The Modal Fallacy and the Problem of Free Will

[elopez]

For the purposes of demonstrating that it is logically impossible for anyone or anything to have infallible knowledge of yet to be made choices, the definition I give for free will is irrelevant. Just ask yourself what a yet to be made choice is.

I must ask what purpose is there in showing such a thing? As I even said in my first post, the concept of LFW is false under an omniscient God. It's not even anything to get excited about and be like, "ohh gotcha Christians in a paradox!!!" As it's been pointed out, not many Christians do hold to that belief of free will. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, then you'd have to talk to those Christians who don't, because at this point you're just trying to "show" something that already has been shown and accepted.

 

[elopez]

So we could be a self-aware computer program written to perform only one single action, and we have free will as long as no one obstructs us from that action?

Tell me, what exactly do you mean by "written"?

You should know this all depends on WHO is writing. Is it the foreknowledge, or ultimately our desires that are foreknown of?

 

[talquin]

Of course it's relevant. The stunning insight you've been offering us is that a vague (but definitely incompatibilist) definition of free will is incompatible with foreknowledge. We've known about that for centuries.

However, compatibilist definitions of free will (as explained by elopez) are compatible with foreknowledge. For most of us Christians (and for most atheists, for that matter), compatibilist definitions of free will are the best ones.

There are hundreds of definitions of "free will," but the SEP defines free will as "the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility." This is entirely compatible with foreknowledge.

Many people who counter this argument contend that choices are deterministic or already determined before the choice is made. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about situations in which up until the time a choice of A out of an A/B choice is made, the person still could have chosen B. In that case, anyone with prior knowledge of their choice could have their knowledge invalidated.

 

[elopez]

Many people who counter this argument contend that choices are deterministic or already determined before the choice is made. That's not what I'm talking about here.

I'm pretty sure we are all clear on that point. We know what you're trying to discuss. The question is why? Why are you excluding every relevant alternative to this issue?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is where I'd have to disagree with you. I would say it doesn't matter what determines the universe, to an extent, as in a deterministic factor such as a physical law like the wind blowing something over is not the same deterministic factor that would be in the form of mind control. So it's irrelevant to a point, but relevant in a difference like that.

I don't see why.

My whole point is about accurate foreknowledge being only possible if free will is an illusion. Meaning that all my decisions are determined by something not under my control. It doesn't matter what thing is in control - as long as it makes my choices predetermined.

Foreknowledge is not even the same thing as mind control. You cannot conflate the two or other deterministic factors.

I didn't say they were.

The statement doesn't seem true as it's really more than likely circular reasoning. For example, how is it impossible to be the case that one is frfree in said circumstance?

I just said it... in the statement itself...

If the accurate foreknowledge is that I will order a steak tomorrow, could I then order a pizza instead? Would I have the freedom to order pizza?

If I have that freedom and use it, then the foreknowledge was proven innacurate. That's the point. If the foreknowledge IS accurate, it means that it was known today what I would decide tomorrow. In that case, I was never free to decide something else.

As I also said and explained PAP is indeed false, or at least doesn't seem relevant to moral accountability and thus not relevant to free will.

I'm not talking about moral accountability.
I'm only making the point that I don't see how one can have accurate foreknowledge about things that are unpredictable by nature. Free will makes the decisions of someone unpredictable - at least in the sense never being able to have 100% accurate foreknowledge about all decisions that will ever be made. But that is what is claimed about this deity, right?

That he is all knowing and has perfect foreknowledge about everything.
In such a universe, how can free will exist?

So to answer the same old regurgitated question asked with different subjects, no, I cannot order differently.

Great. So, was your decision then not predetermined even before you made it?
Does this not mean that your free will must be an illusion? That your fate was sealed even before you were born?

I don't need to order different to be free

You need to be capable of ordering differently. To be free means that you can order whatever you want. But you just admitted that you really can't.... It's set in stone what you will order.

, all that matters is that I comprehend my order and decision to order the steak, and that no one or thing forces or prevents me from ordering the steak.

This is a blatant contradiction.

How can you say that nothing forced you to order the steak or that nothing prevented you from ordering a pizza, if at the same time you were doomed to order the steak even before you decided to go to a restaurant?

You can't have your cake and eat it too...

 

[Radagast]

My whole point is about accurate foreknowledge being only possible if free will is an illusion.

Foreknowledge is, as has been said, fully compatible with several definitions of free will that are certainly not "an illusion."

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are hundreds of definitions of "free will," but the SEP defines free will as "the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility." This is entirely compatible with foreknowledge.

I don't see how this definition changes anything about the points being raised here...

