• In total there are 4 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Question about free will

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Question about free will

Unread post

Would it be logically possible for an omnipotent Creator to create Beings that always freely chooses good?
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

ant wrote:Would it be logically possible for an omnipotent Creator to create Beings that always freely chooses good?
Hi Ant. What an interesting fellow you are!

What is good? The Stoics held that what ever happens is always good by definition. If we don't agree with the Stoics, we need another definition of good, such as conducive to human flourishing.

Freedom involves the power to choose actions that are destructive and harmful and bad, things we routinely castigate as evil.

The flip side of freedom is responsibility. If you make a decision of your own free will, you are responsible for that decision and its consequences. While ever people make decisions based on partial information, they will freely make bad decisions.

'Logical possibility' is not just an arbitrary matter for speculation, but really should be framed within the laws of physics operating in our universe. It is not imaginable that entities could always possess perfect information for ever.

Despite all that, I think that our world is perfectible. It might take ten thousand years, but it is conceivable that we could evolve to eradicate evil from the earth.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

An omnipotent god creating a consistently good person is the same kind of paradox question you find with “could an omnipotent god create a rock too heavy to lift.”

Incidentally, a rock too heavy to lift is a relic of old thinking which demonstrates my point about new gods conceived by our generation are exponentially more powerful than the gods of our ancestors, even when those old gods are claimed to be all powerful.

http://www.booktalk.org/unraveling-the- ... 08-30.html

(my first post on this thread addresses that)

But in any event, the problem lies with the word omnipotent. A thing which cannot exist because the very definition is paradoxical. If it is powerful enough to do anything at all then it can create something more powerful than itself, which means it isn’t the ultimate level of power. The problem is not in our understanding of the world, but in the word we are using: omnipotent.

There are also problems with the usual understanding of free will, especially paired with omniscience.

First, our will is not free. The state of our minds in this instant is a direct consequence of the state of our minds in the instant immediately preceding, and those states are all contingent on our environment and the ever-lasting domino effect of existence. There is a certain cone of possibilities which we are unable to escape. For us, currently, no choice could be made and acted upon which would put any one of us on Neptune. That is a limit of possibilities which restricts our free will. We are likewise already restricted from total free will in our inability to inflict our will on the external world. Total free will would be equivalent to god’s own powers of omnipotence. If an omnipotent god could grant us with any powers he chose then he could certainly let us control the world with our minds. If god did create us then he has already curtailed our will to prevent us from, say, killing people with our minds.

That is an evil which we are fundamentally denied. He could have allowed us that option and tested our goodness against our powers to kill with our minds, but he denied us that ability, and therefore is already interfering and setting the parameters of what moral choices we are even capable of entertaining. So “free will” must be put into quotations.

In the same light there are those among us now who have never seriously entertained the idea of killing somebody else. And yet that option is as open to them as it is to anybody. They are not prevented from participating in great evil any more than anyone else, yet they never would. So if god made that the base line of our moral standing then people would still have “free will” and there would be a huge reduction of great evil in the world.

God is choosing the amount of evil we are able to inflict because he sets the parameters of our abilities and that directly impacts what is within the realm of “free will”.

What’s more, our will is dependant on our bodies. Our brains, specifically, and especially. People with brain damage are fundamentally altered, people with brain tumors, or even intoxication directly affect our mental capacity, and the expression of our will. To that extent, our will is not free because it is dependant on a physical object which can be perturbed without our consent.

Drugs can make us negligent, or amiable, so called truth serums, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, disease are all capable of changing the function of our minds and in so doing curtail what is available in the realm of “free will”. Our “free will” in other words is pre-determined physiologically. And more deeply than that, on a quantum level. With a sufficiently powerful computer and sensory data a computer could simulate every decision you could make. Though we do not have the computing powers available to us to predict these things that doesn’t alter the fact that everything is a causal relationship, and that includes the decisions you think you are making.

