Let's talk about free will.

[Htom Sirveaux]

It's possibly the most popular response to the Problem of Evil, and it's recently popped up in a couple of discussions in this forum (and no doubt in others that I haven't seen). Briefly, the idea is that the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God allows suffering and/or evil (that he could and would want to prevent, otherwise) because doing so is the price of granting humans free will. Free will is necessary for them to be moral agents. The ability to choose implies the ability to choose wrongly, and at least some humans will inevitably do so. The alternative is thought to be for God to have created robots who would always choose correctly, at the price of rendering the action of obeying God meaningless. Philosophers have debated free will for centuries: whether it exists, how it relates to scientific law and history, and so on.

I'd like to focus on the theological consequences of this doctrine. As previously stated, I'm discussing the "omnimax" God of classic theism: all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, unchanging, simple, eternal, perfect creator. The concept of free will is commonly thought to conflict with both God's knowledge and God's power. If God knows which decision I will make before I exist to participate in said decision, then the decision has nothing to do with my choice or action. Therefore, it seems that genuine free will must limit God's knowledge to that which exists, with the results of free will choices deemed not to exist yet (this is commonly called "open theism" ). Furthermore, if my decision really is free, then it is under my control, not God's. But that means that I have some power that God does not, and God's power is accordingly limited.

But further consequences follow, and here is where things can get really problematic: the doctrine of divine simplicity means that God is not made of parts (this part is his power, that part is his omniscience, etc). God isn't divisible because divisibility implies time and space; different locations, different times. God transcends the time and space he created, so he transcends those differences. Therefore, his power, his knowledge, his very existence: all the same thing. To limit one is to limit all. God then becomes a finite, limited being who has not always existed (his existence has been limited just as his power, knowledge, etc.), and is himself in need of a creator. But the very necessity of invoking God as creator was to limit an infinite regress, and that limit has just been nullified.

And more still. Another traditional way of talking about God is to call him the necessary being: an entity that cannot fail to exist, the uncaused cause. That's how the infinite regress I just referred to was stopped. But if humans are the ultimate authors of their actions, then *they are necessary beings* (their actions are contingent on them, and the chain stops there). We just said that necessary beings cannot fail to exist, they are uncaused causes. Humans, as necessary beings, would have always existed, and not needed a creator. This may be the path to the doctrine of reincarnation and karma: every human being has always existed in one form or another, with the nature of the form dependent on previous actions, all of which each of us is ultimately and solely responsible for.

One way or another, belief in free will seems to point away from the omnimax God as creator.

[Irish_Dem]

1. I think that there can be an omnimax creator and free will.

An all powerful and all wise creator understands the need for free will in allowing for the growth
and development of souls.

[Htom Sirveaux]

3. But can it fill that need without contradicting its own nature: power, knowledge, etc.? (nt)

[Irish_Dem]

10. Yes of course, an all powerful God gives us the gift of free will. So that souls may evolve, learn.

An all wise, all good creator has no need to control or direct events.
And lets souls develop at their own pace.
The creator knows there will be mistakes and growing pains.
That is the process of soul evolution.

A less good, wise, powerful God would not operate this way.

[Htom Sirveaux]

11. Can God do evil?

That also would be God contradicting his own nature.

[Irish_Dem]

21. No of course not. But S/He will let others do evil as part of their soul journey.

God does not judge and loves us all despite our short comings.
And understands that growth and wisdom require hard lessons.

When I was in Catholic school as a youngster, I felt that what the nuns and priests
were teaching us was not quite right, so my belief system was different from mainstream.

[Htom Sirveaux]

53. But what of the people who suffer evil.

Their free will gets taken by the perpetrator.

[Irish_Dem]

55. This is a difficult topic. Eastern religions suggest karma, and pre-birth agreements.

The notion of karma is not about punishment or reward.

It is about debits and credits, balance, lessons and growth.
Souls come together to learn lessons and to further their soul evolution.
Free will, good and evil, are acted out.

I understand the concept and it makes sense to me. But I don't like it.

[Lordquinton]

65. How did you come to your knowledge

About good not judging and loving all?

[Irish_Dem]

68. Extensive reading and studying. And some of it I don't know where it comes from.

I think that by definition God is all powerful, all loving, all knowing.
If not, then s/he is not God, but something else.

[yallerdawg]

16. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Yes - right from the beginning, there was a choice - in a kind of "parable," if you will.

