One final time: freedom of will does NOT logically lead to evil actions

[Spock]

But God knowing they would fall is still different than God determining that they would fall. So W2 may’ve been the only possible world.

You must be kidding. If W1 is impossible for whatever reason, then W2 is also impossible for the same reason. The **outcome **of the decision cannot determine the possibility of the world…

 

[tonyrey]

**No matter how many moral agents are in a world, and no matter how many decisions are made, there is at least one possible world where all the agents make only morally upright decisions - while retaining their free will. **

**

This proposition implies that it is possible for all moral agents in the world to be morally infallible and perfect. How would you justify this proposition?

Can you explain precisely how free will could be restricted to the choice of **morally upright decisions?

 

[Spock]

This proposition implies that it is possible for all moral agents in the world to be morally infallible and perfect. How would you justify this proposition?

What is your problem with it? Is it possible for one person to make one morally correct action? If the answer is “yes”, then it can be extended via mathematical induction.

Can you explain precisely how free will could be restricted to the choice of morally upright decisions?

It does not have to be restricted. We all feel sometimes frustrated, but very few of us give in to the urge. And we are not saints.

 

[fhansen]

You must be kidding. If W1 is impossible for whatever reason, then W2 is also impossible for the same reason. The **outcome **of the decision cannot determine the possibility of the world…

Sorry, I don’t understand. Why is it impossible that the only possible world would be one where all people make immoral decisions? An immoral decision in Catholic thought is one that results in disorder-a person acting out of character in any way, large or small.

 

[tonyrey]

What is your problem with it? Is it possible for one person to make one morally correct action? If the answer is “yes”, then it can be extended via mathematical induction.

Do you really believe mathematical induction solves the problem of free will? Your argument is based on the assumption that God can give us conditional free will, i.e. the power to make some choices and not others. But if we are genuinely free we can frustrate God’s will and make evil decisions about anything we choose whenever we choose. By giving us free will He restricts His omnipotence **unconditionally. **Right from the start it is possible for a person to make one morally correct action but it is also possible for the same person to make one morally incorrect action. Whatever choice is made is beyond God’s control. He is not a detached Creator, Observer and Manipulator of what we do. He makes Himself as well as others vulnerable to the consequences of evil choices and decisions.

 

[tobias]

1. Let’s start with a very simple world, where there is one moral agent, who makes one decision. In that case there are two possible worlds, one, where the agent makes a moral choice (regardless of how moral is defined) and another one, where the agent makes an immoral choice. God can actualize either one of these worlds. Therefore there is one world with free will and no evil evil choices. For any mathematician, this is sufficient. To those of you who are not mathematicians, it seems like a trivial example, which does not correspond to the real world. Therefore I am going to spell it out.

World two would mean it is a different agent than in world one, for the difference in world would mean a difference in agent. The difference in the choice would mean a different agent= Agent 1 in world 1 makes choice x, agent 1 in world 2 makes choice y, in world 2 it is no longer agent 1, it is agent 1’. This is irrespective of whether the new choice is even moral or not since in world two it is other than what agent 1 does choose (in world 1), thus another agent.

1. Now let’s consider a world, with one moral agent, who makes many decisions. Let the number of decisions be “N”. In this case there are “N + 1” possible worlds, where the agent makes exactly 0, 1, 2, etc… all the way up to N morally upright decisons. God can actualize either one of these worlds, so he can actualize the world, where the agent makes “N” moral decisions - in other words, when all the decisions are morally proper. One can make the argument, that this world is also too simplistic. So, let us carry on.

see above. N1 in world1, N2 in world 2, etc…

1. The next possible scenario is when there are “M” moral agents in the world, and each of them makes exactly one decision. In this case there are “M + 1” possible worlds, where 0, 1, 2, etc… up to “M” moral choices are made. God can actualize any one of these worlds, so he can actualize the one where each moral agent makes a morally good choice. In this world we also have free will, no coersion, and no immoral choices. Just in case some of you still harbor doubts I will spell out the final scenario.

