David Gould

If free will exists (and by free will I mean non-random choice independent of external events and experiences) it is possible for humans to choose to eliminate free will from the world.

For example, at a sufficiently high enough tech level humans could build a though control machine. They could program it to set all humans contolled by it to not believe in God. (they could do this with drugs also, as discussed on a thread somewhere else on these boards).

Alternatively, they could set it so that all humans controlled by it were set to believe in god.

If this device or drug was distributed everywhere then free will might vanish.

Now, I am not sure if it is a logically possible scenario: can free will as defined above result in no free will?

If so, can free will possibly be allowed to exist by a god who allegedly values freely given love above all else?

Ender

David wrote: "can free will as defined above result in no free will?"

Probably not, due to the nature of human consciousness as a nothingness.

~WiGGiN~

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Automaton

Kickass question David Gould! I'd love to hear some theistic responses. Here is my semi-syllogistic version of your argument:<ol type="1">[*] God values free will above intervention in human matters. [a theological position][*] It is possible that, as an exercise in free will, a group of people could eradicate free will thought processes in another group of people.[*] If God does intervene, then premise 1 is false because God eradicated the free will of those who chose to create thought control.[*] If God doesn't intervene, then premise 1 is false because free will has been eradicated under the thought control régime.[*] Under either condition, one of which must be true if it is granted that God exists (law of excluded middle), premise 1 is false.[*] Therefore, premise 1 is false.[/list=a]

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

Tercel

Why is it everyone always forgets about the angelic and demonic powers when discussing free will or evil?
Of course what if the devil wills that this group controls those guys... Or what if an angel wills that the devil doesn't manipulate the group that's potentially wanting to control people into actually willing to control people?
Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Anyway, back to the point:
I think if you re-wrote your premise to something like "God values not directly interfering in the created world" then everything works a bit better.

Ierrellus

Here's my convoluted logic as applied to an excellent question.

Let's say that God can be described by the three
Os (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience) plus being all loving toward "his" creations. If free will is the right to make choices, such as those implied by "How will you spend eternity?" two options are not enough. In fact they smack of coercion. If placed in an either/or dilemma of choice, do I have the choice not to choose? Equating temporal deeds with infinite rewards or punishments is simply immoral. So I choose the third option--oblivion of consciouness, which should be much less noisy than the other two.

Ierrellus

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

David Gould

Firstly, with regard to the free will of angels/demons et cetera this means that they could freely choose not to interfere and let humans take the path of no free will. The point is, God cannot force the return of free will to humanity.

With regard to your alteration of what God wants, if God values not directly interfering in the natural world then why has he supposedly repeatedly directly done so? Jesus is supposed to be God, after all. God appears many times in the Old Testament.

It seems clear that such a thing is not overly valued by God, or at least not until recently.

However, freely chosen love/obedience seems to be something that is valued.

Abraham's test seemed to be a test of freely chosen obedience. The Israelites were allowed to reject God. And so on.

I would like the Biblical evidence that God values not directly interfering in the natural world.

David Gould

You are above and beyond me here, Ender

David Gould

Thanks - I thought of this a while ago but kept forgetting to post it.

I like your formualtion of it - it makes it a lot clearer than my ramblings.

I do not think there is an adequate response to this except the Calvinistic one, which is that there is no free will. I could be wrong, of course.

MadMordigan

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

When we first begin to believe.

Angels? Devils? WTF?

Ender

I meant to refer to the Satrean treatment of the consciousness- his existential theory of free will is among the finest systematic account of a phenomenological exposition on the nature of human will i've had the pleasure of reading. It's also served as a springboard for understanding why such theistic claims to free will are spurrious and at best, in "bad faith."


~WiGGiN~