God makes choices, it isn't a script, it isn't robotic.

And he created us in his image.

Hell of a story, isn't it?

[Irish_Dem]

24. God makes choices, allows us to make choices.

Yes one hell of a story.

[Angry Dragon]

2. First I think you have to prove god...............

and then prove what this god is or what powers this god has

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. I do, personally?

My post is criticizing the most popular theistic defense to the most popular argument *against* the existence of God.

[Angry Dragon]

6. Someone has to prove god to have an arguement

Some one says they believe there is a god, that is a true statement, because they do believe
define that god---------many would state differences-------that would make many gods
so someone has to prove god-----I do not care who or whom
or is this god just a force with no human attributes
no human face to it
perhaps the forces of this Universe is this god everyone speaks of

[Irish_Dem]

26. One thing I have never understood, why is there a need to prove God exists?

A spiritual belief system is totally up to each individual to sort out.
And one person doesn't need to prove their spiritual journey to any one else.

And we are all free to believe whatever.

I can tell you my belief system, the one I have had since childhood.
But it is ok if no one likes it or believes it.

But I understand that we are intellectually curious creatures and would like
answers to the big questions.

[Voltaire2]

5. thanks for clearly expressing the standard abrahamic god concept.

It is obviously nonsense. But that isn't important. It is very likely that we do not have "free will" in the sense of "conscious decision making". Neuroscience is increasingly converging on a model where it seems that decisions are made unconsciously and that our perception of decision making is instead our conscious mind back-filling a narrative for us.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. Maybe the nature of "God"

is completely different from what's normally assumed. Maybe "God" is a committee (I'm thinking one on the order of a dysfunctional city council). Maybe some sort of "God" set the Universe in motion, but has been off doing the deistic equivalent of drinking margaritas on a beach somewhere, leaving us completely on our own.

Obviously I'm being more than a bit facetious, but I do think the essential problem lies entirely in how "God" is envisioned.

[Irish_Dem]

25. We need Him to come off the beach and save our bacon on this planet. :)

[Mariana]

8. According to the Bible, God does not always allow

human beings to exercise free will. In the story of the Exodus, when God wanted to continue tormenting the men, women, and children of Egypt, and their slaves and livestock, he "hardened Pharoah's heart" over and over again. Even if he wanted to, Pharoah would not be able to release the Hebrews before God was finished with his torture-fest.

[guillaumeb]

9. You have essentially defined, or created if you will, a deity for yourself.

Let us call this deity Classic straw man and proceed to demonstrate the weaknesses of this deity that you have created.

I say this not to attack you, or your premise, or even your post, but to say that if one accepts that a Creator exists, any attempts to define the Creator would be invalid unless you know exactly what the Creator is and what limitations exist, if any could, on that Creator.

You are relatively free to choose as you wish. If you choose, for example, to eat a diet heavy in sugar and later develop diabetes and/or obesity, your resultant poor health cannot be blamed on a Creator.

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. If we cannot reason about the creator,

and the creator is the basis of the universe, is the universe fundamentally non-rational?

[guillaumeb]

13. Humans can freely speculate, but I feel that we can never "know".

Unless one posits that human intelligence literally has no limits.

[Htom Sirveaux]

14. But isn't the inference that the existence of the universe

implies the existence of a creator an attempt at reason?

[guillaumeb]

15. It is an unprovable belief.

We can speculate, but we cannot know.

We can make certain statements about what we believe to be true, but again, faith is needed because it is unknowable.

[Htom Sirveaux]

17. What is the value of that belief?

You don't want to reason about it, you're willing to sever the logical link between universe and creator, attempts to describe this creator are invalid...what does this belief in a creator do for you?

[guillaumeb]

18. I believe that there is a Creator.

I believe in the message of Jesus and try to follow it because I feel it is the correct way to behave.

And as I said, we can speculate, but we cannot know. If you feel that you cannot accept such a thing as faith I would suggest that you follow your own path.

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. Can we speculate, though?

I'm not sensing that you want to. "There is a creator" seems to be the end of it, as far as I have seen. And what Jesus has to do with a creator isn't clear at all. Nor why "faith" would be acceptable/valuable.

[Irish_Dem]

23. I do not think either approach is wrong.

Some have a strong spiritual belief system but do not need to try and understand the bigger picture, or the religious cosmology of it all.

Others have more inquiring, curious minds, with a healthy dose of skepticism and need answers.

