Free Will

[elman]

Again you're not thinking it through. It's not you who knows, it's god. If God knows I'm going to choose something, I cannot not choose it, so how is it a choice?

You don't seem to understand the argument.

It is a choice because I could have made a different choice and if I had, that is the choice God would know about. I am not making the choice I am making because God knew what I was going to chose. I am freely chosing to do whatever and that is what God knew ahead of time. The cause of the decison is me, not God. The cause is not God's knowledge of what I am going to do.

 

[phsyxx]

This is an important point. The arbitrary change of perspective is a major clouding issue in approaching these questions. Whilst usually insisting on looking at things from god´s alleged perspective (or a supposedly objective perspective if being a nontheistic objectivist, or an assumed non-athropocentric perspective, which is actually the whole point of metaphysical philosophy), out of a sudden "that´s how I perceive it" is re-introduced as the standard for philosophical considerations.

If god is eternal and omniscient there can´t be any such things as change, choice, development, time, event from his perspective.
That´s where the move of defining god as a "beyond" being kicks you in the butt. Along with exempting him from those things he is defined as being "beyond" it also limits him as not being able to experience our world in terms of that which he is defined to be "beyond".
Not even god can have the cookie and eat it, too.

Sorry.....quatona, is that a refutation or were you agreeing with me?

Or, in some other way, were you just being quatona?

 

[quatona]

Sorry.....quatona, is that a refutation or were you agreeing with me?

Or, in some other way, were you just being quatona?

You mean the true quatona would never agree with anybody?

No, it was basically meant to confirm your point as accurate important as well as adding some aspects in support of it.

 

[phsyxx]

You mean the true quatona would never agree with anybody?

No, it was basically meant to confirm your point as accurate important as well as adding some aspects in support of it.

Well, thank-you,

I mainly employ this form of argument in an attempt to show those who profusely reject the alternative view, hopefully to allow them to see the other side whilst maintaining that they remain on the same side of the fence as they were before.

It's like that story about a girl who pretended to put on "atheist goggles" for a brief moment in her life, and then said - ok, I'll take them off.
Then she put them back on - and said to herself, "wait... there's no difference......ok, so the Earth isn't actually flying off into space because a mighty creator is pulling it round...."

 

[quatona]

Well, thank-you,

I mainly employ this form of argument in an attempt to show those who profusely reject the alternative view, hopefully to allow them to see the other side whilst maintaining that they remain on the same side of the fence as they were before.

It's like that story about a girl who pretended to put on "atheist goggles" for a brief moment in her life, and then said - ok, I'll take them off.
Then she put them back on - and said to herself, "wait... there's no difference......ok, so the Earth isn't actually flying off into space because a mighty creator is pulling it round...."

IOW, you act as the advocatus diaboli? Good job!

 

[phsyxx]

IOW, you act as the advocatus diaboli? Good job!

Erher....the ole' sly snake and I don't act together......
although coming from a Christian perspective....

But thanks
...

When I think of it, doesn't free will come about as the result of a mind developed enough to see outside of itself -
i.e, be able to see its own fate, like death or the weather over the coming week, and therefore avoid such carnage - and use this ability in an attempt to break out of its cage of behaviour?

If you think about it, the rabbits of the field don't know what they are doing, in a sense. They can't see their limitations. Man can, however, and therefore looks to get rid of the bars of the cage he can see around him that the rabbit cannot.

This desire is to be free, and it is defined and discussed as "free will".

 

[quatona]

When I think of it, doesn't free will come about as the result of a mind developed enough to see outside of itself

Firstly I see no compelling evidence that the mind sees outside itself.
I do, however, notice a desire to see outside itself. I would call that "a desire of the mind to be able to see outside itself" , but not "freewill" - particularly because almost every "freewillie" I am discussing this does not present this as his concept of "freewill".

i.e, be able to see its own fate, like death or the weather over the coming week,

I think there are already two terms for that: "consciousness" and "self-awareness". I do not think it´s reasonable to replace them by a loaded term that is usually meant to point to something else.

and therefore avoid such carnage - and use this ability in an attempt to break out of its cage of behaviour?

