Free Will

[varkam]

I was having a conversation over coffee with a very good friend of mine yesterday. As it usually does, the conversation turned to religion (he's greek-orthodox and I'm an atheist, go figure). I brought up an argument that, in my mind, points out an inconsistency in how God is defined - and he responded with something I really don't quite understand. That's why I'm posting here: I'm hoping someone can cut it up into small, easy to digest pieces.

My Argument:
God is all knowing. If God is all knowing, then that means that God knows what will happen in the future. Therefore, God knows what I will be doing this time tomorrow. If God knows what I will be doing tomorrow, then the word know entails that I am unable to do otherwise, since one cannot know a falsehood. Free will, at least the way I see it, requires that you are able to do otherwise. If I am going to eat at Applebee's tomorrow at 12:00, and if I am unable to do otherwise, then that seems to me to not be a free choice that I make. It seems that this contradiction forces one of two conclusions, either: a) We do not, in fact, have free will or b) God is not, in fact, all knowing.

His Response (Paraphrasing):
God is all knowing, but he knows all in the eternal present. In God's realm, there are no divisions of time (it is eternity, after all). There is no past, no present, and no future - there simply is. In this sense, God can know what will happen "tomorrow", but it does not compromise our free will. God does know all, and we are still able to do otherwise, thus maintaining the integrity of our free will.


So can someone who's a bit more familiar with his response explain it to me a bit better? I prodded him for more, but he just couldn't get it through to me.

[ThoughtCriminal]

1. It's the time aspect that makes it hard to grasp.

Knowledge does not = control. If you had a very detail diary of a person who lived in the past, you might know everything about them, but would have no control over their lives.

The thing that I don't get is what really is the scriptual basis for God having INFINITE power and knowledge? I'm not even sure the concept of infinity existed at that time and culture. Rather it seemed to me that the God of the Bible ran into the unexpected at times.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Ummmmmmmmm,

I got nothing.

I'm also curious about the free will thing and have never been able to grok the concept.

Perhaps an ex-believer can explain it better.

[Erika]

4. We are becoming true strangers in a strange land

and we didn't even leave the planet.

[beam me up scottie]

6. LOL !!!

It's TRUE !!!

Beam me up, Scottie, there's no intelligent life down here!

:rofl:

[Erika]

3. It's like God has a crystal ball.

But He's not the catalyst.

[varkam]

5. Catalyst? n/t

[WritingIsMyReligion]

33. The starter, the spark to the engine. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

7. I don't blame you for being confused, since...

your questions have been dividing believers for centuries. Some early Gnostics took your idea and came up with something akin to predestination, which eventially became doctrine with Calvin and others. Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants don't go that way and think predestination is heretical, or at least just plain wrong.

Although there are some Biblical claims that God is omniscient, that doean't necessarily mean omniscient as we might think it to be-- since none of us really know the nature of God, we don't really know what God does or doesn't know. We also don't know how godlike understandings of time and space may differ from ours.

In the simplest terms, a fortuneteller may know that something will probably happen, but does not cause that thing to happen. In the same way, God may know of future events, but knows what we will do to cause those events and does nothing to affect the outcome. In the end, it is our decisions that affect things, not what God may or may not know about them.

Now, it's easy to come up with Heisenberg, Schroedinger's cat and other such stuff to argue that simply knowing about the future affects it in some way. That may or may not be true with God, but we still have to act as if it was our own will that is decisive or we just get ourselves into a morass of circular thinking. The angels dancing on the head of a pin stuff that's fun but really just exercise. Christian zen.

It's also easy to look at a few Gospel passages and start asking pointed questions. Christ prophecying that Peter would deny him and the whole Judas thing seem to indicate that God is controlling, not just knowing. Were these self-fulfilling prohecies? Could be, but we don't really know if Christ actually said these things or the early writers just stuck them in there to make another point.

[varkam]

8. On controlling the future

By God knowing the future, I don't think that means that he controls it. But the very nature of knowing something entails truth, which was the point I tried to make in my OP. If God knows the future, then the future cannot be different from how God knows it - it doesn't follow that God controls the future. If God knows I'm going to eat at Applebee's tomorrow at 12:00, it doesn't follow that he's making me do that - but it does follow that I cannot do otherwise.

And a way out of the problem might be to say that we just don't know because God is mysterious and all that jazz - but to me it just seems like a way of dodging the problem. It's a theological trump card, one I've had played on me many a time.

[Erika]

11. So you believe in a crystal ball?

But not in predestination? You sound very confused.

[beam me up scottie]

13. He doesn't believe in any of it.

How is that confusing?

Most atheists have a tough time taking anything on faith.

That's why he asked the question.

[Erika]

16. There are no right or wrong answers

I prefer atheists because they at least question. Religious people throw a smattering of garbage at you out of the local McDonald's garbage can and claim all are proof of the existence of God. No sense, no logic and no proof they are bettering this world in the mission of God.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Gotcha.

I misunderstood your post, sorry.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. But you wouldn't do otherwise...

it's what you are going to do, and that's the point. It's not a trap.

It's simply that God knows that you will have chosen to eat at Applebee's. The point is that God may know of your choices, but they are still your choices.

In eternity, everything happens at the same time anyway, so whether or not your choices are known to anyone living in eternity is irrelevant to the fact that you have made those choices. If you change your mind, that will be known too, and so what?

