Total Posts:285|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Topic of the Week: "The Problem of Free Will"

airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We are starting to do a sponsored topic of the week discussion in this forum. Each week a new topic will be chosen to be stickied. The hope is that more members of DDO will start participating in this forum. A lot of you have said you want to see the Religion Forum improved, and we hope to do so in part by encouraging members to submit official topics for discussion. If you've ever said you want the content in this forum to get better, now is your chance!

We are also looking for help in selecting future topics. If you have a topic idea, please send it to me via PM.

.....

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

A more nuanced version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God created life on Earth to test humans to see whether they would accept belief in God in order to get into Heaven.
(2) God has divine foreknowledge, so He already knows what decision every single person will make.
(3) Thus, there is no reason to test us.

Another formulation is:

(1) God created life in order to test us.
(2) With divine foreknowledge, God knows exactly what type of evidence is needed to convince every single person of his existence.
(3) God has deliberately chosen to withhold the evidence that would convince every single person.
(4) A person cannot be faulted for non-belief; it is God's fault for not supplying the evidence that He knows would convince the person.
(5) Because God is responsible for non-belief, denying access to Heaven is unjust.
(6) God denies access to Heaven to non-believers.
(7) God is unjust.
(8) Since Christianity and Islam (the religions that believe in Heaven) claim that God is a just God, the God of those religions does not exist.

The purpose here is to foster discussion. Do you think there is a better formulation of the Problem of Free Will? Do you find it convincing? Are there logical flaws in the above syllogisms? Are there other problems with the Problem of Free Will?

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.
Debate.org Moderator
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 11:48:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
We are starting to do a sponsored topic of the week discussion in this forum. Each week a new topic will be chosen to be stickied. The hope is that more members of DDO will start participating in this forum. A lot of you have said you want to see the Religion Forum improved, and we hope to do so in part by encouraging members to submit official topics for discussion. If you've ever said you want the content in this forum to get better, now is your chance!

We are also looking for help in selecting future topics. If you have a topic idea, please send it to me via PM.

.....

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.

Premise 3 is unfair inference. It assumes the knowledge of one party is mutually exclusive to a 2nd party's choice.

If we define Choice as:
1. the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities
2. the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

And then we define Knowledge as:
1. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

Then break it down to an objective level. "Choice" is possibility, while "Knowledge" is fact.

The apparent contradiction can be solved in a manner of ways.

1. Everyday way
I know my son will look in the refrigerator and choose dr.pepper instead of pepsi. Then my son goes to the refrigerator and chooses dr.pepper. Did my foreknowledge mean my son did not have a choice? Did me calculating all factors to predict his behavior mean he not have a choice? Both cases I would claim no.

2. Relativistic manner.
From an inertial frame of reference inside this universe time flows in one direction and possibilities are collapsed along the way. Choices made along the way.

But from an inertial frame of reference outside un-entangled with the events int he first frame mentioned, the event appear static determined.[1]

This means from one observer's perspective of an event would appear differently from how an observer moving with the event will see it. This is perfectly logical, and already proven by science to be true for observers with different trajectories, different gravities, different speeds. And now, with more experiments to come I hope, different entangled environments.

https://medium.com...

This being said God having knowledge of the future does not negate our freedom to choose in the present. For what is the future to God but the present, and What is past to us, that was not once labeled the future?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:02:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
We are starting to do a sponsored topic of the week discussion in this forum. Each week a new topic will be chosen to be stickied. The hope is that more members of DDO will start participating in this forum. A lot of you have said you want to see the Religion Forum improved, and we hope to do so in part by encouraging members to submit official topics for discussion. If you've ever said you want the content in this forum to get better, now is your chance!

We are also looking for help in selecting future topics. If you have a topic idea, please send it to me via PM.

.....

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

A more nuanced version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God created life on Earth to test humans to see whether they would accept belief in God in order to get into Heaven.
(2) God has divine foreknowledge, so He already knows what decision every single person will make.
(3) Thus, there is no reason to test us.

Another formulation is:

(1) God created life in order to test us.
(2) With divine foreknowledge, God knows exactly what type of evidence is needed to convince every single person of his existence.
(3) God has deliberately chosen to withhold the evidence that would convince every single person.
(4) A person cannot be faulted for non-belief; it is God's fault for not supplying the evidence that He knows would convince the person.
(5) Because God is responsible for non-belief, denying access to Heaven is unjust.
(6) God denies access to Heaven to non-believers.
(7) God is unjust.
(8) Since Christianity and Islam (the religions that believe in Heaven) claim that God is a just God, the God of those religions does not exist.

The purpose here is to foster discussion. Do you think there is a better formulation of the Problem of Free Will? Do you find it convincing? Are there logical flaws in the above syllogisms? Are there other problems with the Problem of Free Will?

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.

My God is "THE SON OF MAN," who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind, who is currently the Most High in the creation, according to our three dimensional concept of one directional linear time. And it is He, who descends to the very beginning where he says, "Let there be light" as he begins to die in the process of involution in order to be the saviour of the body in which he developed.

Everything that you do in your life, has been and will be done according to your free will, But he who is the culmination and end of mankind, knows everything that you will do, for it was done in his past.

