"Free Will" vs "Free Choice" vs "Predestination"

[quatona]

From #73:
I am not entirely certain that I understand the term correctly, but I think it is having conflicting desires or beliefs. If that is true, I would certainly expect someone in God's situation to have that happening. I am not sure why it is perceived negatively, it seems quite natural and reasonable sometimes. I have experienced conflicting desires and beliefs and while it is uncomfortable, it is not what I would consider wrong. It is more just the way I am.

Thanks for finding me the quote!

Under the premise of the definition of god that I used for my posts (creator, omni-all, etc.) postulating conflicting desires and beliefs doesn´t make much sense. God, under this premise, isn´t bound by conditions, he creates them. We, OTOH, are experiencing conflicting desires and beliefs due to the fact that we have to accept pre-existing conditions.
Now, you already told me that you don´t subscribe to the omni-version of god - so my argument obviously doesn´t apply to the god of your concept.
On another note, I am always a little suprised when I hear statements of the kind "I have these problems, so it´s logical that God can have them, too" - it seems to work from the premise that God is just like the next guy. (Don´t get me wrong: "God" is not a copy-righted term, and everyone is free to use it to denote whatever concept they wish. So I am not criticizing god concepts for their premises, it´s just that I am sometimes surprised.)

Information that is a statement of fact, is evidence.

This seems to be a very lean definition of "evidence". To me, if someone makes a statement of fact this is - at best - evidence that this person believes what he says. A claim isn´t evidence for the claim´s accuracy.
But maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant to say here?

There are two things here, the first that the majority is not always right, so the common definition of God cannot be assumed to be correct just because it is the most common.

That´s why I didn´t say or imply anything to that effect.
Remember, I am not a theist. So if you ever feel that I am trying to argue for the accuracy of a particular god concept you must be mistaken.

The second, I do consider parts of the bible to be valid evidence and since the bible is solely about God (not some other personage, even if they are given the name "God"), that is it therefore an authoritative resource on the topic. The reason I use such a general acceptance of the varied collection of evidences that constitute the bible, is because of the distinctive corroboration of His nature. With this said, there are parts of the bible which I don't in honesty know can be relied on as authoritative evidence, such as the accounts in the book of Genesis. To this day, I have not been told who wrote those accounts and where the information originated. So while there are concepts in the story that are innately true, the assumption that Adam was formed by God from dirt, and that they were tempted to eat fruit from a forbidden tree was an actual event in history is just that. An assumption. I can't by conscience expect someone to believe it to be true, but based on the assumption that it is true, I can draw understandings of what I can observe of reality. There are other parts of the bible that are more reliable than Genesis, of course, and I do regard them as more a matter of fact.

Thanks for explaining your approach.

Well, some holy books are genuinely flawed. But I would like to know why you wouldn't take them as an authority on the topic they are intended for.

Well, for one, I am not even sure that they were meant to be authoritative in the way you assume them to be.
Secondly, you yourself don´t seem to consider all holy books authorative when it comes to describing the nature of the divine, either. The mere fact that there are different holy books describing different gods makes it downright impossible to work from the premise that they are authoritative just because they are considered holy books - except, of course, for a polytheist.

If I take this to refer to the bible, I don't know why you would say that. The bible is a collection that has some statements of fact (whether you trust the author's honesty or not is besides this point).

It´s not so much that I doubt the honesty of the authors, I am not even convinced that their statements are intended to be statements of facts, to begin with.
Furthermore, since the bible is - as you say - a collection of writings from different authors, the intentions of those authors can differ. Some may have intended their writing to be statements of fact, some may have intended them to be allegories, etc. etc.

So those types of statements need to be considered in that context. So, when making the decision you have made, we need to consider the prospect that the author may be honest or not. If the author is honest, then God does seem to have interacted with people in a way that encourages faith and understanding of Him. If the author is dishonest however, then the entire collection of perspectives that appear consistent is actually a grand delusion.

The honesty of the authors has never been my concern. For all I care, I am willing to assume they were perfectly honest.

Now to test that, we need to know whether the author is reliable, and there is nobody we can trust more than ourselves. My personal experience demonstrates that I am honest about my experiences, and the god that has interacted with me appears to be consistent with the god who interacted with the authors of the bible. I can not say this about other holy texts: Koran, Bhagavad Ghita, Mormon or even some of the philosophy that isn't associated to religion. This is why I trust some of the statements in the bible to be true, and why the difference in experiences we have had leads you to not necessarily trust the same statements to be true.

If I understand you correctly here, the determining factor is your personal, individual experience. I would totally agree that that´s good enough for arriving at your personal convictions - but I was talking about evidence, and by that I meant something like "intersubjective evidence".

Where this leaves us in terms of realism vs religious bull, is whether the nature of the God concept is consistent through biblical scripture. This is why I keep asking whether a belief is supported by the bible or not, because quite often the bible is cherry-picked to support someone's agenda, instead of being used to refine the person's agenda.

If I haven´t completely misunderstood you above, you yourself don´t take all statements in the bible for statements of fact - depending on your personal experience. I am not sure I have completely understood why that is not cherry-picking but refining your own agenda.

I think I just did, but let me know if it didn't suffice and indicate why, I will see if I can explain a bit more specifically.

oi, thanks for the efforts you put in explaining it. I think I have a better idea now about your approach. Of course, I would have plenty of questions and objections, but since we have come completely off-topic here, and since general apologetics isn´t allowed in these forums anyway, I guess it´s best to leave it at that.

Yes, but that is all that is within my power to reasonably do.

I agree that it´s in your power, I don´t agree that it´s a reasonable thing to do.

