The Free Will Problem

[Hastrman]

What is existence? Movement through time? And what is time but the ability of things to change.

No, existence is the God you claim to worship–a radically simple substance about which not a lot can be said, since even saying things is to composit subjects and predicates.

God–existence–is eternal precisely because He is simple: because He has no parts. “Change” is the same as “decay”, it is nothing more than parts breaking off.

Consider a closed environment with two atoms that when they hit will bond forever. The closed box they are in is so small that it will only take 2 or 3 minutes before they will hit each other. I know this will happen, but I did not cause it to happen, and my knowledge of the future was without existence being present.

Add in a third atom and the chance of all three hitting each other together to become permanently bonded is much less that the two, but with the right tools, and knowing the initial trajectory of the molecules, one could know if it would happen or not.

No, because until you look, nothing has happened. Particles were a bad example, since they don’t behave at all decently. All that exists in the box is a set of probability waveforms that can only be resolved by an observer. Interestingly, in that instance your knowledge does have an effect.

Quantum physics, man, quantum physics!

 

[catharina]

I don’t know what your point is. During those few seconds when it is obvious to the observer that the crash will occur, the drivers have no choice any more. Their fate is sealed, their freedom to act has vanished. That is why the observer can extrapolate and know with reasonable certainty that a crash will happen.

However, this is still not “true knowledge” only a highly probable “educated guess”. One of the drivers may lose control over his vehicle, and fall down the cliff. Presto! No collision.

Suppose the two cars have cell phones in them. You, the observer can see them when they are still miles away from the collision. You use your mental powers and deduct that if they continue at their current speed, they will collide. You can call them and give them advice if you so choose.

re Paragraph 1 and 2: Crash is inevitable and it is NOT inevitable? Cloudy thinking on your part? My point that God, as observer, not bound by “rules” as we are, does know the outcome before it’s occured. Could He prevent the accident (without a using cell phone)? Yes. Would He prevent the accident? In most cases, no, since He has given free will unimpeded to both drivers.

Any “God” we might imagine is bound by our own limitations.

God Who is revealed (through His own revelation) is not bound so.

 

[ateista]

You are using timed expressions to discuss the functioning of something that does not experience time.

Please oh please don’t say there’s no such thing; you’d have to deny the existence of black holes.

Tell me, do you know anything about General Relativity?

Ok, let’s contemplate timeless existence as manifested in the black holes. As far as we know time comes to either total standstill or slows down tremendously.

Let’s conduct a thought experiment. You are in the neighborhood of a star which is about to collapse into a black hole. Suppose you grab a “piece” of the star and follow it as it approaches the Schwarzshield radius - and cross it. Suppose, of course, that you survive the experiment.

In our time-flow the whole process takes about 30 minutes. Since time is not (name removed by moderator)endent from mass and gravity, for you the process takes either zillions of years, or forvever (if time actually comes to standstill). In a sense we can say that during this collapse the whole future of the universe will “flash” in front of your eyes.

Does that mean that you know the future events, before they actually happen? The word “before” refers to our time in our universe.

Obviously not. You may not experience the flow of our time, but the information about our universe (let’s be very unscientific and assume that information propagates instantaneously) cannot reach you before the event actually happens.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Obviously people here have never played “The Sims”.

 

[ateista]

re Paragraph 1 and 2: Crash is inevitable and it is NOT inevitable? Cloudy thinking on your part?

What is “inevitable”? Suppose the two cars are exactly one millimeter and 1/100th of a second away from crashing into each other.

A big UFO is hovering above them. The beings in the UFO live on a different timescale, for them the 1/100th of a second is about 10 days. During those ten days they build a “gadget” and use it to pick up one of the cars and lift it up so the other car can drive on, and then lower the one to continue its journey. (They use a massless method so the incredible acceleration does not kill the driver).

Obviously this scenario is highly unlikely, but not impossible. To the observer it would seem that cars simply went through each other. The collision was not inevitable.

Now let’s consider the lack of such miraculous “deus ex machina” types of interventions. Knowing the reflex time of the drivers, the mass and speed (or inertia) of the cars we can calculate the exact time when the collision becomes inevitable. It is probably a few seconds.

That is the time when the drivers have no more freedom to avoid the collision. That is the time when the “educated guess” becomes “knowledge”.

As I said before: “foreknowledge does not negate free will”, however “free will negates foreknowledge”; or in other words, as long as freedom action is availble “knowledge is impossible”, only good guesses are possible.

My point that God, as observer, not bound by “rules” as we are, does know the outcome before it’s occured. Could He prevent the accident (without a using cell phone)? Yes. Would He prevent the accident? In most cases, no, since He has given free will unimpeded to both drivers.

