Thread: Muhahaha.

Taken from another thread, and mooted in that thread as "a topic for another debate".
Premise: You get evidence for God beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute empirical proof that God exists.
Question: Would you give up your free will?
Additional Premise: What if there is a God AND he does not want us to lose our free will?
One reply: Then he should have never shown himself to exist, the moment he did, his will overpowered ours.
(No names).

My contention:
The question is meaningless, the additional premise is an oxymoron and the response is, a priori, mistaken.

I want to see others' thoughts before I lay mine out.
Go to it guys....

My thoughts are this:
I think that the word "lose" is spelled with one "o."

Originally Posted by Neverfly

My thoughts are this:
I think that the word "lose" is spelled with one "o."

Well spotted. That's what I get for copy-pasting direct.

I'm such a nazi...
My only contention is that the strong belief that God is real is just as effective as not revealing himself through his divinely inspired book of desert scribblings.

The only thing that would change if a deity suddenly revealed itself to humanity, is I would require an intense hatred of it, for its lack of intervening in wars/genocides/genetic flaws causing disease and death.

...and tooth decay.

And the existence of Piers Morgan.

"Words that make questions may not be questions at all"
Niel Tyson

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Taken from another thread, and mooted in that thread as "a topic for another debate".
Premise: You get evidence for God beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute empirical proof that God exists.
Question: Would you give up your free will?
Additional Premise: What if there is a God AND he does not want us to lose our free will?
One reply: Then he should have never shown himself to exist, the moment he did, his will overpowered ours.
(No names).

My contention:
The question is meaningless, the additional premise is an oxymoron and the response is, a priori, mistaken.

This is not fake, this is a real issue. People do think they see evidence of god and wanted god to guide their live, they wanted the SUCCESS that only god knows! (the 'bright' future). -The problem is this: there's no evidence for success, no religious story has been free of conflict & fear. (religious stories often in image of people like Job. Experiencing torture-like experience & sadness)

"NO! You wouldn't want the burden of past religious figure..." <--correct answer

Fake?
Methinks you've missed the point here.
It's nothing whatsoever to do with whether god exists or not (as such) but rather a(n intended) discourse on the existence of god and the existence of free will together.

"NO! You wouldn't want the burden of past religious figure..." <--correct answer

How can this be a correct answer when the premise is that god isn't a "past figure" but actually has and still does exist?

There's a scape goat for everything , isn't there , with God on your side.

Bob Dylan- With God On Our Side (Lyrics In Description) - YouTube

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Fake?
Methinks you've missed the point here.
It's nothing whatsoever to do with whether god exists or not (as such) but rather a(n intended) discourse on the existence of god and the existence of free will together.

"NO! You wouldn't want the burden of past religious figure..." <--correct answer

How can this be a correct answer when the premise is that god isn't a "past figure" but actually has and still does exist?

IMO the premise is not just something abstract about of freewill & god, but also a real dilemma from real experience. In real experience: if you realize that god exist, you will always wanted to consider giving up your freewill to god. The reason you wanted to do this because of nothing other than selfishness (we wanted god to 'put' us to place we 'like to go'. We wanted the edge.). The problem with this thinking is that it doesn't consider the "test" that god can give, and how hard it would be if you compare to having freewill.

If we take the question in premise literally (religiously), then the answer to "give up freewill?" is "no, I want choice". Because giving yourself up to divine "test" is not something easy.

Unless...
we take the question as philosophical, which of course will lead to more discussion about freewill and god.

Originally Posted by msafwan

Unless...
we take the question as philosophical, which of course will lead to more discussion about freewill and god.

If it were intended as a philosophical discussion I'd have posted it in the Philosophy sub-form, and attempted to set up the question as philosophy.
Oh, wait...

If we're going on the assumption that this God is accurately represented in the Bible, I would say no to giving up my free will to him.

I don't worship primarily because I don't see the point. There is no evidence to suggest a God exists. Furthermore, if a God did exist and he behaved in a greedy and childish manner as depicted in the Bible (demanding to be worshiped and threatening disbelievers with eternal damnation) I would not give up my freedom to him. I have no desire to bend my knee to a tyrant who seeks to exert control over my life. And I don't respond to threats. Eternity in Heaven sounds nice, but not if I have to spend it pretending to be someone I'm not. Frankly, that sounds like Hell.

If we're going on the assumption that this God is accurately represented in the Bible,

(stikeout mine)
with the exception of the term 'accurately' i can agree with that statement..

it was after all created by man.
(inspired by God)
IOW how can we asses the stories in the bible so that we may determine how much of the story has been influenced by the authors own humanity and intentions? (who used God as an excuse and who is truly trying to communicate who/what God is)

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

If we're going on the assumption that this God is accurately represented in the Bible, I would say no to giving up my free will to him.

If god exists you don't have a choice.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

If we're going on the assumption that this God is accurately represented in the Bible, I would say no to giving up my free will to him.

If god exists you don't have a choice.

We always have a choice.

Unless you believe there is no free will. And if there is no free will, the original question serves no purpose.

If you mean that an all powerful being can take free will, then that's fine. What I'm saying is that I won't give it up willingly.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

We always have a choice.

Unless you believe there is no free will. And if there is no free will, the original question serves no purpose.

If you mean that an all powerful being can take free will, then that's fine. What I'm saying is that I won't give it up willingly.

Free Will is normally defined as will outside of physical influence. As such, you can say we do not have free will, but we do have will as the physical factors are indeterminate.
We have choices even if we have no free will.
We can make choices simply because we cannot factor in all influences and make accurate predictions.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

We always have a choice.

