I think you misunderstand what my position is on this subject.It was aquip in support of your sentence. That is the theist position - Allah knows all (mentioned many time in Qur'an).
There is no such thing as 'Free Will'
- Thread starter Azure24
- Start date
I define free will as being a situation where there are multiple options, each of which has a non-zero probability of being chosen.
So, if I have the option of two shirts, a red one and a blue one, and the probabilities for them being chosen are 30% for red and 70% for blue, then I have free will with regards to which shirt I will wear.
How do you define free will?
Incorrect, there are multiple something it could be, and it won't be set until I actually make the choice.Of course it's "unavoidable".
That statement merely states the obvious .. that it will "be something".
What point are you trying to make?Your modal logic is deeply flawed .. you say "if G-d knows X, Y or whatever".
Yeah .. "if" pigs can fly.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
The theist position is that although God knows what choice you will make, he does not interfere.
He lets you make the choice and depending upon that, he will reward or punish you - after your death, when the end of time comes.
That is where 'Allah knows all' comes in.
Reasonable, according to what they believe.
Me, no death, my atoms keep whirring even after my death. No fear of what a God might do, since I do not believe in life after death..
Religions trying to fool me.
Last edited:
I don't really see how to clarify my position any further than I already have. Hmmm.
Ok, 2 possibilities:
1. Cosmos is deterministic, like clockwork. You have as much free will as a clock or a calculator.
2. Cosmos has a random element, like in quantum mechanics. You have as much free will as a dice.
Is there another one I'm missing?
And also, determinism isn't the same as someone, god or whatever, knowing everything thats going to happen in advance. It just means the mechanism is fully defined and fully causal.
Thank you so much.Brahman, the universal substrate as in my view of non-dual Hinduism (Advaita) does not do anything. It just exists, and its existence itself creates the illusion of creation, of various living and non-living substances in the world - stone, wood, water, air, humans, animals and vegetation. Brahman is the Hindu name for the plasma that existed at the time of 'inflation' when nothing else existed, ionized sub-atomic particles. While I say this I accept that we do not know all the properties of this substrate, of whether it is capable of folding in up to itself (Zero Energy universe, the problem of existence or non-existence of things).
Quantum Fluctuations
How Can Hawking Radiation Cause Death Of Black Holes?
At the event horizon, quantum theories suggest, the existence of virtual particles which produce the Hawking radiation and annihilate the black hole.www.scienceabc.com
Less than a year ago I was a stubborn agnostic with strong atheistic leanings. It's been an.. interesting year.
Now i have a hell of a lot of research to do to put my own enlightenment into context, so it is immensely helpful to talk to you guys
If you look back on my first post on this subject, I said:
"there is NOT really one possible outcome .. whatever you freely choose,
then that will be what G-d knows .. it could be either. It is the fact that G-d knows what you will choose
before you choose it, that might cause our minds to conclude that we MUST choose.
It's about human perception of 'time' being absolute that confuses the issue."
..so human perception of the future is that "it has not happened yet".
However, our perception of time is according to Einstein, just that, a perception.
That perception leads us to believe that it is not possible to know "in advance"(perception)
what decision a person might take.
It is this perception that is confusing you when it comes to the logic of the topic.
The logic that I'm explaining to you does NOT have anything to do with the above.
You are simply making an error in modal logic as it applies to conditionals (if this, if that)
You:
"if the entity knows I will choose X, then there is a 100% probability that I will choose X. That means that any other option I may appear to have has a probability of 0%, and thus it does not meet the definition of free will."
is totally wrong.
Consider the following:
if the entity knows I will choose X, then there is a 100% probability that I will choose X
if the entity knows I will choose Y, then there is a 100% probability that I will choose Y
i.e. it does not mean what you say .. you can choose either option.
It merely states the obvious .. that you will choose what G-d KNOWS you will choose. The fact
there is 0% probability that you will not choose another option doesn't mean that you CANNOT.
It is that you WILL not .. because G-d knows (somehow) what you will choose.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Nice guy up there in the sky.
Last edited by a moderator:
AS this is the Christian Board, rational and reasonable viewpoints of atheism is acceptable, in my opinion.
The murder/rape comment, however, I'd categorise as trolling. Please could you tone that element down?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I am sorry, Thomas. Kindly remove the second sentence from my post.
The idea that any entity (God or otherwise) could have 100% accurate knowledge of my future actions in every detail is indeed mutually incompatible with free will.
If God knows today that my chances of wearing the red shirt tomorrow are 100%, then me "deciding" what shirt to wear tomorrow does not fit the definition I've provided for "Free will," namely, I do not have multiple possible options that all have non-zero probabilities.
