Does God have free will?

[Leox]

First of all, God is all-knowing. That means he knows everything including his own choices regardless of time.
If God has free will. He can choose to go against his knowledge of his own future actions. But then he is not all-knowing because he can't predict his own actions.
For example, God knew Adam will eat the fruit. But he decided to make Adam anyway. Thus God wasn't really punishing Adam out of God's own liking. But it was rather part of the script.

I guess this is a more philosophical problem but I want to know how it is handled in the setting of religion.

[Miles]

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

It's often stated in the past tense as "the ability to have done differently," which I think is about as concise as one can get.


.

Okay so you dont think a human has the ability or the capacity to choose between different possible courses?

....... Neither a human nor any other animal.


,

What is your rationale ?

Free will does not explain how actions come about. It's only a label for how people think they do.

If I were to ask you if you want to eat a ham sandwhich or a cheese one ....you dont think you have the ability to make a choice?

No. Choice, choosing, and chosen are illusions.

You would effectively need some else to make that choice for you because you simply lack the capacity to do so for yourself?

Nope. what I, you, and everyone else does is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

What is the reasoning to come to such a conclusion?

I've posted the following before, but because it best explains my position as a hard determinist I'm posting it again.

I'm a determinist because no one has yet shown how thinking, both consciously and unconsciously, can take place without being caused---in which case it would be working utterly at random. And because causes are not random events each is dependent on something that brought them into existence. "A" arose because the preceding effects; a,f ,d i, c, and n determined it would arise rather than not. Free will asserts that, in effect, the will of the mind operates all on its own. That is, nothing pushes it one way or the other. It simply chooses, out of thin air (in effect, utterly randomly), to do A rather than B. Now if this makes sense to you go right ahead and believe free will exists, but personally, it makes absolutely no sense to me. The will of the mind operates as it does because it has no choice to do any differently. It is not free.
_____________________________________


Discussions about free will usually center around an affirmation and/or a denunciation of it. Typically, very interesting notions on both sides come out of such conversations, many well thought out and others not so much. Whatever the case, there's frequently been a problem with what is meant by "will" and free will," so much so that the issue can quickly become mired in misunderstanding. To avoid this I've found the following definitions to be pretty much on point and helpful.

Will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

Free will"The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate."


For many people the notion of free will is important because without it would mean each of us is nothing more than an automaton; a "machine" that performs a function according to a predetermined set of instructions, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If people lack freedom of choice how can they be blamed or praised for what they do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given, and often touted in some religions---Christianity comes to mind here.

Any exception to free will is often regarded as an interfering constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes along and prevents it. Of course this isn't what the issue of free will is about at all. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think another valid way way of looking at free will is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished. "I got a haircut yesterday, but I could just as well have chosen to have a hot dog instead."

Those who most disagree with this are hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused we could not have done differently---no, you could not have chosen to have a hot dog---therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic question: Are we free to do other than what we did or not? I say, No you were not. Free will is an illusion.


Here's how I see it.

There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely" randomly I mean utterly randomly, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, has been suggested to occur is at the quantum level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate.* And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway, completely or even partially randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions and thoughts. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that easily negate randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless at least one of the causal events leading up to the Doing in question had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with what we do. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we can never do anything differently than what we are caused to do. Our life is solely determined by previous causal events, including intervening outside events (also causes), and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no ability to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, free will does not exist, nor does choosing, selecting, opting, etc..

This means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. As I mentioned, if you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter.

Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as simply being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .

This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.



*Any proposition that the mind can be affected by random quantum events has to take into consideration the fact that "quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing." This argument was elaborated on by MIT physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.
source

.

[Ataraxia]

First of all, God is all-knowing. That means he knows everything including his own choices regardless of time.
If God has free will. He can choose to go against his knowledge of his own future actions. But then he is not all-knowing because he can't predict his own actions.
For example, God knew Adam will eat the fruit. But he decided to make Adam anyway. Thus God wasn't really punishing Adam out of God's own liking. But it was rather part of the script.

I guess this is a more philosophical problem but I want to know how it is handled in the setting of religion.

It does seem like the Christian God often has his hands tied and is unable to act in an all-powerful way. Why allow Satan to exist, why allow extreme suffering, and if there is a mystical blanket of sin does exist within humanity (that He's powerless to change), why does combating it require a convoluted plan of coming to earth to sacrifice himself to himself and that believing in said action is the key for individual to be free of it, and if people aren't believing this why is God powerless to make it clear to everyone instantly? Even the most traditional reading of the story is not one about a being able to freely wield great power.

As far as how it's handled, when I was a Christian, or if I ask my evangelical wife her explanation for any of this, the response was/is "I don't know, that's a great mystery."

[JehovahsWitness]

Free will does not explain how actions come about.

According to the definition you provided free will does neither. You said ...

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

So free will is a capacity / ability. One, for example is able/ has the capacity to paint a portrait or one does not (possibly because of being blind and totally paralized ). The only way to say a person is incapable (lacks the capacity/ability) to make any choices would be, like a sea slug, they lack the mental ability to understand what a choice is because they cannot grasp the concept.

If one can utter a meaningful sentence with the word "choice" in it or outline what choice is before them, that is probably evidence one has the intellectual capacity to make one. Free will does not have to explain how actions come about.... Any more than being able to draw has to explain the history of art.

It's only a label for how people think [ how actions come about]

No, according to your definition its a label for people's capacity to think . How that came about is just gravy.



JW




RELATED POSTS

Does coersion negate the existence of free will?
viewtopic.php?p=816690#p816690

What is the difference betwesn free will and FREEDOM?
viewtopic.php?p=1044638#p1044638

Can free wil exist if all choice is only an illusion?
viewtopic.php?p=1044673#p1044673

Does free will have to explain how things come about?
viewtopic.php?p=1044614#p1044614

Does free will exist in scripture?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 08#p981308

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE and ... RESPONSIBILITY

[Miles]

Free will does not explain how actions come about.

