The Problem of Free Will

[talquin]

I know what the OP says and the thirty or so extracts from it that you've reposted. However, none of it demonstrates that God doesn't have foreknowledge; you've merely created a hypothetical scenario and a hypothetical God in that scenario who does NOT have foreknowledge...and then expected us to treat it as though that is, actually, what God is.

Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?

 

[talquin]

I answered.

What were your answers:

I can't understand where you're coming from unless you answer my questions:

At a point in time in the human timeline which is day 1, do you say it is true that God knows what Fred will choose on day 2?

If so and we call variable X God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice, would you say variable X has a truth value as of day 1?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So you agree X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of our day 1.

Let's say it's day 1 and the truth value of X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) is A. Day 2 then comes around and Fred freely chooses B. What then happens to God's knowledge that Fred would choose A?

Once someone has made a choice, it can't be undone. Since this god views everything as the past, all choices have already been freely made. God's infallible knowledge of what Fred has already chosen on day 2 is no different than us looking at a videotape of what someone did yesterday, and infallibly knowing what they did yesterday.

 

[Neogaia777]

You all might want to explore this thread, it is about free-will and predestination...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7866289/

God Bless!

 

[talquin]

Once someone has made a choice, it can't be undone.

OK, so you agree once Fred chooses B on day 2, that can't be undone. I don't disagree.

Since this god views everything as the past, all choices have already been freely made.

Is God's knowledge about Fred's day 2 a/b choice such that as of our day 1, God knows what Fred will choose on day 2? Or would you contend that as of our day 1, God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 choice is dynamic and depends on what Fred chooses on day 2? If the former, then what happens if God knows Fred will choose A and Fred chooses B?

God's infallible knowledge of what Fred has already chosen on day 2 is no different than us looking at a videotape of what someone did yesterday, and infallibly knowing what they did yesterday.

OK, so God's knowledge is a function of Fred's choice. Correct? If correct, then if variable X represents God's day 1 knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice, then variable X would not have a truth value as of day 1.

 

[yesyoushould]

OK, so you agree once Fred chooses B on day 2, that can't be undone. I don't disagree.


Is God's knowledge about Fred's day 2 a/b choice such that as of our day 1, God knows what Fred will choose on day 2? Or would you contend that as of our day 1, God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 choice is dynamic and depends on what Fred chooses on day 2? If the former, then what happens if God knows Fred will choose A and Fred chooses B?


OK, so God's knowledge is a function of Fred's choice. Correct? If correct, then if variable X represents God's day 1 knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice, then variable X would not have a truth value as of day 1.

I noticed you have some conflict talquin. It isn't as complicated as confusion suggests it to be.

God loves you. God loves all of us. God understands.

It is easy to understand that rejoicing in evil against others and rejoicing for others to prosper are very different things.

If a person rejoices in harming others, they have chosen to serve evil.
If a person rejoices in loving others, they have chosen to serve God.

A choice. You are free to choose, I am free to choose.

 

[Albion]

Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?

I believe that God's foreknowledge is the same on all days.

 

[talquin]

I noticed you have some conflict talquin. It isn't as complicated as confusion suggests it to be.

God loves you. God loves all of us. God understands.

It is easy to understand that rejoicing in evil against others and rejoicing for others to prosper are very different things.

If a person rejoices in harming others, they have chosen to serve evil.
If a person rejoices in loving others, they have chosen to serve God.

A choice. You are free to choose, I am free to choose.

If you believe God loves us and are aware that God doesn't divert the destructive typhoon so it dissipates harmlessly over the ocean, then it means you hold an implicit belief that God isn't capable of doing anything.

 

[talquin]

I believe that God's foreknowledge is the same on all days.

Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?

Your refusal to commit to an answer of "yes" suggests to me that you think I have a good point, but are afraid to admit it.

Or do you wish to revisit this. Remember, X represents God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice. As of day 1, X either does have a fixed (or truth) value (meaning it already holds a value of either A or B) or it doesn't. In your model of God, which is it?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is God's knowledge about Fred's day 2 a/b choice such that as of our day 1, God knows what Fred will choose on day 2?