Each soul has its own unique journey.

I am spiritual to my core, but quite skeptical and curious at the same time.

Jesus is thought to be, along with some others, to be prophets, gifts from God to help us on our journey.

Faith is a connection to our creator, to the non earth realm, and it can sustain and guide us. It can help the soul on its journey.

Of course man made religion has been the source of much pain and sorrow.
This is not from God, but from man.

[guillaumeb]

31. We can speculate, but we are limited by our human consciousness.

Jesus said he comes from the Creator, and is of the Creator. Faith is required to believe in the unprovable.

[Irish_Dem]

34. I think the limits of human consciousness and knowledge do prevent us from understanding

Last edited Sat Nov 11, 2017, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

the true nature and extent of God. Some religions explain it better and are more useful in our quest.

I too believe that Christ is one of the prophets sent by God to help us with moral direction.

Edit for typos

[guillaumeb]

41. Nice points, and we agree that our limitations prevent us from

understanding. Any of our speculation is based on our humanity, and on how we would expect a deity to behave. And that speculation reveals more about us than it does about the object of the speculation.

[Irish_Dem]

45. Yes I agree. We are not able to grasp the whole picture. Just bits and pieces.

And all tightly viewed through a human lens.

[Irish_Dem]

22. Science and rationality go hand in hand with a belief is a supreme being.

It never has seemed mutually exclusive to me.
I am trained as a scientist but have a belief in a creator.
And a spirital core.

And yes humans try to make sense of their world, their belief systems.
I don't think the Christian faiths have been good at explaining any of it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

27. Have any other faiths/paths/perspectives done a better job

in your estimation?

[Irish_Dem]

28. Yes indeed. The eastern religious do a much better job of explaining

the nature of the universe, God, soul journey, the nature of good and evil.
God's role and participation or not in our daily lives, etc.

I am one of those people who need a lot of answers, and an understanding of the nature of the universe, God, etc. So I have done a lot of reading and exploration. Based on realizing that what I was being taught in Catholic school was not quite right and not really answering my questions.

[Htom Sirveaux]

29. That's where I thought you might be going with this.

Advaita Vedanta. Or perhaps you favor a different school, I don't know. AV was just a guess based on perceived popularity as an option.

[Irish_Dem]

30. Not just Hinduism, but Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism.

The Catholic Church tells us we are eternal souls, we live forever.
But never explains what happens before and after birth. Really never
fleshes out God, the universe, cosmology. I needed to connect the dots
and make it all make sense to me. The eastern religions do all of that.

I am from an strong Irish Catholic family, first generation, but spent time in the Far East as a child, my father was in the military. I received Catholic training, but spent time hanging around Shinto Shrines as well. I was the black sheep of the family.

[Htom Sirveaux]

32. I've been very focused on Catholicism.

Their apologists try very hard to make it appear as though popular skepticism doesn't understand or counter their arguments. And because I want to deal with the very best, I've made it my business to engage with the Thomistic tradition, just on an amateur level, you might say.

[Irish_Dem]

33. Yes I can see why. Aquinas wrote about reason and theology.

Which is what you are trying to sort out. A very legitimate quest.

Of course the Vedics were writing theology 2000 BC, long before Aquinas.
I love that Aquinas tied Aristotle into Catholic theology.

[Irish_Dem]

35. I think God has chosen to be enigmatic for a reason. We will never prove God's existence.

It is really a good thing to have the discussion about the existence of God.
And to blend science and religion, rationality and spirit.

But if the existence of God, and the overarching morality of the universe were handed to us on a platter,
where would be the learning, challenge, and the journey? Then we would be back to the free will discussion.

What choices do we make, what is our moral core, not knowing if there is a God?
And no reward, no heaven. No punishment, no hell.
Are we inner directed to do the right thing?
Or do we only function well because of externalities?

[Htom Sirveaux]

37. The line of thought we are discussing leads to Geneva

and the question of whether anything of us can be truly said to be "inner directed".

[Irish_Dem]

38. Can you say more about this? nt

[Htom Sirveaux]

39. In general, I've been thinking a lot about Calvinism this morning.

Your comments on the mystery of God and the testing of the inner self sparked the question for me of whether we could even be said to have an inner self, or if it's all ultimately God. But I'm not sure I remember the particular thoughts I was having at the time I posted this.

So maybe you could share any thoughts you might have about Calvinism?

