Predestination and Free Will

[elman]

Elman means well, but as he eternally fails to provide a coherent definition of "choice," these free will threads inevitably descend into a morass of circularity. Predictable, really, considering "free will" and "choice" are in fact morasses of circularity.

Choice is the ability to help someone in need or not help them.

 

[elman]

Why would god become a monster? He had no more choice in what he did than do his mortal creations have a choice in what they do. God is just as bound to the dictates of determinism as we are. Of course one could argue that god is exempt from such a restriction, and many do, but saying so doesn't make it so. However, under the Christian notion of god's freedom of choice, he does come off as a monster. And this is irrespective of mankind's ability to choose or not choose.

The Creator is the one who chose to create us. If God did not chose to create us then God is not the creator, but the agent of the one who did chose to create us. God being bound to the dectates of determinism is not comprehensible. Under the Christian notiion of God being the creator and chosing to create us, He does not come off as a monster, but as a loving Creator.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Choice is the ability to help someone in need or not help them.

Of course. How could I have been so blind?

 

[Philothei]

well, then why calling God a monster? After all He did create us in his image and likness ... would that make us little monsters? ..... Would it be better to create little robots running around?

 

[elman]

Of course. How could I have been so blind?

So what is your problem with that again?

 

[Washington]

God being bound to the dectates of determinism is not comprehensible.

I understand your lack of comprehension. Your faith demands that you do not accept it.

Under the Christian notiion of God being the creator and chosing to create us, He does not come off as a monster, but as a loving Creator

I know. The Christian requirement is that he be loving in spite of those acts that would be otherwise considered cruel or evil. Kind of the, "We can never comprehend the mind of god therefore we cannot question it. Our evil is his good, and that's good enough for me. Let us pray."

 

[elman]

=Washington;43389140]I understand your lack of comprehension. Your faith demands that you do not accept it.

Which is no response at all to the statment that God is bound by determinism. If God exists and there is determinism, then God is the one doing the determining. If there is determinism without God, there is no God.

I know. The Christian requirement is that he be loving in spite of those acts that would be otherwise considered cruel or evil. Kind of the, "We can never comprehend the mind of god therefore we cannot question it. Our evil is his good, and that's good enough for me. Let us pray."

No you don't know and don't understand at all what I am saying. We are given the understanding of what is good and evil by our Creator. He is good and evil based on our understanding of Good and evil. God does not do acts that would be considered cruel or evil.

 

[Washington]

Which is no response at all to the statment that God is bound by determinism.

So you are expecting me to respond to my own statement? How about making a counter argument or asking a question. I don't see your comment that " God being bound to the dictates of determinism is not comprehensible" as eliciting anything more than what I said.

If God exists and there is determinism, then God is the one doing the determining.

In which case he has no reason to hold anyone responsible for what they do.

If there is determinism without God, there is no God.

Okay.

No you don't know and don't understand at all what I am saying.

Then perhaps you best explain. Let's see. . . .

We are given the understanding of what is good and evil by our Creator.

Okay, but this is not what others have said. They claim what I said: ""We can never comprehend the mind of god therefore we cannot question it. Our evil is his good, and that's good enough for me." If this is not your claim then I excuse you from inclusion.

He is good and evil based on our understanding of Good and evil.

So god is good AND evil? Okay.

God does not do acts that would be considered cruel or evil.

But you just said he is evil. He is evil but doesn't do evil acts? If he doesn't do evil deeds then by what measure do you declare him evil? I'm truly not understanding you.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Which is no response at all to the statment that God is bound by determinism.

So you are expecting me to respond to my own statement? How about making a counter argument or asking a question. I don't see your comment that " God being bound to the dictates of determinism is not comprehensible" as eliciting anything more than what I said.



Quote:
If God exists and there is determinism, then God is the one doing the determining.

In which case he has no reason to hold anyone responsible for what they do.



Quote:
If there is determinism without God, there is no God.

Okay.

And there you have the counter argument you ask for.

 

[elman]

Quote:
No you don't know and don't understand at all what I am saying.

Then perhaps you best explain. Let's see. . . .



