Does God have free will?

[harvey1]

This is a topic that Bugmaster and I have started to discuss, so I want to open it up for a wider debate. If God is conforming to certain laws (e.g., logical, mathematical, physical laws, spiritual laws, etc.), then in what way is God's actions free since God must conform to those laws? On the other hand, if God doesn't have this freedom, then in what way is God omnipotent?

[Bugmaster]

we need to use only four premises.

Are the four premises listed in my post above not sufficient ? I'll re-post them for clarity:

P1.
P2.
P1a
P7a.
H1: Hence, God is free to declare new propositions if God satisfies new propositions when the laws are indeterministic (from P1, P1a, P2, P7a)
H2: These new propositions have causal effect on the world (from P1)
P9: From H1, H2.

H1, H2 are interim steps, not premises, and P9 is the conclusion.

I know you really want to introduce more premises, but let's stick to what we have for now.

[harvey1]

Are the four premises listed in my post above not sufficient?

It's really odd that you wish to re-write someone's argument when they insist on their argument as their own (and title your argument as their argument); why can't you just deal with the argument that I gave you rather than construct one for me? In any case, out of charity let me state the problems with your premises where they differ from my own:

Logical entities, such as satisfaction relations and mathematical laws, do have an autonomous existence, and they are at least as real as (if not more so) physical objects such as rocks.

Propositions (universals) exist independently of the material world and the material world is causally dependent on propositions

Notice that I'm stating that propositions exist and that our world is causally dependent on propositions. Let's use my premise since this premise is my argument. (When we get to your argument I promise I will deal with your argument based on the premises you give to me.)

There exists an ultimate satisfaction relation that satisfies all others; that satisfaction relation is God.

God satisfies that a proposition (universal) is true in order for the proposition (universal) to have any kind of existence

Notice that my premise is about what God does (i.e., satisfy) to make a proposition have existence. I don't see how your premise is relevant to this particular argument about the objection that we are currently dealing with. (Btw, if you wish to address a different objection among the dozen or so that you cited, we can switch to that different objection. I tackled this objection because it seems fundamental and relevant to the OP.)

Premise 3 is the same for both, so let's skip to premise 4...

God acts without breaking the laws of physics, because the laws of physics do not apply during symmetry-breaking events, such as the melting of ice.

Premise: Symmetry breaking events (phase transitions) are situations where the laws of physics (propositions) are indeterminate with respect to what must occur

Here your premise simply states the conclusion, i.e., begs the question--well, except the laws of physics don't apply when ice melts bit...

So, can we use my argument versus the strawman argument that you want me to make?

[Bugmaster]

why can't you just deal with the argument that I gave you rather than construct one for me?

Because I've noticed that when you dictate the terms of the conversation, it tends to meander into all kinds of astral realms. I'm just trying to nail things down a bit.

Additionally, I'm trying to build up a mini-map of Harvey-verse, so to speak; hence, I've outlined some of your basic premises, as I understand them. The four premises in your argument are parts of a bigger picture. Ultimately, I want to make sure that I understand your argument, before I proceed to refute it. I think this is sensible.

Logical entities, such as satisfaction relations and mathematical laws, do have an autonomous existence, and they are at least as real as (if not more so) physical objects such as rocks.

Propositions (universals) exist independently of the material world and the material world is causally dependent on propositions

Notice that I'm stating that propositions exist and that our world is causally dependent on propositions. Let's use my premise since this premise is my argument.

Before we do that, I need to understand what you mean, and how your premise differs from my understanding of it. Are you saying that propositions are not logical entities ? Or, that propositions exist independently of the material reality, but other logical entities do not ? Or are you merely expanding my original premise, by stating that our world is causally dependent on propositions ?

God satisfies that a proposition (universal) is true in order for the proposition (universal) to have any kind of existence

Notice that my premise is about what God does (i.e., satisfy) to make a proposition have existence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "proposition (universal)".

God acts without breaking the laws of physics, because the laws of physics do not apply during symmetry-breaking events, such as the melting of ice.

Premise: Symmetry breaking events (phase transitions) are situations where the laws of physics (propositions) are indeterminate with respect to what must occur

What's the difference between "laws of physics are indeterminate to what must occur", and "laws of physics do not apply" ? Both premises read the same to me. If the outcome of some event is not derermined by the laws of physics, then the laws of physics don't apply to it. Some other laws might, just not the laws of physics.

I realize you must be frustrated with all these definitions, but I think that they are valuable. We can't actually debate anything in a meaningful fashion, until both sides understand what the other side is saying.

[harvey1]

I'm willing to provide definitions and clarifications. But, I think it is better to deal with the argument provided by the person making the argument.

I need to understand what you mean, and how your premise differs from my understanding of it. Are you saying that propositions are not logical entities?

Abstract objects (or logical entities) are either abstract propositions, or they draw their existence from abstract propositions.

Or, that propositions exist independently of the material reality, but other logical entities do not?

Abstract propositions exist independent of material reality, and any other abstract object that exists would exist as a result of an abstract proposition.

Or are you merely expanding my original premise, by stating that our world is causally dependent on propositions?