He, like we, must pay the penalty for the sins of the fleshly body in which he developed. But like we, who pay the blood price for the sins of our flesh and are judged and found worthy of life, he too shall live again in the glorious light bodies of his immortal chosen few..
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:03:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Before the Atheist can get in with their irrational and straw mans I'll offer a contention to my argument as well

Well said mhykiel.

But your argument is scientific and logical that a deistic god, or one who observes is sound it does not address a theistic god.

If for a theist God is in control of everything, than our choices are like we are marbles in a slanting maze and God is at the helm of adjusting the knobs.

http://s265.photobucket.com...

From the perspective of the marble we appear to have choices to the path we follow, but in reality we do not.

Hence any religion that attests to us having a choice and God having complete control is therefore false.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:05:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If free will did not exist we could not blame anyone for anything because they would have no control over who they are and what they do. You could not morally hate them and this would make religion impossible.
SargonOfAkkad
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 12:40:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll address the following argument from the perspective of an atheist.

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.


This argument is more powerful than the other two arguments presented. Firstly, the other two arguments rely on the notion that god created human beings in order to test their belief in god. It is all too easy for a theist to deny this premise while still retaining the core of theism, effectively circumnavigating any criticism to the effect that they are now just milk-and-water deists. This argument, however, attributes one property to god, and it would be intellectually awkward for a theist to deny the omniscience of god. Therefore, it is predicated on sounder notions than the other two arguments.

The argument seems plausible. God is, as he is usually conceived of, an omniscient being. However, we have to ask ourselves what exactly omniscience is, and what kind of knowledge it allows god to have. Does omniscience allow god to know propositions about the future actions of free agents? Theists could deny this on the grounds that the future actions of free agents are never known for certain. Since the theist can deny that the future actions of free agents can be known for certain, then the premise "(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make." can also be denied by a theist. This gives the theist one way to consider the argument unsound.

What if the theist defines omniscience as "knowing the truth value of every proposition that can have truth value". This is a logical definition, because one certainly wouldn't state that god know a proposition to be true if it can't have truth value. Logically, this is similar to defining omniscience as "the ability to know everything that is logically possible". In any case, the semantics of propositions takes on a relevant role here. The theist can take a tensed view of semantics, in which case propositions follow the form "p is v at t", where p refers to a proposition, v refers to truth value, and t refers to time. According to this view of semantics, god can rightfully believe that "Person A will do Action X at T". If Person A chooses to use their free will to not perform action X at T, then god is still omniscient. Why? Because omniscience only requires god to have knowledge of true propositions, and the truth of propositions depends on time. The proposition "Person A will do Action X at T" is true when uttered at T, but becomes false at a different time, T', when the person chooses not do action X. Person A's exercise of their free will merely changes the truth value of the proposition at different times. God did not hold a false proposition to be true because he merely held the proposition to be true within a certain temporal context, so any future events taking place at different times, such as somebody acting out of their free will, do not demonstrate that god held a false proposition to be true.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 1:00:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:48:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
We are starting to do a sponsored topic of the week discussion in this forum. Each week a new topic will be chosen to be stickied. The hope is that more members of DDO will start participating in this forum. A lot of you have said you want to see the Religion Forum improved, and we hope to do so in part by encouraging members to submit official topics for discussion. If you've ever said you want the content in this forum to get better, now is your chance!

We are also looking for help in selecting future topics. If you have a topic idea, please send it to me via PM.

.....

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.

Premise 3 is unfair inference. It assumes the knowledge of one party is mutually exclusive to a 2nd party's choice.

If we define Choice as:
1. the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities
2. the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

And then we define Knowledge as:
1. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

Then break it down to an objective level. "Choice" is possibility, while "Knowledge" is fact.

The apparent contradiction can be solved in a manner of ways.

1. Everyday way
I know my son will look in the refrigerator and choose dr.pepper instead of pepsi. Then my son goes to the refrigerator and chooses dr.pepper. Did my foreknowledge mean my son did not have a choice? Did me calculating all factors to predict his behavior mean he not have a choice? Both cases I would claim no.

This is playing the odds. If we want to call Omniscience as knowing what the options are, and what the most likely option taken will be, then sure, choice still exists.

In a similar vein, were 50 poker chips individually labeled be placed into a bag, shuffled about, and a person to blindly insert his hand in, would God know what was going to come out?

If yes, then there couldn't possibly be such thing as free will, all actions and decisions are a predetermined option with illusion of choice being the driving factor.

2. Relativistic manner.
From an inertial frame of reference inside this universe time flows in one direction and possibilities are collapsed along the way. Choices made along the way.

But from an inertial frame of reference outside un-entangled with the events int he first frame mentioned, the event appear static determined.[1]

This means from one observer's perspective of an event would appear differently from how an observer moving with the event will see it. This is perfectly logical, and already proven by science to be true for observers with different trajectories, different gravities, different speeds. And now, with more experiments to come I hope, different entangled environments.

https://medium.com...

This being said God having knowledge of the future does not negate our freedom to choose in the present. For what is the future to God but the present, and What is past to us, that was not once labeled the future?

