# Free Will.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 4, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677 "2014-05-04T23:51:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 7
### Author:  [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/121 "2014-05-10T19:30:02Z")
> [@nate](#):
>
> But when you create the concept of a universe, you also create the concept of “required” and the concept of “pain”. An all-powerful god created the concept of pain or suffering when they didn’t even need to.
>
> You may find it amusing that we mere humans are trying to figure out the reasoning behind such things as pain, but what’s the alternative? Logic is all we have to approach the asymptote of truth in our realities. All we can do is assume our logic is universal and if it’s not, all bets are off.
You don’t know, and have no way of knowing what " … they didn’t even need … ", and I’d say that, barring some future revelation, all bets are indeed off.
---
### Author:  [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/122 "2014-05-10T19:35:23Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#):
>
> What’s amusing to me are the line of posters applying average human intelligence and limited knowledge and experience to analyzing what they appear to acknowledge as an eternal all-powerful being responsible for the creation of all existence … the dust mites trying to analyze Einstein from the perspective of his carpet
So tell me why we should believe that God is love? Sure, I can buy that humans are too stupid to understand the magical ways of the Alpha and Omega. But don’t turn around and tell me that I’m a bad person for not believing this “entity” is love. If God is unknowable, he’s also unlovable.
If it’s arrogant for one to question the nonsensical nature of God, then it’s also arrogant for one to proclaim something about its nature in the absence of any evidence. And there are a whole lot more people who are doing the latter than the former. They are just too chickenshit to post in this thread.
---
### Author:  [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/123 "2014-05-10T19:58:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> He can change - but then he didn’t know what he was going to do, and how it affected the world, and is thus not omniscient. You can have one or the other, not both.
I understand that’s your claim, but you haven’t shown it. You’re just restating the same thing. There is no inconsistency between knowing something will happen and having the ability to make it not the case. I know I am going to work Monday, but I don’t have to. Perhaps it would be better to place some qualifications on to what extent the being has to know and to what extent he has to have the ability to do something for it to qualify as free will.
> [@](#):
>
> We can have two gods, one omnipotent and one omniscient. The omnipotent one bonks the omniscient one on the head with a lightning bolt, and the omniscient one says “I knew you were going to do that.”
So what? I’m still trying to see how this shows free will and determinism are incompatible. And I’m not sure what the point is of using gods as examples.
**“He can change, but then he didn’t know what he was going to do.”**
Let me spell this out a little:
He has the ability to make it rain. He is not going to make it rain. He knows it is not going to rain. Nothing wrong here.
---
### Author:  [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/124 "2014-05-10T20:12:17Z")
> [@monstro](#):
>
> So tell me why we should believe that God is love? Sure, I can buy that humans are too stupid to understand the magical ways of the Alpha and Omega. But don’t turn around and tell me that I’m a bad person for not believing this “entity” is love. If God is unknowable, he’s also unlovable.
>
> If it’s arrogant for one to question the nonsensical nature of God, then it’s also arrogant for one to proclaim something about its nature in the absence of any evidence. And there are a whole lot more people who are doing the latter than the former. They are just too chickenshit to post in this thread.
“So tell me why we should believe that God is love?”
Why do you think I care what you believe? I don’t.
"If God is unknowable, he’s also unlovable. "
I think each person gets to decide if that’s the case. You’re speaking for yourself and whoever agrees with you.
“And there are a whole lot more people who are doing the latter than the former”
Where are these people and how did you count them? Are you saying there are more religious folks in the world than non-religious? I’m not sure about that. Are you saying there are more folks who resent you and condemn you for not being religious"? There are certainly cultures that push that agenda, I don’t think they spend much time on message boards like this.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/125 "2014-05-10T22:43:29Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#):
>
> What’s amusing to me are the line of posters applying average human intelligence and limited knowledge and experience to analyzing what they appear to acknowledge as an eternal all-powerful being responsible for the creation of all existence … the dust mites trying to analyze Einstein from the perspective of his carpet
In other word, you are of the “it don’t matter that my mother be stabbed, my father be raped, my dog run over by a pickup truck, and my woman left me for the pizza delivery man” (in other words, your average country song) since it all for the best because God wants it that way?
If we’re too stupid to do any moral reasoning at all, we’re excused from it, since anything we do must be part of God’s plan.
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/126 "2014-05-10T22:46:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> In other word, you are of the “it don’t matter that my mother be stabbed, my father be raped, my dog run over by a pickup truck, and my woman left me for the pizza delivery man” (in other words, your average country song) since it all for the best because God wants it that way?