Um, no we don't (if god exists).
All we have is the illusion of choice.

And if there is no free will, the original question serves no purpose.

I didn't ask a question: The question is meaningless, the additional premise is an oxymoron and the response is, a priori, mistaken.

If you mean that an all powerful being can take free will, then that's fine. What I'm saying is that I won't give it up willingly.

If there exists an all powerful all-knowing being then free will cannot exist.

Meh. I was basically just responding to the question of whether or not I would choose to give worship. I didn't read far enough to get to the rest.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Meh. I was basically just responding to the question of whether or not I would choose to give worship.

If god exists then you don't have that choice.
Whether you end up giving worship or not, it wouldn't be a choice.

What I'm saying is that I won't give it up willingly.

so if he were to tell you to do something (without any threat) would you do it?

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

so if he were to tell you to do something (without any threat) would you do it?

Depends on what god knows he'll do. Nothing else.

Depends on what god knows he'll do. Nothing else.

he would still have the option not to do it..

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

he would still have the option not to do it..

Nope.
No options.
None.
Zero.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Meh. I was basically just responding to the question of whether or not I would choose to give worship. I didn't read far enough to get to the rest.

If someone grants you free will, it can no longer be classified as "free will".

If God, the omnipresent God that creates as per the religious texts if various Abrahamic religions, then it granting you free will does not amount to actual free will. Because what he can give, he can also take away on a whim. If that makes sense?

The knowledge that there is this "GOD" watching over us and all that we do, and the knowledge that when we die we either go to heaven with God or possibly hell with the devil, then free will cannot exist. Human nature would dictate that we would only act according to what would benefit us the most and it would benefit us to go to heaven and not hell.

If God, the omnipresent God that creates as per the religious texts if various Abrahamic religions, then it granting you free will does not amount to actual free will. Because what he can give, he can also take away on a whim. If that makes sense?

ability does not assume desire.
he can, but if he created us with the ability to choose for ourself, then why would he want to take it away?

Human nature would dictate that we would only act according to what would benefit us the most and it would benefit us to go to heaven and not hell.

Do you always make the desicions that benefit you the most?

Originally Posted by Tranquille

If God, the omnipresent God that creates as per the religious texts if various Abrahamic religions, then it granting you free will does not amount to actual free will. Because what he can give, he can also take away on a whim. If that makes sense?

The knowledge that there is this "GOD" watching over us and all that we do, and the knowledge that when we die we either go to heaven with God or possibly hell with the devil, then free will cannot exist. Human nature would dictate that we would only act according to what would benefit us the most and it would benefit us to go to heaven and not hell.

Even worse: any supposed "free will" granted to us would, in fact, be merely the illusion (belief) of such.
We have no choices whatsoever.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

he can, but if he created us with the ability to choose for ourself, then why would he want to take it away?

He can't "grant" it without ceasing being god.
If we don't have it he can't "take it away".

so you are arguing that if he did make himself empiracle then we would loose any free will..(since you are saying if he exists then there is no free will..)

correct?

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

so you are arguing that if he did make himself empiracle then we would loose any free will.

Um,

(since you are saying if he exists then there is no free will..)

If he exists at all then we have no free will.

Whether we have actual evidence doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Meh. I was basically just responding to the question of whether or not I would choose to give worship.

If god exists then you don't have that choice.
Whether you end up giving worship or not, it wouldn't be a choice.

Yes. I agree.

As I said in the second part of the answer, if God is all powerful and chooses to override free will, the question is moot.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

As I said in the second part of the answer, if God is all powerful and chooses to override free will, the question is moot.

You miss the point.
If god exists there is no free will.
If god is god then it's not a question of him choosing to over-ride it, his existence denies the possibility.

If I take your OP premise to be true, then I think such knowledge would put me in a position to make an informed choice. So I might give up my free will if I perceived it to be in my best interest.

If this god turns out to be of the type that predestines all things, then it is the illusion of free will that I would have to give up. But I suspect that in such a new world, there would continue to be those who worship free will and act as if they really have it. Contrary to evidence.

Good theme for a scifi story. Now that god is real and everything runs according to his will. Here come the hordes of freewillers out of the mountains, wearing duck bill head dresses, causing trouble.

Woohoo! Getting closer.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

If this god turns out to be of the type that predestines all things, then it is the illusion of free will that I would have to give up.

If god is god (omniscient) then "predestination" is a fact (or, probably more accurately, pre-determinism(?)).

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

As I said in the second part of the answer, if God is all powerful and chooses to override free will, the question is moot.

You miss the point.
If god exists there is no free will.
If god is god then it's not a question of him choosing to over-ride it, his existence denies the possibility.

I'd like to know though how his non-existence makes it possible in the first place.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

But I suspect that in such a new world, there would continue to be those who worship free will and act as if they really have it. Contrary to evidence.

I don't believe in true free will, yet I am perfectly content with that. I am pretty sure that you can't divorce yourself from the illusion of free will, even when you are sure it doesn't exist. It is just too engrained into the fibre of our being human.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I'd like to know though how his non-existence makes it possible in the first place.

Good question. His existence precludes it, that's as far as I've got.
Let's stick to my topic for now.

I don't believe in true free will, yet I am perfectly content with that. I am pretty sure that you can't divorce yourself from the illusion of free will, even when you are sure it doesn't exist. It is just too engrained into the fibre of our being human.

