Free Will

[elman]

Hello Elman,

I just wanted to thank you for reading and responding to my little thought. And for giving an Amen to the basic fact that God does not change or move...We are the ones that move and do "whatever"! Oye!...will we ever learn??!!! Praying "all" come into His wisdom and truth.

Our God is unchangeable, but unfortunately "we" are the ones who allow ourselves to be tossed to and fro with the winds...if we let them...And then "we" have to walk our way back to HIM...as HE never changed or moved away...EVER! AMEN!! Sincerely, hannah

Thank you and I still agree with you.

 

[tcampen]

The bottom line between our actions being determined and God's knowledge making them determined is the same.

The two are similar, but they are NOT the same. The former is forcing one to make a particular choice, the latter is eliminating the ability to choose anything but what is known. It is subtle, and the result is the same, but they are distinct - I'm sure you can see this.

But it really comes back to a definition of free will. If one holds that free will requires a point at which no being knows with absolute certainty what the choice will be, then omniscience and free will cannot both exist. Define free will differently, you might be able to make the two co-exist.

And BTW, this whole notion about God being outside of time is irrelevant. If God interacts with us in our linear time at all, then god no longer is outside our linear time existence. Most Christians believe god is constantly interacting with our universe and with individuals - thus acting within our time. This creates a linear, cause-and-effect (i.e. time) relationship with regard to God's actions. Furthermore, even if we assert God could have this duality of being in our linear time and outside of it in a non-time existence, it still breaks down. Before God can take any action, either in our universe or in his, it must be preceded by a cause, such as a thought. This cause-and-effect relationship presents a linear series of events - which is synonymous with time. Admittedly, time as we know it could be very different in a separate, supernatural universe, but you still cannot get away from the cause-and-effect relationship. Thus, arguing that somehow God's "timelessness" answers the free will vs. omniscience issue is inherently flawed.

 

[levi501]

*edit.

 

[FishFace]

Are you totally unable to recognize a counter argument?

I can recognise both counter arguments and rhetoric, and tell the difference between them. If you don't switch from the latter to the former, there's no point in talking to you.

No it is not a contradiction. For me to say God is beyond my understanding is not the same thing as saying I can know nothing about God or understand nothing about God.

So you don't think it's a contradiction to say "God is beyond my understanding, but I can understand something about God." Fine, fine.

Onde again you have not responded to my response. The passage of time is as objective as my existence is.

How is the passage of time objective if it is not the same for every observer - i.e. God does not experience it? That's contrary to the very definition of objective - being the same no matter who's observing.

Maybe you should read the wikipedia.

I'll give my definition first:

Strawman argument - an argument which is similar to, but not the same as, the argument of someone with whom you disagree, which you then refute, claiming that this argument is, in fact, your opponent's argument, and that they are therefore wrong.

Wikipedia says:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

Your claim that "God's knowledge doesn't cause our actions" is a straw man of my argument, because it is a misrepresentation of my argument (which is that God's knowledge indicates our actions are determined) and is easily refuted.

I did not say there was no possible evidence , but I did say we cannot substanciate the claim for His existence where faith is not needed.

Faith is just a placeholder for real evidence. If I had faith in Allah, or Thor, or Osiris, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, my believe would not be rational.

People agree with me due to their own experiences--evidence to substatiate their beliefs, and because it gives us some hope for justice and victory over death and evil.

So there are two reasons for believing. The first is personal experience - except I had "religious experiences" previously, which I attributed to God, but which I now realise are perfectly explainable without God.
The second is that it makes us feel happy, which is as odd as saying that it is a good idea to not believe in earthquakes because earthquakes make us sad.

 

[phsyxx]

Stand up and stretch, walk to the window, look at the sky, then look at a tree, clap your hands and hear the sound, jump and feel the effects of gravity, take some fruit and eat and enjoy it, take a pen and paper and draw that which is in your mind, for everything we see is the product of that which God has seen in his mind.

Draw a tree, he drew it first and turned it into a reality, just like the person who seen a bird and wanted to do that which the bird did, namely fly, slowly turned that thought into a reality, machines are an extension of our perception, mind, and reality, just as us and our world are an extension of God's perception, mind and reality.

