God and "Free Will"

[westprog]

Let's tackle free will and god a different way, as this mostly seems to be a question of morality. In order for free will to play a part, the chooser must have an understanding of right and wrong (right and wrong in god's eye, I would assume).

The issue of free will is quite seperate from the moral question. It is possible to concieve of free actions in a universe in which morality did not apply.

OTOH, it doesn't seem possible to have morality as being meaningful in a wholly deterministic or random universe. Hence free will comes first.

The problem I see with this line of argument is that there are people who apparently cannot make this type of determination. Whether is nature or nurture is irrelevent at this point. For example, the US courts allow something known as the Insanity Defense. This has several flavors and interpretations. For example, irresistible impulse:




Does this mean that free will sometimes exists and sometimes does not?

We know that already. We have limits to what we can do. We can't decide to fly, or see through walls.

The question is not whether we are able to choose to do anything we want. The question is whether we are able to make any choice.

What determines that difference? Do some people have free will and some never do?

Without consistency, I cannot see how free will can exist, or how it can be used by any god as a tool of judgement.

Without free will, there cannot be any question of judging actions.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The concept of morality is very useful in a world without free will (which is why a concept of morality has survived I believe).

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Without free will, there cannot be any question of judging actions.

Sure there can. It's just that those judgements are determined.

 

[rocketdodger]

Sure there can. It's just that those judgements are determined.

Exactly.

A murderer says he was predetermined to kill his victim. If so, then the court is predetermined to find him guilty. No big change there.

 

[slingblade]

The first question is, how did God know what I was going to do? Did he observe it or did he know because he knows what I would do in any circumstances?

Well, no. The first question is why are we making up hypotheticals involving one real being and one imaginary one, and trying to make this tell us anything about reality?



But I do get what you've said: is god omniscient and therefore all-knowing of my past, present, and future, or is he just keenly observant of, and experienced with, human nature, and so can make a highly educated guess as to what I'll likely be doing? Because, really, that's all we're saying about a parent who knows his child well: he's still guessing, and even though he usually guesses correctly, it is always possible the child might, at any time, do something unexpected. If humans ever do things god doesn't expect, then he isn't omniscient.

Have we, then, set the parameters of the discussion so that we are talking only about the tri-omni version of god? Because I can't begin to guess or tell you what any imaginary being will do, seeing as how he's imaginary, unless we define said being.

If the god under discussion is the tri-omni god, then he never guesses. He knows. But if god knows all, even the future, wouldn't that mean god himself doesn't have free will?

I can see into the future, and in seeing what you will someday do, I also see what I will do with you, to you, and for you.

Because I know everything, I know that I never change any of my actions, and you never change any of yours. I know, for instance, that at 3 pm next Sunday afternoon, Peter is going to kill himself, and as a consequence, I'm going to punish him in hell for all eternity. I have known this since before Peter was born, or even conceived. Peter doesn't know this, but he is troubled, and so he is praying for my help right now. But I don't help him, I've seen that, and he dies. Therefore, I am ultimately powerless, even if I am all powerful, because I can't change the future I've seen or it won't be the future I've seen.

In order for any being to see the future, it must be written in stone. And if it is, then free will is obviously an illusion created by the fact that we can't see our futures and don't know they can't be changed.

 

[Polgara]

I have read most religions and their origins, time frames, etc. to a good degree of detail. I have chased the notion a/o existence of God. I have been a Christian, most of my life. I am now what I deem an agnostic-athiest.

Define: God. Prove: any God ever 'existed'.

Free Will: exists but for separate reasons from a 'God'.

Read upon hermeneutics and how recorded word has evolved, revolved and morphed over the centuries of verbal and written record regarding: religions and God. I have. My conclusion is that all we have are story telling concepts by different people at different points of time and understanding. Then, the records of the story telling and concepts have been corrupted so many times for so many reasons, a 'real and absolute' truth cannot be established for any one of them.

Read upon: Metatron.

 

[ladyattis]

Hmmm. I'm not sure how to put it into words, but really free will isn't that fancy as the old philosophers with a religious bent made it out to be. All it really entails in the real world application is the freedom to think otherwise. What's 'free' about it is that it's a function of your identity, thus it cannot contradict it. So, you can say you are determined by your identity (the way you think, feel, and value things), but at the same time it's still a self-determination to which no other identity in itself can really contradict it (save for a bullet, a semi-truck, and other 'identities' which have properties that can negate yours).

