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]

I don't like the phrase "do not apply," since this connotates a world which the laws of physics are non-connected to the world. I prefer to say that the particular dynamical laws of physics that normally predict the state evolution are indeterminate as to how the symmetry breaks.

How is this different from not applying to how the symmetry breaks ? In other words, in the absence of any external constraints, such as a magnetic field, which physical law applies to the orientation of the magnetic domains in a cooling substance ?

[harvey1]

How is this different from not applying to how the symmetry breaks ? [sic] In other words, in the absence of any external constraints, such as a magnetic field, which physical law applies to the orientation of the magnetic domains in a cooling substance ?[sic]

The dynamical laws do apply to how the symmetry breaks, that is, the particular dynamical laws allow an indeterminate outcome. If they didn't apply, then there would be no symmetry or symmetry breaking.

Why don't you just accept the words as I stated them? You obviously now understand the principles of symmetry breaking, and so why not proceed on exactly the argument I gave you? To be honest, it seems as though this is an attempt to thwart my argument by restating it to different language--perhaps with an attempt to equivocate at a later time on the words, "do not apply"...?

[Curious]

All propositions are decided by opinion. A proposition is a tool for discerning truth but truth is truth whether discerned or not.

As long as we are talking about propositions as "abstract objects that exist," they shouldn't be treated as purely human cognitive structures (e.g., opinion). In that case, the abstract object doesn't exist as a result of opinion, it exists because it expresses a possible situation or an actual situation.

But as far as I am concerned we are talking about propositions existing only as cognitive structures. As such it is an expression of a cognitive possibilty and is NOT an expression of an actual event or situation.

And you believe that the provability of a proposition has any bearing on it's validity? Perhaps I propose a proposition concerning the nature of being to algae.

This is out of context, Curious. The quote I provided were for mathematical propositions, and that was limited to what Hilbert proposed to be conceivable (which was later disproven by Godel).

And I was discussing this with Hilbert and Godel? I thought I was discussing this with Harvey1. My apologies.

I suggest that the laws of physics determine whether or not you can jump while you are arguing about whether or not you may jump. This is understandable as human laws relate to may while physical laws relate to can.

But, then that only goes to say that the laws are indeterminate with what I may do in a particular instance. In spontaneous symmetry breaking situations, the dynamical laws are indeterminate with respect to what may be the symmetry breaking result. This is what I and Bugmaster were talking about (and the reason why I objected to his language saying that the laws of physics don't apply when they apply to what can happen).

I think this is where the confusuon lies. Human laws apply to may while physical laws apply to can. Human laws determine that you are not allowed to perform action X while physical laws determine that you are unable to perform action X. One is merely prohibitive while the other its restrictive.

That's not to say that God doesn't slip something into a pocket for someone to find now and again.

But, if God slipped something into a pocket where the laws are determinate, then this would be a violation of the laws of physics.

I really don't see how. I am sorry but please read again my statement and explain why this would be the case. Perhaps my statement was too ambiguous.

Well, the laws of physics almost always determine what occurs naturally in the world. For example, if a gold rock were falling down the hill and God zapped the rock into someone's pocket to find later, then there's numerous conservation laws that would be violated in that instance.

I really don't think so. If there was instanteous transmission (ie. teleportation) then there would be no conservation problem that I could see ( although I might be wrong). Of course teleportation is seemingly impossible given our present understanding. You might want to be pedantic and say that such an a tranference of energy from A to B would require a considerable medium in itself. I really don't know what boundaries God might work to so it would be silly for me to hypothesise.

[Curious]

Ok, imagine you are shipwrecked on planet X.
You need cover from gamma rays from star Y so move rock A to position B to provide protection. This is potentially a symmetry breaking event but is caused by an external force. Symmetry is symmetry only in isolation. We only see small scale symmetry. We see symmetry as a circle on both sides rather than an equivalent amount of energy. We don't see symmetry as a ratio of kinetic to potential energy. Events that break symmetry are no different than those which create symmetry or do anything else. The natural order cannot be shown to be symmetrical. Everything has an order of symmetry at a particular point. Don't break it down too far. You might as well say about the Mona Lisa ... what do you think about the colour used at position x115 y135.

