free will vs natural determinism

[Cephus]

By definition, God is uncaused. He is the uncaused cause.

You can't simply define reality into existence. If you are going to assert that this is true, you need to produce an objective reason why we should take your claim seriously. How did you come by this information and why should we think it is actually so? If you can't do so, and faith means nothing here, then it's about as worthwhile as arguing characteristics of Harry Potter. It's a total waste of time.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Well, I guess one can claim anything for a deity they want, and go on from there. That she's purples, has 16 toes, and eats spinach every day. And, I can equally declare that I don't buy your definition. All of which leaves us at a parting of the ways. Which means that it will be useless to try to convince me of anything that depends on god being uncaused---just so you know.

This definition was the basis for the post in the first place. The following text was at the beginning of the post, and the proof mentioned is based on such a definition:

... It follows on from the proof shown here.

I mean that god, like you and I, are ruled by cause and effect and have no freewill in the philosophical sense: he could not do any differently than he did.

Actually, from God's definition, cause & effect come 'after' God. He is not ruled by it. He is the first cause. He is not a machine.

No, it doesn't make sense. In as much as cause/effect is the operating principle for everything else in the universe, it would appear to be the default mechanism by which god also operates. The trouble with denying this is that one is left with only one other operating option: utter randomness. God's thoughts and actions are absolutely random in nature. OR perhaps a combination of such randomness and cause/effect. Either way, this precludes any condition of freewill, the ability to do differently.

See what I have written above. Perhaps you are right in a sense that God does not have the ability to do differently since He has done what He has done. But at the same time He freely chose those actions without any outside constraint or rule. I think perhaps it is the 'personhood' of God that troubles you.

What does randomness mean? Is it that randomness is simply what we perceive as being random although perhaps governed by exceptionally complicated rules? Or is it in fact simply deriving from a being's free-will, and so giving some kind of effect of randomness?

This is the very same circumstance under which we operate, so in this sense your god is just like us.

You seem to be referring to God as just another created being, like a star, a planet, or a human being, or even perhaps a person's mental creation. God is the first cause, the creator of all things, the first principle, coming before any effect deriving from a cause, & in some sense the being from which cause & effect derive.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

You can't simply define reality into existence. If you are going to assert that this is true, you need to produce an objective reason why we should take your claim seriously. How did you come by this information and why should we think it is actually so? If you can't do so, and faith means nothing here, then it's about as worthwhile as arguing characteristics of Harry Potter. It's a total waste of time.

When we use words, we assume certain meanings to those words. The meaning of who God is points to the definition I used. However, if you disagree, simply use such definition as something like an assumption used in a proof.

This definition was the basis for the post in the first place. The following text was at the beginning of the post, and the proof mentioned is based on such a definition:

It follows on from the proof shown here.

 

[Skwim]

This definition was the basis for the post in the first place. The following text was at the beginning of the post, and the proof mentioned is based on such a definition

:

As Mestemia said in post 144, "First you must demonstrate an uncaused cause."

Actually, from God's definition, cause & effect come 'after' God. He is not ruled by it. He is the first cause. He is not a machine.

Whether or not you regard god as caused or uncaused, he would have to be imbued with certain characteristics that distinguishing him as god and different from everything else or nothing at all. So, we can assume that god possessed (s) certain identifying characteristics: A, B, C, D, E, F, . . . . . . Now, one of those characteristics must have been his operating system. There has to be some principle by which he operates. And in as much as I don't believe you care to claim his actions are absolutely random, you are left with admitting that everything that happens to him---his thoughts and actions---is determined by antecedent conditions together with the natural laws. Now, if you agree that one of his innate characteristics (A, B, C, etc.) is his operating system---why wouldn't you---and that this was freewill and not determinism then you'll have explain exactly how freewill operates sans determinism and randomness.

So, my question then is, just how does freewill operate? If god does something out of freewill, how is he doing it? And saying that he chooses to do X, Y, and Z means nothing.

Perhaps you are right in a sense that God does not have the ability to do differently since He has done what He has done. But at the same time He freely chose those actions without any outside constraint or rule.