It is a matter of sympathizing with the creature and assuming to feel the way they are behaving, that is how communication works anyway.

Part of sympathizing with another creature is also to acknowledge that they may be different from me.

I don't agree. A dog can be trained just as well as a human can.

Sorry, but I am losing track here completely. You asked me where I see the difference between the will of a bird and the will of a human, and I tried to explain it. The question whether a dog can be trained or not hasn´t been subject to my considerations. Yes, I agree, a dog can be trained. I just don´t know what that has to do with anything.
But since both of us fail to see the relevance of an animal´s will for the topic at hand (and both of us can´t seem to recall what has lead us to discuss it, in the first place) I think we can simply put this part of the conversation to rest, ok?

 

[oi_antz]

I agree it is way off topic now and I did not know thst general apologetics is not allowed here so I will conclude. I will just pick a couple of important questions for you to understand who I am, if more is required I would welcome a private message so to keep the thread on track.

Thanks for finding me the quote!

Under the premise of the definition of god that I used for my posts (creator, omni-all, etc.) postulating conflicting desires and beliefs doesn´t make much sense. God, under this premise, isn´t bound by conditions, he creates them. We, OTOH, are experiencing conflicting desires and beliefs due to the fact that we have to accept pre-existing conditions.
Now, you already told me that you don´t subscribe to the omni-version of god - so my argument obviously doesn´t apply to the god of your concept.

No, I do believe He knows everything that is knowable. What I don't just accept is that His anticipation, however perfect, is knowledge. At that point it is theory, challengable and time goes to prove His accuracy.

On another note, I am always a little suprised when I hear statements of the kind "I have these problems, so it´s logical that God can have them, too" - it seems to work from the premise that God is just like the next guy. (Don´t get me wrong: "God" is not a copy-righted term, and everyone is free to use it to denote whatever concept they wish. So I am not criticizing god concepts for their premises, it´s just that I am sometimes surprised.)

Ok, well I am inclined to accept the possibility, which causes me to keep an eye out for relevant information. My words specifically were that someone in His situation probably would have conflicting desires. Eg, His much loved priest being gunned doen in church. But what should He do, prevent every sinner from sinning? This is where the God concept is vitsl to have correct, because this sort of question invokes our desires and bias to forge a concept of God that may not necessarily be reslistic. Reality just is what it is, there are things about it we may not like.

This seems to be a very lean definition of "evidence". To me, if someone makes a statement of fact this is - at best - evidence that this person believes what he says. A claim isn´t evidence for the claim´s accuracy.
But maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant to say here?

I think so, unless I should have used the word "information" instead, but I would need to think more about the difference. I mean like a witness in court can provide a testimony, which is evidence. The witness can be discredited, causing the evidence to be dismissed. The testimony may still be accurate though.

Well, for one, I am not even sure that they were meant to be authoritative in the way you assume them to be.
Secondly, you yourself don´t seem to consider all holy books authorative when it comes to describing the nature of the divine, either. The mere fact that there are different holy books describing different gods makes it downright impossible to work from the premise that they are authoritative just because they are considered holy books - except, of course, for a polytheist.

I do tend more toward polytheism than against it. To dismiss the reality of deities besides God would require a very unfair disregard for the experience of many many people.

It´s not so much that I doubt the honesty of the authors, I am not even convinced that their statements are intended to be statements of facts, to begin with.

This has me curious now. I do want your opinion but it is off topic and maybe in breach of the rules. Can you pm me to let me know how you regard Matthew 26:53?

Furthermore, since the bible is - as you say - a collection of writings from different authors, the intentions of those authors can differ. Some may have intended their writing to be statements of fact, some may have intended them to be allegories, etc. etc.

The honesty of the authors has never been my concern. For all I care, I am willing to assume they were perfectly honest.

If I understand you correctly here, the determining factor is your personal, individual experience. I would totally agree that that´s good enough for arriving at your personal convictions - but I was talking about evidence, and by that I meant something like "intersubjective evidence".

That requires strictly honest intellectualism. Too many people prefer to save face than to choose correction. Philippians 3:15 is relevant.

If I haven´t completely misunderstood you above, you yourself don´t take all statements in the bible for statements of fact - depending on your personal experience. I am not sure I have completely understood why that is not cherry-picking but refining your own agenda.

No you are right. There are statements in the bible that are intended to be a manner of fact, which I don't know are reliable statements of fact. It is all in Genesis. Of corse this does not impede my belief that the statements are factual, only that I can't promote it as such. If I do one day find evidence of it's reliability I might very well adapt accordingly.

I agree that it´s in your power, I don´t agree that it´s a reasonable thing to do.

Why not? It does encourage intimacy, which results in love.

Part of sympathizing with another creature is also to acknowledge that they may be different from me.

Sure, but there are obvious similarities. Some people are absurd like that, as though it takes millenia of whipping horses before science can prove that animals probably do feel pain.

Sorry, but I am losing track here completely. You asked me where I see the difference between the will of a bird and the will of a human, and I tried to explain it. The question whether a dog can be trained or not hasn´t been subject to my considerations. Yes, I agree, a dog can be trained. I just don´t know what that has to do with anything.
But since both of us fail to see the relevance of an animal´s will for the topic at hand (and both of us can´t seem to recall what has lead us to discuss it, in the first place) I think we can simply put this part of the conversation to rest, ok?