I think your premise is addled for the purpose of my argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "proposition (universal)".

Abstract propositions (which I'll just label as "propositions") are called universals because the meaning of the proposition applies beyond just one concrete particular. So, for example, pi is a universal since it applies to a whole category of calculations which are all related by being calculations of pi. Pi is a proposition since its meaning can be expressed in propositional form (i.e., as an equation).

What's the difference between "laws of physics are indeterminate to what must occur", and "laws of physics do not apply"?

The laws of physics can apply and still be indeterminate. For example, the laws of physics are indeterminate with respect to whether I jump off the ground when playing basketball, but the laws of physics certainly apply when I play basketball.

(In any case, I really think you ought to let me word my argument the way that I choose. If you have questions about terms, that's fine, but I really shouldn't have to explain why I choose particular wordiing unless the meaning of those sentences are not clear.)

I realize you must be frustrated with all these definitions, but I think that they are valuable. We can't actually debate anything in a meaningful fashion, until both sides understand what the other side is saying.

I sometimes get frustrated by the "chatting," especially when I feel that previous "chats" are being repeated. I think that it is much more fruitful if we narrow a discussion to one argument at a time and then try to quickly establish whether an argument is right or not. After establishing a particular argument, we go on to another where we can refer to a previous outcome.

[Bugmaster]

I'm willing to provide definitions and clarifications. But, I think it is better to deal with the argument provided by the person making the argument.

In this case, I'm going to simply concede the point, because I do not understand your argument. I can't refute what I don't understand (though I can't be convinced by it, either). I am attempting to re-write your premises as I understand them, in order to alleviate this problem. If you continue writing your premises as you understand them, then I'll still be left in the dark. Remember: you're the philosophy Ph.D. here, I'm just a lowly CS student :-)

Abstract objects (or logical entities) are either abstract propositions, or they draw their existence from abstract propositions.

So, there are at least thee classes of things in the world:
1). Material objects.
2). Logical entities.
3). Abstract propositions.
Is that right ?

In this case, we can rewrite your premise as:

P1: Abstract propositions have an independent existence, and they are the only things which are not causally dependent on anything. Other logical entities are causally dependent on propositions. Material entities are causally dependent on logical entities and propositions.

Anything wrong with that ?

The laws of physics can apply and still be indeterminate. For example, the laws of physics are indeterminate with respect to whether I jump off the ground when playing basketball, but the laws of physics certainly apply when I play basketball.

These are two separate events: you deciding to jump off the ground (or not), and your bat hitting the ball. Hitting the ball is, AFAIK, not a symmetry-breaking event. However, by your own admission, the melting of ice is a symmetry-breaking event. Is the melting of ice determined by the laws of physics ? Do the laws of physics apply to the melting of ice ?

[harvey1]

In this case, I'm going to simply concede the point, because I do not understand your argument. I can't refute what I don't understand (though I can't be convinced by it, either).

That's why I'm willing to define and clarify. I don't want to change my argument to a strawman.

you're the philosophy Ph.D. here

Did I make that claim?

So, there are at least thee classes of things in the world:
1). Material objects.
2). Logical entities.
3). Abstract propositions.
Is that right?

Well, there's many, many classes of things, but the fundamental things are:

1) God
2) Logos (propositions of God)
3) World (including our material world and abstract things that exist)

P1: Abstract propositions have an independent existence, and they are the only things which are not causally dependent on anything. Other logical entities are causally dependent on propositions. Material entities are causally dependent on logical entities and propositions.

Since you understand what you wrote, let's condense it:

"Abstract propositions have an independent existence [from] [m]aterial entities," the material entities are causally dependent on propositions

There's no need to add otiose relations and functions to this premise.

Is the melting of ice determined by the laws of physics? Do the laws of physics apply to the melting of ice?

Of course! Do you honestly think that I'm saying that ice melting is a supernatural event? C'mon. The laws of physics apply to the melting of ice, but the laws at the critical point are indeterminate with respect to how the ice melts when it is melting. Let's use my premise which you obviously undersand. This doesn't strike me as clarification.

[Bugmaster]

you're the philosophy Ph.D. here

Did I make that claim?

No, but you know all the major philosophers (dead or alive !) by name, so I just assumed :-)

1) God
2) Logos (propositions of God)
3) World (including our material world and abstract things that exist)

So, God is not a kind of proposition, then ? Earlier, you said that God was a satisfaction relation, but, as far as I understand from the above, satisfaction relations are contingent on propositions.

"Abstract propositions have an independent existence [from] [m]aterial entities," the material entities are causally dependent on propositions

Sure, I'll ratify that as P1, but I need to understand where God fits into your picture before I can proceed.

Of course! Do you honestly think that I'm saying that ice melting is a supernatural event? C'mon.

Well, earlier, you said the following (as I understood it):
1). The laws of physics do not determine the outcome of phase transitions, also known as symmetry-breaking events.
2). The melting of ice is a phase transtion.
I naturally concluded,
3). The laws of physics do not determine the outcome of the melting of ice.

The laws of physics apply to the melting of ice, but the laws at the critical point are indeterminate with respect to how the ice melts when it is melting.