[Irish_Dem]

40. Several thoughts.

In terms of the mystery of God. if there is a God, why does he not declare himself in a public way. Make it totally clear that s/he exists? Certainly an all powerful God could easily do this. A few public appearances, miracles, what have you.

So there is either no God, or God has chosen to remain a mystery. I believe the latter for the reasons I outlined in a prior post.

My thoughts on the inner/outer self issue. I think sometimes we discuss options as a dichotomy, one option is true, the other false. In the case of inner and outer self, I believe both are true. A part of us is directly from God, another part is entirely a function of free will.

By Calvinism you are referring to God ordained predestination? I believe both in free will and some preordained events. I argue both exist.

I believe that in some cases God has preordained certain events. Some events occurring in the history of mankind have a magical, spiritual feel to them. These are events which have significantly jump started the evolution of man. Events that may seem to come out of nowhere which are forward thinking and moving mankind towards a more civilized advanced society. Events in which justice, goodness, fairness seem to go against prevailing societal norms and mores. If we look at events as probability ratios, then these events are 100% probability.

However most events are a reflection of free will, and their probably ratios are less than 100% of course.

[Htom Sirveaux]

54. So bottom line, there is some power that God does not have.

Doesn't that mean, as I said in the OP, that God is finite, therefore not actually the ultimate creator?

[Irish_Dem]

56. No, if I said that I didn't mean to.

I do believe in an all powerful Creator. I am not sure what I said to indicate otherwise.
He choses not to use his power because he gives us free will.
And wishes to remain a mystery.

That said, I do believe it is possible, along the lines you suggest, that there is a lower set of Gods,
who have limits. And answer to the ultimate creator who is all powerful.

[Htom Sirveaux]

57. All powerful. All the power. For God. None for us.

But if there is free will, then God has some power and we have some power. Each has a finite amount of power.

I'm not sure where the disconnect in our understandings is.

[Irish_Dem]

58. God is all powerful. We are not. But we do have power.

I am not saying I like the system.
I am just describing what my belief is after a lot of thought and studying.

[Htom Sirveaux]

59. When you say "all powerful"

what do you mean, what are you imagining? I think the confusion boils down to each us imagining a different picture attached to that phrase.

[Irish_Dem]

60. I agree, we need to operationalize the term.

What does it mean to be all powerful?

[Htom Sirveaux]

61. I mean it in this discussion in an existential sense.

Via the doctrine of divine simplicity, God's existence and his power are interchangeable, and both are infinite and exercised to the utmost (that's the "perfect" part in the litany I recited: in the tradition I am invoking, God is fully actual, meaning that no potential has gone unexercised). Meaning all existence/power is God, even if it seems like particular individuals existing and exercising power, nope, that's God.

Now that I've written that out, it occurs to me that you might be treating God's power as potential that he can choose to exercise or not, so our issue actually might be with the perfection description of God. It's based on the idea that in an infinite existence, all powers will be fully exercised (that's what it means to be possible in the first place, some probabillty of happening that will be realized given long enough, and infinity works for every probability).

[Irish_Dem]

62. You are correct in that I believe that God is all powerful but does not exercise his potential

at all times. For example he could intervene more in the day to day lives of his creations, but
he choses not to for the reasons I have stated. He does intervene from time to time as I have also
described.

It is kind of mind blowing to think of God exercising all of his power, all of the time.
Wow, we would have a perfect world with perfect people.

[Irish_Dem]

69. Htom, I think there is a scenario that fits your view. One that makes sense to me.

God by definition must be all powerful and all good.
If not, then he is not a God, but something else.

So if we have a creator that is not a God, what could that creator be?
Some sort of other entity who is powerful enough to create earth and humans.
But not powerful enough to be omnipotent and a God in the traditional sense.
But as humans we attribute God like status to this creator.

Hear me out. This theory is no more wild than the notion of a God up in the sky
who is omnipotent. And explains creation theory... The universe is a huge place.
Quite possible that an advanced species created earth and its inhabitants.
And it was done in a short period of time, the creation story is correct.
The major flood was the addition of water to the newly created planet.
The creators were able to make primitive primates. And then let nature take its course.
The reason why gets back to Guillaumeb's ideas about a creator with an artistic desire to create. To express himself, to see what happens.

Periodically this creator checks on his work, sends up some help.
Sends us William Shakespeare to revolutionize human language.
Or Thomas Jefferson to create the declaration of independence.

