Free Will

[phsyxx]

It is a flawed concept to see our life as a video.

Why?
Two reasons make me question that statement.
1) My ability to see past events fully and the resultant events that occured because of them,
examples of this being if the driver of the Kaiser's car hadn't turned left, instead of the right he was meant to, the Kaiser wouldn't have been assasinated - and WWI wouldn't have broken out.

However, this is the way it DID happen, and those events cannot be changed.
What is to say that people in the 22nd Century don't already see my life in the same way?

2.) You do not give reasons to support your statement.
Conviction and opinion is great, but when someone doesn't agree with you, you need to show them why you think differently, so that they might understand your view.

 

[phsyxx]

No.

Then I'm fairly confident that you haven't seen all of the philosophical possibilities behind robots being as free, if not more so, than humans - even though they are supposedly limited by their programming.

 

[elman]

Why?
Two reasons make me question that statement.
1) My ability to see past events fully and the resultant events that occured because of them,
examples of this being if the driver of the Kaiser's car hadn't turned left, instead of the right he was meant to, the Kaiser wouldn't have been assasinated - and WWI wouldn't have broken out.

However, this is the way it DID happen, and those events cannot be changed.
What is to say that people in the 22nd Century don't already see my life in the same way?

2.) You do not give reasons to support your statement.
Conviction and opinion is great, but when someone doesn't agree with you, you need to show them why you think differently, so that they might understand your view.

Anything is possible. I see no reason to assume people in the 22nd Century already see how I am living my life. For me to belive that you must provide some reason to do so.

 

[elman]

Why?
Two reasons make me question that statement.
1) My ability to see past events fully and the resultant events that occured because of them,
examples of this being if the driver of the Kaiser's car hadn't turned left, instead of the right he was meant to, the Kaiser wouldn't have been assasinated - and WWI wouldn't have broken out.

However, this is the way it DID happen, and those events cannot be changed.
What is to say that people in the 22nd Century don't already see my life in the same way?

2.) You do not give reasons to support your statement.
Conviction and opinion is great, but when someone doesn't agree with you, you need to show them why you think differently, so that they might understand your view.

Anything is possible. I see no reason to assume people in the 22nd Century already see how I am living my life. For me to belive that you must provide some reason to do so.

 

[elman]

Then I'm fairly confident that you haven't seen all of the philosophical possibilities behind robots being as free, if not more so, than humans - even though they are supposedly limited by their programming.

If a robot were able to love or not love I would not call him a robot. He may not be human, but I don't think robot would be a good description of what he is. A robot presuposses a programer and a creator that determines the actions of the robot.

 

[elman]

Then I'm fairly confident that you haven't seen all of the philosophical possibilities behind robots being as free, if not more so, than humans - even though they are supposedly limited by their programming.

Being llimited by your programing is not being free as humans are free. If a robot were able to love or not love I would not call him a robot. He may not be human, but I don't think robot would be a good description of what he is. A robot presuposses a programer and a creator that determines the actions of the robot.

 

[smog]

Being llimited by your programing is not being free as humans are free. If a robot were able to love or not love I would not call him a robot. He may not be human, but I don't think robot would be a good description of what he is. A robot presuposses a programer and a creator that determines the actions of the robot.

Actually, it doesn't. Let's say I want to make a robot who can speak in english. One way to do it would be to give my robot a completely random program and ask him to speak to me. If what he says is intelligible english, I keep the program. If not, I erase the program and replace it by a new, again completely random program. You can see that in the end I will have a robot who speaks english, yet I have absolutely no idea what he is going to say or what the logic will be behind what he is going to say. In other words, I will have a robot who was not programmed or determined by anyone, yet does something interesting: speak in english. Note that I could have programmed the same thing, yet I didn't, so your argument is misconstrued. Whether a robot is programmed or not doesn't matter, what matters is what it is.

It is perfectly possible to define what a human is and create a robot on the sole criterion that it has to behave like a human without programming it explicitly. Choosing random programs is a way to do it, but I assure you we can do much better. This means that the end result might behave like a man or a woman, it might have any political allegiance, etc. We could control those factors if we wanted to, but we don't have to. It is possible to say "I don't care" about arbitrarily complex or convoluted parts of the behavior of a program. I would argue that such a thing would not be very different from a real human.

