do we have free will?

[hypermegachi]

premise 1: God exists outside of time.

premise 2: God can see the beginning and end of time (from premise 1).

premise 3: Therefore, God knows what everyone will do (from premise 2).

conclusion: we have no free will.

[jakethebake]

Google says yes. (http://www.legaldocs.com/misc-s.htm)

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
premise 1: God exists outside of time.

premise 2: God can see the beginning and end of time (from premise 1).

premise 3: Therefore, God knows what everyone will do (from premise 2).

conclusion: we have no free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can know what will happen without the ability to affect the outcome.

Other problems with your argument:

1. You presuppose the existence of G-d.
2. G-d, assuming his existence, could have programmed free will into mankind's existence.

[hmkpoker]

I don't think that your conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

Let us say at moment A I choose action X. At moment B (later), I choose action Y. God observes both of these events more or less concurrently (that's probably the best way to put it), but doesn't necessarily control them. He would have to control these events for us to say that free will does not exist.

However, there is a limitation of sorts. God must have been able to see what would happen at moments A and B before he created the world and allowed it to happen. His intervention would at least have to be something like "ahhh, it looks like hmkpoker is going to do X at A and Y at B. Ok, I'll allow that." But even here, I think there is an element of choice, albeit counter-intuitive because it exists outside of time.

[PokerAmateur4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
premise 1: God exists outside of time.

premise 2: God can see the beginning and end of time (from premise 1).

premise 3: Therefore, God knows what everyone will do (from premise 2).

conclusion: we have no free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can know what will happen without the ability to affect the outcome.

Other problems with your argument:

1. You presuppose the existence of G-d.
2. G-d, assuming his existence, could have programmed free will into mankind's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]Yup. But if you meant something like
"God exists, in an infinite time span.=given.
Our existence and very material make up is a condition outside of our control. Our condition such as brain construct and thus decisions we "choose" with said brain were outside of our control when being made. Thus we cannot make a choice independent of anything. Thus no free will."
Then I would have to say that's exactly what I have been thinking and why I beleive free will is an illusion.
The god I state as a given is some kind secular or otherwise element or force which created that which is.

[hypermegachi]

yep. that's why they are premises. if you don't accept the premises as valid then no discussion can continue.

if God programmed free will into mankind's existence then it would be an illusion and not be real.

[hypermegachi]

is it really free will if a higher being knows what action we are going to take?

[benkahuna]

G-d could have allowed for free will outside of any material determism that may be built into our brains.

I don't necessarily believe we don't have free will, but the case is much stronger for a "free won't" as elucidated in Benjamin Libet's experiments.

[PokerAmateur4]

[ QUOTE ]
G-d could have allowed for free will outside of any material determism that may be built into our brains.

I don't necessarily believe we don't have free will, but the case is much stronger for a "free won't" as elucidated in Benjamin Libet's experiments.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. How could G-d of done that? Logistically?
2. What's a G-d?
3. What is free won't a brief summary of the experiment's findings.

[benkahuna]

1. G-d can do whatever he wants. Nothing logical about it. I'm blowing off the mechanism because of this idea.
2. Whatever you want it to be. Typically it implies omnipotence.
3. You're gonna have to look it up. It's somewhat complicated and I can't explain it any better than what's out there. I can probably answer questions you have about Libet's experiments.

[PokerAmateur4]

Well saying anything can be anything because God is all powerful is not tantamount to any discussion at all.

That's like responding to a scientific question about the nature of the world with "Cuz god can make it like that". Worthless.

2. so g-d means some kind of superpowerful force or being, where as god sometimes lends itself to the association of a christian deity?

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Well saying anything can be anything because God is all powerful is not tantamount to any discussion at all.

That's like responding to a scientific question about the nature of the world with "Cuz god can make it like that". Worthless.

2. so g-d means some kind of superpowerful force or being, where as god sometimes lends itself to the association of a christian deity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's pretty stupid, isn't it. Don't blame me, I didn't come up with a G-d.

Free will is NOT a scientific issue. It's a philosophical one because it's so far beyond what science can adequately address (for now).

I don't understand your second point. When someone says "G-d," I think the Christian guy. Booming voice, long beard, fatherly presence, etc....

[hmkpoker]

That depends; is he causing it? Is he the one making us make the action?

If no, then it seems free to me.

[PokerAmateur4]

G-d=god? Why spell it like that, with the dash, what's that signify?

