Does Free Will Exist?

[bricklayer]

You are correct. As far as I know radioactive decay and quantum uncertainty are the only two examples of truly random(or perhaps truly uncertain) phenomenon that occur.


I do not agree. I believe in a sovereign God. God cannot change. He cannot come to know anything. He does not need a thing to be to know it. I am left to believe that there are things about God's creation that we cannot calculate, but this is exactly the creation God chose to create.
This is exactly the creation God chose to create, exactly this one, no uncertainy, nothing random.
Either God is absolutely sovereign or absolutely not. I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, He is absolutely sovereign. All things were made by Him, and for Him all things are made.
The difference between an author and his character is incalculable to men, but it is quantifiable. It is finite. The author is finite, the character is finite. So, the difference between them is finite.
The difference between the Creator and His creature is incalculable to men, because it is infinite. The Creator is infinite, the creature is finite, the difference between them is infinite.
God has infinitely the right to do with his creation whatever He will.
He does not need to subject Himself to chance, or human-free-will, or anything else to justify what He does with His creation.
I simply do not believe that's what's going on around us. I believe in a sovereign God, and everything falls into place quite nicely, nothing random, no chaos, no fear, no worrys.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is exactly the creation God chose to create, exactly this one, no uncertainy, nothing random.

If it could be demonstrated that there is indeed uncertainty and randomness in the universe, would you be forced to give up belief in God entirely, or just that particular belief in God?

Either God is absolutely sovereign or absolutely not. I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, He is absolutely sovereign. All things were made by Him, and for Him all things are made.
The difference between an author and his character is incalculable to men, but it is quantifiable. It is finite. The author is finite, the character is finite. So, the difference between them is finite.
The difference between the Creator and His creature is incalculable to men, because it is infinite. The Creator is infinite, the creature is finite, the difference between them is infinite.

Then how do you know a truly spontaneous and random universe is unknowable or otherwise incompatible with an absolutely sovereign deity?

God has infinitely the right to do with his creation whatever He will.

Why? I've always had an issue with this.

 

[bricklayer]

If it could be demonstrated that there is indeed uncertainty and randomness in the universe, would you be forced to give up belief in God entirely, or just that particular belief in God?


Then how do you know a truly spontaneous and random universe is unknowable or otherwise incompatible with an absolutely sovereign deity?

Intellectually, to me, nothing is ever really proven. It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven, and what remains is what I'm left to believe. Then, that's tested, and what remains is what I'm left to belive; and so on and so on.

Demonstation of the humanly incalulable is no proof of the random.

I do not contend that anything is unknowable, that's my point.
Everything is known, by God, this is exactly the creation He chose to create.

The difference between finites is finite, it is quantifiable.
It may not be humanly calculable, but it is what it is, and God knows what it is.
Therefore, nothing is random, there is no chance.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If it could be demonstrated that there is indeed uncertainty and randomness in the universe, would you be forced to give up belief in God entirely, or just that particular belief in God?


Then how do you know a truly spontaneous and random universe is unknowable or otherwise incompatible with an absolutely sovereign deity?

Intellectually, to me, nothing is ever really proven. It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven, and what remains is what I'm left to believe. Then, that's tested, and what remains is what I'm left to belive; and so on and so on.

Demonstation of the humanly incalulable is no proof of the random.

I'm aware of the inherent limitations on epistemology; nothing can be proven outside of mathematics, etc. But that doesn't answer my question: if true randomness were proven, would you then give up this conception of deity?
My point is to probe what comes first: your particular theology, which then precludes any belief in randomness, or your disbelief in randomness, which allows for this particular theology. That is, is your theology based on your current understanding of things taken as is, or is your theology taken a priori?

I do not contend that anything is unknowable, that's my point.
Everything is known, by God, this is exactly the creation He chose to create.

The difference between finites is finite, it is quantifiable.
It may not be humanly calculable, but it is what it is, and God knows what it is.
Therefore, nothing is random, there is no chance.

I believe that to be a non sequitur. 'Random' does not mean 'unknowable', it means 'unpredictable', which, as theists are so fond of reminding we hethens, are not the same thing for a temporally-transcendent being.

In other words, even if radioactive decay is a truly random and spontaneous and unpredictable event, that doesn't mean God can't 'fast forward' and see the results, thereby knowing in advance (from the perspective of temporally linear beings) what it will do.

