Free Will

[tcampen]

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.

The question is whether the actor in the DVD had the freewill to choose differently than what is on the DVD - or whether it is set in (digital) stone. This is a subtle point about the nature of free will, and whether a truly free decision requires a point at which the actual choice is ultimately unknown to any being, even the one making the choice.

Also, the analogy is difficult to use, because it mixes past with future events. The past is the past, and immutable for it is done. If we had such a "future DVD" (AK.A. perfect foreknowledge), then the future would be similarly immutable, meaning no matter what we did, it could not be changed - essentially requiring a fatalist view of reality.

This may be the way things actually are, but I prefer a world where true free will exists - thus necessarily negating any concept of omniscience. I guess it is my philosophical world-view.

 

[theIdi0t]

The question is whether the actor in the DVD had the freewill to choose differently than what is on the DVD - or whether it is set in (digital) stone. This is a subtle point about the nature of free will, and whether a truly free decision requires a point at which the actual choice is ultimately unknown to any being, even the one making the choice.

Then even without a God there is no true "free will". One's environment, one's genetic make up, etc... are what make up our decisions, and not us ourselves.

Let's say you can start the whole universe again, to the same exact detail to the way this universe began, given 4.5 billion years, everything in that universe would be exactly the same as everything in our universe today. The people in that universe would mirror us, and repeat the same choices that we once made, because all the factors that affected their choices, would be exactly the same, down to exact thoughts at any given moment.

So much for "true" free will?

 

[smog]

Then even without a God there is no true "free will". One's environment, one's genetic make up, etc... are what make up our decisions, and not us ourselves.

Unless we are our genetic make up, in which case we do, at least in part. Any sensible definition of "self" has to include in a way or another some of the factors, such as the brain or genetic makeup, that make up our decisions. If it doesn't, you're working with a "self" that's basically empty, a sort of metaphysical ghost that represents you yet stands for nothing.

 

[theIdi0t]

Unless we are our genetic make up, in which case we do, at least in part. Any sensible definition of "self" has to include in a way or another some of the factors, such as the brain or genetic makeup, that make up our decisions. If it doesn't, you're working with a "self" that's basically empty, a sort of metaphysical ghost that represents you yet stands for nothing.

What I am saying is, that if one knew someone's biological make up well enough, and someone's environment well enough, then he can predict this someone's future choices.

But more importantly if one knew someone's biological make up well enough, and can control his environment well enough, than he can control this someone's choices. Because there is no part of us, that is independent of these things. We are our biology and our environment.

So how is free will any truer without God, than it is with God?

 

[Theogonia]

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.

I believe I said the same thing earlier. I got no response.

I believe that God knows every possible outcome of every possible choice we could ever possibly make in our lives. Maybe there is one "best" path, but it is not the only good path.

 

[-Z-]

I believe I said the same thing earlier. I got no response.

I believe that God knows every possible outcome of every possible choice we could ever possibly make in our lives. Maybe there is one "best" path, but it is not the only good path.

God also knows which of those paths we will take at which times. I think thatyou are operating under an inaccurate veiw of God by placing Him inside of time.

 

[Charlie V]

I think thatyou are operating under an inaccurate veiw of God by placing Him inside of time.

I was never able to bend my brain around that concept, "inside of time" or "outside of time."

I think of "inside" and "outside" as a physical relationship to other things. "Inside the car" "Outside my house" "Inside the box."

I can see how something can be inside a clock, or outside a clock, but I don't see how something can be inside of time or outside of time.

I can see how events can occur inside a specific frame of time, for example, an event can occur between 2:00 and 4:00 PM on Thursday. But I see the passage of time as infinite. There is no minute that you can't subtract a minute from and be one minute earlier.

For that last reason I can't understand "outside of time" itself, what the very concept could possibly mean. It sounds non-sequetor, like something that exists besides everything that exists. What could possibly exist that's outside of the set of "everything that exists"?

If time, as I see it, is infinite, then nothing could be "outside time." If something could be "before the beginning of time.." then time had to have begun earlier, before that "before the beginning of time" time, so that "beginning of time" had to have been inaccurately stated. If something happens "after the end of time," then time didn't end yet, for that thing to have happened then, so that the "end of time" was inaccurately stated. If time is infinite, then it had no beginning or end, which is how I see time.

Unless, of course, Time is a magazine, in which case, something can be outside Time.

Charlie

 

[hannahfievel]

Hello,

Well, I have read "alot" of the debates here a couple of times and have asked in prayer as for understanding in this matter. And...then I remembered "how" I came to understand freewill and it "all" started as far back to the two trees to choose from in the Garden. The Tree of Life "or" the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in which you can "see" that God wanted us to have "choice" to choose Him or not to, for me I choose the only viable tree to live in...The Tree of LIFE!