I would like to think that God doesn't -exactly- know what any one person is going to do at any one time. Might He have a great idea as to what might be chose? Of course, and He would also know the logical ramifications it will engage upon a person's life, but He cannot say for certainwhat any one person will choose.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 1:34:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The simple fact is that if this god is omniscient (all knowing) then before creation he knows who is in hell, therefore he creates people with the sole purpose of being his burning entertainment for eternity thus making god evil.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 1:48:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The facts remain that those that ' claim ' to abide in jebus yet continue to SIN, Freely do so!

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

Considering ALL those who ' claim ' to be believers but ALL admit to habitually Sinning, are thus self-proven frauds, liars & deceivers!

QED
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 2:14:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 1:48:04 AM, Composer wrote:
The facts remain that those that ' claim ' to abide in jebus yet continue to SIN, Freely do so!

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

Considering ALL those who ' claim ' to be believers but ALL admit to habitually Sinning, are thus self-proven frauds, liars & deceivers!

QED


You are not alone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Religion does not build better people.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 2:45:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

I agree with the above logic. Unfortunately the atheist world view also has rules out free will, being that we are biological machines set in motion controlled by our neuro-chemicals.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:05:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I disagree with the premise especially where it got to 3. The reason is that when it assumes that we don't have a choice, we choose what has been determined, meaning there is still an implication of choice.

I'm a Christian who believes in a God who would allow suffering, pain and everything else not nice. What happens in the end? I believe we have the ability to do different things. If we didn't have free will, then humans would be very predictable about everything. If we had no free will, Sam Harris or somebody else could know exactly everything about Richard Dawkins or what he's going to do. But there's always the wild card. Something can be 20% chance of coming up like in dice or 5% in cards. But there's always a wild card. The one that shows up.

My premise is the following.

1. If Free Will exists, you must admit you can change your mind.
2. If you can change your mind, your thoughts can change.
3. If your thoughts can change, opinions and knowledge can change.
4. If this happens, Free Will exists.

To which I also argue for what if there was no Free Will.

1. If there is no free will, then there is predetermined paths and that everything you say has no true meaning or purpose.
2. If this is correct, you admit there's a plan.
3. If you admit there's a plan, then there is a planner for it.
4. If there is a planner, then it's some divine being.

So this is why me and even other atheists find Sam Harris claims on free will to be ridiculous.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:16:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 3:05:12 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
I disagree with the premise especially where it got to 3. The reason is that when it assumes that we don't have a choice, we choose what has been determined, meaning there is still an implication of choice.

I'm a Christian who believes in a God who would allow suffering, pain and everything else not nice. What happens in the end? I believe we have the ability to do different things. If we didn't have free will, then humans would be very predictable about everything. If we had no free will, Sam Harris or somebody else could know exactly everything about Richard Dawkins or what he's going to do. But there's always the wild card. Something can be 20% chance of coming up like in dice or 5% in cards. But there's always a wild card. The one that shows up.
IF you truly believe YOU have a freewill, then explain to us why you FREELY keep choosing to Sin?

Your vindicated Mentor & Saviour Moi!
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:19:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 3:16:32 AM, Composer wrote:
At 12/31/2014 3:05:12 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
I disagree with the premise especially where it got to 3. The reason is that when it assumes that we don't have a choice, we choose what has been determined, meaning there is still an implication of choice.

I'm a Christian who believes in a God who would allow suffering, pain and everything else not nice. What happens in the end? I believe we have the ability to do different things. If we didn't have free will, then humans would be very predictable about everything. If we had no free will, Sam Harris or somebody else could know exactly everything about Richard Dawkins or what he's going to do. But there's always the wild card. Something can be 20% chance of coming up like in dice or 5% in cards. But there's always a wild card. The one that shows up.
IF you truly believe YOU have a freewill, then explain to us why you FREELY keep choosing to Sin?

Your vindicated Mentor & Saviour Moi!


Because I'm a human capable of mistakes, there are times where I am driven by cravings that I cave in, and it just feels good. But then the question is to define sin. There are Christians who are saying its a sin to eat meat because it's murder.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:37:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

Premise 3 is flawed. We are not pre-programmed. In life we have to make decisions, and choose between options. God's foreknowledge does not mean that we no longer have to choose between those options.

A more nuanced version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God created life on Earth to test humans to see whether they would accept belief in God in order to get into Heaven.
(2) God has divine foreknowledge, so He already knows what decision every single person will make.
(3) Thus, there is no reason to test us.

Premise 1 is based on the flawed assumption that the "test" is the only reason for our time on earth. He may have put us here to develop us into the type of beings who would actually appreciate Heaven, rather than just having pre-programmed robots. Love is not really love unless it is given freely. How can we appreciate love if we don't know hate?? How would we distinguish good from evil, joy from sorrow, etc., if we have never experienced them?? I believe that the human experience is about much more than just a test.

Another formulation is:

(1) God created life in order to test us.
(2) With divine foreknowledge, God knows exactly what type of evidence is needed to convince every single person of his existence.
(3) God has deliberately chosen to withhold the evidence that would convince every single person.
(4) A person cannot be faulted for non-belief; it is God's fault for not supplying the evidence that He knows would convince the person.
(5) Because God is responsible for non-belief, denying access to Heaven is unjust.
(6) God denies access to Heaven to non-believers.
(7) God is unjust.
(8) Since Christianity and Islam (the religions that believe in Heaven) claim that God is a just God, the God of those religions does not exist.

