God = No free will?

[raggster]

Originally Posted by bludwid

I'm saying the dictionary definition exists...

and i don't see how this proves your point. there exists a textbook definition, fine. this definition is self-defeating, great.

the problem is that i never agreed to that definition in the first place.

and by saying what you just said, didn't you just prove that the much-hyped and advertised definition of free will is indeed not possible?

no, i'm saying that the definition of free will that you hold to be "correct" is not possible.

You're clocking us with the "small print" version of this most wonderful of God's gifts... in the end, what's so good about it?

and perhaps you'd like to explain why you find my "version" of free will to be "small print?" as i recall, i questioned the definition that you posted.

This is so cute... The way I see it, people preach a different "free will" to those who don't ask, hyping it up like you really can do what you want... But start questioning it and the small print comes out...

again, what small print are you talking about? i've only given one definition of free will that i particularly uphold.

Just like insurance, or any investment a person can make, one rule always applies: One must be careful what one signs for...

true. what i'd like to know is, what did you sign up for?

[bludwid]

Originally Posted by raggster

and i don't see how this proves your point. there exists a textbook definition, fine. this definition is self-defeating, great.

Exactly what is my point, do you think? I'm questioning yours, remember? Self-defeating? I hope you know what that means, 'cause I kinda have an idea, from collectively looking at differing Christian definitions of "free will", what "self-defeating" means...

so what is your version of free will? As I've said, I've not really gotten one cognitive definition, which all Christians agree to. One says pow-tey-tow and one says pow-tah-tow...Knowatimean?

the problem is that i never agreed to that definition in the first place.

Which is why I implore all the "free will" people to agree on one thing and present it, so as not to confuse some of us...

no, i'm saying that the definition of free will that you hold to be "correct" is not possible.

"I" am not the only one to hold it correct. It's a dictionary definition. Surely, you can't be more objective and unbiased than that...It's a recognized reference material, ain't it?

and perhaps you'd like to explain why you find my "version" of free will to be "small print?" as i recall, i questioned the definition that you posted.

I already did. I said that people make it sound like it's a gift, and then you f*ck up somewhere and the "small print" comes up where you go to hell and crap like that. That wasn't mentioned off the bat, is it? It's like "you shoulda asked before you did that, ya know"...

again, what small print are you talking about? i've only given one definition of free will that i particularly uphold.

"You" particularly uphold... which doesn't seem to be what every other Catholic or Christian can seem to agree to...Y'all do have varying testimonies as to what free will actually is....

true. what i'd like to know is, what did you sign up for?

I'm not signing up for anything, until I get the hard copy, minus the BS part... I think, as Catholics/Christians, who are kinda obligated by God to "spread the word", it's your burden to convince people, not mine....

[momofzoe]

very hard to reconcile the vulnerable, imperfect man and with the only "power" he has, his free will against a supposed to be omniscient,omnipotent and a loving god. we are all doomed from the moment we were born coz we make mistakes all through our lives and are actions are "emotion-based"90% of the time, that includes fear,hatred and even love which are all powerful and consuming and a lot of times lead us to trouble. He should know what everyone of us is capable of from the moment he created us..i am not an atheist, i still believe strongly in God. i just find comfort in the story of st agustine with the little boy in the beach...

[raggster]

Originally Posted by bludwid

Exactly what is my point, do you think? I'm questioning yours, remember? Self-defeating? I hope you know what that means, 'cause I kinda have an idea, from collectively looking at differing Christian definitions of "free will", what "self-defeating" means...

Having a heterogenous group of people with differing ideas on "free will" is not "self defeating," it's the way thigns go. Part of free will is the capacity to choose for one's self how to understand it as a concept.

On the other hand, having a textbook definition that contradicts itself is very much "self defeating." and for the record, an encyclopedia or a dictionary definition can never encompass such a profound and complex concept. Philosophers and theologians have been struggling with this concept for centuries, and now you're telling me that a dictionary definition is superior to the reflections of all those who came before us, making very similar discussions to what we have now?

spare me.

so what is your version of free will? As I've said, I've not really gotten one cognitive definition, which all Christians agree to. One says pow-tey-tow and one says pow-tah-tow...Knowatimean?

as far as this thread is going, i am not speaking on behalf of every Christian, i am only speaking for myself.

also, i've already made mention of it in my previous posts. please be kind enough to read my posts before replying to them.

Which is why I implore all the "free will" people to agree on one thing and present it, so as not to confuse some of us...

last time i checked, even the no free will people didn't have a single argument either.

"I" am not the only one to hold it correct. It's a dictionary definition. Surely, you can't be more objective and unbiased than that...It's a recognized reference material, ain't it?

sicne when have profound concepts been shrunk to dictionary definitions? and besides that, as i've mentioned before, i don't subscribe to that definition, so why make a point out of it?

I already did. I said that people make it sound like it's a gift, and then you f*ck up somewhere and the "small print" comes up where you go to hell and crap like that. That wasn't mentioned off the bat, is it? It's like "you shoulda asked before you did that, ya know"...

heaven and hell is-a-vis free will is an entirely different discussion, and one that deserves its own thread.

"You" particularly uphold... which doesn't seem to be what every other Catholic or Christian can seem to agree to...Y'all do have varying testimonies as to what free will actually is....

just because i'm not particularly Biblical about my definition doesn't mean it won't be acceptable to other Christians.

I'm not signing up for anything, until I get the hard copy, minus the BS part... I think, as Catholics/Christians, who are kinda obligated by God to "spread the word", it's your burden to convince people, not mine....

convince people of what? that they have free will? most people already believe that by default, whether or not they's Christian.

[freakster2k1]

Originally Posted by nicolai_frank

Do you understand the definition of "free will"? If yes, please give me its definition its and please include your understanding on it.

Also, allow me to ask these:

1. Do you believe in God?
2. Do you affirm that God has free will?

Please let me know your stand regarding these issues.

Free Will is a characteristic in which that being possesses the ability to independently chooses its actions-- outside the framework of any causal and or dependent systems.

God has no free will. And i deny God to have free will

[gekokujo]

free God from the God-makers' will then.

[HBB]

Originally Posted by freakster2k1

Free Will is a characteristic in which that being possesses the ability to independently chooses its actions-- outside the framework of any causal and or dependent systems.

God has no free will. And i deny God to have free will

Kind of makes raggster's point about the definition of free will, doesnt it?

But please... do go on, freaks.

[bleh]

lagyan pa natin ng twist ang tanong, do homosexuals have free will to be homosexuals or are they a product of their genes?