Then again, I could be wrong.

 

[Polgara]

Hmmm. I'm not sure how to put it into words, but really free will isn't that fancy as the old philosophers with a religious bent made it out to be. All it really entails in the real world application is the freedom to think otherwise. What's 'free' about it is that it's a function of your identity, thus it cannot contradict it. So, you can say you are determined by your identity (the way you think, feel, and value things), but at the same time it's still a self-determination to which no other identity in itself can really contradict it (save for a bullet, a semi-truck, and other 'identities' which have properties that can negate yours).

Then again, I could be wrong.

Are you wrong if that is what you believe, based upon all facts gleaned and refined?

:O)

 

[ladyattis]

Are you wrong if that is what you believe, based upon all facts gleaned and refined?

Can you rephrase that question because I'm able to conclude to two possible answers which conflict.

 

[Polgara]

Can you rephrase that question because I'm able to conclude to two possible answers which conflict.

(Sometimes I lapse into speaking like an Esper. See Alfred Bester's definition of Esper.)

a) What defines 'right'? I define it as a correct answer, based upon current correct data, that I know and test over time, and continue to test at present points in time.

For instance: God.

1) I've learned all that I can know regarding the recorded history of god(s).

2) I've listed, tested and reviewed other testing re: as many proofs and falsified facts that I can know regarding physical evidence re: God, to date.

3) I've punched the data through my mind and come to a statement based upon either facts, or the realization of what is not, or may not, be fact.

My current statement re: agnostic-athiest. Is correct, or 'right', in the here and now.

My statement is only defined conclusive and right, at a present point, and through future points until some data presents to change that statement.

Example: Should God sit on my lap and say hello. :O) Or, perhaps, scientists uncover new information that is provable re: God...

I am correct, or right in my current statement: being agnostic-athiest. I am correct, or right, also in my new statement that God exists should he is sit upon my lap, or should new concrete evidence be presented.


I am right in my statement at the present point of understanding, and I would be right at a possible future point of understanding, should new or different evidence present itself and alter the first statement.

I wondered: If you say, 'then again I could be wrong'. Are you saying that because you are uncertain about 'your' statement 'now'? Or are you saying that because you think you are correct in your statement now, but that your statement may be different at a future point in time because different information may be presented?

 

[ladyattis]

(Sometimes I lapse into speaking like an Esper. See Alfred Bester's definition of Esper.)

a) What defines 'right'? I define it as a correct answer, based upon current correct data, that I know and test over time, and continue to test at present points in time.

For instance: God.

1) I've learned all that I can know regarding the recorded history of god(s).

2) I've listed, tested and reviewed other testing re: as many proofs and falsified facts that I can know regarding physical evidence re: God, to date.

3) I've punched the data through my mind and come to a statement based upon either facts, or the realization of what is not, or may not, be fact.

My current statement re: agnostic-athiest. Is correct, or 'right', in the here and now.

My statement is only defined conclusive and right, at a present point, and through future points until some data presents to change that statement.

Example: Should God sit on my lap and say hello. :O) Or, perhaps, scientists uncover new information that is provable re: God...

I am correct, or right in my current statement: being agnostic-athiest. I am correct, or right, also in my new statement that God exists should he is sit upon my lap, or should new concrete evidence be presented.


I am right in my statement at the present point of understanding, and I would be right at a possible future point of understanding, should new or different evidence present itself and alter the first statement.

I wondered: If you say, 'then again I could be wrong'. Are you saying that because you are uncertain about 'your' statement 'now'? Or are you saying that because you think you are correct in your statement now, but that your statement may be different at a future point in time because different information may be presented?

But what does this have to do with my comment on free will being simply self-determination?

 

[Polgara]

But what does this have to do with my comment on free will being simply self-determination?

I wanted to know why you questioned the validity of your comment by tacking on: "..but then again I could be wrong.."

No devil's advocacy here. I was merely questioning.

 

[Nick227]

Hmmm. I'm not sure how to put it into words, but really free will isn't that fancy as the old philosophers with a religious bent made it out to be. All it really entails in the real world application is the freedom to think otherwise. What's 'free' about it is that it's a function of your identity, thus it cannot contradict it. So, you can say you are determined by your identity (the way you think, feel, and value things), but at the same time it's still a self-determination to which no other identity in itself can really contradict it (save for a bullet, a semi-truck, and other 'identities' which have properties that can negate yours).