Possibly grinding relentless day after day evidence?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I'd like to know though how his non-existence makes it possible in the first place.

Good question. His existence precludes it, that's as far as I've got.
Let's stick to my topic for now.

Ok

So, how does me knowing what you are going to do take away your free will to do it?

Let's say I kidnap you and, for example, drop you in a forest to be hunted by man-hunters. The most I have done is restrict your free will to within bounds, not taken it away. I would know for a fact that you would be seeking water, food and shelter while being out there.

The problem you would see, is that in the case of god, for him to know everything, he would have to know the outcome of the particulars of every moment in order to know what would happen from one moment to the next. That would imply that there can only ever be one outcome to any particular scenario. So how could free will exist if every situation flowed into the next with prefect predictability, in principle at least?

Thing is, it looks like there is such a thing as true randomness in nature. That means that certain events happen at random, which means that one moment can not be predicted precisely from the conditions preceding it, even in principle. That kind of precludes the existence of an omniscient being, doesn't it? Let's put aside some of the other problems with the concept of omniscience for now.

The term "supernatural" is thrown around with reckless abandon as explanation for any number of naturally impossible conditions. One of these would be that god could still know the outcome of each random event in advance, even when the very definition of "random" precludes such a thing. I call bullshit on that. There is only the natural. Anything outside of the natural is non-existent. "Natural" includes all that which is possible. So, either true randomness exists and omniscience is impossible even in principle, or omniscience is possible in principle and randomness doesn't exist.

Having said all of that though, the existence of true randomness doesn't suddenly allow for true free will.... Perhaps we can start another thread on that.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Ok
So, how does me knowing what you are going to do take away your free will to do it?
Let's say I kidnap you and, for example, drop you in a forest to be hunted by man-hunters. The most I have done is restrict your free will to within bounds, not taken it away. I would know for a fact that you would be seeking water, food and shelter while being out there.

But you don't know exactly what I'll do. I.e. the knowledge is "broad" (non-specific) and limited. And tentative - I could, for example, kill myself in order to not be captured.

The problem you would see, is that in the case of god, for him to know everything, he would have to know the outcome of the particulars of every moment in order to know what would happen from one moment to the next. That would imply that there can only ever be one outcome to any particular scenario. So how could free will exist if every situation flowed into the next with prefect predictability, in principle at least?

Thing is, it looks like there is such a thing as true randomness in nature. That means that certain events happen at random, which means that one moment can not be predicted precisely from the conditions preceding it, even in principle. That kind of precludes the existence of an omniscient being, doesn't it? Let's put aside some of the other problems with the concept of omniscience for now.

The term "supernatural" is thrown around with reckless abandon as explanation for any number of naturally impossible conditions. One of these would be that god could still know the outcome of each random event in advance, even when the very definition of "random" precludes such a thing. I call bullshit on that. There is only the natural. Anything outside of the natural is non-existent. "Natural" includes all that which is possible. So, either true randomness exists and omniscience is impossible even in principle, or omniscience is possible in principle and randomness doesn't exist.

Exactly - the existence of choice and/ or randomness logically shows that god is not omniscient, and is therefore, not god (as espoused by Christianity at least).

If god is god then one of his "attributes" is omniscience - he knows everything. Including what choices you will make.
Simplest example - will you choose red or green?
If god knows ¹ you will pick red then, regardless of what you may think, you cannot pick green. If you picked green then god would be wrong and, therefore, not omniscient.
Any foreknowledge (if that foreknowledge is factual) precludes "alternative choices".
For that knowledge to exist as knowledge means that the outcome is already determined before the choice is presented.

1 It must be factual to be knowledge.

I think you guys are thinking too specific..there are many choices we make that doesn't make that much of a difference in the end game..

if you were omnisient,
Would you concern yourself with EVERY descision ever made?
Would you create a race of ppl that couldn't think for themselves? (if you answer this 'yes' and you have been/are a 'boss', then you are a liar.. )

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

I think you guys are thinking too specific..there are many choices we make that doesn't make that much of a difference in the end game.

It doesn't matter they don't "make much difference" - we don't choose.

if you were omnisient,
Would you concern yourself with EVERY descision ever made?

If he watches every sparrow fall doesn't that show a eye for detail?Regardless, whether he's concerned or not doesn't affect him knowing.
Psalm 139:4

Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Would you create a race of ppl that couldn't think for themselves?

Who knows how god gets his jollies?

(if you answer this 'yes' and you have been/are a 'boss', then you are a liar.. )

Really? You think if I were perfect and infallible ¹ as a boss I'd actually want idoits trying to second-guess me and argue? Inserting their own opinions and fouling up my plans?

1 The "if" in this case is hypothetical - I actually am.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

I think you guys are thinking too specific..there are many choices we make that doesn't make that much of a difference in the end game.

It doesn't matter they don't "make much difference" - we don't choose.

really? You chose to answer my post..

if you were omnisient,
Would you concern yourself with EVERY descision ever made?

If he watches every sparrow fall doesn't that show a eye for detail?Regardless, whether he's concerned or not doesn't affect him knowing.
Psalm 139:4

Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

really? quoteing bible as evidence?
im suprised at you Dyw..

Would you create a race of ppl that couldn't think for themselves?

Who knows how god gets his jollies?

i sure he does have a sense of humor..

(if you answer this 'yes' and you have been/are a 'boss', then you are a liar.. )

Really? You think if I were perfect and infallible ¹ as a boss I'd actually want idoits trying to second-guess me and argue? Inserting their own opinions and fouling up my plans?

