I read the OP, and I adequately answered IA's issues, in post #2, and post #11, and my post #94
I missed post 11. I think you stated your interpretation of the OP most clearly there. Correct me if I am misrepresenting your point, but if "the plan" refers to an ultimate end goal, the intervening events can operate in a context of free will.
I read the OP, and I adequately answered IA's issues, in post #2, and post #11, and my post #94
I missed post 11. I think you stated your interpretation of the OP most clearly there. Correct me if I am misrepresenting your point, but if "the plan" refers to an ultimate end goal, the intervening events can operate in a context of free will.
Sure,
It's possible for God to have a "end goal" that respects Free Will.
Now, maybe some actions are just too detrimental to that goal for God to allow. So once in a while he intervenes.
I'd call that manipulation, and not necessarily invalidates free will. However, it depends on how much manipulation you believe is too much manipulation.
God making one choice harder to make than another, and hoping you choose the one he wants, isn't necessarily a violation. It kinda depends on how hard he made it. Impossible? Then we have a problem.
I certainly buy some products over others because of great marketing. I don't believe great marketing violates my agency to make free choices.
On this, me and HR agree.
Now, if I'm indoctrinated...
I didn't choose to believe in God and Jesus growing up. Not freely anyways. I was raised in a religious household and indoctrinated with the Bible and Christianity from my earliest memories on.
It was very hard to break away from religion, and I had lost my faith long before I lost my church. If you get me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Absolutely, I think that traditional "Jesus password" Protestantism has this issue and often resorts to Calvinism.
So does a plan "I will let people choose to love me or not" allow for free will? If so, how does one make this choice?
@ HR, as you do not believe in hell, does God force us to go to heaven? Note, I am not questioning the validity of your experiences which I profoundly believe occurred.
Absolutely, I think that traditional "Jesus password" Protestantism has this issue and often resorts to Calvinism.
I don't know of a religion that isn't guilty of similar practices at some point.
So does a plan "I will let people choose to love me or not" allow for free will? If so, how does one make this choice?
Sure.
But again, if God had infallible foreknowledge prior to creating the universe...
God creates U#581 where Jim does Q.
If <Jim does Q> is <Jim loves God>, the problem is still the same. It is impossible for Jim to not love God. God only made the Universe where Jim loves God. Jim doesn't love God freely. He has no choice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If <Jim does Q> is <Jim loves God>, the problem is still the same. It is impossible for Jim to not love God. God only made the Universe where Jim loves God. Jim doesn't love God freely. He has no choice.
You are equating an specific end result with the plan, and foresight with controlling.
I know humanity will continue to build computers. But I am not causing them to do it.
If <Jim does Q> is <Jim loves God>, the problem is still the same. It is impossible for Jim to not love God. God only made the Universe where Jim loves God. Jim doesn't love God freely. He has no choice.
You are equating an specific end result with the plan, and foresight with controlling.
I know humanity will continue to build computers. But I am not causing them to do it.
Did you infallibly create U#404 where mankind builds computers?
I ask because HR has a habit of ignoring the act of creation.
We are not talking about mere knowledge, we're also talking about creation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Did you infallibly create U#404 where mankind builds computers?
No, but I am saying God did not either. The goal of creation was not for man to create computers. He may have known it would happen, but that doesn't mean He made it happen. Creation was inherently built to allow fallibility: He imparted humanity with that authority. But that doesn't mean He designed creation to be falliable.
He did not forbid man making computers. Or doing evil for that matter. Man decided to do both. But that doesn't mean He impelled man to do either.
You are arguing either for something inconsistent with infallible foreknowledge, or you are arguing for something other than infallible foreknowledge.
Either way, your argument is not the same as mine, so I don't know what you expect from me except to say, if you change the premise, obviously you change the result.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I do not accept that, the whole reason Jim does Q in the first place, is because that's precisely what God made Jim to do.
Wait, that doesn't follow, because Jim does Q first. Jim does Q before God creates Jim, because God sees Jim do Q first, THEN God creates Jim, right?
So why does Jim do Q?
Does that make sense?
It has ALWAYS made sense to me, I just disagree with your reasoning, I do not believe they are compatible. I believe that the fatalism and predetermination involved invalidates the claim of free will.
Jim had no choice.
Jim might not have had choice in a situation where there's fatalism and predetermination.
However, that does not prove that there cannot be free will, only fatalism and predetermination.
In other words, you are constructing a scenario in which Jim has no free will, and thus concluding that this is the only scenario. My intent is to prove that there are, in fact, other possible scenarios you are not considering. See below.
Jim is following the Jim does Q program.
Wait. Wait wait wait.
This is the part we need to focus on.
If Jim does Q because he's programmed to do Q, then that means Jim never had any free will to begin with. This violates the basic premise of this thread.
Let me phrase this another way. This is a basic outline of the scenario you're talking about:
1. Jim does Q.
2. God, foreseeing the universe before anything happens, knows that Jim will do Q before Jim does Q.
3. God creates the universe.
4. Jim does Q.
Right?
The thing is, none of this explains WHY Jim does Q, which is the only truly relevant factor. The fact that God creates the universe is actually irrelevant to the question of whether or not Jim has free will. The only relevant matter is whether or not Jim has free will when he does Q or not.
Let me explain. Here are two scenarios. I we're going to call them Scenario P and Scenario F.
Scenario P (for Programming):
1. Jim does Q because he's programmed to do Q.
2. God, foreseeing the universe before anything happens, knows that Jim will do Q before Jim does Q, because, of course Jim does Q. God programmed him to do so.
3. God creates the universe.
4. Jim does Q.
Scenario F (for Free Will):
1. Jim does Q because he chooses to do Q of his own free will.
2. God, foreseeing the universe before anything happens, knows that Jim will do Q before Jim does Q.
3. God creates the universe.
4. Jim does Q because he chooses to do Q of his own free will.
Do you see the problem with what you're saying? God creating the universe creates no change between event #1 and event #4 of Scenario F.
The only thing that matters here is whether or not Jim has free will. If Jim has free will, God creating the universe has no influence on Jim having free will. He still has it. Likewise, if Jim doesn't have free will, God creating the universe has no influence on Jim not having free will.
In other words, you keep talking about how relevant and important to note God creating the universe is. Except, it doesn't. It's not relevant because it doesn't somehow remove free will.
The only relevant issue is whether or not Jim has free will. Since the OP takes as given that Jim has free will, it remains that Jim has free will. God creating the universe does not remove Jim having free will.
I do not accept that, the whole reason Jim does Q in the first place, is because that's precisely what God made Jim to do.
Wait, that doesn't follow, because Jim does Q first. Jim does Q before God creates Jim, because God sees Jim do Q first, THEN God creates Jim, right?
So why does Jim do Q?
If I dream of a girl named Gina (who doesn't exist), and in my dream she has sex with me at a hotel (that doesn't exist)...THEN, using my magical powers, I create the universe of my dreams precisely to where Gina has sex with me at that hotel.
Does Gina have free will?
I argue no.
Are you actually arguing that figments of my dream do have free will? Please tell me this isn't the case. Please.
Let us follow that line of reasoning.
It would mean that Aragorn has free will. Someone (like say J.R.R. Tolkien)had to envision Aragorn before writing the LOTR storyline. J.R.R. Tolkien had to imagine the world of Middle Earth, and the quest to destroy the one ring, before writing it all out. No one in their right mind would argue that Aragorn has free will. Aragorn just does what Tolkien imagined him to do.
