Freewill - a paradox

by gravedancer 38 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hippikon

  Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh My head hurts
• 

  gravedancer

  Hippi - sorry bud!!

  I have thought about this issue for years...and my head has spun in circles over and over. I always used to add in stuff about predestination, the ransom, universal sovreignty yada yada yada...

  But then I considered the theory of Occams Razor, which simply states: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."

  So I distilled my thinking and elimiated all the "unnecessary" variables I could and was left with the two assumptions I listed in my original post. All the others make for some very interesting discussion, but they are all derivatives and consequences of the issue of "almightiness" vs "freewill".
• 

  sunstarr

  Guess I'm a little slow today. Could someone explain to me how knowledge of an outcome eliminates the possibility of free will in that outcome. Doesn't lack of free will imply that action is taken to prevent the freedom? How about this perspective:

  You tape a football game while you're away from home. The next day you and your buddy (who's already seen the game) watch it together. Since he knows the outcome of the game, does that mean that the players did not have free will when playing the game? The difference with God is that he's watching the game before it's actually played. Does this change the rules of free will?
• 

  gravedancer

  Sunstarr - thanks,

  Seems to me there is an issue with your analogy.

  If PRIOR to the game occurring someone could know the outcome 100%...then their was no freewill!!! You have introduced timing issues into your analogy that cause it to not equate as an apples-to-apples comparison with the issue.
• 

  Mindchild

  Omnipotent is the word you are looking for Gravedancer. Is Almighty God so ominipotent that he can create a rock so big he can't lift it?...that is a classical arguement that shows the problem of God being the Watchtower God. There are way too many things that God can't do when push comes to shove. I guess life isn't as soft for God as it might appear on the surface.

  In any case, when someone is arguing with me about the idea of "free will" (on the Biblical side of things) I point out that the arguement has some very big holes in it as well and the whole concept of the "big test" is balderdash. What do I mean? Well for starters free will only occurs in relevant circumstances. For instance, you have free will to hold your breath right now, and that is a concious decision but you will find that the longer you hold it, the less ability you have to accomplish that. If we think that we are immune from outside influences on us affecting our will, it is self deception. We do things for a variety of reasons that range from emotional, logical, and genetic or instinct based precursors. If our neurotransmitter balances are slighlty off, our choices for our actions can be considerably different than otherwise. So, if God is going to test you, is it before or after you take your Prozac? Is it before or after you are all stressed out from having a bad day? Who we are and the choices we make, as per our free will, change over time. You and I are not the same people we were 5 years ago even. We have the mental illusion we are, but we are changing. Thus the choices I made 6 years ago are perhaps different than I would make now. Is a big mean and desperate God going to murder me for this?

  Let us not also forget that the whole test fantasy has other holes big enough to drive a semi through. Is the test really fair? After all the so called angels that got bored with planet making detail and lighting suns and whatever else angels do with their free time, were supposedly smart enough to know the Big Guy was there and have clear evidence of it by just taking a trip to see the big cheese. Now us humans ain't got jack. We got the ramblings of ancient old mystics who couldn't tell the difference between an earthquake and God being pissed and worse yet, we got a bunch of modern senile old men who make their publishing empire based on these writings and sell them as gospel truth. Well I say this is one hell of a bum deal. We should at least get one miracle a week to even things out don't you think?

  And don't you think for one tiny moment that if a God really was thinking about how to design the human brain and the consequences of his design that he wouldn't have thought through all the potential problems that would have come up because of the shoddy design (yes shoddy because the brain is very inefficent in its design) and NOT know something was going to go wrong? Give me a break! Even A.I. scientists (artifical intelligence) know much more than this. Should we expect anything less from a God? This God would have to be schizo not to realize all the things that could go wrong with the brain (of course the fundies want to think these are all cases of demon possession like Jesus and the apostles did) and so the whole test bit is just another WTS doctrine they dreamed up when they got bored with trying to predict Armaggedon.

  Skipper (big tests are for dummies class)
• 

  DakotaRed

  Grave >> So if the term "Almighty" can allow for the fact that God did not AND could not know what Adam would choose, then how can he read "hearts" and/or minds?

  Well, Grave, I don't know if you have raised children or not, but I have. Now, I am not even close to Almighty, or even Mighty, just a plain old human. But, in dealing with my daughters, I could usually tell what they were thinking or feeling. Naturally, I did not know what they would choose, but I also knew what the outcome would be, if they chose a particular way. Still they were and still are, free to choose what they will do. Does that make me a mind reader? Not at all. It just makes me their Dad who cares for them and loves them, no matter what.

  Personally, I hate putting God in a box of humanism, but that is the closest I can think of to describe how I see it. If we have that ability with our children, how much more could God have it with us?

  Which one of us is right I leave up to God, we just appear to see things differently. Will it even matter a hill of beans? Who knows? Again, I leave that up to God. Like I said in another post today, to me the true essence of being a Christian isn't about being right or wrong on points, but loving our fellow man. If we don't have that freedom to love and it is all preknown, then we aren't humans, but fleshly robots.

  Just my opinion.

  If God's Spirit is filling a Kingdom Hall, how is it that Satan can manuever the ones within that Kingdom Hall at the same time?
• 

  gravedancer

  Skipper - fellow objectivist,

  Yep, all he OMNI words....Omni-potent, omni-present...

  I think one of the reasons I struggled, and many others struggle, with the issue is its just so tempting to bring "other issues" into the picture. In a way you did this, when you brought up the issue of God's retribution as a consequence for decisions made.

  While that is a fabulous follow-up debate (one I would love to get into - I love this stuff), I see the issue of freewill vs omnipotence as THE primary issue that every Christian needs to face. Forget all the other issues Christians contend with - eg John 1:1 and every minor scriptural doctrine. If the foundation is shaky the whole house has to fall.

  I have been expecting some posters to concede one of the 2 assumptions as false...so far no takers though.

  If one of the assumptions is false - which one do you think it is?

  Reserved for future discussion: "Can God have freewill?"
• 

  sunstarr

  Gravedancer -

  I certainly agree that my analogy compares apples with oranges. That's partially why I introduced it. I believe the question you raise does just the same. It seems to me that the question tries to rationalize free will vs. omniscience in human terms. Our frame of reference is warped when trying to define this conflict. I'm sure many on this board would find fault with me suggesting that it's possible despite our understanding why; however, that's my take on the situation. I certainly believe that we have free will. Even more so do I believe that God is "Almighty." If I find conflict with that based on my human thinking, then I suppose I'd write it off to something understood by God. That's good enough for me. Although many have left the organization and come to a greater determination that everything has to make sense, I have left with the determination that it isn't always necessary to understand why or how.
• 

  Marilyn

  DakotaRed's analogy about children is interesting. In the case of Adam and Eve, they were even worse than children because they had no past experience to call upon. Most of us learn from our mistakes. But A & E were naive and ignorant. What kind of God would allow such an experiement with two novice human beings, and then punish millions of people hence forth coz A & E predicatably got it wrong.

  If you want to go with the parent analogy, what parent doesn't continue guiding and showing patience with their child when they make lots of mistakes. I would have had just cause to throw my kids out on the street years ago, if I'd used the Adam and Eve situation as my frame of reference.
• 

  Mindchild

  Gravedancer...as you may know I think both of the assumptions are false. The contemporary explanation of the Christian God is flawed in that God is Almighty or Omnipotent and the second assumption that the theorectial Adam had free will. Even though I believe in neither entity (Adam or God) the principle of the test can be challenged in the legal and moral sense.

  An interesting discussion idea GD: Can God Have Freewill?

  Skipper