I would think you would not want your employee's to have to ask you what to do in ALL situations..you would want them to think for themselves with ALOT of things otherwise you would be too busy directing their actions and not doing your own job. (do it like this, not that)

If you were to hire me, i would be like that for awhile until i get my bearings in the job. (do as your told) i would ask so many questions you would think me a dummy and would consider firing me because you would think me incapable of doing things without being told..

1 The "if" in this case is hypothetical - I actually am.

so was i..

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Really? You think if I were perfect and infallible ¹ as a boss I'd actually want idoits trying to second-guess me and argue? Inserting their own opinions and fouling up my plans?

1 The "if" in this case is hypothetical - I actually am.

The evidence indicates otherwise. See posts #2 and #3 of this thread for further confirmation.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

really? You chose to answer my post.

Did actually choose or was it inevitable that I'd reply?

really? quoteing bible as evidence?

It does tend to be regarded as source on the attributes of god.

im suprised at you Dyw.

"Even the devil..."

I would think you would not want your employee's to have to ask you what to do in ALL situations..you would want them to think for themselves with ALOT of things otherwise you would be too busy directing their actions and not doing your own job. (do it like this, not that)

But if I predetermined correctly then they'd do things properly.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

The evidence indicates otherwise. See posts #2 and #3 of this thread for further confirmation.

Posts 2 and 3 show that other people make mistakes. And sometimes I copy them.
That's what comes of giving people "free will". IOW if I'd done it (created people) they'd be incapable of spelling mistakes.

And "idoit" was actually deliberate - an homage to a poster and regular usage on the (other) science forum. Likewise (although I haven't used them yet) sceince and seance....

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by scheherazade

The evidence indicates otherwise. See posts #2 and #3 of this thread for further confirmation.

Posts 2 and 3 show that other people make mistakes. And sometimes I copy them.
That's what comes of giving people "free will". IOW if I'd done it (created people) they'd be incapable of spelling mistakes.

And "idoit" was actually deliberate - an homage to a poster and regular usage on the (other) science forum. Likewise (although I haven't used them yet) sceince and seance....

You are very adroit.

Rather hilarious as well. You even made the dog smile.

but the opposite of free will is consequence,that would either change/stop you from what you want to do; or let's you go on.

Originally Posted by curious mind

but the opposite of free will is consequence

Huh?
There's always a "consequence", free will or not.

that would either change/stop you from what you want to do; or let's you go on.

All you're saying here (essentially) is that we more can predict, accurately, the outcome of a choice, the more constrained that choice becomes (Assuming you're looking for a "particular" outcome).
This argument leads, in the end, to demonstrating that not even god has "free will".

that depends on how you picture god, can you destroy the universe even if you want to? and yes there's always free will, but the consequence will either alter or change or let you continue go on.

Originally Posted by curious mind

and yes there's always free will

That appears to be an unsupported assumption.
Got anything other than the claim to back it up?

are you saying you're forced by someoe/something 24/7 telling you what to do/think/eat/drink/work when to sleep? how do you think you have no free will?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Premise: You get evidence for God beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute empirical proof that God exists.

I've already decided the likelihood of hallucinating God or make-believing God exceeds the probability of God. I'd judge myself crazy. Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary medication. Or, ultimately, lobotomy to make it stop.

Originally Posted by curious mind

are you saying you're forced by someoe/something 24/7 telling you what to do/think/eat/drink/work when to sleep?

There's no coercion involved.

how do you think you have no free will?

If you read the posts it's fully explained.

Originally Posted by Pong

I've already decided the likelihood of hallucinating God or make-believing God exceeds the probability of God. I'd judge myself crazy. Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary medication. Or, ultimately, lobotomy to make it stop.

This thread takes as its premise that the "extraordinary evidence" is not only available but blindingly obvious.

Going back to the OP, the mere existence of an agent (deistic one) doesn't negate free will, it wouldn't necessitate other beings worshiping it, nor would it force anyone to make changes to their behavior. You need to define this agent further other than Omniscient. It is possible (for the sake of this argument) to know all possible cause/effect outcomes, and then recalculate new outcomes when decisions are made. This hypothetical process would refute "fate" while still supporting free will.

Perhaps there is no free will, but a long series of cause/effect/cause/effect reactions within a confided space. As far as what decisions matter, well they all do. Assuming that there is process, where all decisions are being tabulated where the resulting sum is used in an evaluation, can only be honestly defined as an act of speculation.

If you further define this agent as the christian god, then the point of its will being overpowering is unsupported. Within the christian ideology the satan and others appear to choose to not to adhere to its policies. Within many of the stories of the old testament people are regularly punished for going against this god's will.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Going back to the OP, the mere existence of an agent (deistic one) doesn't negate free will

Because...?

it wouldn't necessitate other beings worshiping it, nor would it force anyone to make changes to their behavior.

That wasn't my contention.

You need to define this agent further other than Omniscient. It is possible (for the sake of this argument) to know all possible cause/effect outcomes, and then recalculate new outcomes when decisions are made.

Then it wouldn't omniscient - since there'd be things that it wouldn't know until it did the calculation.

If you further define this agent as the christian god, then the point of its will being overpowering is unsupported.

Huh? Where did I say that?

Within the christian ideology the satan and others appear to choose to not to adhere to its policies. Within many of the stories of the old testament people are regularly punished for going against this god's will.

IOW the bible is wrong about god - the claims made are not self-consistent.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Rather hilarious as well. You even made the dog smile.

