I'm sure this was/is an extremely heated topic in these forums; it has probably been asked countless of times. However, I wanted to get some recent (unbiased) perspectives in a hypothetical situation where an omniscient deity may exist. Can free-will coexist with a predestined route or 'Divine Plan' & if so, how? Does free-will exist at all?
Thanks in advance for the feedback.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Greetings and welcome Lolax01
'Can free-will coexist with a predestined route or 'Divine Plan' ................. No.
'if so, how?' ................................................... It can not.
'Does free-will exist at all?' ..........................Yes.
'in a hypothetical situation where an omniscient deity may exist.' ...........There is/are no god/s ,omniscient or otherwise .....
Personally the real world presents enough problems without imagining "what if's"
my take on those questions:
'Can free-will coexist with a predestined route or 'Divine Plan' ................. No.
'if so, how?' ................................................... It can not.
'Does free-will exist at all?' ..........................Maybe
----------------
I'll argue that it matters very little if free will exists. We all act as if it does (even the people who claim there is no such thing as free will).
@watchman See, that doesn't help at all! "It can not" just doesn't cut the cake for me.
@Nyarlathotep Sure, I guess it does not matter if we are going to continue living as if it does exist. Regardless of its value, it would still be nice to know if it even exists at all or if we have just made it up to provide for some sense in our lives.
@Lolax01 ..
"that doesn't help at all! "It can not" just doesn't cut the cake for me."
I dare say it doesn't.......
But what you asked was ....."I wanted to get some recent (unbiased) perspectives "
and what I gave was MY "recent (possibly unbiased) perspective."
It may not "cut the cake for you" ..... indeed ,why should it ? ..... it is my perspective ,not yours ......and it certainly shreds the marmalade for myself.
I am a compatablist, so I believe that some things are predetermined and some are not. For instance, inanimate objects are incapable of doing anything on a whim, and rely on strict causal relationships to the things around them. People, however, can do something semi-random. This means that determinism and will are decided by a level of consciousness, in my opinion. However, there are caveats:
1. "Free" will, is a bit of a nonsensical misnomer, as all of our decisions are constrained by the physical reality we exist within. Our choices are determined partially by reality.
2. Divine plans, in order to work well, would have to account for ALL variables. That includes human behavior, thus, it leads to a type of causal loop in philosophical terms.
3. The god itself would have a lack of will.
Now, to try and explain we have to use our imagination, and it will take some time. We have to try and imagine a being with perfect foreknowledge and unlimited power, which is a paradox at the outset with free will. However, let us ignore that and make a hypothetical based on this being. The being creates a plan, one that accounts for everything, and executes it. Here are the questions we have to answer:
A. Does the variable cause the plan to change, or does the plan cause the variable to change?
B. Is there any allowable variable outside of the plan?
C. If the variable cannot effect the plan, then is it really a proper variable?
If one substitutes variable for decision, we begin to see a problem, as for will to be an effective factor in outcome it must change outcome. However, a plan with a nearly infinite and innumerable amount of outcomes isn't much of a plan, and certainly not perfect nor binding. Ergo, the only universe where such a will would make a difference, is one where no definitive plan exists.
"....some things are predetermined and some are not. For instance, inanimate objects are incapable of doing anything on a whim, and rely on strict causal relationships to the things around them. People, however, can do something semi-random. This means that determinism and will are decided by a level of consciousness, in my opinion."
I'm not really sure if I'm understanding how it's possible to accept a subconscious based determinism within our actions and also believe that we still have the ability to freely choose. Correct me if this is not what you believe at all. People can do things that are semi-random? How so? And wouldn't conscious effort deny the existence of randomness?
"A. Does the variable cause the plan to change, or does the plan cause the variable to change?
B. Is there any allowable variable outside of the plan?
C. If the variable cannot effect the plan, then is it really a proper variable?
If one substitutes variable for decision, we begin to see a problem..."
This is very much the type of thinking process that can explain why these two abstract ideas cannot coexist. Decisions are not decisions made freely when there is ultimately only one outcome that can happen from your choices.
However, let's remove the deity from the example. I'm interested to know how you can defend both propositions at once under just our free agency.
I somewhat dealt with this in my first post, but didn't clarify. The thing is I don't think choice or will is "free" in the first place, that doesn't mean that they don't exist, it only means that it isn't absolutely random. So in a causal universe with NO plan, some agency is possible, albeit constrained by conditions. In other words, the quantity and quality of choices is determined by circumstances, but a choice is still present. However, in a universe WITH a inevitable plan, no such thing as agency could exist because that would screw up the inevitability.
Make anymore sense?
If they are not absolutely random, though, then it's implied that they'd have a natural cause; no matter what the choice is ultimately not yours to make. If they are not yours, what validates it as a choice, if not it being free for you to choose? You are just simply following the array of circumstances that led up to that instant, not exactly choosing anything. Or am I missing something?