According to the definition you provided free will does neither. You said ...

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

So free will is a capacity / ability.

That's the claim, but it's a bogus capacity/ability. There is no such capacity/ability for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. And this is why free will is a bogus concept; its claim of capacity/ability is bogus.

One, for example is able/ has the capacity to paint a portrait or one does not (possibly because of being blind and totally paralized ). The only way to say a person is incapable (lacks the capacity/ability) to make any choices would be, like a sea slug, they lack the mental ability to understand what a choice is because they cannot grasp the concept.

But the critical word here is "choose." The ability for agents to paint a portrait does not mean they can choose to paint a portrait. . . . . . . Thing is, no one ever chooses anything no matter what they can physically do .

If one can utter a meaningful sentence with the word "choice" in it or outline what choice is before them, that is probably evidence one has the intellectual capacity to make one.

Meaningful only under the illusion that choosing is possible. In truth, it ain't. Want to utter impossibilities---I can flap my arms and fly---go right ahead.

Free will does not have to explain how actions come about

But that's what people do with it; use it to explain how people do things: by way of a will that's free of controlling antecedent events and conditions.



.

[JehovahsWitness]

There is no such capacity/ability for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Free will should not be confused with freedom. The presence of an impediment does not negate the ability to make choices, any more than not having any food means one is incabable of chewing, swallowing and digesting food. You keep your mouth, teeth, tongue saliva ducts, throat and digestive tract, even if you have no food. In short, one retains the capacity to eat even when your freedom to eat is limited or even removed.

The ability or the capacity exists independent of the freedom to exercise that ability.

[JehovahsWitness]

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

It's often stated in the past tense as "the ability to have done differently"

.

That's the claim, but it's a bogus capacity/ability.

You didn't present a "claim", you presented a definition. Something doesn't have to exist to be defined but free will as you defined it, demonstratively does since people daily make choices great and small.



It is irrelevant why they are making their choices, what influences were at work, what their choices are or indeed how the choice came about.... the point is a choice was demonstratively made.

...no one ever chooses anything no matter what they can physically do .

That is demonstatively false ...





JW



RELATED POSTS

Does coersion negate the existence of free will?
viewtopic.php?p=816690#p816690

What is the difference betwesn free will and FREEDOM?
viewtopic.php?p=1044638#p1044638

Can free wil exist if all choice is only an illusion?
viewtopic.php?p=1044673#p1044673

Does free will have to explain how things come about?
viewtopic.php?p=1044614#p1044614

Does free will exist in scripture?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 08#p981308

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE and ... RESPONSIBILITY

[Ataraxia]

Meaningful only under the illusion that choosing is possible.

Perhaps that's what a choice is--the act that occurs within our brain of selecting between alternatives, even if the exact sub-atomic antecedent causes and effects involved in selection are part of a larger deterministic chain of events. Are you of the opinion that consciousness does not exist?

[William]

First of all, God is all-knowing.

Premise = "The Creator is omniscient"

That means he knows everything including his own choices regardless of time.

Re: Musing on "The Real"

In that link you can read a short story which identifies the position of an Omni-Omni being. There is no free will possible for any entity in that position, alone.

If God has free will. He can choose to go against his knowledge of his own future actions. But then he is not all-knowing because he can't predict his own actions.

No entity in said position can have free will.
The only manner in which an entity in said position could experience free will is to do so by using it creations to allow it the experience.

For example, God knew Adam will eat the fruit. But he decided to make Adam anyway. Thus God wasn't really punishing Adam out of God's own liking. But it was rather part of the script.

So the Entity creates something in order to then experience said creation from within the creation. In the case of the story of the Garden of Eden, the Entity could detach from the Omni-Omni position by being all the actors in the script. Some of the actors knew more things than some of the others, but all of the actors did not have the Omni-Omni position.

In this way, the Omni-Omni Entity can experience NOT being Omni-Omni.

I guess this is a more philosophical problem but I want to know how it is handled in the setting of religion.

Religion is the result of theists NOT wanting to know anything other than what theists willing to accept.

[Miles]

Meaningful only under the illusion that choosing is possible.

Perhaps that's what a choice is--the act that occurs within our brain of selecting between alternatives, even if the exact sub-atomic antecedent causes and effects involved in selection are part of a larger deterministic chain of events.

Like choosing, choice is just as much an illusion. We don't select a thing. We may think we freely select among alternatives, but in reality there is only one course of action we take, and we have no say in the matter.

Are you of the opinion that consciousness does not exist?

Not at all. My mind is quite aware of itself and the world around it.




.

[AgnosticBoy]

First of all, God is all-knowing. That means he knows everything including his own choices regardless of time.
If God has free will. He can choose to go against his knowledge of his own future actions. But then he is not all-knowing because he can't predict his own actions.
For example, God knew Adam will eat the fruit. But he decided to make Adam anyway. Thus God wasn't really punishing Adam out of God's own liking. But it was rather part of the script.

I guess this is a more philosophical problem but I want to know how it is handled in the setting of religion.

I'm honestly not convinced about the view that we can't have moral responsibility if we don't have free-will. Even if we don't have free-will, but we do have the ability to work within the deterministic system to choose what is good or bad. We have the ability to change our behavior by being able to manipulate and/or control our environment and nature to some extent. Psychologists try to modify behavior all of the time. We're also able to fully understand our actions, and not act on instincts.

Free-will, as some define it, is not needed to choose any of an infinite number of options that one can encounter. You just need to know how to use the deterministic system to choose that option, assuming that an option is not already what you'd normally want.