[varkam]

18. So then you're saying that...

I could have done otherwise? That, if I chose to, I could've eaten elsewhere? But wouldn't that of proven God infallible? If God knows of my choices and what choices I make and what actions those will result in, then I still don't see how that means I'm actually free. I mean, I can see the illusion of free will, but I can't see actual free will.

And if I do decide to do something else, then it is false that God is all knowing: you can't know that 2+2 = 4 as well as 6

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Still missing the point...

that you can eat anywhere you please but if some entity somewhere happens know where you are going to eat it makes absolutely no difference to your own decision to eat there. I know the sun will rise once again tomorrow, but it makes no difference to the sun or to the earth's rotation whether I know that or not. It's beyond the issue of free will and simply a matter of knowledge on somone's part.

If you were to change your mind to eat somewhere else, the omniscient being would know that, too, and would know, to its infinite boredome, that you planned on eating at Applebee's but would end up somewhere else.

Not that omniscient beings would necessarily be all that interested.

Not believing all this is one thing, but arguing a point while failing to understand it within its own framework is quite another.

[varkam]

23. Maybe I am...

If the sun does not rise tomorrow, then you cannot know now that it will. In addition, I submit that even if it does, you cannot know that now - because the possibility always exists that it won't. I'd say it's probable, very much so, but not definite.

If I planned at eating at Applebee's and ended up eating somewhere else, than I could not have done otherwise if God knows that I am going to eat somewhere else. Knowledge entails truth. God (or anyone else for that matter) cannot know something that is false, it's a logical contradiction. I cannot both eat at Applebee's and at somewhere else at the same time - I have to eat at one place or the other. God cannot *know* that I'm going to eat at Applebee's tomorrow when I end up eating somewhere else. And if God knows that I'm going to end up eating somewhere else, then how could I possibly have eaten at Applebee's? (By the way, I think Applebee's sucks). I'm not saying that God's knowledge affects my actions in any way, shape or form. But if God knows it, then how could it be otherwise?

And if the argument that you are trying to explain to me is the one about temporal divisions that I mentioned in my op, then you're going to have to cut it up into even smaller pieces for me - because obviously I'm still not getting it.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. The confusion is between...

free will and the knowledge of events. I'm simply saying that there is no real connection between the two as far as we are concerned. They are two entirely different things. Separate them as having absolutely nothing to do with each other.

We have free will to do pretty much anything we please. The fact that someone or something may know about it does not affect that free will or our choices. I do know that the sun will rise tomorrow, and we all know the sun does not have free will, but I still know it will rise. Free will has nothing to do with its rising, or my knowledge of it. It is simply knowledge of what will happen shortly in the future. (We are ignoring any extremely slim possibility that it might blow up in the next few hours-- that merely complicates things.)

By the same reasoning, knowing about your dining habits tomorrow has nothing whatsoever to do with your actual choice in dining locations. It's simply the knowledge of what will happen, regardless of how or why it happens. You are not "locked into" a particular choice, but it may simply be known just what your choice is going to be. The knowledge of what this choice will be has no effect whatsoever on you making that choice. It is still absolutely your choice.

So, that a god may or may not know what you or I will be doing has nothing whatsoever to do with our free will in doing it and does not negate the whole idea of free will or of omniscience. There is no conflict between an omniscient God and man's free will.

I don't expect to convince you to believe any of this, but you asked, and this is the generally accepted view amongst most of us who do believe.

And, OK, the whole time continuum thing complicates things, too. Many of us do think of God and eternity as a continuum, but that hasn't really been worked out very well-- there aren't that many of us who are comfortable in both the worlds of religion and astrophysics or quantum mechanics. It does help a bit to think of God as a higher dimensional being that can see things we can't. We don't move in the fourth or fifth dimensions, whatever they are, and can't see them, but perhaps the gods can move easily in there and see things we don't.

[varkam]

27. Right, but...

my question doesn't have to do with the movement of celestial bodies or the laws of physics. I know that if I drop the pen I'm holding, that it will fall and that it doesn't have any choice in the matter. But pens don't have free will, and we supposedly do.

I'm still not getting it though. If God knows what I'm going to be up to tomorrow, how does that entail that I could do differently? To me it would seem as though I'm making the choice to go to Applebee's or wherever I want to go, but then again I can't tell the future. If God knows I will do X, and I end up doing Y, then God didn't know that I was going to do X. Unless, of course, we want to debate what the word know means. In my argument, I postulate that it's either that or that I simply cannot do anything but Y. If someone has knowledge of a choice I will make in the future (and my knowledge I mean epistemic certainty), then you are right, that knowledge has no effect on that choice. But that's the case precisely because there is not a choice for me to make. I am already, in fact, "locked in" to make that choice in that fashion. I mean, to me it would seem like a choice: I would weigh the pros and cons, debate, etc. but if a supreme being (that is omniscient) is epistemically certain I will make a certain choice before I make it, then I still don't see how I could've made a different choice. Doing so would be a in direct opposition to the nature of omniscience.

I'm really not trying to be intentionally dense here. These are pretty complicated issues, and I don't presume to be very intelligent (or even moderately so). So I'm afraid you're going to have to cut your argument up into even smaller pieces.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. Yes there is a choice to be made...

and simply because God may know what that choice is doesn't mean you didn't make it.

