7 ms·

The argument isn’t that “everything is predestined” but there is still free will. That’s illogical by definition (and theologians are not intellectual weaklings

by msviss 8y ago

The argument isn’t that “everything is predestined” but there is still free will. That’s illogical by definition (and theologians are not intellectual weaklings). Rather the question is wheather, despite God’s omniscience, we still have free will. The question therefore is: is God’s omniscience equivalent to predestination? Some think yes (no free will. some Protestants and Muslims). Some think not (therefore we are free. Catholics, ppl who reject omniscience.) Personally I like Tolstoy’s take on the whole thing in WnP, because it betrays how deep his understanding of physics is (he even scratches at chaos theory).

smoyer 8y ago
I definitely believe in both but not because God is omniscience. We experience time because that's how God designed our universe and we progress along or timeline exercising free will. God on the other hand is outside our universe and can see our entire timeline. So he hasn't predestined us to make one decision or the other but is rather able to see every decision we've made in or future.
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  Like the series Quantum Leap?
- tylerjwilk00 8y ago
  I like to use a record player analogy for this concept. We are the needle. The needle responds to the environment of the record but can't see outside it's little perspective. God on other hand sees the record from above all at once. We are a consciousness needle scratching a path through 4D space-time.
  - goldenkey 8y ago
    Furthermore, our consciousness is harmonic in nature. Every moment experienced reflects a bounded bitrate state of the brain. And death is when the needle has scratched the record so much that it has become worn flat, producing just silence. The record is still being played but the effect is all the same.. Until a new record is placed on the player. Do you identify yourself with the record or the needle? ;-)
    - keepmesmall 8y ago
      I'm right between the record and the needle!
tomp 8y ago
> That’s illogical by definition What’s the definition of “free will”?
matthewwiese 8y ago
When discussing this exact topic with classmates this semester (philsophy undergrad in a medieval philosophy class that is doing a lot with the interplay with theology) I've used the following metaphor to explain how I've come to understand the idea of the supposed symbiosis between God's omniscience and our free will: Think of God as an observer at the top of the Grand Canyon, looking down into the winding path of the river below. Humans are afloat on the river down in the canyon, unable to see what lies ahead. They can choose how to react to obstacles, for example, yet do no see them coming. God, however, sees our entire path on this metaphorical river laid out for us since birth; each of our individual choices are "perceived"[0] by him simultaneously. [0]: Note, however, that many theologians would protest anthropomorphizing God in this way. Maimonides, as an example, says that we can speak of God as exhibiting mercy but not being merciful. He simply acts in a way that is analogous to human mercy.
- stupidcar 8y ago
  I don't understand this metaphor. It sounds like if the river represents the events that will happen to us throughout our lives, then our free will is how we navigate through it. So does God know that ahead of time? Can He see me approaching a rock and know I will go around it on the left or right? Does He know I'll get smashed on it? If he doesn't, then that means there is a limit to His omniscience. If He does, then my "free" choices are predestined. Furthermore, in this metaphor God doesn't just see the river, He created the river, and all the people on it. He laid out its twists and obstacles, with a perfect understanding of how it would affect the humans afloat on it. Moreover, at the moment of creation, He had an unbounded freedom to create the river in any other way He saw fit. If I get smashed on a rock half way down, it's because He chose to create the river in such a way that I would get smashed on it. If He didn't know this, or didn't have a choice, then He is either not all knowing, or not all powerful. This, for me is the fundamental problem with any theist philosophy that holds that God is both omniscient and the prime mover of creation, but still suggests concepts like free will and morality have any meaning. Not only are "our" decisions predestined, they're a direct result of another being's free will, and the concept of us then being judged on them by that same being is farcical. It's like a puppeteer putting one their puppets on trial.
naasking 8y ago
> The argument isn’t that “everything is predestined” but there is still free will. That’s illogical by definition It's actually not. The assumption that determinism precludes moral responsibility has turned out to be false.
- Falling3 8y ago
  >The assumption that determinism precludes moral responsibility has turned out to be false. When did this happen? I missed that memo.
  - naasking 8y ago
    I suppose it depends how deep you want to go on HN. If you're busy and you'll accept an argument from expertise, then the majority of philosophers are Compatibilists, with a tiny minority holding out for incompatibilism (something like 10%). If you want a review of the failures of every challenge meant to demonstrate how moral responsibility and determinism are incompatible, and that Compatibilism empirically matches our use of moral language and so is what people actually mean by free will, that will take more time.
    - freshm087 8y ago
      For starters, majority of philosophers never make a stable ground for absolutist statements ("turned out to be false“). Compatibilism is a kind of comfortable opinion, because it simply avoids thorny questions regarding logic, and morality. E.g. C-sts belive that a criminal is guilty, when he allegedly acts in accordance with his will, because, as you noted, that's what people mean when they say "free will". However, it still may sound unconvincing when one believes that the criminal's mind contents was predetermined aeons before he was born.
      - naasking 8y ago
        > For starters, majority of philosophers never make a stable ground for absolutist statements ("turned out to be false“). Standards of evidence for HN are lower. Calling something false needs a preponderance of evidence, not a formal proof. Centuries of challenges attempting to show an inconsistency have all failed. > However, it still may sound unconvincing when one believes that the criminal's mind contents was predetermined aeons before he was born. Anything can be made to sound unconvincing when it's completely divorced from its context. The point in context, is that bad behaviour felt justified in the moment, and holding a learning agent responsible is the moral feedback needed to correct that error in judgement.