Yes it gradually shifted emphasis and I don't see a way to connect it again. Well, ok. It has been an uneventuating string of decisions to act (or vice versa). Does this perhaps indicate that our desires were not focussed on the purpose of the thread but something else? Makes sense to me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, I don't know how you think my concept of God is formed if it isn't based on scripture. I am actually here to gain a better understanding of what is true, not what is logically correct if a specific assumption is made. Part of this process has caused me to question whether God does know everything perfectly before the time has passed, and to get that answer I need to consult an authoritative source. The bible is one that for the greater part, I do accept to be an authoritative source. Common opinion might be correct, but I need to look at the source of that opinion to see if it is authoritative. So I asked for a verse because it has the highest likelihood to be authoritative. If you want to discuss common opinion without verifying it's claim to truth, then I have to tell you that I will not respect what you say nearly as much as if it is based on truth. So for the meantime, I have not committed to the assumption that God's foreknowledge is a fact, but I will continue to look for information that can answer that question.

Well, I can't define your god for you. You define him in whatever way pleases you. My entire line of reasoning here has been hypothetical.

Generally, regardless of your specific beliefs, god is defined as all-knowing about past, present and future.

That's all I need to build my argument.

If you wish to claim that free will / choice exists (and that, by extension, we are responsible for our actions) then fine. In that case I'll state that if that is true, then god - whoever he is and however he is defined - cannot have a trait that gives him accurate foreknowledge.

If you wish to claim that god (or anyone or anything else) is capable of having exact foreknowledge, then under that hypothetical context I will have to conclude that if that is true, free will / choice cannot exist.

It's simple law of non-contradiction.

I always say: "anything is possible, except mutually exclusive things".

No, it makes foreknowledge a reliable determination of what will happen, but you are assuming that because it can be predicted by someone who knows it well enough, that it therefore is not a free decision.

It seems I'm having a hard time getting that point across. I'm genuinely wondering why. It seems perfectly logical to me.

First, let's clear something up.
The hypothetical I'm operating under is not "reliable" foreknowledge. It's 100% ACCURATE foreknowledge, with 0 chances of being wrong.

I have given enough examples using gravity what I mean by this in terms of deterministic and non-deterministic paths into the future.

If I can know with 100% certainty that tomorrow at work you will choose for chicken soup instead of tomato soup, think about the implications.

Since my foreknowledge is certain, this event is INEVITABLE. There's a determined path there and nothing can be done to deviate from it. Because if that option even EXISTS, then my foreknowledge cannot be 100% certain, since there's always that chance (no matter how small) where the subject ends up choosing differently anyway.

Now consider all the choices that need to be made for this event to take place...

- for starters, the cook at your work cafeteria MUST choose to make soup
- from all the soups available, he NEEDS to choose chicken and tomato
- assuming there is not enough soup for everybody and you are kind of late for lunch, enough people before you in the line must NOT choose chicken or tomato soup, or there will be nothing left for you to choose from
- you MUST choose the tomato soup once you are next in line

And this is only counting the most important choices of that day. There are plenty of other choices that must be made by plenty of people for that chicken and tomato soup to end up on the menu at your office on that specific day.

For many examples we can imagine, thousands of choices need to be specific options while not one may be different, since that could make the whole outcome change. Like the butterfly effect.

I ask you...

How could such accurate, certain foreknowledge exist if all our choices weren't determined before we make them, before we are even born, before our parents were born,... and so on.

Take a step back for a second and rewind time 5000 years. We are now in the days of Egyptian civilization. Now consider the idea that there is a god who KNOWS for CERTAIN that YOU will be choosing for tomato soup over chicken soup on February 28th, 2014 during lunch.

Imagine everything that NEEDS to happen, all the people that HAVE to meet, that NEED to decide on children on the EXACT moments (only the sperm-cell you came from would result in you being born, any other sperm cell would result in different DNA and thus a different person), etc etc etc etc
Consider the many many many people that need to make the correct decisions so that those specific tomato's end up being cultivated and used to make this soup.

How can you look at this and state that such exact foreknowledge does NOT imply a script that reality needs to stick to by necessity, by compulsion?

It can just as well be an observation of someone who is making a decision freely

You can't observe things before they happen.
And you can only accurately predict things before they happen if those things are inevitable and determined to happen (by whatever means).

The only time it is not a free decision is when someone comes along and interferes with that decision (which I assume He does with everyone, in various ways, supremely but not completely).

This I can not agree with.
I don't see why a natural process wouldn't be able to make our brains deterministic, even with the illusion of the opposite present.
Using the word "someone" here, makes it a loaded proposition.

 

[durangodawood]

I dont think ANYONE here knows for sure exactly how the putative relationship between the temporal and the eternal really works.

No one here is qualified to be definitive about the implications of the "Gods eye view".

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't agree that this "If my choices are inevitable, they are not free" is a claim?

No. Just like "if I am sitting down, I am not running" is not a claim. It's a deduction based on the meaning of the words being used.

You're issue, yet again, is that there is no set definition of "free will." It therefore cannot be any deduction based on the meaning of words as "free will" holds more than one meaning!

I feel like this conflates several concepts of "free will". You act as if nobody agrees what it is. Yet, nobody would agree that a computer has "free will". So, clearly, there is agreement about at least certain aspects of it. It's one of those aspects that I am invoking here.

And I gave you the example of justice to illustrate which aspect that is. It's from the context of "free will" that we hold people accountable for their actions. Buried in that is the concept that people DO have free choices. That if they rob a bank, they didn't HAVE to rob the bank. That they had the option to decide against it.

I ask, how can that option exist if not only your, but everything's future is pre-determined? It HAS to be deterministic for accurate foreknowledge to exist.

Your claim and "if I am sitting in a chair, then my body is not walking" are not comparable in the least. That you think they are is bothersome. The above claim is based on an observation

No. It's based on the meaning of words. If I know what it means to sit and know what it means to walk, I can know that both can't occur at the same time. I don't need any observation of people sitting and people walking to be able to come to that conclusion. Understanding the concept of "sitting" and the concept of "walking" is all I need.