If you are going to choose x, you will choose it, and god will know it. It doesn't mean you are forced to choose x, it just means God knows which one you are going to choose.

Again, the confusion arises by confusing the knowledge with the action. You are saying that since God knows what you will choose to do your choice is preordained, and that is sort of true. He knows what you will choose to do tomorrow and that is what you will do. It sounds like you no longer have any choice in the matter, but it is all about the choices you will make tomorrow. They are still your choices and you will make them. God just knows them before you do.

And, since God doesn't bother to tell us what we will be doing tomorrow, what difference does it make to us anyway? God doesn't tell us about a lot of things, like about cheating spouses, the winning lottery number, or all sorts of things that will happen whatever we decide to do. Maybe God knows Applebee's will burn down tomorrow morning and you'll end up the place you really wanted to go to.

Over the years this omniscience thing has been blown up into something seemingly much more important than it really is. What God knows is God's business and what we do is our business.

Anyway, it's almost 5AM and my brain is hurting.

[varkam]

31. But again...

If God knows what I'm going to do before I do it, then how could I do otherwise? Maybe God knows all the options I have available, and knows I will do one of those things...but then isn't that just the same as me saying "I know all the horses that are in the race, and I know that one of them will win". That's not omniscience. I'm submitting that if God is omniscient, then all we have is the illusion of free will.

I feel you on the 5am thing. I'm definitely ready for bed...just another 30 minutes and then I get to go home.

[papau]

54. Excellent thread :-)

:-)

[Trajan]

9. As an atheist, I have also argued this .....

One of the numerous inconsistencies in logic that drove me away from theism altogether ....

The notion of omnipotence really drives the greater wedge between me and 'faith-belief' ....

The notions that :

1) Jesus is God;
2) Since He is God, he is also all powerful;
3) Since he is all powerful, he can execute whatever plan he wills himself
4) He has created (or reformed) an entire idea of salvation, and communicated, through the Bible, how HE wishes all mankind to listen to his word and obey his creed in order to find salvation.

I am but a weak and degenerate human being .... I am faulty and errant.

Yet as defective as I am, and as OMNI-powerful Jesus is, and how determined HE is to transform me through his word: I am not convinced ...

Why ? ... WHY do I disbelieve ? ...

HOW can I disbelieve ? ...

HOW can I reject the intention of the almighty, all powerful, omnipotent God ? ... I am a weak nothing, and HE is the creator of EVERYTHING: .... How is it even possible to disobey such a god ?

Furthermore: IF God is defined as omniscient, then didnt his all-seeing Godliness ALREADY KNOW I would reject his message ? .... Why didnt he then craft his message so I would be convinced ? ...

How could a God, an all-powerful, PERFECT god, ever FAIL to create a perfect message of salvation that NO mere human being could ever resist ?

As SOON as I rejected the message of Christ, I destroyed the very notion of omnipotence and perfection which are the hallmarks of such a god ....

Perfectly powerful gods CANNOT fail to do their will ..... if their will is subverted: their perfection is destroyed, and their omnipotence overthrown ....

If such a god REALLY existed, and REALLY WANTED me to believe, I would believe .... It is as simple as that .... I would have no choice ....

One cannot have free will when a perfect, omnipotent god exists in the universe ..... Yet I have at least limited free will .... Given that; what conclusion must I reach ?

[heidler1]

35. I agree and also see a glaring silliness to the whole test of so called

salvation. If this God knows the actual out come of who will and who won't believe in Jesus, then the game is rigged much like Calvin thought, but some how Calvin could still accept as fine. To me this rigged factor is one of many problems with believing that a sane God would put it all in motion.

IMO Individual belief serves a need in humans for purpose of life and hope of full fill meant. Logic is not the issue.

Free will is definitely affected by certain medications. Like now they know that having Parkinson's disease and taking dopamine drugs can cause a person to be a compulsive gambler and sex fiend. Taking certain sleeping pills can cause you to sleep drive your car and eat too much while asleep. I suppose this God knew this would happen.

Identical twins tend to strongly, even if separated, be alike in most thinking ways. So the question arises does anyone really have free will or are we all just a product of chemistry and genes?

[Zebedeo]

46. God can't force you to choose Him voluntarily

Even if God is omnipotent, He can't force you to choose Him voluntarily, because that is a logical contradiction. There is no such thing as a forced voluntary choice.

So if God is going to give you a choice (free will) - and there is a really good reason why He does - then He can't also make it impossible for you to reject Him. Because then you couldn't choose Him.

[Trajan]

64. He can, apparently, 'force me' into a hell if I reject him ...

So WHEN does the 'forcing' upon human kind begin ? ..

Are humans 'forced' to suffer countless natural calamities without any other reason but that a 'god' had created the world thusly ?

Are humans 'forced' to endure famine and thirst ? .... 'Forced' to suffer pestilences of which mankind had absolutely NO hand in creating ? ....

When does the creature take responsibility for the system that was created by an all powerful being ? ....

I will note here that being an 'live, autonomous being' in a terrestrial world also would afford me a measure of 'free will' that would require NO god whatsoever ....

I have the same autonomy presumed to exist for ALL live, earthly beings; other mammalian beings who do not have a similar theistic demand to comply with various tenets of theology. Beings who are little different than us in so many ways ....