Everthing we do is an extention of that which he set in place, if birds didnt exist, would we still be able to fly? if Dolphins didnt exist, would we have sonar? if bats didnt exist, would we have radar? everything we think of is an extension of that which has already been thought.

Wow! Good list!
You almost broke into a bit of prose there Mark777.


But erm.... could I ask you, how would you explain the existence of God?

I know that may seem an off-topic question, but it is relevant and I'll hopefully be able to use your answer constructively to further the discussion.

So....how do you explain the existence of God?

 

[phsyxx]

Originally posted by: ELMAN

"No I would say they are all happening at once in His eternal present moment, no past, no future from His position, just the eternal moment."

You realise then, that the implications of “eternal moment” and the being eternal/beyond time is that all events are ‘static’. Quite an odd concept, I know, I had to get my head around it, as someone with great patience explained it to me over a period of time as I grew to understand it, but once grasped it brings great clarity.

Remember, God is omniscient, and immutable. He cannot be wrong, nor change, nor be subject to time. Therefore his knowledge is perfect. His perception of events is perfect, and because he does not experience time (a process of moving and being subject to it) – nothing moves. For God one moment does not flow into another, but is an infinity of photos, captures of reality.
It means that God can perceive a tackle in football as a moment, he can perceive the outcome equally and in the same way, perceive the result of the game in the same way, and all of the creatures that used to inhabit the area prior to the football stadium being built.
These events do not, because of his transcendence, have any chronological order – and it would therefore be a human way of interpreting this immense perception to put it into a linear timeline.
As in, it would be easier to comprehend, plus it would be more fitting with our perception of reality to see this moment as the present, and all that have gone before as “before”. (See, it even creeps into the language!) But, in (God’s) reality, all of these events are there, and are existent SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Therefore, God knows ALL events.

Yet, to us, time travels in forwards, we change, and we move along with time.

Therefore, let me ask you: - are we not merely experiencing the set of photos that God has perceived and known before/after/outside/beyond of time?

Quote:

Omnipotence includes the ability to delegate power and therefore results of this can occur that is not in line with his will.

BUT. Can you see the flaw in this argument?
It seems logical, and I understand entirely why you say that, but if we unpick the logical implications of that statement, then it boils down to,
“An all-powerful being can make his creation do things which he does not want them to do”.
Which is, I fear, essentially senseless.

Here it is important for me to explain why I disagree with you on that matter.
I disagree with you because for me, God can either COMMAND things, or God can ORDAIN them.
In layman’s terms – God either makes things happen or he lets them happen.
There is nothing outside of that.
Why? How is that possible? Well – An omnipotent being has all the power. There can be no power outside of the being’s power. It would be like saying that there can be anything outside of infinity. If there was, the infinite wouldn’t be, it would be finite. A finite amount to an infinite amount is infinitesimal.
If we do the same for God’s power, any power other than God’s is effectively made infinitesimal by God’s omnipotence.

However, if you discard what I have said and were to say “Omnipotence includes the ability to delegate power, and therefore results of this can occur that is not in line with his will.”
Then are you saying that God is not omnipotent anymore?
If God is still omnipotent though, he could stop that which is against his will and make everything in line with his will, no?
Remember, you can take a thousand away from infinity, but it’s still infinity.
God’s power knows no limits – therefore no matter how much power God delegates, he still has an infinite amount and can never be overcome.

AND – if none of that was convincing – I have to ask you…
Why did God delegate the power in the first place if it resulted in things which went against his will?
AH! Stop there! Remember… God’s omniscient AND eternal AND immutable.
God MUST have known the consequences of delegating power
Or
God didn’t know – therefore isn’t omniscient
Or
God knew afterwards – therefore God isn’t immutable. Nor is he eternal (would have seen ‘future’ consequences).

May I remind you of the things we have agreed on so far:

Quote:
Therefore, God must KNOW all events.

I agree.
Quote:
Therefore, this knowledge CANNOT BE CHANGED. (Immutable)

I agree.
Plus:
“I would say God is not subject to time. “




Now – knowing that the only way we can overcome this flaw is for us to do one of two things:
1) Reject God’s omnipotence (God is not omnipotent)
2) Reject the idea that there are beings/actions/events that do not sit in line with God’s will.

