How God could create a being with free will?

[Bahman]

Free will is separate from constraint. A person can be constrained against their will, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a will, it just means they don’t have a choice.

Free will is defined as having the ability to choose between options, not necessarily being able to choose them. We can say we willed something even if it isn’t possible (like how a person that wills someone dead, is the same in principle if not in practice as a murderer). Free will doesn’t require omnipotence of the individual, it only means that it must have been inherited from Someone who Is.

After all, if we have free will but are limited to our choices, it only means that we must have inherited that ability from something greater than us (you cannot give what you do not have), but that had the ability to grant it.

I didn’t mean physical external physical constrains. I mean any constraint that restrict our mental activity for making any decision in a situation. More precisely, action in my definition are those that are feasible to perform.

I corrected the premise 2 to reflect what I meant and sorry for the confusion (I had to be more careful when it comes to discussion like this).:

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 any decision for action A at all then action A can not be decided and 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.

 

[Bahman]

To have free will **means **to be unpredictable. Why couldn’t God create a being who is unpredictable?

Something which is unpredictable is indefinable as well. What is indefinable, if it is not infinite, has logical intrinsic problem which doesn’t allow definability.

 

[Bahman]

**

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:

**

Choice: any mental option in a situation which are feasible to be perform.

Free will: the ability to make a choice in a situation with at least two choices.

 

[Bahman]

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.

My argument doesn’t fall when I use your definition: “The inherent ability to chose between all options”. But first of all you have define the ability for me. Does ability is derived by what we know as our nature and could we define our nature and as the result the ability? If so we can came out with law of nature that define us and as a result our abilities including free will. My question from you is about definability of free will. Could we define and explain it? I mean it is logically possible to open this black box so called free will and tell people how does it works. What really happen at the instance when we make a choice, could we define it?..

 

[Bahman]

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).

Could you please tell me what premise you disagree with it and why? By will I meant a wish or desire which is feasible. I slightly correct my premises to help readers from further confusions.

1. A being with free will is free of any constraint including laws of nature when it comes to decision making on a situation.
2. A being that is free of any constraint is indefinable since it is free of any law that define its decision.
3. A being which is indefinable could not exist or be created.
4. A being with free will could not exist or be created.

 

[Bahman]

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.

I used law of nature which in principle is different from law of physics. It contain law of physics which explain matter and its behaviour in simple form and any other laws which are needed to explain other beings and forms (including matter in extremely complex form) like law of psychology if one day we could write them down.

 

[Bahman]

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.)

“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.

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.)

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.

I already explained what I mean with choice and free will in my previous posts. I hope these posts remove the partial problem you have with my premises.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Something which is unpredictable is indefinable as well. What is indefinable, if it is not infinite, has logical intrinsic problem which doesn’t allow definability.

OK, but why does this mean it could not exist?

 

[Semangelof]

I’m a professional philosopher.

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

Nice talking with you!

You too.

I got to take a philosophy course back in my college days and loved it. It’s hard not to change majors on the first class.

 

[Bahman]

OK, but why does this mean it could not exist?

I need to provide a few arguments to show the consequence of this anomaly (ineffability of free will), one theistic and atheistic:

Theistic:

1. God can only create an entity that are logically definable.
2. Definability means that free will does not exist following the previous argument.
3. No entity with free will could exist since it could not be created.
4. God can create an entity that are logically indefinable.
5. God cannot know/understand the entity because it is indefinable.
6. God cannot create an entity that it could not know/understand.
7. God cannot create an entity that are logically indefinable.
8. No entity with free will could exist since it could not be created.
9. God cannot create entity which are logically indefinable.
10. Free will requires indefinability.
11. We are Gods’ creations/creatures.
12. No entity with free will could exist since it could not be created.

Atheistic:

1. Laws of nature is without any anomaly that means everything is definable under this sets of laws (if we accept they are finite).
2. Free will is a quality which is indefinable.
3. We exist.
4. We cannot have free will and exist.
5. Laws of nature in principle could have a finite set of anomalies.
6. An anomaly means indefinability.
7. Presence of an anomaly means that laws of nature is ill- defined and as a result are not laws of nature.
8. Free will could not exist since it is an anomaly.
9. We exist.
10. We cannot have free will and exist.

