Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Spenser · 05-29-2003, 02:06 PM

I've never heard a good counter to Dan Barker's free will argument. This may have been gone over before but I'd like to see what is said:

Quote:

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.

Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

A more subtle objection is that God "knows" what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his nature, but he never does.

But what does "nature of God" mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The "nature" that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the "nature" of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does.

Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.

If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent.

What would the word "option" mean to a being who created all options?

Some say that "free will" with God does not mean what it means with humans. But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a "free agency" for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid?

Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange "person" with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires.

No objection saves the Christian God: he does not exist. Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists.

beastmaster · 05-29-2003, 02:28 PM

It's a solid argument according to its premises.

But perhaps a Xn might argue that Jesus manifests the "personal being" aspect of God and YHWH manifests the "all-knowing" aspect of God. Part of the same God, and yet separate. If there is some separation between the two aspects, then maybe there is no contradiction.

Spenser · 05-29-2003, 02:28 PM

So how could God have given us 'free will' if he himself lacks it?

Spenser · 05-29-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beastmaster
It's a solid argument according to its premises.

But perhaps a Xn might argue that Jesus manifests the "personal being" aspect of God and YHWH manifests the "all-knowing" aspect of God. Part of the same God, and yet separate. If there is some separation between the two aspects, then maybe there is no contradiction.

So does that mean God wasn't a personal entity until Jesus was born? Prior to some virgin tart spitting out a destined to be virgin kid, God himself was somehow defined differently? A Xian might say something like that but it sounds like a cop out...

beastmaster · 05-29-2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
So does that mean God wasn't a personal entity until Jesus was born?

No, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus is as old as God. Prior to his incarnation on Earth, Jesus was known as the Word:

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And so on and so forth about Jesus.

Spenser · 05-29-2003, 03:03 PM

"is as old as God"

This gets fuzzy cause God is supposed to be eternal, therefore Jesus is eternal. Jesus is also almost purely biblical and believers believe in both the old and new testaments, yet the old testament does not refer to Jesus (not by name), nor a trinity. The fabrications due to the rise of Xianity seem like patchwork to glue together two inherently different books (OT vs NT).

But this discussion wasn't meant to be biblical, when I refer to God I refer to God as a whole, even if that means all 3 personas as Xians might have it. It seems to me that Xians believe Jesus to be all knowing and all powerful and therefore subject to the same free will argument.

What, is that Carmen Electra naked???

beastmaster · 05-29-2003, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
"is as old as God"

This gets fuzzy cause God is supposed to be eternal, therefore Jesus is eternal. Jesus is also almost purely biblical and believers believe in both the old and new testaments, yet the old testament does not refer to Jesus (not by name), nor a trinity. The fabrications due to the rise of Xianity seem like patchwork to glue together two inherently different books (OT vs NT).

But this discussion wasn't meant to be biblical, when I refer to God I refer to God as a whole, even if that means all 3 personas as Xians might have it. It seems to me that Xians believe Jesus to be all knowing and all powerful and therefore subject to the same free will argument.

What, is that Carmen Electra naked???

Spenser, I was trying to lay out a scenario whereby the contradiction described in your OP might be reconciled by a clever apologist. I don't think it is an unlikely scenario. Although I am no scholar, my understanding is that the Jesus cult originated, much like its antecedents and contemporaries the Sophia cult and the Gnostics, in order to reconcile the contradiction you describe in the OP between a perfect deity and a personal deity. The Gnostics and Sophia and Jesus cults all appeared to describe a god that is perfect and impersonal, along with one or more intermediary beings that are at once part of this perfect god and yet who manifest a "personal" aspect.

So, under this scenario, YHWH is perfect and impersonal, whereas Jesus is personal and powerful (but something less than omnimax). Yet, both YHWH and Jesus are of God and with God, part and parcel.

I can't speak for Xns but I don't see any evidence from the Bible that Jesus is omnimax. He's powerful, but not all-powerful; prescient, but not omniscient. He is, after all, the Son, not the Father.

And quit trying to distract me with naked women.

