Possible Worlds and Free Will

[Achilles6129]

A prominent anti-theistic philosophy is to suggest that God could have somehow created creatures in such a fashion that they would "freely choose" to obey his commands and thus not "freely choose" evil. This idea is known as the "possible worlds" hypothesis.

The idea is simple: this world must be one nearly an infinite number of "possible worlds." For example, there's a possible world where the sky is green instead of blue, and so on. Isn't there one possible world, the anti-theist asks, where Adam and Eve don't take and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or where the vast majority of God's creatures "freely choose" to obey his commands? If so, why didn't God create that possible world? The suggestion is that God is apathetic, irresponsible, or that he is really the one to blame for his free creatures choosing evil, since he made them that way.

But there's a fatal flaw in the argument: if God deliberately creates a "possible world" in order to elicit a certain action that he wants from people (such as Adam/Eve not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) then in reality such creatures don't really have "free choice" at all. Therefore, God can't create such a world because any creatures that he created would only have the illusion of free choice! In other words, if God is involved in any way in influencing or selecting the choice of his creatures to obey or disobey his commands, then they aren't really free!

So the only way for there to actually be a free choice is for God to refrain from influencing his creatures to obey/disobey his commands or "select" anything for them from the get-go. I propose that God does exactly that: human free choice is completely independent of God, which is the way it has to be for anyone to really have free choice. If human free choice is completely independent of God, then there is no such thing as a "possible worlds hypothesis."

Could God, then, have created a world where Adam and Eve freely choose to obey him in the garden of Eden, or where the vast majority of his creatures freely choose to obey his commands? The answer, if free will is truly independent of God (and it must be), is no.

 

[FireDragon76]

A great many Christians would object to that definition of "free will". God's foreknowledge is either exhaustive, including the free choices of creatures, or God isn't omnipotent and omniscient (which is not consistent with classical theism).

 

[Davian]

Free will means that God will appear to be, by every available objective measure, simply a character in a book.

Which begs the question: How does one tell the difference between a world where gods are only characters in books, and one where they only appear that way, to allow for "free will"?

 

[Eudaimonist]

But there's a fatal flaw in the argument: if God deliberately creates a "possible world" in order to elicit a certain action that he wants from people (such as Adam/Eve not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) then in reality such creatures don't really have "free choice" at all.

I don't buy that conclusion. Let's say that you were to get a letter from a prince in Nigeria who is eager to transfer some money to your bank account. You've never heard of this scam, and he preys on your kindly nature. You end up falling for the scam. Does that prove that you don't have free will?

I'd say that it proves nothing of the sort. Just because you've been set up, that doesn't mean that you don't make real choices. All that it means is that you weren't aware of what your choices really entailed. You were tricked into making the wrong choice, not deprived of free will.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

if free will is truly independent of God (and it must be)

It can´t be, anyway.

 

[juvenissun]

A prominent anti-theistic philosophy is to suggest that God could have somehow created creatures in such a fashion that they would "freely choose" to obey his commands and thus not "freely choose" evil. This idea is known as the "possible worlds" hypothesis.

The idea is simple: this world must be one nearly an infinite number of "possible worlds." For example, there's a possible world where the sky is green instead of blue, and so on. Isn't there one possible world, the anti-theist asks, where Adam and Eve don't take and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or where the vast majority of God's creatures "freely choose" to obey his commands? If so, why didn't God create that possible world? The suggestion is that God is apathetic, irresponsible, or that he is really the one to blame for his free creatures choosing evil, since he made them that way.

But there's a fatal flaw in the argument: if God deliberately creates a "possible world" in order to elicit a certain action that he wants from people (such as Adam/Eve not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) then in reality such creatures don't really have "free choice" at all. Therefore, God can't create such a world because any creatures that he created would only have the illusion of free choice! In other words, if God is involved in any way in influencing or selecting the choice of his creatures to obey or disobey his commands, then they aren't really free!

So the only way for there to actually be a free choice is for God to refrain from influencing his creatures to obey/disobey his commands or "select" anything for them from the get-go. I propose that God does exactly that: human free choice is completely independent of God, which is the way it has to be for anyone to really have free choice. If human free choice is completely independent of God, then there is no such thing as a "possible worlds hypothesis."

Could God, then, have created a world where Adam and Eve freely choose to obey him in the garden of Eden, or where the vast majority of his creatures freely choose to obey his commands? The answer, if free will is truly independent of God (and it must be), is no.

"Free" is an idea which always bears a shadow of restriction. Freedom ALWAYS has a domain. Outside the domain, it does not apply. This is true to EVERYTHING we use this word to describe it.

Now, the remaining question is: how large is this domain (to me? to people in Russia?). If this domain is infinitely large, then only God can have it.
So, enjoy your freedom. Do not be too greedy.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't buy that conclusion. Let's say that you were to get a letter from a prince in Nigeria who is eager to transfer some money to your bank account. You've never heard of this scam, and he preys on your kindly nature. You end up falling for the scam. Does that prove that you don't have free will?

