Functional definability: free will in creation and God

[Bahman]

I’m sorry, I’m giving up this discussion. I know you’re trying to disprove free will but nothing you’ve said here makes sense to me.

I am not trying to disprove free will. All I am saying is that it is either intrinsic or illusion. We have no prove for either. The main focus of this thread is however whether God can grant free will or not?

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by seagal
I’m sorry, I’m giving up this discussion. I know you’re trying to disprove free will but nothing you’ve said here makes sense to me.

I am not trying to disprove free will. All I am saying is that it is either intrinsic or illusion. We have no prove for either. The main focus of this thread is however whether God can grant free will or not?

Note to newcomers to this forum:

Bahman is obviously trying to disprove free will,
or at least put doubt about it in people’s minds.
He’s started several threads questioning free will.

I go to MacDonald’s. I can choose anything on their menu. Or I can go across the street to Burger King.
I have free will.

Case closed.

 

[seagal]

Note to newcomers to this forum:

Bahman is obviously trying to disprove free will,
or at least put doubt about it in people’s minds.
He’s started several threads questioning free will.

I go to MacDonald’s. I can choose anything on their menu. Or I can go across the street to Burger King.
I have free will.

Case closed.

That is not helpful. The concept of free will is not as cut and dried as that. It has been under discussion by philosophers and theologians for centuries. newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#prf

 

[seagal]

I am not trying to disprove free will. All I am saying is that it is either intrinsic or illusion. We have no prove for either. The main focus of this thread is however whether God can grant free will or not?

We have proof of free will (or at least evidence) because of the fact that after God created Adam and Eve he gave them the command not to eat of the tree. This implicitly shows that they had the freedom to do as God asked or not. The bible is full of references to free will by showing that we have a choice who we will serve. Here’s a few of them. If God expects us to make up our own minds that implies that we can.

 

[davidv]

This is already been discussed. God can only grant something which he knows in another word something which is functionally definable. Functionally definable means that given (name removed by moderator)ut to a system God knows what is the outcome of system and free will does not belong to this category since free will is not functionally definable because the circumstances does not define a decision and if it is so there is no free will.

This is barely intelligible. It seems to be a severe case of question begging.

 

[Bahman]

We have proof of free will (or at least evidence) because of the fact that after God created Adam and Eve he gave them the command not to eat of the tree. This implicitly shows that they had the freedom to do as God asked or not. The bible is full of references to free will by showing that we have a choice who we will serve. Here’s a few of them. If God expects us to make up our own minds that implies that we can.

That I am aware of. This is however philosophy forum so we need to stick to argument. Moreover, it has never mentioned that God grant Adam and Eve free will. We however can deduce the existence of free will from the story.

 

[Bahman]

This is barely intelligible. It seems to be a severe case of question begging.

It is not. A designer needs to know how designed system functions. I am wondering if you know otherwise. If it is so could you please explain it to me?

In simple word you can not design free will or we couldn’t be free if it was designable. This is in fact a very correct statement.

 

[seagal]

That I am aware of. This is however philosophy forum so we need to stick to argument. Moreover, it has never mentioned that God grant Adam and Eve free will. We however can deduce the existence of free will from the story.

“Functional definability” is about mathematical logic, not philosophical logic. At least from what I can find.

Here is an argument for you.
If free will exists then humans are morally responsible for their actions.
Humans are morally responsible for their actions.
Therefore, free will exists.

 

[seagal]

It is not. A designer needs to know how designed system functions. I am wondering if you know otherwise. If it is so could you please explain it to me?

In simple word you can not design free will or we couldn’t be free if it was designable. This is in fact a very correct statement.

Not in my opinion.
God designed us with the capacity of free will.
God does not determine what we will do with our free will.
Therefore we are free to do what we like, which includes accepting the consequences of choosing wrongly.

 

[Bahman]

“Functional definability” is about mathematical logic, not philosophical logic. At least from what I can find.

Functional definability are used in some field of philosophy of mind which I think it is relevant to topic.

Here is an argument for you.
If free will exists then humans are morally responsible for their actions.
Humans are morally responsible for their actions.
Therefore, free will exists.

This is true if we accept that we are morally responsible for our actions and if we accept that moral responsibility is related to free will then the rest follows. One however has to first prove that we are morally responsible for our action. The counter examples are people who don not follow morality when they decide. Morality is a well accept fact on a norm of a society but the fact that it is a well accepted does not prove anything. It is a weight putted by society in our shoulder when we want to make a decision. Secondly, to me moral responsibility acts as only a fact helping us to decide, but decision is not equal to free will since I can define a system which is functionally definable and decide based on circumstances but it is not free. To me moral responsibility is one of many facts that we make our decision upon such as, like and dislike, good and evil, moral and immoral, etc.