Well, since you bring up God’s possible actions, let’s contemplate a different scenario. (Yours is no nice and neutral, let’s bring some “bite” into it.) Suppose the observer sees a young woman walking on the trail on the opposing mountain. He also sees a known psycopathic rapist/murderer lurking near the trail.

First, the observer cannot “know” what will happen, but could make a very good guess. Barring intervention, the rapist will most likely kidnap, rape and murder this young woman, whose only “fault” was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time…

Should a human observer try to intefere, or not? Should God try to interfere or not? “Should” here means a moral / ethical question.

Using your previous reasoning God should not interfere, since it was the free will of the rapist and the victim that brought them into a “collision course”. (Does this sound like Pilate washing his hands? It sure does to me.)

 

[catharina]

What is “inevitable”? Suppose the two cars are exactly one millimeter and 1/100th of a second away from crashing into each other.

A big UFO is hovering above them. The beings in the UFO live on a different timescale, for them the 1/100th of a second is about 10 days. During those ten days they build a “gadget” and use it to pick up one of the cars and lift it up so the other car can drive on, and then lower the one to continue its journey. (They use a massless method so the incredible acceleration does not kill the driver).

Obviously this scenario is highly unlikely, but not impossible. To the observer it would seem that cars simply went through each other. The collision was not inevitable.

Now let’s consider the lack of such miraculous “deus ex machina” types of interventions. Knowing the reflex time of the drivers, the mass and speed (or inertia) of the cars we can calculate the exact time when the collision becomes inevitable. It is probably a few seconds.

That is the time when the drivers have no more freedom to avoid the collision. That is the time when the “educated guess” becomes “knowledge”.

As I said before: “foreknowledge does not negate free will”, however “free will negates foreknowledge”; or in other words, as long as freedom action is availble “knowledge is impossible”, only good guesses are possible.

Well, since you bring up God’s possible actions, let’s contemplate a different scenario. (Yours is no nice and neutral, let’s bring some “bite” into it.) Suppose the observer sees a young woman walking on the trail on the opposing mountain. He also sees a known psycopathic rapist/murderer lurking near the trail.

First, the observer cannot “know” what will happen, but could make a very good guess. Barring intervention, the rapist will most likely kidnap, rape and murder this young woman, whose only “fault” was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time…

Should a human observer try to intefere, or not? Should God try to interfere or not? “Should” here means a moral / ethical question.

Using your previous reasoning God should not interfere, since it was the free will of the rapist and the victim that brought them into a “collision course”. (Does this sound like Pilate washing his hands? It sure does to me.)

Have left all of your post quoted although it goes in different directions. Logically, one car could stall out, run out of gas in the approach, a driver could drive his auto off the mountain edge long before impact, have a stroke and hit the mountain. Where does or doesn’t God figure in such? Hard to say. Still any and all are more likely than your UFO.

The rest of your post: yes, WE are to act as our brothers’ keepers. We are to take the sacrificial action of intervention upon ourselves. We are to love as we’ve been loved (unto the death of Our Lord). Is God to act in our stead? No - it’s to be a function of our free will to serve one another. Vatican II taught explixitly about freedom and responsibility in this sense: the more we are blessed with freedom, the more responsible we are to arrange good outcomes. God waits to receive us at the end of our journeys, but since we have free will, the journeys, the choices, the actions are to be ours. (One of actions is to be prayer.)

Since God has “done His part” in creating (as Father), redeeming (as Son) and sanctifying us (as Holy Spirit), God’s “hands off” via personal interventions makes perfect sense to me and sounds NOTHING like Pilate and his actions!

 

[mangy_dog]

The point of problem is the word “to know” something. It means to have information about something. It is nonsensical to say that one can have information about something that does not exist.

The “present” exists - therefore it is knowable. That “past” existed - so it was knowable, and if one has perfect memory, we can sensibly say that the past is still knowable. The “future”, however, does not exist - in any sense of the word.

So to say that the future is “knowable” is only sensible if the future is fully deterministic. To say that God knows what we shall do in the future implictly assumes that our actions are predetermined - or that the future already “exists” - and that is nonsensical.

You are assuming a lot of mis-directed premises and jumping to unfounded conclusions.
God does know every possiblity of action that we could or would take. It does not follow that the future “exists” but it does follow that God knows that future. Now, unless God intervenes or affects that future - there is no predetermination. The future is not knowable by us with certitude and only knowable by calculations of possible forecast. Only God knows all contingencies with absolute surety of outcomes in the myriad of possible combinations. Because God is. Did you get that?