Then I remembered the book in which this subject is explained "far better than I can", so I thought well...here's the book and the title for anyone who would like some further understanding about "the love of God, about the subjects of the law and grace, and about "freewill". The book is by Rick Joyner, who "not all his books are awesome, but this "one" was"...and it is called "There Were Two Trees in the Garden", I'll just say...a very easy to read and well put book. In His love for "all" of us, your sister, hannah

 

[elman]

What I am saying is, that if one knew someone's biological make up well enough, and someone's environment well enough, then he can predict this someone's future choices.

But more importantly if one knew someone's biological make up well enough, and can control his environment well enough, than he can control this someone's choices. Because there is no part of us, that is independent of these things. We are our biology and our environment.

So how is free will any truer without God, than it is with God?

Either way we have choices and make them and live with the consequences. We are not forced to make the choices we make by our biology and environment. Can I prove that is true? No. And it cannot be proved that our biology and environment forces us to make the choices we make. So we make our assumptions as our worldview.

 

[elman]

The question is whether the actor in the DVD had the freewill to choose differently than what is on the DVD - or whether it is set in (digital) stone. This is a subtle point about the nature of free will, and whether a truly free decision requires a point at which the actual choice is ultimately unknown to any being, even the one making the choice.

Also, the analogy is difficult to use, because it mixes past with future events. The past is the past, and immutable for it is done. If we had such a "future DVD" (AK.A. perfect foreknowledge), then the future would be similarly immutable, meaning no matter what we did, it could not be changed - essentially requiring a fatalist view of reality.

This may be the way things actually are, but I prefer a world where true free will exists - thus necessarily negating any concept of omniscience. I guess it is my philosophical world-view.

I also prefer a world where true free will exists and I also prefer a world in which I have been created for a purpose by a Creator that knows me so well that He knows what I am going to do before I do it, but is not forcing me to do it.

 

[smog]

What I am saying is, that if one knew someone's biological make up well enough, and someone's environment well enough, then he can predict this someone's future choices.

Why is that such a big deal anyway?

But more importantly if one knew someone's biological make up well enough, and can control his environment well enough, than he can control this someone's choices. Because there is no part of us, that is independent of these things. We are our biology and our environment.

That is not necessarily true. You are saying that if X knows Y well enough, then X can control Y's choices. But what if Y knows enough about X, couldn't he control X?

The fact is that there's a sort of equilibrium going on there and that neither X nor Y can fully control the other. If you have a computer in front of you and you know that it contains a program that tells you "hi" everytime you type something, you can't make it tell you "hello" just by manipulating its environment. You will have to change the program (its genetic makeup). But doing that pretty much changes its nature and makes it something else.

So how is free will any truer without God, than it is with God?

Depends on the definition of free will, the definition of God and how you view a godless universe.

Either way we have choices and make them and live with the consequences. We are not forced to make the choices we make by our biology and environment. Can I prove that is true? No. And it cannot be proved that our biology and environment forces us to make the choices we make. So we make our assumptions as our worldview.

What if we succeed in making a machine that can predict one's behavior from a complete description of his biology and environment (obviously, the environment would be restricted so the subject is never aware of the machine)? Wouldn't that be a rather convincing argument for the latter?

If time, as I see it, is infinite, then nothing could be "outside time." If something could be "before the beginning of time.." then time had to have begun earlier, before that "before the beginning of time" time, so that "beginning of time" had to have been inaccurately stated. If something happens "after the end of time," then time didn't end yet, for that thing to have happened then, so that the "end of time" was inaccurately stated. If time is infinite, then it had no beginning or end, which is how I see time.

You can be "outside time" in two ways. The first is to just never move or change for eternity. If you have a rock that's always there regardless of the time step, you could consider that it is de facto "outside time", because time adds no information on what it is or where it is.

Another way is to abstract time. You could consider a dvd to represent a timeline, and you would be "outside" that timeline, although you have one of your own. That's the main problem with conceptions of God as a being "outside of time". Maybe he can view all our timeline all at once, but if he "created" us, then at the very least he must have his own timeline. In any case, it's a flaky concept.

 

[-Z-]

I was never able to bend my brain around that concept, "inside of time" or "outside of time."

Exactly. That the entire point of my post, we as humans attempt to limit God to our own understanding when it simply cannot be done. God has revealed some of His character to us through scripture but that by no means means that we understand Him.

For that last reason I can't understand "outside of time" itself, what the very concept could possibly mean. It sounds non-sequetor, like something that exists besides everything that exists. What could possibly exist that's outside of the set of "everything that exists"?

The creator of all that exists. See our veiw of God comes back in a circle here. For if you believe in God. Then you beleive that God created everything yes? Well if God created everything, then He must have created time. If God created time, then why should He be limited to the standards of His own creation? He can't or else time would be god, for it would be in control over God.