It is also useful to note that 'free will' is a limited notion: one cannot invoke 'free will' to defeat natural laws ...

One cannot bounce the moon off of the head of a pin ...

One cannot eat the sun ....

One cannot drink the whole of all the oceans of the earth ....

No matter HOW much one could 'freely will' such things .... Nature has limits, and isnt shy about imposing them ....

Nature's rules are absolute ... they are unyielding and inflexible ....

Yet the claim is made that 'god' allows free will ..... how can that be ? .... Even GOD cannot permit the flouting of nature's rules .... right ?

I believe MY limited 'free will' is a fact of nature, and not a gift OR curse of deity ....

[Zebedeo]

68. Animals do not have the kind of "free will" I am talking about

Animals are not "little different than us." They are fundamentally different. They cannot obey or disobey God. They cannot be evil or good. They just are as they are. In this sense, they do not have "free will" as humans do.

Free will does not equal omnipotence. That humans have free will does not mean that they can drink the entire ocean, bounce the moon of a pin, etc. It just means that human beings are independent, autonomous beings who can either accept or reject God. Animals are not capable of this, anymore than my livingroom couch is.

You mention that God can "force" humans into Hell, but it is really humans who make the choice, by accepting or rejecting God.

God could make humans incapable of rejecting Him, but then when humans accepted God, it would be meaningless. By giving humans free will - the ability to accept or reject God, God has made it meaningful when people choose him. Free will is really necessary in order for our lives to have any meaning, when you think about it.

[Trajan]

71. You keep promoting notions that have no basis ....

other than speculatory theology ...

>Animals are not "little different than us." They are fundamentally different. They cannot obey or disobey God. They cannot be evil or good. They just are as they are. In this sense, they do not have "free will" as humans do.<

You state that 'animals are NOT little different than us', and then state that they are 'fundamentally different' ... Then you refer to the very god which I question as the foundation for WHY they are 'fundamentally different' .... You are using the idea of god to promote that animals are 'different', than using that alleged difference to promote the idea of god - Classic circularity ...

Fallacy = Circulus in demonstrando

>Free will does not equal omnipotence. That humans have free will does not mean that they can drink the entire ocean, bounce the moon of a pin, etc. It just means that human beings are independent, autonomous beings who can either accept or reject God. Animals are not capable of this, anymore than my livingroom couch is.<

"Free will does not equal omnipotence" - I didnt state that; I do not believe in ANY being being 'omnipotent' .... anywhere, ever ...

"That humans have free will does not mean that they can drink the entire ocean, bounce the moon of a pin, etc." - That is essentially what I said: except I claimed 'limited free will', NOT 'free will' .... you are saying nothing here except repeating what I said ...

"It just means that human beings are independent, autonomous beings who can either accept or reject God. Animals are not capable of this, anymore than my livingroom couch is.<" - AGAIN circularity:

Limited Free will gives humans, and other animals, the choice to walk/crawl/fly/run to obtain water, food, procreate, build shelter or trap prey .... That human beings have expanded this list through increased intellectual facilities to learn in depth about its own world and to collect that knowledge into an empirical base, draws no great distinction as a difference to the other species on the planet: those other species possess their own improved faculties to hunt prey or protect their young which WE do not possess: ... THAT is how WE as animals utilize 'limited free will' by selected those behaviors which WE choose in the course of our lives ... animals do NOT have to 'accept or reject' a god that does not exist, and neither do us 'animal' human beings .... This is yet another circular argument ....

>You mention that God can "force" humans into Hell, but it is really humans who make the choice, by accepting or rejecting God.<

Um ... I reject that a god exists: I CANNOT reject an existent god ....

I am an atheist because I have not been convinced that a REAL god REALLY exists: so I cannot actively 'reject' such a god, because there is NO god to reject ....

Furthermore: The mere rejection of a 'real' god is not an active act of malevolence: it is simply a benign avoidance. WHY would a god wish to 'punish' such a being ? .... why would a 'loving god' even HAVE a hell ? .... WHY would a 'loving god' design hell into his big plan ? .... what kind of god would create a race of creatures, knowing full well that they WOULD fail, as he designed them to fail, and then thrust the good many into a permanent torture chamber so THEY can suffer forever from the faults HE built into them ?

>God could make humans incapable of rejecting Him, but then when humans accepted God, it would be meaningless. By giving humans free will - the ability to accept or reject God, God has made it meaningful when people choose him. Free will is really necessary in order for our lives to have any meaning, when you think about it.<

Circular argument: you again attempt to use the notion of an existent god as the premise to reach the conclusion that a god exists .... This proves nothing, except that you REALLY REALLY REALLY want god to exist, whether he ACTUALLY does or not ....

I REJECT your hell ....

I REJECT your ideas of god .... I REJECT their validity ...

For you to use your own ideas of god as the 'proof' that your ideal god exists is a fallacious appeal ....

[Zebedeo]

72. No, I have not engaged in circular reasoning

Your original post in this thread (post #9) included this statement:

"If such a god REALLY existed, and REALLY WANTED me to believe, I would believe .... It is as simple as that .... I would have no choice .... "

I explained that if God exists, that does not mean that He would force you to accept Him.