Now, understand that you'd be Aragorn, and maybe you think you have free will, it's a nice illusion. Unfortunately, you are just running the Aragorn helps Frodo destroy the one ring program. (and of course, I'm arguing that if God had infallible foreknowledge prior to creating the Universe, he and Tolkien are the same in this respect)
Does that make sense?
It has ALWAYS made sense to me, I just disagree with your reasoning, I do not believe they are compatible. I believe that the fatalism and predetermination involved invalidates the claim of free will.
Jim had no choice.
Jim might not have had choice in a situation where there's fatalism and predetermination.
However, that does not prove that there cannot be free will, only fatalism and predetermination.
No, it doesn't prove. I never said I proved anything.
I'm arguing it's incompatibility. I believe I've sufficiently argued my case with easy to understand reasoning.
In other words, you are constructing a scenario in which Jim has no free will, and thus concluding that this is the only scenario. My intent is to prove that there are, in fact, other possible scenarios you are not considering. See below.
Wrong again.
I am only showing an inconsistency.
Jim is following the Jim does Q program.
Wait. Wait wait wait.
This is the part we need to focus on.
If Jim does Q because he's programmed to do Q, then that means Jim never had any free will to begin with. This violates the basic premise of this thread.
For the last ****ing time, I ALREADY ADEQUATELY ANSWERED THE THREAD TOPIC, AND THEN THINGS WERE ALLOWED TO DRIFT.
Let me phrase this another way. This is a basic outline of the scenario you're talking about:
1. Jim does Q.
2. God, foreseeing the universe before anything happens, knows that Jim will do Q before Jim does Q.
3. God creates the universe.
4. Jim does Q.
Right?
No.
I will not allow you to twist my argument to suit your flawed understanding of things.
Jim does NOT exist prior to U#581.
Read about Gina, and Aragorn above.
Aragorn does not exist when Tolkien imagines him, he is a figment of Tolkien's imagination. If after Tolkien creates Middle Earth, Aragorn does something, it's because Tolkien wrote him that way.
Does Aragorn have free will?
If you say yes, we have even bigger problems than just you misunderstanding things.
The thing is, none of this explains WHY Jim does Q, which is the only truly relevant factor. The fact that God creates the universe is actually irrelevant to the question of whether or not Jim has free will. The only relevant matter is whether or not Jim has free will when he does Q or not.
Again, you may think it's irrelevant, but you have not provided any reasoning whatsoever for me to agree that it's irrelevant.
You can't just say creation is irrelevant, you have to persuade.
Is Tolkien writing LOTR irrelevant to whether characters in LOTR have free will?
Seems patently and obviously relevant to me.
Let me explain. Here are two scenarios. I we're going to call them Scenario P and Scenario F.
Scenario P (for Programming):
1. Jim does Q because he's programmed to do Q.
2. God, foreseeing the universe before anything happens, knows that Jim will do Q before Jim does Q, because, of course Jim does Q. God programmed him to do so.
3. God creates the universe.
4. Jim does Q.
Scenario F (for Free Will):
1. Jim does Q because he chooses to do Q of his own free will.
2. God, foreseeing the universe before anything happens, knows that Jim will do Q before Jim does Q.
3. God creates the universe.
4. Jim does Q because he chooses to do Q of his own free will.
Do you see the problem with what you're saying? God creating the universe creates no change between event #1 and event #4 of Scenario F.
I see the problem with what YOU are saying, but you have written a different scenario, one which I will not allow you to strawman MY argument into.
You are saying something very different than what I am saying.
The only thing that matters here is whether or not Jim has free will. If Jim has free will, God creating the universe has no influence on Jim having free will. He still has it. Likewise, if Jim doesn't have free will, God creating the universe has no influence on Jim not having free will.
I disagree.
In other words, you keep talking about how relevant and important to note God creating the universe is. Except, it doesn't. It's not relevant because it doesn't somehow remove free will.
I disagree.
I argue Aragorn does not have free will. He does only what Tolkien wrote him to do.
The only relevant issue is whether or not Jim has free will. Since the OP takes as given that Jim has free will, it remains that Jim has free will. God creating the universe does not remove Jim having free will.
I disagree.
I already answered the OP, I answered the OP three times.
The conversation drifted.
If I dream of a girl named Gina (who doesn't exist), and in my dream she has sex with me at a hotel (that doesn't exist)
How often do you dream of this Gina girl? I can't help but notice this scenario is one you use often.
...THEN, using my magical powers, I create the universe of my dreams precisely to where Gina has sex with me at that hotel.
Does Gina have free will?
I argue no.
And you'd be right, she wouldn't.
This is not, however, analogous to what we're talking about. Gina does not have a free will or an identity independent of you. Jim does in Scenario F from God. That's the whole point of Scenario F. Gina is an example of a Scenario P.
Your problem is you're refusing the acknowledge the possibility of Scenario F. You seem to only think Scenario P is possible, when in fact Scenario F is entirely compatible with God creating the universe.
For the last ****ing time, I ALREADY ADEQUATELY ANSWERED THE THREAD TOPIC, AND THEN THINGS WERE ALLOWED TO DRIFT.
As I demonstrated before, your answer to the thread topic is essentially this line of conversation, that is to say, that God creating the universe is relevant. When it isn't.
No.
I will not allow you to twist my argument to suit your flawed understanding of things.
Jim does NOT exist prior to U#581.
It doesn't matter if he was created yet. He still does Q. Otherwise, God could not see Jim do Q.
Read about Gina, and Aragorn above.
Two problems:
1. Only in Scenario P is Jim analogous to Gina and Aragorn. In Scenario F, he isn't.
2. If you're going to argue that Jim does something because God programs Jim to do so, in the same way that Gina does something because Aragorn only does something because Tolkien writes it, then the fact that God creates the universe isn't relevant. It would only be relevant if Jim had free will prior to God creating the universe and then lost it when God did. Otherwise, it doesn't actually matter.
Once again, the only relevant detail is whether or not Jim has an independent will capable of making choices. If Jim doesn't have that, then he doesn't have that, but adding the details about God seeing Jim before he does it doesn't mean anything.
Again, you may think it's irrelevant, but you have not provided any reasoning whatsoever for me to agree that it's irrelevant.
I have, actually. Multiple times now.
You can't just say creation is irrelevant,
I haven't. I've provided reasoning.
I see the problem with what YOU are saying, but you have written a different scenario, one which I will not allow you to strawman MY argument into.
You are saying something very different than what I am saying.
Ok, then demonstrate where I got your scenario wrong then.
First, I do not accept either of your scenarios, P or F. I believe you are constructing your logic incorrectly. You are placing an "imagined action" above the "imaginer", and then claiming that the "imaginee" determines what the "imaginer" "imagined".
This is fundamentally erroneous.
Below, You will see why.
Let me once again, show you MY argument, and I'd appreciate you not making it into a straw man to satisfy your confusion.
1. J.R.R. Tolkien is a writer. (God, with infallible foreknowledge)
2. No books exists. (there is no Universe)
3. J.R.R. Tolkien imagines a world called Middle Earth, in it, a human named Aragorn helps a hobbit named Frodo on a quest to destroy the One Ring. Tolkien calls this TheLord of the Rings. (God imagines U#581, where Jim does Q)
4. J.R.R. Tolkien then writes the book TheLord of the Rings. (God creates U#581)
5. Because Tolkien writes TheLord of the Rings, it is now necessary for Aragorn to help Frodo destroy the One Ring. It could not be TheLord of the Rings otherwise.
