How God could create a being with free will?

[Lasting_faith]

I think God did give us a free will because you can not force anyone to love someone, and I mean that we love God because we have a free will. If not, we would be forced to love Him and then our love would have no meaning. God never do anything “just because” or for the reason that He have nothing to do, all He does are focused on one and only one goal, to save as many as possible among those who without force love Him and do His will. It ain’t rocket-science, just thinking a bit further then the next meal.

I know my answer is worth nothing in this case, but I am not educated in any way you can think. So I look at the world in a very simple manner, and don’t ask my self or others anything I can’t understand. But as I wrote, we have free will because God, who did create us, gave us free will so that all our actions would be a) showing that we love Him and therefore do His will without force, and b) to give a free will to choose between good and bad, the latter most likely because He know, and did knew, that some of us will stray and maybe not find the right path after all, but giving them a chance all the way, leaving also those with no faith the possibility to do what is right in His eyes. Only God can love so much that He is ready to accept also those who have been roaming the wrong roads for a while to find the path home. Sorry guys, can’t give a better answer.

 

[Semangelof]

But then, I might just say that you had the illusion of free choice in such a situation – that is, you had phenomenological free choice, but not executive free choice. I agree that such an action is experienced as free, but I’m not sure that it *is *free.

If God made all of our decisions overdetermined in that way, wouldn’t be a little odd for God to say that He exerted no control over our actions?

Yes, but I’m not saying that. That was an analogy to explain the possibility of my comment.

There is no illusion of free will here. The person freely chose his candidate for president. The execute power had no bearing on that persons ability to make the choice he made.

The only dum-dum I want is the root beer one. I choose root beer. Someone can take all the other dum-dums away and not effect my choice for a root beer dum-dum. What ever is done with the things I did not choose has no bearing on my choice.

That first analogy is paraphrased from William Lane Craig (not sure if original author), it is one of the arguments in support of divine simplicity.

 

[jmjconder]

**

I don’t have any problem with that definition. Use that definition for the free will when it comes to decide to act or not act an action on a situation in the first phrase and follow the rest. My question from you is simple: how you could be free to decide on a situation when there is a constraint on you which hardly influence your decision such that you lose your free will on the situation?

** You have no free will if there is any law or constraint that define how you make a decision. This makes a free decision and as a result the individual with free will as undefinable being.

Explain to me the difference in your reasoning between choice and free will. Are you interchanging them? They are not the same. Free will is rooted in freedom:

CCC 1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, but I’m not saying that. That was an analogy to explain the possibility of my comment.

There is no illusion of free will here. The person freely chose his candidate for president. The execute power had no bearing on that persons ability to make the choice he made.

But if you admit that God would be tinkering with our freedom by making it so that the only option is the one we “freely” choose, then you are committed to denying that “the person freely chose his candidate for president”. If billions of such decisions would not be free, since God tinkered with them, then one such decision is not free either. You either have to (a) accept that God could make all creatures free without giving them any options, or (b) deny that the candidate choice is an authentic example of using free will.

 

[TomD123]

The problem is that your argument is implicitly working off of this definition of free will:

“The absolute freedom to choose, without any external constraint (maybe even influence) any course of action”

The problem is that your argument falls apart once free will is defined more restrictively. Premise 1 would turn out to be false if free will is defined as:
“The inherent ability to chose between all options”
Premise 1 fails because the external constraints determine the options available. Nothing in the definition excludes external factors and influences that might hinder the ability. Just like external factors might prevent us from seeing, we still have the inherent ability to see.

 

[Semangelof]

But if you admit that God would be tinkering with our freedom by making it so that the only option is the one we “freely” choose, then you are committed to denying that “the person freely chose his candidate for president”.

Could you explain this more?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Could you explain this more?

If you’re saying that I vote for the candidate freely in your example, then this means that everyone in the world could have free will without anyone ever having two or more distinct real options in their choices.

But then, why couldn’t God just create a deterministic universe, where no one ever has any options, and yet everyone’s choices are perfectly free? You seem to have denied this possibility too, though, when you said that God would be tinkering in such a case.

 

[Semangelof]

If you’re saying that I vote for the candidate freely in your example, then this means that everyone in the world could have free will without anyone ever having two or more distinct real options in their choices.

But then, why couldn’t God just create a deterministic universe, where no one ever has any options, and yet everyone’s choices are perfectly free? You seem to have denied this possibility too, though, when you said that God would be tinkering in such a case.

(respectfully)
This is a singular instance (which never even mentioned God) showing how someone can still make a choice even though the alternate choice is blocked. The story is an analogy to help with understanding a premise.