It got a smile out of the idoit from post number 2, as well...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Going back to the OP, the mere existence of an agent (deistic one) doesn't negate free will

Because...?

Existence alone affects nothing, but the agent itself and how the agent directly interacts. For example: If this agent predicatively appears at multiple locations simultaneously and it doesn't impede on human behavior, then we have acknowledged existence with no dictates. This agent would have as much as an effect on human existence as a volcano does on person who has never seen one. Yes, there may be rational and irrational responses from an encounter with something exotically new.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

You need to define this agent further other than Omniscient. It is possible (for the sake of this argument) to know all possible cause/effect outcomes, and then recalculate new outcomes when decisions are made.

Then it wouldn't omniscient - since there'd be things that it wouldn't know until it did the calculation.

We are arguing then about when then, this is the distinction between inherent omniscience and total omniscience. Knowing all possible outcomes within a restriction still wouldn't violate free will, the restrictions may though.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

If you further define this agent as the christian god, then the point of its will being overpowering is unsupported.

Huh? Where did I say that?

You didn't. The thread went in that direction.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Within the christian ideology the satan and others appear to choose to not to adhere to its policies. Within many of the stories of the old testament people are regularly punished for going against this god's will.

IOW the bible is wrong about god - the claims made are not self-consistent.

Agreed, that god definition is incoherent.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Existence alone affects nothing, but the agent itself and how the agent directly interacts. For example: If this agent predicatively appears at multiple locations simultaneously and it doesn't impede on human behavior, then we have acknowledged existence with no dictates. This agent would have as much as an effect on human existence as a volcano does on person who has never seen one. Yes, there may be rational and irrational responses from an encounter with something exotically new.

On the contrary if god knows what you will choose before you "choose" then you cannot choose. There is no option other than to pick what god knows you will pick. Otherwise god would be wrong - and thus not omniscient.
Omniscience, by its very existence, precludes choice.
Omniscience can only be possible if everything (including the future) is fixed.
If god IS omniscient then we have no free will, we're simply actors following a script that we haven't read.

I disagree. If there are limitations to what a being can do, then you have reduced outcomes to a finite amount. The outcomes could be an excessively dense decision tree model.

Free will argument is negated when there is consequence other than what the decision directly leads to.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

I disagree. If there are limitations to what a being can do, then you have reduced outcomes to a finite amount. The outcomes could be an excessively dense decision tree model.

Free will argument is negated when there is consequence other than what the decision directly leads to.

Sorry I have no idea what you mean.

If god knows (infallibly) what you will choose can you "choose" otherwise?

Let's not use god, it is a loaded noun. The agent/s are aware of all possible outcomes of a being existing in a restricted space, it doesn't prevent the being from choices within the restricted space. Let's say the choices are restricted by entropy, then some predictability could be calculated. Knowledge wouldn't prevent the matter/being from behaving within its limitations.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Let's not use god, it is a loaded noun.

Since "god" and his (claimed) attributes are the raison d'etre for the thread...

The agent/s are aware of all possible outcomes of a being existing in a restricted space, it doesn't prevent the being from choices within the restricted space. Let's say the choices are restricted by entropy, then some predictability could be calculated. Knowledge wouldn't prevent the matter/being from behaving within its limitations.

But knowing "all possible outcomes" is NOT omniscience, since you can only say "the result will be this, or this or this" - even if you assign (accurately) probabilities to each possible outcome you don't know which one will happen. Omniscience means knowing (exactly) what the actual, final result will be.
But, to extend your argument further, the fewer the choices (due to whatever restrictions) then the lesser the "free will".
Given perfect knowledge of the future (if such a thing were possible) then, by that reasoning, there can only be one outcome to any "choice" - and hence zero free will.

So if beings exist in a universe where the final result will be heat death, there is no free will?


To take it a step further: If I know you will die eventually, does that mean I've taken away your free will?


Last Update: The christian god negates free will due to its attempts of coercion. It offers a reward/punishment as final consequence of all actions.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

So if beings exist in a universe where the final result will be heat death, there is no free will?
To take it a step further: If I know you will die eventually, does that mean I've taken away your free will?

Not the same at all, since neither of those dictate anything other than a final singular "result".
Neither has any bearing on which colour shirt you chose to wear today.

Last Update: The christian god negates free will due to its attempts of coercion. It offers a reward/punishment as final consequence of all actions.

Yet, given the claim that god's knowledge is perfect - any actions we take have been pre-determined since the creation, the punishment isn't for "choices" or actions made it's because that's the way it had to be ¹.

1 Given that god, too, is stuck as an actor (and hence is NOT all-powerful - he has no choice either).

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

So if beings exist in a universe where the final result will be heat death, there is no free will?
To take it a step further: If I know you will die eventually, does that mean I've taken away your free will?

Not the same at all, since neither of those dictate anything other than a final singular "result".
Neither has any bearing on which colour shirt you chose to wear today.

I was questioning in the context of your definition in the previous post.

Omniscience means knowing (exactly) what the actual, final result will be.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Yet, given the claim that god's knowledge is perfect - any actions we take have been pre-determined since the creation, the punishment isn't for "choices" or actions made it's because that's the way it had to be ¹.

I always thought that related to the common christian claim of there being a plan and it was god's plan how events unfolded. So that would make the christian god an architect with the the ability of all knowledge, which does negate the free will claim as well.

I still disagree that having all knowledge alone violates free will.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

I was questioning in the context of your definition in the previous post.

