Where's everyone coming from

[Kyle]

In terms of physics I would agree with this premise. But in terms of free choice it seems like a circular argument.

The American Heritage dictionary definition of "free will" is

1. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

In making your argument the assumption is made that under the exact same circumstances an individual has exactly one choice, you seem to have already made the assumption that we don't have free will.

Deeper down the rabbit hole we go. I think we need to ask what constitutes a choice. In its usual sense I think it essentially means being able to act without an obvious outside restriction (such as being under hypnosis or coercion).

If everything is causally determined there would still be choice, there would just be one possible way for that choice to come out.

In the other possible scenario, the choice would be the result of some random condition that just happened to occur. This does not provide any more control to the decision maker than if the choice was determined.

I think it is important to point out that we would not be able to tell the difference between these two scenarios as we are making a choice. From our perspective they seem the same.

-I also should say that I'm not gonna be able to be on much for the next few days, but I assure you I will return to this conversation. I wanted to leave people a little something else to think about though.

 

[herbiedoobie]

Let's see if I understand:

Herbiedoobie believes God created time.
If God created time he knows the future.
If God knows the future, the future has been determined (Predestination).
If someone believes in predestination they are short-sighted.

Therefore Herbiedoobie is short-sighted.

:laugh8kb:

I doubt this was your intended message, but this is exactly what you said.

You may need to re-read my post, or perhaps I need to explain it to you a little more clearly so you can understand.

You're ignoring the possibility that the world does NOT run according to the simplistic viewpoint you are arguing. What if God knows the future, and the future is NOT determined. What if God has determined the future but that does NOT exclude "free-will". Pre-destination does not necessarily follow from an all-powerful, limit-less God. My argument on paradoxes comes in here. If we can OBSERVE several natural phenomena that create a paradox (The decay rate of muons while travelling at a significant fraction of "C", for instance.) why is it impossible that two apparently contradictory philosophical points of view exist and both be correct. I believe that Philosophers are creating limitations that don't necessarily exist, based on language choice.

By definition, God is external to the universe, in addition to being the progeniture of the same universe. This brings up the issue of "What came before God", to which I would answer, "There was no 'before' before God."

I don't think acknowledging the limitlessness of God, or human-kind's inability to fathom the nature of God, or His wisdom is necessarily a "cop-out". In fact, I think the opposite. God is, by definition, limitless, while man is, by definition, limited.

I have a very strong "verstehen" about this; it ticks me off that my language skills are lacking, here, and that I actually have to "work" right now, preventing a better development for my admittedly weak argument.

 

[herbiedoobie]

Which is why the theory says nothing can reach the speed of light.

Every one of the theorized special relativity characteristics can be directly observed at a significant fraction of "C". Muons decay much more slowly (from our frame of reference, natch!) while travelling at high rates, for instance. Of course, from the Muons point of view, WE are the ones who are decaying much more slowly. :baffled5wh:

 

[CloneFan65]

You're ignoring the possibility that the world does NOT run according to the simplistic viewpoint you are arguing. What if God knows the future, and the future is NOT determined. What if God has determined the future but that does NOT exclude "free-will". Pre-destination does not necessarily follow from an all-powerful, limit-less God. My argument on paradoxes comes in here. If we can OBSERVE several natural phenomena that create a paradox (The decay rate of muons while travelling at a significant fraction of "C", for instance.) why is it impossible that two apparently contradictory philosophical points of view exist and both be correct. I believe that Philosophers are creating limitations that don't necessarily exist, based on language choice.

By definition, God is external to the universe, in addition to being the progeniture of the same universe. This brings up the issue of "What came before God", to which I would answer, "There was no 'before' before God."

I don't think acknowledging the limitlessness of God, or human-kind's inability to fathom the nature of God, or His wisdom is necessarily a "cop-out". In fact, I think the opposite. God is, by definition, limitless, while man is, by definition, limited.

I have a very strong "verstehen" about this; it ticks me off that my language skills are lacking, here, and that I actually have to "work" right now, preventing a better development for my admittedly weak argument.

I know you don't like the simple arguments, but I look at it this way. If God knows the future, then it's predetermined the choices I will make. If my choices are predetermined, then I don't have free will, therefore if I have free will, God doesn't know the future.

It humors me greatly when humans attempt to force God into a small box that they can understand better.

Eventhough us humans are unable to fully comprehend the concept of God, I'm glad our mental limitations provide entertainment for superior beings such as yourself.

 

[Cyphor]

I'm actually writing my dissertation on evil and sin. It should be fun. :biggrin9gp:

That sounds interesting! What program are you in?

 

[Cyphor]

Greek Orthodox here!

Anyone coming to the food fair this weekend? Religion is a lot more interesting with beer and gyros!

 

[herbiedoobie]

I know you don't like the simple arguments, but I look at it this way. If God knows the future, then it's predetermined the choices I will make. If my choices are predetermined, then I don't have free will, therefore if I have free will, God doesn't know the future.



Eventhough us humans are unable to fully comprehend the concept of God, I'm glad our mental limitations provide entertainment for superior beings such as yourself.