It is impossible for us to do anything other than the two above stated options – unless we want to logically contradict ourselves, thereby invalidating the beliefs/arguments we have been holding/expressing.

Quote:
We are correct and it is not an illusion.

May I ask you, what exactly is the difference between illusion and reality?
(making reference to The Matrix)

Quote:
“I don't believe the theists who say God controls every detail and therefore God is fooling you into thinking it is your choice but it is really Him doing it.”

“For someone to tell me I am unable to make these choices or that what appears to be choices for me is me being fooled”

I see you’ve found a nice piece of middle-ground there. (Sorry, it seems I’ve misconstrued the last part of your post, but I’m sure you can remember the whole of it, so you’ll know I’m referring to the ‘I don’t believe Atheists who tell me I’m controlled by DNA”

Erm…..so it seems that ……well….may I ask you this question?

What if your Genetic-makeup was such that you, as an organism, would be unwilling to accept the concept of determinism?

 

[theIdi0t]

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.

If I have a crystal ball, and I can see what happens in the future?

Does this mean that free will is lost?

I can shoot a man, or not shoot a man, God may know what I will choose, but he's not choosing for me.

 

[smog]

we have never made anything better that that which has been provided, doesnt that tell us that maybe there is some intelligence involved in the things we strip down and try and re-produce.

We're certainly better at making things than we were a hundred years ago. Give us some time

I used the example of drawing something from the mind because to me this world (natural) is a drawing of his mind, to me it makes perfect sense, how can perfect patterns appear from nothing, how can there be a perfect code that goes through all of nature and us without an Author?

You lack imagination.

Its like an operating system appearing on a computer before an OS was even invented, and not only that, but one that never crashes, bleeps, and also somehow can run from its own power and stay self sufficient and look after itself without any involvement at all, its more likely that Bill Gates exists and designed an operating system so why not a creator for life as we know it, our operating system called life.

The problem is that this is how operating systems work now. Our software, right now, is designed by humans, because computers are a new thing and we're using it to lever our intellect. But it won't always be that way.

From the perspective of someone who works in the field (me), it is increasingly obvious that no human is talented enough to program human-level AI or even true image recognition. On the other hand, we are making increasingly sophisticated algorithms to solve problems automatically, algorithms that are mostly inspired from natural processes (genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, etc). Those algorithms are much simpler to understand than the problems they solve - in many cases they fit on a sheet of paper. Yet, they already solve some tasks much better than we could. It's not a stretch to imagine that they will eventually solve all problems better than we do.

What this means is that there will come a point where our own operating systems will make themselves without any creator, using simple yet powerful processes largely similar to those that made us (but which you perhaps disbelieve). When you will realize that simple things are in fact extremely good at building complex things, belief in God will become hard to hold.

 

[phsyxx]

If I have a crystal ball, and I can see what happens in the future?

Does this mean that free will is lost?

I can shoot a man, or not shoot a man, God may know what I will choose, but he's not choosing for me.

Right - analogy problem alert!


Your comparison denotes that God is a human with a crystal ball.
Or that God is a human that knows the future in some way.
Also - you overlook the fact that if you were to see this killing of a man in the crystal ball - it would happen no matter what you did.
That, therefore would deny you the ability to have a choice in the outcome - therefore you would not have freewill.

 

[FishFace]

If I have a crystal ball, and I can see what happens in the future?

Does this mean that free will is lost?

No, it doesn't mean it is lost, it means it was never there in the first place. If you have a 100% accurate crystal ball, or a 100% accurate God, it shows that free will doesn't exist.
Think about it - if I see, in the crystal ball, that you are going to shoot a man in 5 years time, and the crystal ball is 100% accurate, then, in 5 years time, you cannot choose not to shoot that man.

 

[Theogonia]

No, it doesn't mean it is lost, it means it was never there in the first place. If you have a 100% accurate crystal ball, or a 100% accurate God, it shows that free will doesn't exist.
Think about it - if I see, in the crystal ball, that you are going to shoot a man in 5 years time, and the crystal ball is 100% accurate, then, in 5 years time, you cannot choose not to shoot that man.

What if the ball just shows what the choice will be if the man continues on his current path?