Setting aside these problems, if we determined that free will were really possible, without the quotation marks, then an omniscient god makes any decision we would make inconsequential in any event. For an omniscient god would know the outcome of any decision we might make from the beginning of its own creation, long before we exist and could therefore, and WOULD therefore orchestrate events so that every decision is exactly as that omniscient god wants it to be, and our free will would therefore reacquire the quotation marks.

In other words, there is no surprising an omniscient god. Did an omniscient god need to test Abraham to see if he would murder his child? No. Because he’s omniscient. The only people who learned anything in that scenario are Abraham and his child. First, that Abraham was so deluded that he would murder his child, and second that his child needed to get the hell away from Abraham before he had a vivid dream where god tells him to peel his child like an orange and wear his face to family meetings. Abraham would do that if he thought god wanted him to do it.

And god never did want him to do it. He only wanted to force those people through that horrible ordeal. Why? To force Abraham’s decision to go exactly how god knew it would. And to force that event into the timeline so that later decisions would have that one as a backdrop. That is how an omniscient god negates free will, and how everything a free-acting agent does under the supervision of an omniscient god is nothing but playing out a script.

In the real world we are faced with a similar dilemma. Our decisions exist in a cone of possibility. That cone travels with us and things eventually pass outside of the cone of possibility based on the environment and previous events.

So it isn’t really true to say that anything is possible.

I might have been an Olympic athlete had I made different choices as a youth. But now I’m 32, I have a job, and I have a family. Being a serious Olympic athlete, though not impossible, is well outside the realm of likelyhood at this point and is on the verge of passing beyond the event horizon of my cone of choices. And in actuality, it already is past any reasonable sub-group of choices. It still exists as a choice. I could quit my job, leave my family and start training for the Olympics. But it isn’t a viable choice according to my past behavior and my current environment. So while it is a choice available to me in absolute terms, it just isn’t going to happen. Is it therefore really part of my options? How could I choose to do what I will not choose to do?

In order for me to do something that drastic something would have to fundamentally change about me that alters the variables I must weigh to make such a choice. It would change me to such an extent that the “me” who is typing this would hardly recognize the agent which made that choice to be the SAME “me”. That would be the choice of some “other”. Possibly one with brain damage, or who had suffered some dramatic episode which entirely re-routes what I value.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

Hi Ant. What an interesting fellow you are!
Why?
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

ant wrote:
Hi Ant. What an interesting fellow you are!
Why?
Few people have the audacity and interest to start a thread on such a large metaphysical topic as free will and determinism.

We have an omnipresent and omnipotent ruler of our universe, known as the laws of physics.

The laws of physics are universally constant and true throughout the whole of reality and admit of no denial of their power.

The idea of a God who disobeys the laws of physics is impious in the extreme. Such a supernatural entity is logically impossible and should really be excluded from sensible consideration as a vile heresy against scientific wisdom.

We do not know if the laws of physics fully determine events in the future. There may be a radical indeterminacy at quantum level that means human freedom of choice is real and not illusory.

Even if there is an actual ultimate quantum determinacy, we cannot know it, and so must live as if we are fully free and personally responsible for our decisions. Jean-Paul Sartre's paradoxical existential line remains completely valid, that we are condemned to be free.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

Few people have the audacity and interest to start a thread on such a large metaphysical topic as free will and determinism.
You are being condescending

We have an omnipresent and omnipotent ruler of our universe, known as the laws of physics.
You may need to update yourself in relation to the latest theories of the laws of physics.
The laws of physics may vary throughout the universe. So, they would not be omnipresent and omnipotent as you say.

