Theists: How can predetermined fate and free will coexist?

[John V]

I know there is no difference between a human not wanting to be smashed with a hammer, and a computer not wanting to be smashed with a hammer.  But my not wanting to be smashed with a hammer trumps the knowledge that the two are the same philisophically.

You know there's no difference...but yeah, there's a difference. WTF?

[robvalue]

Basically, if it's possible to know what I'll do before I do it, I'm entirely predictable. If so, I have only one course of action I can take. Saying I could have done other things is like saying a domino could have fallen any direction. Sure, it could have, if it would have been hit from another side. But it wasn't, and it never could have been, if things weren't set up that way.

The pure idiocy of God doing any of this is another subject entirely, which is rarely addressed.

It's fucking drivel to say God can predict me even though I'm unpredictable. If you're going to just make nonsense statements like that, there's no point even pretending any logic is being applied at any stage.

[Ignorant]

Basically, if it's possible to know what I'll do before I do it, I'm entirely predictable. If so, I have only one course of action I can take. [1] Saying I could have done other things is like saying a domino could have fallen any direction. Sure, it could have, if it would have been hit from another side. But it wasn't, and it never could have been, if things weren't set up that way. [2]

The pure idiocy of God doing any of this is another subject entirely, which is rarely addressed. [3]

It's fucking drivel to say God can predict me even though I'm unpredictable. [4] If you're going to just make nonsense statements like that, there's no point even pretending any logic is being applied at any stage.

I've been away for a week, and I was going to respond to a post you made a while back (I still might), but maybe its better for the thread if I just jump in here:

1) No, you have only one course of action you will take. If that future course of action includes your choosing it, then you will certainly choose only that course of action. You are fated to CHOOSE! =)

2) Right. Given different conditions, a domino will fall according to those conditions. If it is known that you will do something WITHOUT choosing it, then you will certainly do that something without choosing it. If it is known that you will do something THROUGH choosing it, then you will certainly do that something THROUGH your choice!

3) It is indeed a different subject, but also related. God knows the things we "will" do because he is the one creating us as doing them.

4) Right. If you are a fundamentally unpredictable thing, then god could only "predict" you in an equivocal manner.

The fundamental point I made before, which I was going to make about your picking a number 1-10, is that, if you allow that choice is contained in a foreknown act, then there is no contradiction between foreknowledge and choice. If I infallibly know that you will choose number 2, then you will absolutely and certainly CHOOSE number 2. You can't NOT choose it.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a whole lot easier to make excuses for your beliefs if you're allowed to rob one  the offending words of it's meaning entirely, huh, lol?

[robvalue]

Ignorant: Welcome back So, my choice isn't a choice in any real sense. I'd call this an equivocation fallacy; trying to give the indication that "free will" is still present. If I have the same amount of choice as a domino being knocked over, then I have no choice at all.

Why use the word "choice"? Or "free will"? It's just taking an action. Following a script. There never were any alternatives; only in hypothetical realities that God "could have made", but didn't. Sure, you can call it whatever you want, but the word "choice" doesn't make it any more meaningful. Informally, of course we talk about choices, but we assume that there were real alternatives; that we chose which version of reality we followed, rather than it being picked beforehand. I suppose it's a still a compatabalist "choice", although I find that position tautological anyway.

You have indeed solved the contradiction, by admitting that free will is an illusion in such a case. I'm part of a story, forced to experience it. A very strange way for a "God" to carry on in my estimation. If he could fuck off, that would be awesome.

Of course, free will may well be an illusion anyway. I'm increasingly of the opinion that it is. It seems like a woo-phrase with no scientific meaning. For some reason, it's pragmatic for our consciousness to tell itself that it is "making choices". Even when the subconscious sometimes knows better.

---

Additional: the difference lies with the creator. The creator could, presumably, have given us genuine choices. He chose (haha!?) not to give us choices. That responsibility therefor lies with him, as does the outcome of all our actions.

If there is no creator but we just happen to be entirely predictable, then there's no blame to be laid, that's just how things are. We feel like we're "making choices", but really we're just self-aware chemical reactions.

Of course, some theists persist with the idea that we have genuine choices (I'm unpredictable) but God can still predict my actions. This is logically absurd, and you may as well just say "God is magic" and not try to explain any of it.