What is discussed however is beyond the subject of this thread. The core idea behind this thread is whether God can grant free will to an agent considering the fact that free will is not functionally definable yet to grant something one need to know how it functionally works.

I think you agreed that God knows our decision based on given circumstances because he is omniscience. This means that there exist a function that define our decisions in any given situation hence we are not free. The fact that we are not aware of this function does not grant us freedom.

 

[Bahman]

Not in my opinion.
God designed us with the capacity of free will.
God does not determine what we will do with our free will.
Therefore we are free to do what we like, which includes accepting the consequences of choosing wrongly.

Ok, then I would ask you this question again whether God knows our decision based on given circumstances which is equivalent that there exist a function which defines our behavior which we are not aware of but the very fact that we are not aware of this function does not grant us freedom.

 

[empther]

It’s always a pleasure to debunk Bahman’s confused theories,

Ok, then I would ask you this question again whether God knows*** our decision based on given circumstances *** that’s the curve ball, folks ] which is equivalent that there exist a function which defines our behavior which we are not aware of but the very fact that we are not aware of this function does not grant us freedom.

Our decision is not “based on given circumstances”. Circumstances may influence what kind of decision we are faced with, but do not determine whether we will choose “yes” or “no” or simply ignore the problem ( which is sometimes an option ).

So your argument falls apart. ( as always )

 

[Bahman]

It’s always a pleasure to debunk Bahman’s confused theories,

Our decision is not “based on given circumstances”. Circumstances may influence what kind of decision we are faced with, but do not determine whether we will choose “yes” or “no” or simply ignore the problem ( which is sometimes an option ).

So your argument falls apart. ( as always )

You are not reading throughly again.

First, I asked whether God knows our decisions based on circumstances? You answer is no which then you have to explain how God could then know our decisions hence future?
Second, how could God then create if he doesn’t know how things works based on given circumstances? How could he have any plan?
Third, if your decisions are not based on anything then how you could move on? In another word there is nothing that causes you to do anything!

 

[seagal]

This is true if we accept that we are morally responsible for our actions and if we accept that moral responsibility is related to free will then the rest follows. One however has to first prove that we are morally responsible for our action. The counter examples are people who don not follow morality when they decide. Morality is a well accept fact on a norm of a society but the fact that it is a well accepted does not prove anything.** It is a weight putted by society in our shoulder when we want to make a decision. Secondly, to me moral responsibility acts as only a fact helping us to decide,** but decision is not equal to free will since I can define a system which is functionally definable and decide based on circumstances but it is not free. To me moral responsibility is one of many facts that we make our decision upon such as, like and dislike, good and evil, moral and immoral, etc.

What is discussed however is beyond the subject of this thread.

So I’ll leave the question about whether you’re a moral relativist for now.

Ok, then I would ask you this question again whether God knows our decision based on given circumstances which is equivalent that there exist a function which defines our behavior which we are not aware of but the very fact that we are not aware of this function does not grant us freedom.

And I will say again that I believe God created us with free will. I also believe that given God’s omniscience he knows our decisions. That does not logically lead to the statement that there is a function that defines our behaviour. You haven’t said anything here that changes that. You keep restating your original premise but haven’t yet backed it up with anything.

 

[empther]

Bahman’s post 33

You are not reading throughly again.

First, I asked whether God knows our decisions based on circumstances?

Rhetorical trick: change the subject

You answer is no

I didn’t address that. Rhetorical trick: accuse somebody of saying what they didn’t say.

which then you have to explain how God could then know our decisions hence future?

Rhetorical trick: ignore points already made. At least a thousand times in these forums we’ve discussed how God knows the future through his eternity, omniscience, unchangeabelness etc etc, but Bahman ignores all that to set up another straw man as follows…

Second, how could God then create if he doesn’t know how things works based on given circumstances? How could he have any plan?

Rhetorical trick: draw out another false conclusion from the previous false conclusion just stated. God knows how all things work and will work and what circumstances will come up. As for planning, he doesn’t determine circumstances which are partly the result of human actions, and he doesn’t determine our decisions.

Third, if your decisions are not based on anything then how you could move on? In another word there is nothing that causes you to do anything!

Rhetorical trick: use word connotations incorrectly.
The base of a statue necessarily holds up the statue, and the statue necessarily stands on the base.
But our decisions in response to circumstances are not necessary or determined. Circumstances do not cause us to make this decision or that one.