You have now accused me of assuming that God exists. I did not assume that fact. You did in your post. Your argument, in essence, was "if God existed, He would force me to believe in Him. Since I don't believe in Him, He must not exist."

I simiply pointed out that God cannot force you to choose Him, because choice, by definition, cannot be forced.

I was addressing the first clause in your quoted statement above "If such a god REALLY existed, and REALLY WANTED me to believe, I would believe"

In that statement, you assume for purposes of argument that God exists, and then try to negate His existence on the basis of your nonbelief. I simply showed that "if God exists" it does not follow that He would force you to choose Him. From this, you cannot accuse me of assuming that God exists in order to prove that God exists.

[twenty4blackbirds]

10. free will == choice of choosing

The best I can understand it is:
The entity of God does not perceive Time as humans do. Humans experience time as a sequential matter (e.g. night follows day). God experience time as Now (everything happening at once). So, God "knows" you're going to eat at Applebee's because you have already done so Now. You eat at Applebee's because you choose to.

The explanation sounds similar to the answers I hear regarding the question of time-travel and the philosophical question about whether a person could travel back in time to kill their own grandfather (grandson goes back in the Past to terminate the existence of his grandfather before father is conceived - will grandson still exist in the altered Present? If he exists in the Present then who is his grandfather? If he doesn't exist then who went back to terminate the existence of the grandfather? on edit: if grandson doesn't exist then he couldn't have gone back in the Past to terminate the existence grandfather so the grandson will exist to terminate the existence of the grandfather.)

But that is all assuming that Life itself is rational and logical and can be parsed like that.
[(on 2nd edit: bowdlerised 'kill', I hope)

[Erika]

12. Why are you so "kill" oriented?

It sounds like a Republican theme.

[twenty4blackbirds]

14. sorry, it's part of the rhetorical question.

I don't know how to bowdlerise the question to not use 'kill'. Any ideas?

[Erika]

17. You could have used the term save and shown examples

Why you choose to use the term and put the emphasis on kill is interesting.

[twenty4blackbirds]

48. thanks, I'll remember that one.

[undergroundpanther]

21. we have PARTIAL free will

We can choose some things others we can't. And alot of people have programming from childhood (trauma or outworn coping mechanisms )that confuses them.
We have less control than we like to think we do and more control than we want to admit. It depends on us and the situation and our mind state/clarity at the time.

http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm
http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/beliefs.htm
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/philosophy/0195305043/toc.html

[Inland]

52. Give him a vasectomy, secretly.

Although time travel seems a lot more likely than being able to give someone a secret vasectomy.

[Warpy]

19. The argument between free will and determinism is as old as the

concept of an omniscient god giving Adam free will. Theologists and philosophers have argued it for many millennia and still haven't resolved it, so don't be too upset that you and your friend didn't come to some sort of conclusion that was mutually satisfying. He was just reciting the party line. At least he didn't come up with the infinite alternate universes stretching forwards and backwards from the point in time known as "now," covering all the variables in chance and choice that can happen at any particular time.

Life sure is easier for atheists, isn't it?

[Vetinarii]

24. So here's a question for both of you:

... What exactly do you mean by "free will" anyway?

As I see it, at the physical level, there are two possibilities: events are either caused, by pre-existing conditions (when you drop a ball, it falls - there is no "freedom" about it), or they are uncaused, meaning that they cannot be predicted from pre-existing conditions.

Now, another word for "uncaused" is "random". Think about it - it's the same thing. If an outcome/event isn't predetermined by what has already happened, that means there's no way for anyone to tell, before the event, which way it's going to go.

But if your decision to eat at Applebee's is predetermined - e.g. by the chemicals sloshing around in your brain and body, by what people have said to you recently and caused you to think, by what memories have been prodded to the surface of your brain most recently - then it can't really be called "free", can it? On the other hand, if your decision isn't predetermined, then you can't really claim to be "making" the decision yourself at all - it's a random event, and "you" have no more control over it than a dice has over which number it lands on.

Some people argue that the "you" that makes the decision is something that's not subject to normal physical laws - some sort of "soul" that exists outside the physical realm. But that doesn't actually solve the problem - it just exports it to this other, non-physical, realm. Then the question simply becomes "are this "soul's" actions caused or uncaused?" - and it's the same problem.

So the question is this: Could either you or your friend come up with a definition of "free will", which would mean that you possess it, but a dice doesn't?

[varkam]

25. Very thoughtful post.

As far as what I think, free will requires that one could have done otherwise. I'm not actually saying that we do have free will (hell if I know), but I think that satisfies your condition - I "could" have done otherwise, as I could've changed my mind at the last minute, but the dice could not because it is simply responding to physical forces acting upon it. Free will requires consciousness, if anything.

Whether or not we actually have free will, or if our actions are determined by the electrical impulses in our central nervous system...well that's a whole 'nother can of worms. Maybe we are actually one and the same as dice.

But I think there's middle ground that you're leaving out. I think that there are events that have forces acting on them that don't entirely predict which way the event will come out. Perhaps we have some sort of "limited" free will. But, again, hell if I know. For the sake of this argument though, I'm assuming that we have free will in the traditional sense.

[Vetinarii]

28. What is this "could" you speak of?

How do you know, after the event, whether or not you "could" have done otherwise?

