Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zadok001 · 11-28-2002, 05:39 AM

Sandslice:

Well said. There is very much a 'distasteful' aspect to this problem, but that doesn't change the facts. Everything you do, given enough information (and a lack of random elements), could be predicted. Of course, I can't do that because I don't HAVE enough information - I'd need to know not just everything about you, but everything about the world. One presumes this is a chaotic system, so every action affects every other action. Thus, I'd need to know every action already passed to predict every future action. But it could still be done.

Not having knowledge of our future simply gives us an mirage of free will - We FEEL that we're making our own decisions, and really, we are. But those decisions have been set in stone already. We're simply following our set little paths, possibly with an occassional random twist.

tronvillain · 11-28-2002, 08:19 PM

What exactly is distasteful about that? That is not an illusion of free will, that is free will.

Zadok001 · 11-29-2002, 05:42 AM

Tron, I'm running on a different definition than you. I think we're actually in agreement on this point. Your definition of free will allows for determinism by using the EXPERIENCE of choosing as the relevant part of free will - i.e., you think about stuff, you make a choice. And that's free will under your definition.

My definition is simply that you can change the outcome a situation through rational choice.

Under your definition, predetermination doesn't matter. Under mine, it does.

Thus, under my definition (which SandSlice shares), this argument is distasteful. It's not particularly nice to know you don't have free will.

Beoran · 11-29-2002, 12:30 PM

Well, I don't care either way about "free will". It seems to be quite a vacuous concept any way.
Besides, it is a red herring (=irrelevant) with regards to the problem of evil. An omnipotent deity can create a world in which no evil exists and in which humans still have free will.
An omnscient deity knows what the consequences will be of creating a world in which evil can exist such as increased suffering in it's creatures. An omnibenevolent deity will do all in it's power to prevent and lessen suffering in it's creation. So, if that deity is both omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, it will create a world in which free will exists and evil does not. Our would is apparently not such a world, ergo, our world was not created by such a 3-omni deity.

I find the whole argument from evil to be quite a red herring with regards to the existence of god(s), though. Who says the divine needs to be omnibenevolent? You can't even use the argument from evil against believers.

An omnipotent deity could do something evil and then by it's infinite power make that act a good one. Heck, such a being could even change the meanings of words, concepts, acts. Just think about absolution of "sins" in certain religions. What is supposed to happen essentially is that is that the god of that religion wipes out the evil act, and renders it ethically nonexistant. If a god can do that for it's followers it, can do that for itself as well. Yeah, it's essentially "Might makes Right" but that will not bother the believer, as that person thinks he or she is on the side of the mightiest one.

Zadok001 · 11-30-2002, 05:33 AM

Well, Beoran, this is really a different issue, but...

First of all, God doesn't enter into this main discussion. This is a question of whether we actually have free will. But since that question has largely been moved to the other similar thread, I'm going to address some of your points and pull this thread WAY off topic.

There is one moral possibility you aren't considering - What if, in creating this world, the moral laws of reality came hand-in-hand with the physical laws? God, it is largely accepted, can do anything possible. He can make stuff appear, he can bring people back to life, etc... He CANNOT make a round square.

Likewise, if moral laws are fixed and inherently integrated into the world, God would be incapable of altering them. Telling him "Make killing morally right" would be the same as telling me "Give me a round square." The two terms are impossible to integrate. You just can't do it.

It's a wierd world view, but it opens things up a little. God still created morality, he just locked it in place quite nicely, and cannot alter it.

Beoran · 11-30-2002, 07:24 AM

I think I see your point. However, if the laws of nature and the laws of morality are one, then the laws of nature could have been different to the point where evil cannot exist but free will can. Not to mention that a god who is limited by logic is not truly omnipotent. A truly omnipotent being could make a round square, regardless of the fact that it is illogical and incosistent to do so.

Zadok001 · 11-30-2002, 08:12 AM

Ah, ok. See, the way I view it, an omnipotent being can do X, where X is possible. The only problem I can see with your way of going about is that it opens you up to the whole Rock-So-Big-God-Can't-Lift-It scenario, which my solution bypasses. (Of course, I'm left with just as many other problems, including the problem of omnipotence in a deterministic universe, but hey, whatever.

)

Beoran · 12-01-2002, 06:08 AM

The rock-so-big-god-can't-lift-it paradox can also be resolved by true omnipotence. The omniponent being just has to redefine the meanings of the terms at it's will to make the paradox dissapear. Yeah, it's cheating and illogical, but that's omnipotence, and fully omnipotent beings "move in mysterious ways". ^_~

Thomas Ash · 12-03-2002, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Xeren claimed:
But of course, that is the compatibilist position that people have been speaking of. And i hate (wait no, i love) bringing religion into it, but for Christianity, the compatibilist position is not enough to warrant things like punishment for sins. Without the kind of "strong" free will that even compatibilists agree we don't have, the punishment/reward system of christianity makes little sense.
-xeren

But that's not compatibilism!

(Hey, haven't I had this argument with you already on the thread 'REAL Free Will?') Compatibilism has nothing to do with whether you know what you're going to decide, or not. It could be as fully determined as incompatibilist determinism. It just gives a definition of free will that allows for both free will and determinism. This definition is that free will is simply the act of you making a choice without complete external coercion. Even if you can trace causes back to before your birth, it's still free will so long as you're a major part of the decision-making process.