Free Will http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will "2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."
"1. (Philosophy) a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined."
Is Aragorn helping Frodo destroy the One Ring consistent with Free Will?
No. His actions were constrained, and externally determined by a fate or divine will. (Tolkien wrote him to do what he does.)
That you would actually put "Aragorn helps Frodo" above and preceding "J.R.R. Tolkien imagines..." in your scenario shows me that you have a grossly and fundamentally flawed perception of creative responsibility.
This is why to me, creation is relevant, and to you it's irrelevant. You're not going to understand something until you realize you have a serious flaw in judgment.
The only one with a free choice in this is Tolkien. He is the one with the pen and pad here.
In Scenario P, I would agree completely. Since Jim doesn't really have independent will or independent identity, much like Aragorn, he can't really be said to be acting at all. It is God who is acting, everyone else is a character in a book, or a character being drawn by an animator.
On that, I think we both agree.
The problem comes in with Scenario F, and here is where we diverge.
Now, let's go with what you're saying: God sees, before he ever creates the universe, Jim doing Q. So God, being omniscient, foresees the universe before it ever creates it, and he sees that if he creates the universe, Jim will do Q.
The thing that defines Scenario F is that in Scenario F, unlike Scenario P, the reason Jim does Q is because he chooses to do so.
So the fact that God sees this before he creates the universe doesn't really have bearing on whether or not Jim has free will. The reason God sees Jim perform Q in this scenario is because God knows what courses of action Jim will choose, not because Jim doesn't have the ability to choose, or because God is acting instead of Jim.
So if your argument is that God's foreknowledge somehow negates Jim having free will, your argument would require the addition of God's foreknowledge to the "Jim choosing Q of his own free will" scenario to somehow negate Jim having free will. I will disagree with this because God's foreknowledge of what Jim will choose stems from Jim having choice in the first place. In this scenario, God's not taking power over Jim like in Scenario P. He's letting Jim decide, which means Jim has the power to make his own decisions.
This is different from Scenario P, in which God is the only one who can be said to be acting, Jim is merely being acted upon. He doesn't actually have any true say, much like Aragorn doesn't. Although, I will posit that even in Scenario P, God's foreknowledge of the universe before he creates it doesn't really matter. What matters is why Jim does Q, and the answer being because Jim is being controlled directly by God, and the reason why Jim does anything is that God makes him do so, just like the reason Aragorn does anything is because Tolkien wrote him that way. God's foreknowledge, or even his creation of the universe, therefore, is not particularly relevant to the question of Jim having free will, given that if someone were not omniscient or the creator of the universe, but still were able to "bodyjack" Jim and make him do Q, Jim would also not have free will. It's the controlling of Jim that's the relevant factor.
Now, I think you're probably going to disagree with me, but I what I'm hoping to accomplish from this post, in addition to reasserting where I stand, is to get a lock on where precisely you and I are disagreeing. If you can pinpoint which places, it would make discussion much easier.
In Scenario P, I would agree completely. Since Jim doesn't really have independent will or independent identity, much like Aragorn, he can't really be said to be acting at all. It is God who is acting, everyone else is a character in a book, or a character being drawn by an animator.
On that, I think we both agree.
The problem comes in with Scenario F, and here is where we diverge.
Now, let's go with what you're saying: God sees, before he ever creates the universe, Jim doing Q. So God, being omniscient, foresees the universe before it ever creates it, and he sees that if he creates the universe, Jim will do Q.
The thing that defines Scenario F is that in Scenario F, unlike Scenario P, the reason Jim does Q is because he chooses to do so.
So the fact that God sees this before he creates the universe doesn't really have bearing on whether or not Jim has free will. The reason God sees Jim perform Q in this scenario is because God knows what courses of action Jim will choose, not because Jim doesn't have the ability to choose, or because God is acting instead of Jim.
So if your argument is that God's foreknowledge somehow negates Jim having free will, your argument would require the addition of God's foreknowledge to the "Jim choosing Q of his own free will" scenario to somehow negate Jim having free will. I will disagree with this because God's foreknowledge of what Jim will choose stems from Jim having choice in the first place. In this scenario, God's not taking power over Jim like in Scenario P. He's letting Jim decide, which means Jim has the power to make his own decisions.
This is different from Scenario P, in which God is the only one who can be said to be acting, Jim is merely being acted upon. He doesn't actually have any true say, much like Aragorn doesn't. Although, I will posit that even in Scenario P, God's foreknowledge of the universe before he creates it doesn't really matter. What matters is why Jim does Q, and the answer being because Jim is being controlled directly by God, and the reason why Jim does anything is that God makes him do so, just like the reason Aragorn does anything is because Tolkien wrote him that way. God's foreknowledge, or even his creation of the universe, therefore, is not particularly relevant to the question of Jim having free will, given that if someone were not omniscient or the creator of the universe, but still were able to "bodyjack" Jim and make him do Q, Jim would also not have free will. It's the controlling of Jim that's the relevant factor.
Now, I think you're probably going to disagree with me, but I what I'm hoping to accomplish from this post, in addition to reasserting where I stand, is to get a lock on where precisely you and I are disagreeing. If you can pinpoint which places, it would make discussion much easier.
But if your actions are deterministic to the point where a being knows all of them in advanced, how do you have free will? In that case, God isn't foreseeing choices but merely how atoms and energy states will change in a predictable way. If you assume deterministic universe, what evidence is there of free will?
But if your actions are deterministic to the point where a being knows all of them in advanced, how do you have free will?
That's like asking if it's snowing in Wisconsin, how can I order scrambled eggs for breakfast? One has no bearing on the other.
God knowing what I choose ahead of time has no bearing on whether or not I have choice. The only thing that has any bearing on whether or not I have choice is just that, am I the one choosing or am I being controlled? Being able to know what I will choose before I choose it — whether it be via foresight or just knowing my personality really well — does not negate the fact that I am still the one choosing it.
Indeed, part-and-parcel of free will is that the greater somebody knows you, the more they should be able to anticipate your actions.
In that case, God isn't foreseeing choices but merely how atoms and energy states will change in a predictable way.
Explain to me how <Aragorn, figment of Tolkien's imagination> has a level of agency that rises to the standard of "free will".
Do that, and we don't even need to get to the agency of <Aragorn, human of Middle Earth>
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Explain to me how <Aragorn, figment of Tolkien's imagination> has a level of agency that rises to the level of "free will".
Do that, and we don't even need to get to the agency of <Aragorn, human of Middle Earth>
He doesn't. Neither Aragorn, nor Gina, nor Jim in Scenario P can be said to have any agency whatsoever.
Explain how in one scenario figment Aragorn has agency and in another scenario figment Aragorn doesn't, when in both scenarios he is the exact same Figment of Tolkiens imagination.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
That's like asking if it's snowing in Wisconsin, how can I order scrambled eggs for breakfast? One has no bearing on the other.