 

[MARK777]

We seem to be doing laps with the question of freewill, the problem people seem to be arguing is, if God can see everything, then ultimately we dont have a choice, and if we do have a choice, but still end up in a place God doesnt desire us to be, then God cannot be all knowing, you see the connumdrum?

But lets try looking at it this way.

1) When we try and comprehend how God sees our lives people tend to lean on God seeing it as one clean road of decisions leading to a destination, however I see things slightly different, I think God sees a persons life with all paths and directions and decisions that a person can take or make in life, this is a persons freewill decisions, what would be the point in giving a person freewill if they cannot exercise it correctly, it wouldnt be freewill, imagine seeing a glimpse into the future of a person having a bad emotional experience, getting drunk, getting into a fight, and hurting someone badly, and going on a downward spiral from this, this would not be a very positive turn of events for this persons life, but it would be still there freewill decision to do this and act upon it, now imagine this been someone close to you who you love dearly, if you seen this would you want this person to experience this? ...
Am sure most people would say of course not, now imagine putting yourself into the place the day before this happens, you are there to talk to this person, keep them calm and stop them from going out, not because you forced them, but because you were there, because you were there this stopped them from experiencing this chain of events.

This is the way I see God works in peoples lives, he sets up certain things and events that lead people to him, so he can work in there lives in a similar way and lead them to a straight path and journey through life.

2) imagine today you see a persons life on a DVD, where they grew up, what decisions they made, who they chose to be freinds with, who they didnt, who they chose to be with, what job they did, who they loved and who they disliked and many other factors of this persons life up until death, would you watching this DVD before they came to live that life effect there freewill decisions?... they wouldnt know, all there decisions would be based on there own mind thinking what they desire to do and acting on it, just because you have seen their life it doesnt make it any less valuable or meaningful, if the DVD turns out to be a comedy, horror, or something of great impact it would be because they Authored it this way from the decisions they made in life.

 

[theIdi0t]

No, it doesn't mean it is lost, it means it was never there in the first place. If you have a 100% accurate crystal ball, or a 100% accurate God, it shows that free will doesn't exist.
Think about it - if I see, in the crystal ball, that you are going to shoot a man in 5 years time, and the crystal ball is 100% accurate, then, in 5 years time, you cannot choose not to shoot that man.

No, I'm choosing to shoot that man.

Let's say you have a 100% accurate crystal ball, and you tell me I'm going to shoot that man, that means that I would say yes I am going to shoot that man. It's not preventing me from choosing, it's just that I would be choosing what was foreseen.

Your crystal ball would also have foreseen that you were going to present me with my future, and what ever changes in choices that I would have made because of it would be foreseen as well.

The crystal ball does not restrict my free will, it just knows what I would be choosing in various scenarios, but it's not doing the choosing for me.

 

[FishFace]

What if the ball just shows what the choice will be if the man continues on his current path?

Then it is not 100% accurate and is not a good enough analogy of God. God's knowledge is infallible, so for the analogy to work, the ball must also be infallible, meaning that it must show what is going to happen.

 

[FishFace]

No, I'm choosing to shoot that man.

Let's say you have a 100% accurate crystal ball, and you tell me I'm going to shoot that man, that means that I would say yes I am going to shoot that man. It's not preventing me from choosing, it's just that I would be choosing what was foreseen.

Your crystal ball would also have foreseen that you were going to present me with my future, and what ever changes in choices that I would have made because of it would be foreseen as well.

The crystal ball does not restrict my free will, it just knows what I would be choosing in various scenarios, but it's not doing the choosing for me.

That doesn't answer the question of how, given that the ball showed you shooting the man and, given that the ball is 100% accurate, you can choose not to shoot the man.
How can you have a "choice" if you have no option of choosing something else?

 

[theIdi0t]

That doesn't answer the question of how, given that the ball showed you shooting the man and, given that the ball is 100% accurate, you can choose not to shoot the man.
How can you have a "choice" if you have no option of choosing something else?

I see the problem, let's fix it.

I buy apples everytime I go to the supermarket, my friend who sees the future tells me that I am going to buy an apple next time I go to the supermarket, perhaps I think about not buying an apple next time I go to the supermarket to prove him wrong, but when I get to the supermarket I'm like why bother, and I just buy the apples.