Quote:
We are given the understanding of what is good and evil by our Creator.

Okay, but this is not what others have said. They claim what I said: ""We can never comprehend the mind of god therefore we cannot question it. Our evil is his good, and that's good enough for me." If this is not your claim then I excuse you from inclusion.

Thank you.

Quote:
He is good and evil based on our understanding of Good and evil.

So god is good AND evil? Okay.

No God is not evil. He is good based on our understanding of what good and evil is.


Quote:
God does not do acts that would be considered cruel or evil.

But you just said he is evil. He is evil but doesn't do evil acts? If he doesn't do evil deeds then by what measure do you declare him evil? I'm truly not understanding you.

I said it in an unclear way. God is not evil. He is good in the way that humans understand good as in loving and compassionate. His loving acts are recognizable by us as loving and He does not do unloving acts that we are supposed to call good simply because He did them.

 

[levi501]

Do we have free will?

We don't. We never have. The idea of free will is absurd. It's just that for many of us the idea has been beaten into our head that we haven't really ever considered the idea and it's implications.

Either events are caused or uncaused. If they are caused by preceding events then we have no free will. If they are uncaused then they are random and we still have no free will.

 

[NotreDame]

This post is in reference to Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

One interpretation that I got was that this meant that God knew that Jeremiah would be obedient to Him. This is why God sanctified and ordained him before he was born.

My questions –
If God knows that Jeremiah is going to be obedient to Him before he was born, does that mean that Jeremiah is predestined?
Does this mean that we are all predestined to a certain life – one a sinner and one a saint?
Does this mean that God has perfect knowledge of the future?

If God does have this perfect knowledge, then how can we have free will?
Do we have free will?

Comments?

Because foreknowledge of what one will do does not equate into forcing the individual to do it. In other words, God's foreknowledge is nothing more than knowing the choices, decisions, and actions you will CHOOSE to make.

For example, if I had foreknowledge you would decide to step in front of a bus tomorrow, does my foreknowledge FORCE you to make this decision? Or am I merely foreseeing what you will decide to do and its consequences?

 

[elman]

We don't. We never have. The idea of free will is absurd. It's just that for many of us the idea has been beaten into our head that we haven't really ever considered the idea and it's implications.

Either events are caused or uncaused. If they are caused by preceding events then we have no free will. If they are uncaused then they are random and we still have no free will.

And if we are the cause, we have free will.

 

[Washington]

And if we are the cause, we have free will.

It doesn't follow. You're arbitrarily making a starting point: your "decision." But why did you make that decision? Did it simply materialize out of thin air; no less random than a quantum event? There had to be a reason or you wouldn't have done it. Then you have to ask, why that particular reason? And this, in itself, must have had a cause, or else your reasons are also random events, which occur without any input from your will.

 

[NotreDame]

It doesn't follow. You're arbitrarily making a starting point: your "decision." But why did you make that decision? Did it simply materialize out of thin air; no less random than a quantum event? There had to be a reason or you wouldn't have done it. Then you have to ask, why that particular reason? And this, in itself, must have had a cause, or else your reasons are also random events, which occur without any input from your will.

Well, can it be proven something or someone forced them to decide in a particular manner?

 

[Washington]

Well, can it be proven something or someone forced them to decide in a particular manner?

Proof is a pretty strong requirement. A lot of things happen for which we never find proof of cause. A house catches fire or an animal dies. Why? We may never know. We may have a very good idea, but lack the necessary proof to make an unequivocal determination; however, this doesn't mean we can say neither was caused. On the other hand, there are a lot events for which we do have proof. It all depends on the event and the evidence. In any case, events, including decisions, are either caused or they are absolutely and utterly random, just flashing into existence out of nowhere. Neither leaves room for free will. As it stands, the only known truly random events take place at the quantum level. ALL others are determined by prior factors. No freedom involved.

 

[elman]

It doesn't follow. You're arbitrarily making a starting point: your "decision." But why did you make that decision? Did it simply materialize out of thin air; no less random than a quantum event? There had to be a reason or you wouldn't have done it. Then you have to ask, why that particular reason? And this, in itself, must have had a cause, or else your reasons are also random events, which occur without any input from your will.