If time, as I see it, is infinite, then nothing could be "outside time." If something could be "before the beginning of time.." then time had to have begun earlier, before that "before the beginning of time" time, so that "beginning of time" had to have been inaccurately stated. If something happens "after the end of time," then time didn't end yet, for that thing to have happened then, so that the "end of time" was inaccurately stated. If time is infinite, then it had no beginning or end, which is how I see time.

Genesis 1:! "In the beginning God" Time did have a beginning, everything had a beginning but for God. For in the beginning, God already was.

Unless, of course, Time is a magazine, in which case, something can be outside Time.

Charlie

Touche

God Bless,
-Dave

 

[-Z-]

You can be "outside time" in two ways. The first is to just never move or change for eternity. If you have a rock that's always there regardless of the time step, you could consider that it is de facto "outside time", because time adds no information on what it is or where it is.

Another way is to abstract time. You could consider a dvd to represent a timeline, and you would be "outside" that timeline, although you have one of your own. That's the main problem with conceptions of God as a being "outside of time". Maybe he can view all our timeline all at once, but if he "created" us, then at the very least he must have his own timeline. In any case, it's a flaky concept.

Why must He?

 

[Charlie V]

Genesis 1:! "In the beginning God" Time did have a beginning, everything had a beginning but for God. For in the beginning, God already was.

Genesis 1:1 didn't say, "In the beginning of time." It didn't say what it was the beginning of.

I was once told that even this was a mistranslation of the ancient Hebrew, and that, when properly translated, it is rendered, "When God was beginning to create the heavens and the earth.."

However, I know of no specific translation that translates Gen 1:1 that way.

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

The creator of all that exists. See our veiw of God comes back in a circle here. For if you believe in God. Then you beleive that God created everything yes? Well if God created everything, then He must have created time. If God created time, then why should He be limited to the standards of His own creation? He can't or else time would be god, for it would be in control over God.

1. If God exists, God could not have created "everything" because God is a "thing." If there was a "pre-existant thing" then that was a "thing" God didn't create: Himself.

2. It's not necessarily the case that the belief in God means the belief that God created "everything."

3. I don't think time is a "thing." I think of time conceptually, and as something that always existed.

4. Time does not have to be "God." For one thing, Time isn't percieved as having consious thought, while God is percieved as having consious thought.

It also need not "control" God. To some extent, it doesn't even "control" me. I go to the ice cream store. I can choose vanilla or chocolate. Time doesn't make me choose vanilla when I wanted to choose chocolate. (Though it might encourage me to eat it faster, if it's melting.)


Charlie

 

[-Z-]

If you translate the first directly from Hebrew, which I just got done doing it says something to the extent of, "Beginning filled God the Heavens and Earth." (Genesis 1:1) So I retract my statement from previous about this verse.

However, my statement about God being outside of time stands. For as I said before, He would not be God if He was governed by another law.

 

[-Z-]

Well, in order to fully understand where you are coming from, will youo please describe what God is to you in the most literal way you can?

 

[Charlie V]

Well, in order to fully understand where you are coming from, will youo please describe what God is to you in the most literal way you can?

My thing in this discussion is more about "Time" than about "God."

I think -- regardless of how you define "God" that "time" is still infinite.

Charlie

 

[-Z-]

My thing in this discussion is more about "Time" than about "God."

I think -- regardless of how you define "God" that "time" is still infinite.

Charlie

This discussion is entirely about God and His assosiation with time. And I simply want to see if our understandings of God are why we don't see eye to eye on this wich I am certain is the case.

 

[tcampen]

Then even without a God there is no true "free will". One's environment, one's genetic make up, etc... are what make up our decisions, and not us ourselves.

Let's say you can start the whole universe again, to the same exact detail to the way this universe began, given 4.5 billion years, everything in that universe would be exactly the same as everything in our universe today. The people in that universe would mirror us, and repeat the same choices that we once made, because all the factors that affected their choices, would be exactly the same, down to exact thoughts at any given moment.

So much for "true" free will?

You are making the assumption that consciousness is not special if it arrose out of purely natural circumstances. There is no evidence consciousness (thus our decision making process) has any supernatural component. In fact, all the empiracle evidence points to the opposite conclusion. We can see thinking occur in real time in the brain using sophisticated scanning equipment. (You should see the next generation of lie-detectors.) Drugs, physical exhaustion, pain, and other physical phenomena can have direct impact on the exercise of our free will - which should not be the case if free will were supernatural and transcendental of our physical universe. Consciousness is a function of the brain.

The deterministic philosophy you refer to is a straw man in light of consciousness. To reduce our existence (and consciousness) down to just atoms, physics and chemical reactions is overly simplistic.

But even using your hypothetical of an identical parallel universe starting out the same way 15 billion years ago producing the exact same results as we have today - but for a supernatural free will - makes little sense. Even with your concept of free will, why would any decisions be made differently if everything were exactly the same? Perhaps, either way, you're looking at a deterministic existence.