Omniscience means knowing (exactly) what the actual, final result will be.

of ANY and ALL "choices", not "final result" as in "at the end of everything".
My bad, I thought was implicit.

I still disagree that having all knowledge alone violates free will.

Okay, if, given a choice of "red or green" and (unknown to you) god (or anyone else) knows that you will pick red do you actually have a choice?
How can you pick anything other than red?
If you can't then the "choice" was a choice in name only since you cannot pick anything else regardless of your beliefs beforehand.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Okay, if, given a choice of "red or green" and (unknown to you) god (or anyone else) knows that you will pick red do you actually have a choice?

How can you pick anything other than red?
If you can't then the "choice" was a choice in name only since you cannot pick anything else regardless of your beliefs beforehand.

Agreed, in this context there is no choice.

My point was that knowing all the subsequent cause/effect/cause/effect from either red or green choices doesn't necessitate the choices are not being freely decided upon. Again this is in the context of a deistic agent which is not a creator, but has knowledge of all possible outcomes.

Again, knowing "all possible outcomes" isn't a facet of omniscience.
We (you and I, and anyone who else who looks at the question) know all possible outcomes of the choice "red or green" (by definition), but we don't know the one that WILL be chosen.

Again: if god knows that you will pick red can you pick green? No.
Ergo that knowledge, in and of itself, constrains the choice (makes it NOT a choice) because knowing means that the "choice" is pre-ordained/ pre-destined/ pre-determined.

I understand your point. So if the agent has infallible foreknowledge there is no free will.

If the agent exists only in the present time, truths are defined as events which have occurred, and the agents only knows truths (doesn't know falsehoods), then this agent doesn't have foreknowledge (The Aristotelian solution). In this constraint free will could exist for omniscience only applies to what is presently true.

It is open to the defender of this solution to maintain that God has no beliefs about the contingent future because he does not infallibly know how it will turn out, and this is compatible with God's being infallible in everything he does believe. It is also compatible with God's omniscience if omniscience is the property of knowing the truth value of every proposition that has a truth value. But clearly, this move restricts the range of God's knowledge, so it has religious disadvantages in addition to its disadvantages in logic.

Of course this isn't a position a christian would support.

Free will and Foreknowledge
Omniscience

I, most definatly, would not give up my free will. The question, in my opinion, is pointless. I don't know anyone who would. If, and that's a big if, there was a god(s) to present themselves, i doubt anyone would be happy about it. I mean the havent trie to help us one bit. Hello, there is still cancer, war, and other afflictions affecting us. I certainly would not give up my free will to someone (something?) that hasn't lifted a finger to help this world.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

I understand your point. So if the agent has infallible foreknowledge there is no free will.

Yup.

If the agent exists only in the present time, truths are defined as events which have occurred, and the agents only knows truths (doesn't know falsehoods), then this agent doesn't have foreknowledge (The Aristotelian solution). In this constraint free will could exist for omniscience only applies to what is presently true.
Of course this isn't a position a christian would support.

Yeah, that could work, but, like you say, it contradicts the Christian claims.

Originally Posted by ladydreamer

I, most definatly, would not give up my free will.

If god exists you don't have free will.

if i say, tomorrow i'll place a healthy carrot and a piece of chocolate in front of a 5 yr old child then predict the child will choose the chocolate; did i take away the free will of the child?

Originally Posted by curious mind

if i say, tomorrow i'll place a healthy carrot and a piece of chocolate in front of a 5 yr old child then predict the child will choose the chocolate; did i take away the free will of the child?

There is something about chocolate that does away with the concept of free will...at least for many...

mmmm..chocolate..

but you get what i mean? i didn't take away the childs free will to choose, it's just that, based on my knowledge that i'll know what it will choose.

Originally Posted by curious mind

but you get what i mean? i didn't take away the childs free will to choose, it's just that, based on my knowledge that i'll know what it will choose.

Hmmm...I might well have selected the carrot for I learned early on that when one selects the desired response, one is frequently 'rewarded'. My hypothesis (even at the age of 5) would have been to select the carrot and very likely be given the chocolate for 'dessert'.

Younger than 4 and I doubt I would have reasoned it through, lol. I was a precocious child.

ok, so if your mom did that experiment on you, she would have said that you would have picked the carrot, based on her knowledge about you.

Originally Posted by curious mind

ok, so if your mom did that experiment on you, she would have said that you would have picked the carrot, based on her knowledge about you.

LOL, good response. Makes you wonder just who is influencing whom or whether there exists any options at all, does it not? If everything is simply cause and effect, what is the effect of any illusion of choice? The interval outcome may 'look' different and 'feel' different because we assume that we exercised our franchise of 'option', but sometimes I ponder on what determines the available options at any given point in time. Sometimes, we have a plethora of options apparent, while other times, it is the proverbial 'between a rock and a hard place'.

i don't know, i'm just sharing my opinion about god being omniscience without interfering with free will.

Originally Posted by curious mind

if i say, tomorrow i'll place a healthy carrot and a piece of chocolate in front of a 5 yr old child then predict the child will choose the chocolate; did i take away the free will of the child?

Tut, naughty you.
You're pre-supposing that there is free will - otherwise it couldn't be taken away.
But: the simple answer is that you don't know (as an absolute fact) that the child will take the chocolate. You'd be surprised if he/ she took the carrot, but it's not impossible.