 

[elman]

=smog;35074827]Actually, it doesn't. Let's say I want to make a robot who can speak in english. One way to do it would be to give my robot a completely random program and ask him to speak to me. If what he says is intelligible english, I keep the program. If not, I erase the program and replace it by a new, again completely random program. You can see that in the end I will have a robot who speaks english, yet I have absolutely no idea what he is going to say or what the logic will be behind what he is going to say. In other words, I will have a robot who was not programmed or determined by anyone, yet does something interesting: speak in english. Note that I could have programmed the same thing, yet I didn't, so your argument is misconstrued. Whether a robot is programmed or not doesn't matter, what matters is what it is.

I don't think you can create a robot that is not programmed by someone.

It is perfectly possible to define what a human is and create a robot on the sole criterion that it has to behave like a human without programming it explicitly. Choosing random programs is a way to do it, but I assure you we can do much better. This means that the end result might behave like a man or a woman, it might have any political allegiance, etc. We could control those factors if we wanted to, but we don't have to. It is possible to say "I don't care" about arbitrarily complex or convoluted parts of the behavior of a program. I would argue that such a thing would not be very different from a real human.

A human has intelligence that is not reactiny to random programing. You cannot create a robot that can chose on its own without being caused to do so by its programing to either love or not love you. A robot is therefore going to always be very different from a real human.

 

[FishFace]

Look at the parable of the Good Samaritan. That is a person decided to help someone in need. You would not seriously argue that all humans are programed to react this way would you?

You're not answering the question. What, precisely is a decision? If you were faced with a thing which looked like a human but you though were a robot (or vice-versa) how would you tell whether what it did was a decision or not?

If the categorisation of love depends on categorisation of decision, then you have not categorised the former until you've done the latter.

 

[FishFace]

Yes I can pick something else and if I do that means you were wrong in your assumption that God knew I would wear the bluestripted sockes because God does not make mistakes.
God cannot be mistaken therefore your first assumption cannot be correct if that is not what I am going to chose.

You're wrong because we're not making any assumption in the real world. Ask yourself the question - does God know what you are going to wear tomorrow? (I assume you answer yes) Then name that thing X, whatever it is.
This removes the confusion. Whatever God knows, we're calling it X - it could be wearing the blue stripy socks, could be black and white, doesn't matter - whatever it is, it's X. This means that it cannot be 'Y' because whatever it is that God knows, we're calling it X.

So, assume that X is blue stripy socks - you cannot wear black socks.
Change the situation - assume X is black socks. You cannot wear blue stripy socks.
Now, instead of specifying, we move back to the general situation. Whatever X is, you cannot do 'not-X.' It is not a valid criticism to ask, but what if God knew 'Y' because we already stated that 'X' covered all the bases.

Or it was false that God knew the person was going to do something he was not going to do.

But now we're very carefully not saying what it is God may or may not know - we're saying that, whatever God knows, it's called X, and whatever God knows, you can't do something other than that.
It's also an invalid criticism to counter that, if you were going to do 'not-X' then God would know that thing, for the reason that whatever it is God knows is already set in stone. You can't reverse the dependence - to make it clearer, let's cover the example a bit differently.

Does God know what you're going to wear tomorrow at the moment? - Yes.
Call whatever it is that God knows 'X.'
Can you wear 'not-X' tomorrow? - No.

You can't reverse the situation (i.e. say, if I choose to do Y tomorrow, God would know Y) because we've already agreed that God knows NOW what you're going to do. At this moment in time, there is no uncertainty about what God knows, so there is no uncertainty about what you're going to do.
The only way for your criticism to work is if your action tomorrow caused God's knowledge already - but that means that you must have already made the decision. As I explained earlier, you would have to have made the decision before God's knowledge - but God's knowledge has never not existed, so you have never made the decision.

 

[hannahfievel]

Hello,

I will firstly admit I did not read "every" post here. But, I belong to a forum for Christians who wish to learn about the hebraic roots of Christianity. And, on there we had this same discussion. Here is just "me thinking outloud on the subject"! Hope it helps and does not confuse anyone, amen!

I'm going to do my best to explain how I see it and how I have read it in the word, amen.

We all know in Jeremiah that G-d has formed us and knows us from before we were born, true?

Now with that said for me...I see it like this. First G-d knows us and all that we will do, of course "HE" has a perfect plan for our lives, but the questions remains...Will we follow that which He has planned for us...the ususal answer to that is...we tend to stray off of His path that He had set before us. Well, I did.

So, though "we" do totally have freewill to do as we "think" we should, the Lord Our G-d already knows "way ahead of time" which paths we will walk...so "we" do as we please and G-d tries to nudge us back onto a "better path" with Him.