Determinism and free choice are not observable in the same way and cannot be known in the same way.

Neither are necessary to understand that both concepts are incompatible.

He does act how he wants that is why he chooses the one egg over the other. It is what he wants. It doesn't matter if it was determined as part of that determination process is a key part of the individual himself as well as the other factors. This should even be clear to you as you just agreed with me that foreknowledge itself does not cause the events foreknown to happen. Thus, something else must cause the events foreknown to happen. That would be the individual as well as the other factors but to exclude the self, which perhaps in some cases be more of the significant role, is ridiculous.

I'm not excluding anything. If it was known beforehand that egg 1 would be chosen, then that is the only possible outcome. Logically, this means that the dude who then makes the inevitable choice was never truly free to decide otherwise. He was only free to choice that 1 inevitable option. No matter what processes lead him to that choice. The point is that there was nothing he could do to deviate from the determined path that leads to egg 1.

Also, without actually explaining what is making one experience an illusion in a deterministic universe does no good to saying one does experience said illusion

I've repeatedly stated that the actual nature of the processes at work are irrelevant to the point being made.

My reasoning is simple.
- You have a decision to make and are offered the choice between A, B and C
- accurate foreknowledge says that B will be your choice
- B being chosen is inevitable

Were you at any point free to choose A or C? I don't see how you can answer that question with anything but "no, you weren't".
B was inevitable. The subject believing that he could have gone for A or C is an illusionary belief, because B was inevitable since it was the determined choice before the decision was even made.

If we don't know what causes the illusion, we wouldn't even know if there is an illusion to begin with, and if there is, why it couldn't be the illusion that there is an illusion yet is not.

I'm speaking hypothetically. I don't believe that a god exists and I certainly don't believe that the future is 100% fixed and determined.

I'm saying, IF a god exists and IF this god has exact foreknowledge about every decision we will ever make, THEN free will has to be an illusion.

Off course we couldn't prove that, since we would be under the influence of it and have no way out. It just seems to me to be an inevitable conclusion IF a god exists and IF that god has exact foreknowledge.

So, that the definitions of free will and determinism are in contrast is simply an opinion of yours. The fact that you do not realize this is tremendously dense.

I feel like you are not being honest about this.
The way I'm using it here, people would agree to it.
I'll refer you to justice again. All of us assume that people are responsible for the decisions they make. This implies that we all assume that people can make decisions by choosing from various options. That when they steal money, they made that choice and had the option to choose otherwise. So we punish them to try and make sure that next time, they'll choose otherwise. We never assume that people are robots that are only capable of running the algorithm in their heads without having the option to act differently.

Are you saying that you disagree with this?

You see we can test a person sitting in a chair to see if they're running.

Why would you need to?
The word "sitting" implies "not running". There's no need for any testing.
If you have two concepts that are mutually exclusive, you don't need to test either one to know that they can't occur at the same time. Because that is an impossibility by definition.

I didn't actually think you'd fall for it but I was wrong. I mean I was seriously asking the question, "How is not being able to do otherwise mean ones not free?" But the answer, "you aren't free because.... -drumroll-.... you weren't free to do otherwise!!!! badum-pum-psshhh" is not only bad sarcasm but a perfect example of the fallacy of circular reasoning I was talking about. It is typically the answer I would have expected but not really as one ought to realize the fallacious nature of the answer to the question.

I don't see any circularity in using words by what they mean.

If you have "free choice" between A, B and C, but it's inevitable that you'll choose B, how "free" was your choice really?
I can't seem to get an answer to this, nor an acknowledgement of the point made...

Wouldn't "free choice" imply that you actually have the option to go for A or C anyway? How is that true if B is inevitable anyway?

I think it is you who is having a hard time with understanding the issue. Your claim is not fact. It is a belief. You gave a fallacious argument in response to my question regarding your belief on determinism and free will. It is the fallacy of circular reasoning as as you made made a statement that assumes that the very question being argued is already proven. You gave gave a text book example of the fallacy with your sarcastic drum roll response.

You keep saying this, but I'm just not seeing it. You seem pretty convinced and I want to see it, but I don't.

I didn't assume anything as far as I can see.
I just asked the question "if exact foreknowledge exists, what does that mean for free choices/decisions/will?"
I then asked the question what makes choices "free choices". The answer to that is what lead to my conclusion. Free choice is the ability choose between options. I don't see how I can have that freedom if my choice is determined before I make it.

If you wish to say that I can make free choices even though my choices are already determined before hand (by whatever process), then it seems to me that you can say the same about a computer.

The algorithms and input variables determine the choice of the computer. But you'll probably agree with me that the computer doesn't have the option to make a choice that is different from what the algorithms and input variables have determined.

This is the reason why we don't say that computers have a free will or free choice.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll define free will as: given the same set of past conditions and present conditions, a person can truly and in all actually choose from more than one course of action.

Booya. My point exactly.
Do I have this freedom if it can be known today with certainty that I will be robbing a bank on September 25th, 2020 at 15:05?

 

[Noxot]

This is a very good observation IMO. Do you think the will of Christ, the devil and the flesh are offering different arguments when making a decision? I am aware of these forces on my thoughts sometimes too. What do you think of poolerboy's points regarding the subconscious bubbling up to the consciousness? I will ask him something about this soon.

yes different perspectives and motivations. poolerboy's points regarding the subconscious... hmm well for one it already has a certain mindset with certain ideas about reality, just like we all have. I have heard that the subconscious mind functions way faster than the conscious mind, and obviously the subconscious is part of who we are and so how does that take away our free will? I believe that the human brain in general can enslave a human especially if they are not determined to go against it sometimes ( such as when fear is the moving force behind something ). the brain is in some ways like a muscle and in some ways it is like a receiver of information from various sources. the human body is not the source of our free will unless that is what we are. however this human body is only one part of what we are. people that believe that they are only a physical body will come to very different conclusions about reality.

