If you believe in free will in the way that it is usually described, you believe that people make choices "just because", absent any causal factors, and independent of the causal chain.
If you try to take the position that people don't make choices "just because", absent the involvement of any causal factors, and independent of the causal chain, then you are taking the position that we don't have pure, true free will.
Pure, true free will is all potential choices at a given decision point having the same probability of being chosen by the individual. It is also the lack of any causal effect on the decisions made by an individual. For example, a person has three potential choices at a given decision point, and thus, each choice has a probability of 1/3 (roughly 33%) of being chosen.
If the probabilities are anything other than equal, then we have people being inclined towards certain choices over other choices, which is not pure free will. This type of scenario raises questions about why people are more inclined towards certain choices rather than others (For example, good rather than evil, or evil rather than good).
If a person is more inclined towards good, why not make them more inclined towards good than humans appear to be? Also, for those who subscribe to the idea that God and Satan are in a battle for people's souls, Satan could argue that people being more inclined towards good rather than evil is unfair.
If a person is more inclined towards evil, how is it fair to them to be given that inclination? Why couldn't they have been given an inclination to choose good over evil?
Being given such an inclination makes them more likely to harm others, end up incarcerated, and ultimately, end up being condemned to Hell.
And what if people have different probabilities?
I think human experience would support the idea that we have different probabilities.
Why don't we all have the same probabilities?
Issues concerning pure, true free will
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
Post #2
While I do agree libertarian free will (I'd rather you said that than "true" free will) does not exist, and is indistinguishable if not synonymous with randomness, a uniform probability distribution does not follow.
What is interesting is that if you take all of the choices that are made under libertarian free will, and throw them into the initial conditions / group them with the first cause if you believe in such a thing (I don't), then you get a purely deterministic system.
For all intensive purposes however, I am not aware of a single libertarian free will supporter whose given a definition of "true free will" that could be distinguished from true randomness.
What is interesting is that if you take all of the choices that are made under libertarian free will, and throw them into the initial conditions / group them with the first cause if you believe in such a thing (I don't), then you get a purely deterministic system.
For all intensive purposes however, I am not aware of a single libertarian free will supporter whose given a definition of "true free will" that could be distinguished from true randomness.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
Reply to dianaiad in the Faith and Belief topic
Post #3Do you believe that our free will is in any way affected by at least one causal factor, and is subject to the causal chain? If you do, then it's not pure, true free will, it's at minimum partial determinism, if not outright determinism.dianaiad wrote:False dichotomy, at the very least.
If someone is inclined towards certain choices over other choices, they aren't really free, they are inclined.I do not remember claiming that free will choices can be assigned equal probabilities according to chance.
Indeed, I have used the following example of free will:
A man is told that if he doesn't rob a bank, that his wife and children will be killed. If he talks to the police, his wife and children will be killed. If he doesn't take full responsibility for the robbery, his wife and children will be killed. He is quite free to choose to go to the police, disclaim responsibility or refuse to rob the bank. It's not likely that he will choose the option that gets his family killed, and nobody will blame him for choosing the option that might save his family, but he COULD....
And indeed, if he didn't have free will, coercion such as the above wouldn't be necessary to pressure him into robbing the bank. In fact, the existence and idea of coercion is proof of free will.
Since, however, the odds are very great that the man will rob the bank in order to save his family, one cannot give equal weight to the different choices in front of him, can one? That's the whole point of holding his family hostage, after all; the kidnappers want to weigh the scales in their favor.
However, as long as it is physically possible for him to choose otherwise, free will is still there.
Pure free will is fair free will. Fairness issues arise if people are inclined towards certain choices over other choices.What the heck is 'pure free will?' Indeed, this looks like 'pure equivocation,' where you have defined the term 'free will' in such a manner as to be impossible, and then, in arguing against that definition, figure that you have defeated the definition of it as understood by those who actually believe in the concept of free will.
Your version of free will might have people being inclined towards certain choices over other choices, but that raises fairness questions, which I addressed at the end of my post.
agnosticatheist wrote:This type of scenario raises questions about why people are more inclined towards certain choices rather than others (For example, good rather than evil, or evil rather than good).
If a person is more inclined towards good, why not make them more inclined towards good than humans appear to be?
