Random Quote
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
The Declaration of Independence
"I remember the day in January I told Osama, 'If George steals the election, make those rich conservatives pay' " - Glenn Reynolds.

Post details: The paradox of free will

07/27/04

Permalink 11:14:02 pm, Categories: Religion, Jesus, 1613 words   English (US)

The paradox of free will

In my many wondering, I find people who are puzzled about one aspect of God they do not understand. To be more accurate, they take one aspect of God's nature and form it into a club to bludgeon him. This specific lack of understanding hinges on an accusation stating mankind has what is known as "free will" and the accusation that God is omnipotent and therefore in control of everything.

The argument goes something like this:

If God is omnipotent and in control of everything, how can mankind possibly have free will. If God is in ultimate control, then he can make mankind do what he wills against mankind's will. If mankind is not in control of his choices, then God must be responsible for the killing of innocents (or some other morally reprehensive act).

And if mankind really has free will, well then God is not really omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent, then how can he really be God.

(I realize the fallacy of the conclusion exists, due to my laziness in forming this specific conclusion, however, lets just assume for the second that this argument is complete and that my fingers just need a break today.)

[More:]

Now I realize that some will argue that there is not such thing as free will, that in fact the two words together are an oxymoron. "Since free denotes an absence of direction, and will denotes an existence of direction, then you cannot have both an absence and an existence of direction."

Since is clearly deductive terms, the above holds some force, I would like to just interject and say that "free will" has come to mean "a person’s freedom to choose a direction." (Tony's definition). Military Intelligence has been stated as an oxymoron, but it does exist. So indulge me the existence of something that we all hope exists. While the English language is not perfect, its ability to make exceptions for the sake of communication is admirable. I digress...

Free will becomes a very essential concept to the human belief that we are in control. Our sense of independence forces us to seek a definition of something that is essential to that independence. Free will defines the phrase in the US Declaration of Independence stating "...the pursuit of happiness...".

More so, in our post slave existence, we do not like the thought that someone else is controlling our destiny. It is the very hope of atheists. By eliminating God, they have no one to which to answer but themselves. However, most have enough ethics to believe that we need to be responsible to each other if we are to succeed. Special thanks are given to the modern discovery that teamwork and synergy is stronger than the personal endeavor for bringing about this ethical change. I digress....

So, having a basic definition of what we are talking about with free will and knowing that it is so very important to our fragile egos, it very well makes sense that a supreme creator would have created something like this into the human direction. In fact, if you follow the life of Jesus Christ, you realize that he believed that our ability to make choices was the fundamental core of his earthly ministry.

Now I am not going to use deduction to try and prove that free will exists in humans, but I will use induction to state that if you have ever watched a young child, that the will to do what they want in opposition to what a parent wants is a constant reminder that the will of a child is very free to make a choice which pleases them. (This is a secondary example that we will use below). In fact, this is such a reoccurrence that it can almost be predicted, almost.

However, with this kind of evidence, there is always the question of the puppet master, holding all the strings and making us believe that the choice is ours. Each string of our will is pulled in unison with our realization of the "choice". Could this be the omnipotent God pulling our strings and making us do things but also making us believe that we wanted to do it?

I am reminded of the Matrix,

you have already made the choice (before this event), now you need to live through the choice to understand why you made it?

Ah, this topic of free will is a full study of philosophy and not the real intent of what I am trying to present. There could be pages and pages of philosophical debate about the question of free will.

I will just come to the chase that even if the puppet master is behind it all, we just cannot tell from our vantage point in the universe. There is no solid evidence that the puppet master exists (no the puppet master is not God here, keep reading), therefore, lets make the assumption that it does not exist and move on with the freedom to make our own choices.

So if free will exists, then God cannot be omnipotent, because if we make a choice that he does not like, he does not have the power to change it. If he did, he would be violating that free will we just stated we assume exists.