This version is flawed due to the introduction of a subjective version of what is unjust. If God controls access to Heaven yet you don't accept Him as the objective lawgiver, then by what objective moral standard do you claim that God's behavior is unjust?? Without God, you can't claim any objective standard for what is just, you can only state your subjective opinion, thus the argument is ineffectual in its attempt to disprove God.

The purpose here is to foster discussion. Do you think there is a better formulation of the Problem of Free Will? Do you find it convincing? Are there logical flaws in the above syllogisms? Are there other problems with the Problem of Free Will?

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:38:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
We are starting to do a sponsored topic of the week discussion in this forum. Each week a new topic will be chosen to be stickied. The hope is that more members of DDO will start participating in this forum. A lot of you have said you want to see the Religion Forum improved, and we hope to do so in part by encouraging members to submit official topics for discussion. If you've ever said you want the content in this forum to get better, now is your chance!

We are also looking for help in selecting future topics. If you have a topic idea, please send it to me via PM.

.....

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

A more nuanced version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God created life on Earth to test humans to see whether they would accept belief in God in order to get into Heaven.
(2) God has divine foreknowledge, so He already knows what decision every single person will make.
(3) Thus, there is no reason to test us.

Another formulation is:

(1) God created life in order to test us.
(2) With divine foreknowledge, God knows exactly what type of evidence is needed to convince every single person of his existence.
(3) God has deliberately chosen to withhold the evidence that would convince every single person.
(4) A person cannot be faulted for non-belief; it is God's fault for not supplying the evidence that He knows would convince the person.
(5) Because God is responsible for non-belief, denying access to Heaven is unjust.
(6) God denies access to Heaven to non-believers.
(7) God is unjust.
(8) Since Christianity and Islam (the religions that believe in Heaven) claim that God is a just God, the God of those religions does not exist.

The purpose here is to foster discussion. Do you think there is a better formulation of the Problem of Free Will? Do you find it convincing? Are there logical flaws in the above syllogisms? Are there other problems with the Problem of Free Will?

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.

The problem of free will is that we have no free will. Whether a God intended it or not our actions are all a result of external and internal stimuli. We are slaves to our needs. On the most basic level we breathe because it's an involuntary reflex, we eat when we are hungry, we have sex because of hormonal changes, and we sleep because we are tired. The emotional complexity behind our actions depends on the type of stimuli it is, from the need for safety to a need for sexual intimacy. Our actions become even more complex with creative expression. Even love is a state of mind that is brought on by various stimuli and chemical processes in our bodies. It really is quite amazing when you think about it.

Where does God fit into this? I don't know really. If we are biological machines and there is a God, then surely it was intended to be that way. Of course I see that as posing a problem. Why would a God create us with free will when all biological signs point to no free will?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:58:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
We are starting to do a sponsored topic of the week discussion in this forum. Each week a new topic will be chosen to be stickied. The hope is that more members of DDO will start participating in this forum. A lot of you have said you want to see the Religion Forum improved, and we hope to do so in part by encouraging members to submit official topics for discussion. If you've ever said you want the content in this forum to get better, now is your chance!

We are also looking for help in selecting future topics. If you have a topic idea, please send it to me via PM.

.....

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

A more nuanced version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God created life on Earth to test humans to see whether they would accept belief in God in order to get into Heaven.
(2) God has divine foreknowledge, so He already knows what decision every single person will make.
(3) Thus, there is no reason to test us.

Another formulation is:

(1) God created life in order to test us.
(2) With divine foreknowledge, God knows exactly what type of evidence is needed to convince every single person of his existence.
(3) God has deliberately chosen to withhold the evidence that would convince every single person.
(4) A person cannot be faulted for non-belief; it is God's fault for not supplying the evidence that He knows would convince the person.
(5) Because God is responsible for non-belief, denying access to Heaven is unjust.
(6) God denies access to Heaven to non-believers.
(7) God is unjust.
(8) Since Christianity and Islam (the religions that believe in Heaven) claim that God is a just God, the God of those religions does not exist.

The purpose here is to foster discussion. Do you think there is a better formulation of the Problem of Free Will? Do you find it convincing? Are there logical flaws in the above syllogisms? Are there other problems with the Problem of Free Will?

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.

I think the variables are finite, meaning God knows all the possibilities we can choose from and at any moment we can change what we choose. It's not that God knows what we will actually choose but what we can actually choose from.

And if for instance God does know what we will actually choose it doesn't mean we don't have free will, it just means God knows what we have chosen, It doesn't mean we can't change our choices at any point.

God has created us with a plan in mind for our future, but it doesn't mean we will make the right choices to fulfil those plans. Even God lives with hope.

For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Jeremiah 29:11
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 4:09:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 1:48:04 AM, Composer wrote:
The facts remain that those that ' claim ' to abide in jebus yet continue to SIN, Freely do so!

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

Considering ALL those who ' claim ' to be believers but ALL admit to habitually Sinning, are thus self-proven frauds, liars & deceivers!

QED


This is a misconception as there is nobody who is without sin, even after becoming a believer.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 4:35:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 4:09:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 1:48:04 AM, Composer wrote:
The facts remain that those that ' claim ' to abide in jebus yet continue to SIN, Freely do so!

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

Considering ALL those who ' claim ' to be believers but ALL admit to habitually Sinning, are thus self-proven frauds, liars & deceivers!