But having a choice means you re not bound to follow a particular path. Since in a deterministic universe all matter and energy only has one possible path it will follow, there are not multiple possible paths to "choose" from. Otherwise, how could god possibly know what the actions someone would take? There's no way to predict with 100% certainty what someone will choose if there's more than one possibility in the same way that I can't be 100% certain a coin toss will turn up heads. So if god can in fact predict with 100% certainty what someone will do, it means there are no other possibilities, like a coin having heads on both sides, meaning one cannot have a choice about the path they follow, meaning there cannot be free will in that scenario as they have no other paths to choose. If I have a bag with 1 red marble, out of all the marbles in the bad, what are the chances that I will pick up 1 red marble? 100%, because there's only 1 possible outcome, meaning there's a 1/1 chance of drawing the red marble, which is the same as 100/100 which converted into percentage is 100%, it was already determined that the only possible outcome was a red marble, there were no other options to choose from. Being able to predict something with 100% certainty implies there is only one possibility.
Explain how in one scenario figment Aragorn has agency and in another scenario figment Aragorn doesn't, when in both scenarios he is the exact same Figment of Tolkiens imagination.
He doesn't have agency in either scenario. Aragorn doesn't ever have free will.
I'm going to guess you're going to say, "Well, then why are you arguing Jim does?"
He doesn't in Scenario P, because in that scenario he's just another form of marionette. But in Scenario F, he does indeed have free will.
Again, the fact that God has this vision of what is going to happen doesn't really matter. The point is why the thing happens. Does Jim do Q because he is being made to do Q (Scenario P) or is he choosing to do Q (Scenario F)?
Indeed, the answer to that changes what it means to say that God sees what will happen before it does.
In Scenario P, God can be analogized to an author, animator, or puppeteer. The point is that God has complete, direct control over Jim, much as a Tolkien had complete, direct control over Aragorn and every other character in The Lord of the Rings. So when God has this imagining of Jim doing Q before he creates Q, that's because God's planning what he's going to make happen. Jim isn't actually in control here, and as such, Jim isn't acting. God is. So when God imagines Jim doing Q, God's imagining himself making Jim do Q.
It's like if a puppeteer preplanned a performance. The puppeteer plans to make the puppets do __. But the puppets aren't doing __, the puppeteer is the one manipulating strings or wires or whatever to cause the puppets to do ___. The puppeteer is planning his own actions, because he's the one acting.
But this isn't the same sort of thing that's happening in Scenario F. In Scenario F, when God is seeing Jim do Q prior to creating the universe, God is foreseeing what will result from Jim's choice. God is seeing the outcome of what will happen if he creates the universe, and if Jim comes to be, and if Jim is placed in the IcecreamMan Situation, to which God sees that Jim will choose Q.
These are different things, because in Scenario F, Jim is capable of independent decision and has an independent will. Unlike in Scenario P, Jim is not a puppet, and instead Jim's action in Scenario F comes from Jim. So in Scenario F, God is foreseeing the results of Jim's choice. He is anticipating Jim's action of choosing Q. His vision in Scenario F is the result of him knowing that if Jim is in the IcecreamMan Situation, Jim will choose Q.
Whereas in Scenario P, God is making Jim do Q. He knows what Jim will do because God's the one making him do it. It's like a puppeteer with a puppet. Of course the puppeteer knows what the puppet's going to do prior to the puppet doing it, because the puppet isn't actually the one acting, the puppeteer is.
Once again, if you disagree on any particular point, please indicate specifically which parts so that we can better understand one another's positions.
But having a choice means you re not bound to follow a particular path.
Correct.
Since in a deterministic universe all matter and energy only has one possible path it will follow, there are not multiple possible paths to "choose" from.
Which is why that isn't compatible with choice, and isn't the scenario we're talking about.
Otherwise, how could god possibly know what the actions someone would take? Outside of determinism, there's no way to predict with 100% certainty what someone will choose if there's more than one possibility in the same way that I can't be 100% certain a coin toss will turn up heads.
Yes, you can. People anticipate other people's actions all the time. If you know a person for a while, you can gather at least some ability to anticipate their actions in certain situations. We're hardwired to do exactly that; it's essential for human social behavior. Something as basic as, "This person will not try to kill me right now" is one such example.
The more you know a person, the more you should be able to predict what they will choose to do in a given situation. And as your knowledge of the person and knowledge of their given situation approaches 100%, your ability to predict what that person will do in that given situation should approach 100% accuracy.
And the coin thing doesn't follow either. If I know the force with which the person flipping the coin applies to the coin to send it into the air, and I know enough about the physics of the coin's motion, and I'm really good at math, I should be able to predict what side will come up. Certainly an omniscient being would have no difficulty with such a matter.
So if god can in fact predict with 100% certainty what someone will do, it means there are no other possibilities,
Explain how in one scenario figment Aragorn has agency and in another scenario figment Aragorn doesn't, when in both scenarios he is the exact same Figment of Tolkiens imagination.
He doesn't have agency in either scenario. Aragorn doesn't ever have free will.
I'm going to guess you're going to say, "Well, then why are you arguing Jim does?"
He doesn't in Scenario P, because in that scenario he's just another form of marionette. But in Scenario F, he does indeed have free will.
Again, the fact that God has this vision of what is going to happen doesn't really matter. The point is why the thing happens. Does Jim do Q because he is being made to do Q (Scenario P) or is he choosing to do Q (Scenario F)?
Indeed, the answer to that changes what it means to say that God sees what will happen before it does.
In Scenario P, God can be analogized to an author, animator, or puppeteer. The point is that God has complete, direct control over Jim, much as a Tolkien had complete, direct control over Aragorn and every other character in The Lord of the Rings. So when God has this imagining of Jim doing Q before he creates Q, that's because God's planning what he's going to make happen. Jim isn't actually in control here, and as such, Jim isn't acting. God is. So when God imagines Jim doing Q, God's imagining himself making Jim do Q.
It's like if a puppeteer preplanned a performance. The puppeteer plans to make the puppets do __. But the puppets aren't doing __, the puppeteer is the one manipulating strings or wires or whatever to cause the puppets to do ___. The puppeteer is planning his own actions, because he's the one acting.
But this isn't the same sort of thing that's happening in Scenario F. In Scenario F, when God is seeing Jim do Q prior to creating the universe, God is foreseeing what will happen. God is seeing the outcome of what will happen if he creates the universe, and if Jim comes to be, and if Jim is placed in the IcecreamMan Situation, to which God sees that Jim will choose Q.
These are different things. In Scenario P, God is planning what God will make Jim do. In Scenario F, God is foreseeing what Jim will choose, because in Scenario F, Jim is capable of independent decision and has an independent will. Unlike in Scenario P, Jim is not a puppet. So in Scenario F, God is foreseeing the results of Jim's choice. He is anticipating Jim's action of choosing Q. His vision in Scenario F is the result of him knowing that if Jim is in the IcecreamMan Situation, Jim will choose Q.
Whereas in Scenario P, God is making Jim do Q. He knows what Jim will do because God's the one making him do it. It's like a puppeteer with a puppet. Of course the puppeteer knows what the puppet's going to do prior to the puppet doing it, because the puppet isn't actually the one acting, the puppeteer is.
Once again, if you disagree on any particular point, please indicate specifically which parts so that we can better understand one another's positions.
But having a choice means you re not bound to follow a particular path.
Correct.
Since in a deterministic universe all matter and energy only has one possible path it will follow, there are not multiple possible paths to "choose" from.