While the reasons may occur to some extent without any input from my will, they can also occur with input. Also the reasons being caused does not mean the reasons are the sole cause of my decision. My decision may have many causes and there may be many reasons behind or supporting my decision including reasons to have done otherwise which I chose to reject. Your removal of me from the process of my decisions is not reality, not reasonable, and not what I observe to be the way things are.

 

[Washington]

While the reasons may occur to some extent without any input from my will, they can also occur with input. Also the reasons being caused does not mean the reasons are the sole cause of my decision. My decision may have many causes and there may be many reasons behind or supporting my decision including reasons to have done otherwise which I chose to reject. Your removal of me from the process of my decisions is not reality, not reasonable, and not what I observe to be the way things are.

(For those who may be wondering where elman got the quote in his above post, it was originally in my reply to NotreDame.)

While the reasons may occur to some extent without any input from my will, they can also occur with input.

So how does your will come up with those reasons? Are they caused or do they simply appear out of nowhere? There is no third choice.

Also the reasons being caused does not mean the reasons are the sole cause of my decision. My decision may have many causes and there may be many reasons behind or supporting my decision including reasons to have done otherwise which I chose to reject.

That's right. Your choices have causes which have causes that have causes, which have causes that have causes, which . . . . . . . . Just where does this freedom you speak of insert itself into the train of cause-effect?

Your removal of me from the process of my decisions is not reality, not reasonable, and not what I observe to be the way things are.

I'm not removing you from the process at all. In fact, you're pretty integral to it all. You're the link in the machinery that permits cause A to produce effect M. That we seldom, if ever, consider that we are nothing put part of a sequence of causes and effects is not at all unusual. We, myself included, go through life acting AS IF we actually had some kind of free will. We almost always consider the decisions of others as freely made (and in one sense they are) and don't bother to consider that such decisions could not be anything other than what they are. "Choice" B was never an actual option. Choice A was inevitable. It's a illusion we all live within. The notion of free will is simply a psychological ploy we use to retain a sense of personal identity and control. It also functions as a means for assigning responsibility and justifying our actions. The Christian notions of original sin, moral responsibility, forgiveness, and redemption would fall to pieces if it wasn't for the notion of free will, which is why Christians fight so hard to retain it. They know the consequences of acknowledging a deterministic world. The one they actually inhabit.

 

[NotreDame]

Proof is a pretty strong requirement. A lot of things happen for which we never find proof of cause. A house catches fire or an animal dies. Why? We may never know. We may have a very good idea, but lack the necessary proof to make an unequivocal determination; however, this doesn't mean we can say neither was caused. On the other hand, there are a lot events for which we do have proof. It all depends on the event and the evidence. In any case, events, including decisions, are either caused or they are absolutely and utterly random, just flashing into existence out of nowhere. Neither leaves room for free will. As it stands, the only known truly random events take place at the quantum level. ALL others are determined by prior factors. No freedom involved.

Well, I did not ask for proof, I just asked if it could be proven.

Your false dilemma above assumes free will is not even an option, it is non-existent. Merely assuming the truth of your claim is flaw underlining your entire position.

You seem inclined to want to assume the veracity of your claims, without suffering the burden of introducing some evidence or compelling sound logic in support of your claim.

Again, what evidence do you have, or can it be proven, by some evidence or sound convincing logic, people's decision making process is DETERMINED by prior factors. Let's not assume decisions are DETERMINED by prior factors and ASSUME prior factors exist, as you apparently have a proclivity to do, but make an argument, evidence, logical reasoning, and show the veracity of these assumptions.

Free will, crudely speaking, is defined as the individual coming to or arriving to a decision on their own volition, i.e. they are not coerced or forced into making a decision but the decision is arrived to by themselves and themselves alone.

 

[NotreDame]

Let's use some examples.

What factors determined I would type this post? What factors determined I would even participate in this dialogue? What factors deprived me of my ability to decide on my own among the two options of either posting in this thread or not posting in this thread?

What factors determined my choice to eat X as opposed to the option of consuming Y? As opposed to myself making this decision, on my own volition?