It is no longer ‘we’, but ‘they’.

1. The final possible scenario is where there are “N” moral agents, and each of them makes “M” decisons. Both “N” and “M” can be any arbitrary number, so this scenario precisely reflects our current world. Since each agent makes “M” decisions, the number of possible worlds is “(N + 1)*(M + 1)”. Of these possible worlds there is one where each agent makes only moral decisions. In all the other ones at least one agent makes at least one immoral decision. God can also instantiate or actualize any one of these worlds, since none of them contains a logical contradiction.

The only logical contradiction is that an agent is the same in an other world, particularily if the agent chooses differently.

Result: No matter how many moral agents are in a world, and no matter how many decisions are made, there is at least one possible world where all the agents make only morally upright decisions - while retaining their free will. God can actualize this world since it contains no logical contradiction.

There is no possible world where the agents of this world make only right decisions. If it is the same world, and all agents choose morally, then the will, free or not, would be modified.

This is a **mathematical **proof. It shows that the existence of free will does not logically lead to immoral decisions - therefore it does not lead to pain, misery and suffering. If God wanted to, he could have actualized this world. Ours is not that world. Why God chose not to actualize that world is none of my concern. But the fact is that he did not, even though he could have done it.

Your so called ‘proof’ in no way shows that the actual agents of this actual world could have always choose right without interference of the will, whether free or not.

You later tried to show your mathematical induction was valid by the coin toss display. A coin is a fixed object that need be tossed to get the results of heads or tails. If the coin toss is a valid example, then the human will would also need to be fixed, 2 sided reality that falls randomly to the right choice or wrong choice. Giving creedance to this analogy is to posit that the will is not free, invalidating your entire premise.
The coin cannot learn from a previous toss so as to never land on tails again

 

[tdgesq]

Have a great time! Hope to see you when you return.

Thank you! It was a work-related event, but I still had a good time. I’m glad that the thread is current because I enjoy this topic.

If it is indeterminate, then it cannot be “foreseen . . . .”

I think you are conflating concepts. In my prior post I specifically set forth the definition of an indeterminate property as one produced by the will and “not upon God causally determining it.” You appear to be using some other definition for indeterminacy. God does not causally determine the property “always chooses what is right”, but he can foresee it nonetheless. There is no contradiction. All indeterminacy means in this context is that God didn’t causally determine it.

If it is foreseen, by some process, then there are two possible worlds. If God can instantiate only one, then there was no “free will”. If God can instantiate either one, then there was free will, but God because responsible for making the “wrong” choice.

I think you may have written this before reading all of my post. As previously demonstrated it could be the case that all possible persons engage in at least one morally wrong act. If that is the situation, then there aren’t any such possible persons for God to create. So, there would not be two possible worlds as you suggest. There would only be one possible world – a world where all persons commit at least one morally wrong act. And there is no difficulty at all with God knowing that in advance. His omniscience is intact.

There is no problem. Let’s play out the thought experiment of the “fall” - which is similar to my one agent, one decison scenario. Before the fall, there were two possible worlds:
W1: Adam+Eve chose to obey, and there was no fall.
W2: Adam+Eve chose to disobey, and there was the fall.

In the original scenario there is a definite problem for your position. You have not addressed, much less refuted, the potential reality that all possible persons choose to commit one act that is morally wrong. Until you do – well – we really aren’t talking about the same thing.

To briefly address your new scenario: It is inapposite to the discussion. As already mentioned several times now, your W1 may not be a possibility at all since it is a contingent proposition. Until you demonstrate why it is necessarily possible, we are just covering the exact same ground under the name of a new scenario.

The creation must have been a conscious process. Since both W1 and W2 are logically possible and non-contradictory, God could have chosen to “create” either one of them. If you say that only W2 is possible, then Adam+Eve did not have free will.