If a person is more inclined towards evil, how is it fair to them to be given that inclination?
Being given such an inclination makes them more likely to harm others, end up incarcerated, and ultimately, end up being condemned to Hell.
And what if people have different probabilities?
I think human experience would support the idea that we have different probabilities.
Why don't we all have the same probabilities?
You seem to want to completely ignore the fairness angle, which is what those questions above tried to deal with.We are different people. We learn in different ways, at different rates, and want different things. We are free to make our own choices, and each choice we make influences future choices.
But we are the ones doing the choosing.
If God makes someone more inclined towards good, why not make them way more inclined towards good than we humans appear to be? Or why not make us 99.9999999% inclined towards good?
Also, as I addressed above, if people are inclined towards good over evil, Satan could argue that God isn't playing fair.
If God makes someone more inclined towards evil, how is that fair? Their inclination makes them more likely to harm others, end up incarcerated, and ultimately, end up condemned to Hell. How is that fair? The person with an inclination towards evil did not choose that inclination, but rather, God chose it. How is it fair or logical to hold that person accountable for their choices if they are inclined to make bad choices?
The only way it would be fair to hold that person accountable for their actions is if they were just as likely to choose good as they were to choose evil.
But...If God makes us just as likely to choose good as evil, that means our choices and our eternal fate are a matter of chance. Why would a good, fair, loving, just, merciful, all-powerful, and all-knowing God leave people's choices and eternal fate up to chance?
Surely he would not leave something like that up to chance.
If he doesn't leave it up to chance, that would imply pre-destination, which would necessarily make us not free.
You see, this puts God in a Catch-22.
It doesn't look good either way.
If we are different people, that raises the question of why some are inclined towards good and some are inclined towards bad.
Let's say we have two people:
Joe: Inclined towards good
-Consistently chooses good in his life, and goes to Heaven
Mark: Inclined towards bad
-Consistently chooses bad in his life, and goes to Hell
Why couldn't Mark have been created to be inclined towards good just like Joe? How is it fair that Joe got to be created with an inclination towards good, while Mark was created with an inclination towards bad?
The only ways that this could be fair:
-They both have an inclination towards good
-They both have an inclination towards evil
-They both are just as likely to choose good as they are to choose evil
-
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
Post #4
Thank you for your post!Jashwell wrote: While I do agree libertarian free will (I'd rather you said that than "true" free will) does not exist, and is indistinguishable if not synonymous with randomness, a uniform probability distribution does not follow.
What is interesting is that if you take all of the choices that are made under libertarian free will, and throw them into the initial conditions / group them with the first cause if you believe in such a thing (I don't), then you get a purely deterministic system.
For all intensive purposes however, I am not aware of a single libertarian free will supporter whose given a definition of "true free will" that could be distinguished from true randomness.
You put into words what I have been trying to say for a while now.
Libertarian free will is indistinguishable from randomness (or uncertainty).
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Issues concerning pure, true free will
Post #5Free will does not mean uncaused but un-coerced. If my decision today is caused by my decision yesterday and each was an un-coerced, non-constrained decision purely my own, then the whole casual chain is free. The causal chain from my first un-coerced decision to the thousandth if it is not forced in any way whether known to me or not, my last decision is still free because it was all my choice, no one else's, not forced upon me by anyone.agnosticatheist wrote: If you believe in free will in the way that it is usually described, you believe that people make choices "just because", absent any causal factors, and independent of the causal chain.
If you try to take the position that people don't make choices "just because", absent the involvement of any causal factors, and independent of the causal chain, then you are taking the position that we don't have pure, true free will.
...
IF I cause my own decision based on what I think is best (but not coerced by the proof of what is best), without any outside force upon me to chose that decision, my will is free.
Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
Re: Issues concerning pure, true free will
Post #6[Replying to post 5 by ttruscott]
But if what you think is best is caused by outside factors, then even when you make a decision by what you think is best, then is your decision free?
But if what you think is best is caused by outside factors, then even when you make a decision by what you think is best, then is your decision free?
