Theists: How can predetermined fate and free will coexist?

[Anomalocaris]

iow, I propose that all logically consistent and well defined notions of free will are compatible with determinism.

In what sense is it free?

---

I don't think free will in the way you would like to have it can exist at all, to me, it doesn't really figure into the equation whether the universe is deterministic or not.

Also, even if the universe is not deterministic, that does not mean it's free.   It also does not mean there truly is any sort of will.  It merely mean more than one outcome is possible provided one define what constitute an outcome specifically enough.   The notional unpredictable dice has no free will.

For me, the closest approximation to an empirical definition of free will would be if the possessor of free will can uniquely reduce the number of possible outcomes in a particular situation in a way he alone could demonstrably predict, and yet there is no other agent whosoever who could even theoretically Possess the capability to predict how the possessor of the free will would reduce these possible outcomes.

If the possessor of the so called free will can not predict his will a priori, then He can not demonstrate any will, only ex post claim of control over what he had really demonstrated no control over.

[robvalue]

Yes I agree. A choice is truly free if its outcome cannot be predicted. Even by a "God". That is why it's at odds with precognition of any kind.

I mean, if God wants to entertain itself, why the hell would it create a load of stuff that it knows the outcome of? What fun is that?

It doesn't, at all. It's just obfuscation.

And thanks very much! I got plenty more where that came from


I'm not sure what you're saying here. If we're discussing hard determinism, as in everything could be predicted from the word go, then I don't see any kind of "free will" being possible, that means anything.

By "free will", I would mean that intelligent agents have a genuine choice of multiple actions, and they could actually choose any of them. If it can be predicted what the agent will do with complete accuracy, then I no longer see it as any kind of choice. It's just a sequence of causes and effects. All we have is the illusion of choice.

If you define "choice"/"free will" so that it covers no real choice at all, then it's compatible, but meaningless IMO.

I agree completely with this, and I just want to add, even if the universe isn't superdeterministic and there is true randomness, I don't think free will exists in that case either. You have no control over true randomness the same way one has no control over something already determined. But it isn't 'either you're determined or driven by randomness' because the brain isn't quantum and follows cause and effect. Iow the brain is deterministic.

I've met definitions of free will where they've restricted free will to merely acting according to ones intentions with no restrictions from an outside force, in this case outside force being an agent; agent being another person. I don't agree with that definition because our will is clearly affected and determined by literally everything else, not just agents but by how the universe behaves and what we are. Why exclude that fact? Another thing is regarding acting out of your intention with no agent holding a gun to your head, what your intention is isn't your choice nor is they way you decide to approach your intention your choice, it's all determined and that renders that definition of free will pretty much useless. Our will is free when our intention and the way we act according to our intention isn't random nor determined an I don't see that being the case. Right now the only free wills we have are definitions of it that don't take into account things that play a quite big role. Just thought I'd bring this up, since I've seen it discussed.

I agree. It seems there is no evidence to suggest anything other than simple randomness being at the heart of any "choices". So it's really just flowery language to suggest that a living thing, as a whole, is making a "choice". What we really have is our conscious mind telling us stories about our choices, that we don't have any proper control over. We're a slave to our surroundings, our past, and randomness, so it would seem.

Experiments already suggest we don't "make" choices at the time that we think they do, they can be made far earlier without us realizing it.

---

I don't think it's voluntarily. It's indoctrinated into them, on the whole. They can't simply discard it. It takes a huge feat of bravery to challenge the beliefs, and eventually work through them to the point where they can be discounted.

If your talking about belief, where your ordered to kill people in the Gods name, that's fairly easy, especially if your promised heaven if you die. You take a part in a successful conquest - you will be rewarded. You die- rewarded. That's easy to believe in.

But, if we are talking about belief, where you must strive to be more selfless, even if your fed an idea of hell for refusing it, it sounds f hard, because its valuable, even if indoctrination is in the mix.

Atheism is "soft" compared to the idea of "selfless or burn".

It's no so much "selfless or burn" as "follow this massive arbitrary list of rules or burn". Reducing religious doctrine to being selfless is oversimplifying in most cases.

But either way, yes I agree. Having the mental burden of a possible "hell" hanging over you must be absolutely horrible. I feel very sorry for anyone who believes such a thing is real. It isn't, obviously, but things are as real as they seem, to each person. I wish I could save people from this horrific mental torture.