>
> If we’re too stupid to do any moral reasoning at all, we’re excused from it, since anything we do must be part of God’s plan.
Hey man! That God is one mysterious dude.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/127 "2014-05-10T22:52:37Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#):
>
> I understand that’s your claim, but you haven’t shown it. You’re just restating the same thing. There is no inconsistency between knowing something will happen and having the ability to make it not the case. I know I am going to work Monday, but I don’t have to. Perhaps it would be better to place some qualifications on to what extent the being has to know and to what extent he has to have the ability to do something for it to qualify as free will.
My Theory of Knowledge professor would be quite upset with you. You in no way know that you are going to work Monday. You know that you intend to, but work could explode or any number of things could happen which would keep you for doing it. God, on the other hand, might truly know that you are going to work on Monday If God knew that God was going to work on Monday, and his work exploded from boiling fat so he didn’t, then God wouldn’t be omniscient. Ditto if he knew he was going to work but then decided to rest. God’s knowledge is true knowledge.
> [@](#):
>
> So what? I’m still trying to see how this shows free will and determinism are incompatible. And I’m not sure what the point is of using gods as examples.
>
> **“He can change, but then he didn’t know what he was going to do.”**
>
> Let me spell this out a little:
>
> He has the ability to make it rain. He is not going to make it rain. He knows it is not going to rain. Nothing wrong here.
I said a while back that I wasn’t sure if it was free will if you can’t possibly know what you are going to do.
As for your example, if God knows it is not going to rain Monday at 9 am, he cannot then make it rain Monday at 9 am. That he can make it rain on Tuesday is of no matter. Omnipotence can’t be limited by time. And clearly, if he did not know that it was not going to rain Monday at 9, then he could make it rain. Omniscience and omnipotence are directly linked.
---
### Author:  [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2014, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/128 "2014-05-11T06:58:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> In other word, you are of the “it don’t matter that my mother be stabbed, my father be raped, my dog run over by a pickup truck, and my woman left me for the pizza delivery man” (in other words, your average country song) since it all for the best because God wants it that way?
>
> If we’re too stupid to do any moral reasoning at all, we’re excused from it, since anything we do must be part of God’s plan.
If God has a plan, then I guess we’re stuck with it, whether we want to bitch about it or not. If He doesn’t exist, then we’re on our own regarding free will. Do you agree with that much?
Whether reality is for the best is a matter of opinion. I haven’t used the word best, have I? If I have, remind me where. Finally, if God wants something a certain way, He can either force the issue, or just let Creation roll along on it’s own momentum, knowing how it will turn out in the end. Why that knots your undies, I don’t know.
---
### Author:  [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2014, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/129 "2014-05-11T13:15:07Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#):
>
> Suffer? So the world should be structured so no one ever suffers? Does that go for all animal life, too? Are you saying no creature should exist if it doesn’t have a perfect existence? Is aging and dying suffering? Should we not die? So, a good God should only create perfect beings? Gods? You resent not being a god.
>
> What are your necessities? Oxygen? Water? Everything handed to you on a platter? Or the raw materials to make what you need?
>
> How do you know what’s for your own good? How do you know that no one should experience pain? No pain, no gain.
Yes, I feel that a supreme being that knows all things before and after they happen could not be a loving father, nor a kind and just God. Not all desires are for one’s good, but a all knowing parent would not allow it’s child to jump out of a 8 story building, nor would their child need to beg for necessities, A human parent cannot know this or what will happen before it does, so if God needs people to beg for necessities he is not as the people describe him to be.
A human takes their child to the doctors when it is ill, doesn’t make the child beg to get well. The way God is described in the Bible is not a very good Parent When he was said to have regretted creating humans he killed all his children except one family, then that families offspring didn’t do much better so he killed all the people except Lot and his family. It doesn’t sound like a kind or just being, p,us he killed Job’s family to make a point with Satan, Why he would use such an unnecessary deed to prove a point to a evil creature that he also should have known ahead of time he knew Job would not turn against him, also why would he let a monster live who he should have known would destroy his human children?
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2014, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/130 "2014-05-11T13:20:32Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#):
>
> Two things, you’re making assertions about science that haven’t been proven. Weather models imperfectly try to predict the weather … you have no way to show that these methods could be expanded to predict every subatomic particle’s destiny forevermore, even ignoring Chaos Theory. Furthermore, as ridiculous as trying to have a discussion about God and free will in non-religious terms sounds on the surface, I do understand what you’re saying, but … you’ll have to explain to me how what I said … " If he knows what we’ll do , how does that hinder OUR free will?" is a religious question. I didn’t say, "According to Catholic doctrine, blah, blah , blah … " The discussion is about God. Take Him out of the debate, I could just as well ask, “If I were clairvoyant, how would that hinder MY free will?” What makes me no longer free to do whatever I choose simply because I already know the outcome and what I will choose? And I’m not accepting your assertions. Explain why.
