do we have free will?

hypermegachi · #1 11-01-2005, 09:49 PM

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 · #2 11-01-2005, 09:51 PM

Google says yes.

benkahuna · #3 11-01-2005, 10:33 PM

[ 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 · #4 11-01-2005, 10:59 PM

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 · #5 11-01-2005, 11:03 PM

[ 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 · #6 11-01-2005, 11:13 PM

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 · #7 11-01-2005, 11:14 PM

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

benkahuna · #8 11-01-2005, 11:14 PM

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 · #9 11-01-2005, 11:31 PM

[ 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 · #10 11-01-2005, 11:41 PM

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.