How Can We Have Moral Direction If God Controls Everything?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is actually a slightly different point.  I still maintain that freewill cannot exist in light of the biblical God.  I'm speaking more to the point of what you claim the Bible has to say about freewill. You have claimed that the Bible insists that human beings are responsible for the choices they make.  If there were biblical support that humans are not so responsible, would you accept it?

Boru

Yes, we are responsible for the choices that we make.   I am guessing, that you are going to reference God hardening the heart of Pharaoh or something like that.   This doesn't mean that it wasn't his choice, was overridden.  Also, this would be referencing an instance, where the contrary is implied to be the norm.

I actually had a New Testament reference in mind, but no matter - you've answered the question.  Thank you.

Boru

[RoadRunner79]

Yes, we are responsible for the choices that we make.   I am guessing, that you are going to reference God hardening the heart of Pharaoh or something like that.   This doesn't mean that it wasn't his choice, was overridden.  Also, this would be referencing an instance, where the contrary is implied to be the norm.

I actually had a New Testament reference in mind, but no matter - you've answered the question.  Thank you.

Boru

If you would like to discuss it feel free.

[Neo-Scholastic]

But what about Calvinists? I'm asking. Cuz I don't know. Apparently they don't believe in free will.

I think they are more compatablist oriented. They'll have to answer for themselves. Otherwise, talking about free-will vs. determinism is messy because you cannot do it without having a defined theory of time and clear ontology. IMHO we have to muddle through this one, make some tentative assumptions, and live in accordance with what our philosophy entails. One persistent question is this. If my deeds are inevitable why is the illusion of consciously deliberation and control even needed? Thoughts and feelings would be just along for the ride, so to speak. Personally, I agree with Sartre (or was it Camus, not sure) that Man is condemned to be free. I cannot imagine what it would be like to live under the presumption that my entire being follows mechanically from the initial conditions of the physical universe. YMMV.

I am guessing, that you are going to reference God hardening the heart of Pharaoh or something like that.  

The same life-giving sun that softens butter will harden clay.

[Rhondazvous]

Then you don't believe two things that the Bible consistently hammers home:  that God created the universe, and that God knows everything that is going to happen.

If God created the universe, he created everything in it.  Choices, but any coherent definition, are 'things'.  If I choose to murder someone, God created that choice, so there is no way that I can be held responsible.  If I choose not to repent this murder, that's God's responsibility, not mine.

It gets worse with the second point.  If God knows I am going to commit a murder and show no repentance or remorse for that sin, then God created me with the foreknowledge that I am going to be eternally damned. That's simply monstrous.

The only way for freewill and God to exist is if God both didn't create everything and doesn't know everything. Such a being clearly doesn't match up with what is in the Bible.

Boru

You are trying to reason to both these conclusions.  The Bible doesn’t say tat we don’t have free will; but that we are responsible for our choices. I think that this is bad reasoning. 

I knew you where going to say this. Well at least fairly certain.   Does that mean that you didn’t have a choice. How does the knowledge of another effect if you choose. And if you did have a choice to not say this, then how you where created, has no consequence on you having a choice. 

However, consciousness is a difficulty if we are just matter in motion, and our actions are just the inevitable result of electro-chemical reactions. You can’t make logical choices, you can’t make moral choices, or really any choice at all. You can’t  even determine the truth of your claims; it’s out of your control. There’s isnt really a you a true all, it’s Justin an illusion, created by physical reactions. 

If you couldn’t do other than what God knows, then perhaps it goes against libertarian free will. But I’m more of a compatabilist, and only think that you made the choice is necessary.

When you add omnipotence, foreknowledge does preclude free will. If god set everything up, he is fully responsible for creating the emotions that compel men to do what we do.

Sure there are some wonderful people who through sheer will power have overcome tremendous addiction, but it' s still god's responsibility for allowing people to become addicted whom he foreknew were not created with the strength to overcome their addictions, and then punish them.

You simply cannot have a god that is all powerful and all knowing and not responsible for anything. Or you can, but don't try to convince me that such a god exist outside of your own mind.

[RoadRunner79]

You are trying to reason to both these conclusions.  The Bible doesn’t say tat we don’t have free will; but that we are responsible for our choices. I think that this is bad reasoning. 

I knew you where going to say this. Well at least fairly certain.   Does that mean that you didn’t have a choice. How does the knowledge of another effect if you choose. And if you did have a choice to not say this, then how you where created, has no consequence on you having a choice. 

However, consciousness is a difficulty if we are just matter in motion, and our actions are just the inevitable result of electro-chemical reactions. You can’t make logical choices, you can’t make moral choices, or really any choice at all. You can’t  even determine the truth of your claims; it’s out of your control. There’s isnt really a you a true all, it’s Justin an illusion, created by physical reactions. 

If you couldn’t do other than what God knows, then perhaps it goes against libertarian free will. But I’m more of a compatabilist, and only think that you made the choice is necessary.

When you add omnipotence, foreknowledge does preclude free will. If god set everything up, he is fully responsible for creating the emotions that compel men to do what we do.

As many describe libertarian free will, I would agree.  However; I'm not a believer in libertarian free will.   What I am saying is that they can make an independent choice as a moral agent. Then knowledge, that is outside of the person, has no effect on the making of that choice.  When I say free will, I don't mean, that any choice can be made; but that it is made freely and according to ones will. 