[raggster]

Originally Posted by bleh

lagyan pa natin ng twist ang tanong, do homosexuals have free will to be homosexuals or are they a product of their genes?

if our answer is a) they have free will to be homosexual, then it's case closed. "free will" exists (depending, of course, on how exactly you define free will. but i digress.)

if our answer is b) they are a product of their genes, then it's still case closed. why? because our natural genetic makeup is beyond the scope of free will.

[freakster2k1]

HBB:

IF GOd has Free Will then he can choose whatever actions he wants and whenever he wants to act on it. However, since our universe is a causal based phenomenon, that is any being that acts on our universe will be trapped by the same causal chain.... that is its action will become part of the causal chain, loosing his status of a free agent. And hence, God will never partake in a system that can limit his ability to be a freeagent. And thus, if it is true that God has made miracles before, then he has lost his status as free agent -- but if hasnt acted before hand, then why do we know there is a God?


actions one takes trapped that action into a series of actions...... And trapped that being into the causal mode. So inorder to prevent that being to lose

[skymoun]

Originally Posted by essex

Can God and free will really exist? Think about it, if God really is all powerful and all knowing, how can he and free will possibly co-exist?

The very essense of God kills the notion of free will since in God's view, everything is already predestined... furthermore, there is that little thing called God's Will/God's Plan which means to say that everything has been created for a purpose ergo no freewill.

I'm interested to see what everyone else thinks...

If you would think about it, it's really easy to see how God and free will can co-exist. Being all powerful and all knowing doesn't mean that He is controlling everything that we do. He cannot really force us to do what we don't want to do. If you would read genesis, you would see that eventhough God did not want Adam and Eve to eat at from the Tree of Knowledge they still did, thus proving the existence of free will.

Having a purpose doesn't mean there is no free will, one could always stray from their purpose and choose whatever path they want.

[essex]

Originally Posted by skymoun

If you would think about it, it's really easy to see how God and free will can co-exist.

I have, and I don't... but have you?

Originally Posted by skymoun

Being all powerful and all knowing doesn't mean that He is controlling everything that we do.

No, it's not that simple, I don't simply mean that he is controlling us, although he has been known to influence people to do what he wants... but because of the simple fact that if he exists, by the very definition of his existence, we don't have free will.

Originally Posted by skymoun

He cannot really force us to do what we don't want to do.

oh yes he most definitely can.. if he couldn't, then he wouldn't be all powerful now would he?

Originally Posted by skymoun

If you would read genesis, you would see that eventhough God did not want Adam and Eve to eat at from the Tree of Knowledge they still did, thus proving the existence of free will.

And if you read exodus you would see that god hardened pharoah's heart so that he would not let the Israelites go, thus proving that free will does not exists

Originally Posted by skymoun

Having a purpose doesn't mean there is no free will, one could always stray from their purpose and choose whatever path they want.

And how do you know that straying from that purpose isn't what god wanted you to do in the first place? Maybe that's what your purpose really is... just like Judas' purpose was to betray Jesus

[HBB]

Originally Posted by freakster2k1

IF GOd has Free Will then he can choose whatever actions he wants and whenever he wants to act on it. However, since our universe is a causal based phenomenon, that is any being that acts on our universe will be trapped by the same causal chain.... that is its action will become part of the causal chain, loosing his status of a free agent. And hence, God will never partake in a system that can limit his ability to be a freeagent. And thus, if it is true that God has made miracles before, then he has lost his status as free agent -- but if hasnt acted before hand, then why do we know there is a God?

actions one takes trapped that action into a series of actions...... And trapped that being into the causal mode. So in order to prevent that being to lose

Based on those parameters youve outlined, then it can certainly be argued that any action God would do would inevitably cause him to be part of the causal chain based on certain assumptions. Ive outlined 2 arguments:

1) Freakster's assessment above assumes that the causal chain exists apart from any consciousness there to perceive it. It is possible that we (conscious beings) supply the causality simply because of the way we were made: time-bound, causal, 1-before-2-before-3, this causes this which causes this... Eliminating causality, all this (what we experience as our past, present, and future) could have happened in an infinitestimal instant that used up zero of our time. We only experience causality because of our limitations. Perhaps there really is no such thing as causality apart from our consciousness.

2) But let's say there is really such a thing as causality apart from a consciousness to 'invent' or experience it. The argument against God's free will based on freakster's parameters also assumes that causality is an unbroken chain; that there are no breaks, gaps, or missing links in it. It could be possible that causal chains only travel so far and then stops, waiting for a conscious will to make a 'choice' that would start the causal chain again in another direction. The Uncertainty Principle argues for gaps in the causal chain as pointed out by Stephen Hawking in a lecture of his posted on the internet: Does God Play Dice? Excerpt:

One might not think it mattered very much, if determinism broke down near black holes. We are almost certainly at least a few light years, from a black hole of any size. But, the Uncertainty Principle implies that every region of space should be full of tiny virtual black holes, which appear and disappear again. One would think that particles and information could fall into these black holes, and be lost. Because these virtual black holes are so small, a hundred billion billion times smaller than the nucleus of an atom, the rate at which information would be lost would be very low. That is why the laws of science appear deterministic, to a very good approximation. But in extreme conditions, like in the early universe, or in high energy particle collisions, there could be significant loss of information. This would lead to unpredictability, in the evolution of the universe.

(Dr. Hawking has since revised his view since this lecture. He now believes it is possible to recover information lost in black holes, but that is neither here nor there as far as this thread is concerned. My point is that causal chains need not be unbroken.)

Originally Posted by essex

And if you read exodus you would see that god hardened pharoah's heart so that he would not let the Israelites go, thus proving that free will does not exists

I would revise that as: And if you read exodus you would see that god hardened pharoah's heart so that he would not let the Israelites go, thus proving that free will did not exist for Pharaoh for that decision.

[essex]

^poor Pharoah

[raggster]

Originally Posted by HBB

I would revise that as: And if you read exodus you would see that god hardened pharoah's heart so that he would not let the Israelites go, thus proving that free will did not exist for Pharaoh for that decision.

question: Did God harden the Pharoah's heart right there and then, or was it a long process of hardening that came to a point when Moses asked for the Israelites to be freed?

[freakster2k1]

1) Freakster's assessment above assumes that the causal chain exists apart from any consciousness there to perceive it. It is possible that we (conscious beings) supply the causality simply because of the way we were made: time-bound, causal, 1-before-2-before-3, this causes this which causes this... Eliminating causality, all this (what we experience as our past, present, and future) could have happened in an infinitestimal instant that used up zero of our time. We only experience causality because of our limitations. Perhaps there really is no such thing as causality apart from our consciousness.


