Does God have free will?

[Leox]

First of all, God is all-knowing. That means he knows everything including his own choices regardless of time.
If God has free will. He can choose to go against his knowledge of his own future actions. But then he is not all-knowing because he can't predict his own actions.
For example, God knew Adam will eat the fruit. But he decided to make Adam anyway. Thus God wasn't really punishing Adam out of God's own liking. But it was rather part of the script.

I guess this is a more philosophical problem but I want to know how it is handled in the setting of religion.

[Miles]

Pretty well figured as much.

You say that as if you're right, but by your definition, God has free will, and so do all of us, because we make apparent choices and nobody stops us. The dictionary is a poor source for philosophy.

What the "pretty well figured as much" was about, was that I "[and later William] . . . were kind enough to provide the dictionary definition of free will."


.

[Purple Knight]

And how would that prove your point? I don't see how such verses support the idea that God could choose to do evil should that be his desire.

I think God can't choose to be or do evil, because then he wouldn't be good, and the Bible would be wrong.

The consequences of a given choice do not negate free will. If everything changes as a result of a particular choice, that doesn't mean the person is incapable of making a choice.

I want to separate this from the superhero problem, in which I agree with you absolutely. This is not about making an if-choice that doesn't actually exist (which arguably still proves free will because you can choose even if you cannot act), but about making a choice where the consequences of picking up the Pepsi would be impossible.

If I can somehow prove that if I pick up the Pepsi, zero would equal one, then I have proved that I never could have picked up that Pepsi, because zero cannot equal one. Ever. I have proved by reduction to absurdity that I never had a choice.

Since the Bible says that God is good, and since the Bible cannot be false, God can't choose to be evil.

Now perhaps I shouldn't be this painfully honest but this doesn't prove that God has no free will at all; it just proves he doesn't have a choice in that particular instance. He can't choose to be evil, so what? He might be able to have created people with cat faces on instead of primate ones. Why present this argument, if it has this flaw? Well, because I'm trying to get the other side to see that it's at least possible (with your definition of free will) that apparent choices are not actual choices, because despite apparent capacity, one choice is impossible. It is at least possible to think you could have picked up the Pepsi even if you could not have (though of course if God didn't have free will he would be aware of this).

If "free will" is the intellectual capacity to understand two or more courses of action, one doesn't stop understanding because one choice changes everything.

I don't agree with that both because the definition you were using up until now focuses on making choices between two things, not on merely understanding them... And because there's no cause for debate if that's the definition. Anyone who can understand two things has free will. That includes a dog, by the way, though I will give you that this is a good definition if you want to get rid of the moth (which is very obviously a meat robot and nothing else) and include higher animals. What this definition doesn't do is give any reasonable charity to the side that doesn't believe in free will because free will is definitionally obvious. I disagree with Miles quite a bit, but I disagree more with turning him into an idiot who doesn't know what words mean.

God can either think for himself (which is biblically what free will is) or he cannot. The bible indicates there is NOTHING God is incapable of understanding so scripturally he has free will.

Prove the above wrong with scripture if you can.

You've swapped from being able to make choices to understanding what they mean, but I'll take your challenge even so because it connects to the innocence of Adam and Eve before the apple. If they did not possess free will, by the definition you just put forth, they could not think for themselves. Now I'll give you this: It does seem they couldn't, because in this state they seem to do whatever the last person suggests they do, and little else except eat and sleep. However, if free will is required for responsibility for one's actions, then the apple was not eaten of their own free will because they had none, and they really oughtn't have been punished for their actions if they couldn't think for themselves and thus the responsibility for their actions belonged to whosoever was thinking for them.

And on the subject of understanding what choices mean, whosoever would decide to have superpowers has failed that, because perhaps it's not obvious to those without any powers, but once you've got them it becomes painfully obvious that the scope of your moral culpability expands drastically (I'm not talking simply about the responsibility of using your powers wisely and justly). For example, if Superman always saves Lois Lane, it's essentially his fault every time anyone else falls off a building. You particularly don't want super hearing and super speed together for this reason. But here's the real rub: The instant someone offers you superpowers, and you say no, you're still culpable because at this point you could have saved all those people by saying yes. So this proves you've switched definitions, because, before this you said choosing which power you would have is a choice, but if it's about understanding that choice and not making it, we all fail. Well, except me, but of course I failed before I made the choice. Benefit of experience.

What the "pretty well figured as much" was about, was that I "[and later William] . . . were kind enough to provide the dictionary definition of free will."

By the dictionary everyone who isn't tied, gagged, and straitjacketed has free will, so I'm not sure why you provided that definition since you (I thought) didn't believe in free will any more than I do.

[JehovahsWitness]

....there's no cause for debate if that's the definition.

Well thats the definition I am using because that is the dictionary defintion of the word and you have yet to present any scriptures that impose we depart from that convention. People, as this thread illustrates can do so and open the door to all kinds of weird and wonderful theories for which I do not give a fig in a basket of figs. You may define free will as "that whch God cannot have" if you like and win all subsequent arguements ; but you will have to so that with someone else. There is an entire choir here to which you can preach.

Knock yourself out!

[William]

And how would that prove your point? I don't see how such verses support the idea that God could choose to do evil should that be his desire.

I think God can't choose to be or do evil, because then he wouldn't be good, and the Bible would be wrong.

The consequences of a given choice do not negate free will. If everything changes as a result of a particular choice, that doesnt mean the person is incapable of making a choice. If "free will" is the intellectual capacity to understand two or more courses of action, one doesnt stop understanding because one choice changes everything.