The laws of physics are universally constant and true throughout the whole of reality and admit of no denial of their power.
Se above. Also, laws are not powerful. They are simply laws.
The idea of a God who disobeys the laws of physics is impious in the extreme. Such a supernatural entity is logically impossible and should really be excluded from sensible consideration as a vile heresy against scientific wisdom.
I have not indicated that God can "disobey" laws like some naughty child.
If could transcends natural law, then there would be nothing naughty about a being that operates both within and without the laws of physics.
You might as well ask me if God can create a stone to heavy for him to lift.
Even if there is an actual ultimate quantum determinacy, we cannot know it, and so must live as if we are fully free and personally responsible for our decisions. Jean-Paul Sartre's paradoxical existential line remains completely valid, that we are condemned to be free.
I do not entirely disagree with the above

Thanks :)
Last edited by ant on Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

Ant:

You may need to update yourself in relation to the latest theories of the laws of physics.
The laws of physics may vary throughout the universe. So, they would not be omnipresent and omnipotent as you say.
This would be huge news, Ant. In what sense has invariance been overturned? Specifics please.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

ant wrote:Quote:"Few people have the audacity and interest to start a thread on such a large metaphysical topic as free will and determinism." You are being condescending.
No, far from being condescending, I am being honest. I really welcome you raising this topic as it is among the most interesting and deep questions in philosophy.
Quote:"We have an omnipresent and omnipotent ruler of our universe, known as the laws of physics." You may need to update yourself in relation to the latest theories of the laws of physics.The laws of physics may vary throughout the universe. So, they would not be omnipresent and omnipotent as you say.
See Johnson's comment. The laws of physics are invariant.
Quote: "The laws of physics are universally constant and true throughout the whole of reality and admit of no denial of their power." See above. Also, laws are not powerful. They are simply laws.
The law of gravity holds the earth in orbit around the sun. That is power. The law of relativity, with the universal constants, provides the universal structure of our anthropic universe to establish the conditions of possibility for life to exist. That is powerful. The law of evolution describes all biological reproduction. Nothing ever happens that contradicts the laws of physics.

Watch out for the lightning bolt ant. :)
Quote:"The idea of a God who disobeys the laws of physics is impious in the extreme. Such a supernatural entity is logically impossible and should really be excluded from sensible consideration as a vile heresy against scientific wisdom." I have not indicated that God can "disobey" laws like some naughty child. If [God] could transcend natural law, then there would be nothing naughty about a being that operates both within and without the laws of physics. You might as well ask me if God can create a stone to heavy for him to lift.
The fact is that nothing transcends natural law, as shown by the incoherence of postulating disobedience to them. Anyone who claims that God transcends natural law is wrong and unethical, guilty of using imaginary fantasy in place of observed evidence.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:
Ant:

You may need to update yourself in relation to the latest theories of the laws of physics.
The laws of physics may vary throughout the universe. So, they would not be omnipresent and omnipotent as you say.
This would be huge news, Ant. In what sense has invariance been overturned? Specifics please.
Type in google "Laws of physics may vary" and read as it relates to one of the universal constants - what was once believe to be "universal" but now is under question.
It is not a difficult thing to search for.

Also, how are you able to determine with certainty that the speed of light remains constant between point a on earth and point b, a billion miles away?
Please tell me how that is determined with certainty.
Let's not make any faith inductive leaps here, now. Tell me how yours and science's observational powers are that omnipotent. Thanks
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

ant wrote:
johnson1010 wrote:
Ant: You may need to update yourself in relation to the latest theories of the laws of physics. The laws of physics may vary throughout the universe. So, they would not be omnipresent and omnipotent as you say.
This would be huge news, Ant. In what sense has invariance been overturned? Specifics please.
Type in google "Laws of physics may vary" and read as it relates to one of the universal constants - what was once believe to be "universal" but now is under question. It is not a difficult thing to search for. Also, how are you able to determine with certainty that the speed of light remains constant between point a on earth and point b, a billion miles away? Please tell me how that is determined with certainty. Let's not make any faith inductive leaps here, now. Tell me how yours and science's observational powers are that omnipotent. Thanks
Hi Ant. It is a question of balance of probabilities.

A. Universe is consistent: all real evidence and logic agrees.

versus

B. Universe is inconsistent: no evidence supports, except for wishful thinking by religious fantasists.

You pick. I agree that A requires what you call an inductive faith leap, in the axiomatic assumption that the universe exists as we see it. But compare that to the leap required by B, in which the political fantasies of the early church are dignified as evidence, even though they conflict with all scientific observation. Science is not omnipotent, but the laws of nature are.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”