I made such assumptions based on how I perceive the world; I wonder if God's action is 'non-causal' then can i perceive that action? Thus, if we assume God to be outside the causal chain, will his acts mean anything? (meaning is important since it is the basis of our knowledge-- and thus, our belief system)

2) But let's say there is really such a thing as causality apart from a consciousness to 'invent' or experience it. The argument against God's free will based on freakster's parameters also assumes that causality is an unbroken chain; that there are no breaks, gaps, or missing links in it. It could be possible that causal chains only travel so far and then stops, waiting for a conscious will to make a 'choice' that would start the causal chain again in another direction. The Uncertainty Principle argues for gaps in the causal chain as pointed out by Stephen Hawking in a lecture of his posted on the internet: Does God Play Dice? Excerpt:


1. The causal chain continues, it has no ending. However, its meaning stops when the last conscious being perishes. And thus, what happens after that is really inconsequential. As for the uncertainty principle, A. it is not a law but a mere theory B. do u live ur life according to that principle? So when you get late deductions in your paycheck, itself caused its deduction? Interesting.

Small Note: God doesnt play dice; if he does, then he limits himself from not playing dice.

[HBB]

Originally Posted by freakster2k1

I made such assumptions based on how I perceive the world; I wonder if God's action is 'non-causal' then can i perceive that action? Thus, if we assume God to be outside the causal chain, will his acts mean anything? (meaning is important since it is the basis of our knowledge-- and thus, our belief system)

Perfectly understandable, for what can we be sure of if it isnt our own experience? We assume things based on our own perception and assume that our perception is how others see things as well, and up to a certain point, we'll be right if we're talking about our fellow human beings. My own assumption is that God (or any other non-human entity) experiences things differently from us, and that includes causality. It is possible that causality only has meaning to us and it is perhaps anthropocentric to assume that the meaning we perceive is the same as other entities'.

The causal chain continues, it has no ending. However, its meaning stops when the last conscious being perishes. And thus, what happens after that is really inconsequential. As for the uncertainty principle, A. it is not a law but a mere theory B. do u live ur life according to that principle? So when you get late deductions in your paycheck, itself caused its deduction? Interesting.

Unlike you, I dont know whether or not the causal chain continues or whether it has no ending, which I believe youre implying is a law as opposed to being a 'mere theory'. The causal chain having no ending, if it is a law and not a 'mere theory' is called into doubt by the mere theory of the Uncertainty Principle. That is, the certainty of an unending, unbroken causal chain is in itself called into doubt. My take is, without us to 'create' it, there is no unbroken causal chain. Ergo, one cannot get trapped in it, for one cannot be trapped by something that doesnt exist.

Do I live my life according to an Uncertainty Principle? On a broad scale, yes. We cannot predict what will happen to an absolute certainty. (I didnt get that bit about the paycheck, though. Please explain.)

Small Note: God doesnt play dice; if he does, then he limits himself from not playing dice.

I dont get this either. Are you saying that if God is playing dice, then he cannot be not-playing dice? I would have to agree, but how what does this have to do with free will according to your parameters?

"Free Will is a characteristic in which that being possesses the ability to independently chooses its actions-- outside the framework of any causal and or dependent systems."

In other words, if God independently chose to play dice outside the framework of any causal and or dependent systems, how does this violate your parameters? Or were you talking about something else and not free will?

Originally Posted by raggster

question: Did God harden the Pharoah's heart right there and then, or was it a long process of hardening that came to a point when Moses asked for the Israelites to be freed?

Gee, I dont know, raggs. Couldve gone either way. I mean when Moses was calling in plague after plague, Pharaoh couldve said Yes already after, say, Plague No. 5. But he didnt, and the book said the reason is because God didnt want him to. Why'd you ask?

[raggster]

Originally Posted by HBB

Gee, I dont know, raggs. Couldve gone either way. I mean when Moses was calling in plague after plague, Pharaoh couldve said Yes already after, say, Plague No. 5. But he didnt, and the book said the reason is because God didnt want him to. Why'd you ask?

It just feels like we're reading too much into it. "Hardened Phaoroh's heart" doesn't necessarily mean that Phaoroh had no "free will," at least not in the absolute sense of it. It's like arguing that a person who grows up to be Catholic doesn't have the free will to convert to Hinduism.

[HBB]

Originally Posted by raggster

It just feels like we're reading too much into it. "Hardened Phaoroh's heart" doesn't necessarily mean that Phaoroh had no "free will," at least not in the absolute sense of it. It's like arguing that a person who grows up to be Catholic doesn't have the free will to convert to Hinduism.

Just calling it as I see it, raggster. True, in some verses like Exodus 7:13, the word 'hardened' in '[God] hardened' is in the Qal tense, which is just a straight declarative sentence but in subsequent verses, it is either in the Piel tense (like Exodus 9:12 or 11:10) or in the Hiphil tense (like Exodus 10:1) which provides a little more detail on God's part in it. The Piel tense is used to show intensive or intentional action (IOW God intentionally or deliberately hardened Pharaoh's heart), while the Hiphil tense is used to show causative action (IOW God caused Pharaoh's heart to be hardened). In either case, God wasnt merely standing around watching Pharaoh decide not to let the Israelites go. He was an active participant in the proceedings, which means Pharaoh wasnt free to choose to let the Israelites go before the 10th plague. What's your take on it?

[freakster2k1]

Originally Posted by HBB

Perfectly understandable, for what can we be sure of if it isnt our own experience? We assume things based on our own perception and assume that our perception is how others see things as well, and up to a certain point, we'll be right if we're talking about our fellow human beings. My own assumption is that God (or any other non-human entity) experiences things differently from us, and that includes causality. It is possible that causality only has meaning to us and it is perhaps anthropocentric to assume that the meaning we perceive is the same as other entities'.

Where did you base this assumption that God or any other non-human entity's experiences are different from us? The meaning that we perceive is not universal, i never claimed it to be-- rather what i claim is any other 'meaning' would be meaningless, since it will go outside our understanding; and hence mere unnecessary addition.


2. On paycheck, the uncertainty principle represents a small fragment of our experience. That is it cannot be the focal point in which we based our experiences; as the deduction in our paycheck always has a reason whatever it maybe. It cannot merely deduct itself without any reason-- atleast i havent experienced a paycheck where its deduction is in itself its own causal link.

3. The causal chain has meaning not because in itself has meaning-- we provide meaning to the causal chain, or to any action and reaction that happens. without us, whether the causal chain extends to eternity or stops, it doesnt really matter-- for example, does it matter to you if the universe was created 15 billion 0r 14 billion years ago?