Which is why that isn't compatible with choice, and isn't the scenario we're talking about.
Otherwise, how could god possibly know what the actions someone would take? Outside of determinism, there's no way to predict with 100% certainty what someone will choose if there's more than one possibility in the same way that I can't be 100% certain a coin toss will turn up heads.
Yes, you can. People anticipate other people's actions all the time. If you know a person for a while, you can gather at least some ability to anticipate their actions in certain situations. We're hardwired to do exactly that; it's essential for human social behavior. Something as basic as, "This person will not try to kill me right now" is one such example.
The more you know a person, the more you should be able to predict what they will choose to do in a given situation. And as your knowledge of the person and knowledge of their given situation approaches 100%, your ability to predict what that person will do in that given situation should approach 100% accuracy.
And the coin thing doesn't follow either. If I know the force with which the person flipping the coin applies to the coin to send it into the air, and I know enough about the physics of the coin's motion, and I'm really good at math, I should be able to predict what side will come up. Certainly an omniscient being would have no difficulty with such a matter.
So if god can in fact predict with 100% certainty what someone will do, it means there are no other possibilities,
Does not follow.
Being able to predict something with 100% certainty implies there is only one possibility because that is the only circumstance that a 100% certainty can occur, there's nothing to make a choice about, you do not have the ability to freely choose your own path, there is only one path you will follow which was already determined, assuming god can predict everything with 100% certainty.
In this universe were free-will seems to exist, there is no amount of mathematics that can 100% predict the exact position a coin will end up in. What you're suggesting is known as determinism and it was thrown out along with the rest of the Newtonian Model of the universe. Also, approaching a number is not the same as being that number. You can approach infinity, but there is no physical way to be at infinity.
Being able to predict something with 100% certainty implies there is only one possibility because that is the only circumstance that a 100% certainty can occur, there's nothing to make a choice about, you do not have the ability to freely choose your own path, there is only one path you will follow which was already determined, assuming god can predict everything with 100% certainty.
No, that doesn't follow.
If I know that in a given situation a person will choose a particular action, and he is in that situation and chooses exactly that action I predicted he would, that does not mean he didn't have a choice, nor does that mean only one action was possible. That person had the power to do other actions, but of the possible actions, he chose to do that one.
My knowing he would do that does not mean he didn't have agency, because my knowledge stems from my knowledge of that person and how he will choose.
Again, this is just a logical extension of what people do in daily life all the time. If I know a little about a person, I can predict some of his choices in certain situations. An omniscient being with complete and perfect knowledge of a person should be able to predict a person's choices with perfect accuracy.
There is no amount of mathematics that can 100% predict the exact position a coin in this realistic universe will end up in,
Knowledge of the force at which the coin was flipped and knowledge of coin movement mechanics would easily be able to predict how the coin will end up.
It might exceed human ability, but that certainly doesn't mean that it's beyond math and physics.
If I know that in a given situation a person will choose a particular action, and he is in that situation and chooses exactly that action I predicted he would, that does not mean he didn't have a choice, nor does that mean only one action was possible. That person had the power to do other actions, but of the possible actions, he chose to do that one.
But it does follow, unless you can prove there is another circumstance in which you can be 100% sure of something. And even with that, you would find in set theory that the only other way an event is 100% guaranteed to happen is if you assume that event B occurs when/after event A occurs where event A has a probability of 1, so it's the same as saying event B will surely happen because event A will surely happen. Philosophically, it's argued 100% certainty can occur at infinity, but there's no mathematical or physical way to prove that.
If he has free-will, what can he choose? In a deterministic universe, he was already bound to take a certain action and it wasn't anyone making a choice, it was simply the case that the matter and energy in his body had a 100% probability of choosing one specific path. The probability of him doing an action was 1 in the presence of an infinite amount of knowledge, which you are assuming god has.
In a way I guess you could still be right, it's possible he could have free-will but simply be helpless to effect his own actions...oh wait, I just remembered god has knowledge of everything and therefore knows about his conscious state which makes his conscious state subject to the same principal.
And this is why people are uncomfortable with determinism in the first place, because it is not them who is making any decision, it is simply matter and energy following a single deterministic path.
Knowledge of the force at which the coin was flipped and knowledge of coin movement mechanics would easily be able to predict how the coin will end up.
You can approximate the future position, but not predict with 100% certainty.
It might exceed human ability, but that certainly doesn't mean that it's beyond math and physics.
The only problem is that the ability to predict with certainty actually is based on mathematics and physics, and contemporary physics combined with mathematics says you cannot be 100% sure of any exact future position, and that's because not only are there an infinite number of possible locations for every particle to be in which are inherently random within parameters of probability, but there are infinitesimally small and therefore incalculable patterns which effect our observations. At best It would be like trying to "predict" the last number of pi.
For your reasoning to have a chance, god can't be omnipotent or "know" everything, which if you change your stance to means you accept god has no reason to be able to be 100% certain of the future positions or actions of anyone since if god isn't omnipotent there is objectively nothing stopping it from being subject to the same physics laws as us unless you arbitrarily insert that he isn't subject the same physical laws as us which defeated the purpose of saying he wasn't omnipotent since according to our laws we cannot be 100% certain of anything or "know everything" and the purpose of saying he isn't omnipotent is to make him subject to the physical and mathematical laws that state he cannot be 100% certain of anything. At least, assuming our evidence of what we observe is what we say we observed it to be, which if you assume it isn't, no one has the ground to be considered correct over anyone else and this entire debate is pointless.
But it does follow, unless you can prove there is another circumstance in which you can be 100% sure of something. And even with that, you would find in set theory that the only other way an event is 100% guaranteed to happen is if you assume that event B occurs when/after event A occurs where event A has a probability of 1, so it's the same as saying event B will surely happen because event A will surely happen. Philosophically, it's argued 100% certainty can occur at infinity, but there's no mathematical or physical way to prove that.
You're not making any sense.
The more I know a person, the more I know what that person will choose in a given situation. To know a person and the situation perfectly will mean perfect knowledge of that person's actions.
This is not only compatible with free will, it is required of free will, because the whole point of free will is that a person chooses things that stem from that person's self. To know that person's self is to know what that person will choose.
If he has free-will, what can he choose? In a deterministic universe,
In a deterministic universe, there is no choice or free will. We're not talking about a deterministic universe. We're talking about a universe with free will. I've already explained this multiple times.
If you assume god is omnipotent and knows everything, your point about limited knowledge doesn't matter.
I don't know what point about limited knowledge you are referring to here.
You can approximate the future position, but not predict with 100% certainty.
Does not follow. You would be able to calculate the trajectory of the coin, calculate the torque applied to the coin, calculate how long it's in the air, calculate how many times it spins, etc. The motion of the coin can most certainly be calculated, and that will tell you whether the coin lands heads or tails.
It is entirely within the realm of physics and math.
The only problem is that the ability to predict with certainty actually is based on mathematics and physics, and contemporary physics combined with mathematics says you cannot be 100% sure of any exact future position, and that's because not only are there an infinite number of possible locations for every particle to be in
A coin is not a particle, and there are most certainly not an infinite number of positions a flipped coin could occupy upon being flipped.
I missed post 11. I think you stated your interpretation of the OP most clearly there. Correct me if I am misrepresenting your point, but if "the plan" refers to an ultimate end goal, the intervening events can operate in a context of free will.