 

[jmjconder]

Choice: any mental option in a situation which are feasible to be perform.

Free will: the ability to make a choice in a situation with at least two choices.

Are these your definitions or those from Catholic teaching. If they are from a Cathoilc source…please cite.

I believe that “choice” is rooted in humanity and free will is rooted in our creation in the image and likeness of God.

For my journey in the spiritual life I have experienced the difference. Since realizing this I have made a choice of my free will - named unification in the spiritual life - to freely follow God’s plan for the salvation of my soul.

 

[TomD123]

My argument doesn’t fall when I use your definition: “The inherent ability to chose between all options”. But first of all you have define the ability for me. Does ability is derived by what we know as our nature and could we define our nature and as the result the ability? If so we can came out with law of nature that define us and as a result our abilities including free will. My question from you is about definability of free will. Could we define and explain it? I mean it is logically possible to open this black box so called free will and tell people how does it works. What really happen at the instance when we make a choice, could we define it?..

Yes it does fall apart. I will plug that definition into your argument and show you why it fails.
But first, notice what I meant by “all options,” As my post explained, this does not entail all conceivable options but all options available given the external circumstances.

1. A being with [The ability to chose between all options] is free of any constraint including laws of nature when it comes to decision making on a situation.
2. A being that is free of any constraint is indefinable since it is free of any law that define its decision.
3. A being which is indefinable could not exist or be created.
4. A being with [The ability to chose between all optionscould not exist or be created.

From plugging in my definition to the above, clearly, premise 1 is false.
If all options is defined as all available options given the external circumstances, it is clear that the constraints including the laws of nature determine which options are available. Also, the definition allows for the ability to chose to be INFLUENCED by external factors**

 

[jmjconder]

Choice: any mental option in a situation which are feasible to be perform.

Free will: the ability to make a choice in a situation with at least two choices.

**I suggest again that your definitions are not accurate. I have already provided reliable souces to define.

Please research some truthful sources to understand what the Catholic definition is according to Sacred Scripture and teaching.

Right now it seems to be personal opinion on how free will and choice are defined.

Cathechism of the Catholic Churh
New Advent (web-site)
Fr John Hardon (Website)**

 

[Bahman]

1. A being with [The ability to chose between all options] is free of any constraint including laws of nature when it comes to decision making on a situation.

Lets focus on the first and second premises to see that there nothing wrong within them. But to simplify the problem I consider a situation with two choices. I also imagine a thought experiment to explain what I mean with choice and free will.

Thought experiment: One has a piece of chocolate on a table, sitting on a chair, looking at piece of chocolate and think whether he/she should eat the chocolate. So the action is eating chocolate and the choices are to eat or not to eat. Assume that the choices are desired equally and there is not any external constrain on the person to change the ability of the person and give different preferences on different actions. We need the last condition otherwise our thought experiment becomes predictable. The relation between free will and unpredictability is very crucial otherwise we turn into simple agents who just perform predicable actions and as a result we are not responsible for our actions.

Now consider the time interval at which the person decide about the action. The time at which that decision is made and also the outcome of the decision are unpredictable for even the person who perform the thought experiment. At one moment the person decide to eat the chocolate and perform the action.

Remember that the outcome of this thought experiment was unpredictable until the moment that decision was made. The person should be even free of law of nature while he was performing his/her decision otherwise the law of nature act as a hard constrain on the person’s decision and define the outcome. This put the mental condition of the person in an completely unpredictable/undefinable condition. It is undefinable since if it was definable then the process of decision making could become clear and as the result the outcome could be known prior either using law of nature or any other constrain.

 

[Bahman]

Are these your definitions or those from Catholic teaching. If they are from a Cathoilc source…please cite.

I believe that “choice” is rooted in humanity and free will is rooted in our creation in the image and likeness of God.

For my journey in the spiritual life I have experienced the difference. Since realizing this I have made a choice of my free will - named unification in the spiritual life - to freely follow God’s plan for the salvation of my soul.

They are my definitions. Do you see any problem in them?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Lets focus on the first and second premises to see that there nothing wrong within them. But to simplify the problem I consider a situation with two choices. I also imagine a thought experiment to explain what I mean with choice and free will.

