The Free Will Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jordan_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ateista said:
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.)

I tried it, and nothing happened.

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”?
Click to expand...
The big difference is surely that I am ‘of faith’ and you are ‘of no faith.’ So I can “know” to my own satisfaction that in some way, my prayers and sacrifices for those who truly suffer all of their days are such that the sufferings might be eased by my actions. I know it now and shall know it more in eternity. We (you and I) can say that we clearly have different points of view.

Regarding your impulse to verify “life and death” knowledge and/or scenarios, I know enough to warn you not to expect personal revelation. There is already Revelation available to all humanity.
 
catharina said:
The big difference is surely that I am ‘of faith’ and you are ‘of no faith.’ So I can “know” to my own satisfaction that in some way, my prayers and sacrifices for those who truly suffer all of their days are such that the sufferings might be eased by my actions. I know it now and shall know it more in eternity. We (you and I) can say that we clearly have different points of view.
Click to expand...
And such friendly and respectful disagreements are good and healthy. Maybe we all learn something from such disagreements.
catharina said:
Regarding your impulse to verify “life and death” knowledge and/or scenarios, I know enough to warn you not to expect personal revelation. There is already Revelation available to all humanity.
Click to expand...
Indeed I do not. All I am saying that it would be convincing. The “Revelation” you speak of is not distingushable from all those other claims, made by other humans who asserted that their and only their version of deity is correct, all the other ones are “false gods”. If you really think about it, you can see that the only difference is that you have faith in the veracity of “your” version of revelation and no faith in the veracity of the others…
 
ateista said:
And such friendly and respectful disagreements are good and healthy. Maybe we all learn something from such disagreements.

Indeed I do not. All I am saying that it would be convincing. The “Revelation” you speak of is not distingushable from all those other claims, made by other humans who asserted that their and only their version of deity is correct, all the other ones are “false gods”. If you really think about it, you can see that the only difference is that you have faith in the veracity of “your” version of revelation and no faith in the veracity of the others…
Click to expand...
Actually, I do believe in the veracity of Jewish faith. If I did not, I can’t see how I could believe in Christainity. God’s promise was to the Jews. Gentiles became believers in Christ, thanks to the promise made to the Jews. As for Islam, I’ve wondered often if this third form of monotheistic faith is related in some way to God’s promise to Abraham regarding his older son Ishmael who was born of a slave. It was from A’s next son Isaac that the Jews descended.
 
Jordan_Francis said:
I recently found myself in a discusson with two agnostic friends who seem to think that if God knows everything we will do then our actions are pre-determined. We argued for hours really, but I couldn’t seem to convince them.

Essentially, my main point was that knowledge is separate from causation and the knowledge of something is contingent on the truth (or reality) of a given thing.

Basically, knowledge, by itself, has never caused or determined anything in history, nor will it.

I am not philosophically trained. Would anyone mind helping me understand why God’s omniscience does not pre-determine our actions, or that his knowing of what we will do does not indicate that there is “fate”.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Answer: you made the decisions not him. Suppose you make 10,000,000,000 decisions over 70 human years. God sees all your choices all the time so he knows the outcome of your decisions. Your freewill was making these decissions, his omniscience allows full view of your actions.
 
“The Free Will Problem” to me seems to be a problem of what I have seen Paul Helm call PAP principal of alternate possiablity.
God knows “something” is going to happen and given that God’s knowledge is perfect; that “something” is going to happen. There was never any real alternate possiablity; so there was never truly a choice in the matter, free or otherwise.
Paul Helm is a Calvanist. I am not Calvanist but, I do think PAP is logical.
I am interested to see the Roman Catholic take on this topic.

Sincerely,
JTBT
 
JTBT said:
“The Free Will Problem” to me seems to be a problem of what I have seen Paul Helm call PAP principal of alternate possiablity.
God knows “something” is going to happen and given that God’s knowledge is perfect; that “something” is going to happen. There was never any real alternate possiablity; so there was never truly a choice in the matter, free or otherwise.
Paul Helm is a Calvanist. I am not Calvanist but, I do think PAP is logical.
I am interested to see the Roman Catholic take on this topic.