Just a minute there, back up that thought train. If God is truly omnipotent, isn't one of the aspects of power the ability to "choose" to use that power and not. In fact, what is there about an omnipotent God means that he must use his power.

Now I am sure that Superman was tempted to use his X-ray vision as a teenager to undress the opposite sex. Yet in this comic strip, we find that human beings do understand the ability of having power and not using it. In fact in the "good" people of this world, we expect that trait. We call that ability mercy and it is just a much of a divine God as omnipotence.

Mercy says that while I have the ability to force you to do my will, I will not. As superman, I will allow you to keep your clothing as a barrier between my eyes and your privates. God has the ability to use his powers as he will.

"So then if we make a choice that is not in line with God, and God allows us to make that choice, then how can God control the universe?" Okay, let’s back up here. However, we have just introduced a fallacy that needs correcting.

Free will means that we can make whatever choice we fancy, no? But just because we choose something, does that mean that what we choose occurs.

My children choose that they are going to have candy. Daddy, realizing that the candy is not a good idea just before bedtime, ensures that my kids do not have the candy. Therefore, I choose that the candy that my children have taken will be put away (and it is). My child makes a choice of their own free will. I did not do anything to change their choice, what I did was change the outcome.

Therefore, while we have choices which we choose, we do not control the world events or their outcome. We are still responsible for our choices; we just may not get that piece of candy because the jar is empty.

Let's use my favorite example, you are standing at busy intersection, it is your choice when you wish to cross the street. In fact, nothing prevents you and any moment from crossing the street at any time, in any way and with any pair of bunny slippers, pink tutu, flannel shirt, and baseball cap that you wish.

The thing about the intersection is that you do not control the traffic. While you can work to time our entry into the street, you do not control the actions of others, nor do you control the outcome.

At the exact moment you decide, you exercise your free will by choosing to step into the street. However, you find there is a bus that is behind in its schedule and is speeding down the road, skips the light and you become the bug on the windshield.

Now let's not say that the entire thing was the fault of the bus driver, but recognize that it was our glorious choice to step out and become so much pâté.

It is my belief that God has the ability to control the outcome of our choices, you get the choice, and he gets to say what happens to your choice. Your choice is not worthless, because if you had not made that choice, you would never have met the love of your life (who happens to be an exceptionally beautiful, knockout, gorgeous, brown eyed nurse.) No pain, no gain right?

But there is the fault of the bus driver, right? What happens to him? Well he is required to send his only Son to die in your place. You get your life, and he looses a son. Isn't that fair for you?

See there is no need to worry about your choices. God is perfectly okay with you believing he does not exist. In fact, you can have that choice, but just know that because of your choice there will be many that do believe in him. Because of your choice, the outcome is different than you expect.

So please do not consider that these two events are exclusive. In addition, know that God did take the sins of the world upon him and took responsibility for his actions.

Comments:

Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]
I'm sorry but this is just silly. Your explanation completely ignores the most important consequense of God's omnipotence. His ability to "control" our actions, to force us to do one thing is completely irrelevant to this debate. The point of the omnipotence/free will paradox is that God's knowledge of future events requires that all events be predetermined and thus makes free will impossible. Said another way, because god knows what kind of cereal I will have tomorrow morning, today I don't really have a choice as to what kind of cereal to eat. My actions are predetermined. Therefore an omnipotent god and free will are mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter who or what is controlling our actions, in fact it could be nothing more than determinism, all that matters is that God knows what will happen before it happens.
Permalink 11/03/05 @ 22:31
Comment from: author [Member] · http://www.plack.net/
Kyle,
These are not mutually exclusive. You are tying together the choice with the outcome. The outcome is predetermined, the choice is ours to make.

All events are predetermined but not all choices are.

What you and many others try to do is to assume that just because you made a choice and you exercised free will, therefore the choice bases the outcome. You are trying to apply a Newtonian law of cause and effect.