"If they are not absolutely random, though, then it's implied that they'd have a natural cause; no matter what the choice is ultimately not yours to make."
Misnomer, as long as more than one possibility is offered, it is still a choice. I cannot levitate and fly to the store, but I can choose to walk, or ride in a bus(depending on the time) or drive my car. Just because my choice isn't "free", and the number of choices is limited, does not make those choices less a matter of will.
"If they are not yours, what validates it as a choice, if not it being free for you to choose?"
You are able to choose, but the array of choices is constrained by reality. I can't choose to turn into a cat, choices are constrained by nature, but the choices we do have still exist.
"You are just simply following the array of circumstances that led up to that instant, not exactly choosing anything."
An array of circumstances, if one is conscious, is an array of choices. I could choose to shoot myself in the foot right now, if I so wished, but I don't. The fact that the number of choices is limited by reality does not make the the ones we DO have nonexistent.
"Or am I missing something?"
I think so, I must not be explaining it very well.
Basically what you're saying is that because you have the ability to weigh between options on a conscious level, then that somehow means these choices are very well existent, despite them not being brought about by you freely. Okay.
I can say the same in a situation where a kidnapper has me held hostage, tied to a chair. They offer me a phone call to my mother or the only bowl of food they'd be giving me for the next three following weeks. Although the circumstances have been structured, I have the ability to choose, just not freely. What does having choices prove if they cannot be chosen freely though? But, then again, you're not really arguing for free-will, right?
Exactly. There is a difference between will(an ability to choose) and "free" will(an ability to choose without coercion and consequence). The latter does not actually exist in this reality. All possible choices have a price, of one stripe or another, so no choice can ever be truly free.
Can free will exist with the idea of a predestination? That is your question, and yes it has been discussed before, except when I discussed it previously, predestination was referred to as fate, fatalism, or god's plan.
The short answer is no, fate and free will, by definition exclude the possibility of the other. Fate or god's plan, whatever you wish to call it... implies that our actions have to be predetermined.
Free will implies the opposite. That our actions and choices are completely a personal decision.
For example, let's see how these two ideas function together. Let's say, your fate or plan is, as Christians say describe it... to spread the word of the lord. You're supposed to be a good christian, and found a highly successful church in Africa. And this church, through donations, is able to feed and give shelter to thousands. And all of them convert to christianity, and your followers and set up other churches, as a result of your actions and leadership, which help millions. That's your fate. But, let's say you have free will, you make your own decisions. So, perhaps at a relatively young age you hear about the Christian churches abhorrent sexual abuse scandals, and disgusted by the organization, you want nothing to do with the church. You decide to be an atheist, and instead of opening churches, you open a brewery and use your hard earned cash to buy hundreds of expensive cars. By one choice, you've completely destroyed the plan.
I find that with this example, a theist would argue that God's Plan is not, in part, expecting us to follow the extremities such as building foundations in his name but to positively exercise the free-will that he gave us. So you decide to spend your cash alternatively, but that does not mean that you wrecked God's entire Plan.. perhaps this is exactly what he expected from you anyway, as he knows all. A theist would also say (I've heard it too many times) that simply being able to weigh between two options (in this case, building the churches or buying the expensive cars) automatically can imply we have free-will; regardless that God knows what we will choose, just the sheer fact that we can consciously think carefully of our choices means we have free-will. Is that redundant since ultimately there was only one potential decision to ever happen?
Defining terms is important. What is free will?
Free-will is "the ability to choose to perform any possible action at any time." I would even go as far as to say, "...consciously, without coercion or confinements of external forces of any kind."
conditional omnipotence and conditional free will is the best approach to life
Too bad that is not how majority religious sanctuaries choose to represent their beloved books.
@Lolax01 "I'm sure this was/is an extremely heated topic in these forums; it has probably been asked countless of times. However, I wanted to get some recent (unbiased) perspectives in a hypothetical situation where an omniscient deity may exist. Can free-will coexist with a predestined route or 'Divine Plan' & if so, how? Does free-will exist at all?
Thanks in advance for the feedback."
First of all, welcome to the forums. Nice face.
As for your post, let's assume a God does exist in the frame that Christianity puts him (I use Christianity because remember, different religions have different positions on predeterminism and on their various deities' attributes, and I can't cover them all in a post).
The Christian God is omnipresent (everywhere and anywhere at the same time); omnipotent (all powerful, having no limits in ability); and omniscient (all knowing, not lacking in any knowledge). If God is all knowing, then he was aware, antecedent to all existence, of every possible paradigm of existence that could possible be, ad infinitum. If God is omnipotent, then he had the power to create any possible paradigm without limit (for if there were any limits whatsoever on his power to create, he would by definition not be omnipotent). And if God is omnipresent then he could be simultaneously within and throughout all possible paradigms of existence.