It does not suggest anything other than that the premise is true. It does not suggest the mind of God, it does not suggest that our world is universally set up like this, it does not suggest that even God is the one tinkering. The only thing it suggests is that the premise is true in at least one possible instance.

Only one instance is required for the premise to be possible. Since I have only made one instance you would have to prove that instance wrong and then I would have to ask you to rectify divine simplicity in the aftermath.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

(respectfully)
This is a singular instance (which never even mentioned God) showing how someone can still make a choice even though the alternate choice is blocked. The story is an analogy to help with understanding a premise.

But EVERY decision could be like this, if God overdetermined the world causally.

So I just propose doing a thought experiment, and asking if there is true freedom in that overdetermined world. Since such a world is logically possible, there have to be true answers to whether such a world has free will or not.

I’m not implying God is really like that. It’s a philosophical thought experiment.

 

[Semangelof]

But EVERY decision could be like this, if God overdetermined the world causally.

So I just propose doing a thought experiment, and asking if there is true freedom in that overdetermined world. Since such a world is logically possible, there have to be true answers to whether such a world has free will or not.

I’m not implying God is really like that. It’s a philosophical thought experiment.

I get what your saying now. But if the world you created does exhibit a counter to the premise then it only represents a single possible scenario where it would be untrue. It wouldn’t accomplish anything against the premise I made if that was your intent.

I’m bad with words so I guess I should be blunt, should I be defending my premise or brainstorming with you? The first is required of me and the second would be good and interesting conversation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I get what your saying now. But if the world you created does exhibit a counter to the premise then it only represents a single possible scenario where it would be untrue. It wouldn’t accomplish anything against the premise I made if that was your intent.

I’m bad with words so I guess I should be blunt, should I be defending my premise or brainstorming with you?

Oh, whatever. I do this for a living, so I can be pretty annoying when I get going on it.

Essentially, I was trying to trap you in Socratic fashion, by showing that your premise, followed to its logical conclusion, had an implausible result. Thus, you either had to deny your premise, or accept the implausible result. It’s a philosophical technique that is very annoying, admittedly.

As for my example only showing a single possible scenario in which it was untrue, it seems to me that whatever makes you think this voting decision was free would also make you think that any decision in which you had two apparent options (but only one real one) would be freely willed. But then this would apply to the “God overdetermines everything” world.

 

[bzkoss236]

I was thinking about the free will and the creating and came out with the following argument which I would be happy to discuss it with you:

1. A being with free will is free of any constraint including laws of nature.
2. A being that is free of any constraint is undefinable since it is free of any law that define its action.
3. A being which is undefinable could not exist or be created (unless if it God that is infinite and does not need a creator).
4. A being with free will could not be created or exist.

I disagree with your premises. Free will is defined as the freedom of choice; not the freedom to defy all laws, including physical. Choice means an act of the will. So, free will works within our physical constraints, because will is about intent. You can be intent on doing something, but not physically able to do it (lest you risk bodily injury).

 

[prodigalson2011]

I was thinking about the free will and the creating and came out with the following argument which I would be happy to discuss it with you:

1. A being with free will is free of any constraint including laws of nature.

A being with free will is not free of constraint (unless that being is God), it is free of material form, to some degree at least, and thus free of purely physical laws (though in the case of man, being also a physical being, matter may have an effect on the intellect/will (i.e. chemical imbalances, etc.)

1. A being that is free of any constraint is undefinable since it is free of any law that define its action.

“A being free of any constraint” is what God is. However, to say that something is “free of any constraint” is a bit misleading, because there are some things even God cannot do: the logically absurd. So a being without limit necessarily knows and has the power to do anything that is possible.

1. A being which is undefinable could not exist or be created (unless if it God that is infinite and does not need a creator).

Ah, but see, beings with free will are definable because they are intellectual substances with some form (in the case of angels, purely intellectual form, i.e. there is some limit to their knowledge and power; in the case of humans the intellectual form is limited even moreso by its attachment to a material form.)

1. A being with free will could not be created or exist.

By my argument, we can conlude that beings with free will can and have been created. Their freedom is a limited freedom in comparison to God’s (God can do anything possible, we can do whatever does not exceed our nature.)

To give a quick paraphrase of Aquinas, intellect (which provides free will) is simply existence free of matter. In so much as there are beings who are either completely (angels) or partly (humans) free of material form, these beings have free will; they are not undefinable because there are limits to their intellects, and since intellects are not physical things, these limits are intellectual and not physical (or what we would commonly call the laws of nature).

