Did god give us free will?
I can't will myself to fly through the cosmos at a trillion times the speed of light exploring other galaxies. I can't t
Exactly. My argument is that we clearly don't have free will as bestowed upon us by a tri-omni god, who would theoretically be able to do any and everything, even simultaneously if he so chose. It's really more of an argument against god than it is against free will, hence the reason I posted it here and not in the philosophy forum.
"Free Will" doesn't entail omnipotence.
For example, I have "free will" to flap my hands thinking I'm going to fly, but that doesn't mean I'm going to actually succeed at flying.
For example, the Reformed definition of free will is the capacity to choose to act in accordance with one's nature.
Exactly. My argument is that we clearly don't have free will as bestowed upon us by a tri-omni god, who would theoretically be able to do any and everything, even simultaneously if he so chose. It's really more of an argument against god than it is against free will, hence the reason I posted it here and not in the philosophy forum.
You should have framed it in terms of an argument against the Christian idea of human divinity.
Honestly, the simplest answer is to refer you to the Matrix movie.
In the film, if Neo is "the One", then why did the all knowing Oracle tell him he wasn't?
It's because Neo had to become the One by believing it despite what reality was telling him.
Similarly, Christianity teaches the human ability to actualize any desire. Jesus says anything you ask for in his name he will grant.
When this doesn't happen, there are two possible reasons:
(1) I'm not capable of imposing my will on reality in this way
(2) My relationship with Jesus / God isn't right
Option one is heresy, since it directly contradicts an explicit teaching of Christ, so the proper realization is option two.
This is illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. The reason why the older brother is working so hard is because he has unmet desires (mentioned later in the story).
The younger brother responds to option two in another way. He tells himself, "If I'm not getting my desires actualized because of a problem with my relationship with God, then I'll leave” which he is able to do because he isn't in the firstborn position.
You are claiming it’s option one. If it isn’t option one, then how come you or I can’t impose our will on reality in this way?
My response: option two
The younger brother responds to option two in another way. He tells himself, "If I'm not getting my desires actualized because of a problem with my relationship with God, then I'll leave” which he is able to do because he isn't in the firstborn position.
It’s something like..
The younger brother knows his ability to impose his will on reality shouldn’t need to be mediated, even by Christ / God himself.
That is why he leaves.
I’m not sure I buy that one. Quantum mechanics proves that strict determinism is not actually true in the sense that every event has a cause and that everything about the universe is perfectly predictable if we have sufficient information about starting conditions. The classic example of this is radioactivity. In a sample of a radioactive material, atoms will decay, but t
Aren't you saying then that the macro world merely appears deterministic, but that the universe really isn't? This is a point that Faggin makes in the book. That's the quantum angle.
For the volitional consciousness angle, it is very hard to become convinced that you can't make either of two choices, even given the backlog of factors affecting us. This came up one time with my brothers when I was driving, and as a demonstration, I turned down a dead end street off the route everyone knew we were taking, saying: "Do I not have a choice to turn left here against all the ingrained times we've gone here?" Not that that is a final answer to the question, but seems a demonstration of unlikely choice other than volition operating in consciousness. And pretty much any psychologist has to say, "Yes there is volition in the mind."
Aren't you saying then that the macro world merely appears deterministic, but that the universe really isn't? This is a point that Faggin makes in the book. That's the quantum angle. For the volitional consciousness angle, it is very hard to become convinced that you can't make either of two choices, even given the backlog of factors affecting us. This came up one time with my
I’m not real big on questions of “ultimate reality”. If we conduct the same experiment repeatedly with the same conditions and get the same eventual measured results every time, then that is a deterministic system. All macroscopic systems meet that definition. It doesn’t really matter whether there is nondeterminism at some level that we cannot see or measure, does it? I guess my position is simply that a system that behaves in determiniatic fashion under all experimental conditions IS a deterministic system, regardless of whether it is composed of entities that behave nondeterministically.
I guess it is just a semantic/philosophical distinction. There is no practical distinction here. NASA doesn’t worry about any randomness in spaceship trajectories when calculating the time and thrust needed for an orbital burn - it is completely deterministic. Radiometric dating methods don’t account for the randomness inheeent to radioactive decay; again it is deterministic. I just am arguing that applying that same logic to the macroscopic system we call a human brain is appropriate as well.