I tried to explain this to my son in this manner....I said...Think of life this way...G-d already knows you are His...HE has already planned a "lovely path" a straight path if you will...to HIM. Then like on a highway, there are exits to "other paths"...sometimes "we try" taking a shortcut...oooops! Then after we get back on the right road...the one G-d wanted for us...everything between you and the Lord gets better...because HE loves us!

So, HE KNOWS US...including "all the mistakes we will make", then He gently guides us back to Him when our "freewill" takes us out of His perfect will for our life. Then viola...Grace pops in...shows us His perfect Love and changes our hearts to be in unison with Him! Amen! So, though He already knows "what" we will do...He lets us "choose" upon which path to walk, and unfortunately "some" of us have walked long rocky roads to reach Him...though He would have liked to have made it all easier by "listening" to Him. in His amazing Love and Grace...your sis, hannah

 

[elman]

Hello,

I will firstly admit I did not read "every" post here. But, I belong to a forum for Christians who wish to learn about the hebraic roots of Christianity. And, on there we had this same discussion. Here is just "me thinking outloud on the subject"! Hope it helps and does not confuse anyone, amen!

I'm going to do my best to explain how I see it and how I have read it in the word, amen.

We all know in Jeremiah that G-d has formed us and knows us from before we were born, true?

Now with that said for me...I see it like this. First G-d knows us and all that we will do, of course "HE" has a perfect plan for our lives, but the questions remains...Will we follow that which He has planned for us...the ususal answer to that is...we tend to stray off of His path that He had set before us. Well, I did.

So, though "we" do totally have freewill to do as we "think" we should, the Lord Our G-d already knows "way ahead of time" which paths we will walk...so "we" do as we please and G-d tries to nudge us back onto a "better path" with Him.

I tried to explain this to my son in this manner....I said...Think of life this way...G-d already knows you are His...HE has already planned a "lovely path" a straight path if you will...to HIM. Then like on a highway, there are exits to "other paths"...sometimes "we try" taking a shortcut...oooops! Then after we get back on the right road...the one G-d wanted for us...everything between you and the Lord gets better...because HE loves us!

So, HE KNOWS US...including "all the mistakes we will make", then He gently guides us back to Him when our "freewill" takes us out of His perfect will for our life. Then viola...Grace pops in...shows us His perfect Love and changes our hearts to be in unison with Him! Amen! So, though He already knows "what" we will do...He lets us "choose" upon which path to walk, and unfortunately "some" of us have walked long rocky roads to reach Him...though He would have liked to have made it all easier by "listening" to Him. in His amazing Love and Grace...your sis, hannah

 

[elman]

You're not answering the question. What, precisely is a decision? If you were faced with a thing which looked like a human but you though were a robot (or vice-versa) how would you tell whether what it did was a decision or not?

If the categorisation of love depends on categorisation of decision, then you have not categorised the former until you've done the latter.

My ability to tell a robot from a human is not the point. The question is did the thing make a decision on its own to love or not love you. If it did it is not a robot. If a robot loves you it is because its creator programed it that way.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Yes I can pick something else and if I do that means you were wrong in your assumption that God knew I would wear the bluestripted sockes because God does not make mistakes.
God cannot be mistaken therefore your first assumption cannot be correct if that is not what I am going to chose.

You're wrong because we're not making any assumption in the real world. Ask yourself the question - does God know what you are going to wear tomorrow? (I assume you answer yes) Then name that thing X, whatever it is.
This removes the confusion. Whatever God knows, we're calling it X - it could be wearing the blue stripy socks, could be black and white, doesn't matter - whatever it is, it's X. This means that it cannot be 'Y' because whatever it is that God knows, we're calling it X.

So, assume that X is blue stripy socks - you cannot wear black socks.
Change the situation - assume X is black socks. You cannot wear blue stripy socks.
Now, instead of specifying, we move back to the general situation. Whatever X is, you cannot do 'not-X.' It is not a valid criticism to ask, but what if God knew 'Y' because we already stated that 'X' covered all the bases.

The problem is you cannot cover all the bases in this world if you are dealing with God. He is supernatural and not part of this world. God is able to know what you are going to do and at the same time give you the choice of doing it or not. Whatever you choose that is what God knew you would do. Your choice is real and His knowledge is real and accurate.

Quote:
Or it was false that God knew the person was going to do something he was not going to do.

God does not make mistakes.

But now we're very carefully not saying what it is God may or may not know - we're saying that, whatever God knows, it's called X, and whatever God knows, you can't do something other than that.

I am saying I can make my own decison and that decision that I am going to make is what God knows I will make.