Again, your W1 is contingent upon the free choice of the actor. It is still logically possible because it is also logically possible that a person could choose to always do what is right. But – and you seem to consistently miss this point (I do not mean that in a derogatory way) – it is not a necessity because it is up to the person and cannot be determined by God. It is a contingent proposition. That means it is possible that every person freely chooses to commit one morally wrong act. Until you show why this isn’t possible, the argument in the OP fails.

It follows from mathematical induction. We can investigate it once we dealt with the situation I outlined above.

We are going to have to investigate it. Otherwise there is no solution to the problem posed to your position. Induction will not help you though. There are several reasons why.

1. Hume’s problem of induction cannot be solved in the metaphysic of the naturalist/materialist. Induction, even mathematical induction, has no rational basis in your worldview. It is not that I care to debate that issue here. I only bring it up to point out that this kind of knowledge is in doubt at the outset within your own framework.
2. Assuming for argument’s sake that a materialist can even make rational sense out of induction, how is one to model a non-deterministic (self-determined) event? What factors exactly will you take into account in any statistical model? I will be interested to see it. Perhaps it will involve a random number generator or a limit/asymptote. I do not think those exercises will help you.
3. Finally, induction is not deduction. It will always have uncertainty that deductive reasoning does not. So far we have been arguing for things that necessarily must be true, so long as we accept the premises. We can even put it in symbolic mathematical form to show that it is necessarily true. Induction does not give us this kind of certainty. An inductive mathematical argument will not yield the contradiction you seek. The argument in the OP will still fail no matter what kind of inductive proof you provide.

 

[Mel_Stones]

I have no idea if this has or hasn’t been posted but here goes anyway.

Yes, God can do anything.

A world were all choices are fine with God is just a world where God doesn’t hold us accountable for our actions.

Yes, God could make it so nothing is bad but He didn’t and He isn’t about to.

 

[Spock]

In the original scenario there is a definite problem for your position. You have not addressed, much less refuted, the potential reality that all possible persons choose to commit one act that is morally wrong. Until you do – well – we really aren’t talking about the same thing.

To briefly address your new scenario: It is inapposite to the discussion. As already mentioned several times now, your W1 may not be a possibility at all since it is a contingent proposition. Until you demonstrate why it is necessarily possible, we are just covering the exact same ground under the name of a new scenario.

We are going to have to investigate it. Otherwise there is no solution to the problem posed to your position. Induction will not help you though. There are several reasons why.

1. Hume’s problem of induction cannot be solved in the metaphysic of the naturalist/materialist. Induction, even mathematical induction, has no rational basis in your worldview. It is not that I care to debate that issue here. I only bring it up to point out that this kind of knowledge is in doubt at the outset within your own framework.
2. Assuming for argument’s sake that a materialist can even make rational sense out of induction, how is one to model a non-deterministic (self-determined) event? What factors exactly will you take into account in any statistical model? I will be interested to see it. Perhaps it will involve a random number generator or a limit/asymptote. I do not think those exercises will help you.
3. Finally, induction is not deduction. It will always have uncertainty that deductive reasoning does not. So far we have been arguing for things that necessarily must be true, so long as we accept the premises. We can even put it in symbolic mathematical form to show that it is necessarily true. Induction does not give us this kind of certainty. An inductive mathematical argument will not yield the contradiction you seek. The argument in the OP will still fail no matter what kind of inductive proof you provide.

It seems to me that we are on two wavelength on the two focal points of this thread. One is the concept of a “possible world”, the other one is the nature of “mathematical induction”. So let me elaborate on these concepts.

1. Possible world: is a hypothetical reality, which is somewhat different from our actual existence. (By the way, Plantinga loves these thought experiments) Maybe there is an oak tree there, where there is a pine tree here. Or another one, where Michelangelo was not born. The number of possible worlds is infinite. Some contain fewer moral agents, some contain more, some contain none at all. (However, there is no possible world with a married bachelor in it, since logical cotradictions do not appear in nature.)

For the purposes of this discussion we **categorize **these possible worlds depending on the number of moral/immoral decisons made by these moral agents, and disregard all the other differences. Of course there is a possible world, where everyone makes at least one immoral decison. There is another possible world where everyone only makes immoral decisons. All of these are possible worlds. Not two possible worlds overlap.