4. God playing dice-- If God played dice then he limits himself from an anti-action that of not playing dice-- and thus, making him less free; since he had limited himself from partaking on an anti-action (on that time frame) that of not playing dice. Furthermore, it limits himself from rolling another set of dice with a different set of numbers (if he rolled 6 and 6 then he cannot possibly role a 6 and 5). to sum up, in order to be free, he has to be pure potential that is he cannot realized a single act-- enabling him to have limitless possibilities and thus FREE.

[Ischaramoochie]

whoah guys... are you still talking about heisenberg?

[Jaywalker]

Originally Posted by HBB

Based on those parameters youve outlined, then it can certainly be argued that any action God would do would inevitably cause him to be part of the causal chain based on certain assumptions. Ive outlined 2 arguments:

1) Freakster's assessment above assumes that the causal chain exists apart from any consciousness there to perceive it. It is possible that we (conscious beings) supply the causality simply because of the way we were made: time-bound, causal, 1-before-2-before-3, this causes this which causes this... Eliminating causality, all this (what we experience as our past, present, and future) could have happened in an infinitestimal instant that used up zero of our time. We only experience causality because of our limitations. Perhaps there really is no such thing as causality apart from our consciousness.

2) But let's say there is really such a thing as causality apart from a consciousness to 'invent' or experience it. The argument against God's free will based on freakster's parameters also assumes that causality is an unbroken chain; that there are no breaks, gaps, or missing links in it. It could be possible that causal chains only travel so far and then stops, waiting for a conscious will to make a 'choice' that would start the causal chain again in another direction. The Uncertainty Principle argues for gaps in the causal chain as pointed out by Stephen Hawking in a lecture of his posted on the internet: Does God Play Dice? Excerpt:

If there really is an unbroken causal chain then whether or not there is a consciousness to perceive the meaning of the chain it would still continue to exist.
I wonder if you are actually trying to describe the effect of an observer in a quantum system as described by certain interpretations of quantum theory. From what I understand, quantum systems naturally "decohere" when exposed to a destabilizing environment. The enviornment itself serves as a measuring device that collapses the wave form that's why we don't observe quantum properties at the macroscopic level

Dr.Hawking has already recanted his position that information trapped inside a black hole is forever lost therefore there is no gap in the causal chain at least in that aspect, if we are to follow Dr. Hawking

I'm not sure if free will has been defined yet in this thread yet. Most people would probably define free will as the ability to alter their "destiny". Determinism follows the rule “equal causes equal effects” meaning if conditions were replicated exactly down to the most insignificant detail they will yield the same result everytime
if someone searches for an alternate destiny then that means that he is aware of his "original destiny". If so then he is in effect introducing a new variable into the equation and the "original destiny" is no longer valid.
If all the causal mechanisms would be taken into account including awareness of their results and how the person would steer away from those results then the "original destiny" was never really a possibility in the first place

awareness of the future disturbs the system that led to the prediction of the future hence
no one can be aware of his destiny because the act of predicting itself disturbs the prediction. An Omniscient being like god should know his own future but If he does anything to change his own future then that would mean his initial prediction is flawed since it didn't take into account the fact that he would do something to change that prediction

Some may argue that the omniscient being in question is only aware of possible futures but if we are to assume that the universe is deterministic, since he is supposed to be omniscient then he already knows all the factors that would contrubute to how those possibilities might develop. Some may bring up how chaos theory deems certain systems to be unpredictable. but chaotic systems should still be classical (deterministic) in principle. The unpredictability stems from the very high sensitivity to the initial conditions and our inability to take the seemingly infinite number of variables into an all-encompassing unified physical law. The only known hindrance to total determinism is quantum theory but quantum systems naturally decohere at the macroscopic level so quantum uncertainties should not govern or affect the entirety of how the known universe operates and unless the operations of the brain are also governed by the quirkiness of the superpositional and the probabilistic nature of quantum theory then the human brain should be a self contained chaotically deterministic system - meaning given exactly the same input, the person would react exactly the same way.

If the universe is deterministic then the flow of god's thought process should be disturbed by nothing that is unexpected. god's thought process can then be thought of as a continuous line without conditional branches -if so then it can be said that god is a self contained deterministic system. His future thoughts, present thoughts and past thoughts are all contained within a "closed system" wherein they interaffect each other -He knows his future thoughts or actions but he cannot do anything to change them since doing that would mean that his knowledge of the future was flawed thereby nullifying the very point of his omniscience

So in a deterministic universe man has no free will but it doesn't really matter since he can never be aware of his predestination. God on the other hand is aware of his predestination but cannot do anything to change it and so therefore he doesn't have free will in the ultimate sense.

[Ischaramoochie]

... and so quantum theory doesn't really eliminate the precedence of determinism over free will, it just adds another element to the equation. instead of jus having "freedom" and "determinism," we now have a third option: indeterminism or "randomness"

[Jaywalker]

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

... and so quantum theory doesn't really eliminate the precedence of determinism over free will, it just adds another element to the equation. instead of jus having "freedom" and "determinism," we now have a third option: indeterminism or "randomness"

I don't think there should be three options. I think there can only be two: randomness or determinism since the only conceivable alternative to a deterministic universe is a random one

[HBB]

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

whoah guys... are you still talking about heisenberg?

Not really. Heisenberg was just incidental. We were talking about freakster's definition:

"Free Will is a characteristic in which that being possesses the ability to independently choose its actions-- outside the framework of any causal and or dependent systems."

I have nothing to add to the other things. But let's go to this.

Originally Posted by freakster2k1

4. God playing dice-- If God played dice then he limits himself from an anti-action that of not playing dice-- and thus, making him less free; since he had limited himself from partaking on an anti-action (on that time frame) that of not playing dice. Furthermore, it limits himself from rolling another set of dice with a different set of numbers (if he rolled 6 and 6 then he cannot possibly role a 6 and 5). to sum up, in order to be free, he has to be pure potential that is he cannot realized a single act-- enabling him to have limitless possibilities and thus FREE.

I asked before if freakster was talking about free will or something else entirely, and from the above I gather he was talking about freedom and not free will according to his definition. Free will entails choices as he stated in the definition he uses. Therefore, given a choice between playing dice and not playing dice, God can choose either one or the other, and he can choose freely. If he chooses to play dice, that means he also chooses to not not-play dice. Of course choosing to play dice means he can no longer not-play dice, and that's what freakster was talking about. Choosing to do one thing limits God's freedom to do the other thing, but the will to choose one or the other is itself free.

I havent quite digested Ischaramoochie's 'quantum post' but let me zero in on a few things.