Carolina · 05-29-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beastmaster
It's a solid argument according to its premises.

But perhaps a Xn might argue that Jesus manifests the "personal being" aspect of God and YHWH manifests the "all-knowing" aspect of God. Part of the same God, and yet separate. If there is some separation between the two aspects, then maybe there is no contradiction.

How is this god's "personal being" aspect? If he is perfect, how could he have any human aspect. As far as I know, we, humans are not perfect.

If the Christian god has a human side, therefore he is not perfect.

If god is so perfect, why does he need to "separate" himself to not contradict?

Personally, I think that god does not give us free will. If he knows everything, he knows what people will choose, so does he really gives us this so claimed "free will"? If he already knows what's gonna happen, do we really have a choice? Hum, I don't think so.

beastmaster · 05-29-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carolina
How is this god's "personal being" aspect? If he is perfect, how could he have any human aspect. As far as I know, we, humans are not perfect.

If the Christian god has a human side, therefore he is not perfect.

If god is so perfect, why does he need to "separate" himself to not contradict?

Carolina, I can't answer these questions since I am an atheist. I think the only viable conclusion to be drawn is that the god described by Xnty is mysterious and paradoxical, and is not limited to the human idea of logic.

ChrisW · 05-29-2003, 08:31 PM

perhaps god just knows every possible outcome of every possible action, therein knowing all things

. of course this kind of stretches gods power as it wouldn't know the distinct future until a given input, but it would still know any possible outcome in the future including outcomes that are going to happen no matter what choices are made (like the end of the world). kinda like when i set chessmaster to impossible and cry when the "checkmate in 25 moves" thing pops up

.

of course this all assumes that god would limit itself allowing us to have free will, but since god would already have limited itself to create the universe this isn't too much of a speculation. for a christian of course :boohoo:.

in fact (considering there is a god) our universe correlates with this assumption quite well. assuming quantum uncertainty is correct our universe is not set, i spose if the universe was "set" there would be more of an arguement againsts the concept of free will.

anyways im tired, wanna pass that picture down my way?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2003, 02:28 PM	#2
beastmaster Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Madrid / I am a: Lifelong atheist Posts: 885	It's a solid argument according to its premises. But perhaps a Xn might argue that Jesus manifests the "personal being" aspect of God and YHWH manifests the "all-knowing" aspect of God. Part of the same God, and yet separate. If there is some separation between the two aspects, then maybe there is no contradiction.

05-29-2003, 02:28 PM	#3
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	So how could God have given us 'free will' if he himself lacks it?

05-29-2003, 03:03 PM	#6
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	"is as old as God" This gets fuzzy cause God is supposed to be eternal, therefore Jesus is eternal. Jesus is also almost purely biblical and believers believe in both the old and new testaments, yet the old testament does not refer to Jesus (not by name), nor a trinity. The fabrications due to the rise of Xianity seem like patchwork to glue together two inherently different books (OT vs NT). But this discussion wasn't meant to be biblical, when I refer to God I refer to God as a whole, even if that means all 3 personas as Xians might have it. It seems to me that Xians believe Jesus to be all knowing and all powerful and therefore subject to the same free will argument. What, is that Carmen Electra naked???

05-29-2003, 08:31 PM	#10
ChrisW Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: the moon Posts: 11	perhaps god just knows every possible outcome of every possible action, therein knowing all things . of course this kind of stretches gods power as it wouldn't know the distinct future until a given input, but it would still know any possible outcome in the future including outcomes that are going to happen no matter what choices are made (like the end of the world). kinda like when i set chessmaster to impossible and cry when the "checkmate in 25 moves" thing pops up . of course this all assumes that god would limit itself allowing us to have free will, but since god would already have limited itself to create the universe this isn't too much of a speculation. for a christian of course :boohoo:. in fact (considering there is a god) our universe correlates with this assumption quite well. assuming quantum uncertainty is correct our universe is not set, i spose if the universe was "set" there would be more of an arguement againsts the concept of free will. anyways im tired, wanna pass that picture down my way?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.