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?

[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.

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.

Of course the known laws of physics break down at some point! This is because we don't understand how things really work. We have only rough approximations. To state that the laws of physics break down though is the epitome of arrogance. What you mean is that our understanding is found wanting at some point.
Now I have a real problem here with the constant reference to the work of others. Is this forum for debate, discussion or what? If you can precis the work of others within your answer I have no problem with arguing for or against it. What I don't want to do is to trawl the net for a particular argument and argue relative to that. To give a name and link is neither debate nor discussion. I make a real effort to give answers which are understandable. When you start citing names of physicists and links to their work you are liable to receive replies that are completely incoherent to all but the very few.

[QED]

Now I have a real problem here with the constant reference to the work of others. Is this forum for debate, discussion or what? If you can precis the work of others within your answer I have no problem with arguing for or against it. What I don't want to do is to trawl the net for a particular argument and argue relative to that. To give a name and link is neither debate nor discussion. I make a real effort to give answers which are understandable. When you start citing names of physicists and links to their work you are liable to receive replies that are completely incoherent to all but the very few.

Curious, let's not get too carried away. I'm sure if you asked Harvey for a precis of how Noether's theorems support the claim, he would be do his best to oblige.

I agree that it's always preferable to be presented with a little more detail than just the claim and a link to the source of something that might take even a scholar in the same field a considerable amount of time to digest. Frequently we come across these connections in the writings of a third party who may have invested this sort of effort. This being the case, I think it might be helpful to mention this wider context.

[harvey1]

Of course the known laws of physics break down at some point! This is because we don't understand how things really work. We have only rough approximations. To state that the laws of physics break down though is the epitome of arrogance. What you mean is that our understanding is found wanting at some point.

I mean more than that. I mean that the laws of conservation are translatable into symmetry laws, and therefore we can construct many of our known laws of physics from conservation laws or from symmetry laws. Conservation laws (e.g., conservation of energy) might seem like ignorance, but I'd say the opposite. We understand how nature works by knowing conservation principles observed in nature. Similarly, we can know about nature by utilizing symmetry transformations.

Now I have a real problem here with the constant reference to the work of others. Is this forum for debate, discussion or what? If you can precis the work of others within your answer I have no problem with arguing for or against it. What I don't want to do is to trawl the net for a particular argument and argue relative to that. To give a name and link is neither debate nor discussion. I make a real effort to give answers which are understandable. When you start citing names of physicists and links to their work you are liable to receive replies that are completely incoherent to all but the very few.

Curious, there's a body of knowledge out there that is part of the collective knowledge of the world (e.g., science, history, geography, etc.). I can't post the body of knowledge for every fact that I cite otherwise my posts would be 10 volumes long for every post. What I can do is refer you to references that make that knowledge more accessible to you. I posted that link because it gives a great thorough background of Noether's accomplishments. In any case, if you disagree with Noether's theorem, then we can discuss the theorem and reasons why it is sound. I'm not opposed to that, but then we should start a new thread (e.g., "Is Noether's theorem sound?").

[Curious]

Now I have a real problem here with the constant reference to the work of others. Is this forum for debate, discussion or what? If you can precis the work of others within your answer I have no problem with arguing for or against it. What I don't want to do is to trawl the net for a particular argument and argue relative to that. To give a name and link is neither debate nor discussion. I make a real effort to give answers which are understandable. When you start citing names of physicists and links to their work you are liable to receive replies that are completely incoherent to all but the very few.

Curious, there's a body of knowledge out there that is part of the collective knowledge of the world (e.g., science, history, geography, etc.). I can't post the body of knowledge for every fact that I cite otherwise my posts would be 10 volumes long for every post. What I can do is refer you to references that make that knowledge more accessible to you. I posted that link because it gives a great thorough background of Noether's accomplishments. In any case, if you disagree with Noether's theorem, then we can discuss the theorem and reasons why it is sound. I'm not opposed to that, but then we should start a new thread (e.g., "Is Noether's theorem sound?").

My apologies, I just read my reply and it seemed a little rude. This was not my intention, I just get fed up of having to constantly change my security settings to access other sites and forgetting what the hell we were talking about by the time I have waded through the articles referenced. It would be far easier in my opinion if you were to put in your own words the gist of the article and to state why you believe it supports your argument. I understand that you do not wish to have a 10 page post but if you reference these articles as you do, then in effect, your posts ARE 10 pages long to anyone who reads them.

[harvey1]

I understand that you do not wish to have a 10 page post but if you reference these articles as you do, then in effect, your posts ARE 10 pages long to anyone who reads them.

I guess I'm darned if I do, and darned if I don't. (Well, you get the idea...)

[Greatest I Am]

God loves free will. Could it be otherwie since. He created the concept of free will.
God has created a perfect world so it must folllow that all things of this earth must be perfect.

Regards

DL

[Greatest I Am]

Sure does.
If your wondering why He does not use it for some kind of benefit to mankind, then you must remember that the present systems of things that we live in are created by God and one of His attribute is perfection and from perfection only perfection can come.
What would he change. What could he possibly want to change in this perfect system. All we could possibly argue with the big guy would be possibly the numbers in terms of what we see around us.

Regards

DL

[Cathar1950]

I think perfection would mean mature or whole.

But let us say it means perfect as in with out flaws.
Then how come God creates things that are not perfect?
I can see a God creating good stuff in that it works but why not perfect.
In humans we are born incomplete as a work in progress, we learn and grow.
Just as Jesus did. But given the billions of years of our planet history and the millions if not more then a billion years of life what was perfect?
Everything died.

[Beta]

Cathar ,
I was not aware God created things imperfect, but then I could have missed it. You seem to make a reference to our birth how that is not perfect. Do you mean that humans are not perfect or the birth-process ?
As to the process we were told in Gen.3 that this would become a painful experience because of our disobedience.
As for the person ,God had created them perfect - but what is not so obvious is that we are ' unfinished ', not fully perfected in our first stage. But unfinished is not the same as imperfect would you agree ?

[Confused]

Cathar ,
I was not aware God created things imperfect, but then I could have missed it. You seem to make a reference to our birth how that is not perfect. Do you mean that humans are not perfect or the birth-process ?
As to the process we were told in Gen.3 that this would become a painful experience because of our disobedience.
As for the person ,God had created them perfect - but what is not so obvious is that we are ' unfinished ', not fully perfected in our first stage. But unfinished is not the same as imperfect would you agree ?

This could be two fold here:
1) God creates imperfections with genetic mutations that lead to malformations, and disease.

2) God creates imperfections because he continues to create man, who is imperfect.