[Ignorant]

Ignorant: Welcome back So, my choice isn't a choice in any real sense. I'd call this an equivocation fallacy; trying to give the indication that "free will" is still present. If I have the same amount of choice as a domino being knocked over, then I have no choice at all. [1]

Why use the word "choice"? Or "free will"? It's just taking an action. Following a script. [2] There never were any alternatives; only in hypothetical realities that God "could have made", but didn't. [3] Sure, you can call it whatever you want, but the word "choice" doesn't make it any more meaningful. Informally, of course we talk about choices, but we assume that there were real alternatives; that we chose which version of reality we followed, rather than it being picked beforehand. I suppose it's a still a compatabalist "choice", although I find that position tautological anyway. [4]

You have indeed solved the contradiction, by admitting that free will is an illusion in such a case. I'm part of a story, forced to experience it. A very strange way for a "God" to carry on in my estimation. If he could fuck off, that would be awesome.

Of course, free will may well be an illusion anyway. I'm increasingly of the opinion that it is. It seems like a woo-phrase with no scientific meaning. For some reason, it's pragmatic for our consciousness to tell itself that it is "making choices". Even when the subconscious sometimes knows better.

---

Additional: the difference lies with the creator. The creator could, presumably, have given us genuine choices. He chose (haha!?) not to give us choices. That responsibility therefor lies with him, as does the outcome of all our actions.

If there is no creator but we just happen to be entirely predictable, then there's no blame to be laid, that's just how things are. We feel like we're "making choices", but really we're just self-aware chemical reactions.

Of course, some theists persist with the idea that we have genuine choices (I'm unpredictable) but God can still predict my actions. This is logically absurd, and you may as well just say "God is magic" and not try to explain any of it.

1) Why isn't it a real choice? You have more choice than a domino. Here is why:

The conditions surrounding the domino, as well as what the domino is, all contribute to the determining the manner in which it will fall. Beyond merely being-what-it-is, the domino doesn't contribute to the action of falling.

(a) The conditions surrounding a person (i.e. potential choices among a set circumstances), as well as (b) what the person is (i.e. a thing with the capacity to choose those potential choices in that set of circumstances), as well as (x) the person's choice (i.e. the potential choice the person makes actual), all contribute to determining the manner in which the person will act. Beyond merely being-what-it-is, the person contributes its choice to the action in question.

Dominoes do not act. People do.

2) I haven't said free will yet. All I have spoken about is "choice". Animals make choices, but not free ones. You are saying that choice itself is impossible given a "predetermined fate", and you seem to be saying that choice itself is an illusion. If you don't think that humans determine their actions in any real sense, then you certainly won't think that humans freely determine their actions. In other words, there is no sense trying to argue for free human determination until we agree that people can determine their actions in ANY sense.

So far, you posed the question as, "If god knows I will choose something, can I choose something else"? The answer to that question is no.

Then you say: "Then I can't choose anything at all". But that conclusion does not follow from the question and response. The only thing that follows is: "Then I certainly and absolutely WILL choose that something". That is to say: "If god knows that this action will be determined by my own personal determining ability, then that action will certainly and absolutely be determined by my own personal determining ability".

Something-about-me will contribute to the determination of me doing just that action. What is that something-about-me? We call it "choice". That isn't controversial. What is controversial is that it is free. Kind of have to agree that there is choice to begin with before we can talk about it being free or not.

3) (b:from #1) Is usually what ends up equivocated in these sorts of discussions:

Can a human being choose to walk through red doors? Blue doors? Yes, that is within people's power of choosing.
Can a human being choose to walk through a blue door at the same instant that he chooses to walk through a red door? No a person cannot choose in this way, but having chosen one of the doors does not indicate that the other choice was impossible. All it means is that the agent chose a single potential choice so as to make it actual (x).

God, on this account, chooses the door through which you will choose to walk. He chooses your choosing. He creates the potential choices, as truly potential. He creates you as having the potential to choose from them. He creates you as choosing among those potentialities.

