What do we do about the fact that nobody has free will

[JM3]

However, God exists by necessity.

Merely stating a premise doesn’t make it true.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If God knows I will eat toast for breakfast tomorrow then I must eat toast tomorrow since God is never wrong. . . .

God is One, in every moment and in every place.
God knows I am eating toast as He knows I am being conceived, as He hears my last prayer, eternally.
He brings us into being, guiding us to Him. We decide whether to love or not. He is Love; when we give of ourselves we are with Him.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Merely stating a premise doesn’t make it true.

It doesn’t make it false either. Allow me to expand myself. If God exists then he exists necessarily by the virtue of his own nature and does not rely on any external cause for his existence. Since he has no cause he is a necessarily existing being. Do you see what I mean? Fundamental to existence itself would be God.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Now here’s a crazy thought that is probably wrong. If we take God’s immutability to the extreme it means that even God’s thoughts are immutable. But, how could thoughts be immutable? If God was outside of time and saw everything, past, present and future at once then he has all his thoughts at once, and are therefore unchanging. However, God exists by necessity. This would imply that God’s thoughts also exist by necessity. Which means that we also exist by necessity. Now that is your crazy thought of the day. Like I said its probably wrong.

I don’t really like pondering this kind of stuff, but it is interesting because the highlighted sentence might be a reason for our existence!

I’m not sure about the immutability of God’s thoughts though. Will be thinking about it - but not too much!

Fran

 

[JuanFlorencio]

No. He only knows it after he chooses.

We don’t know the future, only God does.

Actually, I didn’t say “to know”, but “to predict”; and no doubt we are able to predict certain events with more or less accuracy. If there are deterministic chains of events in the brain (which would not necessarily mean that there are no free human acts), then it would be possible for an experimenter who observes a brain through an FMRI machine to predict one of its future events once it’s associated chain has started. However, I think that some additional information was missing in Norway’s exposition: How does the experimenter establish the moment in which the “decision” is conscious? How does he establish when the specific deterministic series of events starts (in other words, what is the initial event in the chain?)? What is the time lag between those two important events? What is the experimenter’s response time for his main cognitive reactions while he observes?.. and so on.

So, if the experimenter observes his own brain through the machine, and the time lag is long enough, he would be able to predict his own “decision” before it becomes conscious (I have quoted the word “decision” because I don’t use to think about unconscious “decisions”). Once it becomes conscious it seems that he would have the experience of two differentiated conscious states which nevertheless would have the same reference. But maybe Norway knows more and he will respond to my observation.

I want to add for the moment that the “physics” argument does not seem compatible with the “biology” one. I will offer my comment on that later.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Physics:
This one won’t have premises because I don’t know the math well enough, but I have it on good authority that if general relativity is actually the case, then all of our actions must already exist “out there” and someone could see my future given the right circumstances. The idea is that right now, what counts as the present for me exists as the past for someone if they were significantly far away from me. In the same way, what exists as my present would also be someone else future. All of the events that will ever happen already exist depending on where you are in the universe. I don’t think it matters much that no one, as far as we know, is over there. Mathematically it all exists already. Here is a youtube clip that explains it better than me.
youtu.be/MO_Q_f1WgQI

If time is an illusion in such a way that all exists already, then there would be no causality. Causality, as much as time, would be an illusion. So, we would have to forget about the “biology” argument. There wouldn’t be any process either: No memory, no knowledge, no conscience, no movement, no change in general. But there is conscience, memory, knowledge, movement and change, and all this, as a matter of fact, was a necessary basis for the “physics” argument; therefore, as it is presented it involves one or more errors.

Every argument is ultimately based on a set of intuitive premises, and we derive the certitude of the conclusions from the certitude of the premises. But our temporality is one of those basic intuitive premises. Throw it away and all your argument falls down.

 

[fisherman_carl]

If time is an illusion in such a way that all exists already, then there would be no causality. Causality, as much as time, would be an illusion. So, we would have to forget about the “biology” argument. There wouldn’t be any process either: No memory, no knowledge, no conscience, no movement, no change in general. But there is conscience, memory, knowledge, movement and change, and all this, as a matter of fact, was a necessary basis for the “physics” argument; therefore, as it is presented it involves one or more errors.

Every argument is ultimately based on a set of intuitive premises, and we derive the certitude of the conclusions from the certitude of the premises. But our temporality is one of those basic intuitive premises. Throw it away and all your argument falls down.

