Free will?

[MercuryAndy]

So you are saying that a coin has 2 options to be heads or tales it has free will?

If god make 5 coins which always came up heads and 5 which always came up tales would the coins have free will?

 

[Nightson]

Just put the coin in your pocket. It won't come up tails.

But then the coin wouldn't come up heads, which is what you infallibly know will happen, you can't put the coin in your pocket because then you'd be wrong.

 

[Job_s_First_Son]

I believe the assumption of foreknowledge (ominscience) alone does not negate freewill. Its the combination of the assumption of God as creator of the "free" agent (omnipotence) and his foreknowledge that makes it tough to argue for freewill in a logical sense.

 

[elman]

But then the coin wouldn't come up heads, which is what you infallibly know will happen, you can't put the coin in your pocket because then you'd be wrong.

No I infallibly knew I would put the coin in my pocket, so I am correct.

 

[elman]

I believe the assumption of foreknowledge (ominscience) alone does not negate freewill. Its the combination of the assumption of God as creator of the "free" agent (omnipotence) and his foreknowledge that makes it tough to argue for freewill in a logical sense.

If I understand what you are saying, then why would an all powerful Creator be unable to create a free agent?

 

[Nightson]

No I infallibly knew I would put the coin in my pocket, so I am correct.

Then you couldn't have flipped the coin

P1: God is omniscient
P2: God is infallible
P3: For freewill to be valid a person must be able to decide between at least two actions
P4: God knows before you choose what that choice will be
C1: Since God is infallible, him knowing means you can only choose that action
C2: Since, you can only "choose" one action, freewill is invalid

 

[MercuryAndy]

exactly

 

[KCDAD]

Does omniscient mean knowing all there is to know, or does it mean knowing everything that ever will be to know?

If it means knowing all there is to know (right now), then the future is not yet able to be known, especially when it comes to choice and decisions.

 

[Job_s_First_Son]

If I understand what you are saying, then why would an all powerful Creator be unable to create a free agent?

You can argue he can (and a lot of people do), but I believe it violates logic if you assume God is both omnipotent & omniscient (square-circle thing). Which is ok as God would be God right.

Lets use the example of the lab rat mentioned earlier. Though not a perfect example.

I am the creator of the maze and the rat (I'm omnipotent). I make a rat that will always go forward but can choose (freewill) to go left or right. There are two exits out of the maze. One leads to a bucket full of burning coals and a bucket of cheese, one of which the rat will fall into.

Before I create the rat I know which route he will take (omniscient, lets say the bucket of burning coals) so in essence the maze is not a maze but a straight hallway leading to the coal bucket for the rat. I could if I wanted to change the rat (not always forward moving) or have the straight hallway to go to the cheese bucket (once again omnipotent).

Now does the rat have freewill?

The logical problem comes in with the freewill as to God there should be some element of random probability involved with the free agent God creates (0<p<1). BUT since God (the rats creator) is omniscient p=1, not a random probability. It changes the maze from a series of decision points to a straight line.

KCDAD, I believe omnipotence would mean knowledge of past, present and future.

 

[Nightson]

Does omniscient mean knowing all there is to know, or does it mean knowing everything that ever will be to know?

If it means knowing all there is to know (right now), then the future is not yet able to be known, especially when it comes to choice and decisions.

By orthodoxy, omnisceince is knowing everything that ever will be known.

Open theism IIRC says God only knows everything that is now, a posistion that makes freewill possible.

 

[Amplifyme]

If god knows everything then he must know what we are going to do before we do it. So doesnt that mean we have no free will? If we went back to the creation of the universe and all the conditions were exactly the same. Would everything not progress as it had before? If everything only has one possibility and the possibility is the one that will happen. How can we have free will?

Well because to us we do have free will. We decide what to do with our life. We decide Who we will marry. We make descions everyday! How could that not be free will. Us not having free will would mean that God has chosen for us. But he hasn't!
What makes it complicated is that He knows all the descions we will ever make. And does that make it not having free will?? , no. Its just our human minds can't comprehend what the God of the universe sees. Hes Allknowing.

 

[Nightson]

Well because to us we do have free will. We decide what to do with our life. We decide Who we will marry. We make descions everyday! How could that not be free will. Us not having free will would mean that God has chosen for us. But he hasn't!
What makes it complicated is that He knows all the descions we will ever make. And does that make it not having free will?? , no. Its just our human minds can't comprehend what the God of the universe sees. Hes Allknowing.

If God knows you'll marry Cindy, can you marry Sarah?

 

[quatona]

Well because to us we do have free will. We decide what to do with our life. We decide Who we will marry. We make descions everyday! How could that not be free will.

In that it would be just an illusion.

Us not having free will would mean that God has chosen for us. But he hasn't!

Now, that´s a compelling, err, circular argument!

What makes it complicated is that He knows all the descions we will ever make. And does that make it not having free will?? ,

An accurate paraphrasing of the problem discussed.

no.