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren:
If anyone cares, here is a VERY good essay on <a href="http://world.std.com/~twc/strawson.htm" target="_blank">free will</a>. If you don't quite understand where Zadok001 is coming from, this MIGHT clear it up.
Here's a good quote form the essay which sums it up rather well:

I know Galen Strawson, BTW. He's a strong atheist.

Not to namedrop, or anything...

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Ash ]

Thomas Ash · 12-03-2002, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zadok001:
(And while I'm on it, if free will does not exist, what effect does this have on society?)

Well, one possible consequence I can think of is that locking criminals up would no longer be seen as matter of the 'pure evil degenerates' deserving it.

If it all went back to a chain of causes, anyone would have done the same thing if they'd had exactly the same genes and life experiences. People are very keen on the notion of punishment (and I don't mean in a kinky sense), and if you told them they don't have libertarian free will, they'd abandon this. However, I think there are perfectly good utilitarian reasons for locking criminals up (eg. preventing crime!), so it wouldn't pose too much of a problem for me.

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

11-28-2002, 05:39 AM	#51
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	Sandslice: Well said. There is very much a 'distasteful' aspect to this problem, but that doesn't change the facts. Everything you do, given enough information (and a lack of random elements), could be predicted. Of course, I can't do that because I don't HAVE enough information - I'd need to know not just everything about you, but everything about the world. One presumes this is a chaotic system, so every action affects every other action. Thus, I'd need to know every action already passed to predict every future action. But it could still be done. Not having knowledge of our future simply gives us an mirage of free will - We FEEL that we're making our own decisions, and really, we are. But those decisions have been set in stone already. We're simply following our set little paths, possibly with an occassional random twist.

11-28-2002, 08:19 PM	#52
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	What exactly is distasteful about that? That is not an illusion of free will, that is free will.

11-29-2002, 05:42 AM	#53
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	Tron, I'm running on a different definition than you. I think we're actually in agreement on this point. Your definition of free will allows for determinism by using the EXPERIENCE of choosing as the relevant part of free will - i.e., you think about stuff, you make a choice. And that's free will under your definition. My definition is simply that you can change the outcome a situation through rational choice. Under your definition, predetermination doesn't matter. Under mine, it does. Thus, under my definition (which SandSlice shares), this argument is distasteful. It's not particularly nice to know you don't have free will.

11-29-2002, 12:30 PM	#54
Beoran Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 75	Well, I don't care either way about "free will". It seems to be quite a vacuous concept any way. Besides, it is a red herring (=irrelevant) with regards to the problem of evil. An omnipotent deity can create a world in which no evil exists and in which humans still have free will. An omnscient deity knows what the consequences will be of creating a world in which evil can exist such as increased suffering in it's creatures. An omnibenevolent deity will do all in it's power to prevent and lessen suffering in it's creation. So, if that deity is both omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, it will create a world in which free will exists and evil does not. Our would is apparently not such a world, ergo, our world was not created by such a 3-omni deity. I find the whole argument from evil to be quite a red herring with regards to the existence of god(s), though. Who says the divine needs to be omnibenevolent? You can't even use the argument from evil against believers. An omnipotent deity could do something evil and then by it's infinite power make that act a good one. Heck, such a being could even change the meanings of words, concepts, acts. Just think about absolution of "sins" in certain religions. What is supposed to happen essentially is that is that the god of that religion wipes out the evil act, and renders it ethically nonexistant. If a god can do that for it's followers it, can do that for itself as well. Yeah, it's essentially "Might makes Right" but that will not bother the believer, as that person thinks he or she is on the side of the mightiest one.

11-30-2002, 05:33 AM	#55
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	Well, Beoran, this is really a different issue, but... First of all, God doesn't enter into this main discussion. This is a question of whether we actually have free will. But since that question has largely been moved to the other similar thread, I'm going to address some of your points and pull this thread WAY off topic. There is one moral possibility you aren't considering - What if, in creating this world, the moral laws of reality came hand-in-hand with the physical laws? God, it is largely accepted, can do anything possible. He can make stuff appear, he can bring people back to life, etc... He CANNOT make a round square. Likewise, if moral laws are fixed and inherently integrated into the world, God would be incapable of altering them. Telling him "Make killing morally right" would be the same as telling me "Give me a round square." The two terms are impossible to integrate. You just can't do it. It's a wierd world view, but it opens things up a little. God still created morality, he just locked it in place quite nicely, and cannot alter it.

11-30-2002, 07:24 AM	#56
Beoran Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 75	I think I see your point. However, if the laws of nature and the laws of morality are one, then the laws of nature could have been different to the point where evil cannot exist but free will can. Not to mention that a god who is limited by logic is not truly omnipotent. A truly omnipotent being could make a round square, regardless of the fact that it is illogical and incosistent to do so.

11-30-2002, 08:12 AM	#57
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	Ah, ok. See, the way I view it, an omnipotent being can do X, where X is possible. The only problem I can see with your way of going about is that it opens you up to the whole Rock-So-Big-God-Can't-Lift-It scenario, which my solution bypasses. (Of course, I'm left with just as many other problems, including the problem of omnipotence in a deterministic universe, but hey, whatever. )

12-01-2002, 06:08 AM	#58
Beoran Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 75	The rock-so-big-god-can't-lift-it paradox can also be resolved by true omnipotence. The omniponent being just has to redefine the meanings of the terms at it's will to make the paradox dissapear. Yeah, it's cheating and illogical, but that's omnipotence, and fully omnipotent beings "move in mysterious ways". ^_~

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.