You would still have causality even if time was an illusion. There may be no temporally sequenced events. But, you still have cause and effect. Namely, you have everything that exists being caused by the uncaused cause. This is Aquinas argument for God. Since his argument is not based on a temporal sequence, but applies even if the universe was eternal, since it is a hierarchical sequence of causes. Like the earth being the cause for the table holding the coffee cup. All of these causes occur at the same time and are not temporally sequenced. But, they can not have an infinite amount of causes. There has to be a first cause. Not first in time, but first in a hierarchy of causes that ultimately supports the coffee cup.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You would still have causality even if time was an illusion. There may be no temporally sequenced events. But, you still have cause and effect. Namely, you have everything that exists being caused by the uncaused cause. This is Aquinas argument for God. Since his argument is not based on a temporal sequence, but applies even if the universe was eternal, since it is a hierarchical sequence of causes. Like the earth being the cause for the table holding the coffee cup. All of these causes occur at the same time and are not temporally sequenced. But, they can not have an infinite amount of causes. There has to be a first cause. Not first in time, but first in a hierarchy of causes that ultimately supports the coffee cup.

Probably you mean St. Thomas Aquinas first way. It is based on the evidence of change; but if there is no change, there is simply no argument. On the other hand, if there is change I agree that the first way applies even if the world is assumed to have no beginning.

 

[Doug_Kraeger]

If we do not have free will, then there is no infinitely good God. If we have no ability to avoid pain and suffering, avoid sin, if everything is determined by this "god’, and we are robots, and in the end he will give us what he wants to; then it is similar to a little boy who tortures a mouse in a cage that cannot choose any way to avoid the suffering, it is evil and therefore the “god” is not infinitely good and therefore is not God.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Philosophy:
Here is a classic that is stronger than most people give it credit for

1. In order for an action to be free, there needs to be a choice of possible actions.
2. If God knows I will eat toast for breakfast tomorrow then I must eat toast tomorrow since God is never wrong.
3. If I must eat toast tomorrow, then I have no choice whether or not I will eat toast.

Therefore: the toast eating action isn’t free.

We don’t know what does “God knows” mean; so, we cannot conclude as you do. However, even if it were ok to use the premise adopting an anthropomorphic perspective, I would oppose the following response:

1. In order for an action to be free, there needs to be a choice of possible actions.
2. If God knows I will chose between eating or not eating toast for breakfast tomorrow, then I will make that choice, since God is never wrong.
3. If I will chose between eating or not eating toast tomorrow, then I do have the choice whether or not I will eat toast.

Therefore, the toast eating action is free.

 

[Doug_Kraeger]

As to the idea that God sees all time and space all at once, all in the eternally present tense, this is what must be for God to be the All-Knowing creator of everything. God only wills one thing, eternally, everything all at “once”. We see it all sequentially. Since God can have only one, single, infinite, indivisible, always in the present tense thought, and when God thinks of His Name, He must think about every detail of what He thinks, is and does throughout Time, therefore His Name contains all He does and is, and His Name is Jesus. Therefore when we pray the Name “Jesus” with God (Jesus is interceding in heaven for us by praying His Name for each of us at every point of our lives), we are placing ourselves completely in the Hands of God’s infinitely great providence.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Thank you for replying!

As a masters student in philosophy I have heard this argument many times (though never with the handy sports analogy). But I think it missed the problem by assuming I am conflating knowledge and causation, as the guy after you also assumed. I am not saying that God is causing anything here. The problem isn’t with God’s omnipotence but his omniscience.

The idea is that, in order for a choice to be free I need something like “Either A or B could happen” and because of God’s omniscience, we really have “Only A can happen.” It is not about God causing one or the other, it is about me needing the possibility of either A or B but not having that possibility because God isn’t in the dark about my breakfast tomorrow.

If God knows I will eat toast tomorrow and God can’t be wrong, then I am never doing anything tomorrow but eating toast. God isn’t making me eat toast but it is not like the choice is up in the air right now. You see what I mean?

It’s nice that you use simple language so we could all understand.
I’ve been away from this post for a while and look forward to reading the rest.

I always say that we can’t ever really understand everything about God. This seems like such a difficult concept for some to accept.

Your a philosophy major probably going for a doctorate - okay. So does this mean you think that one day you’ll understand it all?? I understand that you’re going to give it your all !