And as I said, if you hold to materialism, that there is just space, time, and matter governed by the laws of physics, then you have no free will of any kind.   You don't have a moral free will, or even the ability to think about logical choices.   It's just a falling of the dominos, with no way to choose.   X conditions, are processed, and given Y result; regardless of truth or validity of the matter.  So as to the other part of the post, it appears that for a materialist view, that along with having no moral basis which which to say what is right or wrong, you couldn't decide it if there was.

[Rhondazvous]

But what about Calvinists?

I'm asking. Cuz I don't know. Apparently they don't believe in free will.

Break out with the popcorn, M&Ms, and goobers. Cozy up and watch the spectacular show of Calvinists and Word of Faithers accusing one another of bad hermeneutics. Bart Ehrman and Christopher Hitchens put together couldn't do more to point out the contradictions in the bible.

[Mister Agenda]

If you're not a Calvinist, then I suppose it's not a problem.

[Drich]

If everything that happens is god's will, then the only measure of right or wrong is success or failure.

what kind of broken logic is that?

If it wasn't god's will for me to punch you in the face, then it wouldn't have happened.

What if it were simply God's will to allow you the ability to make a select number of choices and being punched in the face being something you have complete control over?

If I don't punch you in the face it's not because I'm a good person who doesn't do things like that, but because god doesn't want you to be punched in the face today by me.

my God you can't be this simple minded. God's will for you is not to be on or off. God gives you the keys and his will is that you stay with in the borders of this continent. Ever think beyond right and wrong? ever think why with atonement didn't God simply obliterate all morality and or justification as that is what essentially happens if you take the atonement concept out to it's logical conclusion... What if He did that very thing and replace all of 'morality' all Godly law with 2 little commands? then hand you the keys to your life and tell you follow the two laws stay on the planet but the rest is your to decide. Ever ask your self why God would want to micro manage your little crap life? Granted God has helped me alot... but not because He is playing sim city with me. It is because I am asking Him to fit me into his larger plan.

Appealing to god's will allows people to sleep at night. It wipes the slate of history clean.

Ahh. no. seeking forgiveness/atonement wipes the slate clean. which is the only stop God asks but does not force us to make.

This is why empathy is a better foundation for moral behavior, because you have to get rid of the idea of god's will to even recognize that some things are good and some things are evil.

Moron... All things are evil. So where does the idea of good come from? It is when compared to more evil things, but in the end we are not able to do righteous/pure good things so we set out to do less evil things which we lable 'good.' So enter the cross and Christ now God removes that 'good/righteous' standard with atonement, which removes our right to judge as we are all the same, which people who want to hold on to the idea of being 'good' misinterpret as not having empathy.

[vulcanlogician]

But what about Calvinists? I'm asking. Cuz I don't know. Apparently they don't believe in free will.

One persistent question is this. If my deeds are inevitable why is the illusion of consciously deliberation and control even needed? Thoughts and feelings would be just along for the ride, so to speak. Personally, I agree with Sartre (or was it Camus, not sure) that Man is condemned to be free. I cannot imagine what it would be like to live under the presumption that my entire being follows mechanically from the initial conditions of the physical universe. YMMV.

(my bold)

Certain aspects of our lives are illusory. It's a matter of fact. I don't see the point in asking "Why the illusion?" It's like asking, If the Earth revolves around the sun, why is the illusion that the sun revolves around the earth even needed?

I'm not super familiar with Sartre. But I think he is the one who said man is condemned to be free. He also emphasized taking responsibility for one's actions as a way to find meaning in life.

I'm a tad more familiar with Camus. His point was that life is innately absurd, and that trying to find any meaning at all is a waste of time.

[HappySkeptic]

And as I said, if you hold to materialism, that there is just space, time, and matter governed by the laws of physics, then you have no free will of any kind.   You don't have a moral free will, or even the ability to think about logical choices.   It's just a falling of the dominos, with no way to choose.   X conditions, are processed, and given Y result; regardless of truth or validity of the matter.  So as to the other part of the post, it appears that for a materialist view, that along with having no moral basis which which to say what is right or wrong, you couldn't decide it if there was.

 

Free will has nothing to do with materialism or determinism.  It is merely a question of, is an entity able to react to the environment in a way that has value?  This implies that the entity makes a choice based on its values (whether they be survival, moral, etc.).

Free will is a mode of operation of a conscious being -- the ability to make choices that benefits it.  Whether that choice is metaphysically pre-determined is outside the realm of knowledge of the being.  It acts as if it is free.

Consider the alternative to determinism -- quantum-mechanical chance.  This does not make an entity more "free" according to my definition.  It merely adds randomness to the operation of the consciousness.  I would argue that randomness introduces errors in choice, and does not improve a being's ability to make a choice.  I could be wrong -- randomness could actually help if an algorithm is designed to use it (as in a monte-carlo or annealing simulation).

Now, what does anything non-material add to the discussion?  If there is a soul making choices (instead of the brain), on what rules does the soul operate?  Is it deterministic, or random?  How can some sort of "free will" agency exist without a logical framework such as a brain?  Postulating a soul merely creates a new problem, of how the soul operates.