But I think we have a problem with your 100% accurate ball. There is a difference in saying God can forsee the future, and God telling me what is in my future. God forsees in the future that if he does not tell me the future that I will walk across the street in the next few minutes and get hit by a car, God can forsee in the future that if he tells me, then I won't.

Perhaps God can forsee in the future that even if he tells me my future, that I am still going to get hit by the car, which just means when God told me, I just said screw you God.

 

[FishFace]

I see the problem, let's fix it.

I buy apples everytime I go to the supermarket, my friend who sees the future tells me that I am going to buy an apple next time I go to the supermarket, perhaps I think about not buying an apple next time I go to the supermarket to prove him wrong, but when I get to the supermarket I'm like why bother, and I just buy the apples.

This doesn't really add anything to the debate, but OK.

But I think we have a problem with your 100% accurate ball. There is a difference in saying God can forsee the future, and God telling me what is in my future. God forsees in the future that if he does not tell me the future that I will walk across the street in the next few minutes and get hit by a car, God can forsee in the future that if he tells me, then I won't.

Yes, that would come under omniscience. But God also knows which of those situations is going to happen. He knows whether or not he's going to tell you. Imagining your friend with the crystal ball and you with the apples. It doesn't matter whether the friend tells you you're going to buy apples, because the ball is like God's perfect knowledge - it tells you what will happen.

Perhaps God can forsee in the future that even if he tells me my future, that I am still going to get hit by the car, which just means when God told me, I just said screw you God.

Yes, but this doesn't alter the fact that, whatever God sees you choose, you cannot not do. If God sees you choose to buy oranges instead of apples, you are guaranteed, 100% to buy those oranges. You have no option of buying apples.

 

[theIdi0t]

Yes, but this doesn't alter the fact that, whatever God sees you choose, you cannot not do. If God sees you choose to buy oranges instead of apples, you are guaranteed, 100% to buy those oranges. You have no option of buying apples.

I have a choice, I make a choice,

God sees me choose,

I have no choice, does not follow.

How do I choose to buy apples, and have no choice in buying apples?

 

[elman]

Quote:
The bottom line between our actions being determined and God's knowledge making them determined is the same.

The two are similar, but they are NOT the same. The former is forcing one to make a particular choice,

If I am forced to make a particular choice, I have not made a choice.

But it really comes back to a definition of free will. If one holds that free will requires a point at which no being knows with absolute certainty what the choice will be, then omniscience and free will cannot both exist. Define free will differently, you might be able to make the two co-exist.

I do define free will differently. It has nothing at all to do with what someone else knows. It is simply the ability to chose to love someone or not love them.

And BTW, this whole notion about God being outside of time is irrelevant. If God interacts with us in our linear time at all, then god no longer is outside our linear time existence.

He is if He choses to be.

Most Christians believe god is constantly interacting with our universe and with individuals - thus acting within our time. This creates a linear, cause-and-effect (i.e. time) relationship with regard to God's actions.

From our point of view perhaps but not necessarily from God's.

Furthermore, even if we assert God could have this duality of being in our linear time and outside of it in a non-time existence, it still breaks down. Before God can take any action, either in our universe or in his, it must be preceded by a cause, such as a thought. This cause-and-effect relationship presents a linear series of events - which is synonymous with time. Admittedly, time as we know it could be very different in a separate, supernatural universe, but you still cannot get away from the cause-and-effect relationship.

I don't claim to understand what we are talking about when we saying not being subject to time, but given that I don't think we should assume God thinks and acts like we do.

 

[elman]

Ive recently read being and nothingness, and i find that free-will cannot be given by god, for the reason of this fact is that existence is contingent, if this is the case this would mean god is contingent on the alternative, but in this way god cannot be contingent and never-the-less is, thus god cannot exist. If you say though that god is not contingent then he can not exist because existence is a contingency. This idea of god as a self-cause or self-maker has been mentioned by these debates. If god causes himself, then he must stand at a distance from himself in this way it makes him a something of dependablity or i.e. contingent.

You are not serious. God has always existed and is not contingent and He is able to create you and give you free will. Existence of God is not a contingency.