I'd say that it proves nothing of the sort. Just because you've been set up, that doesn't mean that you don't make real choices. All that it means is that you weren't aware of what your choices really entailed. You were tricked into making the wrong choice, not deprived of free will.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you saying that the Nigerian Prince somehow had the power to make certain you had no knowledge of the scam and also made you so that you were by nature greedy and gullible at the same time?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are you saying that the Nigerian Prince somehow had the power to make certain you had no knowledge of the scam and also made you so that you were by nature greedy and gullible at the same time?

No, I'm not saying that. Try again.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, I'm not saying that. Try again.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I agree, since your analogy is so unlike the situation you are trying to compare it to you ought to try again.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I agree, since your analogy is so unlike the situation you are trying to compare it to you ought to try again.

No, what I wrote is close enough to make a valid point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, what I wrote is close enough to make a valid point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

We will have to disagree on that.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So where does the person exist, at the quantum or the classical order of magnitude? Its presupposed that we are classical, deterministic objects, right? But if the psyche is not reducible, where does that leave standard measures anyway?

This for me is the body-body problem. The percieved body is a map of the real body (assuming we have a representational view of perception, where what we see represents to us the outside world). But is it smaller, larger or the same size as the physical external object?

 

[SkyWriting]

A prominent anti-theistic philosophy is to suggest that God could have somehow created creatures in such a fashion that they would "freely choose" to obey his commands and thus not "freely choose" evil. This idea is known as the "possible worlds" hypothesis.

The idea is simple: this world must be one nearly an infinite number of "possible worlds." For example, there's a possible world where the sky is green instead of blue, and so on. Isn't there one possible world, the anti-theist asks, where Adam and Eve don't take and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or where the vast majority of God's creatures "freely choose" to obey his commands? If so, why didn't God create that possible world? The suggestion is that God is apathetic, irresponsible, or that he is really the one to blame for his free creatures choosing evil, since he made them that way.

But there's a fatal flaw in the argument: if God deliberately creates a "possible world" in order to elicit a certain action that he wants from people (such as Adam/Eve not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) then in reality such creatures don't really have "free choice" at all. Therefore, God can't create such a world because any creatures that he created would only have the illusion of free choice! In other words, if God is involved in any way in influencing or selecting the choice of his creatures to obey or disobey his commands, then they aren't really free!

So the only way for there to actually be a free choice is for God to refrain from influencing his creatures to obey/disobey his commands or "select" anything for them from the get-go. I propose that God does exactly that: human free choice is completely independent of God, which is the way it has to be for anyone to really have free choice. If human free choice is completely independent of God, then there is no such thing as a "possible worlds hypothesis."

Could God, then, have created a world where Adam and Eve freely choose to obey him in the garden of Eden, or where the vast majority of his creatures freely choose to obey his commands? The answer, if free will is truly independent of God (and it must be), is no.

According to scripture, there is both "Free Will" and predestination.
Scripture says we should pray, which indicates that we will change
or that God will change. Either way, willpower and "change" is
indicated.

We see "free will" from the human perspective. God sees all the past
and all the future as well. God sees that we have free will, but He also
sees the results of our decisions. Humans can't reconcile the two
because we don't have omniscience as a tool to understand everything.

We have to use ideas like "can't" or "must be" that God is not required to use.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

You're trying to play both sides of this argument and it shows how much you're straining to keep this together in your mind but it's not so clean here.

A prominent anti-theistic philosophy is to suggest that God could have somehow created creatures in such a fashion that they would "freely choose" to obey his commands and thus not "freely choose" evil. This idea is known as the "possible worlds" hypothesis.

The idea is simple: this world must be one nearly an infinite number of "possible worlds." For example, there's a possible world where the sky is green instead of blue, and so on. Isn't there one possible world, the anti-theist asks, where Adam and Eve don't take and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or where the vast majority of God's creatures "freely choose" to obey his commands? If so, why didn't God create that possible world? The suggestion is that God is apathetic, irresponsible, or that he is really the one to blame for his free creatures choosing evil, since he made them that way.

If God could made a world where humans didn't freely choose him then why does he take it upon himself to personally smite/punish them for an outcome he preconceived? Furthermore why does he get so emotional about it if this was the outcome he wanted? Furthermore why does he get emotion toward them at all?

According to the bible he intervenes with life very often and doesn't want to be an observer. If we follow that then it seems God did this on purpose to deliberately torture himself and his own creations. Which paints him as confused and sadistic. Not very flattering.

But there's a fatal flaw in the argument: if God deliberately creates a "possible world" in order to elicit a certain action that he wants from people (such as Adam/Eve not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) then in reality such creatures don't really have "free choice" at all.