To use your analogy, you choose to have a specific type of cereal does not mean that mice have not gotten at it the night before. Alternatively, you forgot to get milk and another decision is forced upon you. Because you do not control the outcome, God may force your eventual decision, but the decision is still yours. You could choose not to have anything to eat, but even that can be overruled by getting nutrition to your body in another method like the I.V. you need after the car accident.

The point is you do not control the outcome; you do control your choices. It is just that your choice is not as important. It is the law of unintended consequences at play.

You are correct on one point.

... all that matters is that God knows what will happen before it happens.


At the end of the day, the only choice that “controls” our future is to accept what God does in our lives. Make no mistake; it is our choice.

Alternatively, God does know what our outcome is going to be, therefore, he works with us to shape our choice. In the case of Pharaoh, we see Pharaoh hardening his heart (his choice) and God’s choice of the outcome of that hardening. However, Pharaoh did cross a line and then God hardened Pharaohs heart. The outcome is God’s choice.

Why is it so important that our choice becomes the outcome? Are we still children who must have our way? Does every decision you make always work out? If so, I assume you are a lottery winner. Free will does not equal ultimate control over destiny.
Permalink 11/04/05 @ 07:15
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]
The duality of your arguements leaves me bewildered. First you claim that "All events are predetermined but not all choices are." This seems to point to the conclusion that our choices are meaningless and have no effect on the outcome of events. However, earlier when you were describing free will you stated that ""free will" has come to mean "a person’s freedom to choose a direction."" Let me give an analogy here. Some one is riding in the back of a car when the car comes to a T-intersection. The individual riding in back "chooses" to go left but the driver "chooses" to go right. Now would we really say that the individual in back "choose" to go left? No, I think not. We would say that they wanted to go left or desired to go left. They were not allowed to choose. I think the idea of free will requires that we be able to act on our choices. In your description of the cereal situation above you are not showing that outcome is not related to choice, you are simply removing choices. When the mice eat the cereal they are removing that kind as a choice. I can no longer choose to eat it because it is gone. When I jump out a window I can't choose to fly. That isn't an option.
When you say "The point is you do not control the outcome; you do control your choices." I'm afraid that you are just wrong. We don't control our choices. Have you ever heard of the 3 Faces of Power? The 2nd one is called agenda setting. If I decide what choices you have then while it appears that you can decide I am actually the one in power. Here is another analogy for you. Let us say that we are going out for dinner together and it is your turn to decide where to eat. I however really want to eat mexican. So I say to you "Your resturant options are Pedros, Chi-Chi's, and Laredo's." (All mexican resturants). Do you really have the "freedom" to decide where to eat?
Finally, I'll come back to the God issue. What God's knowledge of future events does is limit your number of choices down to one. It would be like me saying above "we can eat at Pedros, Pedros, or Pedros". Is that free will?
Permalink 11/04/05 @ 12:28
Comment from: author [Member] · http://www.plack.net/
Kyle,
Please accept my apologies for my lack of imparting understanding. I may not do any better, but your focus is scattered. I will try to address the myriad of issues you bring to question, and then I will try to clarify my position with reference to your understanding (if I am able).

1. A duality of argument does exist because we have two very different things that interact together in a dance. It is not a semantically difference, but a real difference.

"All events are predetermined but not all choices are."


In this phrase, events are the outcomes.

"a person’s freedom to choose a direction."


Both of these are the same thing. You can choose a direction; it does not mean you reach your destination.

Our choices are not meaningless. Our choices define our being. Our choices bring about a finished product. The question becomes what kind of product we choose.

The problem with the car analogy is that you place two people in the car. In reality, there is only one person in the car. You assume that the chooser is in the back seat, when the real choice the back seat passenger made was not which way to go, but the choice to join the person driving. The driver choosing which way to go does not control the outcome of arriving at the planned destination. The passenger’s choice resulting in trust in the driver's choices.

Free will does provide us the choice to act on our choices, but free will and determinism does not set the outcome.