QED



This is a misconception as there is nobody who is without sin, even after becoming a believer.

So then, according to 1 John 3:6, no one knows Jesus, abides in Jesus, or has seen Jesus.
And if people have free will, then people can alter God's plan, making people more powerful than God, right?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 4:47:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 3:19:05 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Because I'm a human capable of mistakes, there are times where I am driven by cravings that I cave in, and it just feels good. But then the question is to define sin. There are Christians who are saying its a sin to eat meat because it's murder.
No the problem for those like YOU remains that despite your claim of a freewill, you continue to SIN, and proves you are a jebus' fraud, liar & deceiver according to -

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

&

Your bleating and whining about dissention among those claiming to be a xtian, YOU have had the opportunity to determine exactly what are Sins!

How?

As you can't agree amongst yourselves and obviously your supposed god IS the author of confusion after all LOL!, then IF you really still believe you are a genuine believer, ask jebus, and he promised to inform you without reservation! -

If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. (John 15:7) English Standard Version (ESV) Story book

Obviously you already tried and got no response!

LMAO@those like YOU!

Your vindicated Mentor & Saviour, Moi!

QED
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 5:08:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 3:58:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.


Jeremiah 29:11
Let us go with the notion that a god has a plan for us all, then bang goes freewill!

That's pre-determination, and IF one believes their particular god's plans will always prevail, then again that proves pre-determination, hence NO freewill, unless of course you are among those that believe your/their supposed god's plan(s) are fallible and we can thwart its plans(s)?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 5:11:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 4:35:47 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:09:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 1:48:04 AM, Composer wrote:
The facts remain that those that ' claim ' to abide in jebus yet continue to SIN, Freely do so!

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

Considering ALL those who ' claim ' to be believers but ALL admit to habitually Sinning, are thus self-proven frauds, liars & deceivers!

QED



This is a misconception as there is nobody who is without sin, even after becoming a believer.

So then, according to 1 John 3:6, no one knows Jesus, abides in Jesus, or has seen Jesus.
And if people have free will, then people can alter God's plan, making people more powerful than God, right?

Regarding your first question, I'm not a biblical scholar but I suspect that this is misunderstood, In my view it simply means that if at any moment in time you are sinning then you are not walking with Jesus or abiding in Jesus, And if you are abiding in Jesus then you are not sinning at that moment in time. But I think the bible makes it very clear that there is nobody without sin at one point in time.

Regarding you second question, God has created a finite amount of variables from which we can alter his plan, it is only is hope that we choose the best outcome.

It doesn't mean we are more powerful than God, Because God is the one who creates the variables and the possibilities, not us.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 5:15:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 5:11:12 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:35:47 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:09:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 1:48:04 AM, Composer wrote:
The facts remain that those that ' claim ' to abide in jebus yet continue to SIN, Freely do so!

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

Considering ALL those who ' claim ' to be believers but ALL admit to habitually Sinning, are thus self-proven frauds, liars & deceivers!

QED



This is a misconception as there is nobody who is without sin, even after becoming a believer.

So then, according to 1 John 3:6, no one knows Jesus, abides in Jesus, or has seen Jesus.
And if people have free will, then people can alter God's plan, making people more powerful than God, right?

Regarding your first question, I'm not a biblical scholar but I suspect that this is misunderstood, In my view it simply means that if at any moment in time you are sinning then you are not walking with Jesus or abiding in Jesus, And if you are abiding in Jesus then you are not sinning at that moment in time.
Okay. But that's not what it says. Is it possible that you're ignoring what it says because what it says contradicts with Christianity's claim that you have a personal relationship with Jesus?

But I think the bible makes it very clear that there is nobody without sin at one point in time.
True. It even describes the sins of Jesus in some detail. (Luke 19:30, John 2:15, for example)


Regarding you second question, God has created a finite amount of variables from which we can alter his plan, it is only is hope that we choose the best outcome.
Which kind of repeats what I said; if we don't choose the "best" (subjective) outcome, then we've foiled God's plan.

It doesn't mean we are more powerful than God, Because God is the one who creates the variables and the possibilities, not us.
But we can still alter God's plan and he can't stop us.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 5:21:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 5:08:23 AM, Composer wrote:
At 12/31/2014 3:58:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.


Jeremiah 29:11
Let us go with the notion that a god has a plan for us all, then bang goes freewill!

That's pre-determination, and IF one believes their particular god's plans will always prevail, then again that proves pre-determination, hence NO freewill, unless of course you are among those that believe your/their supposed god's plan(s) are fallible and we can thwart its plans(s)?

God has hope for our future he wants us to choose what's best from a finite amount of possibilities, the rest is up to us. Us failing to choose the best is also in His plan, but not what He want's, ultimately.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 5:30:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 5:15:32 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/31/2014 5:11:12 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:35:47 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:09:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 1:48:04 AM, Composer wrote:
The facts remain that those that ' claim ' to abide in jebus yet continue to SIN, Freely do so!

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

Considering ALL those who ' claim ' to be believers but ALL admit to habitually Sinning, are thus self-proven frauds, liars & deceivers!

QED



This is a misconception as there is nobody who is without sin, even after becoming a believer.

