Evidence for God from Science

Do we have free will?

An analogy was made in a page about coin flipping.

I say, even then something would have made you flip the coin, no? The way the coin lands only seems random to us, because we don't have absolute knowledge like god does. We don't have perfect body control/eye coordination so you can't predict which side of the coin lands first. Even simply assigning certain course of action to heads or tails is calculated, consciously or subconsciously.

This is an interesting topic that I've discussed a few times. Please post your input.

God's foreknowledge has no bearing on whether or not we have free will, imo. See this thread for details. Feel free to raise points here, and I'll respond, if you like.

I skimmed over it, strong debate! I'm getting at something a little different here, though:

I question the basis of creating a free will being. Anything or anyone something creates will always be limited by it's structure, structure of it's mind in particular.
It will respond in certain ways to certain situations because it was designed to. Like us, we didn't choose to feel pain. We feel it because you are born with pain receptors, just because of the code our human DNA contains.

If god knows precisely whom he is creating, then he is fully responsible for what his creation does. For instance, people don't put the blame on guns for killing people.

Modulus wrote:I skimmed over it, strong debate! I'm getting at something a little different here, though:

I question the basis of creating a free will being. Anything or anyone something creates will always be limited by it's structure, structure of it's mind in particular.
It will respond in certain ways to certain situations because it was designed to. Like us, we didn't choose to feel pain. We feel it because you are born with pain receptors, just because of the code our human DNA contains.

If god knows precisely whom he is creating, then he is fully responsible for what his creation does. For instance, people don't put the blame on guns for killing people.

Maybe freedom is something different than what you're defining it as?

I don't know how having pain/pleasure receptors infringes on our free will... Whatever...

If you take a physicalist/mechanistic view on human behavior (i.e., Skinner), then you would be absolutely right. But in such a view, free will doesn't actually exist. It's just a term we've made up. We don't have free will any more than a chess program has free will. It will always, always, always react the same way in the same situations because that is how it is programmed.

It should be obvious, though, that human beings are not just advanced programs. Yes, much of what we do is predictable, but at the end of the day, a person really does have the ability to choose. If you want that in philosophical terms, I mean that the effecient cause for any given action of mine is not to be found in my environment, as your position (as I'm understanding it--at worst, as hard behaviorism states), but rather I myself--my ego, my "I"--am the efficient cause.

In that view, God is not responsible for our actions. God tells us what to do, and gives us free will. Now, for the sake of full disclosure, the definition of "free will" needs to be refined. We don't have absolute free will (can you lift a three ton piece of steel or be decapitated without dying if you so choose?). No one really means "free will" in that sense of the word. We mean "free will" in the sense of the ability to choose between two actual choices. I come to a turn in the road. I can't choose to go straight and stay on the road. I can only "choose" to turn with the road. But, on the other hand, I come to a fork in the road. Now, I CAN choose to go one way or another.

I call this "relative free will." We are free to do that which we are presented with as logical possibilities. Our choices are not determined by our natures. We ourselves get to make them, and that is where, I think, your analogy is a bit off.

Is that more to the point you were making, or am I still missing what you are saying?

Jac3510 wrote:If you take a physicalist/mechanistic view on human behavior (i.e., Skinner), then you would be absolutely right. But in such a view, free will doesn't actually exist. It's just a term we've made up. We don't have free will any more than a chess program has free will. It will always, always, always react the same way in the same situations because that is how it is programmed.

I don't see what's wrong.
Who or what makes this clockwork mechanism that is you?
Certainly not you yourself, that just doesn't make sense.
You enter the life pre-programmed already, with attributes which make up your physical health, looks, character, etc. From there, you are simply exposed to different situations in your environment, to which you respond according to your "coding" and things you may have learned from various previous situations.

In that view, God is not responsible for our actions. God tells us what to do, and gives us free will. Now, for the sake of full disclosure, the definition of "free will" needs to be refined. We don't have absolute free will (can you lift a three ton piece of steel or be decapitated without dying if you so choose?). No one really means "free will" in that sense of the word. We mean "free will" in the sense of the ability to choose between two actual choices.

What I'm saying is that those choices only seem to us like they are not caused by anything, because we never consciously dissect every single choice we make. In reality all our choices have definite cause in our outer or inner environment, otherwise our brain wouldn't have made that particular choice. Our outer environment is beyond our control, as is our inner environment. You may say, "well, I can change. I'll lead a different life from now on. I'll move to Spain, etc" and you very well may do that, but unless something in the outer environment triggered you to consider that thought, then obviously you wouldn't have.

I come to a turn in the road. I can't choose to go straight and stay on the road. I can only "choose" to turn with the road. But, on the other hand, I come to a fork in the road. Now, I CAN choose to go one way or another.

Yes. Outer environment combined with your current mission (which too was caused, don't forget) = you turning as the road does

I call this "relative free will." We are free to do that which we are presented with as logical possibilities. Our choices are not determined by our natures. We ourselves get to make them, and that is where, I think, your analogy is a bit off.