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

I'm not sure if free will has been defined yet in this thread yet.

I dont think it has been defined to everyone's liking, that's why Im limiting myself to freakster's definition in my previous posts.

Most people would probably define free will as the ability to alter their "destiny". Determinism follows the rule “equal causes equal effects” meaning if conditions were replicated exactly down to the most insignificant detail they will yield the same result everytime
if someone searches for an alternate destiny then that means that he is aware of his "original destiny". If so then he is in effect introducing a new variable into the equation and the "original destiny" is no longer valid.
If all the causal mechanisms would be taken into account including awareness of their results and how the person would steer away from those results then the "original destiny" was never really a possibility in the first place

...

So in a deterministic universe man has no free will but it doesn't really matter since he can never be aware of his predestination. God on the other hand is aware of his predestination but cannot do anything to change it and so therefore he doesn't have free will in the ultimate sense.

Yes that would make sense if we assume a deterministic universe and that the determinism extends into the future not needing the input of free beings. But in order to 'save' God's free will from Ischaramoochie's universe, we would then have to assume that the future doesnt exist and the choices of free beings are a necessary input as to what happens next.

In the above, you are assuming that the future exists, hence your use of the term 'prediction' which I take to mean, God can look at the future and see what happens, like looking into a crystal ball. You also used the term 'destiny'. But what if the future doesnt exist? Then that means there is no such thing as a prediction in the classical sense. If the future doesnt exist, then when God talks about the future, he talks about intent and not prediction if it involves the action of free beings. It is similar to me announcing that on August 24 at precisely 9:00 pm, I'll run around in circles clucking like a chicken. I have the power to make that 'prediction' come to pass, but that doesnt mean that that future with me clucking like a chicken already exists. A non-existent future is necessary if we are to assume that God (and man) has free will.

But what of man? How does God's 'predictions' affect our own free will? Im assuming that for him to do what he intends, it is necessary to suspend or hijack the free will of selected individuals like he did with Pharaoh, and this will lead to a chain of events that would make the outcome of what he 'predicted' certain. Without doing so, God can't be certain of the outcome of his 'predictions' because of the inherent free will of man (and the non-existence of the future). Man then has free will unless God decides to tamper with it. This brings us to the question of responsibility. If God suspends the free will of certain individuals to make what he intends come to pass, are these individuals then responsible for their actions? The obvious answer is No, they are not.

[Ischaramoochie]

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

I don't think there should be three options. I think there can only be two: randomness or determinism since the only conceivable alternative to a deterministic universe is a random one

that would be true if you would like to reduce everything to physical systems. however, there is an unavoidable existential and phenomenological aspect to perceving reality as well. we do not only exist as either fully determined or fully random. we have inner experience, otherwise known as qualia or self-consciousness. what sets us apart from ordinary physical systems of rocks and minerals is our capability to assess our own relation to the environment and respond in turn.

herein lies the concept of existential freedom. given the facticity of things, we could always respond in any manner we chose. whether this choice is random or determined is beside the point - what matters is that it is "our" choice. since there is virtually an infinite number of choices, and the fact that we choose any one of these over non-existence implies that there is an element of freedom involved. this choice is not fully random since it involves personal deliberation. neither is it fully determined, since there exists an infinite number of legitimate choices to act upon.

in addition, neither of the two choices which you have presented actually model reality sufficiently to account for commonsense experience. hard determinism implies a necessary causal connection between two things, such that in the absence of a particular cause, its effect would also be absent. this goes against intuitive judgement in a sense that in a conditional, it is always possible for the consequent to be true in spite of the absence or falsity of the antecedent. there is such a thing as statistical causation which goes around determinism and incorporates and element of randomness to produce an entirely different model of representation.

[dagitab]

Predestination?

I don't think an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being would create 6 billion souls just so that an elect 144,000 would go to heaven and the rest go to hell, or Sheol, or what-have-you.

(Lest my argument above mislead you, I believe someone up there did make us.)

But then again, what is Omniscience? Omnipotence? One thing I've noticed here in this thread is the tendency to state, or to think of things, in human terms. We must, first and foremost, accept that however intelligent we are, we are still limited beings trapped in space and time.

Like my former philosophy professor states, "Kapag nasabi na ang lahat ng masasabi, ang pinakahalaga ay hindi pa rin masasabi."

This means that one can talk about God all he/she wants, and still not have the slightest idea of what a Supreme Being is. One can choose to believe in God as a Holy Trinity, or a Pantheon, or, as certain Amazon basin tribes believe, a little bird nested up high in the tree branches.

The same can be said for free will. One can state that free will is the freedom to do whatever one wills without regard to others. However, this precludes the fact that other people (and, it may be argued, other sentient beings) do have free wills of their own, and this is where all trouble starts. IMHO, to believe that free will gives one the license to do pretty much whatever they will is definitely self-centered.

I'm not saying that there's no such thing as free will; I'm just stating that others have free will too, and that one must always keep this fact in mind when planning an action.

As for the idea of an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being, the fact that he/she/it is omniscient means that he/she/it is infinite, and is thus aware of everything that is. Corollary to this is the idea of omnipotence: free will does not mean that God is a clock-maker, that he/she/it just created the world and let it run on its own. The idea of omnipotence connotes that 1) the mere act of creation is the act of making All-That-Is; and 2) that the act of making All-That-Is, infinite as it may seem to us, is determined by a set of equally infinite parameters.

The only difference that sets us apart from the rest of creation is that while we deny the existence of such an Absolute, we strive towards it. We do not merely accept fate as "Fate", we create our own fate within the infinite parameters of the Absolute. All because we have free will, and because we are aware that we have free will.

[Jaywalker]

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

that would be true if you would like to reduce everything to physical systems. however, there is an unavoidable existential and phenomenological aspect to perceving reality as well. we do not only exist as either fully determined or fully random. we have inner experience, otherwise known as qualia or self-consciousness. what sets us apart from ordinary physical systems of rocks and minerals is our capability to assess our own relation to the environment and respond in turn.

herein lies the concept of existential freedom. given the facticity of things, we could always respond in any manner we chose. whether this choice is random or determined is beside the point - what matters is that it is "our" choice. since there is virtually an infinite number of choices, and the fact that we choose any one of these over non-existence implies that there is an element of freedom involved. this choice is not fully random since it involves personal deliberation. neither is it fully determined, since there exists an infinite number of legitimate choices to act upon.

in addition, neither of the two choices which you have presented actually model reality sufficiently to account for commonsense experience. hard determinism implies a necessary causal connection between two things, such that in the absence of a particular cause, its effect would also be absent. this goes against intuitive judgement in a sense that in a conditional, it is always possible for the consequent to be true in spite of the absence or falsity of the antecedent. there is such a thing as statistical causation which goes around determinism and incorporates and element of randomness to produce an entirely different model of representation.