So then, according to 1 John 3:6, no one knows Jesus, abides in Jesus, or has seen Jesus.
And if people have free will, then people can alter God's plan, making people more powerful than God, right?

Regarding your first question, I'm not a biblical scholar but I suspect that this is misunderstood, In my view it simply means that if at any moment in time you are sinning then you are not walking with Jesus or abiding in Jesus, And if you are abiding in Jesus then you are not sinning at that moment in time.
Okay. But that's not what it says. Is it possible that you're ignoring what it says because what it says contradicts with Christianity's claim that you have a personal relationship with Jesus?

The bible is a very complex book and I won't claim to understand it fully, but the above quote may have been taken out of context or even possible as I have explained might actually be the case,

Once you are in communion with God it is impossible to sin, if you are not, then this might be a sin in and of itself.

But I think the bible makes it very clear that there is nobody without sin at one point in time.
True. It even describes the sins of Jesus in some detail. (Luke 19:30, John 2:15, for example)


Regarding you second question, God has created a finite amount of variables from which we can alter his plan, it is only is hope that we choose the best outcome.
Which kind of repeats what I said; if we don't choose the "best" (subjective) outcome, then we've foiled God's plan.

It doesn't mean we are more powerful than God, Because God is the one who creates the variables and the possibilities, not us.
But we can still alter God's plan and he can't stop us.

If you have a child and have a plan for Him/her to finish schooling and then go on to further education and then get a very good position in life, Say a Job as a doctor, You create the opportunity for the progress, but there are other possible variables that they may fail, It depends on their desire weather they will be successful or not. If they desire not to be successful or follow your plan, they it doesn't mean that they are more powerful than the parent, it just means they are able to decide their own future.

And this is the same as the plan God has for us, we can decide our own future.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 5:42:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 5:30:22 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 5:15:32 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/31/2014 5:11:12 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:35:47 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:09:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 1:48:04 AM, Composer wrote:
The facts remain that those that ' claim ' to abide in jebus yet continue to SIN, Freely do so!

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

Considering ALL those who ' claim ' to be believers but ALL admit to habitually Sinning, are thus self-proven frauds, liars & deceivers!

QED



This is a misconception as there is nobody who is without sin, even after becoming a believer.

So then, according to 1 John 3:6, no one knows Jesus, abides in Jesus, or has seen Jesus.
And if people have free will, then people can alter God's plan, making people more powerful than God, right?

Regarding your first question, I'm not a biblical scholar but I suspect that this is misunderstood, In my view it simply means that if at any moment in time you are sinning then you are not walking with Jesus or abiding in Jesus, And if you are abiding in Jesus then you are not sinning at that moment in time.
Okay. But that's not what it says. Is it possible that you're ignoring what it says because what it says contradicts with Christianity's claim that you have a personal relationship with Jesus?


The bible is a very complex book and I won't claim to understand it fully,
The Bible is a simple collection of simple writings, most of which are blatantly wrong. It becomes a very complex task to try to bend, fold, drill, twist and melt it into matching reality, simply because it doesn't.

but the above quote may have been taken out of context or even possible as I have explained might actually be the case
Or it could just be wrong.


Once you are in communion with God it is impossible to sin, if you are not, then this might be a sin in and of itself.
Then why didn't God simply create everyone to be in communion with him? That's the result anyway, right? Maybe all of this bible stuff is just made-up. That might explain why all of the evidence supports that conclusion.

But I think the bible makes it very clear that there is nobody without sin at one point in time.
True. It even describes the sins of Jesus in some detail. (Luke 19:30, John 2:15, for example)


Regarding you second question, God has created a finite amount of variables from which we can alter his plan, it is only is hope that we choose the best outcome.
Which kind of repeats what I said; if we don't choose the "best" (subjective) outcome, then we've foiled God's plan.

It doesn't mean we are more powerful than God, Because God is the one who creates the variables and the possibilities, not us.
But we can still alter God's plan and he can't stop us.


If you have a child and have a plan for Him/her to finish schooling and then go on to further education and then get a very good position in life, Say a Job as a doctor, You create the opportunity for the progress, but there are other possible variables that they may fail, It depends on their desire weather they will be successful or not. If they desire not to be successful or follow your plan, they it doesn't mean that they are more powerful than the parent, it just means they are able to decide their own future.
No matter what the parents want, or how much effort they put into it, when it comes to a person's future, they do have more power to control it than their parents. Or do you have to call your parents before you decide to quit your job, get a different job, go on a date, get engaged, have a child, buy a house, etc.?

And this is the same as the plan God has for us, we can decide our own future.
Then it's really all in our hands to begin with. So of what purpose is God?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 6:09:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 5:42:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/31/2014 5:30:22 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 5:15:32 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/31/2014 5:11:12 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:35:47 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:09:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2014 1:48:04 AM, Composer wrote:
The facts remain that those that ' claim ' to abide in jebus yet continue to SIN, Freely do so!

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him. (1 John 3:6) ASV Story book

Considering ALL those who ' claim ' to be believers but ALL admit to habitually Sinning, are thus self-proven frauds, liars & deceivers!

QED



This is a misconception as there is nobody who is without sin, even after becoming a believer.

So then, according to 1 John 3:6, no one knows Jesus, abides in Jesus, or has seen Jesus.
And if people have free will, then people can alter God's plan, making people more powerful than God, right?