Say your accurate foreknowledge states that I will kill someone. I then end up deciding against killing someone.

Now what?

Please explain where the error here is in my reasoning.

If your accurate foreknowledge is that I will kill someone... can I decide against it still? By definition, I can not - since the foreknowledge is defined as accurate. The question is: WHY NOT? WHY can't I still decide against killing someone? What prevents me from doing so?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've answered this. Freedom in this sense is to understand our reasons for acting, and that no one or thing forces or prevents us from that action we desire.

I asked you the question "if god's foreknowledge is that you will order steak, could you then decide to order pizza instead?".

Your answer was "no, you can't".

If I CAN NOT, then obviously *something* must be preventing me from doing exactly that.

Right? Please explain.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Foreknowledge is, as has been said, fully compatible with several definitions of free will that are certainly not "an illusion."

Yet, every time I asked for those definitions, I was left empty handed or told to go read a bunch of books.

The few hints I've seen about these definitions didn't really make an impression. In fact, it seems to me that it's just another form of semantics and apolegetics to explain away the obvious incompatabilities between gods knowing everything on the one hand and people being free in their decision making process on the other.

Free will is a simple enough concept to me. You are either free in your decision making process, or you aren't.

Your decisions are either pre-determined, or they aren't.

In a universe where accurate foreknowledge is possible, pre-determined decisions seem a requirement.

 

[talquin]

I must ask what purpose is there in showing such a thing? As I even said in my first post, the concept of LFW is false under an omniscient God. It's not even anything to get excited about and be like, "ohh gotcha Christians in a paradox!!!" As it's been pointed out, not many Christians do hold to that belief of free will. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, then you'd have to talk to those Christians who don't, because at this point you're just trying to "show" something that already has been shown and accepted.

It's a paradox only if their claims are contradictory. What's important is that many Christians make multiple claims which contradict each other without them being aware of it.

 

[talquin]

I'm pretty sure we are all clear on that point. We know what you're trying to discuss. The question is why? Why are you excluding every relevant alternative to this issue?

This deals strictly with conflicting claims. If the claims are changed so that one of the three items below isn't true, then we don't have conflicting claims - in which case there is no need for a discussion about conflicting claims.

At a high level, this is like one claiming A=B, B=C and C does not equal A. Now you are saying why exclude the possibility that C not equaling A is inaccurate and that they are equal. And as I said, that would be changing the claims such that there is no conflict. This is precisely how CS Lewis reconciles the problem of evil in his book Problem of Pain. And it's a straw man argument at best.

If we really want to get a better understanding of this, the direction to go wouldn't be to change the claims, but either of the following:
- Why do people make conflicting claims without being aware of it?
- Are the people who are making the conflicting claims serious about their claims?

1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Fred's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it will remain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.

2) Y (or Fred’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Fred freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Fred has free will or can freely make choices.

3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Fred chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.
Not all three of these conditions can be true.

 

[parkerjwill]

God is the only true sovereign. We, His parts and parcels, have varying degrees of regulated freedom.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm pretty sure we are all clear on that point. We know what you're trying to discuss. The question is why? Why are you excluding every relevant alternative to this issue?

OK, forget the program.

By your definition we may as well say a functioning thermostat has free will.

 

[elopez]

I don't see why.

My whole point is about accurate foreknowledge being only possible if free will is an illusion. Meaning that all my decisions are determined by something not under my control. It doesn't matter what thing is in control - as long as it makes my choices predetermined.

And I don't understand how you don't see why.

Mind control is vastly different than an instance of a physical law. The manner of determinism is different leading to different results. If you conflate the two or any other factors you could end up spouting an ah hoc fallacy. That's why.

I didn't say they were.

And I didn't say you did say that. Yet, if you're not saying they are the same thing, then are you saying that they are different? If so, then you're actually contending to the point above about the difference between deterministic factors.

So which is it?

I just said it... in the statement itself...

If the accurate foreknowledge is that I will order a steak tomorrow, could I then order a pizza instead? Would I have the freedom to order pizza?

If I have that freedom and use it, then the foreknowledge was proven innacurate. That's the point. If the foreknowledge IS accurate, it means that it was known today what I would decide tomorrow. In that case, I was never free to decide something else.

Do you know what circular reasoning is? Basically to use a conclusion as a premise, and by the language you use here " i just said it in the statement itself" has circular reasoning written all over it. Hence, you even asked the same question, that indeed has been answered more than once now.

In fact, you have effectively shown nothing to further back up your claim that it is impossible to be the case that one is free in said circumstance.