Our ego isn't dependent on our nature?

Modulus -- I respect your view, but please not that it is far from universally accepted among philosophers of the mind, and especially not accepted by Christian philosophy. Behaviorism is a fine view. I think it is wrong.

Now, in your view, there is NO free will. Yes. God is responsible for our actions, including sin. The choices we make are really no choices at all. Free will is an illusion. That is the logical conclusion of your view.

But don't expect that to have any bearing on what someone like me believes. I still believe that I have free will because I reject behaviorism as a means to explain human choice. I believe that free will comes directly from the part of my nature commonly called "spirit" or, more popularly "soul" (which is another debate in itself . . . what the soul is, I mean). It comes from the immaterial aspect of my nature--that part of me that demonstrates self-awareness. That part of my nature has the intrinsic ability, endowed to it by God, to be self-motivating. I am the cause of my own actions and no other. A rock's falling may have to have an external cause to explain its motion. That is NOT the case with human choice. That cause is not external, but internal--it is internal to the nature of the self. The self, by its own volition, creates the cause. That is just what selves do.

But that means that God isn't responsible for my actions, for God is not the cause of my self's choices. I am, regardless of programming. That programming may influence my decisions, but have the ability to override that programming by making a conscious choice to do so.

Look at it this way: are God's choices programmed or volitional? That is, is there anything outside of Himself acting on Him whereby He is forced to do something? The answer is no. God is totally free. His actions are totally self-originating. So it is with humans by analogy and in a finite way. We are not totally free as God is. But we, being spiritual beings as well as physical beings, have the ability, like God, to be create self-originated causes. Such an ability is limited by our finite nature, of course, hence my previous distinction on relative free will.

If, then, you are happy with behaviorism, then you have your answer. We have no free will. I, though, and most others, reject behaviorism, and thus do not have the problem you presented in your OP.

God bless

Perhaps as an excersize in free will and the ability to choose, each of you argue the opposing view. I think that might be interesting.

Jac3510 wrote: That part of my nature has the intrinsic ability, endowed to it by God, to be self-motivating. I am the cause of my own actions and no other.

Now, there's the thing. If it's your soul that ultimately effects/determines your actions, and god makes the soul, then how can you still say you are a cause of all your actions?

That cause is not external, but internal--it is internal to the nature of the self. The self, by its own volition, creates the cause. That is just what selves do.

The self is a product of mom, dad, and environment. Yes, the self obviously does cause things to happen, but the self is shaped in turn, by other things. It's a continuous chain of cause and effect.

But that means that God isn't responsible for my actions, for God is not the cause of my self's choices. I am, regardless of programming. That programming may influence my decisions, but have the ability to override that programming by making a conscious choice to do so.

Why does that conscious choice to override your inherent desire to, say, steal or cheat? Because it too was caused, by you considering the consequences, and figuring that the negatives at the end greatly outweighed the positives. It was also caused by your, your inherent fear of guilt, etc etc. A long predictable chain of causation.

Modulus wrote:Now, there's the thing. If it's your soul that ultimately effects/determines your actions, and god makes the soul, then how can you still say you are a cause of all your actions?

Is carmaker the cause of the accident?

The self is a product of mom, dad, and environment. Yes, the self obviously does cause things to happen, but the self is shaped in turn, by other things. It's a continuous chain of cause and effect.

You have to prove that all things that the self causes are totally and completely dependent on what is around it. Do external factors influence our choices? Yes. Do they determine our choices? No.

Why does that conscious choice to override your inherent desire to, say, steal or cheat? Because it too was caused, by you considering the consequences, and figuring that the negatives at the end greatly outweighed the positives. It was also caused by your, your inherent fear of guilt, etc etc. A long predictable chain of causation.

Again, you are assuming behaviorism, which just isn't true. Take two desires -- the desire to cheat, and the desire to be honest. In such cases, the desire to cheat is usually there because it will make your life easier. Therefore, you have to beat down your desire to cheat and build up your desire to be honest.

Now, the thing that builds up and pushes down desire cannot be the desire itself. There must be a third thing that chooses to do that, namely, the self.

External factors affect our desires. Our self chooses which desires it will follow. There is nothing that says it is required to choose a certain way, contra your behaviorism. In many cases, our actions will be predictable. In all? No, because the self's choices are self-determined even as they are externally influenced.

Influence <> determination.

Jac3510 wrote:Is the carmaker the cause of the accident?

But a car isn't even functional by itself. It requires a human operator to do anything.
Sometimes the makers are responsible for accidents though (directly or indirectly), faulty breaks for example.

.You have to prove that all things that the self causes are totally and completely dependent on what is around it

I can't "scientifically prove it" because this isn't chemistry or biology. This is philosophy. I can give strong ontological arguments, based on known principle of cause and effect.

Do external factors influence our choices? Yes. Do they determine our choices? No.

Yes.