I think you'd agree that a boulder has no free will in it's actions. I.e. if it's rolling down a hill, you wouldn't say it had a choice, would you? Not likely, because it's action has a cause, one outside of its control. If you can't control something, you are not making a choice.

Therefore if you are a product of, cut the god part out, let's say, your parents, and you are only breathing air because it is in your genetic makeup to do so, and you only decide to do all actions based upon knowledge and expierence aquired from past causes outside your action, then how can you say you have any choice in anything? If your mind is simply a calculator, programmed from past occurences, and given input from your surrondings, than how can the outcome be a free choice.

Are you just playing God's advocate?

I like the Supreme Chemist (I think it's called) argument against (the Christian) God existing and humans having free will. It goes something like this:

P1) God is omniscient
P2) God is omnipotent
P3) God created the universe, all of its laws, humans, their DNA, and every subatomic particle jiggle that ever was or ever will exist in this universe.
P4) God knew the outcome of of his creations before creating them (from P1)
P5) God could have changed any single particle jiggle in such a way as to change any outcome he could possibly want to create (from P2 & P3).
C1) God created everything exactly as he did, knowing beforehand the exact outcome, with the power to have created it differently if he so desired.
C2) God is ultimately responsible for everything in the universe, including our very actions (that he foreknew and could have created differently if he wanted to).

We only have freewill in that we can't predict our own actions. But, God can. We are his creation. Don't blame the chemistry experiment that explodes when you knew it was going to explode before you combined the chemicals.

(A presupposition in my argument is that we do not have souls that exist outside of God's foreknowledge. If we do, then P1 is incorrect -- God is not omniscent. If he does foreknow the composition of our souls, and he created them, then those souls would still be able to be changed in accordance with God's omniscient omnipotent desires prior to creating them.)

[ QUOTE ]
G-d=god? Why spell it like that, with the dash, what's that signify?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering the same thing. I've only seen that done by Jewish people out of respect for God, or something.

[hypermegachi]

interesting post.

i'd also like to add that eventually as we trace back in history it will go to a time where nothing exists, and that something must have sparked the existance of everything. call it evolution. call Him God. whatever your choice.

while your argument is pretty extreme, i'd say even if we did have free will, i.e. we had a choice given a set of variables, it would all be irrevelant because we are predetermined to take a specific action, given what we have learned in previous experiences.

i was discussing with a friend about the choice that we take. the specific response to a set of variables will almost always be the "best" personal perceived choice. therefore, if we always choose to make the best choice if possible (flipping a coin is neutral), that makes it deterministic, eliminating free will.

[hypermegachi]

suddenly Presbyterians/Calvinists don't sound out of line anymore...

[hmkpoker]

I have no problem with concluding that there is no free will based on your premises, however they specifically establish God as omnipotent whereas the OP's don't.

[PokerAmateur4]

I'm arguing that logically, save for some unknown or quantum mechanics reasoning, god doesn't matter for the conclusion of determinism as even your birht on is out of your control.

[hmkpoker]

I should point out that you're preaching to the choir...I'm agnostic/atheist and determinist /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Google says yes. (http://www.legaldocs.com/misc-s.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Good one.

I wonder if one really fills in the form if it is free or not. I bet they say you have to pay something for processing. But, I am cynical sometimes.

[hypermegachi]

i'm surprised that there hasn't been any religious defence for having free will, especially for Catholics since free will in such an important part of their doctrine.

i'm not trying to single you guys out, but i'd like to hear the argument for us having free will, given that God can see the beginning and end of time, thus predestining everything that we do.

and to take it one step further, i'm sure Catholics also believe that God is omnipotent...but if that were true, again, how can we have free will if God at any moment can choose to change it?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Free will is NOT a scientific issue. It's a philosophical one because it's so far beyond what science can adequately address (for now).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. However, with the last century of development in the psychology/nueroscience field, I think it's fair to say that it's becoming increasingly scientific. The fact that science is becoming increasingly better at predicting behavior is very suggestive of a deterministic model.

[purnell]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

This was done to death a while back, so I'm just gonna watch.

[hypermegachi]

you wouldn't happen to have a 2+2 link, would you?

[purnell]

It was before the forum split. I get no matches.

There is no conflict between divine foreknowledge and freewill. God's knowing that you will freely choose to do A instead of B does not mean that you did not freely choose to do A.

[J. Stew]

Premise Two is wrong.

Time is a concept that humans made up.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no conflict between divine foreknowledge and freewill.God's knowing that you will freely choose to do A instead of B does not mean that you did not freely choose to do A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the conflict arises not from a voyeur god but from intercession. "Don't let him hurt my child" removes free will from the kidnapper if god acts on the request through the kidnapper. Or if he guides the surgeons hands during an operation, etc.