That doesn't preclude the decay event's randomness, and, thus, it doesn't preclude human free will.

 

[bricklayer]

If random is defined as unknowable by man, I will concede to the existence of the random.
If it is definded as unknowable, I do not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If random is defined as unknowable by man, I will concede to the existence of the random.
If it is definded as unknowable, I do not.

True randomness would indeed be unknowable to humanity, but 'unknowable to humanity' is not a sufficient condition for something to be deemed truly random. There could be many things we cannot know which might well not be truly random.

A truly random event is one which does not require a pre-existing event to occur in order to happen; thus, it is unpredictable to temporally linear agents.

This doesn't mean a temporally non-linear agent can't look ahead, of course, which is my point.

 

[quatona]

God has infinitely the right to do with his creation whatever He will.

Please explain what " a right" means when it comes to god. Who has allowed god his rights? Or is this just a "might makes right" thing?

I simply do not believe that's what's going on around us. I believe in a sovereign God, and everything falls into place quite nicely, nothing random, no chaos, no fear, no worrys.

I don´t know. "Falls into place quite nicely" seems to be totally a matter of perspective. I don´t believe that spending eternity in hell gives you the feeling that everything has "fallen into place quite nicely".
You know, I just can´t seem to manage find comfort in things "falling into place quite nicely" from a perspective that isn´t mine. Like, say, I wouldn´t expect a laboratory rat to endure its suffering confidently because it´s told that the experiments will help make everything "fall in place quite nicely" for the researchers and humanity.

 

[sandwiches]

Please explain what " a right" means when it comes to god. Who has allowed god his rights? Or is this just a "might makes right" thing?

I don´t know. "Falls into place quite nicely" seems to be totally a matter of perspective. I don´t believe that spending eternity in hell gives you the feeling that everything has "fallen into place quite nicely".
You know, I just can´t seem to manage find comfort in things "falling into place quite nicely" from a perspective that isn´t mine. Like, say, I wouldn´t expect a laboratory rat to endure its suffering confidently because it´s told that the experiments will help make everything "fall in place quite nicely" for the researchers and humanity.

The problem with arguing with people like him or AV is that there's no common ground between us. In fact, it's like we're not even in the same universe. For instance, it doesn't automatically follow that a creator always has absolute power over his creations. However, the special pleading comes into play as in "but it's different because he's God." You might ask "Why is it different with God? Why are the same standards of morality, good, etc, not applicable to God?" And the key to why we'll never see eye to eye comes out: Because the Bible says so. For people like AV and Bricklayer, their reality is PRESCRIBED by a book. This book trumps anything and everything that can ever exist, be seen, felt, heard, or otherwise detected. AV has gone so far as to assure us that if Jesus himself came down and told him that Bible isn't all true, that he wouldn't believe him and that, in fact, he'd have to assume that it wasn't Jesus but the devil.

Unfortunately, this realization has made me start losing disinterest in debating people like this. We're completely desynchronized from what reality means to one another and in the end, it all boils down to the question that AV has never answered for me: "Why do you believe your interpretation of the Bible over everything else?"

 

[ThePresbyteers]

Why?

Cause God is there before you even have a chance to be free in your wills.
If He waited, you wouldn't even exist.

 

[quatona]

The problem with arguing with people like him or AV is that there's no common ground between us.

I defnitely see your point (although I must say that in my view there´s still a huge difference between AV and bricklayer).
Yet, I find it interesting to track down the difference of the paradigms. The purpose of discussion, as far as I am concerned, is not to convince them.
E.g., when bricklayer says that "God has a right" I am interested in what that means in his conceptualization and language (I would imagine that his actual point is that God doesn´t even need to have any right to do as God wishes - yet he is using a the wording "God has the right" - as though this were a meaningful statement within his own conceptualization).

In fact, it's like we're not even in the same universe. For instance, it doesn't automatically follow that a creator always has absolute power over his creations. However, the special pleading comes into play as in "but it's different because he's God." You might ask "Why is it different with God? Why are the same standards of morality, good, etc, not applicable to God?"

I don´t think that would be my question. My question would rather be: "If we are so infinitely different from God - why would we be expected to conform with God´s paradigms, morality etc.? Why would I be expected to accept something as meaningful that doesn´t and - according to the very infinite difference between God and me that´s the keypoint of the argument - can´t make sense to me?