So indeed, I am massively unburdened in that regard. My worries are only for this life, and not beyond it. Knowing that when I die I am done and dusted is comforting to me. Some people might find that odd I suppose. For me it's just facing reality. There's nothing to be scared of.

Atheists don't necessarily disbelieve in hell, although probably the vast majority do. I've met at least one who still believes in it, at least enough to be upset about it.

[Drich]

I would like to have some theists explain to me how fate and free will can coexist?

Clearly many theists believe that since god is all knowing, our fates are predetermined. God already knows what we will do, how we will do it, whether or not we will change our minds, what we think and what we will think in the future. God knows all because he created all and we cannot escape his ultimate knowledge of everything.

Yet...

Many theists also believe we have free will, and that this of course explains why humans can be evil or do bad things. We can choose to do as we please, when we want and how we want. We are the sole authors of our own actions and we are in control of what we do and think.

My question is, how can these two things coexist? How do we have free will if god already knows what we're going to do? God has already laid out the plan for our lives, so how can we choose to do anything? How can we even choose to believe in him or at least follow him, even skeptically, when he has already predetermined some of us to be atheists?

Isn't this akin to locking someone in a cell, placing a can of Pepsi and a can of Coke in front of them and saying, "You have the free will to choose to do whatever you like,"?

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Atheists, obviously, can also chime in. I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts.

It depends on how you view God's control over creation.

If you do so biblically then it's important to note that the bible never makes a freewill claim. That was a greek philosophy that was added some centuries later. The bible says we are all slaves to sin, meaning our will is tied to sin. Thereby being far from free. However we have been given a single choice to make if we so choose to make. That is to serve God or to serve sin. If we choose to serve God then once we die sin no longer has control over us. Allowing God to resurrect us to service to Him.

Is this the greek philosophy of free will that the church has adapted? No. Is this the cliche 18th century southern plantation owner/slave relationship? Again no.

We have been given choices to make in God's plan.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To the OP, the a question cannot be answered apart from having a theory of time of which there are at least three: presentism, eternalism, and block theory. I have not committed to any particular philosophical position. Likewise, I am not convinced that natural science will ever be able to offer an adequate explanation since its necessary assumptions, like causal closure, operate within time. As for the Holy Scriptures, they appear to be neutral on the question. A couple of verses by Saint Paul are suggestive but that's about it;

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Knowing what we will choose to do bc he has seen the future =/= predetermined fate

Say, the Lord has seen me eat ice-cream tomorrow noon at around 12. Do I have the ability to eat a chicken roll instead or will I have to strictly stick with the ice-cream?

[Catholic_Lady]

Knowing what we will choose to do bc he has seen the future =/= predetermined fate

Say, the Lord has seen me eat ice-cream tomorrow noon at around 12. Do I have the ability to eat a chicken roll instead or will I have to strictly stick with the ice-cream?

What? Not sure if this is a serious question. Obviously you can choose to eat whatever you want. The point is He already knows what you will choose because he's already seen it happen.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Say, the Lord has seen me eat ice-cream tomorrow noon at around 12. Do I have the ability to eat a chicken roll instead or will I have to strictly stick with the ice-cream?

What? Not sure if this is a serious question. Obviously you can choose to eat whatever you want. The point is He already knows what you will choose because he's already seen it happen.

If by some miracle Jesus let's me know what I will have for breakfast tomorrow, will I have a chance on changing it?

[Catholic_Lady]

What? Not sure if this is a serious question. Obviously you can choose to eat whatever you want. The point is He already knows what you will choose because he's already seen it happen.

If by some miracle Jesus let's me know what I will have for breakfast tomorrow, will I have a chance on changing it?

Sure. But he would already have seen that.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

If by some miracle Jesus let's me know what I will have for breakfast tomorrow, will I have a chance on changing it?

Sure. But he would already have seen that.

Let's say Jesus let's me know that I'll have steak tomorrow. Then I choose to have juice instead tomorrow. Does this mean Jesus lied? Isn't he not allowed to commit sin? So he'll have to tell me truthfully that I'll have steak tomorrow but my question is - do I have a say on this or not, ie, will I be forced to eat steak or choose for myself?

[robvalue]

Sure, Jesus lied then. He either didn't really know the future, or he was telling you a fake version.

It doesn't really matter who has the knowledge. It's just a matter of whether it's possible for there to be such knowledge of the outcome of a choice before it is made. If it's possible, then it's not a real choice.

God shouting out, "I knew that would happen" is not that impressive. I can do that too.