This, incidentally, is also why Aquinas taught that each angel is a species unto itself, because the only way to distinguish between angels is by their intellectual form (degree of knowledge, etc.) so that there could not be two angels which had the same amount of knowledge and power, etc.; in such a case, they would simply be the same angel.

 

[Neildown]

I was thinking about the free will and the creating and came out with the following argument which I would be happy to discuss it with you:

1. A being with free will is free of any constraint including laws of nature.

Can’t say I agree with that, as freedom of one’s will does not require complete freedom from one’s circumstances, tendencies, pleasures, or displeasures. The whole point of free will is to be able to make what you will of the circumstances given - it’s not a free pass to unlimited power, nonetheless power that supersedes our current condition.

1. A being that is free of any constraint is undefinable since it is free of any law that define its action.

Depends on what you consider a constraint and why. Truth is something self-evident, and so it is true that we exist and that we have the ability to make what we want of our given circumstances. Free will, being a truth, is constrained to that status rather than as a falsity. So there are technical constraints on it depending on how truth and falsity are perceived. I see truth/goodness as being a “positive” and falsity/badness as a “negative”, in that negativity has no net value other than it’s effect on an existing positive. That said, negativity does “exist” in some lesser meaning, but only has a discernible value when positivity exists for it to negate. In other words, even though free will is constrained from being a non-truth it has free range within the context of positive existence, which is all that really counts, given that the alternative is inherently self-destructive and pointless, other than as a possible/probable catalyst for the continued creation of goodness. Given those circumstances there are no unjust constraints that tamper with the just use of free will.

1. A being which is undefinable could not exist or be created (unless if it God that is infinite and does not need a creator).

1. A being with free will could not be created or exist.

I believe my points above do well enough to debase these further claims.

 

[Semangelof]

Oh, whatever. I do this for a living, so I can be pretty annoying when I get going on it.

As for my example only showing a single possible scenario in which it was untrue, it seems to me that whatever makes you think this voting decision was free would also make you think that any decision in which you had two apparent options (but only one real one) would be freely willed. But then this would apply to the “God overdetermines everything” world.

I was afraid I was being annoying in my social awkwardness.

Well I don’t know if in every conceived situation it will hold true, I just know that in one situation it is true. As far as I know in it’s official use there was never any motivation to show it true more than once. I guess I don’t have much motivation to enter this world if my purpose is solely to defend the premise.

I love discussing ideas and whittling things into truth. What job do you retain that allows you do this?

 

[Jozefo]

Ah, yes. Appealing to counterfactuals will do it. But then, I might just say that you had the illusion of free choice in such a situation – that is, you had phenomenological free choice, but not executive free choice. I agree that such an action is experienced as free, but I’m not sure that it *is *free.

If God made all of our decisions overdetermined in that way, wouldn’t be a little odd for God to say that He exerted no control over our actions?

I look at it like this: he lived in the Garden as a tenant; a guest, if you will. And he had free run of the place except for one condition. He violated the terms of his lease, and was evicted. He retained his freedom in most things, but was an insolvent debtor. If he were able to repay the debt, his full solvency would be restored.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Assume a situation with two choices A and B, then we can make the following argument:

1. A being with free will is free to choose actions A or B on a situation.
2. There is a constraint X which doesn’t allow action A then action A can not be performed.
3. The being does not have free will to choose action A and as a result does not have any free will on that situation.

There is a difference between choosing to do a thing and doing the thing. It is entirely possible to decide to do the impossible. It just won’t work.

I can decide to toss my car across the garage. When I try to act on that decision I will fail, and if I am smart I will know that I will fail before I make the decision. But that doesn’t really have anything to do with the decision.

Free will isn’t primarily about what you do. It’s about what you decide to do, whether you pull it off or not.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There is a difference between choosing to do a thing and doing the thing. It is entirely possible to decide to do the impossible. It just won’t work.

 

[Linux]

I don’t have any problem with that definition. Use that definition for the free will when it comes to decide to act or not act an action on a situation in the first phrase and follow the rest. My question from you is simple: how you could be free to decide on a situation when there is a constraint on you which hardly influence your decision such that you lose your free will on the situation? You have no free will if there is any law or constraint that define how you make a decision. This makes a free decision and as a result the individual with free will as undefinable being.

If one was nothing but the physical laws that define biological processes, then no we do not have freewill. But you are assuming that freewill can only be discussed within the constraints of physical laws.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I love discussing ideas and whittling things into truth. What job do you retain that allows you do this?

I’m a professional philosopher.

(Doesn’t pay much, but it can be pretty fun).

Nice talking with you!