The cereal analogy does not remove choices, for the choice was made to have the cereal, however, the outcome is not having cereal because the cereal is gone. A new choice is then made to have something else. The choice does not disappear before we see the outcome. If that were the case, then life would be that much duller. We must experience the choice by taking the box to discover the hole. I still had the choice to choose toast. I did not choose toast; I choose cereal. I just was not able to control the outcome. The mice did not take my choice away, I chose, I experienced the choice, the outcome was not what I wanted, I chose again.

In the plane analogy, you confuse the same things again. You make the assumption that just because you have made a choice, which you deem unavailable, it does not mean you will not find yourself falling out of a plane. You still make a choice, but the outcome of your choice is beyond your control.

When you say "The point is you do not control the outcome; you do control your choices." I am afraid that you are just wrong.


I love to be wrong, it is when I am wrong that I feel the most right.

You follow up by holding onto the concept that free will does not exist. Once again, if I am wrong, help me be right.

I am afraid I do not understand your 3 faces of power. I do recognize this concept from political activism, but I do not understand your application to this problem. I will allow your statements to guide me in this understanding.

What you describe to me as agenda setting assumes non-intelligence and assumes a lack of choice. I say that you do have a choice and even though you state only 3 Mexican restaurants, I still have the choice to choose an Italian place. I can choose to have your influence or not (unless you are my wife, but you are not, so that issue is irrelevant, and even that is a choice).

You always have a choice, whether you attempt to influence my decision in advance or not. The choice is not an illusion, it is real (please no existentialism or philosophical debates on the nature of reality, that is not the point and for this discussion we will assume that some things are indeed real. If you would like I will open a separate topic on that cracked nut.)

What you described is limited opportunity, not free will and not choice.

End of commentary from your comments....
Begin clarification....

It seems to me that your beef with my argument is in the issue of God's ability to "force" us to do his will. It also seems that your assertion is that God forces us to choose his desires and free will is a myth. Please correct my basis if this is in error, but I will answer based on that assumption.

I also have need to clarify your scope of God. From your discussion, I must assume that the God you speak of most closely resembles the Islamic, Jewish, Christian view of God. Because I am not sure of your source of theology, I will force myself to a classical "Old Testament” discussion. If you are Christian, these feed into Jesus, and while I view him as supreme, that is not the question, which is before us. Please correct or affirm my assumptions.

While God does at moments of time "force" his will upon individual men (Pharaoh, Adam, Barak, Jonah), the God of the Bible does not force humanity’s choices. Joshua states "Choose you this day who you will serve". The reality of choice is throughout the texts.

Adam and Eve's test was the very test of free will. God told them not to eat, God did not remove the ability eat, but God did not force them to eat.

Whether you bless or curse God, to assume that he is some big bully pushing us around his maze is a bleak look on God. There is no compassion, there is no mercy, and there is no love. None of this is relevant to the discussion, but I must state my opinion of such a God.

What you seem to wish to link in your understanding is that choice brings about result. This is not correct. Choice brings about resolution. Result of the choice (outcome) belongs to God.

I had a perfect, actual example of this today.
1. I wanted something sweet after lunch.
2. I choose to go to the snack room and get a Butterfinger bar.
3. I choose to look in my pocket, I found the 60 cents.
4. I choose to put the money in the slot, it fell to the coin return.
5. I choose to shake the machine, nothing happened.
6. I choose to take the grape jelly pastry instead since the machine was broken.
7. I choose to carry the pastry by one corner.
8. I choose to go back to my office.
9. Halfway to my office, the pastry broke on the end, falling face first onto the carpet.
10. I choose to clean it up and dropped the corner I was holding.
11. I choose to through it all away, because I do not trust the cleanliness of the floor.

I choose to get something sweet after my lunch, the outcome was that I got nothing. I kept making choices, and they were my choices, I just did not control the outcome. The question I am left with is to understand my choices. Why did I need something sweet? I could have chosen to ignore this especially as I still have 12 pounds to loose, but I did not.