See, even if you admit that outside stimuli does influence us, you essentially admit that, along with our "inner nature", it determines all our decisions. Now, you can call that "inner nature" soul or ego, either way that inner part of you is a product. In my view it's a product of inner and outer environment, in your view it (has to be) a product of God.

In your previous post you said your 'soul' was be completely independent from outside stimuli. If that was true, then it would make it constant, and thus unchanged from the time god made it. Now, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this

Take two desires -- the desire to cheat, and the desire to be honest. In such cases, the desire to cheat is usually there because it will make your life easier. Therefore, you have to beat down your desire to cheat and build up your desire to be honest.

Actually, if there is nothing forcing you to beat that desire down (like your genetics or circumstances) you won't. One example of circumstantial influence would be being caught cheating while taking a test and failing the semester. You won't like it obviously, and next time when you will consider cheating chances are you will have more reason not to. That is not to say all people even want to cheat. Some people are genuinely honest, law-abiding homo sapiens. But the feeling of guilt is inherent. I'm sure you know some people who were never too bothered by feeling of guilt when they did something 'wrong'. I know i have. I knew some kids who i grew up with who were absolutely adamant in any situation, even when we were very little. They could do atrocious things and not even flinch, never displaying any signs of "feeling bad for it". Some other kids i knew would feel guilty for almost anything.

Now, the thing that builds up and pushes down desire cannot be the desire itself.

Genes and knowledge.
Genetically inherited traits shaped by our knowledge = our character in a given moment. It's common sense supported by evidence. Just like people are born with different looks, we're all born with different behavioral characteristics.

External factors affect our desires. Our self chooses which desires it will follow. There is nothing that says it is required to choose a certain way, contra your behaviorism. In many cases, our actions will be predictable. In all? No, because the self's choices are self-determined even as they are externally influenced.

There must be a third thing that chooses to do that, namely, the self.

Which is also a product of environment.

Modulus wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: That part of my nature has the intrinsic ability, endowed to it by God, to be self-motivating. I am the cause of my own actions and no other.

Now, there's the thing. If it's your soul that ultimately effects/determines your actions, and god makes the soul, then how can you still say you are a cause of all your actions?

Just because God made our souls, doesn't mean that they are still under God's control, that He's the cause of our actions. That doesn't make any sense, unless you're limiting God's ability to create in such a way. That is, can God create a being (a soul) that is independent of His thought processes or not? Isn't that one of the most basic ideas in Christianity - that we have a choice as to whether to believe in God or not, in Jesus or not? From what I read in your posts, you don't believe this.

The self is a product of mom, dad, and environment. Yes, the self obviously does cause things to happen, but the self is shaped in turn, by other things. It's a continuous chain of cause and effect.

Again, I don't see where you believe in basic Christian theology. Our physical nature is recreated through our parents, and we are influenced by them and our environment, sure. But we have souls that were created long before our bodies came to be. This is scriptural, but you don't seem to believe this. When the bible states that we were made in the image of God, it wasn't saying that God looks like our parents.

Jac wrote:But that means that God isn't responsible for my actions, for God is not the cause of my self's choices. I am, regardless of programming. That programming may influence my decisions, but have the ability to override that programming by making a conscious choice to do so.

Modulus wrote:Why does that conscious choice to override your inherent desire to, say, steal or cheat? Because it too was caused, by you considering the consequences, and figuring that the negatives at the end greatly outweighed the positives. It was also caused by your, your inherent fear of guilt, etc etc. A long predictable chain of causation.

You addressed this more fully in your later note, but still clinging to determinism. You seem to say that there simply are "bad apples" and "good apples," and this is based on genetics. I certainly don't see that. I for one never wanted to cheat or steal, yet I have other weaknesses; I'm not "good" or "bad." Other people who seem like "bad apples" later change into "good apples." And often this is with the help of God. Others, giving up on hope and God, seem to go from being "good" to "bad."

cslewislover wrote:

Modulus wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: That part of my nature has the intrinsic ability, endowed to it by God, to be self-motivating. I am the cause of my own actions and no other.

Now, there's the thing. If it's your soul that ultimately effects/determines your actions, and god makes the soul, then how can you still say you are a cause of all your actions?

Just because God made our souls, doesn't mean that they are still under God's control, that He's the cause of our actions. That doesn't make any sense, unless you're limiting God's ability to create in such a way. That is, can God create a being (a soul) that is independent of His thought processes or not? Isn't that one of the most basic ideas in Christianity - that we have a choice as to whether to believe in God or not, in Jesus or not? From what I read in your posts, you don't believe this.

Now I haven't read the full discussion, just drips and drabs, but to rephrase Modulus' statement above: If it is "you" that ultimately effects/determines your actions, and God makes "you", then how can you still say you are the cause of all your actions? (seems quite silly doesn't it?)

As for behaviourism, there are many weaknesses in this position which are difficult to explain. One big issue I see is an inability to explain intentionality. For example, ones planning to go to the shops during opening times to buy certain shopping items which are to be used for certain things.

What do Free Will, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, Bigfoot and a truthful politician all have in common?