Sincerely,
JTBT
Click to expand...
I heard an interesting example of this yesterday it went like this: Suppose a star explodes today when will you know? In 500 to 1500 years! That is because the affects of the explosion have to travel from there to here before we know. Same is true of your decision you have to wait to know however if God was present when you made the actual decision (or when the star explodes) he does not have to wait to know. So in the realm of time you know of neither the star explosion or of the moral crisis you will face. God who is outside the realm of time knows both events and their outcomes.

Now the issue you discuss is when 2010 occurs to me could I change the event? (From what?) The decision is mine, was mine, is and was made by me. So my decision is my decision either way your only issue is being confined by time and thus not knowing until time allows the information to you

Hope that helps
 
Texas Roofer,

Your example is very good; however the problem is it is dealing with knowledge of past events. Say the star in your example exploded and it takes 500 years for the knowledge of the explosion to reach me. The star still exploded 500 years ago; me learning of the star exploding does not make the explosion a current event, my point is you are talking about knowledge of past events.

When talking about the freewill problem we are talking about future events. If a time bound creature has not made a choice yet; there no choice to know. The knowledge of the choice to be made in the future only exists in possibilities. Given that free will creature (Bob) is in a situation, Bob could chose to do option “A” or Bob could chose to do option “B”, Given perfect knowledge of Bob’s personality, past choices, and the ease of choosing one option over the other, we could predict that Bob will choose “A”; however Bob only made the a choice if it was possible for him to actually do “B”. If it was known before Bob existed that he would do “A” then it was never actually possible for Bob to do “B”, and Bob’s appearance of choice “A” was actually just one more domino in the predetermined line of Bob’s life.

Back to my original point, if a time bound free will creature has yet to make a choice then the choice does not exist and there is no knowledge to know about that choice.
 
JTBT said:
Texas Roofer,

Your example is very good; however the problem is it is dealing with knowledge of past events. Say the star in your example exploded and it takes 500 years for the knowledge of the explosion to reach me. The star still exploded 500 years ago; me learning of the star exploding does not make the explosion a current event, my point is you are talking about knowledge of past events.

When talking about the freewill problem we are talking about future events. If a time bound creature has not made a choice yet; there no choice to know. The knowledge of the choice to be made in the future only exists in possibilities. Given that free will creature (Bob) is in a situation, Bob could chose to do option “A” or Bob could chose to do option “B”, Given perfect knowledge of Bob’s personality, past choices, and the ease of choosing one option over the other, we could predict that Bob will choose “A”; however Bob only made the a choice if it was possible for him to actually do “B”. If it was known before Bob existed that he would do “A” then it was never actually possible for Bob to do “B”, and Bob’s appearance of choice “A” was actually just one more domino in the predetermined line of Bob’s life.

Back to my original point, if a time bound free will creature has yet to make a choice then the choice does not exist and there is no knowledge to know about that choice.
Click to expand...
You are not allowing for two things.1. God is self-defined, self-revealed and not subject to our limits.2. God in being ominiscient is still in no way deterministic with us.
 
JTBT said:
Texas Roofer,

Your example is very good; however the problem is it is dealing with knowledge of past events. Say the star in your example exploded and it takes 500 years for the knowledge of the explosion to reach me. The star still exploded 500 years ago; me learning of the star exploding does not make the explosion a current event, my point is you are talking about knowledge of past events.

When talking about the freewill problem we are talking about future events. If a time bound creature has not made a choice yet; there no choice to know. The knowledge of the choice to be made in the future only exists in possibilities. Given that free will creature (Bob) is in a situation, Bob could chose to do option “A” or Bob could chose to do option “B”, Given perfect knowledge of Bob’s personality, past choices, and the ease of choosing one option over the other, we could predict that Bob will choose “A”; however Bob only made the a choice if it was possible for him to actually do “B”. If it was known before Bob existed that he would do “A” then it was never actually possible for Bob to do “B”, and Bob’s appearance of choice “A” was actually just one more domino in the predetermined line of Bob’s life.