That's my inferior language skills in action, there. Would it be better if I said "we" humans?:wink0st:

During my drive in this morning, I was thinking about time, what it is and how we perceive it.

There are several scientific types who are smarter than you or I who seem to think that time is not linear, and does not necessarily flow from the past to the future. In fact, some of them seem to think that time is a series of universes, independent of each other, or perhaps it flows from the future to the past and that it is just our perception that makes it "seem" as if it flows from past to future.

What do those little gems do for your "simple" arguments?

 

[CloneFan65]

That's my inferior language skills in action, there. Would it be better if I said "we" humans?:wink0st:

During my drive in this morning, I was thinking about time, what it is and how we perceive it.

There are several scientific types who are smarter than you or I who seem to think that time is not linear, and does not necessarily flow from the past to the future. In fact, some of them seem to think that time is a series of universes, independent of each other, or perhaps it flows from the future to the past and that it is just our perception that makes it "seem" as if it flows from past to future.

What do those little gems do for your "simple" arguments?

I'm not familiar with the idea of time being a series of universes. This seems to imply time is countably infinite, which I doubt. I believe time is a continuous time Markov chain, at least in how it relates to our lives. Where we’re going, our future, doesn’t depend on the path we’ve taken to get to where we are today, but only on our current position. We can determine the parameters of our future path to a large degree, but we never have total control. There are moments when our lives can take unexpected turns with positive probability. And when, or if, these events occur is out of our control. White noise.

 

[herbiedoobie]

Aha! I see your language skills vis-a-vis the flow of time, are much better than mine. I'm trying to understand what you mean by "white noise" in your context. I write "white noise" for training scenarios and when we use the term, we mean "things which can impact, but are not essential to" training, and are included to cause the trainee to have to differentiate between the mission and the distraction.

I need better background to go much further along the specific scientific language.

A stray thought just wandered by: Isn't the act of trying to prove a negative existence a logic fallacy? I threw out the "Prove that I don't own a dog" half jokingly, but now I'm wondering if you can prove the lack of existence of anything. I'm sure you could do it, but if you did, and that object just wandered by, wouldnt' the logical proof be null and void?

 

[Kyle]

What if God knows the future, and the future is NOT determined.

You might be interested in William Lane Craig's stuff if you want to hold this view.
William Lane Craig Virtual Office
Follow the links to his articles and "Divine Eternity." If you think much of what he is saying is coherent let me know though. I must say that I'm not a big fan of Craig.

As long as I'm going to rip on him, I will go so far as to recommend Alvin Plantinga and Peter Van Inwagen as intelligent Christian philosophers. Here are their respective websites:
Plantingapage
Department of Philosophy // University of Notre Dame

What if God has determined the future but that does NOT exclude "free-will". Pre-destination does not necessarily follow from an all-powerful, limit-less God.

It's easy to just posit this as a possibility, but it doesn't work very well unless you have an argument as to how.

My argument on paradoxes comes in here. If we can OBSERVE several natural phenomena that create a paradox (The decay rate of muons while travelling at a significant fraction of "C", for instance.) why is it impossible that two apparently contradictory philosophical points of view exist and both be correct. I believe that Philosophers are creating limitations that don't necessarily exist, based on language choice.

1. How is the decay rate of muons a paradox?
2. Apparently contradictory views can both be correct, but ones which are actually contradictory cannot.

 

[Kyle]

Greek Orthodox here!

Anyone coming to the food fair this weekend? Religion is a lot more interesting with beer and gyros!

Agreed. Darn wedding shower...:baffled5wh:

 

[Kyle]

I see the argument now. I would challenge the B premise. I believe God prefers a world in which humankind has the freedom to choose its own path, even if we don't make morally correct choices. I think of free will as a gift. Even though he knows I won't always make the right choices, He's there to help guide me. And personally I'd rather have the free will than to be programmed to always make the right choice.

B. A tri-omni God would prefer a world in which people made morally correct choices.

This seems to be a rather solid premise imo. It is a very standard belief that God wants people to make the right choices. If you deny it you are essentially affirming the idea that "God wants people to screw up" (unless you contend God doesn't really care one way or the other).

I'm also going to reiterate my argument that you would not be any more "programmed" in a world where you always made the right choice than in this world.

 

[Kyle]

Now that I know what you have been meaning by sufficient conditions I can properly argue my thoughts on your theory (which I think is a well-thought out one by the way). While I think it's unwise to speculate what God does or doesn't do/think, I think slightly differently than your premise A (A tri-omni God knows everything perfectly, and hence perfectly knows, and cannot be wrong about, the future.). I believe that God knows when we are all going to be born, when we're going to die, and has a perfect plan for each of our lives (even the non-believers)... [cut out big part]... So I guess to me He still knows the ultimate future, but it doesn't always happen how He intended because we have the choices to make.

So on your view does God know the stuff in between? Despite his plan does he know that you are not actually going to follow it.