It kind of reminds me of discussions I have had with people about relativity. I have had people argue that time is not really relative but instead moving clocks just operate differently. To me that is a distinction without difference. Time is just the quantity measured by a clock. If all possible clocks give different values under certain conditions, then it actually is true that time is passing differently under those conditions. I look at determinism the same way - if all possible tests of a system show it to be deterministic, then it is actually deterministic.
I’m not real big on questions of “ultimate reality”. If we conduct the same experiment repeatedly with the same conditions and get the same eventual measured results every time, then that is a deterministic system. All macroscopic systems meet that definition. It doesn’t really matter whether there is nondeterminism at some level that we cannot see or measure, does it? I guess
Agree, agree, agree. But that isn't metaphysics ... in fact seems to eschew metaphysics for the evidence of our senses. Which of course is practical, scientific, etc. But if there is a system below that deterministic level, and a system beneath that, and a system beneath that ... that might be quite meaningful in understanding the universe/cosmos.
"Free Will" doesn't entail omnipotence.
For example, I have "free will" to flap my hands thinking I'm going to fly, but that doesn't mean I'm going to actually succeed at flying.
For example, the Reformed definition of free will is the capacity to choose to act in accordance with one's nature.
I feel like I've already said this in this thread, but here it goes again, I don't need free will to entail omnipotence. I only question why an omnibenevolent god would give different human beings different levels of potence. Some are born perfectly healthy and with powerful brains which will enable them to do incredible things in life. While others are born blind, deaf, lame, and with autism.
You are claiming it’s option one. If it isn’t option one, then how come you or I can’t impose our will on reality in this way?
Think of others who have been able to impose their will on reality in extraordinary ways: Genghis Khan, Hitler, Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk. Do these people seem like followers of Christ to you? I dare you to say yes.
They are obviously not, yet if god is the source of free will, one would expect his followers to have the greatest expression of will ever seen in the world. And yet that's not the case.
They are obviously not, yet if god is the source of free will, one would expect his followers to have the greatest expression of will ever seen in the world.
Your intuition about this point is true. Any Christian who claims otherwise is letting themselves off the hook and denying a central teaching of Christianity.
And yet that's not the case.
We are still in the early days, but there has been one who was able to instantly actualize anything he desired. None of the other people you mentioned come close.
He set the standard for what it means to be a human being.
You don’t believe he was able to impose his will on reality in the miraculous ways told in the Bible. All that means is you won’t be the second one to reach the standard.
Your intuition about this point is true. Any Christian who claims otherwise is letting themselves off the hook and denying a central teaching of Christianity.We are still in the early days, but there has been one who was able to instantly actualize anything he desired. None of the other people you mentioned come close.He set the standard for what it means to be a human being.Yo
But even by the Bible's accounts, he was not. The Bible says Jesus used 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fish to feed 5000 people. Why didn't he instead use his limitless will to feed all of the hungry people in perpetuity? Surely that would have been a better use of his miraculous expression of god's truly free will.
But even by the Bible's accounts, he was not. The Bible says Jesus used 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fish to feed 5000 people. Why didn't he instead use his limitless will to feed all of the hungry people in perpetuity? Surely that would have been a better use of his miraculous expression of god's truly free will.
Do you see that you’re just restating your issue with imperfection again?
If Jesus were unwilling to sacrifice this idea you have, then he never would’ve been able to become one with God.
Your position is basically: “I don’t want to trade pain for meaning. I’d rather exist in never ending perfection with no meaning.”
Well, you are given leeway in that direction. You can choose to live in a bubble, closed off from reality, with very little meaning.
Do you see that you’re just restating your issue with imperfection again?
If Jesus were unwilling to sacrifice this idea you have, then he never would’ve been able to become one with God.
Don't even know what you're trying to say. Christians are seriously delusional mentally unwell people who can't communicate in a normal fashion.
Don't even know what you're trying to say. Christians are seriously delusional mentally unwell people who can't communicate in a normal fashion.
No well thought out atheist would argue you're making any sort of coherent arguments here either. You don't seem to have even a basic conception of what free will is and isn't. It's hard to even understand what you're arguing for: Hard determinism, compatibilism, or free will in the libertarian sense? None of the above?