God can either think for himself (which is biblically what free will is) or he cannot. The bible indicates there is NOTHING God is incapable of understanding so scripturally he has free will.

Prove the above wrong with scripture if you can.




JW

If the Bible does not define GOD as Omni-Omni, then yes, you would be correct. It is my understanding that many Christians claim that the Biblical GOD is Omni-Omni, but not all biblical stories make this obvious - indeed some stories appear to be contrary to the claim.

Also - as a matter of interest, wherein the bible does the ability to think for oneself equate to having 'free will'? How do you make that connect?
And re that, is the ability to do so limited to humans only, or do other animals also possess free will? For clearly there are reams of evidence for the fact that other animals also have the ability to think for themselves.

[Purple Knight]

....there's no cause for debate if that's the definition.

Well that's the definition I am using because that is the dictionary definition of the word and you have yet to present any scriptures that impose we depart from that convention. People, as this thread illustrates can do so and open the door to all kinds of weird and wonderful theories for which I do not give a fig in a basket of figs. You may define free will as "that which God cannot have" if you like and win all subsequent arguements ; but you will have to so that with someone else. There is an entire choir here to which you can preach.

Knock yourself out!

I really doubt the OP is asking about whether or not anyone else is controlling/restricting God. But I've presented a compelling argument that one can spring a bear trap on one's own foot and lose the sort of choice this definition is talking about. The dictionary definition is about the ability to choose unimpeded, and one can indeed impede oneself. By the dictionary definition, people who are tied, gagged, and straitjacketed do not have free will. Yes, you can be the one who put the impediments on yourself.

What most people are asking when they talk about free will vs no free will is whether there's an inviolable script or not. By the Bible, yes, there is, so by that definition God has no free will. His part in this particular play has already been written (by him, but still). There is, however, the question of whether the script ends at the end of the world, giving everyone free will in this sense, after that point.

I'm always going to prefer my definition that's about whether there are truly any higher motivations or whether the being is a meat robot that can only do what it does.

I can't find a definition in which God has free will, including yours.

[Miles]

What the "pretty well figured as much" was about, was that I "[and later William] . . . were kind enough to provide the dictionary definition of free will."

By the dictionary everyone who isn't tied, gagged, and straitjacketed has free will, so I'm not sure why you provided that definition since you (I thought) didn't believe in free will any more than I do.

If here no common understanding of a word or term there's no way to discuss it.


.

[Purple Knight]

If here no common understanding of a word or term there's no way to discuss it.

That's not exactly true, because, as I just did, I can break down what possible meanings there are and identify which ones are simply and obviously definitionally true or false as applicable to the situation, then give those who actually wonder about the issue the credit that they are not using those definitions, and identify the point where discussion would actually be of any philosophical value.

I can also present arguments that would be true in any of the possible definitions, and I think I have a great one that God can't choose to be evil because then the Bible would be false, and in-universe, it ain't, so reductio: It can't happen. If I can somehow prove that if I drink a Pepsi, zero will equal one, then I have proven I can't drink a Pepsi, and logically that I never had the choice to drink a Pepsi, even if I thought I did.

[Kylie]

Free will is when some being has several different options they can choose from...

No free will is not having different options (a situation) it is a capacity to choose between options, one retains the capacity even in the absence of opportunity. see definition below...

Wikipedia
Free Will:

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2]

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

It's often stated in the past tense as "the ability to have done differently"

RELATED POSTS

Is free will the ACT[ion] of choosing between options?
viewtopic.php?p=1044667#p1044667

Is free will dependent on causality?
viewtopic.php?p=1044667#p1044667

Does coersion negate the existence of free will?
viewtopic.php?p=816690#p816690

Can free wil exist if all choice is only an illusion?
viewtopic.php?p=1044673#p1044673

Can one choose to do the impossible?
viewtopic.php?p=1044685#p1044685

Does free will have to explain HOW things come about?
viewtopic.php?p=1044614#p1044614

What is the difference between free will and FREEDOM?
viewtopic.php?p=1044638#p1044638

Does free will exist in scripture?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 08#p981308

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE and ... RESPONSIBILITY

Please tell me, what is the functional difference between your definition and mine?

[JehovahsWitness]

Please tell me, what is the functional difference between your definition and mine?

I dont know what you mean by "functional difference" but If free will was having different options, it would not be intrinsic. It would only come into existence when the options did. No options, no free will. If it is a capacity, then it exists entirely independent of the existence of options. Thus a man gagged and tied in a cellar, still has free will even when his situation affords him no choices. He could still choose if he had the freedom to. He can still choose, even if it is only hypothetically (ie he has the capacity to think..." If i were not tied up, I'd [choose to] kill whoever did this to me").


RELATED POSTS

Can one choose to do the impossible?
viewtopic.php?p=1044685#p1044685

What is the difference between free will and FREEDOM?
viewtopic.php?p=1044638#p1044638

[JehovahsWitness]

The dictionary definition is about the ability to choose unimpeded, and one can indeed impede oneself. By the dictionary definition, people who are tied, gagged, and straitjacketed do not have free will.

Untrue: See above.
viewtopic.php?p=1045058#p1045058


If one has "impede oneself" one has made a choice to. Thus they have demonstrated their capacity to make a choice. This was the case in the bible story of Adam and Eve. Adam was given a command not to eat from a certain tree. For a period of time he did not, even though we can reasonably assume there was no physical external restriction on doing so. If then Adam later ate, we can assume that the period prior to this he had chosen not to. A voluntarily self imposed a restriction is defacto a choice, and making any choice is evidence of free will.





JW