God cannot create a being with free will!

[Bahman]

Here is the argument:

1. Design means planning to build/create something according to specific function
2. Free will is the ability to decide between two equally liked options
3. From (2) we can deduce that free will is not a functional ability since one cannot define a function which choose one output from two (name removed by moderator)uts when two (name removed by moderator)uts are equally liked
4. From (3) we can deduce that God cannot design a being with free will
5. From (4) we can deduce that God cannot create a being with free will

 

[Memaw]

Here is the argument:

1. Design means planning to build/create something according to specific function
2. Free will is the ability to decide between two equally liked options
3. From (2) we can deduce that free will is not a functional ability since one cannot define a function which choose one output from two (name removed by moderator)uts when two (name removed by moderator)uts are equally liked
4. From (3) we can deduce that God cannot design a being with free will
5. From (4) we can deduce that God cannot create a being with free will

So what else is new, we have always tried to tell God what HE can and cannot do.(that in itself is an exercise of free will !!) God Bless, Memaw

 

[Crusaderbear]

so, given the same set of (name removed by moderator)uts, everyone should make the same decision every time, yet they do not.

Would you agree that free will is developed through our life experiences?

In which case, those of us who believe in God have been given the ability to exercise free will!

 

[davidv]

Here is the argument:

1. Design means planning to build/create something according to specific function
2. Free will is the ability to decide between two equally liked options
3. From (2) we can deduce that free will is not a functional ability since one cannot define a function which choose one output from two (name removed by moderator)uts when two (name removed by moderator)uts are equally liked
4. From (3) we can deduce that God cannot design a being with free will
5. From (4) we can deduce that God cannot create a being with free will

Your god that cannot create a being without free is a false god.

The one true God has created beings with free will, humans, He has demonstrated this ability.

 

[Gorgias]

1. Free will is the ability to decide between two equally liked options

This is not the definition of free will: “two equally liked options” is not part of a valid definition in this context. (Simple counter-example in order to invalidate this premise: by your definition, the choice between chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry ice cream (if equally liked) is not a free will decision? A second counter-example: I like butter pecan ice cream, but I love chocolate ice cream – if I choose butter pecan (just because I’m in the mood for it), that is not a free will decision?)

Your argument fails here. Well, not only here, but initially here…

1. From (2) we can deduce that free will is not a functional ability since one cannot define a function which choose one output from two (name removed by moderator)uts when two (name removed by moderator)uts are equally liked

Of course I can define such a function! I can define lots of functions that choose an arbitrary output from two (or even more!) (name removed by moderator)uts!

Here’s another place where your argument fails: you’re attempting to say that there is no distinction in preference between the two (name removed by moderator)uts, but “equally liked” is only one axis among a potential multitude of axes of preference. (Example: I ‘equally like’ Mike and Mary. But, I’m only going to ask Mary to the prom. I ‘equally like’ ice cream and steak; but, I’m only going to choose steak for dinner.)

Even if you try to say that, among all possible types of preference, there is no preference among the choices, then I can still design a function to choose arbitrarily. Game over.

 

[Rhubarb]

(2) and (3) are inaccurate. Argument is unsound.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Nice compelling post Gorgias :

FREE WILL.
The power of the will to determine itself and to act of itself, without compulsion from within or coercion from without. It is the faculty of an intelligent being to act or not act, to act this way or another way, and is therefore essentially different from the operations of irrational beings that merely respond to a stimulus and are conditioned by sensory objects.

**WILL. **
The power of the human soul, or of a spiritual being, which tends toward a good or away from an evil recognized by the intellect. It is basically a rational appetite with several functions, namely the ability to intend, choose, desire, hope, consent, hate, love, and enjoy.

MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY ; Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

 

[petra22]

So what else is new, we have always tried to tell God what HE can and cannot do.(that in itself is an exercise of free will !!) God Bless, Memaw

:yup:

 

[anthonymarie]

Here is the argument:

1. Design means planning to build/create something according to specific function
2. Free will is the ability to decide between two equally liked options
3. From (2) we can deduce that free will is not a functional ability since one cannot define a function which choose one output from two (name removed by moderator)uts when two (name removed by moderator)uts are equally liked
4. From (3) we can deduce that God cannot design a being with free will
5. From (4) we can deduce that God cannot create a being with free will

The argument assumes we are all some kind of Turing machines and then concludes rather unsurprisingly that we must behave like some kind of Turing machines. When in step 3 you say “one cannot define a function which chooses one output from two (name removed by moderator)uts which are equally liked”, you are assuming the use of a deterministic mechanism.

In other words, you are assuming that all things are deterministic and then concluding that it must be impossible to make something that’s not

 

[e_c]

One never chooses between two “equally liked options.” The very idea is contradictory. To choose is to want (or “like”) something more.

We are not as free as God. Freedom (and choice) for us involves a double-causation rather than God’s singular causation.

Banez is right, Molina is wrong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is not the definition of free will: “two equally liked options” is not part of a valid definition in this context. (Simple counter-example in order to invalidate this premise: by your definition, the choice between chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry ice cream (if equally liked) is not a free will decision? A second counter-example: I like butter pecan ice cream, but I love chocolate ice cream – if I choose butter pecan (just because I’m in the mood for it), that is not a free will decision?)