Please explain how you arrive at this conclusion.

Its just our human minds can't comprehend what the God of the universe sees.

That may be one of the implications, and I agree that accepting it is a good starting point for making a lot of illogical statements. I won´t go there.
The other - the one being discussed - is: There is no choice left for us, our actions must be predetermined.

Hes Allknowing.

Yes, that is one of the premises we all have accepted for the sake of the argument.

 

[KCDAD]

By orthodoxy, omnisceince is knowing everything that ever will be known.

Open theism IIRC says God only knows everything that is now, a posistion that makes freewill possible.

Thank you for the clarification...

So people believe that God knows everything, including those things that have not been decided yet? Now I see the coin flipping analogy.
Well, isn't that kind of nihilistic / fatalistic thinking? What's the point of doing anything then?

If I kill, heal, help or hurt, God already knew I was gonna do it, I had no ability to do otherwise. ooh, wait a minute... that means... ahha!

 

[KCDAD]

What's the "IIRC" after Open Theism?

 

[Nightson]

What's the "IIRC" after Open Theism?

If I recall correctly. I'd agree with you that if we didn't have something like free will, life would be kinda fatalistic. It also pretty much makes any sort of judgement after death impossible. Whatever you do, you had to do it, you don't have the option of not sinning anytime you sin.

 

[TheDag]

How can something be random if everytime if the conditions were reproduced it would have the same result.

The problem with this argument is that your thinking individual. Every day everyone has the choice to steal a grape or not to steal a grape. Not everyone in the world steals a grape. So there is a choice. I have stolen items from shops in the past yet I no longer do. According to science it should be that everytime the same circumstances are presented the same result should occour. Everytime somone has a choice to steal they should always steal or never steal according to the argument being presented by others here. Making a choice doesn't actuall always mean that action will be taken either. I've seen people take a drink from a shop fridge and put it in their bag. They had made the choice to steal. When they saw me standing out the front watching them they put the drink back. They made the choice to steal but didn't.

 

[Nightson]

The problem with this argument is that your thinking individual. Every day everyone has the choice to steal a grape or not to steal a grape. Not everyone in the world steals a grape. So there is a choice. I have stolen items from shops in the past yet I no longer do. Everytime somone has a choice to steal they should always steal or never steal according to the argument being presented by others here. Making a choice doesn't actuall always mean that action will be taken either. I've seen people take a drink from a shop fridge and put it in their bag. They had made the choice to steal. When they saw me standing out the front watching them they put the drink back. They made the choice to steal but didn't.

P1: God is omniscient
P2: God is infallible
P3: For freewill to be valid a person must be able to decide between at least two actions
P4: God knows before you choose what that choice will be
C1: Since God is infallible, him knowing means you can only choose that action
C2: Since, you can only "choose" one action, freewill is invalid QED

According to science it should be that everytime the same circumstances are presented the same result should occour.

According to determinism yes, everytime the exact same circumstances are reproduced, the exact same reaction will follow. That is, say you had a time machine and went back to see Kennedy get shot, no matter how many times you went back to see it, Oswald never decides not to shoot him.

 

[David Gould]

The problem with this argument is that your thinking individual. Every day everyone has the choice to steal a grape or not to steal a grape. Not everyone in the world steals a grape. So there is a choice. I have stolen items from shops in the past yet I no longer do. According to science it should be that everytime the same circumstances are presented the same result should occour. Everytime somone has a choice to steal they should always steal or never steal according to the argument being presented by others here. Making a choice doesn't actuall always mean that action will be taken either. I've seen people take a drink from a shop fridge and put it in their bag. They had made the choice to steal. When they saw me standing out the front watching them they put the drink back. They made the choice to steal but didn't.

The problem here is that science and the philosophy of determinism predicts that someone will make the exact same choice if the circumstances are exactly the same.

This is one of the reasons why the debate between determinism and indeterminism is difficult to end - it is pretty near to impossible to duplicate circumstances exactly.

 

[KCDAD]

According to science it should be that everytime the same circumstances are presented the same result should occour. Everytime somone has a choice to steal they should always steal or never steal according to the argument being presented by others here. Making a choice doesn't actuall always mean that action will be taken either. I've seen people take a drink from a shop fridge and put it in their bag. They had made the choice to steal. When they saw me standing out the front watching them they put the drink back. They made the choice to steal but didn't.

Your point is valid, but I have to disagree with the premise. You seem to equate "the same circumstances" with "everytime someone has a choice". We choose freely in every setting or none. The fact that you are watching may or may not be a deterent to someone considering stealing... the deterrent may be guilt or fear of retribution that is already present, but is reinforced by your gaze, or by in store cameras or whatever. If you wouldn't recognise them, and they could flee, your gaze is not significant to their decision making.
It seems that moral decision making comes down to an internal question: Is what I am contemplating indicative of who I am or who I want to be, or is it outside the understanding and perception I have of myself? Awareness of self seems to me to be the vital aspect of choice in general and deviance in the specific.