So, if God was aware of all possible paradigms, throughout all possible paradigms, and empowered by himself to create any somesuch paradigm he arbitrarily chose, then every single limitation and event and consequence of this current paradigm was foreseen and actively chosen by God before it came to be. That means that God knows the eventual outcome of every single event, every single moment, every single life that ever was, and is, and possibly can be in the future. Not only does he know it, he actively foresaw it as a possibility and then chose it and all it contains, out of an infinite number of possible choices (because, again, if the number of possible paradigms is not infinite then God's power, foresight and presence are not infinite). Therefore, with both the beginning and end of all that is being seen as one simultaneous God-chosen paradigm, all that is, is already predetermined. If God exists, then humans are only afforded the illusion of choice insofar as this: we are able to perform a limited number of functions within a predetermined paradigm of existence.
Human free will in a universe with a God is illusory, because therein God is the only one with true free will. And in fact, even free will without a God, insofar as free will is "the ability to choose to perform any possible action at any time" is illusory. We cannot perform absolutely any unlimited type or number of possible action, we can only perform the limited number of actions our physical makeup, current circumstance and overall paradigm of existence allow us to perform. Choice by its definition has to have precursory limits. When we make a choice, we only choose from the limited number of options that were already available to us. We don't choose when or where we're born, into what religioun or culture, speaking what language, with what parents, with what genetic makeup, in what century, in which hospital, with what colour of hair, with whose genetics, with how many fingers or toes, with what cognitive ability, within which universe. We don't. Human choice is a limited function within predefined conditions.
Thank you, and thank you.
This was great input; however, I just want for you to expand on this one line.
"...because therein God is the only one with true free will."
Do you believe if there was a God, the Christian God who is omnipotent and omniscient, that he would have free-will, despite that he would know his own choices and decisions ahead of himself? Or does our comprehension of free-will not apply to him?
Unlimited, infinite power would surely bring with it unlimited free will. If God doesn't have the power to second guess himself after viewing any and all of the unlimited number of paradigms he can foresee, of which he is within and throughout all at once, then God's not all powerful. There is a limit to his powers. If God's not all powerful, why worship him?
As Epicurus, in the 4th Century BC, said:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
"Unlimited, infinite power would surely bring with it unlimited free will."
If he is all powerful and chooses to not interfere with our reality confined by nature, then he surely has free-will. We've established, though, that total omniscience and free-will can not coexist because if there is a record of what the future holds, then there is no possible way to change it.
"If God doesn't have the power to second guess himself after viewing any and all of the unlimited number of paradigms he can foresee, of which he is within and throughout all at once, then God's not all powerful. "
If God knows any and all decisions or changes he will make in our timelines, then he is bounded by his own knowledge. He can not exercise his omnipotence if he can foresee the future because it means everything he has done or will do is not subject of alteration. If he can not alter his own future as he has already created it, then what is the value of his power? Second guessing his decisions is a contradiction within itself, as his first choice would always be the perfect choice and for it not to be would be admitting to mistake which God does not make.
Which is why I asked, if he is independent of our logical comprehension of free-will?
If anyone is omniscient, then the future MUST be written in stone already; that is the end of any notion of freewill, IMO. Freewill and omniscience don't play well together.
well put SeanBreen
One could add to that that Free will could as well be an illusion.
The results of the famous EEG experiments conducted by the physiologist Benjamin Libet and others in the early 1980s showed that the brain makes decisions before consciousness becomes aware of them.
As Sam Harris puts it, “activity in the brain’s motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds” — almost enough time for LeBron James to get off a shot ahead of the buzzer — “before a person feels that he has decided to move.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/books/review/free-will-by-sam-harris.h...
The best explanation is that our choices are conditioned by the collection of information given to us, some of which we are not even aware yet.
You either have a destiny which you have to follow no matter what= you have no choice in the matter
Or
you have free will = a choice in the matter.
You must come with the terms that the Christian Theistic god is contradictory in nature.
The guys who invented it 2000 years ago did not give a shit about contradictions, since they were preaching it to illiterate peasants and slaves of the Romans that could not even read, to keep them from revolting.
It was propaganda to control the masses of the day, it has no place in the 21'st century.
Why do you think they invest so much in 3'rd world countries?
They know that children are getting too smart to be fooled like their parents, thus with semi-decent education is enough to see the BS of religion, so the churches focus more on those that do not have education at all.
And please, I beg you, do not mention charity, the church uses the people money for that, not their own.
Basically they just move the people money to finance their operation after taking a cut from it.
If they wanted to feed the poor they could easily finance a county with all the wealth they have.
Thanks for the interesting link.
Free-will with or without a God does seem like an illusion. I don't understand how we've created a societal system based on such paradoxical natured religions. I mean, the guy who created Christianity really believes Satan is going to punish us for sinning? What? Lol.
I agree with you, I think religious organizations and religious sanctuaries are a hoax. When it comes down to it, all they want is a herd of sheep that will follow every one of their whims.