Obviously, if something was different - if you had different knowledge, or different preferences (i.e. starting conditions), then you might come to a different outcome. But if everything was the same - including your personality, knowledge, memories and other stimuli - then what makes you think you "could" do differently? (Imagine a world with a rewind button, where it's possible to play an event over and over - could it really go differently?)

Personally, I think that I'm concentrating on the wrong question. The questions that our "will" considers are framed in terms of the concepts that it understands and is interested in: "Should I go for dinner now, or later? Should I eat healthily or junk?" - and so on. Within its own frame of reference, our "will" is something that can assess various factors, foresee at least some likely consequences, and come to a "decision". Whether or not that "decision" was actually foreseeable (to some hypothetical being that has perfect knowledge of the starting conditions) makes no difference from the "will's" perspective, because the will, whatever it is, doesn't - and can't - have that knowledge itself (if it did, it wouldn't be the same).

So "will" is "free" only because it's limited in scope, contained within a limited entity with imperfect knowledge.

It follows, of course, that the one person who can't possibly have any degree of free will at all is - God.

[varkam]

29. I'm not saying I could have done otherwise.

Like I said, I'm not making any assertion as to the existence of free will. For the purposes of this theological argument (as J-C philosophy states pretty clearly that we do have free will) I'm assuming we do. Whether or not we actually do, I have no idea.

BTW, welcome to DU! :toast:

[believerinchrist]

32. First, time is simply a mechanical function...

Without the earth's rotation on its axis and its revolution around the sun, there would be no time. I think we tend to view the earth as the center of the universe in regards to time.

Second, when God assured free will by creating an alternative to Himself (a "place" where he was not present), He limited His power. His "knowingness" is not based upon individuals and the choices they make, but upon His confidence that His plan, based upon His love, will work. The key to the paradox of free will and God's omnipotence lies in the absolute power of His love--once the human race fully understands the grace, compassion, and mercy that God has for every individual, I believe people will respond to Him and freely choose His love.

[heidler1]

36. I believe life span creates the need for time keeping and the earth, moon

and sun were a handy way to keep track.

[harleydad]

34. I am new to this group so bear with me if I break rules or

something. I just want to throw this out there.

I think your greek-orthodox friend is blowing this stuff out his ass. Sorry - that's a little strong.

I have given up trying to support or undermine the existence of God. I grew up in a fundie church (Wesleyan), was a minister in the UMC for 10 years and spent the last 18 years in the secular world, many of them doubting God's existence. I don't think God's existence can be proven in a way that you could publish in a scientific, mathematics, or philosophical journal. I've looked, really looked, desparately, for proof and found none.

But - something stirs deep within, particularly when life takes a bender, which causes me to pray (I don't pray for anything but peace now-a-days) and I get peace. Who can explain it? Maybe it is just my own psychological self-healing, though I tend to doubt it.

I am open to mystery and suspect there is a whole part of our universe we can't really touch or measure. I also suspect God lives there and touches us, somehow.

Anyway, I think free-will is something we wish were true. But, who is all that free to will anything? My will is based on my genes, history and environment. If I chose to go to Applebees tomorrow am I bound by God's knowledge that I would go? One could easily argue that God knew what I would ultimately do without making it happen. Knowledge is not control in my book.

But, more to my point: the smart believer knows that God's existence cannot be proven. Rather, he/she believes in God because such belief makes a difference in his/her life (I got this from Diogenes Allen's book, The Reasonablenes of Faith).

I'm sure my ramblings are vulnerable to the more disciplined "debater" out there but this is where I'll start.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Not at all,

this debater welcomes your point of view.

Most atheists don't care who or what anyone worships, and personally, if your faith brings you comfort, I think that's wonderful.


Out of curiosity, were you a biker when you were a minister?
'Cuz that would be so cool.

[harleydad]

60. I bought the bike in 9/03.

However, I am considering going back to being a minister and will certainly ride the bike. I might lose the Harley Davidson earring though.

[varkam]

62. self-delete

sorry, meant to post a response to my op

[beam me up scottie]

67. No, keep the earring.

Makes you more real.

[InaneAnanity]

38. Sam Harris disagrees with you

It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in God simply because this belief makes him happy, relieves his fear of death or gives his life meaning. The absurdity becomes obvious the moment we swap the notion of God for some other consoling proposition: Imagine, for instance, that a man wants to believe that there is a diamond buried somewhere in his yard that is the size of a refrigerator. No doubt it would feel uncommonly good to believe this. Just imagine what would happen if he then followed the example of religious moderates and maintained this belief along pragmatic lines: When asked why he thinks that there is a diamond in his yard that is thousands of times larger than any yet discovered, he says things like, "This belief gives my life meaning," or "My family and I enjoy digging for it on Sundays," or "I wouldn't want to live in a universe where there wasn't a diamond buried in my backyard that is the size of a refrigerator." Clearly these responses are inadequate. But they are worse than that. They are the responses of a madman or an idiot.

--Sam Harris

[beam me up scottie]

40. I disagree with Sam Harris and that was out of line.

The poster was trying to answer the op respectfully and intelligently.

And I take exception to atheists who think they need to belittle the faith of others in this forum.

Everyone knows I have a big problem with religion, religious dogma and fundamentalists who think I should have to live by the rules of their deities.