Ah ha! So this is what you mean by freewill: No one is holding a gun to god's head making him do what he doesn't want to. As I told Gambit in another thread when he suggested the same understanding of freewill, "you're speaking of freewill in its most trivial sense."
Where freewill is actually important is when it deals with innate culpability aside from any outside forces. To what degree, if any, are we responsible for what we do? The freewiller says, "People are culpable because they could have freely chosen to have done differently." On the other hand, the determinist will say, "at its very roots what we did we had to do. There's no such thing as a choice or choosing in the matter." And this is the REAL issue of the freewill problem. Explain how it operates without resorting to cause/effect or utter randomness, because if either of these is in the machinery you can't claim it operates freely. All of which. . . .of course . . . . . also applies to god. God does what he does because he can do no differently, just like us mere Earth bound folk.

 

[Cephus]

When we use words, we assume certain meanings to those words. The meaning of who God is points to the definition I used. However, if you disagree, simply use such definition as something like an assumption used in a proof.

This definition was the basis for the post in the first place. The following text was at the beginning of the post, and the proof mentioned is based on such a definition:

The whole purpose of language is communication, we need words that have a common meaning so that we can have common understanding. If everyone gets to just make up their own definition for any word they wish, then we cannot have any kind of meaningful conversation. If one person refers to God in the traditional Christian way and another thinks God is a turkey sandwich, you will never get any kind of worthwhile discussion going on.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

:

As Mestemia said in post 144, "First you must demonstrate an uncaused cause."

If you look at the original post, you will notice a link to a proof I developed.

Whether or not you regard god as caused or uncaused, he would have be imbued with certain characteristics that distinguishing him as god and different from from everything else or nothing at all. So, we can assume that god possessed (s) certain identifying characteristics: A, B, C, D, E, F, . . . . . . Now, one of those characteristics must have been his operating system. There has to be some principle by which he operates. And in as much as I don't believe you care to claim his actions are absolutely random, you are left with admitting that everything that happens to him---his thoughts and actions---is determined by antecedent conditions together with the natural laws. Now, if you agree that one of his innate characteristics (A, B, C, etc.) is his operating system---why wouldn't you---and that this was freewill and not determinism then you'll have explain exactly how freewill operates sans determinism and randomness.

Once again, you seem to be modelling the Creator as some kind of machine, perhaps a computer, which is really getting things the wrong way round. The Creator would create any kind of operating system you might suggest. The Creator is not a creature - He created the laws of nature. Perhaps I understand your thinking because I probably had the same conceptual problems.

... And this is the REAL issue of the freewill problem. Explain how it operates without resorting to cause/effect or utter randomness, because if either of these is in the machinery you can't claim it operates freely. All of which. . . .of course . . . . . also applies to god. God does what he does because he can do no differently, just like us mere Earth bound folk.

Once again, God is not a machine. There is no rule, law, machinery, operating system, or anything else to bind Him. If G-d could no differently, then what is the origin of His behaviour? His behaviour is as such just because it is as such? However, this closely reflects the name of G-d, that is, Yahweh meaning I AM WHO AM. So we come back to the origin of His behaviour being Himself, implying the free-will of God.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

The whole purpose of language is communication, we need words that have a common meaning so that we can have common understanding. If everyone gets to just make up their own definition for any word they wish, then we cannot have any kind of meaningful conversation. If one person refers to God in the traditional Christian way and another thinks God is a turkey sandwich, you will never get any kind of worthwhile discussion going on.

I am referring to God in the traditional Christian way, absent His attributes of being a personal God. This is also the way Muslims & Jews consider Him.

 

[Cephus]

I am referring to God in the traditional Christian way, absent His attributes of being a personal God. This is also the way Muslims & Jews consider Him.

Well, there are over 40,000 traditional Christian ways but I'll assume I know which one of those you're closest to. I have been involved in plenty of discussions with self-identified Christians who have bizarre views of God that I would never have considered Christian, back when I was one. It pays to make sure.

 

[Skwim]

If you look at the original post, you will notice a link to a proof I developed.

And if you follow my criticisms of your "proof" you will see why I don't accept it. Actually, I didn't see any proof that god has freewill, only an argument that he does.

Once again, you seem to be modelling the Creator as some kind of machine, perhaps a computer, which is really getting things the wrong way round. The Creator would create any kind of operating system you might suggest. The Creator is not a creature - He created the laws of nature. Perhaps I understand your thinking because I probably had the same conceptual problems.

In as much as he's bound by the laws of cause/effect, yes, one might say he has a lot in common with machinery. That you may not like this, or can't abide it, doesn't make it any less possible/plausible.

Once again, God is not a machine. There is no rule, law, machinery, operating system, or anything else to bind Him.