Regarding your first question, I'm not a biblical scholar but I suspect that this is misunderstood, In my view it simply means that if at any moment in time you are sinning then you are not walking with Jesus or abiding in Jesus, And if you are abiding in Jesus then you are not sinning at that moment in time.
Okay. But that's not what it says. Is it possible that you're ignoring what it says because what it says contradicts with Christianity's claim that you have a personal relationship with Jesus?


The bible is a very complex book and I won't claim to understand it fully,
The Bible is a simple collection of simple writings, most of which are blatantly wrong. It becomes a very complex task to try to bend, fold, drill, twist and melt it into matching reality, simply because it doesn't.

According to who Beast, you? Well the evidence seems to suggest otherwise, as it is the most widely translated and distributed book in the world and throughout the history of time, it fascinates even the most greatest of thinkers.

So I'm inclined to disagree with you there

but the above quote may have been taken out of context or even possible as I have explained might actually be the case
Or it could just be wrong.

Maybe, Maybe Not.



Once you are in communion with God it is impossible to sin, if you are not, then this might be a sin in and of itself.
Then why didn't God simply create everyone to be in communion with him? That's the result anyway, right? Maybe all of this bible stuff is just made-up. That might explain why all of the evidence supports that conclusion.

If that was the case then we would be forced to be that way, and that would definitely mean we have no free will, as it is, we can choose.


But I think the bible makes it very clear that there is nobody without sin at one point in time.
True. It even describes the sins of Jesus in some detail. (Luke 19:30, John 2:15, for example)


Regarding you second question, God has created a finite amount of variables from which we can alter his plan, it is only is hope that we choose the best outcome.
Which kind of repeats what I said; if we don't choose the "best" (subjective) outcome, then we've foiled God's plan.

It doesn't mean we are more powerful than God, Because God is the one who creates the variables and the possibilities, not us.
But we can still alter God's plan and he can't stop us.


If you have a child and have a plan for Him/her to finish schooling and then go on to further education and then get a very good position in life, Say a Job as a doctor, You create the opportunity for the progress, but there are other possible variables that they may fail, It depends on their desire weather they will be successful or not. If they desire not to be successful or follow your plan, they it doesn't mean that they are more powerful than the parent, it just means they are able to decide their own future.
No matter what the parents want, or how much effort they put into it, when it comes to a person's future, they do have more power to control it than their parents. Or do you have to call your parents before you decide to quit your job, get a different job, go on a date, get engaged, have a child, buy a house, etc.?

You're missing my point. The point is God creates all the possibilities and hopes we choose the best outcome, not the worst, Yes, we can decide to choose the worst, that doesn't mean we have the ability to thwart Gods plan, as every single variable is in Gods plan to begin with, even our failure, He just hopes we don't go along with that out come, But if it is to be then so be it.

It's still apart of his overall plan just not his desired outcome.

And this is the same as the plan God has for us, we can decide our own future.
Then it's really all in our hands to begin with. So of what purpose is God?

To allow us to have the choice.
JalanSTon
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 6:31:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
We are starting to do a sponsored topic of the week discussion in this forum. Each week a new topic will be chosen to be stickied. The hope is that more members of DDO will start participating in this forum. A lot of you have said you want to see the Religion Forum improved, and we hope to do so in part by encouraging members to submit official topics for discussion. If you've ever said you want the content in this forum to get better, now is your chance!

We are also looking for help in selecting future topics. If you have a topic idea, please send it to me via PM.

.....

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

A more nuanced version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God created life on Earth to test humans to see whether they would accept belief in God in order to get into Heaven.
(2) God has divine foreknowledge, so He already knows what decision every single person will make.
(3) Thus, there is no reason to test us.

Another formulation is:

(1) God created life in order to test us.
(2) With divine foreknowledge, God knows exactly what type of evidence is needed to convince every single person of his existence.
(3) God has deliberately chosen to withhold the evidence that would convince every single person.
(4) A person cannot be faulted for non-belief; it is God's fault for not supplying the evidence that He knows would convince the person.
(5) Because God is responsible for non-belief, denying access to Heaven is unjust.
(6) God denies access to Heaven to non-believers.
(7) God is unjust.
(8) Since Christianity and Islam (the religions that believe in Heaven) claim that God is a just God, the God of those religions does not exist.

The purpose here is to foster discussion. Do you think there is a better formulation of the Problem of Free Will? Do you find it convincing? Are there logical flaws in the above syllogisms? Are there other problems with the Problem of Free Will?

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.

The writer considers carefully the issue of God's omniscience, but I think it might be good also to look at how God's omnipotence affects human free will. Okay, let me pose this question, if God is all powerful, then does he have the power to limit what he knows? If he can't, he isn't really all powerful.

Perhaps God doesn't have to limit his knowledge, but he must have the power to do so. Certainly one area in which he could choose not to know everything would be in what decisions and actions people might make-that is free will.

That is, I would say that free will is possible within the scope of God's creation, and fulfills a purpose in which people's response to God comes freely from their heart, and not just out of a predetermined compulsion.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 6:33:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
We are starting to do a sponsored topic of the week discussion in this forum. Each week a new topic will be chosen to be stickied. The hope is that more members of DDO will start participating in this forum. A lot of you have said you want to see the Religion Forum improved, and we hope to do so in part by encouraging members to submit official topics for discussion. If you've ever said you want the content in this forum to get better, now is your chance!