No, this god would know on our day 1 what Fred already chose (from this god's perspective) on our day 2. Not "will choose". Remember, everything can be seen as in the past for this god concept.

imagine a timeline starting with time "t0" as the beginning of the universe and "tx" as the end of the universe. For the god concept I'm talking about, you can imagine this god living at tx, observing all points in between t0 and tx. Therefore, this god would have knowledge about all the choices everyone freely made throughout the timeline. From our perspective, we travel along the timeline linearly. We have future events. This god does not.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Does God even know whether we are free or not?

 

[talquin]

No, this god would know on our day 1 what Fred already chose (from this god's perspective) on our day 2. Not "will choose". Remember, everything can be seen as in the past for this god concept.

imagine a timeline starting with time "t0" as the beginning of the universe and "tx" as the end of the universe. For the god concept I'm talking about, you can imagine this god living at tx, observing all points in between t0 and tx. Therefore, this god would have knowledge about all the choices everyone freely made throughout the timeline. From our perspective, we travel along the timeline linearly. We have future events. This god does not.

Let's say variable X represents God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice. It sounds like you're saying variable X has a truth value (that it holds a value of either A or B) as of "t0", or at all times prior to day 2. Agree?

Do you also agree that if Fred freely makes his A/B choice on day 2, and variable Y represents Fred's day 2 A/B choice, that variable Y receives its value on day 2. Correct?

If you agree with both of those, then you would hold an implicit belief that Fred can't freely choose either A or B, but is bound to choose whatever variable X is equal to.

Do you believe that up until the time a human selects one option out of two or more options, that he still could have taken the option he ended up not taking?

 

[Albion]

Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?

Your refusal to commit to an answer of "yes" suggests to me that you think I have a good point, but are afraid to admit it.

Then you'd be wrong about that. And I have already answered that God's foreknowledge is the same at all times.

How does that affect your thinking?

 

[scientia]

We don't even have to make this about free will.

You have a shaker of dice like in the game of Yahtzee. Put in one die, shake, it and pour it out. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting what you will roll is 1 in 6. Roll another die and repeat until you've rolled all six. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting all six are 1 in 46656. Do this four more times and the chances of guessing right drop to 1 in 220 septillion (billion trillion). If God was able to know ahead of time what you were going to roll then that would disprove physics. The concept of Uncertainty has existed since Heisenberg in 1927. Einstein struggled with this concept and had to be corrected by Neils Bohr so those here who are struggling shouldn't feel bad. If you can disprove it then write up a paper, submit it to a scientific journal and you'll get a Nobel prize.

Similarly there are many who struggle with the concept of free will. Sam Harris is still struggling with it as you can read for yourself in his book on free will. Sam makes a related mistake based on successive machine states which is in fact the basis of computational theory but not applicable to brains. Sam is not alone:

At naturalism, the definition of determinism:

Determinism says that given a physical state of affairs, for instance the state of your brain, body and environment at this instant (time T), there’s a single possible next state of affairs at T+1 as necessitated by causal laws discovered to hold at various levels of description, atomic, chemical, and biological. Excluding any randomly generated influences (for instance from cosmic rays, beta decay, etc.), the state at T+1 then necessitates the next, and so on, such that there’s a law-like set of transitions over time that would be exactly the same if we could reset all conditions back to their original state at T

Again, it isn't just religious people who make this mistake.
At the center for naturalism in the FAQ:

This means that if we knew the whole causal story of ourselves, we could discover all the causes going back in time of what we’re doing at this very moment.

These ideas that human mental states are deterministic are false. In fact, if you had some way of rewinding time and repeating the same 30 dice rolls, it would be nearly impossible to roll the same sequence twice even starting from identical conditions. Even if you had some way of creating a precise map of the brain, you could not accurately predict the future mental states for more than a fraction of second. Saying that God could predict a day ahead is not correct but the mistake is understandable.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Let's say variable X represents God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice. It sounds like you're saying variable X has a truth value (that it holds a value of either A or B) as of "t0", or at all times prior to day 2. Agree?