I could have kept choosing to get something sweet with other outcomes, but today, God did not want me to have something after lunch. I accepted the outcome. The choices make me realize I need to stop getting something sweet after lunch. How long this lasted was until after supper.

The decisions and the outcomes shaped who I am. Some of the above choices worked out, not all the choices worked out. Whether the choices worked or not, I am right where God wants me at this time.

I now choose to go to bed, let us see if I can sleep.
Permalink 11/04/05 @ 23:24
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]
Author,

I now understand our problem in resolving this debate. It is in fact our definition of "choice". You seem to be of the opinion that anyone can choose anything at anytime and thus excercise their free will. I hold that our choices are limited in nature and thus we choose from available options. The problem I have with your definition of "choice" is that it leads to the conclusion that we always have an infinite number of options to choose from. Now try and imagine the functionality of that description. Think about a system where whenever it has to choose it has to weight and evalutate an infinite number of options. It is impossible, no decisions would ever be made. Thus I argue that our options have to be limited by something. In my opinion the most obvious agent to limit our choices is the reality of what is possible. Now, I fully understand that our ability to distiguish between what is possible and what is not possible is not always perfect. That, however, is a failing of our senses, knowledge, and logic not a failing of this agent, "possibility", to actually limit our options. In other words, our senses, biases, faulty information, ect. trick us into believing that something is an option when it in fact isn't. So I'll say again, when I jump out a window I can't choose to fly because that isn't an option. I can wish, want, or desire to fly but those are very different from choosing to do so.

Here is another way of looking at it. I believe that our choices can only be attributed to our direct actions. So let me describe the plane/window situation from our two view points.
You: When you jump out of a plane you can choose to fly. Then you experience that choice. You don't fly and thus you must make a new decision.
Me: When you jump out of a plane you want to fly. To that end you choose to flap your arms like a bird. You do flap your arms but it has no effect. You excercised your will. You choose to flap your arm and you did because that was an available option. You wanted to fly but couldn't and thus couldn't "choose" to fly.

Now, let me go back to my statement about free will and God. When we go to make a decision/choice God already knows what the choice you will make will be and therefore you only have one possible choice which I don't believe is free will.

I have absolutely no "beef" with God's ability to "force" us to his will. In fact I don't believe in God but that isn't the point. My arguement, as I believe I stated earlier, has nothing to do with God making us do thing. In fact it doesn't matter at all who or what causes us to do what we do. All that matters is that God's ability to know the future fundamentaly precludes free will.
Permalink 11/05/05 @ 15:43
Comment from: author [Member] · http://www.plack.net/
Kyle,
I disagree.

You do not have unlimited options, but more than one option requires a choice. You have the choice to jump out of the plane in the first place. Whether you thought you would fly or you would not fly is irrelevant to the choice and there clearly was a choice.

Staying in the plane does not change the outcome of what God foresees. Omniscience is not something that theologians plucked out of thin air. It is not what you describe.

You are describing omniscience as God knowing everything that will happen.

Theologians describe omniscience in knowing the outcome of events. This comes from scripture in which God has determined the outcome of all things. Since he has determined the outcome, he knows the outcome.

It is a little like watching the old gag joke films where you see the banana peel on the floor and a man walking towards it. You know he is going to slip on it; you just need to watch to see what decisions he is going to make that will cause that to occur.

God does not know what choice you will make; he knows you are going to fall on the banana peel.

You do have a "beef" with God in that you are trying to define who he is. Therefore, you must not like who he really is. Should not be a big deal for you if you really did not believe him, because that should be enough.

While I enjoy the debate, why go through with the debate if you do not believe in God? Go your way and ignore the lot of us who do. Surely, you have better things to do than debate an ignorant fool such as myself, do you not? For whatever the reason, I am grateful, for your arguments compel me the more into this belief and understanding.

By the way, this free will versus omniscience is one of the weaker arguments against God. There is a stronger argument that opens up in my reply, but that has an equally strong reply of God's love.