I'm not really sure if this is what you are doing, but one could argue that God only knows things that he is in control of (such as when you die) but that he does not know things he does not control (presumably your choices). There may be difficulties with God knowing when you die because it would often be dependent on your choices (suicide being the most pointed example). Many people are also very uncomfortable with limiting God's knowledge.

it also appears to me that some of my arguments are being conflated. The argument involving God's foreknowledge is distinct and separate from the "sufficient conditions" one.

 

[Kyle]

If my choices are predetermined, then I don't have free will...

Why not?

I think this is a common reaction. My last argument (with the sufficient conditions and what not is meant to point out that the alternative does not help the case for free will either.

 

[Kyle]

I'm not familiar with the idea of time being a series of universes. This seems to imply time is countably infinite, which I doubt. I believe time is a continuous time Markov chain, at least in how it relates to our lives. Where we’re going, our future, doesn’t depend on the path we’ve taken to get to where we are today, but only on our current position. We can determine the parameters of our future path to a large degree, but we never have total control. There are moments when our lives can take unexpected turns with positive probability. And when, or if, these events occur is out of our control. White noise.

The philosophy of time is a fun topic. I was not familiar with the term "Markov chain" before a few minutes ago. From what I can tell though you are describing a theory of time in which only one time exists (the present - the past no longer being in existence and the future yet to come) and in which time can pass even if there is no change (vs. a theory in which time is nothing more than a measure of change and does not pass if there is no change). This is generally the "default" view and the one that intuitively makes the most sense.

However, as herbiedoobie suggested, some scientific theories (namely special relativity) imply that more than one time exists at once. I wouldn't say that science has definitively show this as of yet (the Lorentz equations and an "ether" theory have a similar predictive power to special relativity). Its certainly interesting to think about though. As another interesting aside, I would argue that any sort of "time travel" like you see in the movies implies a static theory of time (in which all times actually exist) and that time travel which alters the future in the same world is impossible.

What do those little gems do for your "simple" arguments?

They don't impact them at all. :biggrin9gp:

 

[Kyle]

A stray thought just wandered by: Isn't the act of trying to prove a negative existence a logic fallacy? I threw out the "Prove that I don't own a dog" half jokingly, but now I'm wondering if you can prove the lack of existence of anything. I'm sure you could do it, but if you did, and that object just wandered by, wouldnt' the logical proof be null and void?

In general you are right because we rarely have enough information to do a true "proof." It usually would constitute inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, with a being like God we have a lot more to go on which allows us to create deductive arguments.

 

[CloneFan65]

This seems to be a rather solid premise imo. It is a very standard belief that God wants people to make the right choices. If you deny it you are essentially affirming the idea that "God wants people to screw up" (unless you contend God doesn't really care one way or the other).

Does God "want" us to make the right choices? Sure. Does God force us to make the right choices? No. What is "better", having the freedom to choose between right and wrong, or lacking free will?

 

[CloneFan65]

The philosophy of time is a fun topic. I was not familiar with the term "Markov chain" before a few minutes ago. From what I can tell though you are describing a theory of time in which only one time exists (the present - the past no longer being in existence and the future yet to come) and in which time can pass even if there is no change (vs. a theory in which time is nothing more than a measure of change and does not pass if there is no change). This is generally the "default" view and the one that intuitively makes the most sense.

That's a pretty good summary of how I view time.

However, as herbiedoobie suggested, some scientific theories (namely special relativity) imply that more than one time exists at once. I wouldn't say that science has definitively show this as of yet (the Lorentz equations and an "ether" theory have a similar predictive power to special relativity). Its certainly interesting to think about though. As another interesting aside, I would argue that any sort of "time travel" like you see in the movies implies a static theory of time (in which all times actually exist) and that time travel which alters the future in the same world is impossible.

I don't know where your beliefs fall on time, but this special relativity theory would seem to contradict the idea of "sufficient conditions". If events can only occur if sufficient conditions occur, then two worlds starting at exactly the same position (i.e. with the same conditions) can lead to only one unique future outcome. In this model there are no possible alternate futures.

 

[CloneFan65]

From Kyle:

If everything is causally determined there would still be choice, there would just be one possible way for that choice to come out.

In the other possible scenario, the choice would be the result of some random condition that just happened to occur. This does not provide any more control to the decision maker than if the choice was determined.

This argument seems to assume that every choice we make comes from one of two possible situations, 1) a set of "sufficient conditions" under which there will be only one possible choice, or 2) a random condition. I would argue there's a third situation: 3) situations where we have more than one choice (possibly an infinite number). The question becomes if we make a choice in this situation, why did we make the choice we made? Where does that choice come from? I would argue this is our soul. If someone is choosing whether to accept a new job or whether to start a family, their decision may be largely influenced on the surrounding set of conditions, but there is still a choice being made that is separate from the these conditions. Same goes for moral decisions. If all of our choices are made due to "sufficient conditions" or random conditions, then we hold no responsibility for our actions. Why should a man that commits an armed robbery be punished if his choices were based on sufficient conditions?

 

[Kyle]

Does God "want" us to make the right choices? Sure. Does God force us to make the right choices? No. What is "better", having the freedom to choose between right and wrong, or lacking free will?

What is this "free will" you speak of? How would you lack it in a world where everyone chose the way God wanted them to?