If you stipulate that it is possible that at least one agent will commit one immoral act, of course I concede that. It is just another possible world. The number of moral/immoral decisons is the categorizing factor in our thought experiment. Therefore we shall have all the possible worlds, starting from the one where every moral agent (freely) makes only moral choices, all the way until every moral agent (also freely) makes only immoral choices, with all the possible combinations, permutations and variations in-between. Every one of these worlds is possible, since none contain a logical contradiction.

Based upon this, it is of utmost importance we come to a conclusion about my starting scenario: one agent makes one choice (of moral nature) and then God immediately stops the experiment. This serves as the starting point for the induction. (Strictly speaking, the induction is not necessary. As long as there is one world, in which one agent makes one morally correct decision, and then he dies the case is proven. It may not be a “big” world, it may not be an exciting world, but it is possible, so God could have instantiated it. The inductive part is just icing on the cake.)

(Continued due to the restriction of 6000 characters in one post.)

 

[Spock]

(Continued from above.)
2) Induction. What you said about the “uncertainty” of mathematical induction is simply false, so I will have to explain it. Mathematical induction is a method, where we start from one verified (proven) example, and show that the example can be propagated onto any “n”, where “n” is any positive integer.

For example we can start with the observation that 1 = 1, and 1 + 3 = 4, and 1 + 3 + 5 = 9. We can see that the sequence of odd numbers (added up) forms a square number, and hypothesize that this will always be true, namely 1 + 3 + 5 + … + (2n - 1) = n^2.

Now, there are infinitely many numbers, so how can we prove that the formula will always hold, no matter how large the value of “n”? Clearly trying out many “n”-s is not enough, since there is always the possibility, that for one untested number the formula will fail. This would be the so-called popular induction, which is always uncertain, as you said.

This is where mathematical induction comes to the rescue. We have any formula f, which is hypothesized to be true for any “n”. First we must find at least one starting value. In our case above we have many. Then we can show that the validity of the formula is inherited from any “n”, to “n + 1”. That is the inductive step.

Going back to our example:

1. Hypothesis: for every “n” it is true that
   1 + 3 + 5 + … + (2n - 1) = n^2.
2. We formally substitue “n + 1” into “n”, and get:
   1 + 3 + 5 + … + (2n + 1) = (n + 1)^2.
   This is the hoped-for result, at this moment still unproven.
3. We now add the next odd number (2n + 1) to both sides of 1) and get
   1 + 3 + 5 + … + (2n - 1) + (2n + 1) = n^2 + 2n +1.
4. Since we know that (n + 1)^2 = n^2 + 2n + 1, we see that the formula gets **inherited **from any “n” to the next number “n + 1”. The induction is complete, and now we proved (rather than verified) that it will hold to any positive integer.

This is the method to be used in our discussion. No statistical uncertainty is involved, no reference to "non-deterministic " events is needed. We have a sequence of all the possible worlds and we can examine those. Simple!

 

[mangy_dog]

For one final time I am going to show that it is possible to have a world, where there is free will and there are no evil choices. I am tired of seeing the nonsensical argument that there are only two possibilities, either having free will and actual evil choices, or dummies (or robots) who are preprogrammed to do everything “right”. The proof will be a mathematical one, unquestionable.