Actually this theory is probably more plausible than the God theory.

[Irish_Dem]

49. To elaborate further and to borrow from guilaumeb.

A Creator who creates humans for the joy and wonder of creation.
Let's things unfold as part of the artistic effort.

But then sends assistance to his creations when things are not going well,
or perhaps it is routine, to assist with a planet's growth, collective soul growth.

The assistance would be ordained by God. And it would be certain He would send
it to us.

For example, think of certain people in history who stand out. They are widely recognized as geniuses, truly remarkable and far ahead of their time. They invent or create something that transforms society, makes a wide and long lasting impact in human affairs. Their contributions are startling in that they seem to be dissimilar to the zeitgeist, societal norms and mores. Even centuries later the genius is recognized and understood to have moved the planet forward in a positive way.

I have several examples of people I think were preordained gifts from God.

[guillaumeb]

42. Perhaps the Creator, for whatever purpose having created,

is content to watch how things develop. Perhaps the love for the creation process is all the reason that the Creator had for the process and the act of creation itself. Similar to an artist who creates a work of art to express an inner feeling.

[Irish_Dem]

44. Yes I think this is true to some extent. But a bit more....

I think God hopes that all souls evolve to a higher level.
But lets things unfold according to free will.

[MineralMan]

20. As do all people who believe in such entities.

As you have.

[Voltaire2]

36. It is the standard all powerful abrahamic god.

If you disagree about this version feel free to provide an alternative model.

[guillaumeb]

43. Recommended for the very interesting dialogue that has occured thus far.

And I further attest that I have written this of my own free will.

[Irish_Dem]

46. God promised me a nice big piece of cake if I wrote good things about Him.

I am spiritual to my core, with a dose of skepticism and irreverence.
May God forgive me.

Edited to add: I see that you also read the article about religion being hard wired in humans.
Why might this be? Something Darwinian? Loads on human evolution, survival of the species?

Seems like religion has been more of a curse than a blessing to mankind.

[guillaumeb]

47. My feeling is that all aspects of tribalism are necessary to survival.

Religion, culture, ethnic identity, all promote group survival.

[Irish_Dem]

48. Humans hard wired for religion for survival purposes. Does this connect to free will then?

Makes sense that religion might load on group survival. Anything that knits a group together for protection purposes.

But then gets back to the OP questions about free will. If we are hard wired along religious lines, does that mean perhaps we do not have total free will.

[guillaumeb]

50. What would "total free will" encompass?

Given that no human is all powerful, there can be no such construct in my opinion.

[Irish_Dem]

51. I would agree "total" free will does not exist.

I do believe we have the ability to make choices, to be moral or amoral.
But we are also constrained by society, biology and psychology.

[Snackshack]

52. I recommed reading or...

Listening to Sam Harris’s book on this subject or perhaps one of his talks.

[MarvinGardens]

63. What about Acts of God?

There can be acts of nature, often called Acts of God in American laws and contracts, that result in great suffering. We would call these acts evil if done by man, but they are not. If God is really responsible for these acts, then I argue that He is performing evil acts. Certainly, no person is responsible for a given Act of God. And if God is not responsible, what of His omniscience and omnipotence? This is an additional problem with the idea of the "omnimax" God.

[Iggo]

64. Or as I call them, Things That Happen.

[Lordquinton]

66. All the modern descriptions also describe nogod existing

A simpler less harmful thing.

[Jim__]

67. "If God knows which decision I will make before I exist ..."

... If God knows which decision I will make before I exist to participate in said decision, then the decision has nothing to do with my choice or action. Therefore, it seems that genuine free will must limit God's knowledge to that which exists, with the results of free will choices deemed not to exist yet (this is commonly called "open theism" ). Furthermore, if my decision really is free, then it is under my control, not God's. But that means that I have some power that God does not, and God's power is accordingly limited.

Einstein's understanding of time is that there is not really such a thing as an isolated moment of time. He believed that all time existed simultaneously - ( link to source ):

Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

If Einstein's understanding of time is correct, an omniscient God - almost by definition having a God’s eye view across all of simultaneous time - knowing about your decisions before you’re aware of having made them - you living under the normal human time perspective - does not seem to cause any conflicts between free will and such a God’s powers.

[keithbvadu2]

70. There is no 'free will'... If you believe in an all-powerful God, there is only'allowed will'.