That would be closer to that which "freewill" typically is used to signify. The determinist doesn´t see evidence that the mind can "break out of its cage of behaviour". (Depending, though, on what this rather poetic expression is exactly meant to stand for).

If you think about it, the rabbits of the field don't know what they are doing, in a sense.

Yes, we are assuming they are not self-aware, that they do not even have a mind, to begin with.

They can't see their limitations. Man can, however,

Like in: man is equipped with the ability to find out that he has no "freewill", an ability that a rabbit doesn´t have?

and therefore looks to get rid of the bars of the cage he can see around him that the rabbit cannot.

I would agree that there is such a desire.

This desire is to be free, and it is defined and discussed as "free will".

That would come as a great surprise to me. Nobody who talked to me about his ideas of "freewill" so far seemed to define it as a desire - they all defined it as an ability.

So notwithstanding your prerogative to redefine terms as how you see fit - that has got to be a pretty unique definition of "freewill", and it would need a discussion of its own. Actually this would be a discussion without me since I do not even dispute that man has the desire to free himself from his limitations.

 

[Theogonia]

If God is all knowing and is not bound by time (his creation) than he knows the outcome of all events past, present, and future. From the moment of creation he knew that Adam would sin, that he would have to send his son to die on a cross, and even what everyone of us will eat for breakfast tomorrow, and how we will die.

Therefore if the outcome of every action and decision in our lives already has a determined outcome, we have no real choice in our lives, free will is just an illusion.

The only possible conclusions I can make from this are:

A) We are just "pets" if you will of God or some intelligent being, our lives have no real signficance sine we do not control them.

-or-

B) God does exist, but is not the God of the Bible, because that God could not exist because in order to be God, the being must be all knowing, and if our actions aren't predetermined it implies that there is something that God does not know. So if God did not know that Adam would sin, than he was not truly God.

I'd like to hear what you have to say, until then take chances -be a fatalist.

I think it's more like God knows every possible outcome of every possible choice you could ever possibly make.

 

[MARK777]

I havent read all the posts regarding this but I will try and explain how I see this, while trying to comprehend this we are taking only one part of Gods essense into account which is Omniscience, however Gods essense is made up of 10 attributes which do not function on their own but together, this is what makes up Gods perfect essense.

Gods essense is made up of;

Love
Veracity
Omniscience
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Immutability
Righteousness
Eternal Life
Sovereignty
Justice


For example Gods motivation is love, however love cannot operate on its own will because of justice, Gods justice needs to be satisfied before he can act in love towards mankind, if he acted in love towards all of mankind without justice, it would make him imperfect, but as such he can not because of his perfect essense.

So back to the OP, God is Omniscience, but his Omniscience passes through his Righteousness and Justice, each is perfect.

So.. the way I see this is, in eternity past God knew man would fall, this was part of his plan, which coincides with what I understand as the Angelic conflict, and he knew he would send his Son, which I understand as Satans defeat in the Angelic Conflict, and salvation for all of mankind, however this is now being acted out in time, God has devised a plan for every single person in the human race, each person has their own perfect plan devised by God made in Eternity past, when they become born again and saved they can live in this plan, or they can choose to live their own way, this is our freewill, we can choose to be a part of it or ignore it and lead our own life, but the choice is still ours.

God in eternity has aleady won, he remains perfect and found a way to stay perfect and have fellowship with fallen man, at the same time prove his love by sending his Son and saving mankind, and in eternity future all beleivers in the body of Christ will be raised up when the body is complete, that will be the fullness of time, every new beleiver in Christ adds to the body by exercising their own free will, by answering to Gods calling in their life, Gods overruling will decides when the body is complete and when things are to come to an end.