God is - the great I AM. No shadow of change.

 

[ateista]

Have left all of your post quoted although it goes in different directions. Logically, one car could stall out, run out of gas in the approach, a driver could drive his auto off the mountain edge long before impact, have a stroke and hit the mountain. Where does or doesn’t God figure in such? Hard to say. Still any and all are more likely than your UFO.

And that shows that the observer cannot know that a collision will occur, until it actually happens.

The rest of your post: yes, WE are to act as our brothers’ keepers. We are to take the sacrificial action of intervention upon ourselves. We are to love as we’ve been loved (unto the death of Our Lord). Is God to act in our stead? No - it’s to be a function of our free will to serve one another. Vatican II taught explixitly about freedom and responsibility in this sense: the more we are blessed with freedom, the more responsible we are to arrange good outcomes. God waits to receive us at the end of our journeys, but since we have free will, the journeys, the choices, the actions are to be ours. (One of actions is to be prayer.)

OK. What good is a prayer to the victim about to be raped, tortured and murdered? If we would be in the position to prevent such acts, then we would be morally obliged to do our best to prevent it.

You seem to subscribe to the old Latin concept: “Quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi”. (What is allowed for Jupiter is not allowed for the ox). I find this concept a perfect example of “moral relativity”. If it is morally wrong for us not to intervene, then it is also morally wrong for God not to intervene either.

Since God has “done His part” in creating (as Father), redeeming (as Son) and sanctifying us (as Holy Spirit), God’s “hands off” via personal interventions makes perfect sense to me and sounds NOTHING like Pilate and his actions!

Moral relativism.

 

[ateista]

You are assuming a lot of mis-directed premises and jumping to unfounded conclusions.

I would appreciate a little detail of what my “mis-directed premises” and “unfounded conclusions” would be. A blank criticism is not helpful.

God does know every possiblity of action that we could or would take.

Like I would know that tossing a coin will be either “heads” or “tails”, but not know which one will actually happen?

It does not follow that the future “exists” but it does follow that God knows that future.

And now we are back to the problem of having information about something that does not exist. How is it possible to have information about a non-existing object or event?

 

[pnewton]

For philosophical issues, it’s hard to beat Peter Kreeft. Here is his take on “Fated and Free.”

peterkreeft.com/audio/29_lotr_fated-free.htm

 

[Hastrman]

Ok, let’s contemplate timeless existence as manifested in the black holes. As far as we know time comes to either total standstill or slows down tremendously.

I wasn’t saying God’s existence was like a black hole–I was just saying that other time-free phenomena exist.

But God’s omniscient about space (let’s concede for a moment), and knows everything that happens all at once in a given moment.

Well therefore he’s also omniscient about time, because they’re actually the same thing.

That’s all I was saying; I was merely using the existence of black holes as my argument, and requiring no other use from them. I tend to say exactly what I mean, and if people would just look at the bare meaning of the words, they’ll usually know my meaning.

Sorry, that last bit was a bit of a rant.

Incidentally, “information” can probably propagate faster than light; when people say it can’t, what they mean (at least what they seemed to mean whenever they explained themselves) is “effects in space-time geometry can’t propagate faster than light.” Which isn’t the same thing; the difficulty is, physicists are nnot trained to communicate clearly. Stephen Hawking’s books are full of things that sound plain idiotic, until you take the trouble to read his explanations–then you realize he’s just not expressing himself terribly well.

 

[catharina]

And that shows that the observer cannot know that a collision will occur, until it actually happens.

OK. What good is a prayer to the victim about to be raped, tortured and murdered? If we would be in the position to prevent such acts, then we would be morally obliged to do our best to prevent it.

You seem to subscribe to the old Latin concept: “Quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi”. (What is allowed for Jupiter is not allowed for the ox). I find this concept a perfect example of “moral relativity”. If it is morally wrong for us not to intervene, then it is also morally wrong for God not to intervene either.

Moral relativism.

I, as an observer, can conclude.
God, as “an observer,” can know.

If God had to abide by your rules, then you’d have a point.
God doesn’t and you don’t.

“Jupiter” and the ox have nothing to do with God and man; since Jupiter is myth and the ox has no free will. Mature adults make rules for children all the time. (Do you have children?) For example, “Don’t cross the street unles someones is holding your hand.” Do you see many adults stranded on street corners hoping that someone will come along and hold their hands so they can cross the street?