OTOH, if (a big if) each and every child, unfailingly took chocolate each and every time time would that not indicate that there are responses at work that did in fact preclude the choice of carrot? I'm talking about physiological ones - not "supernatural" - i.e. children are "programmed" to select chocolate. Still no free will.

as sheherazade posted, she would have gone for the carrot. but since her mother raised her, she would know that; since she raised her. so sheherazade would go against common knowledge that a child would always go for the chocolate but it wouldn't surprise her moter, since the mother knows her child.

Originally Posted by curious mind

as sheherazade posted, she would have gone for the carrot. but since her mother raised her, she would know that; since she raised her. so sheherazade would go against common knowledge that a child would always go for the chocolate but it wouldn't surprise her moter, since the mother knows her child.

LOL...why settle for mere choices when you can have it all just by getting in the 'game'?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

We always have a choice.

Um, no we don't (if god exists).All we have is the illusion of choice.

I don't see how that follow at all. Why couldn't God create beings with free will. Frankly, I'd think creating beings with free will would be much more interesting than a universe of automatons. What would be the point of that?

If there exists an all powerful all-knowing being then free will cannot exist.

Again, why not? He's all powerful yet can not create beings with free will? I suppose you might be hanging your hat on the "all knowing" bit since choice introduces a certain level of unpredictability, but I don't think that's necessarily the case unless one insists on a very specific and literal interpretation of omniscience.Clearly if God had the capacity to know and understand everything that was happening at any point in time, he could make some very accurate predictions about what was going to happen in the future. He'd be omniscient in that he would know all that was and in that he'd have a very good idea of how things were going to turn out. What he wouldn't know would be the little details. He wouldn't know for sure exactly what each individual was going to do at any given time. .

Because of the definition of what free will is.

Free Will is a will that is indeterminate and free from physical constraints. It is will that is free from outside direction.
An omniscient being would be able to predict, therefor thwart our will by knowing our will before we make any choice. Our will would then not be Free. Even if he chose to not thwart or interfere, the will itself would still not qualify as free because he could know it before we make a choice.

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

We always have a choice.

Um, no we don't (if god exists).All we have is the illusion of choice.

I don't see how that follow at all. Why couldn't God create beings with free will. Frankly, I'd think creating beings with free will would be much more interesting than a universe of automatons. What would be the point of that?

If there exists an all powerful all-knowing being then free will cannot exist.

Again, why not? He's all powerful yet can not create beings with free will? I suppose you might be hanging your hat on the "all knowing" bit since choice introduces a certain level of unpredictability, but I don't think that's necessarily the case unless one insists on a very specific and literal interpretation of omniscience.Clearly if God had the capacity to know and understand everything that was happening at any point in time, he could make some very accurate predictions about what was going to happen in the future. He'd be omniscient in that he would know all that was and in that he'd have a very good idea of how things were going to turn out. What he wouldn't know would be the little details. He wouldn't know for sure exactly what each individual was going to do at any given time. .

Well Dywyddyr's idea seems to be correct here, if god does indeed truely exists then on some level he must excert some amount of control, which means less control for us. When we look at the world or at the way life works do we see God or do we the randomness of chance? Is one right and the other wrong? Is one hiding the reality of the other?
I suppose we could ask if God exists if he could know our future, in some way predict what may happen, but couldn't we equally ask if God exists then could God have made of us a puzzle, an enigma if you like, that perhaps even he can't totally understand or predict. But then this all comes down to supposition of whether there even is a God. Perhaps we could just instead consider the actual importance of 'life' within the universe rather than a concept of God, we can look across the cosmos at vast distances stretching across billions of years and as yet we are still to see anything as wonderous as the life we find here on earth, how special and important does this life seem when considering everything else.
The choices and actions that we make as human beings don't fit neatly into ways that can be explained by universal laws or principles, we are so much more and much much more complex and perhaps with an ultimate destiny that as yet nobody can predict.

well, the question was, if god exists is there free will? my personal opinion about god is different from how the thread starter sees it, but that wasn't the question.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Well Dywyddyr's idea seems to be correct here, if god does indeed truely exists then on some level he must excert some amount of control, which means less control for us.

It's nothing to do with "control".

but couldn't we equally ask if God exists then could God have made of us a puzzle, an enigma if you like, that perhaps even he can't totally understand or predict.

No, he couldn't.
God's knowledge is declared to be "perfect" (Job something or other) - in other words complete. There must, in order for his knowledge be perfect, be nothing that he doesn't already know: ergo no mysteries, no puzzles, no new knowledge for him.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ascended

Well Dywyddyr's idea seems to be correct here, if god does indeed truely exists then on some level he must excert some amount of control, which means less control for us.

It's nothing to do with "control".

Ok

but couldn't we equally ask if God exists then could God have made of us a puzzle, an enigma if you like, that perhaps even he can't totally understand or predict.

No, he couldn't.
God's knowledge is declared to be "perfect" (Job something or other) - in other words complete. There must, in order for his knowledge be perfect, be nothing that he doesn't already know: ergo no mysteries, no puzzles, no new knowledge for him.

I think I would challenge this on the basis that God cannot have perfect knowledge if he doesn't know how to create an unsolveable puzzle, if he doesn't know then his knowledge simply can't be perfect so your assertion seems to be based on flawed logic.

Originally Posted by Ascended

I think I would challenge this on the basis that God cannot have perfect knowledge if he doesn't know how to create an unsolveable puzzle

Oh yeah the old, can he create a stone that he can't lift "problem".

if he doesn't know then his knowledge simply can't be perfect so your assertion seems to be based on flawed logic.