It's not that God would be forcing me to do a thing like he's controlling me like a puppet. It's the simple fact that his knowledge has eliminated any other possibility, and that robs me of any actual choice.
I'd like to propose that "deterministic" means that if you have 100% information about the universe at a point in time, then it is possible to determine what state the universe will be in at any later point in time.
For example, if you knew absolutely everything there was to know about the state of the universe right now, you would be able to determine with 100% accuracy exactly what state it would be in a trillion years from now. Such would be the case in a deterministic universe.
I would also suggest that since quantum mechanics is part of the universe, then the universe does indeed have a random element like quantum mechanics.
However, you haven't defined what you mean by "free will."
You are contradicting yourself.If you look back on my first post on this subject, I said:
"there is NOT really one possible outcome .. whatever you freely choose,
then that will be what G-d knows .. it could be either. It is the fact that G-d knows what you will choose
before you choose it, that might cause our minds to conclude that we MUST choose.
It's about human perception of 'time' being absolute that confuses the issue."
..so human perception of the future is that "it has not happened yet".
However, our perception of time is according to Einstein, just that, a perception.
That perception leads us to believe that it is not possible to know "in advance"(perception)
what decision a person might take.
It is this perception that is confusing you when it comes to the logic of the topic.
The logic that I'm explaining to you does NOT have anything to do with the above.
You are simply making an error in modal logic as it applies to conditionals (if this, if that)
You:
"if the entity knows I will choose X, then there is a 100% probability that I will choose X. That means that any other option I may appear to have has a probability of 0%, and thus it does not meet the definition of free will."
is totally wrong.
Consider the following:
if the entity knows I will choose X, then there is a 100% probability that I will choose X
if the entity knows I will choose Y, then there is a 100% probability that I will choose Y
i.e. it does not mean what you say .. you can choose either option.
It merely states the obvious .. that you will choose what G-d KNOWS you will choose. The fact
there is 0% probability that you will not choose another option doesn't mean that you CANNOT.
It is that you WILL not .. because G-d knows (somehow) what you will choose.
You say there isn't just ONE possible outcome, but God knows which ONE I will pick.
I remember hearing that old cars used to be available in black only. And at the time, people would say, "You can have any colour you want, as long as it's black." What you are saying here makes about as much sense as saying, "Ah yes, Joe could have had his car in Red, or green, but he chose black. The fact that red and green weren't available doesn't mean he couldn't have chosen to have those colours!"
I think this falls under the banner of a modal fallacy.
What you're asserting is one logical possibility is the only logical possibility.
Look it up.
It's an ongoing philosophical discussion.
I think I've defined my position quite clearly through the course of my posts.
And I'm quite satisfied that free will and determinism are compatible.
My studies suggest our cosmos is deterministic, by the way, and I'm hoping to release details in the next few months.
I'd also like to add, re gods, the only way for one to know what i was going to do in advance would be to create a simulation of me and my exact circumstances before *my* experience of the event.
But why duplicate that work? Why not just wait and see what the me they already made does?
(I'm not a believer in any particular gods to be clear, just contributing to that side of the discussion)
God: "He's gonna wear the red shirt tomorrow."
Angel: "You know that, obviously."
G: "Yes."
A: "Did you make him put it on?"
G: "Nope. His choice. Because I can see it does not mean I caused it."
Angel: "You know that, obviously."
G: "Yes."
A: "Did you make him put it on?"
G: "Nope. His choice. Because I can see it does not mean I caused it."
They are "available". You are the one who imply that they are not, by your suggestion that
"if the entity knows 'such and such'".
That is, you are commiting a modal fallacy.
If G-d knows I will choose red..
If G-d knows I will choose green..
If G-d knows I will choose black..
It could be any of the three .. but you are just choosing one example.
Last edited:
How so?
There's a huge IF there.
IF 100% accurate knowledge of my future actions is possible, then I don't have free will.
If this, then that.
Okay, then please tell me, if it is 100% predetermined that I will wear the blue shirt, then how do I have the free will to wear the red shirt? Because it seems to me that "predetermined", which includes that word "determined," means that the outcome was "determined" before I was in a position to choose (which is where the "pre" bit comes in).
And, just for the sake of clarity, could you define exactly what you mean by "free will" and "predetermined".
If God knows I will not choose the red shirt, how is the red shirt an available option to me?They are "available". You are the one who imply that they are not, by your suggestion that
"if the entity knows 'such and such'".
That is, you are commiting a modal fallacy.
If G-d knows I will choose red..
If G-d knows I will choose green..
If G-d knows I will choose black..
It could be any of the three .. but you are just choosing one example.