Awesome presentation, great sense of humour, made me chuckle. Thanks for that. What I think from this is the distinction Jacob is making between acquiring information and using that information. As he put it: learning, thinking and creating. The distinction he made about Sir Isaac Newton's study being halted during the black plague, which otherwise may have resulted in the omission of his contributions to science. Which has a serious impact on our conversation of free will and predetermination, or fortunate coincidence as the weaker in faith might say. Well anyway, the impact of the black plague gave conditions for him to think in a way he did not expect or probably desire, yet it resulted in an impact that affects us even today. Just as my decision to watch this video against a slothful desire (the video doesn't work on this HTPC I am using), well the point is that I chose to watch it and in reviewing it, may cause someone else to overcome their sloth to watch it too. That action could have an impact on the future which should I have been so lazy woud not have happened. Nor would it have happened if you had not popped along to this thread. I don't know what to conclude from this, but it is an observation that may be valuable in the future.

it can be explained if from higher realities we already agreed for certain things to happen but not in specific ways and then down here and from above there we complete the picture together. this would mean that there is much more going on in reality than just this tiny speck of our universe.

 

[oi_antz]

Well, I can't define your god for you. You define him in whatever way pleases you. My entire line of reasoning here has been hypothetical.

Generally, regardless of your specific beliefs, god is defined as all-knowing about past, present and future.

That's all I need to build my argument.

If you wish to claim that free will / choice exists (and that, by extension, we are responsible for our actions) then fine. In that case I'll state that if that is true, then god - whoever he is and however he is defined - cannot have a trait that gives him accurate foreknowledge.

If you wish to claim that god (or anyone or anything else) is capable of having exact foreknowledge, then under that hypothetical context I will have to conclude that if that is true, free will / choice cannot exist.

It's simple law of non-contradiction.

I always say: "anything is possible, except mutually exclusive things".



It seems I'm having a hard time getting that point across. I'm genuinely wondering why. It seems perfectly logical to me.

First, let's clear something up.
The hypothetical I'm operating under is not "reliable" foreknowledge. It's 100% ACCURATE foreknowledge, with 0 chances of being wrong.

I have given enough examples using gravity what I mean by this in terms of deterministic and non-deterministic paths into the future.

If I can know with 100% certainty that tomorrow at work you will choose for chicken soup instead of tomato soup, think about the implications.

Since my foreknowledge is certain, this event is INEVITABLE. There's a determined path there and nothing can be done to deviate from it. Because if that option even EXISTS, then my foreknowledge cannot be 100% certain, since there's always that chance (no matter how small) where the subject ends up choosing differently anyway.

Now consider all the choices that need to be made for this event to take place...

- for starters, the cook at your work cafeteria MUST choose to make soup
- from all the soups available, he NEEDS to choose chicken and tomato
- assuming there is not enough soup for everybody and you are kind of late for lunch, enough people before you in the line must NOT choose chicken or tomato soup, or there will be nothing left for you to choose from
- you MUST choose the tomato soup once you are next in line

And this is only counting the most important choices of that day. There are plenty of other choices that must be made by plenty of people for that chicken and tomato soup to end up on the menu at your office on that specific day.

For many examples we can imagine, thousands of choices need to be specific options while not one may be different, since that could make the whole outcome change. Like the butterfly effect.

I ask you...

How could such accurate, certain foreknowledge exist if all our choices weren't determined before we make them, before we are even born, before our parents were born,... and so on.

Take a step back for a second and rewind time 5000 years. We are now in the days of Egyptian civilization. Now consider the idea that there is a god who KNOWS for CERTAIN that YOU will be choosing for tomato soup over chicken soup on February 28th, 2014 during lunch.

Imagine everything that NEEDS to happen, all the people that HAVE to meet, that NEED to decide on children on the EXACT moments (only the sperm-cell you came from would result in you being born, any other sperm cell would result in different DNA and thus a different person), etc etc etc etc
Consider the many many many people that need to make the correct decisions so that those specific tomato's end up being cultivated and used to make this soup.

How can you look at this and state that such exact foreknowledge does NOT imply a script that reality needs to stick to by necessity, by compulsion?



You can't observe things before they happen.
And you can only accurately predict things before they happen if those things are inevitable and determined to happen (by whatever means).



This I can not agree with.
I don't see why a natural process wouldn't be able to make our brains deterministic, even with the illusion of the opposite present.
Using the word "someone" here, makes it a loaded proposition.

Hey, I will have my computer back tonight, it will be easier to navigate and reply properly, besides, I am heading to work soon. Two things that I can quickly say for your consideration in the meantime, take a look at the last post I made on this thread to Quatona, that will show you better what I presently think is a more correct concept of God than the hypothetical one you are using. Secondly, the future hasn't happened yet. What say if God did expect you would choose chicken soup, and He was to be correct, yet for some reason He decides He doesn't want you to have Chicken soup tomorrow. Do you think it is within His power to do something (let's say that He imparts an understanding on you as the news bulketin is speaking of some chicken pandemic, whatever it takes to impact your decision). Do you think this is unreasonable by logical surmise of your observation of reality? Thanks, and I will be back later when I am better equipped.

 

[oi_antz]

Ps, you still had me instead of Lopez in your clipboard for #85.

