The crux of this question, is indeed the nature of ‘free will’. and since Jodi an Nighttime have yet to agree on a definition, they will continue to talk at cross purposes.
I will say, that because of that disagreement, Jodi is wrong to believe that Nighttime isn’t really listening. They both aren’t really listening.
I think this is because the question itself assumes a logical impossiblity, and both are distorting certain words in order to try and make it seem sensible.
If you posit the possiblity of a supreme Betty that is capable of knowing at the time of creation what choices her creations will make. Then there is no justification at all to use the term ‘free will’ in the context of those creations.
This is not because of what Betty does or does not do, per-se. It’s because it’s entirely meaningless to posit both free-will and perfect predictability in the universe. You can have one or the other, but not both.
Free will requires that you have no more than probabilities of certain actions, with the future itself being always uncertain until the point when it becomes the past.
Which, as it happes, is our best guess at to how the actual universe works. (Which in turn implies the non-existence of Betty, but that’s another thread).
I have already stated the definition I am using:
Free will = The power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will.
Why not? If you are using my definition of free will then there is justification. If you want to use a different definition, you have to tell me what you are using! You can’t just say “umm, free will is impossible, whatever it is…” How are you defining free will?
Do you even know your own definition of free will? Because if you did, I would think you would tell us what it is. If you don’t know what free will is, how do you know it isn’t predictable?
Assume everything has a set of causes. This means that every choice is necessary, because it follows naturally from its causes. If free will is a cause, then free will is consistent with this world.
Assume actions do not have causes. Since there is no cause, they are unpredictable. Please explain to me how free will can exist in a world where nothing is caused.
No, chance requires that actions are uncertain. But chance is the absence of causes, and therefore not consistent with free will.
“Ask yourself this: if there is a possibility of choosing different paths, despite all the causes for the decision, including your own will, being in one particular state, then how can the decision possibly be attributed to free will, or indeed anything else?”
You confuse the existence of other paths with the possibility of choosing them. If your actions are ‘caused’, then there is no free will involved. True free will is only possible in a universe governed at least in part by chance, and thus one that cannot be predicted ahead of time with perfect certainty.
God would not have to create people with the will to believe in him, he would only have to be able to see the future and know that they will eventually believe in him. So your question becomes: If god creates people, is their will free? And the answer depends on your definition of free will.
So if your actions are caused by free will, then there is no free will involved? If your actions are not caused, then how is free will involved? You are clearly using a definition of free will in which free will does not cause anything, but you haven’t told me your definition so I can’t discuss it. What is “true” free will? I still think you are confusing chance and free will. Chance is the absence of causes. If free will is a cause, then it cannot exist in a world governed by chance. You still need to tell me a definition of free will in which free will is not a cause.
Nighttime, people aren’t objecting to the idea that our actions are caused by our decisions. People are objecting to the idea our decisions are caused (entirely) by past events. Speaking for myself, I’d like to think that I have some independence in my decisions and that they’re not entirely determined by my past experiemces. Or as Apos put it: “Causality via character.”
And you seem to think that, if chance exists at all, then everything is governed exclusively by chance. Why? Isn’t it possible to have both chance and choice?
For a supreme creator of this universe who happens to be both omniscient and omnipotent, there is no freewill. He/she/it has decided everything at the moment of creation.
For a mere mortal, there appears to be freewill.
This freewill is apparent, not actual, as no mere mortal can make a choice that is not determined at the beginning of time.
If your actions are not caused, then how is free will involved? You are clearly using a definition of free will in which free will does not cause anything, but you haven’t told me your definition so I can’t discuss it. What is “true” free will? I still think you are confusing chance and free will. Chance is the absence of causes. If free will is a cause, then it cannot exist in a world governed by chance. You still need to tell me a definition of free will in which free will is not a cause.