Thought experiment: One has a piece of chocolate on a table, sitting on a chair, looking at piece of chocolate and think whether he/she should eat the chocolate. So the action is eating chocolate and the choices are to eat or not to eat. Assume that the choices are desired equally and there is not any external constrain on the person to change the ability of the person and give different preferences on different actions. We need the last condition otherwise our thought experiment becomes predictable. The relation between free will and unpredictability is very crucial otherwise we turn into simple agents who just perform predicable actions and as a result we are not responsible for our actions.

Now consider the time interval at which the person decide about the action. The time at which that decision is made and also the outcome of the decision are unpredictable for even the person who perform the thought experiment. At one moment the person decide to eat the chocolate and perform the action.

Remember that the outcome of this thought experiment was unpredictable until the moment that decision was made. The person should be even free of law of nature while he was performing his/her decision otherwise the law of nature act as a hard constrain on the person’s decision and define the outcome. This put the mental condition of the person in an completely unpredictable/undefinable condition. It is undefinable since if it was definable then the process of decision making could become clear and as the result the outcome could be known prior either using law of nature or any other constrain.

Why do you think that free will must imply an unpredictable outcome?

I mean in many cases it probably does, sure, but why always?

 

[jmjconder]

**

They are my definitions. Do you see any problem in them?

**

I believe that “choice” is rooted in humanity and free will is rooted in our creation in the image and likeness of God.

There is a difference between choice and free will…I stand by my quote above.

 

[TomD123]

Thought experiment: One has a piece of chocolate on a table, sitting on a chair, looking at piece of chocolate and think whether he/she should eat the chocolate. So the action is eating chocolate and the choices are to eat or not to eat. Assume that the choices are desired equally and there is not any external constrain on the person to change the ability of the person and give different preferences on different actions. We need the last condition otherwise our thought experiment becomes predictable. The relation between free will and unpredictability is very crucial otherwise we turn into simple agents who just perform predicable actions and as a result we are not responsible for our actions.

Now consider the time interval at which the person decide about the action. The time at which that decision is made and also the outcome of the decision are unpredictable for even the person who perform the thought experiment. At one moment the person decide to eat the chocolate and perform the action.

Remember that the outcome of this thought experiment was unpredictable until the moment that decision was made. The person should be even free of law of nature while he was performing his/her decision otherwise the law of nature act as a hard constrain on the person’s decision and define the outcome. This put the mental condition of the person in an completely unpredictable/undefinable condition. It is undefinable since if it was definable then the process of decision making could become clear and as the result the outcome could be known prior either using law of nature or any other constrain.

Unpredictable does not equal free will. Most people who act freely act predictably also.

Also, external constraints were present in the thought experiment. The external constraint for example of chocolate being on the table in the first place and not cake as well. Hence external constraints change the options available. External influence does not diminish freedom, I really am not clear on where you are coming from. Why can’t someone be both free and influenced?

 

[bzkoss236]

Unpredictable does not equal free will. Most people who act freely act predictably also.

Also, nowhere has anyone said that someone’s free will cannot be persuaded either. If that were true, then there wouldn’t be a thing called temptation.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I already explained what I mean with choice and free will in my previous posts. I hope these posts remove the partial problem you have with my premises.

Let’s work with this formulation:

1) A being with free will is free of any constraint including laws of nature when it comes to decision making on a situation.

There is just no reason to suppose that this is true. All that is necessary for a being to make a free decision in a given situation is a rational intellect (which we quite clearly have). Free will follows from knowledge and understanding, both of which intellectual beings clearly possess. A being with free will does not have to be free of any constraint, it must simply be in control, to some degree, of its causal activity. If we know and understand the effects of different actions, we can choose to perform one or the other based on that knowledge. There is nothing outside of us forcing us to do one or the other. We may have an internal inclination towards one or the other based on our emotions or physiology, but, except in cases of extreme mental impairment, we can still choose to act against such inclinations; a fact to which most everyone can attest.

2) A being that is free of any constraint is indefinable since it is free of any law that define its decision.

This, along with the rest of the argument, only follows if premise 1 is true. However, you have not provided any reason to think that premise 1 is true.