Not quite. Not only does X have a truth value from the perspective of this god from t0 to the time the choice is made (let's say t2), it has a truth value for all time after t2 (t3, t4, t5...). For Fred, it only has a truth value after t2. There's no contradiction in that because the frames of reference are different. You seem to keep forgetting that for the god concept I'm talking about everything can be said to be in the past. Remember that this god "lives" at tx but can see the past (t0, t1, t2...) perfectly and travel to the past.

Do you also agree that if Fred freely makes his A/B choice on day 2, and variable Y represents Fred's day 2 A/B choice, that variable Y receives its value on day 2. Correct?

From Fred's perspective, yes.

If you agree with both of those, then you would hold an implicit belief that Fred can't freely choose either A or B, but is bound to choose whatever variable X is equal to.

False. Fred is free to choose what he wants. God knows what Fred did choose, not what Fred will choose. It's the differences in the frames of reference that prevent the violation of free will. It seems like you want to say that no one has free will since in the past, all choices are already made.

 

[Soul2Soul]

We don't even have to make this about free will.

You have a shaker of dice like in the game of Yahtzee. Put in one die, shake, it and pour it out. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting what you will roll is 1 in 6. Roll another die and repeat until you've rolled all six. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting all six are 1 in 46656. Do this four more times and the chances of guessing right drop to 1 in 220 septillion (billion trillion). If God was able to know ahead of time what you were going to roll then that would disprove physics. The concept of Uncertainty has existed since Heisenberg in 1927. Einstein struggled with this concept and had to be corrected by Neils Bohr so those here who are struggling shouldn't feel bad. If you can disprove it then write up a paper, submit it to a scientific journal and you'll get a Nobel prize.

Similarly there are many who struggle with the concept of free will. Sam Harris is still struggling with it as you can read for yourself in his book on free will. Sam makes a related mistake based on successive machine states which is in fact the basis of computational theory but not applicable to brains. Sam is not alone:

At naturalism, the definition of determinism:

Determinism says that given a physical state of affairs, for instance the state of your brain, body and environment at this instant (time T), there’s a single possible next state of affairs at T+1 as necessitated by causal laws discovered to hold at various levels of description, atomic, chemical, and biological. Excluding any randomly generated influences (for instance from cosmic rays, beta decay, etc.), the state at T+1 then necessitates the next, and so on, such that there’s a law-like set of transitions over time that would be exactly the same if we could reset all conditions back to their original state at T

Again, it isn't just religious people who make this mistake.
At the center for naturalism in the FAQ:

This means that if we knew the whole causal story of ourselves, we could discover all the causes going back in time of what we’re doing at this very moment.

These ideas that human mental states are deterministic are false. In fact, if you had some way of rewinding time and repeating the same 30 dice rolls, it would be nearly impossible to roll the same sequence twice even starting from identical conditions. Even if you had some way of creating a precise map of the brain, you could not accurately predict the future mental states for more than a fraction of second. Saying that God could predict a day ahead is not correct but the mistake is understandable.

I understand what you are suggesting about prediction with the rolls of the dice etc, and I think I kind of understand what you've shared about determinism ..... how though do these compare with foreknowledge? I am not necessarily referring to God's foreknowledge but to the definition of foreknowledge, e.g.:

"knowledge of an event before it happens" Cambridge Dictionaries online.

 

[4x4toy]

Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, they’ll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, we’ll see that they are.

Let’s say Fred is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). We’ll call Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable Y. This means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B – to be decided freely by Fred.

Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Fred will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, “if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?”. Christians would typically agree.

If asked for further specifics, such as what if Fred chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Fred will choose whatever God knows he will choose.

So we’ll call God’s day 1 knowledge of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable X. If God knows infallibly on day 1 what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.