1. Let’s start with a very simple world, where there is one moral agent, who makes one decision. In that case there are two possible worlds, one, where the agent makes a moral choice (regardless of how moral is defined) and another one, where the agent makes an immoral choice. God can actualize either one of these worlds. Therefore there is one world with free will and no evil evil choices. For any mathematician, this is sufficient. To those of you who are not mathematicians, it seems like a trivial example, which does not correspond to the real world. Therefore I am going to spell it out.
2. Now let’s consider a world, with one moral agent, who makes many decisions. Let the number of decisions be “N”. In this case there are “N + 1” possible worlds, where the agent makes exactly 0, 1, 2, etc… all the way up to N morally upright decisons. God can actualize either one of these worlds, so he can actualize the world, where the agent makes “N” moral decisions - in other words, when all the decisions are morally proper. One can make the argument, that this world is also too simplistic. So, let us carry on.
3. The next possible scenario is when there are “M” moral agents in the world, and each of them makes exactly one decision. In this case there are “M + 1” possible worlds, where 0, 1, 2, etc… up to “M” moral choices are made. God can actualize any one of these worlds, so he can actualize the one where each moral agent makes a morally good choice. In this world we also have free will, no coersion, and no immoral choices. Just in case some of you still harbor doubts I will spell out the final scenario.
4. The final possible scenario is where there are “N” moral agents, and each of them makes “M” decisons. Both “N” and “M” can be any arbitrary number, so this scenario precisely reflects our current world. Since each agent makes “M” decisions, the number of possible worlds is “(N + 1)*(M + 1)”. Of these possible worlds there is one where each agent makes only moral decisions. In all the other ones at least one agent makes at least one immoral decision. God can also instantiate or actualize any one of these worlds, since none of them contains a logical contradiction.

Result: No matter how many moral agents are in a world, and no matter how many decisions are made, there is at least one possible world where all the agents make only morally upright decisions - while retaining their free will. God can actualize this world since it contains no logical contradiction.

This is a **mathematical **proof. It shows that the existence of free will does not logically lead to immoral decisions - therefore it does not lead to pain, misery and suffering. If God wanted to, he could have actualized this world. Ours is not that world. Why God chose not to actualize that world is none of my concern. But the fact is that he did not, even though he could have done it.

Case closed. The argument that freedom of action inevitably leads to immoral choices is null and void. Please do not use it again. Of course I am not naive to hope that all of you will read this post, or that those who read it can understand it. But be as it may, if anyone ever brings up the incorrect argument, I will only point them to this thread.

Sporck,

You are right. In a humanity that is “logical” - your logical explanation should be correct.

Human beings have a “natural” existence. They follow their nature. Human nature is born with the stain of original sin. Baptism is the “vaccine” against the potential disease that can develope if left unchecked: B = “v” over “p” …for you number nerds.

In the event of convoluted threads - copy and paste this thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Spock,

Induction cannot be proven valid by induction.

Tdgesq challenged the concept of induction, not *your *induction.

What is your defense of the concept and its reliability?

 

[Spock]

Sporck,

You are right. In a humanity that is “logical” - your logical explanation should be correct.

Human beings have a “natural” existence. They follow their nature. Human nature is born with the stain of original sin. Baptism is the “vaccine” against the potential disease that can develope if left unchecked: B = “v” over “p” …for you number nerds.

In the event of convoluted threads - copy and paste this thread.

A logical humanity is one of the possible worlds. The “original sin” did not happen “necessarily”. As for copying and pasting the thread… that would be a lot of work… I will merely put a hyperlink to it.

 

[mangy_dog]

A logical humanity is one of the possible worlds. The “original sin” did not happen “necessarily”. As for copying and pasting the thread… that would be a lot of work… I will merely put a hyperlink to it.

Well there you have it.

To say that “original sin did not happen necessarily” is the missing variable in your ecuation.

If you prefer, continue to use your ecuation… human nature and original sin will just be an “outer perimeter” fact - not used.

Aquiesce anima mea in Deus salus mea.

 

[Spock]

Spock,

Induction cannot be proven valid by induction.

Tdgesq challenged the concept of induction, not *your *induction.

What is your defense of the concept and its reliability?

I don’t get it. Mathematical induction is not the same as popular induction. The three types of mathematical proofs (methods) are direct proof, indirect proof and induction. They follow from the axioms of mathematics, they need no proof. As for proving the axioms, that would be ludicrous. Axioms are self-evident facts, or arbitrarily chosen set of rules. As long as they are without internal contradiction, the system built upon them is without contradiction as well.