Back to my original point, if a time bound free will creature has yet to make a choice then the choice does not exist and there is no knowledge to know about that choice.
Click to expand...
Because Bob is time bound his knowledge of choices A&B are limited to his known past. However Bob may have made other choices between A & B he simply does not know that yet. For example Bob may say “The star did not explode during my life time”. This statement is incorrect not because Bob wants to lie but because his knowledge base was limited. Same is true of his decisions. His limited knowledge does not tell him of them until they enter his past. He is now confusing his knowledge with God’s knowledge. Further Bob may never know what results occurred from his decision, as his limited knowledge of the affects does not limit the actually affects, or God’s knowledge of the actual affects. So Bob has limited knowledge yet it is the decisions Bob made which are relevent. Bob’s decisions known and unknown, revealed or never revealed.
 
catharina said:
You are not allowing for two things.1. God is self-defined, self-revealed and not subject to our limits.2. God in being ominiscient is still in no way deterministic with us.
Click to expand...
Catharina
I agree with point 1 to a point, I mean God is self-defined, self-revealed and not subject to our limits; however, God has provided us with our minds so that we can understand him better, one method of this understanding comes though God given logic. So I think free will is something that can be reasoned though.

As for point 2. I’m not so sure that I agree. When God grants man free will he is granting them choices and if you agree with PAP (see my 1st post) then a choice is only a choice if you could do something other that what was expected. meaning that God knowing “something” will happen in the future means that “something” will happen in the future period, it is determined, and nothing else can happen; therefore the presumed choice was not a real choice just the appearance of choice.

I was actually taught the same way you are advocating; and I have always had a hard time with it, I mean doesn’t the traditional view make God responsable for evil?
I will admit it is only recently that I have been exposed what is called free will theology or open theism, but I think it is logical, plus it does a lot to solve the “problem of evil.”
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Because Bob is time bound his knowledge of choices A&B are limited to his known past. However Bob may have made other choices between A & B he simply does not know that yet. For example Bob may say “The star did not explode during my life time”. This statement is incorrect not because Bob wants to lie but because his knowledge base was limited. Same is true of his decisions. His limited knowledge does not tell him of them until they enter his past. He is now confusing his knowledge with God’s knowledge. Further Bob may never know what results occurred from his decision, as his limited knowledge of the affects does not limit the actually affects, or God’s knowledge of the actual affects. So Bob has limited knowledge yet it is the decisions Bob made which are relevent. Bob’s decisions known and unknown, revealed or never revealed.
Click to expand...
my point with Bob had nothing to do with Bob’s knowledge. it has everything to do with the truth value of Bob’s choice. until “time bound Bob” has made his “choice” his “choice” does not exist and therefore cannot be known. there are somethings that are just not logical to know; like,
can you know that I am holding an apple right now…well no, you can’t know that I am holding an apple right now; because, I am in fact not holding an apple right now; therefore you or anyone else knowing that I am holding an apple right now is impossiable.
 
JTBT said:
Catharina
I agree with point 1 to a point, I mean God is self-defined, self-revealed and not subject to our limits; however, God has provided us with our minds so that we can understand him better, one method of this understanding comes though God given logic. So I think free will is something that can be reasoned though.

As for point 2. I’m not so sure that I agree. When God grants man free will he is granting them choices and if you agree with PAP (see my 1st post) then a choice is only a choice if you could do something other that what was expected. meaning that God knowing “something” will happen in the future means that “something” will happen in the future period, it is determined, and nothing else can happen; therefore the presumed choice was not a real choice just the appearance of choice.

I was actually taught the same way you are advocating; and I have always had a hard time with it, I mean doesn’t the traditional view make God responsable for evil?
I will admit it is only recently that I have been exposed what is called free will theology or open theism, but I think it is logical, plus it does a lot to solve the “problem of evil.”
Click to expand...
JTBT - I greatly appreciate your measured and respectful response. Still we are left with the circular reasoning of “God causes all actions” as opposed to the very reasable truth that “God gives all life.” Because we are dependent on God’s revelation of Himself as all-good, all-loving, all-loving and all-merciful, what can we do but accept that? To accept a deterministic God means that we say ‘God is responsible for our evil actions’ - rather than simply knowing of our evil actions in advance. Does that thought help?
 
catharina said:
JTBT - I greatly appreciate your measured and respectful response. Still we are left with the circular reasoning of “God causes all actions” as opposed to the very reasable truth that “God gives all life.” Because we are dependent on God’s revelation of Himself as all-good, all-loving, all-loving and all-merciful, what can we do but accept that? To accept a deterministic God means that we say ‘God is responsible for our evil actions’ - rather than simply knowing of our evil actions in advance. Does that thought help?
Click to expand...
let me say I have great respect for the Catholic church after all what were protestants before we were protestant 🙂 and I have actually considered investigating the Catholic church more indepth, but that is as far as I have went with that…“considered” I mean.

anyway,
I do not mean to say that God causes all actions, that is not my point and that is not what i think. the problem of evil that I am speaking of is this, let me use Bob from my previous example,
lets say Bob is a parent,
Bob is letting his young child hit a baseball at anothers house,
now Bob has the power to stop his child, but he does nothing,
is it Bob, the child, or both that is responsable for the window that gets broke as a result of the childs actions?
 