Given that God can see the beginning and end of time, we can still have free will. Who's to say that God, with this wonderful eyesight, isn't seeing multiple outcomes, as in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Now, if God knows one outcome is better than another, maybe he can cause the better outcome to occur, but maybe he doesn't want to. Hence, free will.

The concept of Free Will is incompatible with a deterministic Universe. And there is currently no reason to believe that the Universe is not deterministic. Thus, it is quite likely that Free Will is indeed an illusion.

Now if only I could use that premise to absolve myself of moral responsibility, I could get on with my raping and pillaging.

"And there is currently no reason to believe that the Universe is not deterministic."
Spud347

There is also currently no reason to believe that the universe is deterministic.

[hypermegachi]

just because God can have free will doesn't imply that His creations will too.

He can choose whatever outcome He wants, and that has nothing to do with us having will in our decisions.

"There is also currently no reason to believe that the universe is deterministic."

Uhm, name one process in this Universe that doesn't behave deterministically. What effect doesn't have a cause?

The Copenhagen interpretation holds that in quantum mechanics, measurement outcomes are fundamentally indeterministic.

That's not to say the universe is nondeterministic. the copenhagen interpretation is only one of several. I don't think however, that anyone can prove or disprove a first cause.

[ QUOTE ]
premise 1: God exists outside of time.

premise 2: God can see the beginning and end of time (from premise 1).

premise 3: Therefore, God knows what everyone will do (from premise 2).

conclusion: we have no free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me first see if I correctly understand the argument you wish to make by rewording it a bit. Then I can render my agreement/disagreement along with my supporting evidence.

premise 1: God exists outside of time.
premise 2: Because God exists outside of time, God can see the beginning and end of time.

minor conclusion 1: Therefore, God knows what we ("everyone") will do.

major conclusion: 2: Since God knows what we will do, we have no free will.

[Mroberts3]

I don't claim to know a lot about quantum mechanics, but I do know that in order to believe in a deterministic universe you have to ignore it almost completely.

I think there is a Buddhist saying, "You can't step into the same river once."

In order to not have free will, the universe must be deterministic. For that to be true all parts of the universe must act predicably in order to accuratly predict the future. Unfortunatly, the deeper you go, the less you have to hold on to until you finaly come back to where you started and realize that you are making a post on this forum at 1:45AM an have class tomorrow.

I guess what I'm saying is that "god" really doesn't matter here because on the microscopic level the universe is probabalistic, something I see as being almost outside of god's power to change even if he can "watch" it happen. (of couse i feel dumb arguing this because anyone can just step out and say "no, god is super powerful so he can see/do/change whatever he wants and I'm powerless to use logic against something like that.")


Also, it seems dumb to make a point in this post at all since we are starting with a premise that almost by its nature makes your argument for you.

[hypermegachi]

it's not just that God knows what we will do...we have already done it.

if time has already ended, it must follow that we already did what we will do in the future. it doesn't matter if i choose to go biking tomorrow instead of jogging, because even the decision to choose is already written in the path i must follow.

i didn't realize that free will could me tackled from so many different perspectives...i.e. deterministics vs nondeterministic, omnipotent God, etc.

so let's try to keep it to the time constraint...for now :P

[hypermegachi]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it seems dumb to make a point in this post at all since we are starting with a premise that almost by its nature makes your argument for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
open call to Christians (especially Catholics/Orthodox)...please post some rebuttals. i'm really interested in your perspective of the issue...because from what I understand, your beliefs accept the premises to be true.

Hi.

[ QUOTE ]
In order to not have free will, the universe must be deterministic.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. If the universe is deterministic, man can not have free will. But there are ways to not have free will that doesn't depend on the universe being determinstic.

As the Copenhagen interpretation has been brought up (in a defense of free will, no less), I guess continuing on that topic is fair game: It's true that quantum theory states (via Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) that not all events can be predicted. Whether or not that makes the universe deterministic can be debated - and the Copenhagen Interpretation claims "not".

What Bohr and Heisenberg didn't claim, however, is that the human mind is shaped to control these events that have a probability but no certainty (except for maybe Uri Geller). And without that special gift, we're not even free-will-less drones in a deterministic universe, we are free-will-less drones in a RANDOM universe.

So to believe in free will, in any meaningful way that rises above neurons continuing on their cause-and-effect path (random or not), there must be something outside the neurons controlling the neurons. That would surely qualify as a "supernatural power", by most definitions. Religion has an answer for this, science does not.