We are also looking for help in selecting future topics. If you have a topic idea, please send it to me via PM.

.....

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

A more nuanced version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God created life on Earth to test humans to see whether they would accept belief in God in order to get into Heaven.
(2) God has divine foreknowledge, so He already knows what decision every single person will make.
(3) Thus, there is no reason to test us.

Another formulation is:

(1) God created life in order to test us.
(2) With divine foreknowledge, God knows exactly what type of evidence is needed to convince every single person of his existence.
(3) God has deliberately chosen to withhold the evidence that would convince every single person.
(4) A person cannot be faulted for non-belief; it is God's fault for not supplying the evidence that He knows would convince the person.
(5) Because God is responsible for non-belief, denying access to Heaven is unjust.
(6) God denies access to Heaven to non-believers.
(7) God is unjust.
(8) Since Christianity and Islam (the religions that believe in Heaven) claim that God is a just God, the God of those religions does not exist.

The purpose here is to foster discussion. Do you think there is a better formulation of the Problem of Free Will? Do you find it convincing? Are there logical flaws in the above syllogisms? Are there other problems with the Problem of Free Will?

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.

Response: This should be entitled, "the problem with the problem of free will". For every time the problem of free will is explained, a person still ask the same misunderstanding of the concept of free will. They have a misunderstanding of free will to begin with, hence the problem in asking the question.

Allah (God) knows the future. Yes this is true.Yet just because you cannot change what he knows will occur does not mean you have no free will. It simply mea s you do not have the free will to do this particular act. For example, I have the free will to walk, run, or catch a bus, or drive to work. Yet just because the option to do instant transportation with the snap of my fingers is not available, that does not mean I have no free will. It just means I don't have it for this particular act. Thus this clears up one misconception of free will.

The other misconception is based on how Allah knows the future. It is assumed that Allah knows it because he has planned it. Therefore, there is no free will. That is untrue. Allah knows the future based on your current condition. It is conditional. Therefore, it is not planned. So since Allah's knowledge is conditional, and you have the ability to freely choose to change your condition, then you still have free will and it is because Allah has full knowledge and understanding of ALL conditions that He is able to predict the future.

Thus the concept of free will is clear and there is no problem. The problem only arises from the repeated misconception on what is free will.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 6:59:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 6:31:22 AM, JalanSTon wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:17:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
We are starting to do a sponsored topic of the week discussion in this forum. Each week a new topic will be chosen to be stickied. The hope is that more members of DDO will start participating in this forum. A lot of you have said you want to see the Religion Forum improved, and we hope to do so in part by encouraging members to submit official topics for discussion. If you've ever said you want the content in this forum to get better, now is your chance!

We are also looking for help in selecting future topics. If you have a topic idea, please send it to me via PM.

.....

This week's topic of discussion is "The Problem of Free Will"

A simple version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God is said to be omniscient.
(2) An omniscient God has foreknowledge of every decision that a person will make.
(3) If God already knows what decision you will make, you do not really have a choice; you have to choose the option that God foresaw you choosing.
(4) Divine foreknowledge means that free will does not exist.

A more nuanced version of the Problem of Free Will is as follows:

(1) God created life on Earth to test humans to see whether they would accept belief in God in order to get into Heaven.
(2) God has divine foreknowledge, so He already knows what decision every single person will make.
(3) Thus, there is no reason to test us.

Another formulation is:

(1) God created life in order to test us.
(2) With divine foreknowledge, God knows exactly what type of evidence is needed to convince every single person of his existence.
(3) God has deliberately chosen to withhold the evidence that would convince every single person.
(4) A person cannot be faulted for non-belief; it is God's fault for not supplying the evidence that He knows would convince the person.
(5) Because God is responsible for non-belief, denying access to Heaven is unjust.
(6) God denies access to Heaven to non-believers.
(7) God is unjust.
(8) Since Christianity and Islam (the religions that believe in Heaven) claim that God is a just God, the God of those religions does not exist.

The purpose here is to foster discussion. Do you think there is a better formulation of the Problem of Free Will? Do you find it convincing? Are there logical flaws in the above syllogisms? Are there other problems with the Problem of Free Will?

Please feel free to make any comment you feel is relevant to the OP, whether you are attacking the above arguments, defending them, or bringing up something else that is tangentially relevant.

Happy discussing DDO. Let's make these Topics of the Week something special.

The writer considers carefully the issue of God's omniscience, but I think it might be good also to look at how God's omnipotence affects human free will. Okay, let me pose this question, if God is all powerful, then does he have the power to limit what he knows? If he can't, he isn't really all powerful.

Perhaps God doesn't have to limit his knowledge, but he must have the power to do so. Certainly one area in which he could choose not to know everything would be in what decisions and actions people might make-that is free will.

That is, I would say that free will is possible within the scope of God's creation, and fulfills a purpose in which people's response to God comes freely from their heart, and not just out of a predetermined compulsion.

Bingo,

For God to be unlimited, He must have the power to pose limits on Himself, Otherwise He would not be unlimited,

Therefore It follows that God is able to limit Himself.

Thus solving the Paradox of the rock.