However freewill is exercised throughout time, every beleiver after salvation still has freewill and can choose to live in Gods perfect plan, that promises to bless and give us perfect hapiness in time, or go our own way, this is what I know as the power experiment of the Church age, freewill is exercised throughout our spiritual walk, we either follow Gods plan throughout our life and become spiritually mature, or go our own way after salvation and remain spiritual babies.

Every unbeleiver is given ample opertunity to come to the knowledge of the saving work of his Son if they desire, God through his grace provisions sets up situations so every person can have the chance to beleive and have fellowship with him.

God has done everything on his part, our freewill decides what happens, we are in control of our destiny, as it says in the scripture he desires all men to be saved, but he cannot force us as this will compromise his essense.

Hope this makes sense, this turned out to be quiet a long drawn post and I dont profess to be 100% accurate but I tried to explain the best I could according to scripture, although I havent really quoted any, I will back up this post with scripture should anyone want me to do this.


Hope this helps,
Mark.

 

[elman]

Like in: man is equipped with the ability to find out that he has no "freewill", an ability that a rabbit doesn´t have?

Or like in man is equipped with the ability to decide he is not deciding, but is being forced to decided.

 

[quatona]

Or like in man is equipped with the ability to decide he is not deciding, but is being forced to decided.

Jokes don´t get any funnier by being reverse echoed.
Sorry that the point of the joke was not clear.

 

[elman]

Jokes don´t get any funnier by being reverse echoed.
Sorry that the point of the joke was not clear.

I understood the joke. I thought it did get funnier.

 

[quatona]

I understood the joke. I thought it did get funnier.

Ok. You are right - humour is in the eye of the observer.

 

[FishFace]

It is a choice because I could have made a different choice and if I had, that is the choice God would know about. I am not making the choice I am making because God knew what I was going to chose. I am freely chosing to do whatever and that is what God knew ahead of time. The cause of the decison is me, not God. The cause is not God's knowledge of what I am going to do.

What caused your choice is irrelevant, and you're still not thinking it through. You say "If I had made a different choice, God would know about that one," and that is true, but you've got the link the wrong way around.
One of those things we know for sure is set in stone - we know that God's knowledge is absolute. God's knowledge cannot change or be in question - only your decision can.

At this moment in time, God knows you will choose 'X' whatever 'X' may be. You cannot choose to do 'Y.' You can't say that, "yes, but if I chose to do 'Y' God would know that" because we already told you at the start of the example that God knows you will do 'X.'

You are refusing to think it through properly, I suspect because you don't like the conclusion. If follow the example above, the conclusion follows necessarily - unless there is something wrong with the example. If that is the case, you must point it out; you can't just assert, "but if I chose to do something else, God would know that," since the example shows that thinking isn't sound.

 

[smog]

At this moment in time, God knows you will choose 'X' whatever 'X' may be. You cannot choose to do 'Y.' You can't say that, "yes, but if I chose to do 'Y' God would know that" because we already told you at the start of the example that God knows you will do 'X.'

Technically, there's a loophole hidden in "at this moment in time". There is no logical necessity for anyone to choose his or her actions at the moment they perform them. We could imagine a situation where every soul set all their choices in stone before the universe is even set in motion. Sure, it's contrived and it still doesn't tell us why God would bother playing that game when he knows the outcome, but the point is that if there is any non-deterministic factor, you can move it arbitrarily early and just delay its application. Furthermore, despite our certainty that time passes we still don't have access to any more than a single time frame (which contains a condensed version of the previous frames, hence the feeling that time passes). Therefore, there still isn't any logical reason to assume that time goes forwards. It could perfectly run backwards, in which case God's contentious "pre-knowledge" would become perfectly good "post-knowledge". As an added bonus, a deterministic universe isn't necessarily deterministic when it's running backwards

Another point I'd like to make is that the ability to choose either X or Y can, technically, be used as an argument against free will. Think of it this way: if person P can choose either X, Y or Z and person Q can choose either X, Y or Z and there is no way to know beforehand what they will choose to do, then how are they different? Different people will choose different things, and the things they choose is a function of their differences. In other words, if two people choose exactly the same things in all situations, they aren't different at all. This leads us to the conclusion that the pattern of choices of a person defines who that person is. Conversely, given a person, we must be able to track the exact choices he or she will make. So in fact, had any of us done anything differently in the past, we would, in fact, be different people. Thus, from what I can see, free will is a way of saying that "anyone can become anyone", but this really only means that everybody is identical. If we want people to be different from each other, we have to bite the bullet and accept that it can only work if there is a way to evaluate those differences and *gasp* predict one's behavior from them.