[Bugmaster]

Why don't you just accept the words as I stated them? You obviously now understand the principles of symmetry breaking, and so why not proceed on exactly the argument I gave you?

Well, I do understand that you probably don't understand your own argument; however, this still means that I should stop asking you about it :-) I'll re-format your premises and proceed to refuting your argument shortly.

To be honest, it seems as though this is an attempt to thwart my argument by restating it to different language--perhaps with an attempt to equivocate at a later time on the words, "do not apply"...?

Either that, or your evil mind is just at enmity with my brilliant worldview, take your pick :-)

[harvey1]

Either that, or your evil mind is just at enmity with my brilliant worldview, take your pick

Careful, the thought police are reading this.

[Curious]

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?

This is rather like asking in what way your actions are free as you cannot make Julia Roberts appear and perform unspeakable sex acts on you. A husband could make his wife concede to his wishes but a gentleman would never force his will upon her. The ability to do so might well be present but the desire to do so may be suppressed. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you must do it.

[McCulloch]

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?

This is rather like asking in what way your actions are free as you cannot make Julia Roberts appear and perform unspeakable sex acts on you. A husband could make his wife concede to his wishes but a gentleman would never force his will upon her. The ability to do so might well be present but the desire to do so may be suppressed. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you must do it.

But does not omniscience and omnipotence change things? We don't get some of the things we desire because we lack the ability to get them. This does not apply to an omnipotent being. If an omnipotent being set into motion a set of laws, then he could also choose to temporarily set asside those laws, whenever he chose. So if there are miracles, then they would be evidence of God's free will in action.

[Curious]

But does not omniscience and omnipotence change things? We don't get some of the things we desire because we lack the ability to get them. This does not apply to an omnipotent being. If an omnipotent being set into motion a set of laws, then he could also choose to temporarily set asside those laws, whenever he chose. So if there are miracles, then they would be evidence of God's free will in action.

Not necessarily. For all I know it might be possible to achieve any outcome by abiding by the laws that are set. God's free will might even choose to act within these laws and so any argument that omnipotence is reliant on a breaking of these laws is not really valid. There is an argument that if God is all good then this is contradiction to a God that is omnipotent as such a God (it is said), could not perform an act of evil. This is not a valid argument as the goodness of God is a measure of the direction of power and not the potential. An all good God could be capable of any act but choose to act in one particular direction only. There is also the argument that an omniscient God cannot be omnipotent as the foreknowledge of it's actions means that it would be powerless to act in any other way. The same argument is used concerning a God who is both omniscient and has free will. Where these arguments fail is that they assume omniscience precedes freewill and omnipotence. The argument assumes the knowledge of the act precedes both the decision and the ability to act in a particular direction. This is an error.
Now I realise I went off on a bit of a tangent there so I will get to my point. God can be all good, omniscient and omnipotent at the same time only if "He" possesses free will.

[harvey1]

Ok, imagine you are shipwrecked on planet X.
You need cover from gamma rays from star Y so move rock A to position B to provide protection. This is potentially a symmetry breaking event but is caused by an external force. Symmetry is symmetry only in isolation. We only see small scale symmetry. We see symmetry as a circle on both sides rather than an equivalent amount of energy. We don't see symmetry as a ratio of kinetic to potential energy. Events that break symmetry are no different than those which create symmetry or do anything else. The natural order cannot be shown to be symmetrical. Everything has an order of symmetry at a particular point. Don't break it down too far. You might as well say about the Mona Lisa ... what do you think about the colour used at position x115 y135.

The difference though is that conservation principles and symmetry have a deep connection which was shown by Emmy Noether. An unexpected violation of symmetry (e.g., Lorentz symmetry) is of deep concern to particle physicists because it suggests that the known laws of physics breakdown at some point. If dynamical laws are indeterminate with respect to spontaneous symmetry breaking events, then it suggests that an outside law, force or agency exists that allows the universe more freedom of direction than what was previously understood.