-
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
Re: Issues concerning pure, true free will
Post #7Ted, I apologize for the recent personal attack. I could have phrased it differently to get my point across. Sometimes I'm blunt.ttruscott wrote:Free will does not mean uncaused but un-coerced. If my decision today is caused by my decision yesterday and each was an un-coerced, non-constrained decision purely my own, then the whole casual chain is free. The causal chain from my first un-coerced decision to the thousandth if it is not forced in any way whether known to me or not, my last decision is still free because it was all my choice, no one else's, not forced upon me by anyone.agnosticatheist wrote: If you believe in free will in the way that it is usually described, you believe that people make choices "just because", absent any causal factors, and independent of the causal chain.
If you try to take the position that people don't make choices "just because", absent the involvement of any causal factors, and independent of the causal chain, then you are taking the position that we don't have pure, true free will.
...
IF I cause my own decision based on what I think is best (but not coerced by the proof of what is best), without any outside force upon me to chose that decision, my will is free.
Peace, Ted
I still stand by my contention that you are more concerned with yourself than others. Your posts seem to betray this reality. But, you don't have to agree.
With that said, thank you for your contribution to my topic.
You really seem to get hung up on the coercion part of free will, especially how it relates to your theology. While I agree that it is definitely important, the result here, whether you intended it or not, was that you distracted from the main issue, which is causation and how it relates to free will.
It doesn't matter if the choice is un-coerced.
If it is determined by causal factors, then it's determinism.
If it is affected by causal factors, but there is randomness/chance involved, then it's free will, but it's still not independent of causal factors (e.g. the decision making probabilities of an individual).
Say an individual can choose between robbing the bank and not robbing the bank.
Libertarian free will would necessitate the individual being just as likely to choose to rob the bank as not rob the bank.
The probabilities would look like this:
Rob the bank: 50% chance of being chosen
Not rob the bank: 50% chance of being chosen
If it's anything other than 50/50, then that raises some questions.
What if it was:
Rob the bank: 70% chance of being chosen
Not rob the bank: 30% chance of being chosen
If the individual did not set their decision making probabilities up this way, but instead God did by creating them this way, how is it fair to hold the individual accountable if they end up choosing to rob the bank? They were inclined to rob the bank.
What if it was:
Rob the bank: 30% chance of being chosen
Not rob the bank: 70% chance of being chosen
In this case, if God is going to make them inclined towards not robbing the bank, why not create them so that the probability of them choosing not to rob the bank is 99.9999999999999%? In other words, if you are going to make them at least slightly inclined towards good, why not make them almost 100% inclined towards good?
The only way that spirits in Sheol could make a free will choice without prior causal influence is if they "just made decisions" absent any causal influence. You could postulate this, but it would defy logic. It would be seeking to find a way to make your theory work. As we have discussed before, this is not logical.
The logically sound approach would be to examine what we do know (reality) and try to come up with theories to explain why reality is the way it is.
However, you don't take that approach. Your approach is to theorize that there must have been some pre-earth existence where we had free will, because you assume that a loving, all-powerful, good, all-knowing, just, fair, and merciful God exists, and such a God would not (and perhaps could not) test in such a reality as the one we live in.
I hope you see the problem with your approach.
It backs you into a corner and forces you to postulate all kinds of stuff that you have no proof of whatsoever.
The logically sound approach isn't backed into a corner like you are. It looks at reality, analyzes it, and forms theories about why reality is the way it is.
Now, your theory is one possibility that the logically sound approach could arrive at, but it isn't bound to it like you are, because the logically sound approach isn't clinging to the idea that a loving, all-powerful, good, all-knowing, just, fair, and merciful God exists.
It isn't required to reconcile this reality with a loving, all-powerful, good, all-knowing, just, fair, and merciful God.
You, however, are bound to reconciling the two so long as you continue to acknowledge this reality and cling to the idea that a loving, all-powerful, good, all-knowing, just, fair, and merciful God exists.
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11440
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 326 times
- Been thanked: 370 times
Re: Issues concerning pure, true free will
Post #8I think free will doesn’t mean that you determine all. In my opinion it means that you are free to want anything you want. It does not mean that you can also get all that you want. And I think it is possible that the options to choose are given by someone else.agnosticatheist wrote: If you believe in free will in the way that it is usually described, you believe that people make choices "just because", absent any causal factors, and independent of the causal chain.