Your argument fails here. Well, not only here, but initially here…

Of course I can define such a function! I can define lots of functions that choose an arbitrary output from two (or even more!) (name removed by moderator)uts!

Here’s another place where your argument fails: you’re attempting to say that there is no distinction in preference between the two (name removed by moderator)uts, but “equally liked” is only one axis among a potential multitude of axes of preference. (Example: I ‘equally like’ Mike and Mary. But, I’m only going to ask Mary to the prom. I ‘equally like’ ice cream and steak; but, I’m only going to choose steak for dinner.)

Even if you try to say that, among all possible types of preference, there is no preference among the choices, then I can still design a function to choose arbitrarily. Game over.

The word “axis” is an important one to understand here. Human beings may operate along multidimensional axes. “Like” might be one way of describing one of those. Others would include prudence, morality and aesthetics (not an exhaustive list.) The “freedom” then would reside in the agent deciding the relative standing of each “dimension” with regard to this or that particular decision as it arises. And there exists always the choice NOT to choose, which shouldn’t be underestimated.

What Bahman fails to account for is how the agent arrives at the final choice. It may be that in this instance s/he went with “likes,” but that, in itself, does not mean all the other dimensions were not within the realm of what was considered. The agent went with “liked” but that does not mean they were compelled to do so by the force of that dimension alone, it may have been that a completely free “choice” was made to disallow the other dimensions in this instance or to treat them as being insufficient with regard to influencing the final option.

Either way, to argue that the choice determined the outcome in a way that disproves free will is to argue retrospective determinism. What is necessary, it would seem, is to prove that the agent could not possibly have chosen a different outcome.

Merely because they finalized on one does not, by itself, prove they could not have done otherwise. Essentially, it begs the question by assuming the choice was determined because it occurred.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Can an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise God, Who is pure Act, pure simplicity, pure Being, pure Goodness, create rational beings with free-will? I am more certain that God possesses these attributes than that He cannot create beings who are free like Himself. (God is Uncaused; He is necessarily free).

 

[Bahman]

So what else is new, we have always tried to tell God what HE can and cannot do.(that in itself is an exercise of free will !!) God Bless, Memaw

So this is an argument? It doesn’t seem so.

 

[Bahman]

so, given the same set of (name removed by moderator)uts, everyone should make the same decision every time, yet they do not.

No. given the same set of (name removed by moderator)uts, everyone make different decision each time.

Would you agree that free will is developed through our life experiences?

No, we cannot develop our free will through life experiences. Life experience just enrich our sense of judgement.

In which case, those of us who believe in God have been given the ability to exercise free will!

Free will has nothing to do with belief.

 

[Bahman]

Your god that cannot create a being without free is a false god.

The one true God has created beings with free will, humans, He has demonstrated this ability.

This is not an argument.

 

[Bahman]

This is not the definition of free will: “two equally liked options” is not part of a valid definition in this context. (Simple counter-example in order to invalidate this premise: by your definition, the choice between chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry ice cream (if equally liked) is not a free will decision?

Yes, that is a free decision,

A second counter-example: I like butter pecan ice cream, but I love chocolate ice cream – if I choose butter pecan (just because I’m in the mood for it), that is not a free will decision?)

No, that is not a free decision since you are in a specific mode.

Your argument fails here. Well, not only here, but initially here…

So my argument stands.

Of course I can define such a function! I can define lots of functions that choose an arbitrary output from two (or even more!) (name removed by moderator)uts!

You of course cannot define a function with one output when your function gives the same value to two (name removed by moderator)uts.That is the whole point. We turned into a simple machine if our decisions are functional.

Here’s another place where your argument fails: you’re attempting to say that there is no distinction in preference between the two (name removed by moderator)uts, but “equally liked” is only one axis among a potential multitude of axes of preference. (Example: I ‘equally like’ Mike and Mary. But, I’m only going to ask Mary to the prom. I ‘equally like’ ice cream and steak; but, I’m only going to choose steak for dinner.)

Even if you try to say that, among all possible types of preference, there is no preference among the choices, then I can still design a function to choose arbitrarily. Game over.

Please read the previous comment.

 

[Bahman]

(2) and (3) are inaccurate. Argument is unsound.

Please tell me why (2) and (3) are inaccurate. You understand them. Don’t you?

 

[Bahman]

The argument assumes we are all some kind of Turing machines and then concludes rather unsurprisingly that we must behave like some kind of Turing machines. When in step 3 you say “one cannot define a function which chooses one output from two (name removed by moderator)uts which are equally liked”, you are assuming the use of a deterministic mechanism.

In other words, you are assuming that all things are deterministic and then concluding that it must be impossible to make something that’s not

Quite oppositely I am arguing that we are not a Turning machine since there exist not a function which can define my free decision.

 

[Bahman]

One never chooses between two “equally liked options.” The very idea is contradictory. To choose is to want (or “like”) something more.

We are not as free as God. Freedom (and choice) for us involves a double-causation rather than God’s singular causation.

Banez is right, Molina is wrong.

There is no place for free will when you are determined or want to choose one option among two options.

 

[John_Martin]

Free will is not a choice between two equally liked options.

Free will is someone doing an unliked and unpleasant undesirable thing without being compelled to do it as a slave.

Free will is not the choice between vanilla or chocolate ice cream; free will is “choosing to clean the manure out of the barn” after the cows are milked and the cream from the cows milk is being made into ice cream.