Well, yes, take God out of the debate, and you could indeed just as well ask the clairvoyant question, because it’s the same question. Or substitute for your own clairvoyance the predictive power of a sufficiently powerful supercomputer with sufficient information to predict your actions or your fate in some specific timeframe and spatial domain. Then ask what free will means.
Perhaps I can expand on that via this quote:
> [@eschereal](#):
>
> Then we have to get to the root of what emotions are. As far as I can tell, they are chemical processes that affect our mental condition. In which case, you would completely lose the independent agent argument: our decisions would be fully regulated by our body chemistry.
They certainly are, in part, chemical processes; that’s why mood-altering drugs work, and why emotions like fight-or-flight are associated with rapid changes in blood-brain chemistry. In the final analysis it seems to me that our actions are governed entirely by two major determining factors: the sum total of our experiences as represented in the brain’s neural network, and the physiology that runs the brain – the chemical, mechanical, and electrical processes. So again, if we are essentially just complex and elegant deterministic machines, what exactly does it mean to say that we have free will and make “free choices” if a suitable simulation could (at least in theory) predict in advance just exactly what that “free choice” was going to be? It would mean free will is an entirely subjective perception, which is just another way of saying that it’s a comfortable illusion – qualitatively no different than the free will of the little tiny people in the Sims simulation game.
---
### Author:  [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/131 "2014-05-11T17:50:02Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> Well, yes, take God out of the debate, and you could indeed just as well ask the clairvoyant question, because it’s the same question. Or substitute for your own clairvoyance the predictive power of a sufficiently powerful supercomputer with sufficient information to predict your actions or your fate in some specific timeframe and spatial domain. Then ask what free will means.
>
> Perhaps I can expand on that via this quote:
> They certainly are, in part, chemical processes; that’s why mood-altering drugs work, and why emotions like fight-or-flight are associated with rapid changes in blood-brain chemistry. In the final analysis it seems to me that our actions are governed entirely by two major determining factors: the sum total of our experiences as represented in the brain’s neural network, and the physiology that runs the brain – the chemical, mechanical, and electrical processes. So again, if we are essentially just complex and elegant deterministic machines, what exactly does it mean to say that we have free will and make “free choices” if a suitable simulation could (at least in theory) predict in advance just exactly what that “free choice” was going to be? It would mean free will is an entirely subjective perception, which is just another way of saying that it’s a comfortable illusion – qualitatively no different than the free will of the little tiny people in the Sims simulation game.
If we’re organic computers, then I submit that self-aware organic computers have free will. That was easy.
---
### Author:  [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/132 "2014-05-11T18:23:36Z")
Whatever I needed to know about free will I learned from **The Cabin the Woods**.
We have none.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/133 "2014-05-11T22:11:00Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#):
>
> If God has a plan, then I guess we’re stuck with it, whether we want to bitch about it or not. If He doesn’t exist, then we’re on our own regarding free will. Do you agree with that much?
If you define free will as I have above, yes. The worlds with free will and without free will are indistinguishable, so it only makes sense to live as if we did have free will.
---
### Author:  [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/134 "2014-05-12T01:06:58Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#):
>
> If we’re organic computers, then I submit that self-aware organic computers have free will. That was easy.
Well, it was the _easy part_. To support your submission, you must now define what that actually means. For example, am I free to love and worship Og? Or Vishnu? Odin? Pele? This could be a significant point of contention. I, personally, in my present state, do not think I have the real freedom to start genuinely worshipping any given deity, but the followers of some of those deities claim that I have rejected their almighty one/pantheon _of my own free will_. They “choose” to be faithful, because it makes them “better/nobler” people, yet it is not entirely obvious that they can literally _choose_ to not believe.
So, what exactly is this free will thing, and why does it matter?
---
### Author:  [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2014, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/135 "2014-05-12T04:23:06Z")
> [@eschereal](#):
>
> Well, it was the _easy part_. To support your submission, you must now define what that actually means. For example, am I free to love and worship Og? Or Vishnu? Odin? Pele? This could be a significant point of contention. I, personally, in my present state, do not think I have the real freedom to start genuinely worshipping any given deity, but the followers of some of those deities claim that I have rejected their almighty one/pantheon _of my own free will_. They “choose” to be faithful, because it makes them “better/nobler” people, yet it is not entirely obvious that they can literally _choose_ to not believe.