I agree that the self inferencing properties of human consciousness or human will make us tendentiously steer away from deterministic road blocks in such a way that it can be interpreted that human will is not "forced" to go with the deterministic chain but is free to chart its own path through it. But in a totally deterministic universe there are no gaps in the causal chain where we can maneuver around. I'm not saying that determinism necessarily implies that nature forces us to go to a certain predestination against our will, but that nature itself shapes our will so that we will will ourselves to arrive at a predestination. In such a case, an argument can be made for free will because it is our own will that drives us to whichever destination we choose but if our will itself is subject to the causal chain, then it can also be argued that we are still part of the deterministic chain and therefore free will is just an illusion.

I said the universe is either deterministic or random -by saying the universe is random I don't mean everything in it including human decision making should also be random. I was referring to the timeline as a whole.
I made a thought experiment in my old free will thread which went something like: If a man commits murder and we rewind time and play it back again, would he commit the same crime? In a totally deterministic universe the circumstances would be exactly the same everytime you replay time. The thought processes of the everyone involved should also be exactly the same -because why else would it deviate if there is no element of randomness involved- hence the crime would always happen nomatter how many times we repeat the experiment. The criminal may not have been directly forced to do the act against his will but given the predisposing factors and the external circumstances, it can be said that his will to commit the crime was developed by the accumulation of events prior to the crime.
In a random universe each time you replay time you're in effect reshuffling the cards such that you get a different result each time. Though the choices the people involved made may not have been random the circumstances that led to those choices which led to the murder were. Random antecedents will lead to random consequents even if the processses in between them are deterministic.
So it's really a case of one or the other as far as the timeline is cencerned. Unless we're going to adapt a model similar to the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory wherein every possibility is realized

probabilities in a classical system are just concepts derived from our lack of understanding of the mechanisms that define the entirety of how the universe operates. One may say that the probability of a low pressure area developing into a hurricane that will hit manila in a couple of weeks is 30% but it can also be argued that the if we had a unified physical law, all the data down to the smallest factor that can affect the system and the requisite computing power then the extremely chaotic system that is weather can be predicted 100% of the time and the 30% measure of probability can then be interpreted as just the measure of the factors that we cannot account for or understand
The number of possible outcomes in a chaotic system is always very high. There is no way that we can predict what the weather would be exactly three years from now therefore the number of possible outcomes might as well be infinite. but despite the large number of possible outcomes, external and internal factors always force the system to settle with just one state. I think the same can be said about human consciousness. External factors(the environment) and factors within the system itself(the various aspects of consciousness) are intertwined and collectively lead to the eventual collapse of infinite number of possibilities. I don't think aspects of human consciousness such as decision making or personal deliberation can exist independent of causality. Even seemingly spontaneous acts are still influenced by, among other things, the doer's personality. Personality itself is developed by factors of which the causal roots can be traced to other causal roots and then to other causal roots.....

Someone with biological predispositions towards being aggressive, born into an abusive family, in a violent neighborhood where access to firearms is unrestricted is obviously more likely to commit murder than a pacifistic homosexual brought up in a very peacful environment where deadly weapons cannot be procured so easily. Of course there are cases that violate the seemingly damning external and internal predispositions above. Some kids brought up in violent environments do turn out well and some kids brought up in peacful loving families do commit murder but the indeterminate results of the similar predispositions would only be because the predispositions given above are very limited.
As I know you already know, in chaotic systems like society and the individuals within it, determinism is not a case of a cause or three causes leading to an effect but of a cause and an almost immeasurable number of other factors leading to an effect. If you would change any of those immeasurable number of other factors you would change the effect significantly, even if that factor seems extremely insignificant. so one cannot make a case for free will basing on the indeterminate results of similar upbringings because persons inhabiting different bodies can never be exposed to the exact same environment

its effect would also be absent. this goes against intuitive judgement in a sense that in a conditional, it is always possible for the consequent to be true in spite of the absence or falsity of the antecedent

I can't picture a scenario in which a consequent can exist despite the absence of an antecedent outside the world of quantum mechanics. Maybe you could give an example

[Ischaramoochie]

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

I agree that the self inferencing properties of human consciousness or human will make us tendentiously steer away from deterministic road blocks in such a way that it can be interpreted that human will is not "forced" to go with the deterministic chain but is free to chart its own path through it. But in a totally deterministic universe there are no gaps in the causal chain where we can maneuver around. I'm not saying that determinism necessarily implies that nature forces us to go to a certain predestination against our will, but that nature itself shapes our will so that we will will ourselves to arrive at a predestination. In such a case, an argument can be made for free will because it is our own will that drives us to whichever destination we choose but if our will itself is subject to the causal chain, then it can also be argued that we are still part of the deterministic chain and therefore free will is just an illusion.

I said the universe is either deterministic or random -by saying the universe is random I don't mean everything in it including human decision making should also be random. I was referring to the timeline as a whole.
I made a thought experiment in my old free will thread which went something like: If a man commits murder and we rewind time and play it back again, would he commit the same crime? In a totally deterministic universe the circumstances would be exactly the same everytime you replay time. The thought processes of the everyone involved should also be exactly the same -because why else would it deviate if there is no element of randomness involved- hence the crime would always happen nomatter how many times we repeat the experiment. The criminal may not have been directly forced to do the act against his will but given the predisposing factors and the external circumstances, it can be said that his will to commit the crime was developed by the accumulation of events prior to the crime.
In a random universe each time you replay time you're in effect reshuffling the cards such that you get a different result each time. Though the choices the people involved made may not have been random the circumstances that led to those choices which led to the murder were. Random antecedents will lead to random consequents even if the processses in between them are deterministic.
So it's really a case of one or the other as far as the timeline is cencerned. Unless we're going to adapt a model similar to the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory wherein every possibility is realized

probabilities in a classical system are just concepts derived from our lack of understanding of the mechanisms that define the entirety of how the universe operates. One may say that the probability of a low pressure area developing into a hurricane that will hit manila in a couple of weeks is 30% but it can also be argued that the if we had a unified physical law, all the data down to the smallest factor that can affect the system and the requisite computing power then the extremely chaotic system that is weather can be predicted 100% of the time and the 30% measure of probability can then be interpreted as just the measure of the factors that we cannot account for or understand
The number of possible outcomes in a chaotic system is always very high. There is no way that we can predict what the weather would be exactly three years from now therefore the number of possible outcomes might as well be infinite. but despite the large number of possible outcomes, external and internal factors always force the system to settle with just one state. I think the same can be said about human consciousness. External factors(the environment) and factors within the system itself(the various aspects of consciousness) are intertwined and collectively lead to the eventual collapse of infinite number of possibilities. I don't think aspects of human consciousness such as decision making or personal deliberation can exist independent of causality. Even seemingly spontaneous acts are still influenced by, among other things, the doer's personality. Personality itself is developed by factors of which the causal roots can be traced to other causal roots and then to other causal roots.....