Your adamant denial is hardly convincing. Lacking any "proof," (good argument) your claim to know he's this or that or the other thing has the ring of desperation to save him, and by extension us, from the onus of deterministic operation. But of course the reason for your position is not what's at issue here. What's at issue is what is the most reasonable description of god's modus operandi. And relying on a yet unexplained concept ain't working.
From what I've read, at most freewill is said to be "the exercise of an ability free of determinism," which, of course, isn't an explanation at all, only a statement of what it's not. So, how about this . . . . . . *

If G-d could no differently, then what is the origin of His behaviour?

And if god could have done differently then what is the origin of his behavior? God is YOUR baby, which means it's up to you to substantiate the claimed whys and wherefores of his being. And believe me, your argument that he must have freewill because he is uncaused doesn't work.



*. . . . . . EXPLAIN THE CHARACTER OF FREEWILL. Exactly what is the nature of freewill and how does it operate when it's put into action?


NOTE: I asked pretty much the same thing back in post 224, which you chose not to answer. "So, my question then is, just how does freewill operate? If god does something out of freewill, how is he doing it? And saying that he chooses to do X, Y, and Z means nothing."

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

And if you follow my criticisms of your "proof" you will see why I don't accept it. ...

Actually, I cannot find that.

In as much as he's bound by the laws of cause/effect, yes, one might say he has a lot in common with machinery. That you may not like this, or can't abide it, doesn't make it any less possible/plausible.

Actually, from God's definition, cause & effect come 'after' God. He is not ruled by it. He is the first cause. He is not a machine.

Think of God as bringing the laws of cause/effect into existence.

And if god could have done differently then what is the origin of his behavior?

Answer: His free-will.

If G-d could do no differently, then what is the origin of His behaviour?

Answer: He is the origin of His behaviour because He is the first cause, implying that G-d could have done differently since there are no 'mechanics' in His behaviour.

*. . . . . . EXPLAIN THE CHARACTER OF FREEWILL. Exactly what is the nature of freewill and how does it operate when it's put into action?

This is impossible since "there are no 'mechanics' in His behaviour."

NOTE: I asked pretty much the same thing back in post 224, which you chose not to answer. "So, my question then is, just how does freewill operate? If god does something out of freewill, how is he doing it? And saying that he chooses to do X, Y, and Z means nothing."

This is impossible since "there are no 'mechanics' in His behaviour."

Please do not take this post as anything overly abrupt. It may be better if you focus on one single thing in your next post.

 

[Skwim]

*. . . . . . EXPLAIN THE CHARACTER OF FREEWILL. Exactly what is the nature of freewill and how does it operate when it's put into action?

This is impossible since "there are no 'mechanics' in His behaviour."

So freewill just sort of *poofs* into being. You (and god) do ABC not because you're caused to, but because something in your mind *poofs* it into being instead of *poofing* DEF into being. Yet, you say, there is nothing going on in your mind that makes such a decision. Evidently then this is just some kind of random act of the mind. Your mind could just as well have *poofed* DEF into being. Pretty much a crap shoot operation. Hmmmm.

Interesting . . . . . .very interesting.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

So freewill just sort of *poofs* into being. You (and god) do ABC not because you're caused to, but because something in your mind *poofs* it into being instead of *poofing* DEF into being. Yet, you say, there is nothing going on in your mind that makes such a decision.

Welcome to the reality of free-will and consequently moral culpability for your free-will actions.

Evidently then this is just some kind of random act of the mind.

What does randomness mean? Is it that randomness is simply what we perceive as being random although perhaps governed by exceptionally complicated rules? Or is it in fact simply deriving from a being's free-will, and so giving some kind of effect of randomness?

 

[Skwim]

Welcome to the reality of free-will and consequently moral culpability for your free-will actions.

Pretty much what I expected. You too are incapable of making any sense of it. Just a convenient, meaningless term to plug into your claims when you need it. For all it really denotes you may as well use the number "17," or

What does randomness mean? Is it that randomness is simply what we perceive as being random although perhaps governed by exceptionally complicated rules? Or is it in fact simply deriving from a being's free-will, and so giving some kind of effect of randomness?

Randomness in this case means utter, complete randomness; an absolutely uncaused event wherein the event has an equal chance of not happening as happening.

 

[Andywelikandy]

That's a good formulation of the notion. But one might ask what is this "will" that is able to act of its own volition?

The more one examines the question, the more absurd the notion becomes.

Did any human being born into this world ever use his/her will to get here in the first place? If he/she didn't then who did? There is somebody or something that CAUSED every human being (forget the other living beings) to come upon planet earth. Who or what was it?