JTBT said:
let me say I have great respect for the Catholic church after all what were protestants before we were protestant 🙂 and I have actually considered investigating the Catholic church more indepth, but that is as far as I have went with that…“considered” I mean.

anyway,
I do not mean to say that God causes all actions, that is not my point and that is not what i think. the problem of evil that I am speaking of is this, let me use Bob from my previous example,
lets say Bob is a parent,
Bob is letting his young child hit a baseball at anothers house,
now Bob has the power to stop his child, but he does nothing,
is it Bob, the child, or both that is responsable for the window that gets broke as a result of the childs actions?
Click to expand...
Thanks for letting me know you’re Protestant. I had no idea. Now re Bob, the father. Bob is the father of a CHILD.He might teach his child through intervention or through effects.If the window breaks, Bob sees to the reimbursement.If he has warned his child in the past, then consequence is possible - may a piggy bank geared toward paying up for the window. We are not irresponsible children. We’re mature adults who should well know our actions, possible results and effects. That clearly includes consequences that each of us know, under the law.Does that help?
 
catharina said:
Thanks for letting me know you’re Protestant. I had no idea. Now re Bob, the father. Bob is the father of a CHILD.He might teach his child through intervention or through effects.If the window breaks, Bob sees to the reimbursement.If he has warned his child in the past, then consequence is possible - may a piggy bank geared toward paying up for the window. We are not irresponsible children. We’re mature adults who should well know our actions, possible results and effects. That clearly includes consequences that each of us know, under the law.Does that help?
Click to expand...
1st I’m curious as to why you couldn’t tell I was a protestant?😊
 
catharina said:
Thanks for letting me know you’re Protestant. I had no idea. Now re Bob, the father. Bob is the father of a CHILD.He might teach his child through intervention or through effects.If the window breaks, Bob sees to the reimbursement.If he has warned his child in the past, then consequence is possible - may a piggy bank geared toward paying up for the window. We are not irresponsible children. We’re mature adults who should well know our actions, possible results and effects. That clearly includes consequences that each of us know, under the law.Does that help?
Click to expand...
i was only using a VERY simple example of the responsiblity problem of the window being broke. the argument from atheists and agnostics I have talked to actually goes like this " if God exist and he is all powerful, and all good, then the world should be all good and there should be no suffering."

it is here that I find free will theology to be useful because it places the blame on the shoulders of sinful people. that is God created man and declared him very good giving him free will to choose, man then chose to do evil, bringing pain, and sin into the world…
maybe we actually agree. like I said I am a Protestant, so I have not be exposed to much Roman Catholic theology, prehaps you could recomend a book or two I could read on the subject.
 
JTBT said:
i was only using a VERY simple example of the responsiblity problem of the window being broke. the argument from atheists and agnostics I have talked to actually goes like this " if God exist and he is all powerful, and all good, then the world should be all good and there should be no suffering."

it is here that I find free will theology to be useful because it places the blame on the shoulders of sinful people. that is God created man and declared him very good giving him free will to choose, man then chose to do evil, bringing pain, and sin into the world…
maybe we actually agree. like I said I am a Protestant, so I have not be exposed to much Roman Catholic theology, prehaps you could recomend a book or two I could read on the subject.
Click to expand...
I will give this request some thought. For an peek at teachings, locate a copy of the Documents of Vatican II. The document called Constitution of the Church in the Modern World might be a good introductory overview for you.
 
JTBT said:
what do you mean?

and I do appreciate you giving my request some thought.
Click to expand...
I think it might be that you present as neither offensive nor defensive and my experience has been more with Protestants who seem to be one or the other.(Sorry, but do look back to my double-edit of my previous post.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top