I'm not sure if you're in the "God's Plan" camp or not but that's the prevailing theory Christians have: God has a plan for everything and everyone already laid out. He knows all and he sees all. And if that's correct then you've made an accurate assessment. But if that's incorrect then it seems like God is sleeping or acting out of impulse? I don't see how he can do that considering his ability of forethought would be unparalleled and he should have a plan for everything.

Therefore, God can't

That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Therefore, God can't create such a world because any creatures that he created would only have the illusion of free choice!

Okay so he doesn't know all and doesn't have all outcomes pre-planned and in his control? This is a big problem here and is actually a fatal flaw in your own argument.

In other words, if God is involved in any way in influencing or selecting the choice of his creatures to obey or disobey his commands, then they aren't really free!

He's intervened before according to the bible, both with free will and directly. So are you admitting you're wrong?

So the only way for there to actually be a free choice is for God to refrain from influencing his creatures to obey/disobey his commands or "select" anything for them from the get-go. I propose that God does exactly that: human free choice is completely independent of God, which is the way it has to be for anyone to really have free choice. If human free choice is completely independent of God, then there is no such thing as a "possible worlds hypothesis."

What if God is "using you" to type this message?

Could God, then, have created a world where Adam and Eve freely choose to obey him in the garden of Eden, or where the vast majority of his creatures freely choose to obey his commands? The answer, if free will is truly independent of God (and it must be), is no.

Sure he could. I don't see why not. I mean really he could just have created everyone with an inclination toward him. You didn't answer much at all and actually have a couple obstacles to get over if your wanna stick with this theory.

 

[Achilles6129]

A great many Christians would object to that definition of "free will". God's foreknowledge is either exhaustive, including the free choices of creatures, or God isn't omnipotent and omniscient (which is not consistent with classical theism).

You're missing the point. Free will has to be totally independent of God or it isn't free will at all.

 

[Achilles6129]

It can´t be, anyway.

It has to be.

 

[Achilles6129]

"Free" is an idea which always bears a shadow of restriction. Freedom ALWAYS has a domain. Outside the domain, it does not apply. This is true to EVERYTHING we use this word to describe it.

Now, the remaining question is: how large is this domain (to me? to people in Russia?). If this domain is infinitely large, then only God can have it.
So, enjoy your freedom. Do not be too greedy.

"Free" in this case means totally free. There is no restriction. If there is a restriction, such as God "selectively" created you in order to do this, that, or the other, then you aren't really free and really aren't culpable for your actions.

If God creates a "possible world" which he deliberately selects because he "knows" Adam and Eve won't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil then their free will is not independent of God. God has tampered with their choices already, and they're really automatons.

My proposal is that free choice is totally, completely, and utterly outside of God. It's independent of him. He can't create a possible world deliberately selecting it b/c he knows his creatures will make the "choices" he wants them to make because such "choices" would really be an illusion. The world has already been set up from the beginning by God. Your "choices" are now dependent on God, so they aren't really "choices" at all.

So in answer to the question "why didn't God make us better," the answer is is that if he "makes us better" he's tampering with free choice. Free choice means that our choices to obey/disobey God are totally independent of him.

 

[Achilles6129]

According to scripture, there is both "Free Will" and predestination.

You're correct, predestination is in Scripture. The question is, is it predestination in the sense that God literally chooses who will obey/disobey or is it predestination in the sense that God simply foreknows who will obey his commands and who won't?

 

[Achilles6129]

If God could made a world where humans didn't freely choose him then why does he take it upon himself to personally smite/punish them for an outcome he preconceived? Furthermore why does he get so emotional about it if this was the outcome he wanted? Furthermore why does he get emotion toward them at all?

He didn't make such a world. This world is one of totally independent free choice. Such choices are made independent of God; i.e., God doesn't select your choices for you.

I'm not sure if you're in the "God's Plan" camp or not but that's the prevailing theory Christians have: God has a plan for everything and everyone already laid out. He knows all and he sees all. And if that's correct then you've made an accurate assessment.

Humans can absolutely thwart God's "plan" or "will" based upon their own free choices. Look, for example, in Mt. 7:21-23, where clearly some people do not do the "will" of God. This is only possible in a world where free choice is independent of God.

So if you're thinking that God's "plan" means somehow forcing people to do his "will," then I'm afraid I would have to disagree.

That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Of course. There are some things that God can't do. As far as I'm aware this has always been accepted by theology, probably because it's in theology. If it's God's will for all to be saved, and some aren't saved, then clearly God could not save those "some."

He's intervened before according to the bible, both with free will and directly. So are you admitting you're wrong?

Show where in Scripture God has ever tampered with anyone's choices to obey or disobey his commands.

 

[FireDragon76]

You're missing the point. Free will has to be totally independent of God or it isn't free will at all.

What do you mean by "independent of God"... classical theism denies that anything exists independently of God. Even classical Arminian theology acknowledges God's sovereignty.