I'm not talking about moral accountability.
I'm only making the point that I don't see how one can have accurate foreknowledge about things that are unpredictable by nature. Free will makes the decisions of someone unpredictable - at least in the sense never being able to have 100% accurate foreknowledge about all decisions that will ever be made. But that is what is claimed about this deity, right?

That he is all knowing and has perfect foreknowledge about everything.
In such a universe, how can free will exist?

If one is talking about free will they are necessarily talking about MA too, as again they are intertwined. By saying I was free to order the steak it follows that I am responsible for ordering the steak. To disregard that responsibility is to also disregard a relevant aspect of free will. If you take MA out of free will, there's no free will. Period.

And I've already answered this question. Multiple times now, and to which is not being properly addressed. God does have infallible foreknowledge. Free will means to understand our reasons for acting, and that no one or thing forces or prevents us from acting. Foreknowledge does neither hinder or coerce us into action, as has been explained in my first post and which I will again.

Great. So, was your decision then not predetermined even before you made it? Does this not mean that your free will must be an illusion? That your fate was sealed even before you were born?

Obviously you're atheist but what do you think of the general issue of free will/determinism? Do you think one is false and the there true, or something different? And why?

I think even if you remove God from the picture, determinism is still just as true, just not in any supernatural sense. It's there naturally, physically, and causally. If you want to dig deep with what I think that's fine. Predetermined to me holds a whole other significance than determined, as in the first is brought about by acts of God and the other is not and perhaps natural. Only matters of salvation are predetermined.

Free will is not an illusion. Free will would be no more of an illusion as any other human sense or human treat would be, like touch, or smell, or taste. If God foreknowledge I'm ordering that steak, it still taste the same as if He didn't know, still smells and has the same texture. And so when you ask if it'd be all an illusion, which is a distortion of the senses or some general human nature triat, I'd have to ask also in response to what sense or trait is being distorted here by foreknowledge or any other deterministic factor? Surely none that I mentioned. Maybe you'd say it's tricking our minds, or something like that, but that surely is not the case either and doesn't even make sense.

You need to be capable of ordering differently. To be free means that you can order whatever you want.

Let's isolate this statement right here. Prove this statement, for it IS the heart of this issue. You need to be able to support this idea, as I said, which is referred to as PAP. Until then, all of your claims that free will is this and that and means this, doesn't hold any weight at all. This is what you should be trying to prove.

This is a blatant contradiction.

How can you say that nothing forced you to order the steak or that nothing prevented you from ordering a pizza, if at the same time you were doomed to order the steak even before you decided to go to a restaurant?

You can't have your cake and eat it too...

Let's see how blatant this really is. Let's define some terms for simplicity sake. Force means the ability to influence, effect, or control. Prevent means to keep from occuring. Foreknowledge, which mind nearly everyone in this thread, as I far as I've read which I admit has not been too much of this thread, has not even been defined, and means that eternal knowledge God has of all things, and even further that immaterial, conscious awareness God has of everything.

Foreknowledge does not influence our decision in any meaning of the word as we are unaware of said knowledge. Foreknowledge does affect our decision yet not in a way as to force it, since foreknowledge itself is not a casual relation that is capable of causing an event. Again, that knowledge is simply immaterial consciousness, which is not a causing agent. Foreknowledge therefore cannot force one to act. God merely knows how one will act. Foreknowledge is knowledge of OUR desires, what we want to do.

What that means is that if I'm "doomed" to eat the steak it's not because of foreknowledge. It's due to my taste, which I maybe inherited from my dad who likes steak the same exact way I do. Maybe it's because his upbringing. That is still determinism, and plays a real significant part in me ordering the steak. If I'm "doomed," it's because I want to be, and I love me some steak! I mean, who doesn't!? And if I'm so "doomed" to my steak that I want to order that God has foreknowledge of, you better believe I'll enjoy every last bite and be satisfied.

 

[elopez]

OK, forget the program.

By your definition we may as well say a functioning thermostat has free will.

Unfortunately that's an over claim, or at least a weak analogy.

 

[durangodawood]

Unfortunately that's an over claim, or at least a weak analogy.

It satisfies your requirements for free will.

 

[elopez]

It satisfies your requirements for free will.

Not at all. The main requirement is consciousness, self awareness..

 

[durangodawood]

Not at all. The main requirement is consciousness, self awareness..

Yes. You are right. I had forgotten that part since yesterday.

 

[elopez]

Yes. You are right. I had forgotten that part since yesterday.

So you admit your weak analogy. Great.

 

[durangodawood]

So you admit your weak analogy. Great.

Happy to do it!