And again, if he CAN create a puzzle that he can't solve then his knowledge isn't perfect. (Because he doesn't know how to solve it).

I.e. the question itself is logically incoherent and unanswerable.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

It's nothing to do with "control".

Ok

Oops, I missed this.
I explained it earlier, in post #68 - if the result of a "choice" is known beforehand that is only possible if the future is fixed - i.e. it's not due to "control" so much as that everything is pre-determined, we're on a limited, fixed path. Actors following an unknown script.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ascended

I think I would challenge this on the basis that God cannot have perfect knowledge if he doesn't know how to create an unsolveable puzzle

Oh yeah the old, can he create a stone that he can't lift "problem".

if he doesn't know then his knowledge simply can't be perfect so your assertion seems to be based on flawed logic.

And again, if he CAN create a puzzle that he can't solve then his knowledge isn't perfect. (Because he doesn't know how to solve it).

I.e. the question itself is logically incoherent and unanswerable.

Yes I agree the answer is unknowable, but I was pondering this issue of the unanswerable question, given that many aspects about the concept of God also seem unknowable, but you said "No, he couldn't." giving a definite answer to what is the unanswerable question I asked, so seems your answer is based on flawed logic.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Yes I agree the answer is unknowable, but I was pondering this issue of the unanswerable question, given that many aspects about the concept of God also seem unknowable, but you said "No, he couldn't." giving a definite answer to what is the unanswerable question I asked, so seems your answer is based on flawed logic.

Er, it's the bible that says he knows what we're going to do. (IOW his knowledge means we're not a puzzle to him).
There's a number of times where it specifically states that god knows the future, names someone who will be born in a couple of hundred years time and declares that he "knows our lives" even before we're born.

Yeah maybe I should have said "maybe he could have, but he didn't", but I read your "could he" as "is it possible that he did", rather than "is it at all possible that (if he started again) he could make us a puzzle to him?"

Ok then if we are speculating, using the bible, that we, as humans, are not testing the limits of Gods power does that then open up the possibility of further or future creations that are more important than us?, this seemingly contradictory to the idea of all powerful God that favours us above all others, also might it call into question concepts of self determination if we are always within Gods power, to this I mean if we go against Gods will?

Originally Posted by Ascended

Ok then if we are speculating, using the bible, that we, as humans, are not testing the limits of Gods power does that then open up the possibility of further or future creations that are more important than us?, this seemingly contradictory to the idea of all powerful God that favours us above all others, also might it call into question concepts of self determination if we are always within Gods power, to this I mean if we go against Gods will?

If god exists and is omniscient then we have no self-determination: it's all been pre-plotted from the start.
The only way that god (or anyone) can know the future is if it's fixed.
It's been pre-written and it's impossible to deviate.
God can't even change his own mind.
(And, in fact, he didn't have the "choice" to set it off in the first place - perfect knowledge left him with no choice in the matter).

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ascended

Ok then if we are speculating, using the bible, that we, as humans, are not testing the limits of Gods power does that then open up the possibility of further or future creations that are more important than us?, this seemingly contradictory to the idea of all powerful God that favours us above all others, also might it call into question concepts of self determination if we are always within Gods power, to this I mean if we go against Gods will?

If god exists and is omniscient then we have no self-determination: it's all been pre-plotted from the start.
The only way that god (or anyone) can know the future is if it's fixed.
It's been pre-written and it's impossible to deviate.
God can't even change his own mind.
(And, in fact, he didn't have the "choice" to set it off in the first place - perfect knowledge left him with no choice in the matter).

What a strange concept.

An omniscient god, yet the very acknowledgement of omniscience renders said god impotent to act.

Certainly no reason to pay homage then, or request divine intervention...

what if he can't interfere?
like you have build a system and started running it. then you see a flaw or something whatever, but for it to be fixed, you'd have to turn off the power. in other words, god would have to halt/pause the universe, which wouldn't be a good idea probably.

i mean, he didn't stop satan when, according to his power he could have before even satan knew he would rebel against him; but maybe because him interfering would mean the end of our universe.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

An omniscient god, yet the very acknowledgement of omniscience renders said god impotent to act.

Yep. That's what happens when you get a bunch of writers with their own ideas on what should go in the book - no internal consistency.

Originally Posted by curious mind

what if he can't interfere?
like you have build a system and started running it. then you see a flaw or something whatever, but for it to be fixed, you'd have to turn off the power. in other words, god would have to halt/pause the universe, which wouldn't be a good idea probably.
i mean, he didn't stop satan when, according to his power he could have before even satan knew he would rebel against him; but maybe because him interfering would mean the end of our universe.

Presumably, since his knowledge is perfect and therefore the "plan" is perfect, the way things are happening is the only way to get the end result he wants. Satan is/was part of the plan, as are all the wars and suffering we go through.
But I can tell you now that the end result is NOT certain people in Heaven and others in Hell - there's a far simpler and easier way to achieve that.

then the end result can only have 3 outcomes.

1.we realize how insignificant we are and need a whole different system to ensure our future survival(i don't see that happen on a large scale).
2.we continue acting like we're little mini-gods and dwell on in our mini-superiority(sounds like a plan)
3.it doesn't matter whether we do 1 or 2, because us surviving or destroying each other means zip to anyone but us.

If I don't have free will, then I'm a duck. If there was a "God", I'm pretty sure I would have been hit by a truck or something for all the stupid crap I've done.

“I wear the chain I forged in life....I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it.”
― Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol