What causes people to choose what they choose?

[RestlessSoul]

Well I am more comfortable being in the agnostic position, as with God and religious beliefs, and it doesn't bother me greatly as to either.

If you are comfortable with your position, I'd say you are probably doing something right. Much discomfort to us humans seems to comer from an inability to make peace with uncertainty.

 

[Colt]

What causes people to choose what they choose?
Is free will the cause of human actions or is there another cause?
If free will is not the cause, what is the cause human actions?

I am not suggesting that free will means that we can choose anything we want to choose because free will has many constraints, but if humans have no volition and we never chose to do anything how would anything ever happen in this world?

(Please note that many things happen to us in this world that were not chosen by us and we are compelled to endure them (e.g., death, sickness, job losses, injuries and misfortunes). I believe those are fated/predestined by God, but that is another subject altogether.)

I am asking what causes human actions that are chosen, what causes us to choose them.
I am not asking what causes things that happen to us that are beyond our control.

Position A: Some people say that if God is omniscient and knows everything that will ever happen in the future that means we do not have free will because we can only make one choice (x), the choice God knows we will make. If we can only make one choice (x) what is causing us to make that choice? Is God’s foreknowledge of what we will choose (x) forcing us to choose x? If God’s foreknowledge is not forcing us to choose x, what is causing us to choose x?

Position B: It is my contention that God knows the one choice we will make and we will make that choice, but before we make that choice we have free will to choose from more than one option (x, y, or z). Whatever we choose will be what God knows we will choose because God has perfect foreknowledge. As such, whether we had chosen x, y or z, God would have known which one of those we were going to choose.

Which position makes the most sense to you? Do you hold position A or B, or do you hold another position?

Please explain your position and explain why you hold it.

Thanks, Trailblazer

B) The "mind arena of choice" is on loan to us from God. We are free will beings in the sense that we can choose to become partners with God in his unfolding plan or choose not to continue on. But freedom of will has limits within our current sphere of existence.

I like the explanation given in the Urantia Book about the spirit of God within and our choice to be lead by or reject its leading.


"Material mind is the arena in which human personalities live, are self-conscious, make decisions, choose God or forsake him, eternalize or destroy themselves.

Material evolution has provided you a life machine, your body; the Father himself has endowed you with the purest spirit reality known in the universe, your Thought Adjuster. But into your hands, subject to your own decisions, has been given mind, and it is by mind that you live or die. It is within this mind and with this mind that you make those moral decisions which enable you to achieve Adjusterlikeness, and that is Godlikeness.

Mortal mind is a temporary intellect system loaned to human beings for use during a material lifetime, and as they use this mind, they are either accepting or rejecting the potential of eternal existence. Mind is about all you have of universe reality that is subject to your will, and the soul—the morontia self—will faithfully portray the harvest of the temporal decisions which the mortal self is making. Human consciousness rests gently upon the electrochemical mechanism below and delicately touches the spirit-morontia energy system above. Of neither of these two systems is the human being ever completely conscious in his mortal life; therefore must he work in mind, of which he is conscious. And it is not so much what mind comprehends as what mind desires to comprehend that insures survival; it is not so much what mind is like as what mind is striving to be like that constitutes spirit identification. It is not so much that man is conscious of God as that man yearns for God that results in universe ascension. What you are today is not so important as what you are becoming day by day and in eternity." UB 1955

 

[firedragon]

I don't have to know every single variable of each human. It wouldn't make any difference.

Of course you do. Thats how you could compare yourself to the concept of God.

If God knows all variables, but is only able to say "I told you so" afterwards, then that is not impressive, its like me saying "I know everything, and no matter what you choose. I will also just say I knew it already."

Thats a whole different topic. What you are talking about is the outcome and the "gotcha" argument. First you need to understand the determinism and freewill model. Why is it that way, is not the topic.

You just shifted it.

If you were to buy a car, there are X numbers of colors or possibilities to choose from and clearly you are going to choose one of them. So me predicting that, is not impressive.

Again, its for all humans. All variables in the universe. Thats the God hypothesis.

I doubt you have that kind of capability.

 

[KWED]

That was easily understandable, thank you. But I disagree, I was offering my opinion as an atheist there was no intention to ridicule.

As he often does @firedragon misunderstands or misrepresents the fallacy. "Appeal to ridicule" is the use of ridicule to detract from a valid argument (which ironically is what a lot of apologists do - like exclaiming "nonsense" in response to a well-reasoned argument but failing to provide a counter argument).

Some claims are ridiculous and there is nothing fallacious about pointing it out when they are.

 

[KWED]

But in that case, there wouldn't be any free will.

It's one of those "But these go up to eleven!" moments...

 

[RestlessSoul]

You are not answering my question.

I don't have to know every single variable of each human. It wouldn't make any difference.

If God knows all variables, but is only able to say "I told you so" afterwards, then that is not impressive, its like me saying "I know everything, and no matter what you choose. I will also just say I knew it already."

If God doesn't have to more specific than that, then I don't see him standing out compared to anyone else saying what I just did.

If you were to buy a car, there are X numbers of colors or possibilities to choose from and clearly you are going to choose one of them. So me predicting that, is not impressive.

You want God to impress you?

 

[Nimos]

Thats a whole different topic. What you are talking about is the outcome and the "gotcha" argument. First you need to understand the determinism and freewill model. Why is it that way, is not the topic.

You just shifted it.

No, because simply saying that you allow for all variables gives you no predictability. Doesn't mean that it is determined, just because I come afterwards and say "I told you so"

If I allow for all variables, nothing you do would come as a surprise to me. Neither will it be very useful for anyone, for me to come afterwards and say "Sure, that went as expected, given all the variables."

Again, its for all humans. All variables in the universe. Thats the God hypothesis.

I doubt you have that kind of capability.

It doesn't matter if its the whole Universe or not. When being so vague about variables, which in theory can be anything. Because even if a variable is not actually one, you wouldn't be able to point it out anyway. So we can simply allow for all and not be surprised about anything.

 

[KWED]

Correct, otherwise watching a documentary about young Hitler, and knowing perfectly well what he will do, would entail he had no free will to do what he did.

Poor analogy.
Everything in the documentary has already happened. You don't know what he "will do". You know what he "did".

It's more like watching a film where the characters make choices. To the characters (us), they are making free choices but to you (god), there can only ever be one possible outcome.

If you were an infallible god who, before the universe existed, made a list of Hitler's actions - would Hitler have been able to do anything different to what was on that list as the first half of the 20th century unfolded? Obviously not.

I never found the arguments "God knows what we will do, ergo we have no free will" particularly compelling.

Probably because you haven't fully understood them, considering the analogy you provided.
Hope the above examples helped.

 

[KWED]

Not really. Just that, God may have knowledge of all the variables. That is said conceptually.

But there aren't any variables as god can only know one possible outcome, and he has always known it. And that knowledge never changes.

 

[Nimos]

You want God to impress you?

No, I want the argument to be sound

But sure I wouldn't so no to having God impress me either, that would be pretty cool as well.

 

[Brian2]

That doesn't go well together with an omniscient god.

Of course it does. God's knowing what we will choose is not God determining what we will choose. That argument is built of semantics and not reason imo.

 

[KWED]

Proof of God's existence beyond time is besides the point .. it is a refutation of the argument that free-will is affected due to the future being known.

No it isn't, because its ignores that fact that we experience time in a linear fashion, and it is our will that is in question here, not gods.

Your argument basically states that because the author inhabits a different spacetime to the characters in his book, they have free will to make choices within the context of the book narrative - but they clearly don't. They can only make the one choice that has been fixed the the author's "infallible omniscience" over his work.

If you don't accept an explanation of what I think God is, then you have no business in discussing how free-will is not affected by His omniscience.

Now there's a strange line of argument.
"If you disagree with any of my claims, you have no business in debating with me".

 

[Brian2]

This paradox necessarily involves a god who is infallibly omniscient (his knowledge of future events cannot be wrong).
Therefore you cannot choose something other than what god knows you will choose, or that would mean god was wrong, which is impossible.

That is true but that does not mean God is forcing us to choose a certain thing.
God knows what we will choose, that is all. The argument you use is nothing but semantics, and of course is not an argument against us having a will. It is just an argument against an omniscient God while we have free will, and a poor one.
The thing is that we have a will and that being the case the omniscient God does not determine all things we do.
I say we have a will because I will things. Do you say we do not have a will? and if so, why?

 

[firedragon]

No, because simply saying that you allow for all variables gives you no predictability. Doesn't mean that it is determined, just because I come afterwards and say "I told you so"

If I allow for all variables, nothing you do would come as a surprise to me. Neither will it be very useful for anyone, for me to come afterwards and say "Sure, that went as expected, given all the variables."


It doesn't matter if its the whole Universe or not. When being so vague about variables, which in theory can be anything. Because even if a variable is not actually one, you wouldn't be able to point it out anyway. So we can simply allow for all and not be surprised about anything.

Oh my lord. I worship thee.

 

[KWED]

I suppose many people considered Einstein to be illogical when he said that "now" is only a perception. Nevermind.

Ah yes. I forgot that you never replied to my question about how Einstein's ideas about non simultaneity means that infallible omniscience does not negate free will. Or my pointing out that he didn't make quite the claims about time as you think he did.
Thanks for reminding me.

 

[KWED]

How do you know God knows I am going to buy a red car? What if he knows all the variables? My favourite colours are black, white, and red. I will choose one of them. And God knows all the variables.

Under these conditions god does not know what you will pick, only what you might pick. That is not "infallible omniscience".

Do you understand?

Sadly, I don't think you do.

 

[KWED]

No idea what you're talking about. I don't remember mentioning perception of time.

@muhammad_isa has read something about Einstein's proposal that perception of time depends on the position of the observer, and thinks this is somehow an argument against infallible omniscience negating free will.
Unfortunately, he hasn't been able to provide any kind of explanation as to how this works so it is a mere assertion at present.
Still doesn't prevent him from lobbing it in at every available opportunity.

 

[viole]

Poor analogy.
Everything in the documentary has already happened. You don't know what he "will do". You know what he "did".

It's more like watching a film where the characters make choices. To the characters (us), they are making free choices but to you (god), there can only ever be one possible outcome.

If you were an infallible god who, before the universe existed, made a list of Hitler's actions - would Hitler have been able to do anything different to what was on that list as the first half of the 20th century unfolded? Obviously not.

Probably because you haven't fully understood them, considering the analogy you provided.
Hope the above examples helped.

Well, who knows?

I could posit that God is outside time and space, and therefore see things in the same way we see a story that it already unfolded.

I mean, what is the difference? We have a record of what happened in a different spacetime location, while God has a record of every spacetime location, because of His advantageous location. Does knowing what we will choose, entail that we did not really choose? Does knowing what Hitler chose, entail that Hitler did not choose? I honestly do not see how we can defend that on pure logical grounds.

So, I think that is a non-sequitur as big as a house.

If you are after free will, there are much more logically defensible arguments than that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you are comfortable with your position, I'd say you are probably doing something right. Much discomfort to us humans seems to comer from an inability to make peace with uncertainty.

Perhaps it is more about slavery - to others or to certain beliefs. As to which I seem to notice so much of the latter with regards religious beliefs.

 

[KWED]

Consideration of the manner in which we experience time, is implicit in any discussion about free will, determinism or causality. The linear experience of time is fundamental to our human perspective,

Indeed. So it is therefore fundamental in how we experience time and events which depend on time (ie. anything we experience with the concepts of "before" and "after".)

but that does not necessarily mean that the true nature of time is linear.

According to Einstein there is no "true nature of time" as it depends on variables like the position of the observer.

Our experience is framed by three spatial dimensions, and one temporal, and the arrow of time for us always points in one direction. We assume that reality is defined by our perception of it,

Our reality clearly is determined by our experience of time, by definition.

but this is surely a solipsism, a symptom of our arrogance.

Hardly. It is merely accepting that our reality is bound by certain constraints. It is irrelevant to us how time may behave outside this universe (if it exists at all).

In defining time by the manner in which we experience it, we effectively place ourselves at the centre of the temporal universe, in the same way our ancestors placed themselves at the centre of the spatial universe.

Not quite. Regardless of how sophisticated our understanding of time becomes, we can only experience it in one way.

For us, the future hasn't happened yet, so we can effect it; but this may be a false assumption dictated by perspective.

Indeed. If the future is fixed and we cannot affect it, then free will is merely an illusion.
Therefore any god that produces this effect (whether by divine predestination, infallible omniscience or whatever) removes our free will. QED.