Regarding this “What good is a prayer to the victim about to be raped, tortured and murdered? If we would be in the position to prevent such acts, then we would be morally obliged to do our best to prevent it.” Prayer for self to endure suffering, to die a happy death, for forgiveness of criminal: all answerable prayers in that moment. As for the rest, “If we would be in the position to prevent such acts, then we would be morally obliged to do our best to prevent it.” You got it. That’s correct. We are free and called to help one another. That’s the very essence of Christian charity and of freedom and responsibility. God makes rules for the betterment of man. God does not need to better Himself; because God is God; there can be no moral relativism. One would require an assembly of gods to make that point.

 

[ateista]

I wasn’t saying God’s existence was like a black hole–I was just saying that other time-free phenomena exist.

Sure thing. I did not take it literally, either, I just explored that timeless existence per se, does not allow access to the the infomation about the future. If you say that timeless existence in a black hole is qualitatively different from the timeless existence for God, then maybe your analogy was all that not useful… do you agree with that assessment?

But God’s omniscient about space (let’s concede for a moment), and knows everything that happens all at once in a given moment.

That is fine.

Well therefore he’s also omniscient about time, because they’re actually the same thing.

No, they are not. The fact that x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (ict)^2 is an invariant, according the the concept of general relativity, does not equate the space coordinates (x, y, z) with the time coordinate (t). The “i” (being the square root of minus one) makes time an imaginary (what a bad word!) coordinate. So they are not equivalent and should not be taken as such. If we consider the “light cone” - nothing outside the light cone can be “known”, since there is no information entering into that “segment” of reality.

That’s all I was saying; I was merely using the existence of black holes as my argument, and requiring no other use from them. I tend to say exactly what I mean, and if people would just look at the bare meaning of the words, they’ll usually know my meaning.

Sorry, that last bit was a bit of a rant.

Sure, no problem. As I said I took it as an analogy, but since you considered it a “good” analogy, I felt it is appropriate to explore it.

Incidentally, “information” can probably propagate faster than light; when people say it can’t, what they mean (at least what they seemed to mean whenever they explained themselves) is “effects in space-time geometry can’t propagate faster than light.” Which isn’t the same thing; the difficulty is, physicists are nnot trained to communicate clearly. Stephen Hawking’s books are full of things that sound plain idiotic, until you take the trouble to read his explanations–then you realize he’s just not expressing himself terribly well.

Quite so, if you consider that the intersection point of a pair of scissors (when applying a pressure to the handle) can move faster than the speed of light (the intersection not being a physical entity), but that does not mean that information can be received “eariler” than it is generated.

Be as it may I assumed instantaneous information retrieval, so your objection does not apply.

Here is the point of contention. Whatever properties God’s alleged timeless existence may have, it is impossible to have information before it actually happens. That would require infomation to propagate “backwards” in time (our time!) and that is not possible - since it carries all sorts of logical contradictions.

Whatever God’s powers may be, he cannot create a logical contradiction (like a married bachelor or a square circle) so we can safely say that even God cannot “know” what the future will hold - as long as there is true freedom of action. If the universe is fully deterministic - like Newton’s giant clockwork (and as such no free will exists) then God (or anyone else with sufficient compting power) can know the future. There is no model which allows for unbridled free will and foreknowledge of the future.

 

[ateista]

I, as an observer, can conclude.
God, as “an observer,” can know.

How do you plan to prove or substantiate it? I am sure you realize that I will not accept it just because you say so.

“Jupiter” and the ox have nothing to do with God and man; since Jupiter is myth and the ox has no free will.

I like that. Can you prove that Jupiter is just a “myth”?

God does not need to better Himself; because God is God; there can be no moral relativism. One would require an assembly of gods to make that point.

Moral relativism means that you declare two different moral codes, one for humans, and another for God. Sorry, that just does nor fly.

The ironic part is that God is supposed to be a “loving being”, and to be “loving” presupposes to help those in need. I cannot see anyone in more need of a helping hand than a poor girl about to be raped, tortured and murdered. To lay back and observe her predicament is cruel and horrible - not loving - at least not as I understand “love”.

 

[catharina]

1. How do you plan to prove or substantiate it? I am sure you realize that I will not accept it just because you say so.
2. Can you prove that Jupiter is just a “myth”?
3. Moral relativism means that you declare two different moral codes, one for humans, and another for God. Sorry, that just does nor fly.
4. The ironic part is that God is supposed to be a “loving being”, and to be “loving” presupposes to help those in need. I cannot see anyone in more need of a helping hand than a poor girl about to be raped, tortured and murdered. To lay back and observe her predicament is cruel and horrible - not loving - at least not as I understand “love”.