 

[Bahman]

So I’ll leave the question about whether you’re a moral relativist for now.

Th focal point of my discussion is that morality is a concept that help us to decide in a given circumstances. I don’t think if we can prove that existence of a moral principle could prove free will since free will is the ability to follow or precede a well accepted concept such as, like and dislike, moral and immoral etc. In another word, to me saying that morality means free will is like saying that dislike means we have free will. We of course need twin of any concepts like moral an immoral in order to allow free will to intervene.

And I will say again that I believe God created us with free will. I also believe that given God’s omniscience he knows our decisions. That does not logically lead to the statement that there is a function that defines our behaviour. You haven’t said anything here that changes that. You keep restating your original premise but haven’t yet backed it up with anything.

Assume an agent with free will who is exposed to different circumstances C={c1,c2,…}. God does know or see that given C person make the according decisions D={d1,d2,…} which means that there is a unique map between C and D. This means that for c1 we get d1, for c2 we get d2, etc. We cannot make two different decisions given circumstances at the same time meaning that given c we cannot do d and d’. This is exactly the definition of a function meaning that if C is large enough then D defines the outcome hence for any c we have one d. This is simply meaning of functional definability based on existence C and foreknowledge.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman’s post 33

Rhetorical trick: change the subject

That is not true. Please read post #31.

I didn’t address that. Rhetorical trick: accuse somebody of saying what they didn’t say.

You did so. Please read post #32.

Rhetorical trick: ignore points already made. At least a thousand times in these forums we’ve discussed how God knows the future through his eternity, omniscience, unchangeabelness etc etc, but Bahman ignores all that to set up another straw man as follows…

Thank you. God knows it because God see it. Thanks I knew it. But one can show that to see is equivalent of functional definability. Please read post #36.

Rhetorical trick: draw out another false conclusion from the previous false conclusion just stated. God knows how all things work and will work and what circumstances will come up. As for planning, he doesn’t determine circumstances which are partly the result of human actions, and he doesn’t determine our decisions.

You seems to fail to have an answer. Could God have a simple plan for creation? Please just answer this.

Rhetorical trick: use word connotations incorrectly.
The base of a statue necessarily holds up the statue, and the statue necessarily stands on the base.
But our decisions in response to circumstances are not necessary or determined. Circumstances do not cause us to make this decision or that one.

That I understand. So you need circumstances to decide base upon them. My question was however what cause you to perform a decision given circumstances. You can say I decided based on X but I was free to do otherwise hence existence of X is necessary for making decision yet not enough. My question is what is sufficient cause and where it comes from.

 

[seagal]

Assume an agent with free will who is exposed to different circumstances C={c1,c2,…}.** God does know or see that given C person make the according decisions** D={d1,d2,…} which means that there is a unique map between C and D. This means that for c1 we get d1, for c2 we get d2, etc. We cannot make two different decisions given circumstances at the same time meaning that given c we cannot do d and d’. This is exactly the definition of a function meaning that if C is large enough then D defines the outcome hence for any c we have one d. This is simply meaning of functional definability based on existence C and foreknowledge.

That’s a huge assumption and contradicts what we know of God’s omniscience and omnipresence. As I said in the other thread you’ve got going about foreknowledge, God doesn’t have to predict the future because he’s already there.

 

[Bahman]

That’s a huge assumption and contradicts what we know of God’s omniscience and omnipresence.

Why it is huge? It is not as huge as creation. I am telling you that I consider one person and you call it huge, and I am telling you how about creation and you call it alright. What is your definition of omniscience?

As I said in the other thread you’ve got going about foreknowledge, God doesn’t have to predict the future because he’s already there.

And that is the problem since you define the future as something which is already exist, definable and unique so if you don’t bother with the fact that C is huge then our actions are functionally definable hence there is no free will.

 

[inocente]

What is functional definability? In simple word it means that there exist a function that can explain the behavior of a system. The question is existence of this function since one can claim that creation is not possible if this function does not exist. Why? Because either the act creation is intelligently designed which means that the outcome should exactly match with what was designed which means this function exist or it is not which means that the behavior of system is unknown to God so the question is how God can create something he cannot know.

I think you misunderstand what a function does.

Shuffle a pack of cards and spread them out face up. Chances are you’re the first person to ever see cards in that order (the number of possible orders = factorial 52 = 8×10[sup]67[/sup] = a really big number).

Yet not knowing the order after you shuffled didn’t stop the pack’s designers creating it.