by msviss 8y ago

smoyer 8y ago

I definitely believe in both but not because God is omniscience. We experience time because that's how God designed our universe and we progress along or timeline exercising free will. God on the other hand is outside our universe and can see our entire timeline. So he hasn't predestined us to make one decision or the other but is rather able to see every decision we've made in or future.

quickthrower2 8y ago
Like the series Quantum Leap?
tylerjwilk00 8y ago
I like to use a record player analogy for this concept. We are the needle. The needle responds to the environment of the record but can't see outside it's little perspective. God on other hand sees the record from above all at once. We are a consciousness needle scratching a path through 4D space-time.
- goldenkey 8y ago
  Furthermore, our consciousness is harmonic in nature. Every moment experienced reflects a bounded bitrate state of the brain. And death is when the needle has scratched the record so much that it has become worn flat, producing just silence. The record is still being played but the effect is all the same.. Until a new record is placed on the player. Do you identify yourself with the record or the needle? ;-)
  - keepmesmall 8y ago
    I'm right between the record and the needle!

tomp 8y ago

> That’s illogical by definition What’s the definition of “free will”?

matthewwiese 8y ago

When discussing this exact topic with classmates this semester (philsophy undergrad in a medieval philosophy class that is doing a lot with the interplay with theology) I've used the following metaphor to explain how I've come to understand the idea of the supposed symbiosis between God's omniscience and our free will: Think of God as an observer at the top of the Grand Canyon, looking down into the winding path of the river below. Humans are afloat on the river down in the canyon, unable to see what lies ahead. They can choose how to react to obstacles, for example, yet do no see them coming. God, however, sees our entire path on this metaphorical river laid out for us since birth; each of our individual choices are "perceived"[0] by him simultaneously. [0]: Note, however, that many theologians would protest anthropomorphizing God in this way. Maimonides, as an example, says that we can speak of God as exhibiting mercy but not being merciful. He simply acts in a way that is analogous to human mercy.

stupidcar 8y ago
I don't understand this metaphor. It sounds like if the river represents the events that will happen to us throughout our lives, then our free will is how we navigate through it. So does God know that ahead of time? Can He see me approaching a rock and know I will go around it on the left or right? Does He know I'll get smashed on it? If he doesn't, then that means there is a limit to His omniscience. If He does, then my "free" choices are predestined. Furthermore, in this metaphor God doesn't just see the river, He created the river, and all the people on it. He laid out its twists and obstacles, with a perfect understanding of how it would affect the humans afloat on it. Moreover, at the moment of creation, He had an unbounded freedom to create the river in any other way He saw fit. If I get smashed on a rock half way down, it's because He chose to create the river in such a way that I would get smashed on it. If He didn't know this, or didn't have a choice, then He is either not all knowing, or not all powerful. This, for me is the fundamental problem with any theist philosophy that holds that God is both omniscient and the prime mover of creation, but still suggests concepts like free will and morality have any meaning. Not only are "our" decisions predestined, they're a direct result of another being's free will, and the concept of us then being judged on them by that same being is farcical. It's like a puppeteer putting one their puppets on trial.

naasking 8y ago

> The argument isn’t that “everything is predestined” but there is still free will. That’s illogical by definition It's actually not. The assumption that determinism precludes moral responsibility has turned out to be false.

Falling3 8y ago
>The assumption that determinism precludes moral responsibility has turned out to be false. When did this happen? I missed that memo.
- naasking 8y ago
  I suppose it depends how deep you want to go on HN. If you're busy and you'll accept an argument from expertise, then the majority of philosophers are Compatibilists, with a tiny minority holding out for incompatibilism (something like 10%). If you want a review of the failures of every challenge meant to demonstrate how moral responsibility and determinism are incompatible, and that Compatibilism empirically matches our use of moral language and so is what people actually mean by free will, that will take more time.
  - freshm087 8y ago
    For starters, majority of philosophers never make a stable ground for absolutist statements ("turned out to be false“). Compatibilism is a kind of comfortable opinion, because it simply avoids thorny questions regarding logic, and morality. E.g. C-sts belive that a criminal is guilty, when he allegedly acts in accordance with his will, because, as you noted, that's what people mean when they say "free will". However, it still may sound unconvincing when one believes that the criminal's mind contents was predetermined aeons before he was born.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > For starters, majority of philosophers never make a stable ground for absolutist statements ("turned out to be false“). Standards of evidence for HN are lower. Calling something false needs a preponderance of evidence, not a formal proof. Centuries of challenges attempting to show an inconsistency have all failed. > However, it still may sound unconvincing when one believes that the criminal's mind contents was predetermined aeons before he was born. Anything can be made to sound unconvincing when it's completely divorced from its context. The point in context, is that bad behaviour felt justified in the moment, and holding a learning agent responsible is the moral feedback needed to correct that error in judgement.