 

[quatona]

Ok, well I am inclined to accept the possibility, which causes me to keep an eye out for relevant information. My words specifically were that someone in His situation probably would have conflicting desires. Eg, His much loved priest being gunned doen in church. But what should He do, prevent every sinner from sinning?

Well, why not?
But, more to the point, my question would rather be: Why didn´t he set up the world in a way that wouldn´t lead to sin, in the first place?
Or, even more basic: Why did God create at all, and why a physical world, of all possible worlds?

This is where the God concept is vitsl to have correct, because this sort of question invokes our desires and bias to forge a concept of God that may not necessarily be reslistic.

I´m still not sure I understand what you mean when calling a god concept "realistic". Does it mean that we should reverse engineer our god concept after what we observe as being his creation´s result: earthly reality? That wouldn´t make much sense to me, since allegedly god wasn´t bound by this reality´s limitations - he created them.

On another note, there are many different "realistic" possible solutions for reconciling the fact that a. a god exists and b. there are things we don´t like, e.g.:
- God wanted these things to exist (and the fact that we don´t like them is owed to our lack of knowledge and insight).
- God didn´t want them to exist, but couldn´t create things differently than he did.
- God doesn´t care for his creation. He just uses it for a higher purpose (kind of like the way researchers use lab rats: their suffering can´t make sense to them since they a. aren´t the point of interest but just tools, and b. they are incapable of seeing the "higher" purpose for which their well-being is sacrificed: human health, human beauty, etc.)

However, solutions like "The conditions God was subjected to when creating our reality may have been similar to the conditions he created for our existence (and therefore, he may have mixed feelings, just like we do)" always strike me as oddly half-hearted. Postulating a super-beyond-entity in order to explain how and why everything came into being the way it is, and in the next step "realistically" cutting down this entity to human size...I don´t know...it seems to me that there isn´t much left then that God´s existence would help explaining, then.

Reality just is what it is, there are things about it we may not like.

From the non-believer´s perspective (i.e. without assuming an intention behind reality), I can accept this quite fine.
Whereas one of the reason for which theists typically hold their beliefs in high regards (and often criticize non-theistic philosophies for being unable to) is: being able to explain why our reality is the way it is (along with several other existential why-questions).
Thus, if in the end the theistic responses come down to the same shoulder shrugging "Reality is just what it is." that I never had problems accepting, anyway, I am somehow missing the very answers that theistic religions are claimed to provide.

 

[Philothei]

The idea of God ....hmmm
It is a mystery for sure since we can never fully understand the mind of God. We are NOT of the same essence of God.
We think human we act human
He is God he does have a bird eye view and for sure He does not care for our life on earth rather our soul's salvation. Further more a lot who argue towards why God does not predestine all...to Paradise we have to wonder...

God cares also NOT of our life on earth but that one in heaven so the argument "why the baby dies" is pointless...since baby is safe and sound and "saved" while we who live we got to deal with our salvation... God cares of our soul more than what happens with our bodies Or better yet we are given a body to take care and a soul just the same... This is a temporary existence the next permanent.

We have a free choice to take the challenge in front of us and live like we are mortals or like we are immortals...God give us this chance every single day of our lives getting up in the morning we decide which road we will go down ..... I think that pretty much sums it up about free will... or it does not?

 

[oi_antz]

Hi, thanks, I have my computer running now so I will be much faster and more accurate with my typing. I have received your PM's too, thank you for that, I will get to them soon after addressing DogmaHunter.

Well, why not?

I cannot imagine how that would work practically, if we are to assume that eating is impacting another creature, that creature is being sinned against. However, just because I can't imagine it because my imagination is a product of my experience of this world, does not mean it can't be done. I do believe that it would not have achieved the same result as doing it this way, so because of that I look to see if there might be a benefit of doing it this way, and then whether that benefit may be sufficient to imply a purpose. I do see some benefit to doing it this way, and I suppose that does imply some purpose.

But, more to the point, my question would rather be: Why didn´t he set up the world in a way that wouldn´t lead to sin, in the first place?

I'm not sure if this is general apologetics, but it is off topic. I do actually want to know what ideas you have about this, so I will ask you in the PM.

Or, even more basic: Why did God create at all, and why a physical world, of all possible worlds?

That is a different question. To understand this question we do need to know about the world that preceded the creation of the physical. I don't have any information about that, so this question is one I cannot answer. I suppose though, if a physical world did not exist, but God wanted a physical world, He probably would make a physical world because He wanted one. It also doesn't prove that He hasn't made several physical worlds. St Paul's belief that those who love Him have never imagined what He has in store for them would suggest there might well be different types of worlds yet for us to experience.

I´m still not sure I understand what you mean when calling a god concept "realistic". Does it mean that we should reverse engineer our god concept after what we observe as being his creation´s result: earthly reality? That wouldn´t make much sense to me, since allegedly god wasn´t bound by this reality´s limitations - he created them.

Yes, I think that is what I am saying. Basing an understanding on something other than what is observed does not seem very realistic IMO, and when an idea contradicts what is observed then it seems unrealistic. I don't think we should limit God to what we can observe of Him though. We humans do not have a sufficient perspective for observing the whole of things that are bigger than us.

On another note, there are many different "realistic" possible solutions for reconciling the fact that a. a god exists and b. there are things we don´t like, e.g.:
- God wanted these things to exist (and the fact that we don´t like them is owed to our lack of knowledge and insight).

I need to tie this back to the point I was making. I don't propose that God wanted His much loved priest to be gunned down in church. I think someone else wanted that. I think He decided not to prevent it because His wisdom forced Him to allow it. Perhaps there was a negative consequence to preventing it, or perhaps there was a benefit to allowing it. What do you think of this scenario, that His decision to allow it when He didn't want it, consititutes His will to do it, or do you think He allowed it to happen against His will? (Remember, this thread is for me to understand all this, and remember what definition #4 said).