Someone with biological predispositions towards being aggressive, born into an abusive family, in a violent neighborhood where access to firearms is unrestricted is obviously more likely to commit murder than a pacifistic homosexual brought up in a very peacful environment where deadly weapons cannot be procured so easily. Of course there are cases that violate the seemingly damning external and internal predispositions above. Some kids brought up in violent environments do turn out well and some kids brought up in peacful loving families do commit murder but the indeterminate results of the similar predispositions would only be because the predispositions given above are very limited.
As I know you already know, in chaotic systems like society and the individuals within it, determinism is not a case of a cause or three causes leading to an effect but of a cause and an almost immeasurable number of other factors leading to an effect. If you would change any of those immeasurable number of other factors you would change the effect significantly, even if that factor seems extremely insignificant. so one cannot make a case for free will basing on the indeterminate results of similar upbringings because persons inhabiting different bodies can never be exposed to the exact same environment


I can't picture a scenario in which a consequent can exist despite the absence of an antecedent outside the world of quantum mechanics. Maybe you could give an example

i can think of at least two objections to your deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics: one, as you have said, is the many-worlds interpretation. naturally, even in this interpretation of QM, a person who has commited a crime will always and necessarily commit it again given an identical set of factors with its own world-line. however, this fact does not necessarily mean that history is fixed - only that our version of history, along with the infinite other versions are isolated from each other. we can argue that a train could not have turned left in a junction and could not have done otherwise given the same set of circumstances, but what justification do we have for believing that we could have the same set of circumstances in the first place. the uncertainty principle itself prevents us from measuting a particle's velocity and location ad any given time with complte certainty. thus, believing in the possibility of the "same set of curcumstances" occuring is little more than a relic of the old classical paradigm. on the other hand, arguing that history is because history was is more of a tautology than an argument. a repeated event will be identical with respect to its original or it wouldn't be called a "repetition."

another objection, somewhat related to the many-worlds interpretation, would be the quantum superimposition of waveforms. reality is not just what we perceive it to be, but is much more a superimposition of states which manifests itself as the product of interference of the different possible waveforms. probability in this case does not isolate the "many worlds" and make them exclusive to each other, such that only one may be actualized. rather, our reality is the product of a quantum superimosition resulting in the most probable state of things - the interferene of all the possible states of things. this now vindicates our intuitive preference for freedom and the limited scope of determinism. two superimposed states cannot possibly be directly and necessarily caused by a previous state unless that state is superimposed as well. of course, this superimposition is a property of the subatomic world and not the everyday macroscopic world, but nevertheless its effects could not be ignored. if where my fingers end and the keyboard starts cannot be precisely determined beyond the planck limit, why should anything else be? the effects of this indeterminacy are multiplied by chaos.

lastly, it is relatively easy to think of consequents happening in spite of their antecedents being absent: (1) if it rains then the ground gets wet; but the ground may get wet in spite of it not raining. (2) if i successfully commit suicide, then i would die; however my death taken by itself does not imply my having committed suicide.

[Jaywalker]

^Reply comming in a few days ...very busy week this is

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

The thought processes of the everyone involved should also be exactly the same

Just so people won't get the wrong impression of me ...That should be: "the thought processes of everyone involved" without the "the". I can't believe I missed that. I read that post quite a number of times before I submitted it.

[Ischaramoochie]

hehe, dude, everyone makes the "wrong mistake" every one in a while

no hurry, i'm a busy bee too...

[HBB]

How about this? Timelines. If time depends on the observer, it's the causal chain that's an illusion. To us, A causes B which causes C which causes D, etc. But to another, A, B, C, D could be occuring simultaneously, and to another, D causes C which causes B, etc.

[Ischaramoochie]

we can, through general relativity, and in principle, calculate the "exact" moments when events happen relative to us. absolute simultaneity does not exist, but it can be known with respect to our position. time can be slowed down, but entropy stops us from stopping or reversing it.

[HBB]

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

we can, through general relativity, and in principle, calculate the "exact" moments when events happen relative to us. absolute simultaneity does not exist, but it can be known with respect to our position. time can be slowed down, but entropy stops us from stopping or reversing it.

Relative to us indeed. We dont know of any other perspective with which to base our perceptions. So for all intents and purposes, other perspectives are meaningless and non-sensical to us and it's pointless to discuss them.

By the way, someone opened an entropy thread, Ischaramoochie. Maybe it'll be a good idea to post your thoughts on entropy and the arrow of time there.

[Ischaramoochie]

time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana...

[freakster2k1]

Originally Posted by HBB

I asked before if freakster was talking about free will or something else entirely, and from the above I gather he was talking about freedom and not free will according to his definition. Free will entails choices as he stated in the definition he uses. Therefore, given a choice between playing dice and not playing dice, God can choose either one or the other, and he can choose freely. If he chooses to play dice, that means he also chooses to not not-play dice. Of course choosing to play dice means he can no longer not-play dice, and that's what freakster was talking about. Choosing to do one thing limits God's freedom to do the other thing, but the will to choose one or the other is itself free.

Isnt the source of Freewill, Freedom? If one is not free, then how can he choose freely? Remember God is in its totality free~ to limit himself on anything will make him less free, and does he cannot be the same God in which we describe to be totally free.

[3BF8AX]

Freewill - I do as I pleases but I must be responsible of the consqeunces of my action without pointing the finger at anyone.

God has told us - His will be done. We have told ourselves - our will be done.

Our will - observe the news. Observe reality.

[Jaywalker]

Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie

i can think of at least two objections to your deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics: one, as you have said, is the many-worlds interpretation. naturally, even in this interpretation of QM, a person who has commited a crime will always and necessarily commit it again given an identical set of factors with its own world-line. however, this fact does not necessarily mean that history is fixed - only that our version of history, along with the infinite other versions are isolated from each other. we can argue that a train could not have turned left in a junction and could not have done otherwise given the same set of circumstances, but what justification do we have for believing that we could have the same set of circumstances in the first place. the uncertainty principle itself prevents us from measuting a particle's velocity and location ad any given time with complte certainty. thus, believing in the possibility of the "same set of curcumstances" occuring is little more than a relic of the old classical paradigm. on the other hand, arguing that history is because history was is more of a tautology than an argument. a repeated event will be identical with respect to its original or it wouldn't be called a "repetition."