And the key to why we'll never see eye to eye comes out: Because the Bible says so. For people like AV and Bricklayer, their reality is PRESCRIBED by a book. This book trumps anything and everything that can ever exist, be seen, felt, heard, or otherwise detected. AV has gone so far as to assure us that if Jesus himself came down and told him that Bible isn't all true, that he wouldn't believe him and that, in fact, he'd have to assume that it wasn't Jesus but the devil.

Well, yes, that´s an interesting point, anyway, that I have been pondering for quite a while here: When God can do anything God wishes to do with God´s creation, we don´t even have criteria to tell whether the author is God or the devil.

I guess one thing that keeps striking me as contradictory:
First people tell you that without God´s "objective" morality "everything (Hitler/Stalin/youname it) would be permitted", and in the next step they tell me that because God is objective and sovereing everything (even though it may not differ from those things that they point out as being the threat in the absence of God) is permitted.
(E.g.
1. Without God genocide would be permitted.
2. Because God is God genocide is permitted (or at least could be - in God´s morality which is beyond questioning and discussion).)

 

[ThePresbyteers]

...

Actually, I do not believe there was a "first" cause or effect, I don't believe there was a first anything(at least in terms of the idea of something coming into existence from nothing.)....

I believe in the finger that caused the first wave in the waveless sea of water. The finger of God.

 

[bricklayer]

True randomness would indeed be unknowable to humanity, but 'unknowable to humanity' is not a sufficient condition for something to be deemed truly random. There could be many things we cannot know which might well not be truly random.

A truly random event is one which does not require a pre-existing event to occur in order to happen; thus, it is unpredictable to temporally linear agents.

This doesn't mean a temporally non-linear agent can't look ahead, of course, which is my point.

We agree.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We agree.

Magic.

 

[freereason]

Magic.

Great. Now the physicist believes in magic. I might as well convert and start praying for a Steeler victory this weekend.

However, while I too would agree with the idea of a being not bound in time also not being bound by randomness, I dont think we'll be getting any predictions from them anytime soon.

 

[jonmichael818]

They are indeed interesting, but no: I was referring to simultaneity in Relativity.

Oh yes, simultaneity is fascinating as well!

 

[jonmichael818]

Meh, the topic's already gone on it's own route but I'll jump in anyway.

Assuming that our brains are not capable of randomness (and I've seen nothing to suggest that they are) then it depends on what you want to define free will as. We have the ability to make whatever choices we want, it's just that with the same stimuli we'll make the same decision. It'll be our decision, it won't have been decided for us, but we'll still make the same decision.

Whether that counts as free will or not, I'm not sure.

So, would you say you are something along the lines of a compatibilist?
If yes, do you agree that compatibilism can be reduced to complex determinism?

 

[jonmichael818]

Cause God is there before you even have a chance to be free in your wills.
If He waited, you wouldn't even exist.

So do you believe in predestination, are you a Calvinist?

 

[jonmichael818]

I guess one thing that keeps striking me as contradictory:
First people tell you that without God´s "objective" morality "everything (Hitler/Stalin/youname it) would be permitted", and in the next step they tell me that because God is objective and sovereing everything (even though it may not differ from those things that they point out as being the threat in the absence of God) is permitted.
(E.g.
1. Without God genocide would be permitted.
2. Because God is God genocide is permitted (or at least could be - in God´s morality which is beyond questioning and discussion).)

I agree with the point you are making here. This is exactly why I don't think religion should be a guide or a standard for anything, it can lead you down a path of illogical nonsense.

 

[Tielec]

So, would you say you are something along the lines of a compatibilist?
If yes, do you agree that compatibilism can be reduced to complex determinism?

I remember you asking a similar question of Daniel Dennet's position further back in the thread. I somewhat remember him responding to such a question in one of his seminars. He basically responds by saying that yes his position could be referred to as complex determinism.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So, would you say you are something along the lines of a compatibilist?

After looking it up, I'd say that I'm a compatibilist. Sort of. My view is that we have free will, we just can't really exercise it.

If yes, do you agree that compatibilism can be reduced to complex determinism?

Not really, because free will and determinism are separate, at least the way I see it.