 

[FishFace]

Technically, there's a loophole hidden in "at this moment in time". There is no logical necessity for anyone to choose his or her actions at the moment they perform them. We could imagine a situation where every soul set all their choices in stone before the universe is even set in motion. Sure, it's contrived and it still doesn't tell us why God would bother playing that game when he knows the outcome, but the point is that if there is any non-deterministic factor, you can move it arbitrarily early and just delay its application.

But the earliest point is at the start of time (for want of a meaningful concept) and God's knowledge would already be in place, since God always has knowledge.

Furthermore, despite our certainty that time passes we still don't have access to any more than a single time frame (which contains a condensed version of the previous frames, hence the feeling that time passes). Therefore, there still isn't any logical reason to assume that time goes forwards. It could perfectly run backwards, in which case God's contentious "pre-knowledge" would become perfectly good "post-knowledge". As an added bonus, a deterministic universe isn't necessarily deterministic when it's running backwards

An omniscient God implies that God sees the universe "all at once" so to speak, and that time is therefore a function of the observer. Hence we are simply like a video player seeing one frame at a time, God just reads the entire tape at once.
Whether this is the case, or your backwards time is, God knows what's happening throughout all of our experiences. Whenever we can be said to have made the decision (even if that is before the time we apply the decision, as you put it), God, before that time, knew we would make it already.

Another point I'd like to make is that the ability to choose either X or Y can, technically, be used as an argument against free will. Think of it this way: if person P can choose either X, Y or Z and person Q can choose either X, Y or Z and there is no way to know beforehand what they will choose to do, then how are they different? Different people will choose different things, and the things they choose is a function of their differences. In other words, if two people choose exactly the same things in all situations, they aren't different at all. This leads us to the conclusion that the pattern of choices of a person defines who that person is. Conversely, given a person, we must be able to track the exact choices he or she will make. So in fact, had any of us done anything differently in the past, we would, in fact, be different people. Thus, from what I can see, free will is a way of saying that "anyone can become anyone", but this really only means that everybody is identical. If we want people to be different from each other, we have to bite the bullet and accept that it can only work if there is a way to evaluate those differences and *gasp* predict one's behavior from them.

I have just read this article about free will which I encourage everyone reading to read and think about.
Especially the question, "what is free will?" The researchers claim that free will is a combination of randomness and determinism. If this is correct then if we hooked up something that looked for quantum events (say, radioactive decays) which are (as far as we know) random to a computer and combined it with some logic so we ended up with "part random, part determined" action - would it have free will?
If that is not free will, what is free will, and how do we test whether humans, animals or computers have it?

 

[MARK777]

Freewill is having the complete freedom of "being"

The way I see things is, animals, to a certain degree have freedom, but not the freedom of "being"

Take a dog for example, a dog has certain attributes that make it a dog, fur, 4 legs, sharp teeth, 2 eyes, a good nose etc, each dog has similar peronality traits as other dogs but not the same, some can be nasty, some can be mans best freind, some are dosile, lazy, others are quick and assertive, this is what makes the dog a dog, but it cannot operate outside of this boundry from its own volition or freewill, it will always be a dog.

Say a dog cant decide one day, Im gonna act like a duck, just as any other animal doesnt seem to be able to operate outside of its own boundries, like a duck cant act as a dog.

We have the freedom to willfully be or do anything from our minds eye, without limitation, other than our physical body, we have the ability to be great or to be terrible, we have the ability to see and imagine great things in our mind and translate it into reality.