- God didn´t want them to exist, but couldn´t create things differently than he did.

I do not accept this one. If He was able to create things the way they are, I think He must be capable of creating things differently. I don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

- God doesn´t care for his creation. He just uses it for a higher purpose (kind of like the way researchers use lab rats: their suffering can´t make sense to them since they a. aren´t the point of interest but just tools, and b. they are incapable of seeing the "higher" purpose for which their well-being is sacrificed: human health, human beauty, etc.)

This is the sort of concept of God that I said earlier is not the same God as the one who is documented in the bible. It is a different entity altogether, just given the same name. That is not who I am intending to discuss here.

However, solutions like "The conditions God was subjected to when creating our reality may have been similar to the conditions he created for our existence (and therefore, he may have mixed feelings, just like we do)" always strike me as oddly half-hearted. Postulating a super-beyond-entity in order to explain how and why everything came into being the way it is, and in the next step "realistically" cutting down this entity to human size...I don´t know...it seems to me that there isn´t much left then that God´s existence would help explaining, then.

I don't think that is a quote I have said, I don't recognize it. If I was to take what you are suggesting in the way I understand it, I would say that I don't have any reason to think that God can't experience the same emotional moods that I do at times, and His behaviour as documented in the bible does demonstrate emotional moods. Furthermore, Jesus is human, which means in an orthodox sense that God can experience human emotions.

From the non-believer´s perspective (i.e. without assuming an intention behind reality), I can accept this quite fine.
Whereas one of the reason for which theists typically hold their beliefs in high regards (and often criticize non-theistic philosophies for being unable to) is: being able to explain why our reality is the way it is (along with several other existential why-questions).
Thus, if in the end the theistic responses come down to the same shoulder shrugging "Reality is just what it is." that I never had problems accepting, anyway, I am somehow missing the very answers that theistic religions are claimed to provide.

Well, despite the way people sometimes behave, Christianity is not all about answering "why" questions. This idea of answering questions really comes from the fact that some people see the truth for what it is, and they see others who don't, who express their misunderstandings in the form of a question. "Why" is a question that expresses a lack of understanding. Trying to convey an understanding in response to a question is going to invoke an answer. Then people catch on to the idea that religion answers questions that people commonly have, so they go about teaching that religion is the answer to life's questions. But in reality, the Christian religion (which is what I am familiar with and which I understand is true), is all centered around the facts that mankind doesn't want what God wants for it. God has tried to get his point across for a very long time, in many different ways. He still does, and even while the clock is ticking on the impending doom, He is still contending with mankind. Mankind itself is determined, it wants to beat death, yet it doesn't want to submit to God that He may come and lead them in everlasting life (well, some do, and they aren't treated like lab rats).

 

[oi_antz]

Well, I can't define your god for you. You define him in whatever way pleases you. My entire line of reasoning here has been hypothetical.

Generally, regardless of your specific beliefs, god is defined as all-knowing about past, present and future.

Can you show me on whose authority this belief is based, and if possible, the original statement they made to this effect?

That's all I need to build my argument.

If you wish to claim that free will / choice exists (and that, by extension, we are responsible for our actions) then fine. In that case I'll state that if that is true, then god - whoever he is and however he is defined - cannot have a trait that gives him accurate foreknowledge.

If you wish to claim that god (or anyone or anything else) is capable of having exact foreknowledge, then under that hypothetical context I will have to conclude that if that is true, free will / choice cannot exist.

It's simple law of non-contradiction.

I always say: "anything is possible, except mutually exclusive things".

Sure, I agree with this, though I don't know if we are limited to only these two possible explanations. I am here to discover what is likely to be true, it is a pursuit of truth. Maybe I got you wrong, are you also looking to understand the truth or are you only trying to exercise logic?

It seems I'm having a hard time getting that point across. I'm genuinely wondering why. It seems perfectly logical to me.

First, let's clear something up.
The hypothetical I'm operating under is not "reliable" foreknowledge. It's 100% ACCURATE foreknowledge, with 0 chances of being wrong.

I have given enough examples using gravity what I mean by this in terms of deterministic and non-deterministic paths into the future.

If I can know with 100% certainty that tomorrow at work you will choose for chicken soup instead of tomato soup, think about the implications.

Since my foreknowledge is certain, this event is INEVITABLE. There's a determined path there and nothing can be done to deviate from it. Because if that option even EXISTS, then my foreknowledge cannot be 100% certain, since there's always that chance (no matter how small) where the subject ends up choosing differently anyway.

Now consider all the choices that need to be made for this event to take place...

- for starters, the cook at your work cafeteria MUST choose to make soup
- from all the soups available, he NEEDS to choose chicken and tomato
- assuming there is not enough soup for everybody and you are kind of late for lunch, enough people before you in the line must NOT choose chicken or tomato soup, or there will be nothing left for you to choose from
- you MUST choose the tomato soup once you are next in line

And this is only counting the most important choices of that day. There are plenty of other choices that must be made by plenty of people for that chicken and tomato soup to end up on the menu at your office on that specific day.

For many examples we can imagine, thousands of choices need to be specific options while not one may be different, since that could make the whole outcome change. Like the butterfly effect.

I ask you...

How could such accurate, certain foreknowledge exist if all our choices weren't determined before we make them, before we are even born, before our parents were born,... and so on.

Take a step back for a second and rewind time 5000 years. We are now in the days of Egyptian civilization. Now consider the idea that there is a god who KNOWS for CERTAIN that YOU will be choosing for tomato soup over chicken soup on February 28th, 2014 during lunch.