I agree. If we are to follow the Copenhagen interpretation, replicating the exact conditions of a particular point in time would indeed be impossible since the uncertainty principle deems the exact state of both the momentum and position of each particle to be indeterminable at the same time (and the Copenhagen interpretation construes what seemed at first like a measurement problem as the nonexistence of the aforementioned states until they are measured).
But it still has to be determined to what extent the uncertainty principle affects the macroscopic universe. The Planck constant is so small that the level of uncertainty in macroscopic objects is almost insignificant. Certain experiments though can be devised to project the effects of the particle-wave duality of subatomic particles to macroscopic scales and as you said whatever little traces of indeterminacy that leaks into the macroscopic world would be amplified by chaos
However the Copenhagen interpretation is just one of the many interpretations of quantum mechanics and not all of them are non deterministic

another objection, somewhat related to the many-worlds interpretation, would be the quantum superimposition of waveforms. reality is not just what we perceive it to be, but is much more a superimposition of states which manifests itself as the product of interference of the different possible waveforms. probability in this case does not isolate the "many worlds" and make them exclusive to each other, such that only one may be actualized. rather, our reality is the product of a quantum superimosition resulting in the most probable state of things - the interferene of all the possible states of things. this now vindicates our intuitive preference for freedom and the limited scope of determinism. two superimposed states cannot possibly be directly and necessarily caused by a previous state unless that state is superimposed as well. of course, this superimposition is a property of the subatomic world and not the everyday macroscopic world, but nevertheless its effects could not be ignored. if where my fingers end and the keyboard starts cannot be precisely determined beyond the planck limit, why should anything else be? the effects of this indeterminacy are multiplied by chaos.

The most widely accepted non deterministic interpretation of quantum theory is the Copenhagen but The Copenhagen interpretation maintains a borderline between classical and quantum realms (although where that borderline is is vague) Quantum superpositions decohere when the quantum systems in question are exposed to a destabilizing environment and therefore become part of an open system. which would explain why we perceive the world as the laws of classical physics describe it. -Schrödinger’s cat cannot be in a superposition of both “dead” and “alive” states because its complexity doesn’t allow it to be isolated from the many atomic interactions that would make it lose quantum coherence.
Experiments though have shown that under certain controlled conditions superpositions can be projected to relatively large scales and whether or not an object as complex Schrödinger’s cat can exist in a superposition of two states, the thought experiment shows that the probabilistic nature of quantum systems can be magnified so that they would manifest in the macroscopic universe and directly affect an open complex system. That fact alone posits a break in the deterministic chain and implies that the universe is at least partially deterministic (if we are to use a non deterministic interpretation of quantum theory). The partiality would be a function of the rate at which quantum properties leak into the macroscopic world.
ignoring any totally closed systems if there is any-if quantum properties leak into our world continuously then the universe is totally random. If quantum properties leak into our world only at certain events in time (such as a Schrödinger’s cat scenario) then in between “leaks” the universe is totally deterministic.
Whether quantum phenomena affect the macroscopic universe continuously, intermittently or never, The universe would still be operating within the framework of the three models above: linear-deterministic, indeterministic(random), or one that is similar to the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory (which would still be deterministic). If we are to define free will as freedom from causality then free will can only exist in a random universe. therefore I don’t see how it can be a case of determinism, indeterminism or free will since free will, as it seems to be defined in this thread, cannot exist in a causal universe and the only alternative to causality is non causality or randomness

lastly, it is relatively easy to think of consequents happening in spite of their antecedents being absent: (1) if it rains then the ground gets wet; but the ground may get wet in spite of it not raining. (2) if i successfully commit suicide, then i would die; however my death taken by itself does not imply my having committed suicide.

I'm not sure I completely understand this part. if the ground is wet but raining is not the cause of the wetness then raining is not the antecedent but something else.
and if you die but didn't kill yourself then suicide isn't the cause of your death and therefore also not the antecedent (this is not your way of subtly suggesting you're suicidal is it? )

[FocusAlert]

Wow this determinism vs non determinism discussion is really aggravating my migraine. I'm not gonna delve into any quantum theory since we already have at least 2 knowledgeable spokespersons in that area. And I know nothing significant of that matter. So here's my two cents worth:

I would be referring to the omnimax God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) as most theists would define him. My arguments are simple and are quite similar to most skeptics. And are also considered dumb by many. But then we're all entitled to our own opinions and ideas.

So here goes, since most theists define God's omnipotence as power to do anything logically possible, I pose the question why? Why should God's omnipotence be bound by the rules of logic? Can omnipotence be limited by logic and still be omnipotence? Is logic beyond God? If logic is beyond God, can God still be God? If God is beyond logic, can God be considered illogical thus irrational and non thinking? Would it hurt if there's really no God but there exists a being that is close to being a God? A very powerful being but with limited powers bound by logic? Maybe we exaggerated a bit by defining this being as God, maybe this being is just powerful enough to create our universe but this being is not a God. Maybe we should quit calling this being God and address it as plain and simple Creator instead?

Anyway back to the main topic of the thread, free will. Ok if God has free will then God must not be sure of what he will do next since by virtue of free will, he would still need to decide what he will do next, meaning uncertainty. If God gave us free will then God must also not be sure of what we will do next. Similarly, if God only knows all the possible outcomes then he still doesn't know what exactly it is that we will do next. This sounds like a limitation to God's omniscience.

On the other hand, if God knows what he or us will do next, then wouldn't that be predestination? Consequently in God's point of view, free will does not exist since everything will go exactly as God has known it from the very beginning. Our future decisions have already been made as far as God is concerned.

Obviously from my standpoint, you can see that I am agnostic.

[raggster]

Originally Posted by HBB

He was an active participant in the proceedings, which means Pharaoh wasnt free to choose to let the Israelites go before the 10th plague. What's your take on it?

Apologies. It's been a while.

Forgive me as well from deviating from your current discussion, as I am not very familiar with the bodies of knowledge you're referring to. Work has a way of *ahem* limiting my free will to study the less mundane.

I chose to single this particular statement out because it reflects on of the many statements on this topic that I believe to be problematic.

In this case, you're saying that God's active participation in human history removes free will. But let me ask, how is God's active participation in human history different from man's active participation in his own history? Is it because unlike man, God knows the outcome of His intervention?