Maybe you refer to a usual tactics, like to demand that the empirical method of gaining knowledge be proven emprically, which is impossible. However it is not a valid argument. The method does not have to be validated by itself. Validating the **method **is the task of a meta-science, in this case the task of meta-mathematics (which I will not go into, since no one could follow me there - no offense intended - it would need a few years in college to understand that).

 

[fhansen]

Based upon this, it is of utmost importance we come to a conclusion about my starting scenario: one agent makes one choice (of moral nature) and then God immediately stops the experiment. This serves as the starting point for the induction. (Strictly speaking, the induction is not necessary. As long as there is one world, in which one agent makes one morally correct decision, and then he dies the case is proven. It may not be a “big” world, it may not be an exciting world, but it is possible, so God could have instantiated it. The inductive part is just icing on the cake.)

**But this world would hardly be one worth creating, wouldn’t it? It would be as if someone designed and built an enormously powerful computer, claiming there were no limitations on its calculating abilities or problems it couldn’t solve, had it successfully add 2+2 and then proceeded to destroy it, saying he’d proven his claim without testing the machine further.

It would be a purposeless world, where the moral agent has no chance of finding lasting happiness- because he’s dead. If happiness comes from always choosing the good, then he had no chance to find out if he could arrive at a place of never making the wrong choice. Time is the variable here. A moral agent is judged in Christianity to be morally perfect if he does so continuously.**

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Validating the **method **is the task of a meta-science, in this case the task of meta-mathematics (which I will not go into, since no one could follow me there - no offense intended - it would need a few years in college to understand that).

Personally, I have no problem with your induction; as we’ve discussed, I have a problem with a world where freedom is a metaphysical “fact”, and yet the “free” souls are bullied to choose good.

I was simply pointing out that tdgesq challenged the method, so I was curious about your defense. But no, I’m not interested in a few years of college math, thank you. Unless you have one of those Matrix-like programming units that will have it over in a matter of minutes.

 

[Spock]

But this world would hardly be one worth creating, wouldn’t it? It would be as if someone designed and built an enormously powerful computer, claiming there were no limitations on its calculating abilities or problems it couldn’t solve, had it successfully add 2+2 and then proceeded to destroy it, saying he’d proven his claim without testing the machine further.

It would be a purposeless world, where the moral agent has no chance of finding lasting happiness- because he’s dead. If happiness comes from always choosing the good, then he had no chance to find out if he could arrive at a place of never making the wrong choice. Time is the variable here. A moral agent is judged in Christianity to be morally perfect if he does so continuously.

Completely irrelevant. The world is not judged based upon any arbitrary criterion, whether it is 'boring" or too simplistic, or anything else.

Similar objection was brought up against a hypothetical scenario where there is no crime, no murder, no rapes, no tortures, no holocausts, no genocides, and the opponent complained that such a world would be “boring”. Who cares? (Besides, it would not be boring.) I am simply presenting a mathematical proof to finally dispose of the argument which blames the existence of evil on the existence of “free will”, which effectively says that God had to “compromise” because the existence of free will necessarily and logically leads to immoral (or evil) behavior. That is all.

 

[Spock]

Personally, I have no problem with your induction; as we’ve discussed, I have a problem with a world where freedom is a metaphysical “fact”, and yet the “free” souls are bullied to choose good.

But, you see, they are not “bullied” at all. They are completely free to do anything they choose. It just so happens that they choose the “right thing”.

I was simply pointing out that tdgesq challenged the method, so I was curious about your defense. But no, I’m not interested in a few years of college math, thank you. Unless you have one of those Matrix-like programming units that will have it over in a matter of minutes.

I am sorry, I have no magic funnel to load those trillions of bits of information. There was a king in the ancient times (the story is probably apocriphal) who wanted to learn the intricacies of math in an easy way. The teacher had to point out: “there is no royal way to math”. (And besides, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it. ) Also the fun is the trip itself, not the destination…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But, you see, they are not “bullied” at all. They are completely free to do anything they choose. It just so happens that they choose the “right thing”.

You know very well how I would respond to this. Bait left intact.