All that matters is that God's ability to know the future fundamentally precludes free will.

Would be true except for these issues:
1. God knows the outcome, not the choices.
2. Free will is a choice without influence and revoked in special circumstances.
3. This is not all the matters.
4. {The mystery question}

You have failed to disprove or provide testimony against any of the above.

Please accept my gratitude for participating and providing a much better argument than my simple statement.
Permalink 11/09/05 @ 22:29
Comment from: Kyle [Visitor]
Hmmmm, where to begin....

1) "You do not have unlimited options..." Good, I'm glad you agree with me on that one. Do you agree with me that "possibility" is the limiting agent for these options? If not, then what is?

2) "Theologians describe omiscience in knowing the outcomes of events. This comes from scripture..." Really? Which theologians say this? More importantly which scripture supports this claim?

3) omniscience
n : the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
om·nis·cient
adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything
"You are describing omniscience as God knowing everything that will happen." Yes, yes I am and I believe that the above definition would support my claim in that. Now, I'm not saying that this proves that God knows everything. All it shows is that if you want to keep calling God omniscient you have to accept that he knows everything (including everything in the future). If you want to argue that he doesn't know all of that, than you will have to come up with another adjective to describe him. Maybe "really smart"? However, as I point out in the next section that approach has some serious problems.



4) "God does not know what choice you will make..." Please tell me you understand the implications of this. You have just made your God fallible. I highly doubt that you meant to do that because that opens up an enormous can of worms with huge glaring inconsistencies. Therefore, for the rest of this arguement I will assume you didn't mean to do that...until you tell me otherwise.

5) "It is a little like watching the old gag joke films...you just need to watch to see what decisions he is going to make..." No, it is more like watching the same joke film for the 100th time and you already know everything that will happen.

6) "You do have a "beef" with God..." Please don't tell me what I am and am not. You don't even know me. I don't have any beef with God or the concept there of. I do have some "beef" with organized religion but that isn't really part of this topic. "...you are trying to define who he is. Therefore, you must not like who he really is." If it is true that I am trying to define him that must result from the fact that I don't know who he really is (and I doubt you do either). How can I have a "beef" with who someone really is when I don't even know who they really are? That would just be silly.

7) "...why go through with the debate if you do not believe in God? Go your way and ignore the lot of us who do." Why do you go through with this debate? You too could go your way and ignore such "an ignorant fool" as myself. I enjoy debating. I enjoy defending my position. I consider myself a champion of truth, logic, and reason and the only way to get at those ideals is to carefully examine, test, and retest all forms of what we believe to be knowledge. Also, a good friend of mine has been keeping up with the debate from the sidelines and I hope that she is able to glean some understanding by reading it.

7) "By the way, this feel will versus omniscience is one of the weaker arguments against God." Says who? I believe it is one of the stronger ones because of the connection every single person has. Few people want to accept that they don't have free will so almost everyone will take a strong stance for free will. Combine that with its the relatively simple logic that shows the paradox and you have an arguement that is readily accessible to those who may not study philosophy.

8) "God knows the outcome, not the choices." This makes God fallible which is quite ridiculous.

9) "Free will is a choice without influence and revoked in special circumstance." Are you serious? God makes us do things? What are these special circumstances? How do you know that God sometimes revokes free will? Where did you get that information?

10) "This is not all the matters." In this debate I believe it is being that we are discussing God and free will. Also, I don't know how much philosophy you have studied but I believe this would be called "begging the question".

11) "The mystery question" Is this a joke? Am I supposed to know what that means? Please explain.


Permalink 11/11/05 @ 11:55

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>

authimage

Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)

PLACK.NET

Dying daily to live forever.

Welcome, my attempt to post some personal thoughts on interesting topics.

May 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
<<  <   >  >>
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Search

Syndicate this blog XML

What is RSS?

powered by
b2evolution

14358 visits to this site