Sorry, I don't understand what this means. Does this mean that ice can turn into chickens ? That's what it sounds like, but it can't be right.

[harvey1]

So, God is not a kind of proposition, then? Earlier, you said that God was a satisfaction relation, but, as far as I understand from the above, satisfaction relations are contingent on propositions.

"God" in the pantheistic sense is a proposition. This is what I refer to as the Logos which collectively is the Wisdom or Word of God. However, by saying "God is a satisfaction relation" I am referring to the truthmaker. That is, God makes the satisfaction relation true (/exist) by being conscious and in agreement to the expression in question as it relates to a conceivable states of affairs.

Of course! Do you honestly think that I'm saying that ice melting is a supernatural event?

Well, earlier, you said the following (as I understood it):
1). The laws of physics do not determine the outcome of phase transitions, also known as symmetry-breaking events.
2). The melting of ice is a phase transtion.
I naturally concluded,
3). The laws of physics do not determine the outcome of the melting of ice.

Right, the laws of physics do not determine the symmetry breaking outcome of particular ice melting events if those events are genuine symmetry breaking events. That doesn't mean the laws of physics do not apply to the melting of ice--that would be absurd.

Can you address the argument now? (I don't mean to cut you short, but you do have a habit of being in the chat mode....)

[Bugmaster]

However, by saying "God is a satisfaction relation" I am referring to the truthmaker. That is, God makes the satisfaction relation true (/exist) by being conscious and in agreement to the expression in question as it relates to a conceivable states of affairs.

So, God is the satisfaction relation upon which everything else is logically contingent. God itself is not logically contingent upon anything. Is that accurate ?

Then, your argument is starting to look like this:

P1: Abstract propositions have an independent existence from material entities. The material entities are causally dependent on propositions.
P1a: Laws are relations (second-order propositions) between universals (propositions).
P1b: Abstract propositions are logically contingent on satisfaction relations in order to exist.
P2: God is the ultimate satisfaction relation upon which all propositions are logically contingent.
P7a. God acts without breaking the laws of physics, because the laws of physics do not apply during symmetry-breaking events, such as some instances of the melting of ice.
H1: Hence, God is free to declare new propositions if God satisfies new propositions when the laws are indeterministic (from P1, P1a, P1b, P2, P7a)
H2: These new propositions have causal effect on the world (from P1)
P9: From H1, H2: God has free will, just as humans do.

Is that acceptable ?

Right, the laws of physics do not determine the symmetry breaking outcome of particular ice melting events if those events are genuine symmetry breaking events. That doesn't mean the laws of physics do not apply to the melting of ice--that would be absurd.

This still sentence sounds self-contradictory to me. Which ice-melting events are symmetry-breaking ? All of them, or just some ? From where I stand, ice is just ice, it all melts in pretty much the same way.

Can you address the argument now? (I don't mean to cut you short, but you do have a habit of being in the chat mode....)

I'd like to. As soon as I understand what you're saying, I'll get right on that.

[harvey1]

So, God is the satisfaction relation upon which everything else is logically contingent. God itself is not logically contingent upon anything. Is that accurate?

God's existence is not logically contingent, rather God exists as a lack of any other logical possibility. In other words, we shouldn't think of it as a world without God and therefore see God as either contingent or necessary as a result of some yet more basic principle. The terms "necessary cause" or "contingent cause" do not apply. This is a mistaken notion since to even consider the question of cause involves the existence of God. If you want, we can define our terms in terms of ex deo necessity (i.e., what necessarily comes out of God), and a se necessity (i.e., what exists, exists not only in every possible world, but it exists independently of any other reality). God's existence and causation are a se necessity, whereas creation is ex deo necessary. A se necessity is not contingency. Contingency suggests that it is possible that something couldn't exist, but this is not what a se necessity means. It means that any conception of reality involves the reality of God. If you can conceive it, then you are dealing in terms where we must first assume an a se God.

Then, your argument is starting to look like this

Your not using proper argument form. You need to use 1), 2), 3), in your arguments.

This still sentence sounds self-contradictory to me. Which ice-melting events are symmetry-breaking? All of them, or just some? From where I stand, ice is just ice, it all melts in pretty much the same way.

Ice melting apparently "occurs at imperfections in the orderly structure of solid crystals. Premelting occurs in areas where the alignment of atoms is not perfect, especially at the boundaries within crystals where the patterns of atoms shift much like imperfections in the grain of a piece of wood." The abstract to this news suggests that "[p]remelting is the localized loss of crystalline order at surfaces and defects at temperatures below the bulk melting transition." I'm not a condensed matter physicist, therefore I can only speculate, but I imagine that the symmetry breaking process begins at the critical point which is the bulk melting transition. In that case, the laws of physics with regard to condensed matter physics is indeterminate with respect to which patterns of atoms begin to shift by one particular alignment of atoms beginning to shift first. This melting of the ice crystalline structure I imagine would see its symmetry breaking happening at the particular location that God wanted it to happen. If the ice is a vast floating piece of ice in the Arctic, and a polar bear were chasing you, then how the symmetry broke would be of importance (assuming the polar bear didn't swim after you after your ice broke off from where the polar bear was approaching).