Free will -> Probabilistic model of volition -> God's injustice

hmkpoker · #1 10-26-2005, 10:33 AM

An interesting thread broke out between me and Mempho, which I'd like to express and get some other opinions on. The thread is available here.

To synopsize:

Free will must contain, if it is not completely characterized by, a random element. God must be unable to predict a person's choices when he creates them, because otherwise the person's ultimate destination would be pre-determined, and God could not be called just.

If free will were to have causes other than complete chaotic randomness, the above deterministic argument will arise until the principal source of free will is randomness.

It is apparent, though, that some people are far more likely than others to accept Jesus. Most people who are born Christian die Christian, and most people born Muslim die Muslim. The individual cannot exercise control over circumstances such as these; only God can.

If God creates two souls with the knowledge that one is far less likely than the other to be saved, he cannot be called just. This is analagous to God dealing some people aces and other people 72.

Thoughts?

chezlaw · #2 10-26-2005, 10:38 AM

This and many similar arguments are correct in as far as no rational person can believe in this unjust version of god (assuming they see this kind of god as unjust).

That's because, if there is a god then our sense of justice is directly from god and is to be trusted more than any indirect evidence to the contrary.

chez

Mempho · #3 10-26-2005, 10:51 AM

Ironic that you posted a thread about this, too....check out my one below....or I could just include it in this one. After our enlightening debate, I went searching on the web for apologist thinking. I found this, which is somewhat interesting in that this apologist claims that their is a biblical basis that people will be differently according to their circumstances here on earth.

I'd like to see what you think:

Edit** The reasoning behind the probalisic model is that you are either saved or not. Now, the question is...if people are judged differently, what does that exactly mean? Check out the apologist website first.**
What happens if they've never heard?

Xhad · #4 10-26-2005, 11:25 AM

This post does an excellent job of explaining why I don't believe in "free will." Any definition of it is going to include acting without cause, and I fail to see why people feel that acting randomly is better (or more true) than acting according to brain chemistry, social upbringing, etc.

hmkpoker · #5 10-26-2005, 11:41 AM

I'm a hard determinist myself, but the purpose of this thread isn't to disprove free will; it's to prove that free will is also irreconcilable with a just God, just like determinism.

NotReady · #6 10-26-2005, 12:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If free will were to have causes other than complete chaotic randomness, the above deterministic argument will arise until the principal source of free will is randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the libertarian versus compatabilist argument. The problem is insoluable for humans. Killing God doesn't solve it because then we are determined by the chance movement of particles and therefore just as bound as you think we are if created by God. Complete randomness doesn't solve it because that's not really a choice, it's just an accident. How is it just to sentence a murderer whose decision to kill was accidental? The concept of justice becomes nonsensical in a universe ruled by chance. We can only get to a concept of justice if God exists.

As humans we are faced with paradox almost everywhere we turn. We have difficulty because we abandoned the one Source of knowledge, and constanly demonstrate the consequences of trying to figure it out for ourselves.

As a theist I believe that there is human responsibility and this involves free will at some level. God has created us in His image and He did not intend for us to be automotons. His judgments are just and in accordance with His omnibenevolence. And it's reasonable for me to believe this because He is omnipotent and omniscient. It's also reasonable for me to believe I can't comprehend it in this life because of finitude and sin.

Since Adam first sinned man has been trying to blame God for his sin. God wasn't buying it then and He doesn't buy it now. He made us much higher than that with the responsibility that goes with high status. The "God made me do it" excuse won't fly.

hmkpoker · #7 10-26-2005, 12:42 PM

Either:

A) Choice has a cause. This denotes determinism.

or

B) Choice has no cause. This denotes randomness.

This is not difficult.

NotReady · #8 10-26-2005, 12:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This is not difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you go with B)? Hitler's decision to kill millions had no cause? He was guiltless?

DougShrapnel · #9 10-26-2005, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Either:

A) Choice has a cause. This denotes determinism.

or

B) Choice has no cause. This denotes randomness.

This is not difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]Nah this assume way to much. Free will, choice is a consequence of knowledge. Those that have more knowledge have more choices and are more free. Some people choose to live in a subhuman fashion and are determined in most if not all of their actions. It takes someone of reason, and education to have freewill. Chioce has a cause, it is education, education or lack there of restricts free will and reduces some to a subhuman deterministic realm. But those with an education can overcome the deterministic choice if they so wish.

hmkpoker · #10 10-26-2005, 12:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you go with B)? Hitler's decision to kill millions had no cause? He was guiltless?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it had no cause, then how can you blame him? This is consistent. Do you "blame" a deck of cards when your opponent hits his 2-outer?