God and Free Will

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously everyone has to die. If it is done by nature.. a tree, a murdered, cancer, something physical on Earth, that is one thing.. for God.. the supernatural being.. for whom you say is a bystander and does not interact and influence our decisions, IMO i think that draws the line of free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that is your claim - I am asking what property it is of God's that implies his interacting with me means I have no free will?

[ QUOTE ]
A muderer has free will in which he draws his conclusions for which some of us have to follow.
God is the supernatural being in which he,according to you is the bystander watching our "choice" we make. How can u see once he kills you we are still maintaining free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
I just dont understand what property it is God has that the murderer doesnt which would lead me to think him killing me curtails my free will. When I asked you this you seemed to say it was because God acted "purposely" and "intervened" but the murderer is doing this too so it is clearly not those properties. I would repeat that I understand your claim but dont understand your reasons for making it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
God is the supernatural being in which he,according to you is the bystander watching our "choice" we make. How can u see once he kills you we are still maintaining free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if this is the source of our confusion - but you do realise that I am not claiming we maintain free will once we are dead? If what you are saying is we have free will up until God kills us (or anything else) and then we dont then I agree - I never meant to imply we had free will forever.

[BLdSWtTRs]

First time I've been to this part of the forum and I see this post. I've thougth for a long time that there is no such a thing as free will as we are a function of genetics and environment, neither of which we control.
Assuming an omni3 god with an infinite IQ, all these choices are essentially made by him, and there is no way he could randomize it...

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if there is no God, we obviously have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this obvious? It'd remove one of the barriers to free will but the biggie would still stand. Namely this idea that the universe works causally and our 'actions' are just a part of that causal sequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

so say we are atheist and there is no god.. you are telling me that without a God the universe is based on predistination? if so, what rational are you using to come up with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of god is one potential barrier to free will, but it's far from the only one. The 'classic' basis for determinism doesn't depend on the existence of god. The idea is that a causes b causes c etc and everything is just a manifestation of that process.

For example, I'm writing this because you wrote that and you wrote that because of something I said previously. With a gazillion (to use a precise mathematical term) other variables coming into play. Such as the mood I'm in when I sat down at my computer, determined by me being woke up by a pneumatic drill tearing up my street, determined by everything I've ever done or experienced before.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
My position throughout this thread is that I change and amend my beliefs as my understanding deepens. Ultimately I believe in God and think there is a fact of the matter about all these questions. God knows the truth about them and my struggles with defining terms is not something he has to go through. Adopting this position seems best to me (in a pascal's wager kind of way) since if I am right and a logically consistent God exists then I will come to a better knowledge of him (which is probably a good thing). If God doesnt exist then I will probably discover this truth through trying to nail down and clarify exactly what the consequences of his existing would be.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm surprised by that. What I get from everything else that you've written (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you believe god exists already, before philosophy. Which is why, when it's demonstrated that xyz definition is internally incompatible, there's a move to change xyz.

Without the prior knowledge that the target does in fact exist, surely the rational thing would be to conclude from these contradictions that the object in question doesn't exist, rather than change the definition? If you come from a theistically neutral starting point (I understand you're a theist, but open to the idea that rationality could change your belief) - why isn't god another square-circle?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My position throughout this thread is that I change and amend my beliefs as my understanding deepens. Ultimately I believe in God and think there is a fact of the matter about all these questions. God knows the truth about them and my struggles with defining terms is not something he has to go through. Adopting this position seems best to me (in a pascal's wager kind of way) since if I am right and a logically consistent God exists then I will come to a better knowledge of him (which is probably a good thing). If God doesnt exist then I will probably discover this truth through trying to nail down and clarify exactly what the consequences of his existing would be.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm surprised by that. What I get from everything else that you've written (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you believe god exists already, before philosophy. Which is why, when it's demonstrated that xyz definition is internally incompatible, there's a move to change xyz.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes this seems to be my view - I dont think this is contradicted by the quote above?

[ QUOTE ]
Without the prior knowledge that the target does in fact exist, surely the rational thing would be to conclude from these contradictions that the object in question doesn't exist, rather than change the definition? If you come from a theistically neutral starting point (I understand you're a theist, but open to the idea that rationality could change your belief) - why isn't god another square-circle?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say prior belief is enough to look at other options rather than prior knowledge. Nonetheless, when a description of God I give turns out to be unviable, I do conclude that the object as I attempted to define it doesnt exist (ie that it is another square-circle) that means one of two things to me:

1) I am wrong that God exists and my efforts to describe him are doomed from the start
2) He does exist, but the facts of his existence and especially the properties he has are different from the ones I ascribe to him

Up until this point - I have adopted position 2) because my belief has not so far been undiminished (I dont regard my belief in God as something I chose - in fact I tried very hard to deny it for many years until eventually realising that I had come to believe in spite of myself). I acknowledge the possibility that 1) may be the correct explanation and it seems to me that, in the face of my belief, rational enquiry into logical consequences is the only real way to convince myself of this.

On a side note - my position is pretty clearly heretical. Although I call myself a christian (as would most people in Australia where I live) I think I would be challenged much more by mainstream christians if I lived in America - they could probably construct an argument that I am "testing" God or somesuch. I cant live a life of unquestioning obedience (not honestly anyway) and my faith is that my "testing" will not result in me disbelieving, since God exists....all kind of a digression but it seems like a weakness in my position (although perhaps not one an atheist would identify).

[pilliwinks]

I think the vast majority of the 'Heroes of the Bible' questioned God (and did what he said, of course). If anyone challenges you for asking the hard questions, tell them to read Job, taking particular notice of what God says about his 'friends'.

With regard to Donk, I think he's saying that if God kills people, he clearly intervenes in the world. I think he also concludes that if he intervenes this once, what's to stop him controlling you like a puppet from the moment of your conception.

I think the standard Christian response is that he could but doesn't. Of course there are Christians who think that is exactly what he does, and are very thankful for it. There is plenty of biblical evidence for predestination, for those that are that way inclined. I'm not sure God minds particluarly whether you believe in free will or not, as long as you act like him (by design or choice).

[bunny]

I agree. I was more thinking specifically of the appearance of "watering down" theism so much that it has no content. I try hard to maintain logical rigor in my beliefs and this is probably why I dont believe in literal interpretations of the bible, intercessionary prayer, miracles, etc... It could be argued that I am saying something like "God exists but only where we cant notice him."

[pilliwinks]

You mean the God who has no existance other than a wierd feeling in your head, somewhat similar to that experienced by some with hallucinogens and others by brain trauma?

By all means try to sort out which properties of God are consistent with the others, but if you start out from a 'feeling in my head', you have a big job to make it to the resurrection!

If you find that the theism you have ended up with has no relationship to what you actually do, then I'd quietly suggest that the watering down has gone too far. The bible says that such people make God want to spew. Literally.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
i meant.. if we assume (and there is for this arguments sake) that there is a God and he takes ur life (noahs arks flood, 10 commandments or at any other point in the Bible where it says God killed someone, then we have to assume there is no free will.
If God is standing on the outside looking in at our choices that is fine. But as soon as he influences our choices (by him killing us) we no longer have a choice. -- Basically I was just saying what i said in a previous post. I know Bunny said we have only so long to make our choices and then God can interact but i think its still not free will if, at any point, he interacts and causes something.
As for if there was no God then the argument wouldnt need to be made, i wouldnt think

[/ QUOTE ]

If I, acting on my own will, attempt to steal your property, and you catch me in the act and, acting on your own will, kill me, have you negated my free will?