Imagine everything that NEEDS to happen, all the people that HAVE to meet, that NEED to decide on children on the EXACT moments (only the sperm-cell you came from would result in you being born, any other sperm cell would result in different DNA and thus a different person), etc etc etc etc
Consider the many many many people that need to make the correct decisions so that those specific tomato's end up being cultivated and used to make this soup.

How can you look at this and state that such exact foreknowledge does NOT imply a script that reality needs to stick to by necessity, by compulsion?

Well, I think you and I are making very different assumptions on what exactly God needs to achieve and what He can afford to tolerate. For example, during 5,000 years there are many many things that can happen that will not impact your decision to have chicken soup. What about taking a really granular example. If you are to sit in your chair right now and lift your arms above your head, will it change the possibility of a miner in India achieving his monthly quota? Do you think God gives you the right to decide if you will lift your arms above your head, or do you think He has predetermined that you will or won't because of this butterfly effect? What makes you think the butterfly effect actually is true?

You can't observe things before they happen.
And you can only accurately predict things before they happen if those things are inevitable and determined to happen (by whatever means).

Exactly. You can't observe things before they happen. This is why I am having a hard time accepting that God knows the future. I disagree with your understanding of accurate prediction. You can predict things that are to happen if you know well enough the forces that are guiding it. With humans, assuming they make decisions, if God knows the human's logic/beleifs/desires well enough and has a complete knowledge of the circumstances the human is in, He can accurately predict the human decision. It doesn't mean the human had no control of his decision, the human has the role to choose which information is deemed to supercede other information when making his decision. If God can predict that, it doesn't take any control away from the human.

This I can not agree with.
I don't see why a natural process wouldn't be able to make our brains deterministic, even with the illusion of the opposite present.
Using the word "someone" here, makes it a loaded proposition.

I see what you are saying, and I guess it rests upon the question whether everyone is perfectly equal. You are assuming that everyone put in the same situation with the same experience in life will make the same decision. I don't know if this is true, I don't expect it can be proven. If it is true then it will have serious impacts on the perception of God's ultimate justice. I suspect this is probably why the debate is so motivational.

 

[oi_antz]

God cares also NOT of our life on earth

Hi Philothei, thanks for what you have said here. I am curious to know if this is scriptural, or maybe not exactly the emphasis you mean to make?

 

[oi_antz]

I dont think ANYONE here knows for sure exactly how the putative relationship between the temporal and the eternal really works.

No one here is qualified to be definitive about the implications of the "Gods eye view".

That is correct, however we may all seek to clarify our understanding of it.

 

[oi_antz]

yes different perspectives and motivations. poolerboy's points regarding the subconscious... hmm well for one it already has a certain mindset with certain ideas about reality, just like we all have. I have heard that the subconscious mind functions way faster than the conscious mind, and obviously the subconscious is part of who we are and so how does that take away our free will? I believe that the human brain in general can enslave a human especially if they are not determined to go against it sometimes ( such as when fear is the moving force behind something ). the brain is in some ways like a muscle and in some ways it is like a receiver of information from various sources. the human body is not the source of our free will unless that is what we are. however this human body is only one part of what we are. people that believe that they are only a physical body will come to very different conclusions about reality.

I have traditionally thought the conscious mind is responsible for training and correcting the habits of the subconscious, that lighting a cigarette is sometimes a habit of the subconscious, but it can't have been formed without the conscious decision at some time. The studies that poolerboy has produced seems to challenge that assumption. What do you think?

it can be explained if from higher realities we already agreed for certain things to happen but not in specific ways and then down here and from above there we complete the picture together. this would mean that there is much more going on in reality than just this tiny speck of our universe.

I have had this idea before too, but I have not been able to verify it with scripture. How have you justified this belief?

 

[oi_antz]

@poolerboy, I don't know much about the study of the brain, so I'm asking whether you do. I have to head off to this concert soon. But just quickly, I was reflecting on my question to Noxot about a smoker having a cigarett. I have been a smoker in the past. I know that sometimes a smoker lights a cigarette without having to decide consciously that they will do it. However in doing so the conscious mind needs to be aware of the decision so it can instruct the body to go outside. Or perhaps I am doing carpentry and I need to stop and think about what I'm doing. I would pull out my smokes and spark up. In all these cases, the mind becomes aware of the decision to have a smoke, and authorizes the hands to get the smokes and lighter and put them together. So the mind is still involved, but it isn't making the decision, it is more or less aware of the decision and action that is going on.

Do you think this is what the study you are looking at is attempting to prove? I see three distinct parts of the brain interacting here: 1. I am going to have a smoke. 2. I am moving my hands to put the smoke in my mouth and light it. 3. Oh, I am having a smoke.

Now, having been a smoker, I know that the conscious mind has the ability to stop 1 from getting to 2 every time it happens. While the decision to have a smoke might seem like a subconscious habit, it is actually a conscious decision EVERY time, otherwise those who are trying to quit would just find themselves having a cigarette and go "Wait, how did this happen?". It is an interesting topic, I would like to know what you think about these things.

 

[KCfromNC]

This assumes that your conscious mind is correctly understanding and reporting how the rest of your brain is functioning. There have been a few links in this thread which point to research which show that this is a bad assumption to make.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

This assumes that your conscious mind is correctly understanding and reporting how the rest of your brain is functioning. There have been a few links in this thread which point to research which show that this is a bad assumption to make.

If this is a bad assumption to make, then the assertion you just made is not reliable.

It is therefore self-refuting.

 

[quatona]

If this is a bad assumption to make, then the assertion you just made is not reliable.

It is therefore self-refuting.

Doesn´t follow.