From god's perspective, there is "no alternative" to the reality he is creating in the sense that he is creating exactly what he intends to create. He intends to create people as choosing their actions among potential actions. That can't be the case unless potential actions are on the table. Potential actions are potential ways of obtaining the various apparent goods around us. Sometimes you can seek one potential good (e.g. eating) while not seeking another potential good (e.g. sex). If you choose to seek sex instead of eating, that doesn't mean that seeking food wasn't a real option.

4) I will stop here. Yes. If we contribute to the determination of our own actions, then we call it choice. If we don't contribute to that determination, then we don't choose at all. If god determines, "before hand", that you will contribute to the determination of your own actions, I don't understand how that means you don't actually contribute to the determination of your own actions. I can understand how you might think it means freedom is an illusion, but I don't understand how you think it means you don't choose in any sense of the word.

[robvalue]

I appreciate the response, but I'm not sure what more I can say without repeating myself. I'll think on it It appears to me to be a problem of language and perspective.

I think it's interesting to consider "God" deciding whether or not to make his creations predictable. To decide whether or not they are a cause-and-effect machine, or able to alter the path that their reality takes.

I'd have thought the latter is more interesting.

[Ignorant]

I appreciate the response, but I'm not sure what more I can say without repeating myself. I'll think on it It appears to me to be a problem of language and perspective.

I think it's interesting to consider "God" deciding whether or not to make his creations predictable. To decide whether or not they are a cause-and-effect machine, or able to alter the path that their reality takes.

I'd have thought the latter is more interesting.

I understand that this conversation can feel like we're talking in circles. Maybe some distinctions would help?:

If a subject contributes in some way to the 'determination' of its object (or actions directed to obtaining that object), then that subject 'chooses' the object (or action). The quality/degree of the subject's contribution will tell us about the quality of the subject's 'choice' (i.e. necessary/contingent, free, 'meaningful', etc.).

If a subject does not contribute to the 'determination' of its object, then that subject DOES NOT choose the object. Instead, the subject's actions are determined entirely by other objects (and, therefore, not the subject).

What do we think of that?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that dominoes "contribute" to the way they fall in their structure and composition. There's no way around what you've created in conceptualizing choice and free will in the way that you have. Either be happy with what you did (or what gawd made you do...lol), or come up with something else?

I'm sympathetic either way, I don't believe in free will to begin with.... but I understand the desire to rescue your religious beliefs from the consequences of it's absence. Justice referent to moral desert is untenable in the absence of any such responsibility. The same is true in less silly circumstances, like our courts and prisons. Thjere are ways around it, that could equally apply to your religious beliefs without dropping the ball as you did...but any improvement in concept would be by degree, not so much a complete skyhook from the mud. God would be less of a dick, but still a dick. How much dick are we comfortable with?

We say, in that actual context, that while offenders may not be responsible in the manner that we have conceptualized the to be...they still need to be segregated from the GP, to save the GP. The same is sometimes said regarding gods justice...but the "crimes" in context seem to be so paltry, in that case, as to not justify segregation or present any danger to the gp in the first place.

[robvalue]

Well yes, exactly. If all my contributions are merely scripted events, I'm a self-aware domino. "I" haven't had a single original thought or had any input at all outside of the story chosen for me. It's just use of language to suggest more is going on than it really is. For all we know, dominos are self-aware and "feel" they are making decisions too.

What I don't get is why. You've tried extremely hard to make something sound like a choice when, to me, you've admitted it really isn't, when you can simply say we do have a choice. There's no requirement or expectation for God to know an indeterminate future, because it's logically impossible. So it appears, to me, you're making things extremely hard for yourself and with no payoff.

I appreciate you can't change what you believe, of course. The end result from this is also an unbelievably sadistic God, from my point of view, with absolutely no excuse for the suffering it manufactured to the letter. There is no "means to an end" when you are all-powerful. Trying to explain why this thing would ever do anything at all is difficult in itself. What motivation could it possibly have? It already knows everything it will "learn" from a story it already wrote. At least giving us a real choice would have been something to watch; and would have given it some degree of excuse to hide behind for suffering that occurs.

---

PS: Regardless of "God", it's my estimation that I am indeed probably a self-aware domino. That's just how it is. Weird that a domino would come to that conclusion about itself. Haha!