God and "Free Will"

[Daydream]

If god can intervene in the world, then his interference can remove people’s free will.

 

[rocketdodger]

Nothing else controls his choices. There are things that could impede his choices.

You clearly do not understand what most of us are talking about when we discuss "free will" on this forum.

All known -- nay, conceivable -- decisions are either determined or random. Period.

The "free will" we discuss is more formally known as libertarian free will, which asserts that human choice features an undefined decision process that is neither determined nor random.

I really don't know what you are arguing, since it doesn't seem to have much to do with the above.

 

[rocketdodger]

I played that game. I no longer play it. I work with what I know at a given point in time. I test what I know whether it is verifiable or not. I then make decisions based upon what I know.

This reply doesn't really advance the discussion at all...

(there is a dual meaning lol)

 

[Polgara]

This reply doesn't really advance the discussion at all...

(there is a dual meaning lol)

(Nay, perhaps a meta meaning.

Point taken, however. I was considering it was time to be quiet and listen for a while.

 

[Nick227]

Point taken, however. I was considering it was time to be quiet and listen for a while.

Sounds a wise move. Or else go back through a couple of pages and re-read. The only way you can justify a belief in free will is if you absolutely refuse to examine internal processes within the body.

Nick

 

[Egg]

Both of these are interesting points, but I have slight quibbles with each.

A 3D being can observe a 2D world, but can it actually fully appreciate a 2D lifestyle? (Yes, I have read Flatland. I currently own a copy.)

I guess it's hard to say. I'm aware that I might not fully appreciate a 2D lifestyle, but that's not to say that any 3D being couldn't or couldn't simulate 2D in such a way as to become more aware of what that entails. Perhaps I couldn't fully appreciate another being's 3D lifestyle for that matter.

But in that case, does action and free will apply? Rewinding and fast-forwarding require a deterministic environment, or else the story could be different each time.

ETA: In addition, the very notion of rewind and fast-forward are themselves time dependent.

You're quite right, that would require it to be deterministic. A slight change of concept to allow for free will: the forward/rewind is of the completed time-line and is just for viewing, so in effect it's a recording of the finished simulation.

 

[bruto]

I don't care what the definition of god is to whomever. A point here is that if you are trying to figure out an equation you have to define a starting point. If the starting point is god, in that god does or does not allow someone to have free will, one has to define god and present god as tangible.

I don't think you have to present god as tangible if you define him as intangible!

I think, as you probably do too, that the basic question of "God and Free Will" is essentially nonsensical, but I think we are approaching it from opposite ends.

I say that if there is a god (of the sort that theists usually seem to mean when they use the word, and it doesn't matter whether or not we agree that such a thing is possible, etc. etc.....), then that god requires a huge loophole or exemption from the laws of logic and physics. That is, such a god must, by definition, be transcendent. If you assert that this is simply not a possibility, then the discussion ends. But if transcendence is allowable or conceivable, then the question of whether God can grant free will is empty speculation, because he can do anything he damn well pleases, but we cannot use rational argument to discuss his rules. Logic is suspended here. If we play the game of speculating about free will at all, we do so in theistic terms, or not at all.

You seem to be saying that it's nonsense as well, and the question is not even admissible because God is not tangible and therefore not definable, but then you insist on trying to provide an answer anyway.

 

[Polgara]

I don't think you have to present god as tangible if you define him as intangible!

I think, as you probably do too, that the basic question of "God and Free Will" is essentially nonsensical, but I think we are approaching it from opposite ends.

I say that if there is a god (of the sort that theists usually seem to mean when they use the word, and it doesn't matter whether or not we agree that such a thing is possible, etc. etc.....), then that god requires a huge loophole or exemption from the laws of logic and physics. That is, such a god must, by definition, be transcendent. If you assert that this is simply not a possibility, then the discussion ends. But if transcendence is allowable or conceivable, then the question of whether God can grant free will is empty speculation, because he can do anything he damn well pleases, but we cannot use rational argument to discuss his rules. Logic is suspended here. If we play the game of speculating about free will at all, we do so in theistic terms, or not at all.

You seem to be saying that it's nonsense as well, and the question is not even admissible because God is not tangible and therefore not definable, but then you insist on trying to provide an answer anyway.

Yes.

 

[ladyattis]

Nothing else controls his choices. There are things that could impede his choices.

I agree. Basically, the issue is where does one logically draw the line as to what entities do what things based on some finite set of parameters. One could suppose no one thing does anything at all if we continue going backward in the reasoning based on the assumption each entity depends on every other preceding entity to produce the future state (event). In a way, Determinism is its own "Turtles all the way down" sort of situation.

 

[Polgara]

I agree. Basically, the issue is where does one logically draw the line as to what entities do what things based on some finite set of parameters. One could suppose no one thing does anything at all if we continue going backward in the reasoning based on the assumption each entity depends on every other preceding entity to produce the future state (event). In a way, Determinism is its own "Turtles all the way down" sort of situation.

Ah, the famous turtles.

I have a friend who dubs his net name as Don Paradox. He suggested the turtles should move upwards and outwards.

 

[Nick227]

I say that if there is a god (of the sort that theists usually seem to mean when they use the word, and it doesn't matter whether or not we agree that such a thing is possible, etc. etc.....), then that god requires a huge loophole or exemption from the laws of logic and physics. That is, such a god must, by definition, be transcendent. If you assert that this is simply not a possibility, then the discussion ends. But if transcendence is allowable or conceivable, then the question of whether God can grant free will is empty speculation, because he can do anything he damn well pleases, but we cannot use rational argument to discuss his rules. Logic is suspended here. If we play the game of speculating about free will at all, we do so in theistic terms, or not at all.

The question for me is...if this God is completely transcendant and not even bound by the laws of logic or physics, just what exactly is he supposed to be doing? Materialist logic is making remarkable inroads into pretty much every phenonenom you care to mention.

There doesn't seem to be a great deal left for this God to have done. I suppose you could argue that he pushed a button somewhere and set the universe in motion in the first place and since then has done bugger all. I know a few bosses like this!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I agree. Basically, the issue is where does one logically draw the line as to what entities do what things based on some finite set of parameters. One could suppose no one thing does anything at all if we continue going backward in the reasoning based on the assumption each entity depends on every other preceding entity to produce the future state (event). In a way, Determinism is its own "Turtles all the way down" sort of situation.

Well, prime causation might cause problems for determinism but I don't see that deciding "God did it" really represents much progress. If one considers all the mysterious phenomena people have ascribed to God over the centuries and how many of them have now been put down to more earthly causes, then I'd say the outlook for God here looks pretty weak.

In addition, taking the God option on this issue is simply to create a scenario based on how we typically believe free will is, but how we now actually know it isn't. We know people don't actually have free will. Thus to give a role to God based on this bygone perception of selfhood seems to me pretty weak.

Nick