Free Will

[elman]

That is my problem with this whole argument. It sounds completely illogical to me that knowledge of a choice would somehow cause the choice to disappear. Yet when asked for clarification or support for their idea, proponents just repeat what they have already said and insist that it is logically necessary. I'm not sure how they got this notion but I think in part they are commiting the fallacy of confusing cause and effect, i.e. God always knows in advance what choice A will be, therefore God caused choice A to occur. This similar to claiming that mold was the cause of the bread going bad- correlation =/= causation. Either that or they are inappropriately assuming that the only way God could know the future is if he used science to make a prediction based on a deterministic causal chain. Either way, it is not as logical as apparently assumed.

I agree.

 

[quatona]

You keep assuming that if God knows what you are going to chose it is not a choice. That is not a good assumption. If I know how someone is going to chose, it does not mean I controled the choice.

It is a good assumption.
You, elman, and I never know anybody´s actions. We simply make more or less educated guesses. In all cases in which we know something to happen, we are naturally assuming that this event is determined.
And you seem to choose to forget time and again that the claim is not "the foreknower must have determined the action", but merely "the fact that it is foreknown means that the action cannot be a choice."

 

[DailyBlessings]

And you seem to choose to forget time and again that the claim is not "the foreknower must have determined the action", but merely "the fact that it is foreknown means that the action cannot be a choice."

You're welcome to explain why that statement makes any sense.

 

[quatona]

You're welcome to explain why that statement makes any sense.

Whilst you are welcome to give me the opportunity to clarify, by telling me which part of this statement is hard to understand.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Whilst you are welcome to give me the opportunity to clarify, by telling me which part of this statement is hard to understand.

B does not follow logically from A. Why would God's knowledge of an event imply anything about whether the event involves free will or not? God's knowledge is not gained experimentally- He is not making a deterministic inference, nor is anyone claiming this. So why does it matter whether or not God is omnisicent?

 

[quatona]

B does not follow logically from A.

I wasn´t even attempting a logical deduction. I was merely pointing out that elman keeps refuting a claim that isn´t made, and reminded him of what´s actually being said.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

B does not follow logically from A. Why would God's knowledge of an event imply anything about whether the event involves free will or not? God's knowledge is not gained experimentally- He is not making a deterministic inference, nor is anyone claiming this. So why does it matter whether or not God is omnisicent?

What major are you currently in, in college.

 

[TheDreadedAtheist]

Instead of reading all 9 pages here we go:

Here are my hypothetical propositions (they don't all reflect my beliefs):

1) God is all knowing
2) God has created everything
3) A being who knows all and causes event A to happen, and A causes B to happen, the being is as responsible for B as he is for A
4) Humans have committed sins



If God created humans and everything humans interact with, and humans sin, then God is responsible for the sin.

Humans may make a choice, but this choice is made with a brain God has created, based solely on things God has created.

The choice is still made, but it is fundamentally made by God.

 

[Aradia]

But such a system violates the definition you gave before. If the system receives input before making a decision, that input is the cause of the processes that eventually lead to the decision. Then the "thought process" you talked about in your definition is not separate from past events.

Actually, no. Determinism states that because of A, B will follow. A self-determining system states that because of A, B or C or D or (...) will follow, depending upon what the system chooses.

No, this is never ever the case in a computer. If a program makes decisions based on input, that input data must be taken into account. In doing so, the decision is obviously not separate from said data.

Now don't go attacking a strawman based on an analogy...

 

[DailyBlessings]

I wasn´t even attempting a logical deduction. I was merely pointing out that elman keeps refuting a claim that isn´t made, and reminded him of what´s actually being said.

Well, good... It's just that I haven't seen any real justification for the claim yet. If it's not a logical claim, why are we even discussing it? I realize that I might just not be understanding something, but it annoys me that no one is trying to explain it better.

 

[quatona]

Well, good... It's just that I haven't seen any real justification for the claim yet. If it's not a logical claim, why are we even discussing it? I realize that I might just not be understanding something, but it annoys me that no one is trying to explain it better.

I have explained it I guess a dozen of times, so have others. It is a logical claim. Right now I don´t have the time to explain it once more, sorry. I ask you for your understanding.
Here I merely meant to help avoiding to discussa strawman.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I have explained it I guess a dozen of times, so have others. It is a logical claim. Right now I don´t have the time to explain it once more, sorry. I ask you for your understanding.
Here I merely meant to help avoiding to discuss a strawman.

Then don't, but I would appreciate it if someone did. I've read through the entire thread again, and if there is a logical justification for the statement under consideration, it's gone right past me, and I presume elman as well.

 

[elman]

Then don't, but I would appreciate it if someone did. I've read through the entire thread again, and if there is a logical justification for the statement under consideration, it's gone right past me, and I presume elman as well.

I am sure Quatona has explained his position to me but I either did not understand it or did not agree with it, I can't remember which.

 

[elman]

It is a good assumption.
You, elman, and I never know anybody´s actions. We simply make more or less educated guesses. In all cases in which we know something to happen, we are naturally assuming that this event is determined.
And you seem to choose to forget time and again that the claim is not "the foreknower must have determined the action", but merely "the fact that it is foreknown means that the action cannot be a choice."

I know we have discussed this, but I see no reason that God cannot know what my choice is going to be and it is therefore my choice even though foreknown by Him.

 

[TheDreadedAtheist]

I know we have discussed this, but I see no reason that God cannot know what my choice is going to be and it is therefore my choice even though foreknown by Him.

I guess technically it is your choice, but since nothing is truely random, and God created everything (according to you, I imagine), it is fair to to say that God has basically made the choice for you.

 

[smog]

Here is a simple random/deterministic hybrid:

0 with probability 35%
1 with probability 65%

Basically, any non-uniform probability distribution is "hybrid".

But such a system violates the definition [Aradia] gave before. If the system receives input before making a decision, that input is the cause of the processes that eventually lead to the decision. Then the "thought process" you talked about in your definition is not separate from past events.

Obviously, the internal structure of the system will also play a big role, but ultimately it was the input that led to a decision being made and also the nature of that decision. Basic stimulus-response relationship.

If you trace back the cause of the action, you'll find part of it in the input and the other part in the internal process. The outside world and the system are players that you must consider on equal footing: some phenomenon depend on the outside world alone, some phenomenon depend on both and some others depend uniquely on the system.

Imagine that the system wants to achieve goal X and devises a strategy that will achieve X on every single possible input. This can be trivial (return 3), or very complex (earn a million dollars). Arguably, the input conditions the reaction of the system, but ultimately, the result is that X will be achieved and you can't trace that particular result back to the input because it happens no matter what the input is. In other words, you can imagine non-trivial systems that react differently on different inputs yet always achieve a precise objective. Albeit, ultimately, the means of achieving it may be traced back to the input, the fact that the objective is achieved can only be traced back to the system.

To give you a semi-concrete example, imagine that you have to shoot a target. You have visual input and that input will tell you where to shoot. Nonetheless, when the target is hit, the ultimate cause isn't your visual input because had the target been elsewhere, you would have shot somewhere else, but the target would still have been destroyed. The result "target destroyed" does not depend on the input. You didn't choose where to shoot but you chose to shoot it.

Also note that you can swap the system and the outside world, in which case the "input" goes the other way around. Hence why I say they are on equal footing when you trace back the causes of phenomena

 

[Asimov]

You keep assuming that if God knows what you are going to chose it is not a choice. That is not a good assumption. If I know how someone is going to chose, it does not mean I controled the choice.

Where did I state that if God knows what I am going to choose it is not a choice?

 

[Asimov]

But it is not past to us and we can still change it. If we do, that will be the past the third party observed and not some other one. The past the third party observes is the one created by us.

Irrelevant, to God (the third party observer), the future has already happened so it is like the past in that it cannot be changed.

It doesn't matter if the future hasn't happened relative to us, the idea of free will is illusory. It would be like characters in a book claiming they have free will, while the writer is jotting down those words himself.

 

[Asimov]

Only as a reader, though. Not as the person making the choice. It would be like the character in the book telling you which option to take, and you trying to tell him not to look behind the shower door, except he can't hear you, and then he gets cut into little bits.

That's not a choose your own adventure book. God, being the creator, is not the reader. The reader is moving along at the same timeline the characters are in, with no real foreknowledge of events.

God, being the creator of this universe, knows what is to happen. To throw out "well I could have done this instead of this" is completely pointless since it is apparent to God what will happen.

Or something. Anyway. Kinda like that. =)

I don't think your analogy is working.

 

[Asimov]

That is my problem with this whole argument. It sounds completely illogical to me that knowledge of a choice would somehow cause the choice to disappear. Yet when asked for clarification or support for their idea, proponents just repeat what they have already said and insist that it is logically necessary. I'm not sure how they got this notion but I think in part they are commiting the fallacy of confusing cause and effect, i.e. God always knows in advance what choice A will be, therefore God caused choice A to occur. This similar to claiming that mold was the cause of the bread going bad- correlation =/= causation. Either that or they are inappropriately assuming that the only way God could know the future is if he used science to make a prediction based on a deterministic causal chain. Either way, it is not as logical as apparently assumed.

We are arguing for "free will" are we not? A free action is one that is exempt from external authority, interference, restriction. Would you agree?