1. You can and will accept nothing without faith. Faith is a gift of God to men. He gives it to all who ask for it. (Great contradiction: praying to a Creator for belief in a Creator - in Whom one has no belief. Nonetheless, it is so.) I cannot give faith to you, nor can I prove or substantiate the truth of the goodness and power of God. That is the province of God. It’s not my job or task.
2. Jupiter: Roman myth.
   Zeus: Greek myth
   Thor: Norse myth

God: self-revealed in Scripture and Tradition.
Take it or leave it, your free choice.

1. Moral relativism applies to individual choices in the even governance of one’s own morality. It has nothing to do with the actions of God. (Apples and oranges.)
2. I question why the worse scenario that you choose as example is one of a young girl being raped, tortured and murdered. Starvation kills people daily all around the world; often starvation is assisted by the common greed of many. Is it clear to you at least that we are to learn how to help one another or should God be responsible for making all men into robots?

 

[ateista]

1. You can and will accept nothing without faith. Faith is a gift of God to men. He gives it to all who ask for it. (Great contradiction: praying to a Creator for belief in a Creator - in Whom one has no belief. Nonetheless, it is so.) I cannot give faith to you, nor can I prove or substantiate the truth of the goodness and power of God. That is the province of God. It’s not my job or task.

Well said: the bolded part is a serious contradiction. I agree with you.

1. Jupiter: Roman myth.
   Zeus: Greek myth
   Thor: Norse myth

Yahweh: Jewish myth.

1. Moral relativism applies to individual choices in the even governance of one’s own morality. It has nothing to do with the actions of God. (Apples and oranges.)

Let’s just say that I disgree. The goddess of Justice is always depicted with a blindfold, signifying that she will render judgement based upon the facts, not the personality of the perpetrator.

1. I question why the worse scenario that you choose as example is one of a young girl being raped, tortured and murdered. Starvation kills people daily all around the world; often starvation is assisted by the common greed of many.

I chose it because it is a moral dilemma. Starvation due to the lack of rain is not considered a moral problem. It is not always associated with “greed”.

Is it clear to you at least that we are to learn how to help one another or should God be responsible for making all men into robots?

What good is learning if it cannot be used? Or do you think that heaven will be just as miserable as this existence, but people will be more helpful?

If you wish to talk about good people = robots, please visit the thread which deals precisely with that question.

 

[catharina]

…

What good is learning if it cannot be used? Or do you think that heaven will be just as miserable as this existence, but people will be more helpful?

If you wish to talk about good people = robots, please visit the thread which deals precisely with that question.

First: Yahweh, God revealed; i.e., God reveals Himself.

Second, yes the contradiction … so unbelievers do pray in some manner like this: “Almighty God, if You exist, grant me faith.”

Third, I don’t know you and so cannot even imagine why you describle this existence as miserable. Also, it’s difficult to imagine that you find that people are rarely helpful.

Good people vs robots? I know that thread exists and I have no interest in pursuing it. Without free will, a gift from God, no one could choose to be helpful; all would be robotic.

 

[mangy_dog]

I would appreciate a little detail of what my “mis-directed premises” and “unfounded conclusions” would be. A blank criticism is not helpful.

Like I would know that tossing a coin will be either “heads” or “tails”, but not know which one will actually happen?

And now we are back to the problem of having information about something that does not exist. How is it possible to have information about a non-existing object or event?

The wrong premises are built right into your wrong conclusions. There isn’t much you can tell an atheist that will move him or her out of their denial of God’s existence.
You tossing a coin - two options - unless it lands on end (three options) now that would be unforseeable, except by God who would know this information.
And here is where your premises and conclusion go haywire - The God that you deny that exists, is the God that sees all futures, all possibilities and all contingencies. They exist for Him because He alone can see them. Not you, not me…not any human being.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[catharina]

mangy dog, you’ve gone off the deep end. Consider a revision above.

Atheists, like Christians, are the cherished creation of God.

 

[ateista]

First: Yahweh, God revealed; i.e., God reveals Himself.

Sorry, he never revealed himself to me. Second-hand revelations are not trustworthy. (Please allow me to anticipate: I do not verify everthing in my life. It would be impossible. However, in life-and-death scenarios it is imperative to get first hand knowledge.)

Second, yes the contradiction … so unbelievers do pray in some manner like this: “Almighty God, if You exist, grant me faith.”

I tried it, and nothing happened.

Third, I don’t know you and so cannot even imagine why you describle this existence as miserable. Also, it’s difficult to imagine that you find that people are rarely helpful.

My existence is nothing short of happy and joyful. I am talking about the starving children in Africa, the people who are killed in tsunamis, the women who are kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered. Their existence is not enviable. But the point was, what use is to “learn” about all this, if we shall not be able to use in in the “afterlife”?