ReverendRV]

Bingo !

Would you say Jesus was not compelled/impelled by his Nature? That's what Dizerner said. I would say Jesus is always compelled by his Nature, and expect you and Dizerner to agree...

Some times you shouldn't be in the Amen-Corner when you don't really agree. I'm not always in my Camp's Amen-Corner. I don't think Dizerner is even in his own Amen-Corner...

Do you think people on other Forums would think i'm crazy?

 

[guest1]

Would you say Jesus was not compelled/impelled by his Nature? That's what Dizerner said. I would say Jesus is always compelled by his Nature, and expect you and Dizerner to agree...

Some times you shouldn't be in the Amen-Corner when you don't really agree. I'm not always in my Camp's Amen-Corner. I don't think Dizerner is even in his own Amen-Corner...

Yes but remember Jesus with let this cup pass from Me but nevertheless not my will but your will be done. There was a point where His human nature/will had conflict ( not sin) but submitted His will to the Fathers will.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes but remember Jesus with let this cup pass from Me but nevertheless not my will but your will be done. There was a point where His human nature/will had conflict ( not sin) but submitted His will to the Fathers will.

I agree. Since I am a Summation guy, thanks for the Yes. Don't you think Dizerner also agrees?

 

[Reformedguy]

nope that is not what Paul says its the opposite,

oops.

So the things he did do he had no desire to do? Is that what your saying?