That doesn't make religion correct. But religious groups need it to be true; because without free will, God sure would be cruel to judge people who can't help but do what they do.

On a related note, I don't encourage proving God's existence through science, but the best logical argument made so far was made 2300 years ago; Aristoteles' "Prime Mover" (or "Unmoved Mover"). It's not proof, but it's an interesting idea, and one that is as valid today as it was then.

Cheers,
FP

[Mroberts3]

"No. If the universe is deterministic, man can not have free will. But there are ways to not have free will that doesn't depend on the universe being determinstic."

Good point, I guess I was a little overbroad in my interpretation.

One thing I don't understand is this though, why is it that so many people see a gap in "reality" and fill it with a godlike being. For example, you say that there has to be something above those neurons aka the Umoved Mover. Now, I'm not saying its a bad idea, but isn't it equally logical to say that maybe the human mind is that force? That somehow the concious mind is removed and "above" all those neurons and electrons etc? I don't really subscribe to either view but I don't understand why the missing link so to speak is so often attributed to "god"

[Mroberts3]

didnt mean to imply anything about your own beliefs, but I was just wondering why the scope of answers for questions is so limited to what can reasonably be call religious ones.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
yep. that's why they are premises. if you don't accept the premises as valid then no discussion can continue.


[/ QUOTE ]

Premises are not valid. Premises are true or false. An argument can be valid with false premises, but it cannot be sound.

So are you asking if you have made a valid argument, or a sound argument? I believe neither.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
you wouldn't happen to have a 2+2 link, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=2347289&page=
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=2245964&page=&vc=1

/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[hypermegachi]

care to elaborate why?

p.s. i'm gonna go read those links posted (thanks purnell!)

[ QUOTE ]
"No. If the universe is deterministic, man can not have free will. But there are ways to not have free will that doesn't depend on the universe being determinstic."

Good point, I guess I was a little overbroad in my interpretation.

One thing I don't understand is this though, why is it that so many people see a gap in "reality" and fill it with a godlike being. For example, you say that there has to be something above those neurons aka the Umoved Mover. Now, I'm not saying its a bad idea, but isn't it equally logical to say that maybe the human mind is that force? That somehow the concious mind is removed and "above" all those neurons and electrons etc? I don't really subscribe to either view but I don't understand why the missing link so to speak is so often attributed to "god"

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. What I meant was that if there is a conscious self that somehow - by no means that can be explained by science, as of yet - transcends what we believe to be the laws of the universe, then something supernatural is going on around here. What one wishes to attribute that supernatural phenomenon to is, well... One's own choice.

Myself, I don't attribute it to anything specific. I'm by almost any count an agnostic, and on this topic, I just haven't made up my mind. I could as well believe that we're mindless... Sorry, free-will-less drones, as believing that we're somehow above the laws of the universe. The first makes more sense, the latter appeals to my ego (don't mess with my ego).

But no, it doesn't have to be any kind of deity by the standard definition that gives us the ability of free will. But it does lend itself to some sort of spirituality, doesn't it? I mean, we are talking about our "self" as being something other than flesh and blood. But this is mostly semantics, and trying to put labels on something we don't know to exist - and much less are able to understand and describe - is kind of futile.

Still, your point is valid. Even if god... No wait, that's not a good analogy. Even if <something> came to you right now and explained to you how free will works, there's no guarantee that the explanation (if there even is one) includes anything that even remotely resembles what we'd call a god.

[Mroberts3]

agreed, well said.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
care to elaborate why?


[/ QUOTE ]

The main point I disagree with is the statement "if you don't accept the premises as valid then no discussion can continue."

A good discussion results from forming a valid argument. A valid argument is an argument structured in such a manner that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

For you to argue that the premises must be accepted as true is silly, because if we accept that your premises are true, and also accept that you've structured your argument in a valid manner, there is nothing left to discuss.

This leads us back to your premises (the meat of any logical argument) and whether they are true or false. We can argue about those for the next fifty years and not get anywhere because they cannot be proved as true or false.

[hypermegachi]

thanks for your input.

of course we can't prove or disprove the premises...otherwise there wouldn't be any "faith" or religion...it would just be fact.

although it's still interesting and stimulating to discuss.

also, to throw a new argument out there...we speak of a deterministic model yields lack of free will. what about the nondeterministic model? wouldn't it have to follow that even if we "willed" something the outcome would have to be random, thus removing what will we had to begin with.