Sure,
It's possible for God to have a "end goal" that respects Free Will.
Now, maybe some actions are just too detrimental to that goal for God to allow. So once in a while he intervenes.
I'd call that manipulation, and not necessarily invalidates free will. However, it depends on how much manipulation you believe is too much manipulation.
God making one choice harder to make than another, and hoping you choose the one he wants, isn't necessarily a violation. It kinda depends on how hard he made it. Impossible? Then we have a problem.
I certainly buy some products over others because of great marketing. I don't believe great marketing violates my agency to make free choices.
On this, me and HR agree.
Now, if I'm indoctrinated...
I didn't choose to believe in God and Jesus growing up. Not freely anyways. I was raised in a religious household and indoctrinated with the Bible and Christianity from my earliest memories on.
It was very hard to break away from religion, and I had lost my faith long before I lost my church. If you get me.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
So does a plan "I will let people choose to love me or not" allow for free will? If so, how does one make this choice?
@ HR, as you do not believe in hell, does God force us to go to heaven? Note, I am not questioning the validity of your experiences which I profoundly believe occurred.
I don't know of a religion that isn't guilty of similar practices at some point.
Sure.
But again, if God had infallible foreknowledge prior to creating the universe...
God creates U#581 where Jim does Q.
If <Jim does Q> is <Jim loves God>, the problem is still the same. It is impossible for Jim to not love God. God only made the Universe where Jim loves God. Jim doesn't love God freely. He has no choice.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You are equating an specific end result with the plan, and foresight with controlling.
I know humanity will continue to build computers. But I am not causing them to do it.
Did you infallibly create U#404 where mankind builds computers?
I ask because HR has a habit of ignoring the act of creation.
We are not talking about mere knowledge, we're also talking about creation.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No, but I am saying God did not either. The goal of creation was not for man to create computers. He may have known it would happen, but that doesn't mean He made it happen. Creation was inherently built to allow fallibility: He imparted humanity with that authority. But that doesn't mean He designed creation to be falliable.
He did not forbid man making computers. Or doing evil for that matter. Man decided to do both. But that doesn't mean He impelled man to do either.
Either way, your argument is not the same as mine, so I don't know what you expect from me except to say, if you change the premise, obviously you change the result.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Wait, that doesn't follow, because Jim does Q first. Jim does Q before God creates Jim, because God sees Jim do Q first, THEN God creates Jim, right?
So why does Jim do Q?
Jim might not have had choice in a situation where there's fatalism and predetermination.
However, that does not prove that there cannot be free will, only fatalism and predetermination.
In other words, you are constructing a scenario in which Jim has no free will, and thus concluding that this is the only scenario. My intent is to prove that there are, in fact, other possible scenarios you are not considering. See below.
Wait. Wait wait wait.
This is the part we need to focus on.
If Jim does Q because he's programmed to do Q, then that means Jim never had any free will to begin with. This violates the basic premise of this thread.
Let me phrase this another way. This is a basic outline of the scenario you're talking about:
1. Jim does Q.
2. God, foreseeing the universe before anything happens, knows that Jim will do Q before Jim does Q.
3. God creates the universe.
4. Jim does Q.
Right?
The thing is, none of this explains WHY Jim does Q, which is the only truly relevant factor. The fact that God creates the universe is actually irrelevant to the question of whether or not Jim has free will. The only relevant matter is whether or not Jim has free will when he does Q or not.
Let me explain. Here are two scenarios. I we're going to call them Scenario P and Scenario F.
Scenario P (for Programming):
1. Jim does Q because he's programmed to do Q.
2. God, foreseeing the universe before anything happens, knows that Jim will do Q before Jim does Q, because, of course Jim does Q. God programmed him to do so.
3. God creates the universe.
4. Jim does Q.
Scenario F (for Free Will):
1. Jim does Q because he chooses to do Q of his own free will.
2. God, foreseeing the universe before anything happens, knows that Jim will do Q before Jim does Q.
3. God creates the universe.
4. Jim does Q because he chooses to do Q of his own free will.
Do you see the problem with what you're saying? God creating the universe creates no change between event #1 and event #4 of Scenario F.
The only thing that matters here is whether or not Jim has free will. If Jim has free will, God creating the universe has no influence on Jim having free will. He still has it. Likewise, if Jim doesn't have free will, God creating the universe has no influence on Jim not having free will.
In other words, you keep talking about how relevant and important to note God creating the universe is. Except, it doesn't. It's not relevant because it doesn't somehow remove free will.
The only relevant issue is whether or not Jim has free will. Since the OP takes as given that Jim has free will, it remains that Jim has free will. God creating the universe does not remove Jim having free will.
If I dream of a girl named Gina (who doesn't exist), and in my dream she has sex with me at a hotel (that doesn't exist)...THEN, using my magical powers, I create the universe of my dreams precisely to where Gina has sex with me at that hotel.
Does Gina have free will?
I argue no.
Are you actually arguing that figments of my dream do have free will? Please tell me this isn't the case. Please.
Let us follow that line of reasoning.
It would mean that Aragorn has free will. Someone (like say J.R.R. Tolkien)had to envision Aragorn before writing the LOTR storyline. J.R.R. Tolkien had to imagine the world of Middle Earth, and the quest to destroy the one ring, before writing it all out. No one in their right mind would argue that Aragorn has free will. Aragorn just does what Tolkien imagined him to do.
Now, understand that you'd be Aragorn, and maybe you think you have free will, it's a nice illusion. Unfortunately, you are just running the Aragorn helps Frodo destroy the one ring program.
(and of course, I'm arguing that if God had infallible foreknowledge prior to creating the Universe, he and Tolkien are the same in this respect)
No, it doesn't prove. I never said I proved anything.
I'm arguing it's incompatibility. I believe I've sufficiently argued my case with easy to understand reasoning.
Wrong again.
I am only showing an inconsistency.
For the last ****ing time, I ALREADY ADEQUATELY ANSWERED THE THREAD TOPIC, AND THEN THINGS WERE ALLOWED TO DRIFT.
No.
I will not allow you to twist my argument to suit your flawed understanding of things.
Jim does NOT exist prior to U#581.
Read about Gina, and Aragorn above.
Aragorn does not exist when Tolkien imagines him, he is a figment of Tolkien's imagination. If after Tolkien creates Middle Earth, Aragorn does something, it's because Tolkien wrote him that way.
Does Aragorn have free will?
If you say yes, we have even bigger problems than just you misunderstanding things.
Again, you may think it's irrelevant, but you have not provided any reasoning whatsoever for me to agree that it's irrelevant.
You can't just say creation is irrelevant, you have to persuade.
Is Tolkien writing LOTR irrelevant to whether characters in LOTR have free will?
Seems patently and obviously relevant to me.
I see the problem with what YOU are saying, but you have written a different scenario, one which I will not allow you to strawman MY argument into.
You are saying something very different than what I am saying.
I disagree.
I disagree.
I argue Aragorn does not have free will. He does only what Tolkien wrote him to do.
I disagree.
I already answered the OP, I answered the OP three times.
The conversation drifted.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
How often do you dream of this Gina girl? I can't help but notice this scenario is one you use often.
And you'd be right, she wouldn't.
This is not, however, analogous to what we're talking about. Gina does not have a free will or an identity independent of you. Jim does in Scenario F from God. That's the whole point of Scenario F. Gina is an example of a Scenario P.