I have NO PROBLEM with the personal faith of others, ESPECIALLY that of other liberals who pose no threat whatsoever to me, and who stand beside us when it comes supporting the constitutional separation of church and state.

We need people like him, they are not the enemy.

[varkam]

41. Cheap shots can be fun

But they don't do much to further the discussion. Like I said in my reply to him, alcohol, drugs, food, etc. are all escape mechanisms for us, like God is to some. I'm an atheist, but does that mean I don't do irrational things? Is it rational for me to drink after I've had a bad day? Of course not! It does absolutely nothing to make anything better. But the avoidance of pain is sufficient justification for me, but that justification is not a rational one. Just because we're rational beings, doesn't mean we always act as such - hell, I have a lucky tie. How is *that* rational? If that makes me a madman, well, so be it.

[salvorhardin]

42. Down boy

It may be irrational, but the fact of the matter is that somewhere around 80% of the population does it, and if you're going to classify a belief system that many people hold as insanity or evidence of cognitive deficits then we have a big problem. Remember the psychological study that was done on people who believed they had been abducted by UFOs that found on the whole these people were no more or less sane than your or I. Extreme religiosity may be symptomatic of mental illness but simple belief is not.

Personally as much as I respect and understand Harris' and Dawkins' points of view on this, and as much as I would like to believe it'd be a better world without religious belief, I think they're way off base on this one. If we want to get to that point, and I don't see it ever happening, it will be because our society and culture offers something of equal or greater replacement value for whatever it is that people get out of religion and not by telling them they're insane.

[Zhade]

43. Let's go with your alien abduction example.

In most cases, IIRC, the 'experiences' of an 'abductee' are dramatically similar to someone who is in the midst of sleep paralysis, wherein the hypnagogic imagery becomes remarkably real to the person, and wherein things can be seen/heard/felt that aren't, in actuality, present. The imagery of sleep paralysis often involves otherworldly beings, including extraterrestrials.

I wouldn't call those people insane or mentally deficient, I'd call them 'mistaken'.

Who's to say religious belief isn't similarly mistaken impressions? Certainly, I think it can be argued that the acceptance of gods/supernatural beings is quite often based on nebulous 'feelings' and emotions. There's no evidence one way or the other for gods, yet many people believe the unproven.

But it's absolutely false to conclude that believers are stupid or nuts. Wrong, quite possibly. But I've known far too many intelligent believers to dismiss them all as stupid or crazy.

(Though the late, unlamented DUer Stunster used to claim his god spoke to him often. IMHO, that made HIM either insane or a liar.)

[salvorhardin]

45. If you've been following what I've been saying around here...

...the last few months, that's exactly the point I've been making -- that religious beliefs/experiences are artifacts of normal human brain function that are mistaken as real.

[Zhade]

53. We fully agree. The evidence seems to point that way.

Of course, if gods exist and are proven someday, I'll acknowledge them. So far, though, zero evidence, hence my atheism.

[salvorhardin]

58. Exactly! n/t

[papau]

55. We disagree - but I respect your right to your opinion.

When it is proven that that they are "mistaken as real", when it is proven that there is no God, I will need to change my opinion, but until then one deals with one's experiences with ones best judgment, logic, opinion, analysis, etc. with a nod to all the learning and thought that has gone on before.

:-)

[salvorhardin]

57. Papau... This is not meant as a slam against believers

Clearly if you believe, it is real to you. I'm an atheist so I don't think it's real and naturally I'm going to seek materialist explanations for why you believe. However, you'll notice that I've been pretty vigorously attempting to squash notions that simple religious belief is in any way akin to mental illness. Again, extreme religiosity may be symptomatic of mental illness but the religious belief itself is not.

And for calling out other atheists who try to argue religious belief as mental illness I've taken a fair degree of heat, both here on DU and elsewhere. I love Dawkins. I love Sam Harris. I agree with both of them that religous belief has had detrimental effects on culture (but what hasn't?) and that extreme religiosity is something we need to stamp out if we want to continue to progress as a society, especially at the global level. But I think anyone who argues religous belief as mental illness is making a huge unevidenced leap.

We're not going to agree on the subject of gods any time soon, if ever, so we had better to learn to get along. And to that end a wholely secular government (at every level) is a dire necessity.

[papau]

59. I agree - which is why you and I - both of us - are on this board! :-)

Although "wholely secular on every level" may mean more to you than the "establish no religion" and "Freedom of Religion" that it means to me! Religion can not exist if the State gets into saying what is religous right or wrong or even just what is the proper religious procedures that must be part of state processes.

:-)

[Zhade]

69. I don't think he (the only one on my ignore list, btw)...

...supports a secular government.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[harleydad]

56. Your argument erects a refrigerator as a straw man and then

attacks it. If there was a refrigerator in my yard I could easily verify it and would not pray to it.

Furthermore, there is a lot of human experience that is not rational.

Finally, it is premature and arrogant to assume that something that can't be empirically verified doesn't exist. It is best to simply say the jury is out. Some of the stuff of Quantum Physics suggests that there is a lot more to our universe than what we can currently touch, see, measure, etc.

[varkam]

39. Thank you

Very thoughtful post. And if my friend is blowing stuff out his ass, it wouldn't be the first time :). I agree with much of what you say, and indeed, when I used to be religious I would often turn to God when the going got rough. It was a crutch for me, but then again, what's not a crutch? Alcohol. Food. Drugs. Reality TV. It all lets us escape.