We now have three conditions:

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 willremain 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.

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can’t be true, as X wouldn’t be equal to Y, nor would Y be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.

If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can’t be true. Fred wouldn’t be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Fred’s future choice is a function of Fred’s day 2 choice. But this doesn’t hold true if the answer to the question “if asked on day 1, does God know what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be?” is YES.

If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can’t be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God can’t have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.

God knows Fred

 

[scientia]

I understand what you are suggesting about prediction with the rolls of the dice etc, and I think I kind of understand what you've shared about determinism ..... how though do these compare with foreknowledge? I am not necessarily referring to God's foreknowledge but to the definition of foreknowledge, e.g.:

"knowledge of an event before it happens" Cambridge Dictionaries online.

Let me see if I can think of how to put this.
If God exists, it would be impossible for him to have foreknowledge. This is true unless you can disprove the Uncertainty Principle which has been around since 1927. Even Einstein failed to disprove it. If the UP is true then foreknowledge is completely impossible.

If the world were completely deterministic then creating it would have been a waste of time since God would already have known everything that would happen before it was created. So, if this is true then not only is the UP incorrect but God would have to be a fool.

A completely deterministic universe is incompatible with classic, philosophical arguments for free will.

Using more recent knowledge makes this even worse. Not only would a deterministic brain remove free will; it would also remove consciousness.

Basically, either everything we know about science is wrong and God is a fool or there is no such thing as foreknowledge.

 

[talquin]

Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?

Your refusal to commit to an answer of "yes" suggests to me that you think I have a good point, but are afraid to admit it.

Then you'd be wrong about that. And I have already answered that God's foreknowledge is the same at all times.

How does that affect your thinking?

It sounds like you're saying X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our timeline.

So let's say that variable X is A. Fred then freely chooses B. What happens to God's knowledge that Fred would choose A?

 

[talquin]

We don't even have to make this about free will.

You have a shaker of dice like in the game of Yahtzee. Put in one die, shake, it and pour it out. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting what you will roll is 1 in 6. Roll another die and repeat until you've rolled all six. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting all six are 1 in 46656. Do this four more times and the chances of guessing right drop to 1 in 220 septillion (billion trillion). If God was able to know ahead of time what you were going to roll then that would disprove physics. The concept of Uncertainty has existed since Heisenberg in 1927. Einstein struggled with this concept and had to be corrected by Neils Bohr so those here who are struggling shouldn't feel bad. If you can disprove it then write up a paper, submit it to a scientific journal and you'll get a Nobel prize.

Similarly there are many who struggle with the concept of free will. Sam Harris is still struggling with it as you can read for yourself in his book on free will. Sam makes a related mistake based on successive machine states which is in fact the basis of computational theory but not applicable to brains. Sam is not alone:

At naturalism, the definition of determinism:

Determinism says that given a physical state of affairs, for instance the state of your brain, body and environment at this instant (time T), there’s a single possible next state of affairs at T+1 as necessitated by causal laws discovered to hold at various levels of description, atomic, chemical, and biological. Excluding any randomly generated influences (for instance from cosmic rays, beta decay, etc.), the state at T+1 then necessitates the next, and so on, such that there’s a law-like set of transitions over time that would be exactly the same if we could reset all conditions back to their original state at T

Again, it isn't just religious people who make this mistake.
At the center for naturalism in the FAQ:

This means that if we knew the whole causal story of ourselves, we could discover all the causes going back in time of what we’re doing at this very moment.

These ideas that human mental states are deterministic are false. In fact, if you had some way of rewinding time and repeating the same 30 dice rolls, it would be nearly impossible to roll the same sequence twice even starting from identical conditions. Even if you had some way of creating a precise map of the brain, you could not accurately predict the future mental states for more than a fraction of second. Saying that God could predict a day ahead is not correct but the mistake is understandable.

Thanks for sharing. I can tell you're fairly well versed on this topic.

However, not all three of these can be true. So which one (or more) do you say aren't true?

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 willremain 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.