Your problem is you're refusing the acknowledge the possibility of Scenario F. You seem to only think Scenario P is possible, when in fact Scenario F is entirely compatible with God creating the universe.
As I demonstrated before, your answer to the thread topic is essentially this line of conversation, that is to say, that God creating the universe is relevant. When it isn't.
It doesn't matter if he was created yet. He still does Q. Otherwise, God could not see Jim do Q.
Two problems:
1. Only in Scenario P is Jim analogous to Gina and Aragorn. In Scenario F, he isn't.
2. If you're going to argue that Jim does something because God programs Jim to do so, in the same way that Gina does something because Aragorn only does something because Tolkien writes it, then the fact that God creates the universe isn't relevant. It would only be relevant if Jim had free will prior to God creating the universe and then lost it when God did. Otherwise, it doesn't actually matter.
Once again, the only relevant detail is whether or not Jim has an independent will capable of making choices. If Jim doesn't have that, then he doesn't have that, but adding the details about God seeing Jim before he does it doesn't mean anything.
I have, actually. Multiple times now.
I haven't. I've provided reasoning.
Ok, then demonstrate where I got your scenario wrong then.
This is fundamentally erroneous.
Below, You will see why.
Let me once again, show you MY argument, and I'd appreciate you not making it into a straw man to satisfy your confusion.
1. J.R.R. Tolkien is a writer. (God, with infallible foreknowledge)
2. No books exists. (there is no Universe)
3. J.R.R. Tolkien imagines a world called Middle Earth, in it, a human named Aragorn helps a hobbit named Frodo on a quest to destroy the One Ring. Tolkien calls this The Lord of the Rings. (God imagines U#581, where Jim does Q)
4. J.R.R. Tolkien then writes the book The Lord of the Rings. (God creates U#581)
5. Because Tolkien writes The Lord of the Rings, it is now necessary for Aragorn to help Frodo destroy the One Ring. It could not be The Lord of the Rings otherwise.
Free Will
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will
"2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."
"1. (Philosophy)
a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined."
Is Aragorn helping Frodo destroy the One Ring consistent with Free Will?
No. His actions were constrained, and externally determined by a fate or divine will. (Tolkien wrote him to do what he does.)
That you would actually put "Aragorn helps Frodo" above and preceding "J.R.R. Tolkien imagines..." in your scenario shows me that you have a grossly and fundamentally flawed perception of creative responsibility.
This is why to me, creation is relevant, and to you it's irrelevant. You're not going to understand something until you realize you have a serious flaw in judgment.
The only one with a free choice in this is Tolkien. He is the one with the pen and pad here.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
In Scenario P, I would agree completely. Since Jim doesn't really have independent will or independent identity, much like Aragorn, he can't really be said to be acting at all. It is God who is acting, everyone else is a character in a book, or a character being drawn by an animator.
On that, I think we both agree.
The problem comes in with Scenario F, and here is where we diverge.
Now, let's go with what you're saying: God sees, before he ever creates the universe, Jim doing Q. So God, being omniscient, foresees the universe before it ever creates it, and he sees that if he creates the universe, Jim will do Q.
The thing that defines Scenario F is that in Scenario F, unlike Scenario P, the reason Jim does Q is because he chooses to do so.
So the fact that God sees this before he creates the universe doesn't really have bearing on whether or not Jim has free will. The reason God sees Jim perform Q in this scenario is because God knows what courses of action Jim will choose, not because Jim doesn't have the ability to choose, or because God is acting instead of Jim.
So if your argument is that God's foreknowledge somehow negates Jim having free will, your argument would require the addition of God's foreknowledge to the "Jim choosing Q of his own free will" scenario to somehow negate Jim having free will. I will disagree with this because God's foreknowledge of what Jim will choose stems from Jim having choice in the first place. In this scenario, God's not taking power over Jim like in Scenario P. He's letting Jim decide, which means Jim has the power to make his own decisions.
This is different from Scenario P, in which God is the only one who can be said to be acting, Jim is merely being acted upon. He doesn't actually have any true say, much like Aragorn doesn't. Although, I will posit that even in Scenario P, God's foreknowledge of the universe before he creates it doesn't really matter. What matters is why Jim does Q, and the answer being because Jim is being controlled directly by God, and the reason why Jim does anything is that God makes him do so, just like the reason Aragorn does anything is because Tolkien wrote him that way. God's foreknowledge, or even his creation of the universe, therefore, is not particularly relevant to the question of Jim having free will, given that if someone were not omniscient or the creator of the universe, but still were able to "bodyjack" Jim and make him do Q, Jim would also not have free will. It's the controlling of Jim that's the relevant factor.
Now, I think you're probably going to disagree with me, but I what I'm hoping to accomplish from this post, in addition to reasserting where I stand, is to get a lock on where precisely you and I are disagreeing. If you can pinpoint which places, it would make discussion much easier.
But if your actions are deterministic to the point where a being knows all of them in advanced, how do you have free will? In that case, God isn't foreseeing choices but merely how atoms and energy states will change in a predictable way. If you assume deterministic universe, what evidence is there of free will?
That's like asking if it's snowing in Wisconsin, how can I order scrambled eggs for breakfast? One has no bearing on the other.
God knowing what I choose ahead of time has no bearing on whether or not I have choice. The only thing that has any bearing on whether or not I have choice is just that, am I the one choosing or am I being controlled? Being able to know what I will choose before I choose it — whether it be via foresight or just knowing my personality really well — does not negate the fact that I am still the one choosing it.
Indeed, part-and-parcel of free will is that the greater somebody knows you, the more they should be able to anticipate your actions.
That does not follow or make sense.
Explain to me how <Aragorn, figment of Tolkien's imagination> has a level of agency that rises to the standard of "free will".
Do that, and we don't even need to get to the agency of <Aragorn, human of Middle Earth>
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
He doesn't. Neither Aragorn, nor Gina, nor Jim in Scenario P can be said to have any agency whatsoever.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But having a choice means you re not bound to follow a particular path. Since in a deterministic universe all matter and energy only has one possible path it will follow, there are not multiple possible paths to "choose" from. Otherwise, how could god possibly know what the actions someone would take? There's no way to predict with 100% certainty what someone will choose if there's more than one possibility in the same way that I can't be 100% certain a coin toss will turn up heads. So if god can in fact predict with 100% certainty what someone will do, it means there are no other possibilities, like a coin having heads on both sides, meaning one cannot have a choice about the path they follow, meaning there cannot be free will in that scenario as they have no other paths to choose. If I have a bag with 1 red marble, out of all the marbles in the bad, what are the chances that I will pick up 1 red marble? 100%, because there's only 1 possible outcome, meaning there's a 1/1 chance of drawing the red marble, which is the same as 100/100 which converted into percentage is 100%, it was already determined that the only possible outcome was a red marble, there were no other options to choose from. Being able to predict something with 100% certainty implies there is only one possibility.
He doesn't have agency in either scenario. Aragorn doesn't ever have free will.
I'm going to guess you're going to say, "Well, then why are you arguing Jim does?"
He doesn't in Scenario P, because in that scenario he's just another form of marionette. But in Scenario F, he does indeed have free will.
Again, the fact that God has this vision of what is going to happen doesn't really matter. The point is why the thing happens. Does Jim do Q because he is being made to do Q (Scenario P) or is he choosing to do Q (Scenario F)?