No well thought out atheist would argue you're making any sort of coherent arguments here either. You don't seem to have even a basic conception of what free will is and isn't. It's hard to even understand what you're arguing for: Hard determinism, compatibilism, or free will in the libertarian sense? None of the above?
Tell me what you think it is then. Again, this thread is more of an argument against god through the lens of human beings having different levels of agency, the jury is still out on free will.
What the hell is free will? The state of being influenced by nothing?
There is no such thing in the cosmos. So the word "free" puts the whole debate on red herring terms. The one thing most capable of making choices, the human race, is then taken for just part of an automatic machine with no options.
Human consciousness is volitional ... there is will and capacity to choose built into its nature. A good treatise on it is Nathaniel Branden's "A New Concept of Man's Psychological Nature."
I'm often (usually?) am at a loss of what craig is trying to say.
Christians are seriously delusional mentally unwell people who can't communicate in a normal fashion.
Psychological Reductionism is the last refuge of someone without an argument.
I can play that game as well, to wit: Faith-deniers like Fella-Gaga and deucedeuces are suffering from Faith Derangement Syndrome!
Looks like we've achieved a draw! 😀
I think I can speak for virtually all participants and lurkers in this Forum:
The majority of the time we don't have a clue what Craig1120 is trying to say.
Maybe in 200 years Craig's writings will be understood and lauded for their deep insights into the human condition.
But I kinda doubt it.
What the hell is free will? The state of being influenced by nothing? There is no such thing in the cosmos. So the word "free" puts the whole debate on red herring terms. The one thing most capable of making choices, the human race, is then taken for just part of an automatic machine with no options. Human consciousness is volitional ... there is will and capacity to choose bui
Emertitus Notre Dame Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has written extensively on Free Will.
His work, God, Freedom and Evil practically refuted the so-called "Logical Problem of Evil."
I'm not aware of any serious atheist philosopher who still uses the "Logical Problem of Evil" as an argument against the possible existence of an all-powerful, omni-benevolent God.
Of course, there still remains the so-called "Existential Problem of Evil."
I feel like I've already said this in this thread, but here it goes again, I don't need free will to entail omnipotence. I only question why an omnibenevolent god would give different human beings different levels of potence. Some are born perfectly healthy and with powerful brains which will enable them to do incredible things in life. While others are born blind, deaf, lame,
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
Think of others who have been able to impose their will on reality in extraordinary ways: Genghis Khan, Hitler, Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk. Do these people seem like followers of Christ to you? I dare you to say yes.
No, none of them seem like followers of Christ to me.
They are obviously not, yet if god is the source of free will, one would expect his followers to have the greatest expression of will ever seen in the world. And yet that's not the case.
I think we do see Christ's followers (collectively) of having the greatest expression of free will in the world.
I would highly recommend the book , What if Jesus Had Never Been Born by Dr. D. James Kennedy.
Tell me what you think it is then. Again, this thread is more of an argument against god through the lens of human beings having different levels of agency, the jury is still out on free will.
I am a self determinist, this is also sometimes called agent causation, or libertarian free will depending on who you ask. The long and the short of it is a rejection of physical causal closure. I do not think an agent's actions can entirely explained through a detailed description of matter and the laws that govern matter. This separates me from both hard and soft determinists(compatibilists). The will ultimately is, at least in some sense, irreducible to anything further down the chain. How about you?
I'm sympathetic to semi-compatibilist views which bracket any discussion of causal closure and works with a thinner conception of free will but idk. Either way it's important to define our terms up front because failing to do so leads to a lack of conceptual clarity as we see in this thread.
Can you exemplify an action that can't be explained by a combination of biology, culture and your own past experience in life?
Can you exemplify an action that can't be explained by a combination of biology, culture and your own past experience in life?
What do you mean by exemplify here? If you're asking whether an action can be caused by something other than physical causes or descriptions(cells, brain composition, neurons, synapsis, culture, whatever) then yes. I'm claiming humans have a mind that exerts it's will outside of any causal physical explanation. A person has a body. A person is not just their body.
I think this is general enough to include both dualistic and monistic conceptions of self but maybe some would want to fight about that. Either way, the fact that we do have free will in a robust sense is one of our best indicators that materialism is false as a candidate explanation for the mind/body problem.