What I argue about knowledge and free will isn't control, per se. I guess it's a bit of an obtuse point, and I might just lack the eloquence to make it effectively. At the core, the logic is this - if one cannot know a falsehood, and if God knows what I will do tomorrow, then God's knowledge of my actions which have not occurred yet is true. If that is the case, then I could not act in a different fashion, or else God would know a falsehood (which to me seems to be the logical equivalent of saying 2+2=9; it just cannot happen).

My friend and I both agree with you on the point about knowledge and belief. We're both think that knowledge and the realm of God don't really go hand in hand as far as us humans are concerned - it's about belief and faith.

Anyway, thanks again for the post, and welcome to DU and the R/T forums :toast:

[harleydad]

61. Thanks for the welcome.

I learned a big lesson in seminary. Although I had been thoroughly immersed in extreme religious conservativism during my youth and in college, I could not accept much of it. However, when I went to seminary (Drew Theological school, an extremely liberal seminary) I found myself just as put off by the lefties who automatically assumed that only morans could be religious conservatives.

There are some people who like to think someone who walks in different shoes is mentally inferior. However, I have rarely met anyone who would be parochial enough to assert that religion or faith is a mental defect.

Edit: correct spelling.

[lvx35]

44. An eastern perspective

I have studied some eastern faiths, and they have an interesting perspective. They basically say that past and future are Maya, or an illusion experienced by the mortal, while the reality is an everlasting present. The basic idea is that time is an attribute of human conciousness which God is beyond. I think the idea of time being part of human conciousness is also shared by the philosopher Kant, but I really haven't read him enough to say.

[The Straight Story]

47. It's a movie

God has seen it - but we had freewill while making the movie. IMHO.

[varkam]

49. He gives it 2 stars n/t

:)

[Inland]

51. You've stumbled onto Calvinist predetermination.

You can look on the web for those discussions.

I don't see the conundrum, myself, between a god who knows everything and free will. It's just making god a good handicapper. It's got so little practical import, nobody bothers thinking about it much. God may know where you are going, but.....so what?

[varkam]

63. I think I may have stumbled upon a solution to the problem....

I was talking with a philosophy professor of mine today about the problem, and he informed me that another professor recently submitted a paper to a literary conference on John Stuart Mill that might get around the issue of free well.

It's basically this: God may have knowledge of future actions, subsequently you will engage in those actions - but it does not follow that you don't have a choice. To say that it does is conflating two different kinds of necessity, metaphysical and physical. For instance, I know that if I come to a busy intersection on foot, I will look both ways. But that doesn't mean I don't have a choice, or that I can't choose to look at the ground like an asshole and get run over.

That's the gist of it I got anyway - if I get anything wrong I'll post more once I talk to the prof who actually wrote the paper.

Sorry my fellow atheists, but the argument in my OP might not be a very good one for showing how the idea of God is inconsistent with itself (which, by the way, was not the point of my OP).

And to the believers, sorry if that's pretty much what you said (this solution) I just need to hear things a certain way before I can understand them.

[Trajan]

65. I thought I stumbed onto the solution of the problem long ago ....

I chucked theism over the transom, and ignored the ad baculum threats of theists ever since ....

I knew long ago that IF a god was angry at me for demanding some intellectual rigor before belief, then I should be willing to burn in hell in defense of that stance .... I am ....

I am a good person; I do not cheat or steal or harm or kill .... I am THAT person because I believe in COMMUNITY with and within mankind on earth, not because I am worried about being punished for disbelief in an afterlife ....

If the ugliest picture of hellish damnation is true: then so be it .... I would never believe that a deity could be any more cruel than existent earthly suffering, but maybe I misjudge the possibility of a more demeaning, more cruel, more awful deity ....

[varkam]

66. I agree.

I of course, don't know if I'm a good person or not. I'm just another person - I do some good things and some bad. In the end, I hope the good outweighs the bad.

Intellectual rigor and consistency is much the same that I demand - it's largely what drove me away from the Church. I just felt there were too many inconsistencies. That and a priest who told me that my friend who just committed suicide would spend eternity in hell. Yeah. I couldn't believe in a kind and just God that would do something like that.

I just mean I stumbled on the theists solution to the free will problem, and as much as I hate to say it, I think it's a pretty good solution.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. It seems to me knowledge of the future is a problem for God's free will

While I can see the argument that God can know the outcome, without affecting your decision (as you know the outcome of something that has already happened, but that does not mean you affected it), doesn't the belief that God knows that whole future interfere with God's exercise of his own free will, at least as we understand it?

If he knows the whole future, then he knows exactly what his own actions are going to be. Where, then, is his free will? This may not be a problem for a deist, but it seems a big problem for people who think God is active in the world, eg responding to people's prayers - or ressurecting Jesus (if he knew the outcome, where was the problem?).

I'd have thought that God would have to 'not skip ahead to the end of the book', if he is really held to know, or be able to know, the whole future.

[JerseygirlCT]

73. Let go of the linear concept of time

God is able to know all possible futures, including whatever choices are made. This isn't a conflict, because we're not dealing with a human being, but with God. Time just isn't the same thing for God.

God is eternal: future is past, past is future, it's all one.