Then again, I could be wrong.

It seems to me that it comes down to at what level you are talking about free will. You seem to me to be discussing the right to voice your own opinion. Personally, I had the feeling that this thread was more about whether free will itself finally exists at all.

I could also be wrong!

Nick

 

[ladyattis]

I wanted to know why you questioned the validity of your comment by tacking on: "..but then again I could be wrong.."

No devil's advocacy here. I was merely questioning.

Only because I'm working on a 'theory' of related to free will in regards to artificial intelligence (Yes, I'm #24364534232321.1 would be AI theorist in the world and I'll get it right! *cackles insanely*), so for me I'd rather not be married to an idea if it doesn't follow.

 

[Polgara]

It seems to me that it comes down to at what level you are talking about free will. You seem to me to be discussing the right to voice your own opinion. Personally, I had the feeling that this thread was more about whether free will itself finally exists at all.

I could also be wrong!

Nick

Ok. Let's firm which definition of free will we are working with, and pick at that systematically.

The OP stated free will as given by god.

1) Which god? Is that god proven to exist, and has he/she/it proven to establish free will?

2) If so, what is that god's definition of free will?

 

[Polgara]

Only because I'm working on a 'theory' of related to free will in regards to artificial intelligence (Yes, I'm #24364534232321.1 would be AI theorist in the world and I'll get it right! *cackles insanely*), so for me I'd rather not be married to an idea if it doesn't follow.

ahh -grins. AI. I like the topic!

I have cackled insanely more than once, on that particularly consideration. Fear not.

Hofstadter, Vinge......

State a definition of free will re: AI. We will work the topic from there, if you like.

(P.S. I prefer the notion of IA. But that's another topic. :O)

 

[Nick227]

Ok. Let's firm which definition of free will we are working with, and pick at that systematically.

The OP stated free will as given by god.

1) Which god? Is that god proven to exist, and has he/she/it proven to establish free will?

2) If so, what is that god's definition of free will?

The OP seems to me to have been about whether an omniscient God can bestow free will, presumably because if he's all-knowing then it won't be possible to make a creature that has a will of its own. So to me the writer is asking if there is a logical contradiction here. It seems to me that there is, as an all-knowing God would inevitably know what any of his creatures would do in any situation. This to my mind contradicts the notion that they have free will.

Personally, I don't believe in it anyway, so God doesn't come into it for me.

Nick

 

[Polgara]

The OP seems to me to have been about whether an omniscient God can bestow free will, presumably because if he's all-knowing then it won't be possible to make a creature that has a will of its own. So to me the writer is asking if there is a logical contradiction here. It seems to me that there is, as an all-knowing God would inevitably know what any of his creatures would do in any situation. This to my mind contradicts the notion that they have free will.

Personally, I don't believe in it anyway, so God doesn't come into it for me.

Nick

I ponder.

Ok. There is an omniscient god who created man. This god states he has bestowed free will on man.

If god is omniscient, why could he not bestow that quality onto, or into, man?

(I'm just starting a thought process. I am not being a proponent of anything, at this point.)

 

[Nick227]

I ponder.

Ok. There is an omniscient god who created man. This god states he has bestowed free will on man.

If god is omniscient, why could he not bestow that quality onto, or into, man?

(I'm just starting a thought process. I am not being a proponent of anything, at this point.)

Well, the question for me would then be as to whether an omniscient being, God, could give up its omniscience. It would, as I see it, have to do this in order to not know what humans would do in advance of them doing it. Can they really have free will if God knows all their moves in advance? They could believe they had it, but no more.

I don't think you could bestow omniscience, as it must be like a higher-order thought process raised to the ultimate level. Of course there are inevitably conceptual problems with discussing rules that apply to things that very likely anyway don't exist!

Nick

 

[Polgara]

Well, the question for me would then be as to whether an omniscient being, God, could give up its omniscience.

a) If god were all knowing, I would have to state that god could give the knowledge of free will. God would know how to impart the knowledge for free will.

b) Why would god be giving up anything? God would be sharing, or imparting, total knowledge to another being. I don't see that god would be 'giving up' anything.

omniscience definition: 1. One having total knowledge. -http://www.thefreedictionary.com/omniscience



Nick[/QUOTE]