It's also an invalid criticism to counter that, if you were going to do 'not-X' then God would know that thing, for the reason that whatever it is God knows is already set in stone.

What is set in stone is that you are free to make one of several decisions. God will know however what you are going to decide. It is also set in stone that God's knowing what you were going to do is not what caused you to decide as you did.

Does God know what you're going to wear tomorrow at the moment? - Yes.
Call whatever it is that God knows 'X.'
Can you wear 'not-X' tomorrow? - No.

You can't reverse the situation (i.e. say, if I choose to do Y tomorrow, God would know Y) because we've already agreed that God knows NOW what you're going to do.

Again this is your problem. We cannot agree on God making a mistake. He won't. The only thing we can agree about is that God will be right when you make your decision.

At this moment in time, there is no uncertainty about what God knows, so there is no uncertainty about what you're going to do.

God and His knowledge are not part of this moment in time. They are outside of it.

The only way for your criticism to work is if your action tomorrow caused God's knowledge already - but that means that you must have already made the decision.

Only in a world limited by liner time in which God is subject to that liner time is it true that I must have already made the decision.

 

[FishFace]

My ability to tell a robot from a human is not the point. The question is did the thing make a decision on its own to love or not love you. If it did it is not a robot. If a robot loves you it is because its creator programed it that way.

That's great and all, but given that you're apparently not able to tell whether the robot/person made the decision on its own, you can't tell whether something is actually loving you "properly" or not. That's my point - there's no actual difference between the programmed love of a robot, and the freely decided love you say humans have.
So unless you can tell us all how you would look at someone who claims to love someone else and make the call "that is freely given love" or "that is just programming," you can't say that one is any better or more significant than the other.

 

[FishFace]

The problem is you cannot cover all the bases in this world if you are dealing with God.

You're not actually considering the context of the argument. Your statement here is not actually relevant to the free will discussion, because you're taking "covering all the bases" out of context and making a general statement about that phrase with respect to God. So, I'll reformulate it to make it easier for you.

By using 'X' instead of an example of a specific thing, any thing that you might do is included. It is therefore not useful to say, "but if you chose something else, God would know that something else," because we're not yet specifying what X is. That's the point of using 'X' instead of "blue stripy socks" - it doesn't actually make any sense to say "something other than X" because 'X' is anything.
If stop talking about God for a moment, we can still make the same argument.

Call what you are going to wear on your feet tomorrow 'X.' X could be blue stripy socks, black socks, socks and boots, or anything else at all that you could wear on your feet.
Consider the question, "Is 'X' known at this moment in time?" This is the same as asking, "Is 'X' fixed at this moment in time?" If no - if 'X' is not fixed - then there is the possibility that you could choose between blue stripy socks and black socks - up until the time when X becomes fixed. (Presumably at the time when you put them on)
If yes - if 'X' is already fixed now - if someone or something knows what 'X' is - then, whatever it is - blue stripy socks, black socks, socks and brown shoes - there is no possibility of you wearing something else - for example, socks and black shoes. But remember - X could be socks and black shoes, but, in this situation, you couldn't then choose to wear socks and brown shoes. Think about it - if 'X' is known now, then 'X' is fixed now. If 'X' is fixed now, then you cannot change X by choosing something else.

Of course, God is something that is said to know what 'X' is - thus fixing it.

He is supernatural and not part of this world. God is able to know what you are going to do and at the same time give you the choice of doing it or not. Whatever you choose that is what God knew you would do. Your choice is real and His knowledge is real and accurate.

That is your original assertion repeated. You're not engaging with the argument. This is a debate forum, and you're not debating - the point of my argument is to try and show that your original claim, "God knows what you will do, and gives you the choice of what to do" is not a consistent one. You can't just repeat that original claim and make progress in the debate.

God does not make mistakes.

I am saying I can make my own decison and that decision that I am going to make is what God knows I will make.

What is set in stone is that you are free to make one of several decisions. God will know however what you are going to decide. It is also set in stone that God's knowing what you were going to do is not what caused you to decide as you did.

Again you are just repeating your claim. I know what you said at the start of the debate, and I've told you and explained to you why I think it's wrong. It's now up to you to respond to my argument with your own counter-argument. You can't get anywhere, or honestly believe what you claim, if you're not going to engage in the debate.

Again this is your problem. We cannot agree on God making a mistake. He won't. The only thing we can agree about is that God will be right when you make your decision.

No, that's your problem. If God cannot make a mistake, you cannot do what God knows you're not going to do, so you have no choice.

God and His knowledge are not part of this moment in time. They are outside of it.

That's a bit more like it - now you're producing an argument relevant to the discussion.
However, you are performing a linguistic trick by using the oft-repeated phrase, "God is outside of time." I'm not disputing the truth of that statement in any way other than I dispute the existence of God, but saying "God is outside of time" does not mean that God's knowledge doesn't exist now, which appears to be what you're saying.
Let me explain - you claim God exists outside of time. But you also, I assume, believe God exists, and that God also exists now. That means that God exists at this moment in time - but it doesn't mean that God exists in time. So it is possible for something to exist now, but to still be outside of time. In fact, something that exists outside of time must exist now, for every now in all of time.

Only in a world limited by liner time in which God is subject to that liner time is it true that I must have already made the decision.[/quote]

 

[Lifesaver]

God's omniscience does not all take away our free will.

God knows what we'll do.
Since He knows it, we will necessarily do it.
However, we will not do it "out of necessity".

Let me explain better by means of an illustration:

You see a white ball.
Since the ball is white, it is necessarily white. Afterall, it couldn't possibly be white and non-white at the same time.
Still, there is nothing which makes the ball white of necessity. There is nothing actually acting in the universe which makes it impossible for the ball to be painted of another colour.

When we think omniscience precludes freedom, we are confusing two kinds of necessity: necessity "de re" ("of the thing") and necessity "de dicto" ("of the speech").

Necessity "de re" is true, real necessity: the movement of the planets given the laws of planetary motion.
But necessity "de dicto" is a merely verbal necessity, which arises of our having affirmed something true. Another way to call it is necessity "after the fact".

God knows (truly) I will do A. Therefore, I will necessarily do A. But that doesn't mean I am forced to do A.
Just like seeing (correctly) that a ball is white does not force that ball to be white, even though it is necessarily white (given that it is white).

In other words, God's knowledge does not create any more necessity in our actions than does our knowledge of aprehension of other's actions.

But still, it is a fact that God's knowledge is the, metaphysically speaking, the cause of what it is knowledge of. To affirm otherwise would be to say that anything can act on God, that He can be changed somehow, which is false.

How is it possible to uphold this correct view of God as Cause (and not effect) of the world, and still uphold the reality of free will?
God knows that I will do A. This is true.
However, this is not complete, since it does not contemplate the freedom of my action.
God knows that I will freely do A is a more correct way of putting it.

So, if God already knows I will do it, how can it be free?
Well, God knows I will do it not out of necessity, but freely.

 

[phsyxx]

So, if God already knows I will do it, how can it be free?
Well, God knows I will do it not out of necessity, but freely.

Right.
Great argument.
One problem -

If God knows you are going to do it, and that it is going to be done -

then surely there is no other outcome?

"I can do A freely"
That's great. But, when you say "God knew I was going to freely choose A", it just doesn't make any sense to me - for the simple reason that, if an outcome is known - and there is NO possibility of ANY other outcome occuring - then the outcome is DETERMINED.

Right?

It's not about choice and "will" here, it's about outcomes and fore-knowledge of events, which means that the God-world-view runs like a script.

 

[phsyxx]

Anything is possible. I see no reason to assume people in the 22nd Century already see how I am living my life. For me to belive that you must provide some reason to do so.

Ok, elman, here's something that should give you a reason to believe that people in the future know the past -
no sorry, people in the 22nd century know how you've lived your life now, and any major events in it.


Know of a guy called Abraham Lincoln?
Oh? Really? Well... kinda funny, because, since his actions are already written in stone and he can't do a thing about them, because he's dead, his is necessarily determined by the course of time/events to perform whatever actions he did.
Equally, if we look at people in the 22nd century looking at your life, we can see that you have no opportunity to change what you did, as they know from hindsight what actions you performed, what job you had - and - how you died.

See, from a Godly-perspective, all events are effectively the past.
They have already taken place, as God is transcendant, and is therefore able to 'perceive' all of time and space.
In this sense, then, all events and actions are layed out, and not a single one can be changed - because they (essentially) have already happened.

 

[FishFace]

Hmm, nice analogy physxxx.

That's the point. Can Abraham Lincoln choose to do something he didn't do? No, of course not - it's all done, set in stone, unalterable. Now you may say that Abraham Lincoln could have chosen to do something else, and then our knowledge would be different. That's all well and good, but in God's case, there's never a point in time, or out of time, when God doesn't know what Abraham Lincoln, or you, did, do or are going to do. So there's never any time when those actions weren't set in stone, so you're not free.