>
> So, what exactly is this free will thing, and why does it matter?
" … you must now define what that actually means"
You may do as you like and face the consequences.
" … am I free to love and worship Og?"
Absolutely, yes.
“Or Vishnu?”
Yup.
“Odin?”
Yes!
“Pele?”
If you must.
" … what exactly is this free will thing,"
You can do whatever you want.
" … and why does it matter?"
Roooster was asking.
---
### Author:  [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/136 "2014-05-13T00:14:46Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#):
>
> " … you must now define what that actually means"
>
> You may do as you like and face the consequences.
That is “freedom”, which is a somewhat different thing than “free will”.
> [@](#):
>
> " … am I free to love and worship Og?"
>
> Absolutely, yes.
I really disagree with that, primarily because of the qualifier that I used in my post, “genuinely”. I certainly have the option to take part in the rites, recite the catechisms and argue fine points of doctrine. But I am not convinced that I can bring myself to _love and believe in_ a deity, any more than I can active will myself to love that person over there. I mean, Og is a royal bastard, I could not trust it with the life of a baitworm, how can I love a being that I cannot trust?
In other words, I am not predisposed to worship any deity, and I am not convinced that “free will” can trump that. I could become a church-goer for the sake of some really prime sushi, but it would not only be a façade, but you can see how free will itself becomes subverted by a whiff of the good pheromones.
And, over time, I could become conditioned to religion, to the point of being all but indistinguishable from wonderful wife that dragged me into church. But, there you run into a really difficult issue, as conditioning is a means to subvert your own engine-of-choice.
I contend that all the choices you make can, in theory, be vectored backward to the causal factors that tip the balance one way or the other. Some of those vectors are as hard to see a tau neutrinos, but the fact that you cannot seem to perceive them does not make them not exist.
---
### Author:  [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/137 "2014-05-13T00:29:36Z")
> [@monstro](#):
>
> The whole “let’s make Eve out of Adam’s rib” thing is nothing but haphazard jerry-rigging, if you ask me.
OT, but that story is probably a “just-so” story explaining the reason human males don’t have bacula. There are lots of examples in ancient Hebrew where “rib” is a euphemism for an erect penis. The theory goes that we are supposed to understand that HaShem removed Adam’s baculum to form Eve (which since the penis is a generative organ, makes some sense), and this explains why humans don’t have bacula, even though most other mammals do.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/138 "2014-05-13T00:30:39Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#):
>
> What’s amusing to me are the line of posters applying average human intelligence and limited knowledge and experience to analyzing what they appear to acknowledge as an eternal all-powerful being responsible for the creation of all existence … the dust mites trying to analyze Einstein from the perspective of his carpet
Disagree. Dust mites don’t have advanced concepts of morality. We do.
The all-powerful being who killed off most of humanity in a great flood, or sent plagues to Egypt, is evil. (Or, of course, fictional.) You cannot justify those actions morally, by an appeal to arbitrary “advancement.”
An actual all-powerful entity, who found it necessary to eliminate large numbers of people (which, for the moment, I will grant might happen) would simply eliminate them. Pop. Like I Dream of Jeannie, with a blink and a single-frame cut. The introduction of vast amounts of pain and suffering cannot be justified.
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2014, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/139 "2014-05-13T01:52:24Z")
Would you rather exist in the world of suffering that God has created, or not exist at all?
Assuming we exist because of a supreme being, questioning his motives doesn’t seem relevant to his existence or our free will.
As for free will, either I have it, or the universe is even more chaotic than anyone thinks.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2014, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677/140 "2014-05-13T02:19:44Z")
> [@TriPolar](#):
>
> Would you rather exist in the world of suffering that God has created, or not exist at all?
I’ve got enough of a nihilist streak, I think I would prefer not to exist at all.
(A big plate of bacon goes a fair way to overcoming this feeling.)
> [@](#):
>
> Assuming we exist because of a supreme being, questioning his motives doesn’t seem relevant to his existence or our free will.
Agreed; my apologies for perpetuating an irrelevant sideline discussion.
> [@](#):
>
> As for free will, either I have it, or the universe is even more chaotic than anyone thinks.
Or…far more orderly! You can’t get much more “orderly” in universes than in one with absolute Newtonian determinism. I would call that the absolute antithesis of chaos.
Personally, I wish “free will” were a little easier to exercise. Ever lose your temper? Especially at someone you love and do not want to hurt? Unpleasant! Free will seems to have little lapses and faults and flaws and failings. I’d prefer to have just a little more direct control over myself!
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677.md?page=6)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will/687677.md?page=8)