But with great power comes great responsibility

 

[Theogonia]

Did anyone see what I said?

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
It is a choice because I could have made a different choice and if I had, that is the choice God would know about. I am not making the choice I am making because God knew what I was going to chose. I am freely chosing to do whatever and that is what God knew ahead of time. The cause of the decison is me, not God. The cause is not God's knowledge of what I am going to do.

What caused your choice is irrelevant

What caused my choice is the only thing that is relevant in this issue.

, and you're still not thinking it through. You say "If I had made a different choice, God would know about that one," and that is true, but you've got the link the wrong way around.
One of those things we know for sure is set in stone - we know that God's knowledge is absolute. God's knowledge cannot change or be in question - only your decision can.

At this moment in time, God knows you will choose 'X'

Now think it through. God only knows I will chose X if in fact I(not God, but me) will chose X.

whatever 'X' may be. You cannot choose to do 'Y.' You can't say that, "yes, but if I chose to do 'Y' God would know that" because we already told you at the start of the example that God knows you will do 'X.

'
But if I change my mind and chose y, then you will have been wrong at the start of the example and God would not have known I would chose x because God always makes the right choice.

You are refusing to think it through properly, I suspect because you don't like the conclusion.

I think this may be true of one of us. I don't think it is me.

If follow the example above, the conclusion follows necessarily - unless there is something wrong with the example. If that is the case, you must point it out; you can't just assert, "but if I chose to do something else, God would know that," since the example shows that thinking isn't sound.

But it is your example that is not sound if it has God making a mistake about what I am going to chose.

 

[FishFace]

What caused my choice is the only thing that is relevant in this issue.

No, because even if you caused your choice, if that cause was determined from the start of the universe, you can't NOT choose that choice, and it would not be a choice at all.

Now think it through. God only knows I will chose X if in fact I(not God, but me) will chose X.

Naturally. But that doesn't affect the argument.

But if I change my mind and chose y, then you will have been wrong at the start of the example and God would not have known I would chose x because God always makes the right choice.

*sigh* you're not trying, are you. Wait a moment, perhaps you're getting confused by the use of X and Y, I'll make an example with tea and coffee.

OK, assume, for a moment, that tomorrow, with your breakfast, you will choose either to have tea or to have coffee. Ignore the possibilities of having both or neither or orange juice - that's irrelevant. If you truly have a choice, you can either have tea, or coffee - there's no determination of that fact until you choose.
But we know that, at this very moment in time, God knows which you are going to choose. Suppose you are going to choose coffee. God knows you are going to choose coffee. Suppose you choose tea in the end - God knows that, instead. Suppose you choose coffee, but then change your mind and have tea - God knows you will have tea. Suppose you change back and forth and back and forth many times, but come down on coffee - God knows that, in that case.
That means that, now, what you drink with breakfast (tea or coffee) is decided already, because God knows what it is - whichever it is. Suppose you are tomorrow actually going to decide to have coffee - God, right now, this instant, knows you'll have coffee. That means, in this case, you cannot choose to have tea.
Your complaint is like saying, "but suppose I choose tea - then God knows I'll have tea!" OK, then, suppose you are going to choose tea. This is a different example though - and, at this very moment in this example, God knows you will have tea, so you cannot choose coffee.

Here's a set of questions. Answer them to yourself or on here, it doesn't matter.

At this point in time, does God know what you're going to drink with breakfast tomorrow morning? (tea, coffee, juice, motor oil, nothing, any combination of any liquid)
Can God ever know something that is false?
Can you therefore choose something that God, at this moment in time, knows you are not going to choose?

Call the thing that you are ultimately going to choose 'X.' It could be anything, but God knows it. (It can't be Y, because X already represents anything) If God knows it, you can't not do it. You change what X represents - but in doing so, you change what God knows, so whatever the new thing is, you can't choose not to do it.

But whatever X is cannot actually be changed in real life - it's set in stone - it's whatever God knows.