Indeed, the answer to that changes what it means to say that God sees what will happen before it does.
In Scenario P, God can be analogized to an author, animator, or puppeteer. The point is that God has complete, direct control over Jim, much as a Tolkien had complete, direct control over Aragorn and every other character in The Lord of the Rings. So when God has this imagining of Jim doing Q before he creates Q, that's because God's planning what he's going to make happen. Jim isn't actually in control here, and as such, Jim isn't acting. God is. So when God imagines Jim doing Q, God's imagining himself making Jim do Q.
It's like if a puppeteer preplanned a performance. The puppeteer plans to make the puppets do __. But the puppets aren't doing __, the puppeteer is the one manipulating strings or wires or whatever to cause the puppets to do ___. The puppeteer is planning his own actions, because he's the one acting.
But this isn't the same sort of thing that's happening in Scenario F. In Scenario F, when God is seeing Jim do Q prior to creating the universe, God is foreseeing what will result from Jim's choice. God is seeing the outcome of what will happen if he creates the universe, and if Jim comes to be, and if Jim is placed in the IcecreamMan Situation, to which God sees that Jim will choose Q.
These are different things, because in Scenario F, Jim is capable of independent decision and has an independent will. Unlike in Scenario P, Jim is not a puppet, and instead Jim's action in Scenario F comes from Jim. So in Scenario F, God is foreseeing the results of Jim's choice. He is anticipating Jim's action of choosing Q. His vision in Scenario F is the result of him knowing that if Jim is in the IcecreamMan Situation, Jim will choose Q.
Whereas in Scenario P, God is making Jim do Q. He knows what Jim will do because God's the one making him do it. It's like a puppeteer with a puppet. Of course the puppeteer knows what the puppet's going to do prior to the puppet doing it, because the puppet isn't actually the one acting, the puppeteer is.
Once again, if you disagree on any particular point, please indicate specifically which parts so that we can better understand one another's positions.
Correct.
Which is why that isn't compatible with choice, and isn't the scenario we're talking about.
Yes, you can. People anticipate other people's actions all the time. If you know a person for a while, you can gather at least some ability to anticipate their actions in certain situations. We're hardwired to do exactly that; it's essential for human social behavior. Something as basic as, "This person will not try to kill me right now" is one such example.
The more you know a person, the more you should be able to predict what they will choose to do in a given situation. And as your knowledge of the person and knowledge of their given situation approaches 100%, your ability to predict what that person will do in that given situation should approach 100% accuracy.
And the coin thing doesn't follow either. If I know the force with which the person flipping the coin applies to the coin to send it into the air, and I know enough about the physics of the coin's motion, and I'm really good at math, I should be able to predict what side will come up. Certainly an omniscient being would have no difficulty with such a matter.
Does not follow.
Being able to predict something with 100% certainty implies there is only one possibility because that is the only circumstance that a 100% certainty can occur, there's nothing to make a choice about, you do not have the ability to freely choose your own path, there is only one path you will follow which was already determined, assuming god can predict everything with 100% certainty.
In this universe were free-will seems to exist, there is no amount of mathematics that can 100% predict the exact position a coin will end up in. What you're suggesting is known as determinism and it was thrown out along with the rest of the Newtonian Model of the universe. Also, approaching a number is not the same as being that number. You can approach infinity, but there is no physical way to be at infinity.
No, that doesn't follow.
If I know that in a given situation a person will choose a particular action, and he is in that situation and chooses exactly that action I predicted he would, that does not mean he didn't have a choice, nor does that mean only one action was possible. That person had the power to do other actions, but of the possible actions, he chose to do that one.
My knowing he would do that does not mean he didn't have agency, because my knowledge stems from my knowledge of that person and how he will choose.
Again, this is just a logical extension of what people do in daily life all the time. If I know a little about a person, I can predict some of his choices in certain situations. An omniscient being with complete and perfect knowledge of a person should be able to predict a person's choices with perfect accuracy.
Knowledge of the force at which the coin was flipped and knowledge of coin movement mechanics would easily be able to predict how the coin will end up.
It might exceed human ability, but that certainly doesn't mean that it's beyond math and physics.
But it does follow, unless you can prove there is another circumstance in which you can be 100% sure of something. And even with that, you would find in set theory that the only other way an event is 100% guaranteed to happen is if you assume that event B occurs when/after event A occurs where event A has a probability of 1, so it's the same as saying event B will surely happen because event A will surely happen. Philosophically, it's argued 100% certainty can occur at infinity, but there's no mathematical or physical way to prove that.
If he has free-will, what can he choose? In a deterministic universe, he was already bound to take a certain action and it wasn't anyone making a choice, it was simply the case that the matter and energy in his body had a 100% probability of choosing one specific path. The probability of him doing an action was 1 in the presence of an infinite amount of knowledge, which you are assuming god has.
In a way I guess you could still be right, it's possible he could have free-will but simply be helpless to effect his own actions...oh wait, I just remembered god has knowledge of everything and therefore knows about his conscious state which makes his conscious state subject to the same principal.
And this is why people are uncomfortable with determinism in the first place, because it is not them who is making any decision, it is simply matter and energy following a single deterministic path.
If you assume god is omnipotent and knows everything, your point about limited knowledge doesn't matter.
You can approximate the future position, but not predict with 100% certainty.
The only problem is that the ability to predict with certainty actually is based on mathematics and physics, and contemporary physics combined with mathematics says you cannot be 100% sure of any exact future position, and that's because not only are there an infinite number of possible locations for every particle to be in which are inherently random within parameters of probability, but there are infinitesimally small and therefore incalculable patterns which effect our observations. At best It would be like trying to "predict" the last number of pi.
For your reasoning to have a chance, god can't be omnipotent or "know" everything, which if you change your stance to means you accept god has no reason to be able to be 100% certain of the future positions or actions of anyone since if god isn't omnipotent there is objectively nothing stopping it from being subject to the same physics laws as us unless you arbitrarily insert that he isn't subject the same physical laws as us which defeated the purpose of saying he wasn't omnipotent since according to our laws we cannot be 100% certain of anything or "know everything" and the purpose of saying he isn't omnipotent is to make him subject to the physical and mathematical laws that state he cannot be 100% certain of anything. At least, assuming our evidence of what we observe is what we say we observed it to be, which if you assume it isn't, no one has the ground to be considered correct over anyone else and this entire debate is pointless.
You're not making any sense.
The more I know a person, the more I know what that person will choose in a given situation. To know a person and the situation perfectly will mean perfect knowledge of that person's actions.
This is not only compatible with free will, it is required of free will, because the whole point of free will is that a person chooses things that stem from that person's self. To know that person's self is to know what that person will choose.
In a deterministic universe, there is no choice or free will. We're not talking about a deterministic universe. We're talking about a universe with free will. I've already explained this multiple times.
I don't know what point about limited knowledge you are referring to here.
Does not follow. You would be able to calculate the trajectory of the coin, calculate the torque applied to the coin, calculate how long it's in the air, calculate how many times it spins, etc. The motion of the coin can most certainly be calculated, and that will tell you whether the coin lands heads or tails.
It is entirely within the realm of physics and math.
A coin is not a particle, and there are most certainly not an infinite number of positions a flipped coin could occupy upon being flipped.