Yeah. I agree with those who don’t quite understand how God’s KNOWING could affect your CHOOSING. If you’re saying that His knowledge affects your free will - I don’t really grasp how. I read once about the dead cat in the box idea. Not that I understand it or remember it, but does that have anything to do with this?

Also, if you really want to get complicated, try figuring out our free will in conjunction with God’s providence. Now there’s a task!

Following along with only practical answers…

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

There is only free will available when you are not able too hear Our Lo_rd, Read John, Jesus stipulates that there are others that also hear his voice , , : )

Could you please explain?

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Actually, I didn’t say “to know”, but “to predict”; and no doubt we are able to predict certain events with more or less accuracy. If there are deterministic chains of events in the brain (which would not necessarily mean that there are no free human acts), then it would be possible for an experimenter who observes a brain through an FMRI machine to predict one of its future events once it’s associated chain has started. However, I think that some additional information was missing in Norway’s exposition: How does the experimenter establish the moment in which the “decision” is conscious? How does he establish when the specific deterministic series of events starts (in other words, what is the initial event in the chain?)? What is the time lag between those two important events? What is the experimenter’s response time for his main cognitive reactions while he observes?.. and so on.

So, if the experimenter observes his own brain through the machine, and the time lag is long enough, he would be able to predict his own “decision” before it becomes conscious (I have quoted the word “decision” because I don’t use to think about unconscious “decisions”). Once it becomes conscious it seems that he would have the experience of two differentiated conscious states which nevertheless would have the same reference. But maybe Norway knows more and he will respond to my observation.

I want to add for the moment that the “physics” argument does not seem compatible with the “biology” one. I will offer my comment on that later.

Hello JuanForencio

I like answer posts directed at me but have been too busy. I see now that persons far more inellectually capable than I am have picked up on your idea, but let me just say this.

What you’re explaining above is a physical, or organic, mechanism. There might be wave changes in the brain at the moment one is given a choice. Okay, but now the decision must be made. The decision is made somewhere not localized specifically in the physical brain. Another poster brought up the concept of the soul. The soul, and the spirit if one is christian, will also come into play. But where is this soul? Who can really understand. I know we say it’s in the brain. Whatever. (if it were physical it would die with us upon death to the body - so it cannot be in the brain, organically).

So now between the two choices, the decision is made. The MRI picks up the decision. One of the “waves” becomes constant. And the decision is made. But it’s only known at this point, not at the times when the soul came into play for the decision to be made. So I believe we cannot know what our decision would have been, but only know it once we make it.

Don’t know if I explained myself. I’m a practical person and this sort of thinking is not my cup of tea. I do find it interesting however. I teach cathecism and quit last year - too bad I never thought of giving my kids a question such as this! They could barely accept the fundamentals… but it would have been good food for thought - which they sorely need.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

I don’t really like pondering this kind of stuff, but it is interesting because the highlighted sentence might be a reason for our existence!

I’m not sure about the immutability of God’s thoughts though. Will be thinking about it - but not too much!

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

We don’t know what does “God knows” mean; so, we cannot conclude as you do. However, even if it were ok to use the premise adopting an anthropomorphic perspective,** I would oppose the following response:
**

1. In order for an action to be free, there needs to be a choice of possible actions.
2. If God knows I will chose between eating or not eating toast for breakfast tomorrow, then I will make that choice, since God is never wrong.
3. **If I will chose between eating or not eating toast tomorrow, then I do have the choice whether or not I will eat toast.
   **
   Therefore, the toast eating action is free.

You’re replying to Norway above.

You say you oppose his response, 1, 2 and 3.
In no. 3 he says that he DOES have the coice to eat or not eat the toast, therefore the toast eating action is free.

Are you saying you DON’T agree that it’s free?

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

If we do not have free will, then there is no infinitely good God. If we have no ability to avoid pain and suffering, avoid sin, if everything is determined by this "god’, and we are robots, and in the end he will give us what he wants to; then it is similar to a little boy who tortures a mouse in a cage that cannot choose any way to avoid the suffering, it is evil and therefore the “god” is not infinitely good and therefore is not God.

This is, in my opinion, is the most crucial aspect of christianity. (except for Jesus’ redemptive work!).

How do we accept the notion of free will if we must also adhere to God’s providence?

When you get right down to it, God ALLOWS evil to occur. And pain and suffering.

