How God could create a being with free will?

[Bahman]

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.

 

[Semangelof]

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

What do you mean here?

 

[Bahman]

What do you mean here?

I meant that there should be no constrain on the action of a being who has free will. This should include law of nature which indeed act as a constrain that define behaviour of being.

 

[Semangelof]

I meant that there should be no constrain on the action of a being who has free will. This should include law of nature which indeed act as a constrain that define behaviour of being.

Why would the free will have to be ultimate, without constraint?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Premise #1 is false. You have free will if you have SOME determination of your actions. I can freely choose to eat a sandwich, even if I can’t freely choose to fly.

 

[Bahman]

Why would the free will have to be ultimate, without constraint?

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

Here are your actions A and B: Action A is eating Fruit Loops, Action B is taking a nap. Both these actions are clearly constrained by the laws of physics. Are you saying it is impossible for me to freely take a nap, in such a situation?

 

[Semangelof]

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.

Well even if A is blocked one can still choose B

Even if x number of choices are blocked so long as one can freely choose one of them then they have free will. They only need to choose once to qualify.

 

[Bahman]

Premise #1 is false. You have free will if you have SOME determination of your actions. I can freely choose to eat a sandwich, even if I can’t freely choose to fly.

I meant those sort of action which we can perform, like lying in a situation etc. Of course, we as a being are subjected to some constraints, for example we cannot fly etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I meant those sort of action which we can perform, like lying in a situation etc. Of course, we as a being are subjected to some constraints, for example we cannot fly etc.

But your first premise was “A being with free will is free of any constraint including laws of nature.” If I cannot fly, on this definition, I do not have free will.

Perhaps you should say, “A free choice is a choice that is not determined by its external constraints”? But then you couldn’t get your conclusion. At any rate, your argument doesn’t work unless you fix the first premise somehow.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well even if A is blocked one can still choose B

Even if x number of choices are blocked so long as one can freely choose one of them then they have free will. They only need to choose once to qualify.

Free choice in a situation where there are no alternatives sounds fishy. It’s kind of like God tells you, “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse.”

 

[Bahman]

But your first premise was “A being with free will is free of any constraint including laws of nature.” If I cannot fly, on this definition, I do not have free will.

Perhaps you should say, “A free choice is a choice that is not determined by its external constraints”? But then you couldn’t get your conclusion. At any rate, your argument doesn’t work unless you fix the first premise somehow.

How about this:

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 undefinable since it is free of any law that define its decision.
3. A being which is undefinable could not exist or be created.
4. A being with free will could not exist or be created.

 

[Semangelof]

Free choice in a situation where there are no alternatives sounds fishy. It’s kind of like God tells you, “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse.”

It does sound fishy I’ll admit. The only way to explain it is in an analogy.

Imagine I implant a device in your brain while your sleeping. When triggered the device will cause your arms to be paralyzed. Now the next day you go out to vote in the big presidential election. I don’t want you to vote for candidate A. So if you try to pull the lever for him I’m going to activate my device so you can’t. If you decide to vote for candidate B I’m going to do nothing.

If you are choosing candidate B then you are freely making that choice.
If you choose candidate A then ZAP!

 

[jmjconder]

**I suggest your original definition of free will is incorrect. Read Father John Hardon’s:

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.

**

Truth: God created man and woman in His image and likeness and gave them power of the will. How does your OP fit into this?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It does sound fishy I’ll admit. The only way to explain it is in an analogy.

Imagine I implant a device in your brain while your sleeping. When triggered the device will cause your arms to be paralyzed. Now the next day you go out to vote in the big presidential election. I don’t want you to vote for candidate A. So if you try to pull the lever for him I’m going to activate my device so you can’t. If you decide to vote for candidate B I’m going to do nothing.

If you are choosing candidate B then you are freely making that choice.
If you choose candidate A then ZAP!

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?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How about this:

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 undefinable since it is free of any law that define its decision.
3. A being which is undefinable could not exist or be created.
4. A being with free will could not exist or be created.

I don’t understand what you mean by something being “undefinable”. Do you mean unpredictable? Of course that is true – that’s exactly what we mean by “free will”!

You seem to think that being “definable” means to have one’s actions determined by laws. But of course, if that’s what being definable means, people without free will are undefinable. But it’s far from clear that – under THIS definition of “definable” – undefinable things can’t exist. In fact, you end up arguing in a circle, I think.

 

[Bahman]

**I suggest your original definition of free will is incorrect. Read Father John Hardon’s:

Truth: God created man and woman in His image and likeness and gave them power of the will. How does your OP fit into this?**

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.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t understand what you mean by something being “undefinable”. Do you mean unpredictable? Of course that is true – that’s exactly what we mean by “free will”!

You seem to think that being “definable” means to have one’s actions determined by laws. But of course, if that’s what being definable means, people without free will are undefinable. But it’s far from clear that – under THIS definition of “definable” – undefinable things can’t exist. In fact, you end up arguing in a circle, I think.

I meant indefinable and thanks for finding the typo. By indefinable I meant unpredictable:

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.

 

[POJIUJH]

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.

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I meant indefinable and thanks for finding the typo. By indefinable I meant unpredictable:

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

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