So, in a way not understandable to us, He does what he wills to do. But we must believe He is good or He becomes that little boy.

I liked Trevor Dewey’s analogy in post no. 27. But it’s kind of like the needlepoint idea. Each thread is its own but in the end it’s a beautiful image.

God is headed somewhere, maybe. So, in some way we have free will, but He has to manage it so we end up where He wants to go at the end of time, or at the end of this plan of His.

We hear of God’s perfect will. If we all did what He, in His perfection, wanted us to do, maybe we’d get to the final thread sooner - but we keep doing what we think is right and He has to keep readjusting. Kind of like the GPS when we make a turn it didn’t instruct us to make.

Interesting thoughts.

Fran

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You’re replying to Norway above.

You say you oppose his response, 1, 2 and 3.
In no. 3 he says that he DOES have the coice to eat or not eat the toast, therefore the toast eating action is free.

Are you saying you DON’T agree that it’s free?

Fran

Hi Frangiuliano!

The argument you have read is mine, and I meant to say that I would use it to respond to Norway’s argument (which I understand is not his). However, I did not use the English verb “to oppose” in the proper way. I used it as if I were speaking in Spanish. Sorry for that.

You can see Norway’s argument in post #1 and compare it with mine. Both have the same form but the content is different: Norway’s negates freedom; mine affirms it.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Frangiuliano!

The argument you have read is mine, and I meant to say that I would use it to respond to Norway’s argument (which I understand is not his). However, I did not use the English verb “to oppose” in the proper way. I used it as if I were speaking in Spanish. Sorry for that.

You can see Norway’s argument in post #1 and compare it with mine. Both have the same form but the content is different: Norway’s negates freedom; mine affirms it.

Yes. I agree with you that we have free will. If we don’t, everything I know from the bible is false and God is a capricious God who is not to be worshiped.

Also, I don’t know why I end up in the philosophy threads since I know nothing about philosophy, however, I don’t really believe any of Norway’s 3 items explain why we would not have free will - although, as I said, I’m afraid I don’t know enough. I should stick to theology, apologetics and spirituality. Although one may come to know God through philosophy - after all, God created that too!

When people assert that they’re having a problem with free will, do they realize that it would mean that this is all a big play and God is the director? If you take free will away, you also take away sin and the need for salvation!

Ciao (italian)
Fran

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes. I agree with you that we have free will. If we don’t, everything I know from the bible is false and God is a capricious God who is not to be worshiped.

Also, I don’t know why I end up in the philosophy threads since I know nothing about philosophy, however, I don’t really believe any of Norway’s 3 items explain why we would not have free will - although, as I said, I’m afraid I don’t know enough. I should stick to theology, apologetics and spirituality. Although one may come to know God through philosophy - after all, God created that too!

When people assert that they’re having a problem with free will, do they realize that it would mean that this is all a big play and God is the director? If you take free will away, you also take away sin and the need for salvation!

Ciao (italian)
Fran

I think in many cases discussions like this arise just from the logical analysis of certain philosophical and even theological systems. It does not necessarily have to do with a lack of faith or with an absurd and unusual existential stance. I think freedom should be taken as a premise in Christian theology as well as in a philosophical system, but sometimes certain conclusions that have been reached through a chain of logical reasonings lead some people to go back to the premises to revise and question them. Strangely, the conclusions adopt then the role of premises originating a great disorder: suddenly you are reasoning without foundations, in the air, and you don’t even take notice. Such thing happens in the case of human freedom, which we know by direct experience, and God’s omniscience, which is completely mysterious to us.

Now, look how both philosophy and theology are certain uses of language. But philosophers do a careful analysis of it. Theologians make use of the results of such analysis and develop discourses on the basis of a narrative (sacred texts) which has been accepted as truth by faith. Those discourses fulfill the intention of making the narrative as rationally consistent as possible to us. As for philosophy, it starts with some texts too, but usually those are not recognized as sacred. They only motivate our reflection in a very peculiar way and challenge our deepest convictions, forcing us to pay a renewed attention to our basic intuitions and reasonings. If philosophy can lead us to God, it is only in a negative way, because we can realize how indigent ourselves and the world are by ourselves. But it does not always happen. Sometimes, philosophy adopts the form of a rebellious act. A fervent desire for truth, which seems to continually run away from us, is always necessary to find God, receiving the testimony of others (verbal or written) in a community.